Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Combined License (COL) for 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

Unit 3 

Draft Report for Comment 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of New Reactors 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore 

Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 

NUREG-1936, Vol. 1
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS 

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

 U.S. Government Printing Office 

 Mail Stop SSOP 

 Washington, DC 20402B0001 

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 

 Telephone: 202-512-1800 

 Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002 

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows: 

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Administration 

 Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and 

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036B8002 

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC. 

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations 

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Combined License (COL) for 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

Unit 3 

Draft Report for Comment 

Manuscript Completed: March 2010 

Date Published: April 2010 

Division of Site and Environmental Review 

Office of New Reactors 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Regulatory Branch 

Operations Division 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore 

Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 

NUREG-1936, Vol. 1 
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 

Any party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. Comments 

may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please specify the 

report number NUREG-1936 in your comments and send them by the end of the 75-day 

comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of this draft. 

To submit comments: 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch 

Office of Administration 

Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Fax: (301) 492-3446 

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e-mail at CalvertCliffsCOLAEIS@nrc.gov 

For any additional information or copies of this draft, contact: 

Ms. Laura Quinn Ms. Stacey Imboden 

Office of New Reactors Office of New Reactors 

Mail Stop: T-7D30 Mail Stop T-7E18 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 2220 Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 2462 

Email: Laura.Quinn@nrc.gov Email: Stacey.Imboden@nrc.gov

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This NUREG references information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). There were no new information collection 

requirements in this NUREG. The existing information collections in the NUREG were 

previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0014; 

3150-0011; 3150-0021; 3150-0151; 3150-0008; 3150-0002; and 3150-0093. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting documents displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

NUREG-1936, Volume 1, has been 

reproduced from the best available copy. 
April 2010 iii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Abstract 

2 This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the 

3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The EIS has been prepared in 

4 response to an application submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by 

5 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC, on behalf of Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, and 

6 UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC, (collectively known as UniStar) for a combined 

7 construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL). UniStar also submitted a 

8 joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal 

9 Wetland in Maryland to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) and the Maryland 

10 Department of the Environment (MDE). The proposed actions related to the UniStar application 

11 are (1) NRC issuance of a COL for a new power reactor unit (Unit 3) at the Calvert Cliffs 

12 Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) in Calvert County, Maryland and (2) Corps permit action on a 

13 Department of the Army (DA) Individual Permit application to perform certain activities on the 

14 site. The Corps is participating with the NRC in preparing this EIS as a cooperating agency and 

15 participates collaboratively on the review team. 

16 This EIS includes the analysis by the NRC and Corps staff that considers and weighs the 

17 environmental impacts of constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site 

18 and at alternative sites and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

19 impacts. This EIS also addresses consultation for Federally listed species, cultural resources, 

20 and essential fish habitat (EFH). 

21 This EIS includes the evaluation of the proposed project’s impacts to waters of the United States 

22 pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

23 1899. The Corps will base its evaluation of the DA Individual Permit application on the 

24 requirements of Corps regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the 

25 Corps public interest review (PIR) process. 

26 After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed NRC action, the NRC staff’s 

27 preliminary recommendation to the Commission is that the COL be issued as requested. This 

28 recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the Environmental Report (ER), 

29 submitted by UniStar and responses to requests for additional information (RAI); (2) 

30 consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; 

31 (4) the staff’s consideration of comments related to the environmental review that were received 

32 during the public scoping process; and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including 

33 the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. The Corps permit decision 

34 will be made following issuance of the final EIS.

April 2010 v Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Contents 

2 Abstract.........................................................................................................................................iii

3 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................xxix

4 Abbreviations/Acronyms ......................................................................................................... xxxiii

5 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1-1

6 1.1 Background ..............................................................................................................1-2

7 1.1.1 Applications and Review ..............................................................................1-2

8 1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review .......................................................1-3

9 1.1.1.2 Corps Permit Application Review...................................................1-4

10 1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities .............................................................................1-6

11 1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies ..................................................................................1-6

12 1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews ............................................................................1-8

13 1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions.................................................................................1-8

14 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions....................................................1-9

15 1.3.1 NRC’s Proposed Action................................................................................1-9

16 1.3.2 The Corps’ Permit Action..............................................................................1-9

17 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions .....................................................................1-10

18 1.5 Compliance and Consultations...............................................................................1-12

19 1.6 Report Contents .....................................................................................................1-12

20 1.7 References.............................................................................................................1-13

21 2.0 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................2-1

22 2.1 Site Location.............................................................................................................2-1

23 2.2 Land Use..................................................................................................................2-1

24 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity.....................................................................................2-4

25 2.2.2 Transmission Line Corridors.........................................................................2-9

26 2.2.3 The Region.................................................................................................2-10

27 2.3 Water......................................................................................................................2-10

28 2.3.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................2-10

29 2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology ............................................................2-10

30 2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology...............................................................2-15

31 2.3.2 Water Use...................................................................................................2-17

32 2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use ......................................................................2-18
Draft NUREG-1936 vi April 2010 

1 2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use.........................................................................2-18

2 2.3.3 Water Quality..............................................................................................2-19

3 2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality .................................................................2-19

4 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality....................................................................2-21

5 2.3.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................2-21

6 2.4 Ecology...................................................................................................................2-22

7 2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology ................................................................2-22

8 2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity.....................................2-22

9 2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines................................2-28

10 2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats..................................2-28

11 2.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring .....................................................2-44

12 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology..........................................................................................2-44

13 2.4.2.1 Freshwater Habitats – Site and Vicinity .......................................2-45

14 2.4.2.2 Important Freshwater Species – Site and Vicnity ........................2-54

15 2.4.2.3 Non-Native and Nuisance Freshwater Species – Site and 

16 Vicinity .........................................................................................2-59

17 2.4.2.4 Estaurine Habitats – Site and Vicinity..........................................2-60

18 2.4.2.5 Important Estuarine Species – Site and Vicinity ..........................2-66

19 2.4.2.6 Non-Native and Nuisance Estuarine Species – Site and 

20 Vicinity .........................................................................................2-90

21 2.4.2.7 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines....................................2-91

22 2.4.2.8 Aquatic Monitoring .......................................................................2-92

23 2.5 Socioeconomics .....................................................................................................2-92

24 2.5.1 Demographics ............................................................................................2-94

25 2.5.1.1 Resident Population.....................................................................2-95

26 2.5.1.2 Transient Population....................................................................2-97

27 2.5.1.3 Agricultural, Seasonal and Migrant Labor....................................2-99

28 2.5.2 Community Characteristics.........................................................................2-99

29 2.5.2.1 Economy....................................................................................2-101

30 2.5.2.2 Taxes .........................................................................................2-103

31 2.5.2.3 Transportation............................................................................2-104

32 2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation.........................................................2-108

33 2.5.2.5 Housing......................................................................................2-109

34 2.5.2.6 Public Services ..........................................................................2-110

35 2.5.2.7 Education...................................................................................2-113

36 2.6 Environmental Justice ..........................................................................................2-115

37 2.6.1 Methodology.............................................................................................2-115

38 2.6.1.1 Minority Populations ..................................................................2-117
April 2010 vii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.6.1.2 Low- Income Populations ..........................................................2-118

