Search Options
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us

• Publication Information
• Abstract

Table of Contents

• Publication Information
• Abstract
• Figures
• Executive Summary
• Abbreviations/Acronyms
• 1.0 Introduction
• 1.1 The Proposed Federal Action
• 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action
• 1.3 Compliance and Consultations
• 1.4 References
• 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the Environment
• 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the Renewal Term
• 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting
• 2.1.2 Reactor Systems
• 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems
• 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control-Systems
• 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems
• 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance
• 2.1.7 Power Transmission System
• 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment
• 2.2.1 Land Use
• 2.2.2 Water Use
• 2.2.3 Water Quality
• 2.2.4 Air Quality
• 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources
• 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources
• 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts
• 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors
• 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources
• 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities
• 2.3 References
• 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment
• 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation
• 4.1 Cooling System
• 4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages
• 4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish
• 4.1.3 Heat Shock
• 4.2 Transmission Lines
• 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields--Acute Effects
• 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields--Chronic Effects
• 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations
• 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License Renewal Period
• 4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations
• 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations
• 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations
• 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations
• 4.4.5 Historical and Archaeological Resources
• 4.4.6 Environmental Justice
• 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality
• 4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Potable and Service Water)
• 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species
• 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term
• 4.7.1 Microorganisms That Live in High Radiation, Extreme Heat Conditions
• 4.8 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term
• 4.9 References
• 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents
• 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents
• 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
• 5.2.1 Introduction
• 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for CCNPP
• 5.2.3 Potential Design Improvements
• 5.2.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Design Improvements
• 5.2.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Design Improvements
• 5.2.6 Benefit-Cost Comparison
• 5.2.7 Conclusions
• 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management
• 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle
• 6.2 References
• 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning
• 7.1 References
• 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License Renewal
• 8.1 No-Action Alternative
• 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources
• 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation
• 8.2.2 Gas-Fired Generation
• 8.2.3 Imported Electrical Power
• 8.2.4 Other Alternatives
• 8.3 References
• 9.0 Summary and Conclusions
• 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action--License Renewal
• 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments
• 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity
• 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and the Alternatives
• 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations
• 9.4 References
• Appendix A : Discussion of Comments on the Draft Supplement
• A.1 Comments and Responses
• A.1.1 General Comments In Support of License Renewal
• A.1.4 Refurbishment
• A.1.5 Ecology
• A.1.6 Human Health
• A.1.7 Socioeconomics
• A.1.8 Archaeology and Historic Resources
• A.1.9 Impacts of Mining, Milling, and Fuel Manufacture
• A.1.10 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
• A.1.11 Operational Safety Issues Associated with Current Operation
• A.1.12 Age-related Safety Issues
• A.1.13 Spent Nuclear Fuel
• A.1.14 Decommissioning
• A.1.15 Alternatives
• A.1.16 Miscellaneous
• A.1.17 Technical Clarifications and Corrections
• A.1.18 Format and Presentation (spelling, grammar, references, clarity, etc.)
• A.2 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts and Comment Letters
• Letter A (Transcript)
• B. Written Statements Submitted at Public Meetings
• Letter C
• Letter D
• Letter E
• Letter F
• Letter G
• Letter H
• Letter I
• Letter J
• Letter K
• Letter L
• Letter M
• Letter N
• Letter O
• Letter P
• Letter Q
• Letter R
• Letter S
• Letter T
• Appendix B : Contributors to the Supplement
• Appendix C : Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2 License Renewal
• Appendix D : Organizations Contacted
• Appendix E : BGE Compliance Status and Consultations
• Appendix F : GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
• F.1 References

Publication Information

[ Next | Top of file ]

Supplement 1
Regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
Final Report
Manuscript Completed: October 1999
Date Published: October 1999

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

Abstract

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental effects of renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses for a 20-year period in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. The GEIS (and its Addendum 1) identifies 93 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS.

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the NRC by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) to renew the operating licenses for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Unit 1 and Unit 2 for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

Neither BGE or the staff have identified significant new information for any of the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions and which apply to the CCNPP. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the CCNPP operating licenses will not be greater than impacts identified in the GEIS for these issues. For each of these issues, the GEIS conclusion is that the impact is of small significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and from spent fuel which were not assigned a single significance level) and that additional mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Each of the remaining 24 issues that apply to the CCNPP is addressed in this SEIS. For each applicable issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental effects of renewal of the operating license is small. The staff also concludes that additional mitigation measures are recommended only for threatened or endangered species and that mitigation measures beyond those recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not warranted.

The NRC staff recommends that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental Report submitted by BGE; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) its own independent review, and (5) its consideration of public comments.

Figures

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

2-1 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site Area, 50-Mile Region

2-2 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site Area, Land Uses and Growth Protection Areas

2-3 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site Layout and Well Locations

2-4 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Station Layout

2-5 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (aerial photo)

2-6 Regional Geologic Section - Coastal Plain

2-7 Intake and Discharge Structures

2-8 Water Supply Systems in Calvert and St. Mary's Counties

2-9 Aquia Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map

2-10 CCNPP 16-km (10-mi) Population Sectors

2-11 CCNPP 80-km (50-m) Population Sectors

4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of the CCNPP

4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of the CCNPP

Executive Summary

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

By letter dated April 8, 1998, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) for an additional 20-year period. If the operating licenses are renewed, Federal (other than NRC) agencies, State regulatory agencies, and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate. This decision will be based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the operating licenses are not renewed, Units 1 and 2 will be shut down at or before the expiration of the current operating licenses, which are July 31, 2014, and August 13, 2016, respectively.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor operating license; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the operating license renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437.⁽¹⁾

Upon acceptance of the BGE application, the NRC began the environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff visited the CCNPP site in July 1998 and held public scoping meetings on July 9, 1998, in Solomons, Maryland. The staff reviewed the BGE environmental report (ER) and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies, conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in the draft Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, and considered the public comments from the scoping process and the comment period for the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for CCNPP.

This supplemental EIS (SEIS) includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The Commission has adopted the following definition of purpose and need for license renewal from the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

The Commission has provided the criterion to be used in evaluating the environmental impacts, as follows [10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)]:

... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether CCNPP continues to operate beyond the period of the current operating licenses.

