NRC and Army Corps of Engineers Joint Public Meeting – Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3
On May 25, 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers held a joint public meeting/hearing to present their initial recommendation and solicit public comments following their release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on a proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3. The EIS project has been underway for two full years; I attended the initial meeting kicking off the effort in March 2008.
Since it was a gorgeous spring day and I managed to finish up work in time to escape DC before the height of rush hour, I took a “minor” detour and headed south on Route 4 rather than east on Route 50. 62 miles later, I stopped for a quick meal at the Solomons Island Pier and watched a few boats travel under the bridge between Calvert County and St. Mary’s county as the sun sank towards the Chesapeake Bay. At nearly 10:00 pm, after dozens of other speakers, I received my 3-5 minute comment slot. I briefly regretted that dinner stop and wished I had gone directly to the meeting site so I could have put my name higher up on the public comment list. It was a long drive home to Annapolis, but I guess it was worth it to both show my support and to see just how many others had taken the time to attend the meeting to share their positive thoughts and information.
Of course, there were the usual professional opposition representatives. Public Citizen sent a representative, Beyond Nuclear was there, and there was one member of a local opposition group. A couple of PhD oceanographers expressed some legitimate concerns about capturing good baseline water quality data before beginning construction and some concerns about the potential harm that can be caused by improperly contained runoff from a very large construction project near the shore of the Chesapeake Bay. One man from St. Mary’s county expressed concern about the traffic effects on that narrow bridge that I saw at dinner and worried about evacuation routes. That was about it for the negative comments.
Dozens of others spoke in favor of the project, its economic benefits, the importance of reliable electricity, the environmental superiority of nuclear over any other alternative, and the long record of safe operation for the currently existing units. Those supporters represented local government bodies, religious organizations, first responders, plant employees, plant neighbors with no direct association, the local community health officer, environmental conservation organizations, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the North American Young Generations in Nuclear, and Clean and Safe Energy (CASE).
There were several twenty somethings who talked about the plant’s importance for their future prosperity and its opportunity to supply clean power for electric automobiles and advanced gadgetry. An expectant mother shared her thoughts about the importance of new nuclear power plants for future generations and growing families. A large group of people representing trade unions who would be supplying some of the 4,000 plus skilled workers who would be building the plant populated the back row wearing high visibility tee shirts with an atomic symbol and a supportive message on the back.
I guess I really did not mind being one of the last speakers, it was heartwarming to hear the clear, well-considered messages of support.
Side Conversation With One Opposition Speaker
Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear’s lead spokesperson in nuclear reactor hazards and security concerns, spent his 8 minutes – no one gave him the gaff, but I timed his talk – trying to tell people that the NRC is not effectively protecting the public from the environmental hazard of leaks from existing reactors and should not be trusted to protect them from any harm from a new reactor. I was not surprised by his talk – Paul recognized me in the lobby and called me to his table to share a new press release on the NRC’s effort to prevent states from stepping into the business of forcing clean-ups at sites that have experienced a tritium leak.
We had a spirited hallway discussion about the lack of of any public health impact from those leaks. He tried to tell me that the Calvert Cliff draft EIS was flawed because the NRC had not fully considered the potential of wind in the waters off the Maryland shore because they used data collected off the shore of Georgia. I told him about my days becalmed off of that very shore during a DELMARVA peninsula circumnavigation sailing trip.
I also asked Paul bluntly why he spent so much time fighting nuclear on the “leak” issue when he did not spend any time fighting coal – with its designed environmental dumps called smoke stacks. I am paraphrasing his response because I did not have any recorder running at the time – “Because that is not what I get paid to do. If you want to pay me to protest coal, I will.” I thought that was an illuminating and surprisingly honest answer. Gunter, who is probably ten years older than I am, started his adult life as a protester at Seabrook nuclear power plant as a founding member of the Clamshell Alliance. Nearly thirty five years later, his full time job is still related to fighting nuclear energy. From his own biography posted at Beyond Nuclear, Gunter is “An environmental activist and energy policy analyst, he has been an ardent critic of atomic power development for more than 30 years.”
I wonder what qualifications you need for that line of work and who actually pays the bills. Gunter’s bio does not list any degrees and the Beyond Nuclear web site does not provide much information about its financial supporters. Helen Caldicott served as the founding president and Ed Asner serves as the honorary chairman. Ed Begley, John McEnroe, Bonnie Raitt, and Susan Sarandon appear in its list of launch partners.
Part of my curiosity about his funding stream is admittedly selfish. I am trying to figure out how to get into the opposite line of work – I really want to devote my full time effort to fight FOR nuclear energy. In the meantime, I need to leave now and get on the road for my day job.
Good post Rod. The way to support nuclear power is to attend public meetings. We live in a democracy and it is privilege to participate.
Several years ago I attended a public meeting for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3. The public support was inspiring. The speakers supporting the plant provided compelling personal accounts of how having Calvert Cliffs Unit 1&2 had benefited the community. Speakers against the project were from places like DC and reading canned diatribes.