2 2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach..............................................................................2-118

3 2.6.3 Subsistence and Communities with Unique Characteristics ....................2-120

4 2.6.4 Migrant Populations..................................................................................2-122

5 2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary ..............................................................2-123

6 2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources...........................................................................2-123

7 2.7.1 Cultural Background.................................................................................2-124

8 2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Proposed Unit 3 Site ...................2-124

9 2.7.3 Consultation..............................................................................................2-130

10 2.8 Geology................................................................................................................2-131

11 2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality.................................................................................2-135

12 2.9.1 Climate ...................................................................................................2-135

13 2.9.1.1 Wind...........................................................................................2-136

14 2.9.1.2 Temperature ..............................................................................2-137

15 2.9.1.3 Atmospheric Moisture ................................................................2-137

16 2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Stability .................................................................2-138

17 2.9.1.5 Severe Weather.........................................................................2-138

18 2.9.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................2-139

19 2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion............................................................................2-139

20 2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring ........................................................................2-142

21 2.10 Nonradiological Health .........................................................................................2-142

22 2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health ...............................................................2-143

23 2.10.1.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................2-143

24 2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries .................................................................2-143

25 2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents ......................................................................2-144

26 2.10.2 Noise ...................................................................................................2-145

27 2.10.3 Transportation ..........................................................................................2-145

28 2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields .............................................................................2-145

29 2.11 Radiological Environment.....................................................................................2-146

30 2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultations........................................................2-147

31 2.13 References...........................................................................................................2-148

32 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description ....................................................................................3-1

33 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout....................................................................3-1

34 3.2 Proposed Plant Structures .......................................................................................3-2
Draft NUREG-1936 viii April 2010 

1 3.2.1 Reactor Power Conversion System..............................................................3-4

2 3.2.2 Structures with a Major Plant-Environmental-Interface ................................3-5

3 3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ...........................................3-5

4 3.2.2.2 Cooling-Water System...................................................................3-8

5 3.2.2.3 Other Permanent Plant-Environment Interfacing Structures..........3-9

6 3.2.2.4 Other Temporary Plant-Environment Interfacing Structures........3-10

7 3.2.2.5 Power Transmission System .......................................................3-11

8 3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface........................................3-13

9 3.2.3.1 Power Block.................................................................................3-13

10 3.2.3.2 Pipelines ......................................................................................3-13

11 3.2.3.3 Wastewater Retention Basin........................................................3-13

12 3.2.3.4 Miscellaneous Buildings ..............................................................3-13

13 3.2.3.5 Parking.........................................................................................3-14

14 3.2.3.6 Laydown Areas ............................................................................3-14

15 3.2.3.7 Seal Well......................................................................................3-14

16 3.2.3.8 Desalination Plant........................................................................3-14

17 3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities...........................................................3-14

18 3.3.1 Major Activity Areas....................................................................................3-16

19 3.3.1.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage .........................................3-17

20 3.3.1.2 Power Block.................................................................................3-17

21 3.3.1.3 Cooling Tower..............................................................................3-17

22 3.3.1.4 Cooling-Water Intake Structures..................................................3-17

23 3.3.1.5 Fish-return System.......................................................................3-19

24 3.3.1.6 Discharge Structure .....................................................................3-21

25 3.3.1.7 Barge Facility ...............................................................................3-21

26 3.3.1.8 Construction Support and Laydown Areas ..................................3-25

27 3.3.1.9 Switchyard and Onsite Transmission Corridor.............................3-26

28 3.3.1.10 Roadways ....................................................................................3-26

29 3.3.1.11 Pipelines ......................................................................................3-26

30 3.3.1.12 Concrete Batch Plant...................................................................3-26

31 3.3.1.13 Parking.........................................................................................3-27

32 3.3.1.14 Miscellaneous Buildings ..............................................................3-27

33 3.3.1.15 Cranes and Crane Footings.........................................................3-27

34 3.3.2 Summary of Resource Parameters During Construction and 

35 Preconstruction...........................................................................................3-27

36 3.4 Operational Activities..............................................................................................3-28

37 3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes ..............................................................3-28

38 3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation.........................................3-29
April 2010 ix Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.4.2.1 Circulating Water System – Intakes, Discharges, Cooling 

2 Tower...........................................................................................3-29

3 3.4.2.2 Essential Service Water System..................................................3-30

4 3.4.2.3 Power Transmission System .......................................................3-30

5 3.4.2.4 Emergency Diesel Generators.....................................................3-30

6 3.4.3 Radioactive Waste Management System...................................................3-31

7 3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste Management System .........................3-31

8 3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Management System.....................3-32

9 3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System...........................3-32

10 3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems..................................................................3-33

11 3.4.4.1 Solid Waste Management............................................................3-33

12 3.4.4.2 Liquid Waste Management ..........................................................3-33

13 3.4.4.3 Gaseous Waste Management .....................................................3-34

14 3.4.4.4 Hazardous and Mixed Waste Management.................................3-35

15 3.4.5 Summary of Resource Parameters during Operation ................................3-35

16 3.5 References.............................................................................................................3-36

17 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site ......................................................................4-1

18 4.1 Land-Use Impacts ....................................................................................................4-4

19 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity.....................................................................................4-4

20 4.1.2 Transmission Line Corridors and Offsite Areas............................................4-6

21 4.2 Water-Related Impacts.............................................................................................4-7

22 4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations................................................................................4-8

23 4.2.2 Water Use Impacts.......................................................................................4-8

24 4.2.2.1 Surface Water Use Impacts...........................................................4-9

25 4.2.2.2 Groundwater Use Impacts ...........................................................4-10

26 4.2.3 Water Quality Impacts ................................................................................4-11

27 4.2.3.1 Surface Water Quality Impacts ....................................................4-11

28 4.2.3.2 Groundwater Quality Impacts ......................................................4-12

29 4.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................4-13

30 4.3 Ecological Impacts .................................................................................................4-13

31 4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts.................................................................4-13

32 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity.....................................4-14

33 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines................................4-20

34 4.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats..................................4-21

35 4.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring...................................................................4-34

36 4.3.1.5 Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial and Wetland Resources .......4-34

37 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts..........................................................................................4-35
Draft NUREG-1936 x April 2010 

1 4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity .........................................4-35

2 4.3.2.2 Important Aquatic Species...........................................................4-42

3 4.3.2.3 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines....................................4-47

4 4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring .......................................................................4-47

5 4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts to Aquatic Resources.................................4-47

6 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts .........................................................................................4-49

7 4.4.1 Physical Impacts.........................................................................................4-50

8 4.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public ......................................................4-50

9 4.4.1.2 Noise............................................................................................4-51

10 4.4.1.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................4-51

11 4.4.1.4 Buildings ......................................................................................4-52

12 4.4.1.5 Transportation..............................................................................4-52

13 4.4.1.6 Aesthetics ....................................................................................4-53

14 4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts......................................................4-53

15 4.4.2 Demography...............................................................................................4-54

16 4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community........................................................4-55

17 4.4.3.1 Economy......................................................................................4-55

18 4.4.3.2 Taxes ...........................................................................................4-56

19 4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community.....................4-58