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an operating license and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 93 environmental issues using a three-level standard of significance--small, moderate, or large--based on Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. These significance levels are

SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 93 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS shows:

(1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other plant or site characteristics

(2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal)

(3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of significant new information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS for issues designated Category 1 in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

Of the 24 issues not meeting the criteria set forth above, 22 were classified as Category 2 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must also be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared, or at the time this document was prepared.

This SEIS evaluates all 93 environmental issues considered in the GEIS and one new issue-- microorganisms in high-radiation, high-temperature conditions, which was raised during the scoping process. The SEIS considers the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license renewal and compares the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that are considered include the no-action alternative (not renewing the CCNPP operating licenses) and alternative methods of power generation. Among the alternative methods of power generation, coal-fired and gas-fired generation appear the most likely if the power from CCNPP is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the CCNPP site or an unspecified "greenfield" site.

BGE and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither BGE nor the staff is aware of any significant new information related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither BGE or the staff has identified any new issue applicable to the CCNPP that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the GEIS for all 69 Category 1 issues.

The staff has reviewed the BGE analysis for each Category 2 issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. Five Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at CCNPP. Four additional Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment. BGE has stated in its ER that it "has not identified the need to undertake the major refurbishment activities that the GEIS assumed for license renewal, and no other modifications have been identified that would directly affect the environment or plant effluents."

The remaining 13 Category 2 issues, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are discussed in detail in this SEIS. For all issues, the staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the GEIS. For Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Although a limited number of cost-beneficial SAMAs (four) were identified, the SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation and, therefore, need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

In addition to considering the 93 issues listed in the GEIS, the staff considered the potential issue associated with microorganisms that live in high-radiation, high-temperature environments and concludes that this issue, while new, is not significant.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. In general, current measures to mitigate environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that BGE amend its conservation agreement with The Nature Conservancy relative to tiger beetles and set constraints on activities in the vicinity of bald eagle nests. No other mitigation measures related to threatened or endangered species are warranted.

In the event that the CCNPP operating licenses are not renewed, and the plants cease operation at or before the expiration of their current operating licenses, the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of CCNPP. The impacts may, in fact, be greater in some areas.

The NRC staff recommends that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by BGE; (3) consultation with other Federal, State and local agencies; (4) its own independent review; and (5) its consideration of public comments.

Abbreviations/Acronyms

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

1.0 Introduction

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) operates Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Units 1 and 2 in southern Maryland on the west shore of the Chesapeake Bay under operating licenses (OLs) DPR-53 and DPR-69 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These OLs will expire in 2014 for Unit 1 and 2016 for Unit 2. By letter dated April 8, 1998, BGE submitted an application to the NRC to renew the CCNPP OLs for an additional 20 years under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 54. BGE is a licensee for the purposes of its current OLs and an applicant for the renewal of the OLs.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. As provided in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996, 1999a),⁽²⁾ under NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 implementing NEPA, renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license is identified as a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an EIS is required for a plant license renewal review. The EIS requirements for a plant-specific license renewal review are specified in 10 CFR Part 51. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), BGE submitted an environmental report (ER) (BGE 1998a) in which BGE analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluated any alternatives for reducing adverse environmental effects.

As part of NRC's evaluation of the application for license renewal, the NRC staff is required under 10 CFR Part 51 to prepare an EIS for the proposed action, issue the statement in draft form for public comment, and issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. This report is the final plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (SEIS) for the BGE license renewal application. The staff will also prepare a separate safety evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.

The following sections in this introduction describe the background and the process used by the staff to assess the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, describe the proposed Federal action, discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action, and present the status of compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term, respectively. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management, and Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning. The alternatives to license renewal are considered in Chapter 8. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the prior chapters, draws conclusions related to the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided (the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources), and presents the recommendation of the staff with respect to the proposed action. Additional information is included in Appendices. Appendix A contains a discussion of comments on the draft SEIS issued on February 24, 1999. Appendix B lists preparers of this supplement, and Appendix C lists the chronology of correspondence between NRC and BGE with regard to this supplement. The remaining appendices are identified in subsequent sections.

Generic Environmental Impact Statement

The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This assessment is provided in the GEIS. The GEIS serves as the principal reference for all nuclear power plant license renewal EISs.

The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the GEIS (1) described the activity that affects the environment, (2) identified the population or resource that is affected, (3) assessed the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population or resource, (4) characterized the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse effects, (5) determined whether the results of the analysis applied to all plants, and (6) considered whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the same significance level for all plants.

The standard of significance was established using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27) for assessing environmental issues as small, moderate, or large. Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC established three significance levels as follows:

SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

The GEIS assigned a significance level to each environmental issue. In assigning these levels, it was assumed that ongoing mitigation measures would continue.

The GEIS included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants, and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were then assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single-significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

As set forth in the GEIS, the staff assessed 93 environmental issues and determined that 69 are Category 1 issues, 22 are Category 2 issues, and two issues were not categorized. The latter two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are to be addressed in a plant-specific analysis. A summary of the findings for all 93 issues is listed in Table 9.1 of the GEIS and is codified in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1.

License Renewal Evaluation Process

An applicant seeking a renewal of its operating license is required to submit an ER as part of its application. This ER must provide an analysis of the issues listed as Category 2 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii). The ER must include a discussion of actions to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. Certain issues, including the need for power, the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action, economic benefits and costs of alternatives to the proposed action, and other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and associated alternatives need not be considered in the ER in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2). In addition, the ER need not discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(i) and (iv), the ER is not required to contain an analysis of any Category 1 issues unless there is significant new information on a specific issue. New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS and which leads to an impact finding different from that codified in 10 CFR Part 51.

In preparing to submit its application to renew the CCNPP operating licenses, BGE implemented a process for identifying and evaluating the potential significance of new information related to environmental impacts that might be associated with the CCNPP license renewal. The process is described in a paper provided to the staff during a staff site visit in July 1998 (BGE 1998b). The process included forming a team of individuals who represent (1) the principal BGE organizations having responsibilities encompassing license renewal environmental issues, (2) the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and (3) BGE's vendor for environmental services. This team conducted site inspections, record and document reviews, interviews, and a CCNPP docket review in search of information that might indicate that any of the findings for Category 1 issues or analyses for Category 2 issues were invalid as applied to CCNPP or that there were potential environmental impacts associated with the CCNPP license renewal that were not addressed in the GEIS.