Since Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 is not in my backyard, one of the things I was interested in was the reaction of the NRC regulators conducting the meetings. They were fair and gave both sides equal time. These people run meeting all over the country. How many times have they had to listen to Gunter say the same thing? When the local sheriff, hospital administrator, or school superintendent praise the power plant; it carries weight.
One deviation in the order of speakers was allowed by the NRC moderator. The county commissars were accused of corruption in no uncertain terms. One county commissar was allowed to answer those charges. He explained how Calvert Cliffs Unit 1&2 over 30 had turned the county from being one of the poorest to one that had the good schools, good libraries, a very good hospital, and good roads with some of the lowest property taxes in the state. Yes, the county commissars voted a 50% reduction of the property tax rate for 15 years for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3. He stated how much income that was. He also explained how much the county would get of 100% of nothing. If providing a stable tax base for his county for 60 years was his legacy, he would be proud of it.
Kit – (believe it or not, I guessed it was you before you added the comment to claim it)
Thank you. It is indeed a privilege to participate in democracy as well as to defend it. Public meetings are one way to remind people that democracy is not an annual, one time effort to cast a vote. It is a constant effort to think, share and contribute to the discussion and to give course corrections to the elected and appointed government employees who represent us and do the day to day work that is required to keep a complex nation running. We need the good people at the NRC and the Army Corps of Engineers to know that they do important work, that it should be done with care, and that it should be done on time and at a reasonably efficient cost.
(I put the fuzzy qualifier of “reasonably efficient” on that last because a focus on cost reduction often leads to a very inefficient choice of resources – like hiring an insufficient number of people to complete tasks under the faulty assumption that is all too prevalent in government management circles that people cost money but extra time does not. That is one of my pet peeves and one of many reasons for my decision to retire from government service several years before being told I had to leave due to high year tenure.)
I do have one minor quibble with your lead in comment “The way to support nuclear power is to attend public meetings.” I would have said “A way to support nuclear power is to attend public meetings.” There are many ways to support nuclear power including writing a blog and participating in the discussion on that blog. Doing an excellent job as an employee at a nuclear facility is another way to support the technology.
I am also not quite sure of your use of the word “commissar” versus “commissioner”. That particular word has strong associations – at least for me – with government officials in a far less free and democratic nation that no longer exists.
Finally – though I have no doubt that the commissioners you describe were doing what they thought was the best thing for the community by agreeing to the reduction in property tax rate, I wonder if they were a bit overmatched in the negotiation? Did they really have to go that low to attract the investment? Did the plant owner really have as many site choices as they said they did? Did they all have the same kind of advantages like existing plants, existing workforce, existing community support, and existing transmission corridors? I do not know the answers to those questions, but I believe that government officials are sometimes too willing to give away the store to big business and forget the impact of their property tax decisions on smaller businesses and individuals who are not given any opportunities for discounts.
The the word “commissar” was a mistake, I was referring to the elected representative of the county. He seems very capable of negotiating too. Constellation also has a choice of where to build the first plant of several plants it is planning.
Furthermore, the property tax rate will return to the normal rate about the time, Units 1&2 are being retired.
Just for the record, I do take offense when a public servant such as yourself does not understand that the lower rate for a large base reduces the property tax for everyone. Running productive jobs out of the community reduces increases the tax base for the remaining people who earn a living. I take offense being your first reaction is to question the ethics and motives of people.
Last post was mine.
Rod, if you set up a nonprofit institute to fight full time for nuclear energy, I’ll be a founding member! You’re a great writer, principled activist, and experienced technology operator. Can’t ask for a better set of qualifications.
@Laurence – thank you for the vote of support. I am thinking about ways to do something similar, but I would prefer to set up a tax paying organization that is not as restricted in its operation as a non-profit. My current home state has recently passed a law enabling a new structure called a “benefit corporation” that combines some of the traditional goals of non-profits with the goals of traditional corporations.
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/running_small_business/archives/2010/04/benefit_corp_bi.html
I am considering a reincorporation of AAE, perhaps with the thought that it could stand for Adams Atomic Evangelists. 🙂
Instead of club membership, participants could be owners with all of the rights and privileges that go along with ownership, including participation in the organization’s goals and missions and the opportunity for dividends and capital gains that also make you feel good about what you have accomplished.
I agree that the nuclear industry should start financially backing pro-nuke advocacy groups to counteract the misinformation and distraction techniques used by well funded anti groups. It would really be a game changer if there was an umbrella organization that helped support all of the great nuclear bloggers and activists, allowing us the time and resources to really make an impact. There are an incredible number of folks already spending their personal time dedicated to promoting nuclear out of true passion and using their own resources.
In the long run it would be one of the best investments the industry could make, considering that historically the intensity and time frame of regulation has been in direct proportion to public support or concern.
Active Public Support for Nuclear= More Nuclear Reactors in Less Time
Beyond nuclear has their 2009 annual report. They seem to be mostly funded by celebrities. Ed Asner and the others.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/beyond-nuclear-financials-and-funding.html