20 4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts..........................................4-58

21 4.4.4.1 Transportation..............................................................................4-58

22 4.4.4.2 Recreation ...................................................................................4-60

23 4.4.4.3 Housing........................................................................................4-60

24 4.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................4-62

25 4.4.4.5 Education.....................................................................................4-64

26 4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services Impacts.....4-65

27 4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts .........................................................4-65

28 4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts...............................................................................4-66

29 4.5.1 Health Impacts............................................................................................4-67

30 4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts..........................................................4-68

31 4.5.2.1 Soil...............................................................................................4-68

32 4.5.2.2 Water ...........................................................................................4-69

33 4.5.2.3 Air ................................................................................................4-69

34 4.5.2.4 Noise............................................................................................4-70

35 4.5.2.5 Summary of Physical and Environmental Impacts.......................4-70

36 4.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts..............................................................................4-70

37 4.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions ..........................................................4-71

38 4.5.4.1 Summary of Physical and Environmental Impacts.......................4-71 
April 2010 xi Draft NUREG-1936 

1 4.5.4.2 High-Density Communities ..........................................................4-71

2 4.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts ..............................................4-71 

3 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources.............................................................................4-72

4 4.6.1 Summary of Impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources ...........................4-74

5 4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts..................................................................4-76

6 4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ...............................................4-76

7 4.7.2 Transportation ............................................................................................4-78

8 4.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts..................................4-79

9 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts..............................................................................4-79

10 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health .................................................................4-80

11 4.8.1.1 Public Health................................................................................4-80

12 4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health.........................................................4-80

13 4.8.1.3 Summary of Public and Construction Worker Health Impacts.....4-81

14 4.8.2 Noise Impacts.............................................................................................4-81

15 4.8.3 Transporting Construction Materials and Personnel to the Proposed 

16 Site .....................................................................................................4-83

17 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts .............................................4-85

18 4.9 Radiological Exposure to Construction Workers....................................................4-85

19 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures........................................................................4-86

20 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents............................................4-86

21 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents.................................................4-87

22 4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers...........................................................4-87

23 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts...................................................4-88

24 4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts...............................................................................4-88

25 4.10.1 Impacts to Land..........................................................................................4-88

26 4.10.2 Impacts to Water ........................................................................................4-89

27 4.10.3 Impacts to Air..............................................................................................4-89

28 4.10.4 Summary of Nonradiological Waste Impacts..............................................4-90

29 4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction and 

30 Preconstruction ......................................................................................................4-91

31 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts .........................................................................4-91

32 4.13 References.............................................................................................................4-97

33 5.0 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site ..............................................................5-1

34 5.1 Land-Use Impacts ....................................................................................................5-1
Draft NUREG-1936 xii April 2010 

1 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity.....................................................................................5-2

2 5.1.2 Transmission Line Corridors and Offsite Areas............................................5-2

3 5.2 Water-Related Impacts.............................................................................................5-2

4 5.2.1 Hydrological Alterations................................................................................5-3

5 5.2.2 Water Use Impacts.......................................................................................5-4

6 5.2.2.1 Surface Water Use Impacts...........................................................5-4

7 5.2.2.2 Groundwater Use Impacts .............................................................5-5

8 5.2.3 Water Quality Impacts ..................................................................................5-5

9 5.2.3.1 Surface Water Quality Impacts ......................................................5-5

10 5.2.3.2 Groundwater Quality Impacts ........................................................5-7

11 5.2.4 Water Monitoring ..........................................................................................5-7

12 5.3 Ecological Impacts ...................................................................................................5-8

13 5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts...................................................................5-8

14 5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity.......................................5-8

15 5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Line Corridors....................5-9

16 5.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitat ...................................5-11

17 5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring...................................................................5-13

18 5.3.1.5 Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial Resources.............................5-13

19 5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts..........................................................................................5-14

20 5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and the Vicinity ...................................5-14

21 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Line Corridor........................5-24

22 5.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species...........................................................5-24

23 5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring .......................................................................5-29

24 5.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts to Aquatic Resources.................................5-29

25 5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts .........................................................................................5-29

26 5.4.1 Physical Impacts.........................................................................................5-30

27 5.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public ......................................................5-30

28 5.4.1.2 Buildings ......................................................................................5-31

29 5.4.1.3 Roads ..........................................................................................5-31

30 5.4.1.4 Aesthetics ....................................................................................5-31

31 5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts......................................................5-32

32 5.4.2 Demography...............................................................................................5-32

33 5.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community .........................................................5-33

34 5.4.3.1 Economy......................................................................................5-33

35 5.4.3.2 Taxes ...........................................................................................5-34

36 5.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts to the Community......................5-36

37 5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services .....................................................5-36
April 2010 xiii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 5.4.4.1 Transportation..............................................................................5-36

2 5.4.4.2 Recreation ...................................................................................5-37

3 5.4.4.3 Housing........................................................................................5-37

4 5.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................5-38

5 5.4.4.5 Education.....................................................................................5-39

6 5.4.4.6 Summary of Impacts to Infrastructure and Community 

7 Services.......................................................................................5-39

8 5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts .........................................................5-40

9 5.5 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................5-40

10 5.5.1 Health Impacts............................................................................................5-40

11 5.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts..........................................................5-41

12 5.5.2.1 Soil...............................................................................................5-41

13 5.5.2.2 Water ...........................................................................................5-41

14 5.5.2.3 Air ................................................................................................5-42

15 5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts..............................................................................5-42

16 5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions ..........................................................5-43

17 5.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts ..............................................5-43

18 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts from Operation........................................5-43

19 5.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts..................................................................5-45

20 5.7.1 Cooling Tower Impacts...............................................................................5-45

21 5.7.2 Air Quality...................................................................................................5-46

22 5.7.3 Transmission Line Impacts.........................................................................5-49

23 5.7.4 Summary of Impacts to Air Quality .............................................................5-49

24 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts..............................................................................5-49

25 5.8.1 Etiological Agents.......................................................................................5-50

26 5.8.2 Noise .....................................................................................................5-51

27 5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields .....................................................5-52

28 5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields..................................................5-52

29 5.8.5 Occupational Health ...................................................................................5-53

30 5.8.6 Transporting Operations Personnel to the Proposed Site ..........................5-54

31 5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts .............................................5-55

32 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations...........................................................5-55

33 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways....................................................................................5-56

34 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public ................................................5-58
Draft NUREG-1936 xiv April 2010 

1 5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ...............................................................5-58

2 5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway ..........................................................5-60

3 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public ..............................................................5-61

4 5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual......................................................5-61

5 5.9.3.2 Population Dose ..........................................................................5-63

6 5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public.......5-64

7 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers .................................................................5-64

8 5.9.5 Doses to Biota Other than Humans............................................................5-65

9 5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ...............................................................5-65

10 5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway ..........................................................5-66

11 5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Non-Human Biota Doses ............................5-66

12 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring ..............................................................................5-67

13 5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts...............................................................................5-68

14 5.10.1 Impacts to Land..........................................................................................5-68

15 5.10.2 Impacts to Water ........................................................................................5-69

16 5.10.3 Impacts to Air..............................................................................................5-70