The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process is described in detail in a draft of the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP), NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (February 1999 pre-publication copy) (NRC 1999b). The search for new information includes review of an applicant's ER and process for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; review of records of public meetings and correspondence; review of environmental quality standards and regulations; coordination with Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies; and review of the technical literature. Any new information discovered by the staff is evaluated for significance using the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new information. Neither BGE or the staff has identified any new issue applicable to the CCNPP that has a significant environmental impact; one new issue (extremophiles) was identified, but was determined not to be significant.

The discussion of the environmental issues contained in the GEIS that are applicable to CCNPP is found in Chapters 3 through 7. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, there is a table that identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1 issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of paragraphs that state the GEIS conclusion codified in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, followed by the staff's review steps and conclusion. For Category 2 issues, in addition to the list of GEIS sections where the issue is discussed, the tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describe the analysis required and the SEIS sections where the analysis is presented. The SEIS sections discussing the Category 2 issues are listed immediately following the table.

The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal as well as a comparison of these impacts to the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of BGE's license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for docketing (63 FR 27601, May 19, 1998). The staff published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (63 FR 31813, June 10, 1998). Two public scoping meetings were held on July 9, 1998, in Solomons, Maryland. Comments received during the scoping process were summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Summary Report, October 1998 (NRC 1998a).

The staff visited the CCNPP site on July 7 through 10, 1998, reviewed the comments received during scoping, and consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies. A list of the organizations consulted is provided in Appendix D of this document. Other documents related to CCNPP were also reviewed and are referenced.

The staff followed the review guidance contained in the February 1999 prepublication version of the ESRP (which was under development at the time of the BGE application). It issued requests for additional information (RAIs) to BGE by letters dated September 9, and September 28, 1998 (NRC 1998b and 1998c). BGE provided its responses in letters dated November 20, and December 3, 1998 (BGE 1998c and 1998d). The staff reviewed this information, incorporated it into its analysis, and, on February 24, 1999, issued a draft of the SEIS, which contains the preliminary results of its evaluation and recommendation.

With the publication of the EPA notice of filing of the draft SEIS (64 FR 10662, March 5, 1999), a 75-day comment period began to allow members of the public to comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff's review. During this comment period, two public meetings were held in Maryland on April 6, 1999, in which the staff described the results of the NRC environmental review and answered questions related to it in order to provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments. The comment period for the CCNPP draft SEIS ended on May 20, 1999.

This report presents the staff's final analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the license renewal, the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal, and alternatives available for avoiding adverse environmental effects. The staff considered the comments that were received during the comment period. The disposition of these comments is addressed in Appendix A of this SEIS. The staff modified the analysis set forth in the draft SEIS to address certain comments, where appropriate. A vertical bar in the margin indicates where the staff made changes to the draft SEIS. In addition, the NRC staff's final recommendation to the Commission on whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable is provided in Chapter 9, "Summary and Conclusions."

1.1 The Proposed Federal Action

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating licenses for CCNPP Units 1 and 2. CCNPP is located in Calvert County, Maryland, approximately 64 km (40 mi) southeast of Washington, D.C., 12 km (7.5 mi) north of Solomons Island, and 96 km (60 mi) south of Baltimore. The plant has two pressurized light-water reactors, each with a design rating of 845 megawatts electric (MWe). Plant cooling is provided by a once-through heat dissipation system into the Chesapeake Bay using shoreline intake and offshore discharge structures. CCNPP provides about 12 million MW-hours of electricity annually to more than one million customers in a 5900-km² (2300-mi²) area. The current operating licenses for Unit 1 and Unit 2 expire July 31, 2014, and August 13, 2016, respectively. By letter dated April 8, 1998, BGE submitted an application to renew these operating licenses for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until July 31, 2034, for Unit 1 and August 13, 2036, for Unit 2).

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a plant beyond the term of the existing operating license, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once an operating license is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.

Thus, for license renewal reviews, the Commission has adopted the following definition of purpose and need (GEIS, Section 1.3):

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an operating license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the current term of the plant's license.

1.3 Compliance and Consultations

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

BGE is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. BGE provided a list in its ER of the status of authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well as environmental approvals and consultations associated with CCNPP license renewal. Authorizations most relevant to the proposed license renewal action are summarized in Table 1-1. The full list of authorizations provided by BGE is included as Appendix E. MDNR coordinated reviews and interactions with other State agencies.

The staff reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies. Agency interactions identified no new compliance or permit issues or significant new environmental issues.

1.4 References

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

10 CFR Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR 51.23, "Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation--generic determination of no significant environmental impact."

10 CFR 51.53, "Postconstruction environmental reports."

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, "Environmental effect of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant."

10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR 54.23, "Contents of application--environmental information."

40 CFR 1508.27, "Terminology and Index--Significantly."

Table 1-1. Federal, State, and Local Authorizations

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

MDE - Maryland Department of the Environment

FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service

COMAR - Code of Maryland Regulations

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NA - Not applicable

(a) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), also known as the Clean Water Act

(b) Application to extend permit under review

63 FR 27601, "Notice of Acceptance for Docketing," May 19, 1998.

63 FR 31813, "Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." June 10, 1998.

64 FR 10662 "Notice of Filing." March 5, 1999.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). 1998a. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318. Lusby, Maryland.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). 1998b. Attachment to Memorandum to T. Essig summarizing the site visit. "New and Significant Information Process for License Renewal of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant." July 10, 1998.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). 1998c. Letters from Mr. C.H. Cruse (BGE) to NRC Document Control Desk, "Response to Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 & 2, Environmental Report Associated with License Renewal, and Errata (TAC Nos. MA1524 and M1525)," November 20, and December 3, 1998, Lusby, Maryland.

Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), 16 USC 1455 et seq.

Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, 7 USC 136; 16 USC 460 et seq.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (also known as the Clean Water Act), as amended, 33 USC 121 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 USC 470 et seq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998a. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report-Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Lusby, Maryland. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998b. Letter from Ms. C.M. Craig (NRC) to Mr. C.H.Cruse (BGE), "Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Unit Nos. 1 & 2, License Renewal Application, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (TAC Nos. MA 1524 and MA 1525)," September 9, 1998, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998c. Letter from Ms. C.M. Craig (NRC) to Mr. C.H. Cruse (BGE), "Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Unit Nos. 1 & 2, Environmental Report Associated with License Renewal (TAC Nos. MA 1524 and MA 1524)," September 28, 1998, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3--Transportation, Table 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants. NUREG-1437 Vol. 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1. Washington, D.C.

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the Environment

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

CCNPP is located near Maryland Highway 2-4 in Calvert County on the west bank of the Chesapeake Bay, approximately halfway between the mouth of the Bay and its headwaters at the Susquehanna River. CCNPP is a two-unit plant. Each unit is equipped with a Combustion Engineering Nuclear Steam Supply System pressurized light-water reactor and uses once-through cooling with water from the Chesapeake Bay. CCNPP supplies more than 12 million megawatt-hours annually to customers in a 5900-km² (2300-mi²) area. The electricity generated is transferred through a power transmission system that consists of two transmission lines to the Waugh Chapel Substation on the Northern Circuit and a single transmission line to the Chalk Point Generating Station on the Southern Circuit. Descriptions of the plant and its environs follow in Section 2.1, and the plant's interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2.

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the Renewal Term

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

CCNPP is located on 853 hectares (ha) (2108 acres) in a rural part of southern Maryland on wooded and agricultural lands. It draws its workforce of about 1550 from surrounding communities, and is the major employer in the area. Several small communities are located within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the site. The population density of the area increases with seasonal summer residents. The population density increases with distance to the northwest and the 80-km (50-mi) radius includes a portion of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Baltimore is 96 km (60 mi) to the north. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate the plant location with respect to the Chesapeake Bay and the Patuxent River.

The property consists of rolling hills, part of it forested primarily with deciduous trees. There is an understory of grasses, herbs, and shrubs. Part of the land is cultivated under an experimental pest control/fertilization program, and hay, corn, and wheat are routinely cultivated. About 89 ha (220 acres) of the site were altered for plant and auxiliary structures. About 30-40 ha (75-100 acres) of CCNPP borders the Chesapeake Bay. Most of this Bay frontage has near-perpendicular walls. Bay frontage elevation varies from sea level to about 42 m (137 ft) with an average of about 30 m (100 ft).

The topography of the vicinity around the plant defines several small watersheds. The watershed containing the plant and the auxiliary structures drains into the Chesapeake Bay. Part of the upper areas, used primarily during the construction period, drains through the Johns Creek watershed into the St. Leonard Creek, which then drains into the Patuxent River approximately 7 km (4 mi) from the plant. The Patuxent River drains into the Chesapeake Bay approximately 16 km (10 mi) south of the plant.

Figure 2-1. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site Area, 50 Mile Region

Figure 2-2. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site Area, Land Uses and Growth Protection Areas

Chesapeake Bay is approximately 313 km (195 mi) long and varies in width from 5 to 56 km (3 to 35 mi) with an average width of 24 km (15 mi) (Figure 2-1). The Bay has an average depth of approximately 9 m (30 ft) and receives the majority of its fresh water, sediment, and nutrients from the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna watershed encompasses three states, and its flow dominates the circulatory patterns in the upper Bay during the spring months, with the majority of the net flow directed seaward at all depths (K. G. Sellner and B. A. Peters in Heck 1987). Circulation in the Bay is typical of a partially mixed estuary with non-tidal and tidal components producing a net seaward-moving fresh water surface layer and a landward-moving saline layer (Pritchard 1967). The Chesapeake Bay is about 10 km (6 mi) wide at the plant site from its western shore to Taylors Island.

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

CCNPP is sited within a forested natural saddle along the Calvert Cliffs, providing a low profile for the plant. The tallest structures do not rise above the top of the surrounding tree line when viewed from the land areas or from the water. The Turbine Building, which houses two turbine generators and ancillary equipment, is the largest structure on the site and parallels the shoreline of the Bay. Twin containment structures and the Auxiliary Building are located to the west of the Turbine Building. The Intake Structure is located east (bayside) of the Turbine Building. The buildings and the switchyard were designed to minimize their visual impact. Disturbed areas are landscaped or otherwise maintained.

Although several additional facilities have been constructed at CCNPP since 1973, the plant, as it appears from the Chesapeake Bay, has changed little. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show the station in detail, highlighting those permanent facilities constructed since plant operation began. Figure 2-5 is a low-level aerial photograph of CCNPP taken from the Bay looking south-southwest that shows the major plant structures, including the Turbine Building and twin containment structures. The Interim Office Building, Intake Structure, North Service Building, and Sewage Treatment Plant are also visible from the Bay. Most of the other new facilities are visible only from the air due to intervening buildings and wooded hillsides. Except for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, which has a separate NRC license, all of the additional facilities are located on areas previously disturbed during CCNPP construction.

The onsite Visitors Center is located in a remodeled old working frame tobacco barn, part of which was built in 1818 (Stone 1978). The center displays historic artifacts, dioramas, and animated exhibits that cover the history of the location, and focuses on the site's present use for nuclear power generation. The Visitors Center area also includes the stabilized foundation and chimneys of a small Maryland plantation house of the 18th century, known as "Preston's Cliffs," and a historic log tobacco barn that is reported to be the oldest of its kind still standing in Maryland. The log barn was constructed in 1820. In addition to the Visitors Center, BGE maintains a nature trail that begins at the historic house foundation and includes highlights of the area's historical and natural setting, including the Chesapeake Bay and its shoreline ecology.

Figure 2-3. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site Layout and Well Locations

Figure 2-4 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Station Layout

Figure 2-5 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (aerial photo)

The site's geologic setting lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, and is underlain by approximately 760 m (2500 ft) of sedimentary strata. Underlying these sediments are crystalline and metamorphic basement rock.

There is no evidence of faulting in the site vicinity. As shown in Figure 2-6, the strata range from nearly horizontal to gently dipping to the southeast, reflecting the influence of the basement rock slope. Areas above an elevation of 21 m (70 ft) are Pliocene and Pleistocene silt and sand, and are underlain by approximately 82 m (270 ft) (Elevation +70 to -200 feet mean sea level [MSL]) of the relatively impervious sediments of the Chesapeake group of Miocene age; the CCNPP power block area is Elevation +45 feet MSL. The Miocene-age sediments consist of horizontally stratified sandy and clayey silt with occasional interbeds of sands and shells. Approximately 106 m (350 ft) (Elevation -200 to -550 feet MSL) of dense, relatively pervious glauconitic sand and silt of the Eocene and Paleocene age underlie the Miocene sediments.

The site includes a portion of the Calvert Cliffs, noted for scenic and scientific significance. Some of the fossils recovered at the site during an in-depth paleoecological study of the Miocene deposits are displayed at the Visitors Center.

Table 2-1 provides a brief summary of groundwater aquifers beneath CCNPP.