17 5.10.4 Mixed Waste Impacts .................................................................................5-70

18 5.10.5 Summary of Nonradiological Impacts.........................................................5-70

19 5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents ....................................................5-71

20 5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents ..............................................................................5-73

21 5.11.1.1 Summary of DBA Impacts............................................................5-75

22 5.11.2 Severe Accidents........................................................................................5-75

23 5.11.2.1 Air Pathway..................................................................................5-77

24 5.11.2.2 Surface Water Pathways .............................................................5-82

25 5.11.2.3 Groundwater Pathway .................................................................5-83

26 5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives .....................................................5-84

27 5.11.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts..................................................5-85

28 5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation .....................5-86

29 5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts...........................................................................5-90

30 5.14 References.............................................................................................................5-93

31 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning ..........................................................6-1

32 6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management..................................................6-1

33 6.1.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................6-8

34 6.1.2 Water Use.....................................................................................................6-9

35 6.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts.......................................................................................6-9
April 2010 xv Draft NUREG-1936 

1 6.1.4 Chemical Effluents......................................................................................6-10

2 6.1.5 Radiological Effluents.................................................................................6-11

3 6.1.6 Radiological Wastes...................................................................................6-13

4 6.1.7 Occupational Dose .....................................................................................6-16

5 6.1.8 Transportation ............................................................................................6-16

6 6.1.9 Conclusions................................................................................................6-17

7 6.2 Transportation Impacts...........................................................................................6-17

8 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel............................................................6-19

9 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions .......................................................................6-19

10 6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents.......................6-25

11 6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents..................6-25

12 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel......................................................................6-27

13 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions .......................................................................6-28

14 6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents ...............................................6-34

15 6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent Fuel Shipments........................6-37

16 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste .........................................................6-38 

17 6.2.4 Conclusions................................................................................................6-40

18 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts .....................................................................................6-41

19 6.4 References.............................................................................................................6-42

20 7.0 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................................................7-1

21 7.1 Land Use..................................................................................................................7-7

22 7.2 Water Use and Quality .............................................................................................7-9

23 7.2.1 Surface Water Use Impacts..........................................................................7-9

24 7.2.2 Groundwater Use Impacts..........................................................................7-10

25 7.2.3 Surface Water Quality Impacts...................................................................7-11

26 7.2.4 Groundwater Quality Impacts.....................................................................7-12

27 7.3 Ecology...................................................................................................................7-14

28 7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands...............................................................7-14

29 7.3.1.1 Wildlife Habitat.............................................................................7-14

30 7.3.1.2 Wetlands......................................................................................7-16

31 7.3.1.3 Important Species........................................................................7-17

32 7.3.1.4 Summary of Terrestrial Ecology and Wetland Impacts................7-20

33 7.3.2 Aquatic Ecology..........................................................................................7-21

34 7.3.2.1 Freshwater Habitats and Fauna...................................................7-22

35 7.3.2.2 Estuarine Habitats and Fauna .....................................................7-24
Draft NUREG-1936 xvi April 2010 

1 7.3.2.3 Summary of Aquatic Ecology Impacts .........................................7-28

2 7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice..........................................................7-29

3 7.4.1 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................7-29

4 7.4.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................................7-31

5 7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources.............................................................................7-32

6 7.6 Air Quality...............................................................................................................7-33

7 7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants .......................................................................................7-33

8 7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................7-34 

9 7.6.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts .................................................................7-36 

10 7.7 Nonradiological Health ...........................................................................................7-36

11 7.8 Radiological Health Impacts of Normal Operation .................................................7-38

12 7.9 Postulated Accidents..............................................................................................7-39

13 7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning................................................7-40

14 7.10.1 Fuel Cycle...................................................................................................7-40

15 7.10.2 Transportation ............................................................................................7-41

16 7.10.3 Decommissioning .......................................................................................7-43

17 7.11 Conclusions............................................................................................................7-43

18 7.12 References.............................................................................................................7-45

19 8.0 Need for Power.................................................................................................................8-1

20 8.1 Description of Power System ...................................................................................8-2

21 8.2 Power Demand.........................................................................................................8-3

22 8.3 Power Supply ...........................................................................................................8-3

23 8.4 Assessment of Need for Power................................................................................8-5

24 8.4.1 Grant of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Unit 3 ........8-5

25 8.4.2 Maryland Public Service Commission Electric Supply Adequacy 

26 Report .......................................................................................................8-6

27 8.4.3 Reliability First Corporation Reserve Margin Projections .............................8-7

28 8.4.4 Maryland Energy Administration...................................................................8-7

29 8.5 NRC Staff Conclusions.............................................................................................8-8

30 8.6 References...............................................................................................................8-9

31 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives .............................................................................9-1

32 9.1 No-Action Alternative................................................................................................9-2

33 9.2 Energy Alternatives ..................................................................................................9-3
April 2010 xvii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity..................................9-3

2 9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity ........................................9-7

3 9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation ...................................................................9-8

4 9.2.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation......................................................9-14

5 9.2.3 Other Alternatives.......................................................................................9-20

6 9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Generation ....................................................................9-20

7 9.2.3.2 Wind Power .................................................................................9-20

8 9.2.3.3 Solar Power .................................................................................9-22

9 9.2.3.4 Hydropower .................................................................................9-23

10 9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy......................................................................9-23

11 9.2.3.6 Wood Waste ................................................................................9-24

12 9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste .................................................................9-24

13 9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels......................................................9-25

14 9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells.....................................................................................9-25

15 9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives........................................................................9-26

16 9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Energy Alternatives............................................9-28

17 9.3 Alternative Sites .....................................................................................................9-30

18 9.3.1 Alternative Site Selection Process..............................................................9-30

19 9.3.1.1 Selection of Region of Interest.....................................................9-31

20 9.3.1.2 UniStar’s Site Selection Process .................................................9-31

21 9.3.2 NRC/Corps Alternative Site Evaluation ......................................................9-35

22 9.3.3 Bainbridge Naval Training Center ..............................................................9-38

23 9.3.3.1 Land Use .....................................................................................9-41

24 9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources .............................................9-49

25 9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources.......................................................................9-57

26 9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics...........................................................................9-65

27 9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice..................................................................9-70

28 9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................9-73

29 9.3.3.8 Air Quality ....................................................................................9-74

30 9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts ...................................................9-75

31 9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations.................................9-77

32 9.3.3.11 Postulated Accidents ...................................................................9-78

33 9.3.4 Eastalco Site...............................................................................................9-79

34 9.3.4.1 Land Use .....................................................................................9-83

35 9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality.................................................................9-85

36 9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources .............................................9-88

37 9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources.......................................................................9-97

38 9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics.........................................................................9-102
Draft NUREG-1936 xviii April 2010 

1 9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice................................................................9-108

2 9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................9-111

3 9.3.4.8 Air Quality ..................................................................................9-112

4 9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts .................................................9-113

5 9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations...............................9-115

6 9.3.4.11 Postulated Accidents .................................................................9-115

7 9.3.5 Former Thiokol Brownfield Site ................................................................9-116

8 9.3.5.1 Land Use ...................................................................................9-117