The site water table occurs generally within 9 m (30 ft) (above Elevation +70 feet MSL) of the surface in Pleistocene-age deposits. Groundwater flow within approximately 300 m (1000 ft) of the Chesapeake Bay at CCNPP is toward the Bay; flow west of the divide is toward surface stream valleys. Surficial soil grain size analysis suggests a maximum permeability coefficient of about 6.1×10^-4 m/s (400 gpd/ft²).

Surficial deposits are underlain by approximately 75 m (250 ft) of relatively impermeable deposits, known as the Chesapeake Group, which effectively confine the underlying artesian aquifers. The vertical component of groundwater movement through the Chesapeake Group is upward. Underlying aquifers are composed of glauconitic sand and silt of the Piney Point, Nanjemoy, and Aquia formation. The Piney Point and Nanjemoy Aquifers act as a single unit, but are separated from the underlying Aquia Aquifer by a layer of clay and silt called the Nanjemoy-Marlboro confining unit. The Aquia Aquifer beneath CCNPP is approximately 30 m (100 ft) thick (from Elevation -450 to -550 feet MSL).

2.1.2 Reactor Systems

CCNPP is a two-unit plant. Each unit is equipped with a Combustion Engineering Nuclear Steam Supply System that uses a pressurized light-water reactor and two steam generators. Each unit has a design rating for net electrical power output of 845 MW. The two CCNPP reactors are operated at a maximum core thermal power output level of 2700 MW. The Unit 1 turbine generator is a General Electric Company design, and Unit 2 is a Westinghouse Electric Corporation design. Each turbine is an 1800-rpm tandem compound, six-flow exhaust, indoor unit (BGE 1998a).

Figure 2-6 Regional Geologic Section - Coastal Plain

Table 2-1. A Summary of Groundwater Aquifers Beneath CCNPP^(a)

CCNPP fuel is slightly enriched uranium dioxide in the form of pellets contained in zirconium alloy fuel rods (tubes fitted with welded end caps). CCNPP was originally licensed to use fuel having a uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding 4 percent by weight.⁽³⁾ In 1981, NRC authorized an increase in fuel enrichment up to 4.1 percent uranium-235. In 1989, NRC authorized another increase to 5 percent uranium-235; at the same time, NRC also authorized an increase the in level of CCNPP fuel burnup,⁽⁴⁾ above the original 33,000 megawatt-days per metric tonne uranium (MWd/MTU) to 60,000 MWd/MTU.

Reactor containment structures are designed with engineered safety features to protect the public and plant personnel from accidental release of radioactive fission products, particularly in the unlikely event of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). These safety features function to localize, control, mitigate, and terminate such events to limit exposure levels below applicable dose guidelines. The reactor is controlled using a combination of chemical controls (boric acid dissolved in coolant water) and solid absorber material (tubes of boron carbide).

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

CCNPP is equipped with a once-through heat dissipation system that withdraws cooling water from and discharges it to the Chesapeake Bay. This circulating water system removes heat from the plant and transfers this energy to the Chesapeake Bay. There are no cooling towers associated with this system.

CCNPP uses water from the Chesapeake Bay for cooling purposes, drawing bottom water through a 15-m (45-ft) deep dredged channel that extends approximately 1380 m (4500 ft) offshore. Water passes through the plant in approximately 4 minutes and is discharged to the north of the plant from an outfall that is approximately 260 m (850 ft) offshore in 3 m (10 ft) of water. A curtain wall that extends to a depth of 9 m (30 ft) over the intake channel limits the intake to mostly bottom water, although there is evidence that mixing of surface and lower depth water occurs before entrance into the plant (Heck 1987). The intake and discharge structures are shown in Figure 2-7.

Each generating unit has three separate water loops. The primary coolant loop is a closed piping system--pressurized water in the system is circulated through the reactor and transfers heat from the reactor to the steam generator. The primary coolant system for each unit consists of a reactor, two steam generators, two reactor coolant loops, and four reactor coolant pumps. The secondary loop is also a closed system--water from this system is converted into steam (in the steam generators) that is used to drive the turbine. The third loop is an open system--water from Chesapeake Bay is used to cool the spent steam in the secondary loop and then is returned to the Bay.

The principal components of the circulating water system are the curtain wall, intake structure, circulating water pumps, condensers, and discharge conduits.

CCNPP has five groundwater production wells that supply process and domestic water in the protected area of the plant (Figure 2-3), and eight wells that supply water for domestic use in outlying areas. The production wells extend into the Aquia Aquifer. Although a gravity drain system was installed during original plant construction to dewater plant areas, CCNPP does not use dewatering pumps for plant operation.

Groundwater wells provide the source of water for domestic, plant service and demineralized make-up water needs, while the Chesapeake Bay is the source of water for the once-through cooling system. All effluents are combined before being discharged through the submerged outfall to the Chesapeake Bay. Both the quantity of water pumped (from both the groundwater wells and the Chesapeake Bay) and quality of the water discharged to the Chesapeake Bay are regulated and permitted by the State of Maryland.

Figure 2-7 Intake and Discharge Structures

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control-Systems

The CCNPP waste processing systems meet the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and control the processing, disposal, and release of radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes (BGE 1997). Radioactive material in the reactor coolant is the source of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive

wastes in light-water reactors (LWRs). Radioactive fission products build up within the fuel as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products are contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape the fuel rods and contaminate the reactor coolant. Neutron activation of the primary coolant system also is responsible for coolant contamination.

Non-fuel solid wastes result from treating and separating radionuclides from gases and liquids and from removing contaminated material from various reactor areas. Solid wastes also consist of discarded reactor components, equipment, and tools as well as contaminated protective clothing, paper, rags, and other trash largely from plant design and operations modifications and routine maintenance activities. Certain dry wastes may be shredded or compacted under high pressure to reduce disposal volume. Spent resins, filters, and evaporator concentrates are dewatered and stored or packaged for shipment to an offsite processing or disposal facility.

Fuel rods that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and are removed from the reactor core for disposal are called spent fuel. CCNPP currently operates on a 24-month refueling cycle and stores all its spent nuclear fuel onsite either in a spent fuel pool in the Auxiliary Building or in dry storage at its Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (BGE 1992). CCNPP also temporarily stores mixed waste onsite. This storage is governed by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) for radioactive material and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for hazardous waste, consistent with NRC and EPA requirements (42 USC 2011-2259 [AEA]; 42 USC 6901 [RCRA]) and in accordance with an agreement with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).

There are four waste processing systems: the Reactor Coolant Waste Processing System (RCWPS), the Miscellaneous Waste Processing System (MWPS), the Waste Gas Processing System (WGPS), and the Solid Waste Processing System (SWPS).

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

Radioactive liquid waste generated from the operation of CCNPP can be released to the Chesapeake Bay in accordance with the limits specified in the CCNPP Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). There are four outfalls that provide the pathways for all waste water (non-radioactive and radioactive) discharged into the Bay.

CCNPP liquid waste is processed by two systems: (1) the RCWPS, which processes reactor coolant concurrent with the letdown flow from the Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS), and (2) the MWPS, which processes waste from miscellaneous sources. The liquid waste processing systems are used to reduce the radioactive material in liquid wastes before discharge when the activity in the effluent could exceed the ODCM limits.

The RCWPS provides temporary storage for reactor coolant waste (RCW) to allow for radioactive decay to maintain releases to the environment as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), as well as maintain the concentration of radioactive isotopes in the effluent below the ODCM limits. Sampling and release of liquid waste is performed on a batch basis, rather than a continuous basis, to provide better control over effluent discharge.

The RCWPS consists of two reactor coolant drain tanks (RCDTs), three cartridge filters, four RCW ion exchangers, two RCW receiver tanks, two evaporators, two RCW monitoring tanks, and various system pumps. The system simultaneously processes reactor coolant and CVCS letdown flow from both Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Before being transferred to the two RCW receiver tanks, the RCW liquid is filtered to remove insoluble corrosion products and then degasified to remove hydrogen, nitrogen, and fission gases. The liquid is pumped to ion exchangers that remove soluble ions, thereby resulting in an effluent that is reduced in total activity. The liquid is then routed to the RCW monitor tank where it is sampled. If the activity level in the monitor tank is within discharge limits, then the liquid may be released in a controlled, monitored fashion to meet the administrative limits in the ODCM.

Controls for limiting the release of radiological liquid effluents are described in the ODCM. Controls are based on (1) concentrations of radioactive materials in liquid effluents and projected dose or (2) dose commitment to a member of the public. Concentrations of radioactive material that may be released in liquid effluents to unrestricted areas are limited to the concentrations specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II.⁽⁵⁾ The dose limits are 0.03 millisievert (mSv) (3 mrem) to the whole body and 0.10 mSv (10 mrem) to any organ during any calendar quarter and 0.06 mSv (6 mrem) to the whole body and 0.20 mSv (20 mrem) to any organ during a calendar year. Radioactive liquid wastes are subject to the sampling and analysis program described in the ODCM.

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing System and Effluent Controls

Radioactive gaseous waste generated from operation of CCNPP may be released to the atmosphere through the Unit 1 and Unit 2 main vent stacks, the auxiliary boiler deaerator, the steam generator atmospheric steam dump system, the plant nitrogen system, the turbine building ventilation exhaust, the emergency air lock, the plant compressed air system, the main steam line penetrations, the containment equipment hatch, and the auxiliary feedwater pumps.

During normal operation, the WGPS is designed to store the gases removed from liquid waste to allow for radioactive decay before release. The WGPS consists of a surge tank, two compressors, three waste gas decay tanks and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. The WGPS collects, stores, and disposes of gaseous waste from the degasifiers, pressurizer quench tanks, RCDTs, the volume control tanks, and other miscellaneous hydrogenated sources.

There are other potential sources of gaseous releases from the plant that are not collected in the WGPS. Leaks from reactor coolant containment structures, condenser air removal systems, and other potential sources are released through the plant vent. The following are the pathways for gaseous effluents containing or potentially containing radioactive material:

• WGPS
• containment structure purge
• containment hydrogen purge system
• auxiliary building ventilation
• condenser air removal system and gland seal exhauster
• aerated tank vents
• turbine building ventilation.

BGE maintains all gaseous releases within ODCM limits. Potential release pathways are sampled according to approved plant procedures.

The WGPS is used to reduce the radioactive material in gaseous waste before discharge to meet the dose design objectives in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. In addition, the limits in the ODCM are designed to provide reasonable assurance that radioactive material discharged in gaseous effluents would not result in the exposure of a member of the public in an unrestricted area in excess of the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B.

The quantities of gaseous effluents released from CCNPP are controlled by the administrative limits defined in the ODCM. The controls are specified for dose rate, dose due to noble gases, and dose due to iodine and radionuclides in particulate form. For noble gases, the dose rate limit at or beyond the site boundary is 5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr) to the whole body, and 30 mSv/yr (3000 mrem/yr) to the skin. For iodine and particulates with half lives greater than eight days, the limit is 15 mSv/yr (1500 mrem/yr) to any organ. The limit for air dose due to noble gases released in gaseous effluents to areas at or beyond the site boundary during any calendar quarter is 0.1 milligray (mGy) (10 mrad) for gamma radiation and 0.2 mGy (20 mrad) for beta radiation, and, for any calendar year, the limit is 0.2 mGy (20 mrad) for gamma radiation and 0.4 mGy (40 mrad) for beta radiation. The radioactive gaseous waste sampling and analysis program specifications are provided in the ODCM, and address the gaseous release type, sampling frequency, minimum analysis frequency, type of activity analysis, and the lower limit of detection. The WGPS is used to reduce radioactive material in gaseous waste before its discharge when the gaseous effluent air doses due to gaseous effluent releases to the area at and beyond the site boundary are projected to exceed 0.012 mGy (1.2 mrad) for gamma radiation and 0.024 mGy (2.4 mrad) for beta radiation in a 92-day period.

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing and Handling

Solid waste is packaged in containers to meet the applicable requirements of 49 CFR Parts 171 through 177. Disposal and transportation are performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 61 and Part 71, respectively. The SWPS provides the capability for preparing solid waste for shipment to an offsite disposal facility or processor. The system is designed to minimize radiation exposure to personnel during the handling of solid wastes.

The SWPS equipment is located in the Auxiliary Building. Spent radioactive ion exchanger resin is sluiced to a tank where it is stored and partially dewatered. It is then prepared for shipment. RCWPS evaporator bottoms are normally recycled or otherwise processed in accordance with BGE's Process Control Program. Radioactive filters are transported from each filter housing to the waste disposal area. All solid wastes are packaged in containers suitable for transfer to an offsite processor or disposal.