9 9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality...............................................................9-124

10 9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ...........................................9-127

11 9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources.....................................................................9-134

12 9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics.........................................................................9-142

13 9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice................................................................9-147

14 9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................9-148

15 9.3.5.8 Air Quality ..................................................................................9-152

16 9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts .................................................9-152

17 9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations...............................9-154

18 9.3.5.11 Postulated Accidents .................................................................9-155

19 9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

20 Sites ...................................................................................................9-156

21 9.3.6.1 Comparison of Propose Site and Alternative Site Cumulative 

22 Impacts ......................................................................................9-157

23 9.3.6.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites...............................................9-158

24 9.3.6.3 Obviously Superior Sites............................................................9-161

25 9.4 System Design Alternatives .................................................................................9-161

26 9.4.1 Heat Dissipation Systems.........................................................................9-162

27 9.4.1.1 Once-Through Cooling ..............................................................9-162

28 9.4.1.2 Wet Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers without Plume 

29 Abatement .................................................................................9-162

30 9.4.1.3 Mechanical Draft with Plume Abatement...................................9-163

31 9.4.1.4 Combination Wet-Dry Mechanical Draft Cooling .......................9-163

32 9.4.1.5 Natural Draft Cooling Towers.....................................................9-163

33 9.4.1.6 Dry Cooling Towers ...................................................................9-164

34 9.4.1.7 Cooling Pond and Spray Ponds.................................................9-164

35 9.4.2 Intake and Discharge Systems.................................................................9-164

36 9.4.2.1 Intake Alternatives .....................................................................9-164

37 9.4.2.2 Discharge Alternatives...............................................................9-165

38 9.4.3 Water Supplies .........................................................................................9-165

39 9.4.4 Water Treatment.......................................................................................9-166
April 2010 xix Draft NUREG-1936 

1 9.4.5 Summary of System Design Alternatives .................................................9-166

2 9.5 References...........................................................................................................9-166

3 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................10-1

4 10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action .............................................................................10-4

5 10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts........................................................10-4

6 10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and 

7 Preconstruction Activities ...........................................................................10-5

8 10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation .......................................10-9

9 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-term Productivity of the 

10 Human Environment.............................................................................................10-13

11 10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...................................10-14

12 10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources ..................................................10-14

13 10.4.1.1 Land Use ...................................................................................10-14

14 10.4.1.2 Water Use..................................................................................10-14

15 10.4.1.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Biota......................................................10-15

16 10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................10-15

17 10.4.1.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................10-15

18 10.4.1.6 Air and Water.............................................................................10-15

19 10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................................10-16

20 10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .....................................................................10-16

21 10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance............................................................................................10-17

22 10.6.1 Benefits ...................................................................................................10-20

23 10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits ........................................................................10-20

24 10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits.......................................................................10-21

25 10.6.2 Costs ...................................................................................................10-22

26 10.6.2.1 Internal Costs.............................................................................10-24

27 10.6.2.2 External Costs ...........................................................................10-27

28 10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs ...............................................................10-28

29 10.7 NRC Staff Recommendation................................................................................10-29

30 10.8 References...........................................................................................................10-29

31 Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement ........................................ A-1

32 Appendix B – Organizations Contacted .................................................................................... B-1

33 Appendix C – Chronology of NRC and Corps........................................................................... C-1

34 Appendix D – Scoping Comments and Responses .................................................................. D-1

35 Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses .................. E-1
Draft NUREG-1936 xx April 2010 

1 Appendix F – Key Consultation Correspondence ......................................................................F-1

2 Appendix G – Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment .........................G-1

3 Appendix H – Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications......................................................... H-1

4 Appendix I – Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives.................................................................I-1

5 Appendix J – UniStar’s Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) 

6 and Onsite Alternatives Analysis......................................................................................J-1

7 Appendix K – UniStar’s Phase I Mitigation Plan Summary for Wetlands and Stream 

8 Impacts............................................................................................................................ K-1

9 Appendix L – Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a 1000-MW(e) Reference Reactor.......L-1

10 Appendix M – Supplemental Terrestrial Ecology Information ...................................................M-1
April 2010 xxi Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Figures 

2 2-1 Calvert Cliffs Site and Proposed New Plant Layout.........................................................2-2

3 2-2 The Calvert Cliffs Site and the 50-mi Region...................................................................2-3

4 2-3 Calvert Cliffs Site Map .....................................................................................................2-5

5 2-4 Land Use on the Calvert Cliffs Site..................................................................................2-6

6 2-5 Land-Use Classification Within 8 mi of the Calvert Cliffs Site..........................................2-7

7 2-6 Major Public and Trust Lands in the 50-mi Region........................................................2-11

8 2-7 Maryland Portion of Chesapeake Bay Watershed.........................................................2-12

9 2-8 Watersheds and Proposed Unit 3 Location at the Calvert Cliffs Site.............................2-13

10 2-9 Major Aquifers Beneath the Calvert Cliffs Site...............................................................2-15

11 2-10 Plant Community ..........................................................................................................2-23

12 2-11 FIDS Habitat within Calvert County, Maryland ..............................................................2-35

13 2-12 Calvert Cliffs Wetland Delineation Area.........................................................................2-39

14 2-13 Vicinity Wetlands in Calvert County, Maryland..............................................................2-43

15 2-14 Population within the 50-mi Radius of Proposed Unit 3 by 10-mi Increments 

16 and Direction .................................................................................................................2-96

17 2-15 Highways and Major Roads within Approximately 10 mi of the Proposed Calvert 

18 Cliffs Site .....................................................................................................................2-107 

19 2-16 Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000.......................2-119

20 2-17 Distribution of the Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 ...........................2-121

21 2-18 Physiographic Map of Maryland and Surrounding Area .............................................2-133

22 2-19 Stratigraphic Column for the Calvert Cliffs Site ...........................................................2-134

23 3-1 Calvert Cliffs Site and Layout of Proposed Unit 3............................................................3-3

24 3-2 Calvert Cliffs Site with Existing Units 1 and 2 at Left and Superimposed Illustration 

25 of Proposed Unit 3 at Right, Looking to the Southeast....................................................3-4

26 3-3 Simplified Flow Diagram of the Reactor Power Conversion System...............................3-6

27 3-4 Grid Overlay of the Calvert Cliffs Site Layout Showing Major Structure and Activity 

28 Areas ...............................................................................................................................3-7

29 3-5 Existing Transmission System to Support Operation of Proposed Unit 3......................3-12

30 3-6 Site Plan at Unit 3 Intake Structure...............................................................................3-18

31 3-7 Fish-return System ........................................................................................................3-20

32 3-8 Discharge Outfall Details ...............................................................................................3-22

33 3-9 Proposed Restoration of Barge Slip ..............................................................................3-23

34 3-10 Modifications at Existing Barge Unloading Facility ........................................................3-24
Draft NUREG-1936 xxii April 2010 

1 4-1 Locations of Impacts within Vegetation Cover Types of the Calvert Cliffs Site .............4-16

2 4-2 Proposed Mitigation Actions on the Calvert Cliffs Site...................................................4-18

3 4-3 Location and Extent of Non-tidal Wetlands of the Calvert Cliffs Site.............................4-29

4 4-4 Proposed Wetland and Stream Mitigation Actions on the Calvert Cliffs Site.................4-33

5 5-1 Exposure Pathways to Man...........................................................................................5-57

6 5-2 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man...............................................................5-59

7 6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option..................................................................6-6

8 6-2 Illustration of Truck Stop Model .....................................................................................6-31

9 9-1 Locations of UniStar’s Candidate Areas in Maryland ....................................................9-33

10 9-2 Locations of Alternative Sites and Proposed Site..........................................................9-36

11 9-3 Site Location of the Bainbridge Naval Training Center..................................................9-42

12 9-4 Bainbridge Naval Training Center Site and Surrounding Area ......................................9-43

13 9-5 Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

14 Bainbridge Site ..............................................................................................................9-71

15 9-6 Distribution of Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

16 Bainbridge Site ..............................................................................................................9-72

17 9-7 Eastalco Site Location ...................................................................................................9-80

18 9-8 Eastalco Site and Surrounding Area..............................................................................9-81

19 9-9 Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

20 Eastalco Site................................................................................................................9-109

21 9-10 Distribution of Aggregate Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

22 Eastalco Site................................................................................................................9-110

23 9-11 Thiokol Site Location ...................................................................................................9-121

24 9-12 Thiokol Site and Surrounding Area..............................................................................9-122

25 9-13 Distribution and Abundance of Wetlands Documented by the National Wetlands 

26 Inventory as Occurring On and Around the Thiokol Site .............................................9-129

27 9-14 Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

28 Thiokol Site..................................................................................................................9-149

29 9-15 Distribution of Aggregate Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

30 Thiokol Site..................................................................................................................9-150

31 
April 2010 xxiii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Tables 

2 2-1 Important Species Identified as Known or Likely to Occur on the Calvert Cliffs Site.....2-29

3 2-2 Calvert Cliffs Site Delineated Wetland Summary Table ................................................2-40

4 2-3 Important Freshwater Species at the Calvert Cliffs Site ................................................2-55

5 2-4 Important Estuarine Species that May Occur in Chesapeake Bay Near the Calvert 

6 Cliffs Site .......................................................................................................................2-67

7 2-5 Total Population for Counties within or partially within the 50-mi Radius of CCNPP 

8 in 2000 and 2006...........................................................................................................2-93

9 2-6 Distribution of Current Calvert Cliffs Site Employees by County of Residence in 

10 2006...............................................................................................................................2-94

11 2-7 Select Demographic Characteristics for the Resident Population in Calvert and 

12 St. Mary’s Counties .......................................................................................................2-97

13 2-8 Projection of the Resident Population for Geographic Areas within a 50-mi Radius 

14 of the Proposed Unit 3 Site by 10-mi Increments from 2000 to 2060............................2-98

15 2-9 Projected Population Growth in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties and Maryland 

16 from 2000-2030 .............................................................................................................2-99

17 2-10 Transient Population in the Calvert Cliffs Site Vicinity in 2000 ......................................2-99

18 2-11 Employment by Class and Occupation in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties and 

19 Maryland 2006.............................................................................................................2-101

20 2-12 Total and Per Capita Income in 2005 ..........................................................................2-102

21 2-13 Sales & Use, Income, and Property Tax Rates (%) for Maryland and Calvert and 

22 St. Mary’s Counties in 2007.........................................................................................2-103

23 2-14 Revenues by Major Category for the State of Maryland and Calvert and St. Mary’s 

24 Counties in 2007..........................................................................................................2-105

25 2-15 Recreational Acreage Needed in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties to Meet Goal 

26 from 2005-2020 ...........................................................................................................2-109

27 2-16 Number of Housing Units in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties in 2006 ........................2-110

28 2-17 Police Activity Levels in 2005 and 2006 ......................................................................2-111

29 2-18 Number of Fire, EMS, and Rescue Calls/Responses in 2006 and 2007.....................2-112

30 2-19 Public and Private School Enrollment in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties in the 

31 2005-06 School Year...................................................................................................2-114

32 2-20 Regional Minority and Low-Income Populations by Census Block Analysis Results ..2-118

33 2-21 Low Income Census Block Groups in 2000.................................................................2-120

34 2-22 Calvert Cliffs Archaeological Sites Identified - Phase I/II Investigations......................2-128

35 2-23 Calvert Cliffs Architectural Structures Identified - Phase I/II Investigations .................2-129
Draft NUREG-1936 xxiv April 2010 

1 2-24 Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for the Nearest 

2 Residence for Evaluation of Normal Effluents .............................................................2-140

3 2-25 Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for the Nearest 

4 Vegetable Gardens for Evaluation of Normal Effluents ...............................................2-141

5 2-26 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Calvert Cliffs Design Basis Accident 

6 Calculations .................................................................................................................2-141

7 3-1 Descriptions and Examples of Activities Associated with Building Proposed Unit 3 .....3-15

8 3-2 Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Building Proposed Unit 3 .........3-27

9 3-3 Resource Parameters During Operation .......................................................................3-35

10 4-1 Areal Extent of Disturbance to Cover Types on the Calvert Cliffs Site..........................4-15

11 4-2 FIDS Habitat Impact Table ............................................................................................4-26

12 4-3 Areal Extent of Impacts to Non-tidal Wetlands of the Calvert Cliffs Site........................4-28

13 4-4 UniStar Proposed Wetland Mitigation Actions within the Calvert Cliffs Site ..................4-32

14 4-5 Potential Peak Increase in Population During Peak Construction and 

15 Preconstruction Activities of Proposed Unit 3................................................................4-55

16 4-6 Proposed Unit 3 Direct and Indirect Employment During Construction and 

17 Preconstruction Activities from 2011–2016 ...................................................................4-56

18 4-7 Expected Increase in Police and Fire Services Related to Proposed Unit 3 .................4-63

19 4-8 Worst Year (Year Two) Annual Construction Emissions (Tons/yr)................................4-77

20 4-9 Estimated Impacts of Transporting Workers and Materials to and from the 

21 Proposed Unit 3 Site......................................................................................................4-85

22 4-10 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by UniStar to Limit Adverse 

23 Impacts When Building Proposed Unit 3 .......................................................................4-92

24 4-11 Summary of Impacts from Construction of Proposed Unit 3..........................................4-95

25 5-1 Estimated Impingement and Mortality at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and Projected 

26 Values for Proposed Unit 3............................................................................................5-19

27 5-2 Estimated Entrainment at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 for March 2006 through 

28 September 2007 and Projected Values for Proposed Unit 3.........................................5-26

29 5-3 Occurrence of Important Fish Species in Impingement Samples Collected at 

30 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995......................................................................5-28

31 5-4 Potential Increase in Resident Population Resulting from Operating Proposed 

32 Unit 3 .............................................................................................................................5-33

33 5-5 Regulated Sources Emissions.......................................................................................5-47

34 5-6 Circulating Water Supply System Cooling Tower Toxic Air Pollutant Emission 

35 Rates ............................................................................................................................5-48

36 5-7 Estimated Impacts of Transporting Workers to and from the Proposed Unit 3 Site ......5-55

37 5-8 Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases 

38 from Calvert Cliffs Proposed Unit 3 ...............................................................................5-60
April 2010 xxv Draft NUREG-1936 