The Materials Processing Facility (MPF) provides interim storage of dry active waste (DAW) until such waste can be shipped to a permanent disposal facility or a processing facility. The storage capacity of the MPF can accommodate more than five years of expected waste generated at CCNPP, based on normal operation and generation. Provisions are in place for additional expansion, if needed. The design life of the MPF is expected to meet the needs of the license renewal term. The functions of the MPF are interim storage of DAW and low-level processed wastes; decontamination of clothing, respirators, tools, hardware, and radioactive waste material; temporary holding of liquid wastes generated from the laundry; receiving, sorting, compacting, packaging, and offsite return shipment of DAW; office space for radwaste management activities; additional storage of spare plant equipment and components; and processing of liquid waste in the decontamination facility in preparation for offsite shipment.

There are two areas for resin storage: (1) the interim resin storage facility located in the Lake Davies area (waste is limited to spent resins and filters); and (2) the West Road Cage located west of the Auxiliary Building.

All CCNPP radioactive waste shipments are packaged in accordance with NRC and U.S. Department of Transportation requirements. CCNPP currently transports shipments of radioactive material to

• high-level waste examination sites
• low-level waste disposal site (Barnwell, South Carolina)
• offsite processing facility for segregation, recycling, compaction, decontamination, and incineration.

CCNPP also transports material from an offsite processing facility to a disposal site or back to the plant site for reuse or storage.

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

Nonradioactive waste is produced from plant maintenance and cleaning processes. Most of these wastes are from boiler blowdown (as impurities are purged from plant boilers), water treatment sludges and other wastes, boiler metal cleaning wastes, floor and yard drains, and stormwater runoff. Chemical and biocide waste sources are produced from processes to control the pH in the coolant, to control scale, to control corrosion, and to regenerate resins, as well as for cleaning and condenser defouling. Wastes may be discharged as separate point sources or combined with the cooling water discharges. Sewage sludge is transported for offsite disposal. The MDE is responsible for permitting the disposal of nonradioactive liquid and solid wastes.

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance

Routine maintenance performed on plant systems and components is necessary for safe and reliable operation of a nuclear power plant. Some of the maintenance activities conducted at CCNPP include inspection, testing, and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the plant and to ensure compliance with environmental and public safety requirements. Certain of these activities can be performed while the reactor is operating. Others require that the plant be shut down. Long-term outages are scheduled for refueling and for maintenance, modification, and replacement of major components. Scheduled refueling outages generally last for about two months and occur at 1- to 2-year intervals. Periodic in-service inspections may last 2 to 4 months, while other outages vary, depending on the components being replaced.

BGE performed an aging management review and developed an integrated plant assessment (IPA) for managing the effects of aging on systems, structures, and components in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. It also reviewed its surveillance, on-line monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and recordkeeping (SMITTR) program, and identified the need for new and modified programs that could lead to additional periodic monitoring or to eventual modification, replacement, or repair of selected components.

Some of the activities listed in Tables 2-7 and B.2 of the GEIS (NRC 1996) have been or are being conducted at CCNPP. For example, the plant is replacing its steam generators during its current license term and, consequently, this replacement does not meet the definition of a license renewal term refurbishment activity. The CCNPP IPA, conducted under 10 CFR Part 54, did not identify major refurbishment or replacement activities necessary to maintain the functionality of important systems, structures, and components during the CCNPP license renewal term. Therefore, BGE expects to conduct normal refueling and 5- and 10-year inservice inspections, but plans no refurbishment outages specific to license renewal.

2.1.7 Power Transmission System

The CCNPP power transmission system includes the North Circuit, which consists of two separate three-phase 500-kV transmission lines (single right-of-way) from CCNPP to the Waugh Chapel Substation in Anne Arundel County (Figure 2-1), and the single-line South Circuit from CCNPP northwest to the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) Chalk Point generating station. Approximately 35 km (22 mi) of the lines in the northern circuit are in Calvert County and approximately 40 km (25 mi) are in Anne Arundel County in a 106- to 122-m wide (350- to 400-ft) rights-of-way. These lines were constructed to deliver power generated at CCNPP to the Waugh Chapel Substation, located at a point near BGE's load center. Each line consists of about 182 lattice towers and about 47 stylized poles. The lines cross mostly second-growth hardwood and pine forests, pasture, and farmland.

In 1994, BGE completed the South Circuit 500-kV line, shifting approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of the original lines to make room for the new South Circuit lines at the point where the North and South Circuit routes diverge (Figure 2-1). The 29 km (18-mi) South Circuit parallels the Waugh Chapel lines from CCNPP north approximately 14 km (9 mi) before diverging in a northwesterly direction to connect with a line at the PEPCO Chalk Point generating station (Figure 2-1). BGE owns the land beneath the North and South Circuit lines.

At the time that BGE constructed CCNPP, the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative constructed a 69-kV transmission line to CCNPP, connecting to an onsite substation (Figure 2-3) to provide CCNPP with offsite power. The plant is connected to the substation via underground lines. After CCNPP decommissioning, the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative plans to discontinue the transfer of energy over these lines.

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

[ Prev | Next | Top of file ]

Subsections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment as background information and detailed descriptions where needed to support analysis of potential environmental impacts of operation during the renewal term discussed in Chapter 4. Subsection 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological resources in the area, and 2.2.10 describes possible cumulative effects of the proposed action and other Federal project activities.

2.2.1 Land Use

CCNPP is located in a sparsely populated area that is undergoing population growth. The major portion of the land surrounding the site is devoted to agricultural and forest uses. While declining, the amount of land being farmed should continue to be substantial. Land devoted to residential and commercial use will increase as the population grows.

The land occupied by the CCNPP is zoned I-1 light industrial by Calvert County. Power generating facilities are a permitted use in I-1 zoning districts (Calvert County 1997a).

The amount of land devoted to various land uses in Calvert County in 1993 is shown in Table 2-2. The region surrounding the CCNPP site is predominately rural in character. However, since 1970, open space in Calvert County has been converted to residential use at an average rate of nearly 400 ha (1000 acres) per year. The amount of farmland in the County declined from approximately 25,000 ha (63,000 acres) in 1970 to approximately 15,000 ha (37,000 acres) in 1992. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and utility development accounts for less than 5 percent of land use in the County.

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that applicants for a Federal license to conduct an activity in the coastal zone shall provide in the application to the licensing agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the State's approved Coastal Zone Management Program and that the activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program [33 USC 1456(c)(3)(A) CZMA].

The MDE determined that renewal of the operating licenses for CCNPP is consistent with the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program established under the CZMA (MDE 1998).