1 5-9 Doses to the MEI from Gaseous Effluent Pathway for Unit 3........................................5-61

2 5-10 Comparisons of MEI Annual Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents 

3 to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Design Objectives.........................................................5-62

4 5-11 Comparison of Doses to 40 CFR Part 190 ....................................................................5-63

5 5-12 Biota Doses for Proposed Unit 3 ...................................................................................5-66

6 5-13 Comparison of Biota Doses from the Proposed Unit 3 to Relevant Guidelines for 

7 Biota Protection .............................................................................................................5-67

8 5-14 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Calvert Cliffs Site DBA Calculations .....................5-74

9 5-15 DBA Doses for a U.S. EPR Reactor..............................................................................5-75

10 5-16 Environmental Risks from an U.S. EPR Reactor Severe Accident at the Calvert 

11 Cliffs Site .......................................................................................................................5-78

12 5-17 Comparison of Environmental Risks for an U.S. EPR Reactor at the Calvert Cliffs 

13 Site with Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in 

14 NUREG-1150 ................................................................................................................5-79

15 5-18 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents for an U.S. EPR 

16 Reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Site with Risks for Current Plants from Operating 

17 License Renewal Reviews, including CCNPP Units 1 and 2.........................................5-80

18 5-19 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by UniStar to Limit Adverse 

19 Impacts During Operation..............................................................................................5-86

20 5-20 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Proposed Unit 3 Site ...........................5-90

21 6-1 Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental 

22 Data .................................................................................................................................6-2

23 6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources ......6-13

24 6-3 Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and the 

25 U.S. EPR .......................................................................................................................6-20

26 6-4 RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments...............................6-21

27 6-5 Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel 

28 to the Calvert Cliffs Site and Alternative Sites ...............................................................6-22

29 6-6 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the Calvert Cliffs Site 

30 and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference LWR...................................................6-26

31 6-7 Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the Calvert Cliffs Site and 

32 Alternative Sites to the Geologic HLW Repository at Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel 

33 Disposal Facility.............................................................................................................6-29

34 6-8 RADTRAN 5.6 Normal Exposure Parameters...............................................................6-30

35 6-9 Normal Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from Shipping 

36 Spent Fuel from the Calvert Cliffs Site and Alternative Sites to the Geologic HLW 

37 Repository at Yucca Mountain.......................................................................................6-32
Draft NUREG-1936 xxvi April 2010 

1 6-10 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for 

2 the U.S. EPR .................................................................................................................6-35

3 6-11 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for an U.S. EPR Reactor at 

4 the Calvert Cliffs Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference 1100-MW(e) 

5 LWR Net Electrical Generation......................................................................................6-37

6 6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the Calvert Cliffs Site 

7 and Alternative Sites to the Geologic HLW Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

8 Normalized to Reference LWR......................................................................................6-38

9 6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the Calvert Cliffs Site and 

10 Alternative Sites.............................................................................................................6-39

11 6-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the Calvert Cliffs 

12 Site ................................................................................................................................6-40

13 7-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

14 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis ...........................................................................7-3

15 7-2 Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates ...............................................7-35

16 7-3 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

17 Proposed Unit 3.............................................................................................................7-44

18 9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation..........................9-15

19 9-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Power Generation ..............9-19

20 9-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources ....................9-27

21 9-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New 

22 Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural Gas-Fired Generating Units and a Combination 

23 of Alternatives................................................................................................................9-28

24 9-5 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives...............................9-29

25 9-6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

26 Considered in the Bainbridge Site Cumulative Analysis................................................9-39

27 9-7 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species that Occur in Cecil County and May 

28 Occur on the Bainbridge Site or in the Immediate Vicinity.............................................9-50

29 9-8 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

30 Considered in the Eastalco Site Cumulative Analysis ...................................................9-82

31 9-9 State-Listed Terrestrial Species that Occur in Frederick County and May Occur on 

32 the Eastalco Site or in the Immediate Vicinity ...............................................................9-90

33 9-10 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

34 Considered in the Thiokol Site Cumulative Analysis ...................................................9-118

35 9-11 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species that Occur in St. Mary’s County and 

36 May Occur on the Thiokol Site or in the Immediate Vicinity ........................................9-130

37 9-12 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites ................9-159
April 2010 xxvii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

2 Preconstruction Activities ..............................................................................................10-6

3 10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation......................................10-9

4 10-3 Summary of Benefits of the Proposed Action..............................................................10-19

5 10-4 Summary of Costs of Preconstruction, Construction, and Operation ..........................10-23

6 

April 2010 xxix Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Executive Summary 

2 By letter dated July 13, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a partial 

3 application from UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC, on behalf of Constellation Generation 

4 Group, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively known as UniStar), for a 

5 combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for Calvert Cliffs 

6 Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Unit 3 to be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 in 

7 Calvert County, Maryland. Part 1 of the application contained the applicant’s Environmental 

8 Report (ER) and site suitability information and was accepted on January 25, 2008. Part 2, 

9 which contained the balance of information required for a COL application, was received on 

10 March 14, 2008 and was accepted on June 3, 2008. On July 7, 2008, Constellation Generation 

11 Group, LLC withdrew as an applicant and Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC joined as an 

12 applicant. The application was supplemented by letters between June 2008 and September 

13 2009. Revision 6 of the application was submitted on September 30, 2009. The NRC staff’s 

14 review is based on Revision 6 of the application, the applicant’s responses to staff’s requests for 

15 additional information (RAI), and supplemental letters from the applicant. 

16 On May 16, 2008, UniStar submitted a joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any 

17 Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland to the U.S. Army Corps of 

18 Engineers (USACE or Corps) and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The 

19 Corps application number is NAB-2007-08123-M05 (Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, 

20 LLC/UniStar Nuclear Operating Service, LLC), on behalf of co-applicants, Calvert Cliffs 3 

21 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC. The MDE Tidal Application 

22 number is Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/200862371/08-WL-1462. The MDE Nontidal 

23 Application number is Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/200862335/08-NT-0191. 

24 The proposed actions related to the Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 application are (1) NRC issuance of a 

25 COL for construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site and (2) Corps 

26 permit action on a Department of the Army (DA) Individual Permit application pursuant to 

27 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The 

28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to review and veto Corps 

29 decisions of Section 404 permits. The Corps is participating with the NRC in preparing this 

30 environmental impact statement (EIS) as a cooperating agency and participates collaboratively 

31 on the review team. 

32 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that 

33 an EIS be prepared for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human 

34 environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of 

35 Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has determined that the 

36 issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS. 
Draft NUREG-1936 xxx April 2010 

1 The purpose of UniStar’s requested NRC action is to obtain a COL to construct and operate a 

2 baseload nuclear power plant. This license is necessary but not sufficient by itself for 

3 construction and operation of the unit. A COL applicant must obtain and maintain the necessary 

4 permits from other Federal, State, and local agencies and permitting authorities. Therefore, the 

5 purpose of the NRC’s environmental review of the UniStar application is to determine the 

6 impacts on the human environment if one new nuclear power plant of the proposed U.S. EPR 

7 design is constructed and operated at the Calvert Cliffs site. The purpose of UniStar’s 

8 requested Corps action is to obtain a DA permit decision on the Individual Permit application to 

9 construct the proposed structures in and under navigable waters and to discharge dredged, 

10 excavated, and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. 