Table 2-2. Land Use in Calvert County in 1993 (Calvert County 1994a)

2.2.2 Water Use

Cooling water withdrawal from the Chesapeake Bay and groundwater withdrawal for other plant uses, as described previously in Subsection 2.1.3, are regulated by the State of Maryland. CCNPP uses a once-through heat dissipation system that withdraws from and discharges cooling water to the Chesapeake Bay.

Water for plant service, make-up, and domestic uses is withdrawn from five groundwater wells tapping into the Aquia Aquifer. The MDE requires BGE to monitor and report withdrawals from the five production wells. Average daily withdrawal rates for the period of July 1996 to June 1998 was 1.89×10 ² m³/s (392,000 gpd) (BGE 1998b). The current State permit limit for groundwater withdrawals is 2.17×10^-2 m³/s (450,000 gpd).

2.2.3 Water Quality

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 USC 1251), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), the water quality of plant effluent discharges is regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The MDE is the State of Maryland agency delegated by the EPA to issue the NPDES discharge permit. The current permit (State Discharge Permit 92-DP-0187) was issued on June 16, 1994, and was scheduled for renewal on June 15, 1999. BGE submitted a timely application for permit renewal and continues to operate within the provisions of the old permit while awaiting issuance of a new permit. The MDE stated that it is unaware of any major issue likely to prevent renewal of this permit. Any new regulations promulgated by EPA or the MDE would be included in future permits and may include development and implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads.

2.2.4 Air Quality

The Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean farther to the east generally give the CCNPP site mild winters and summers. Climatological statistics for Baltimore are generally representative of the climate of the site.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, typical January daily temperatures range from a minimum of -4.8ºC (23.4ºF) to a maximum of 4.6ºC (40.2ºF). July temperatures typically range from a minimum of 19.3ºC (66.8ºF) to a maximum of 30.7ºC (87.2ºF). The record minimum and maximum temperatures are -22ºC (-7ºF) and 41ºC (105ºF), respectively. Typical morning relative humidities range from a low of about 70 percent in the winter to a high of about 85 percent in the early fall. Afternoon relative humidities are generally about 55 percent. The annual average precipitation is about 104 cm (41 in) and is evenly distributed throughout the year. About one-third of the days have precipitation totaling 0.03 cm (0.01 in) or more. Winter precipitation is generally associated with synoptic weather systems. The average snowfall is about 51 cm/yr (20 in./yr). Summer precipitation tends to be associated with thunderstorms.

During the summer, the region is generally under the influence of the Bermuda high-pressure system. High-pressure systems are typically associated with low winds and increased potential for air quality problems. Air quality in 1997 in Calvert County was generally rated as moderate using the EPA Pollution Standards Index (that is an indicator of community-wide air quality). A moderate rating means that there should be few or no health effects for the general population. The primary pollutant contributing to the moderate rating was ozone. Ozone is not emitted directly; it is the product of chemical reaction that involves volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x). There appears to have been a gradual decrease in emissions of VOCs and NO_x in Calvert County during the last 10 years (EPA 1999).

Calvert County is within the Washington, D.C., "serious" nonattainment area for ozone (40 CFR 81.321). However, the ozone air quality monitor in Calvert County did not record any exceedences of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone in 1996, 1997, or 1998. To the west of Calvert County, Prince Georges and Charles counties are also included in the Washington, D.C., nonattainment area. The EPA ozone standard was exceeded at monitors in each of these counties in 1997 and earlier years. To the north of Calvert County, Anne Arundel County is in the Baltimore "severe" nonattainment area for ozone (40 CFR 81.321). The EPA ozone standard has been exceeded in Anne Arundel County each year since 1993. The ozone monitors in Prince Georges and Anne Arundel counties are located generally in the corridor between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore rather than in the portions of the counties nearest the Calvert Cliffs site. St. Mary's County south of Calvert County and the counties across Chesapeake Bay to the east are designated "Unclassifiable/Attainment" areas for ozone (40 CFR 81.321).

The State of Maryland has adopted a State Implementation Plan for that portion of Maryland that is within the boundaries of the Washington, D.C., "serious" nonattainment area for ozone. This plan, which is based upon a plan developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, has been approved by the EPA (62 FR 49611). Recent revisions to the plan to achieve an additional 15-percent reduction in emissions of VOCs using reasonably available control technology (RACT) have also been approved by EPA (63 FR 36578). The CCNPP emergency diesel generators (EDGs) are considered major sources of both VOCs and NO_x because of their potential annual release rates (BGE 1998). Permits have been obtained from the MDE for the EDGs.

Calvert County is classified as "Better than National Standards" or "Unclassifiable/Attainment" for the remaining criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.321). The counties surrounding Calvert County have similar designations for the remaining criteria pollutants except for Anne Arundel County, which does not meet secondary standards for total suspended particulates (40 CFR 81.321). CCNPP is more than 100 km (62 mi) from the nearest Class I area for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality designated in the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC 7401).

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

The area of the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of the CCNPP is used for a variety of purposes, including navigation, recreation, and commercial fisheries. Boating and sportfishing are popular. The Bay supports a variety of aquatic species typical of a warm-water partially mixed estuary, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, epibenthic, intertidal, and subtidal communities, as well as commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish. Three representative important species (RIS) identified by the State of Maryland include the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, the soft shell clam, Mya arenaria, and the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Oyster breeding and nursery areas occur near the plant, and new beds were created during plant construction to mitigate habitat loss (Abbe 1988, 1992). Softshell clams are also present in the intertidal areas surrounding the plant, but have not occurred in sufficient number for commercial fishery since at least before 1971 (Heck 1987).

Blue crab are often caught by commercial and recreational fishers and represent a sizable proportion of the fishing industry. Although mating occurs in the areas near CCNPP, the females typically migrate down-Bay to a spawning and hatching area approximately 110 km (70 mi) south of CCNPP, where an appropriate salinity of approximately 23 to 28 parts per thousand occurs (Sandoz and Rogers 1944). Other recreationally and commercially important species are presented in Table 2-3, in approximate order of abundance. The finfish presented in this table commonly occur in the vicinity of the CCNPP and spend at least part of their life cycle in these waters.

Two Federally protected species, the shortnose sturgeon and the Atlantic loggerhead turtle, are known to occur in the vicinity of CCNPP. These are also protected under State of Maryland laws. The general location and habitat of these species are shown in Table 2-4. BGE researchers caught one shortnose sturgeon during trawl studies in the vicinity of the CCNPP in 197