11 Upon acceptance of the UniStar application, the NRC began the environmental review process 

12 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent (73 FR 8719) to prepare an EIS 

13 and conduct scoping in the Federal Register (FR). On March 19, 2008, the NRC held two 

14 scoping meetings in Solomons, Maryland, to obtain public input on the scope of the 

15 environmental review. To gather information and to become familiar with the proposed and 

16 alternative sites and their environs, the NRC and its contractor, Pacific Northwest National 

17 Laboratory (PNNL), visited the Calvert Cliffs site in March 2008 and the alternative site, the 

18 former Thiokol brownfield site, in October 2008. The NRC, PNNL, and the Corps visited the 

19 alternative sites Eastalco and Bainbridge in August 2009. During the site visits, the NRC, 

20 PNNL, and Corps staff met with UniStar staff and public officials. During the scoping process, 

21 the NRC staff reviewed the comments received and contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, 

22 and local agencies to solicit comments. 

23 Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the joint NRC/Corps review team’s analyses, which 

24 consider and weigh the environmental effects of the NRC’s proposed action (i.e., issuance of 

25 the COL) and of constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site; (2) 

26 mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of 

27 alternatives to the proposed action; and (4) the staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed 

28 action. 

29 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative 

30 actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

31 Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, 

32 provides the following definitions of the three significance levels – SMALL, MODERATE, and 

33 LARGE: 

34 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

35 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 
April 2010 xxxi Draft NUREG-1936 

1 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

2 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

3 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and sufficient to 

4 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

5 Potential mitigation measures were considered for each resource category and are discussed in 

6 the appropriate sections of the EIS. 

7 In preparing this EIS, the review team reviewed the applications, including the ER submitted by 

8 UniStar; consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and followed the guidance set 

9 forth in NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP). In addition, the review 

10 team considered the public comments related to the environmental review received during the 

11 scoping process. Comments within the scope of the environmental review are included in 

12 Appendix D of this EIS. 

13 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental 

14 aspects of the proposed action is that the COL be issued as requested. This recommendation 

15 is based on (1) the application, including the ER submitted by UniStar and the applicant’s 

16 supplemental letters and responses to staff’s RAIs; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, 

17 and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s consideration of comments 

18 related to the environmental review that were received during the scoping process; and (5) the 

19 assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in 

20 the ER. The Corps will base its evaluation of the DA Individual Permit application on the 

21 requirements of Corps regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the 

22 Corps public interest review (PIR) process. The Corps permit decision will be made following 

23 issuance of the final EIS. 

24 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the EPA Notice of Availability 

25 of the filing of the draft EIS to allow members of the public to comment on the results of the 

26 NRC and Corps staffs’ review. During this period, the NRC and Corps staff will conduct a public 

27 meeting near the Calvert Cliffs site to describe the results of the environmental review, provide 

28 members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on this EIS, 

29 respond to questions, and accept public comment. The public meeting also serves as the 

30 Corps public hearing, which means a public proceeding conducted for the purpose of acquiring 

31 information or evidence that will be considered in evaluating a proposed DA permit action and 

32 affords the public an opportunity to present their views, opinions, and information on such permit 

33 actions or Federal projects. After the comment period, the review team will consider all the 

34 comments received. The final EIS will include these comments and the review team responses. 

35 The NRC staff’s evaluation of the site safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the 

36 proposed action will be addressed in the NRC’s final Safety Evaluation Report (SER), currently 
Draft NUREG-1936 xxxii April 2010 

1 anticipated to be published in July 2012. The reactor specified in the application is the AREVA 

2 NP Inc.’s U.S. EPR design, which is currently undergoing a design certification review. The 

3 NRC staff’s evaluation of the design certification and final rulemaking is currently anticipated to 

4 be completed in June 2012. 
April 2010 xxxiii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Abbreviations/Acronyms 

2 χ/Q dispersion values 

3 °C degree(s) Celsius 

4 °F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

5 ac acre(s) 

6 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

7 AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

8 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

9 ANC acid neutralizing capacity 

10 ANSI American National Standards Institute 

11 APE Area of Potential Effects 

12 AREVA AREVA NP Inc. 

13 AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

14 B&O Baltimore and Ohio 

15 BA biological assessment 

16 BACT best available control technology 

17 BEA U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis 

18 BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 

19 BGE Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 

20 B-IBI Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

21 BMP best management practice(s) 

22 Bq becquerels 

23 BRAC base realignment and closure 

24 Btu British thermal unit 

25 C&O Chesapeake and Ohio 

26 CAC Critical Area Commission 

27 CAES compressed air energy storage 

28 CBCA Chesapeake Bay Critical Area 

29 CBP Chesapeake Bay Program 

30 CCNPP Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

31 CCPS Calvert County Public Schools 

32 CCWS component cooling water system 

33 CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

34 CDF core damage frequency 

35 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

36 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 
Draft NUREG-1936 xxxiv April 2010 

1 cfs cubic feet per second (water flow) 

2 Ci curies 

3 cm centimeters 

4 CMH Calvert Memorial Hospital 

5 CO carbon monoxide 

6 CO2 carbon dioxide 

7 COL combined license 

8 COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations 

9 Constellation Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC 

10 Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (also USACE) 

11 CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

12 CWMA Cooperative Wildlife Management Area 

13 CWP Center for Watershed Protection 

14 CWS circulating water supply system 

15 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

16 d day 

17 D/Q deposition values 

18 DA Department of the Army 

19 dB decibel(s) 

20 dBA decibel(s) (acoustic) 

21 DBA design basis accidents 

22 DC District of Columbia 

23 DE Delaware 

24 DECOM decommissioning 

25 DO dissolved oxygen 

26 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

27 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

28 DPS distinct population segments 

29 D/Q deposition values 

30 EAB exclusion area boundary 

31 EDG emergency diesel generators 

32 EFH essential fish habitat 

33 EIA Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration 

34 EIS environmental impact statement 

35 ELF extremely low frequency 

36 EMF electromagnetic field(s) 

37 EMS Emergency Medical Services 

38 EO Executive Order 

39 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
April 2010 xxxv Draft NUREG-1936 

1 EPR Evolutionary Power Reactor 

2 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

3 EPT Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera 

4 EPZ emergency planning zone 

5 ER Environmental Report 

6 ESA U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

7 ESP Energy Storage and Power LLC 

8 ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan

9 ESWS essential service water system 

10 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

11 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

12 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

13 FHWG Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 

14 FIDS forest interior dwelling species 

15 fps feet per second 

16 FONSI finding of no significant impact 

17 FR Federal Register

18 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

19 ft foot/feet 

ft2 20 square feet 

ft3 21 cubic feet 

22 FTE full-time equivalent 

23 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

24 FY fiscal year 

25 g gram(s) 

26 GAI GAI Consultants, Inc. 

27 gal gallon(s) 

28 GBq gigabecquerel 

29 GC gas centrifuge 

30 GCC global climate change 

31 GD gaseous diffusion 

32 GEIS generic environmental impact statement 

33 GHG greenhouse gas 

34 GI-LLI adult lower intestine 

35 GIS geographical information system 

36 GIT Georgia Institute of Technology 

37 gpd gallon(s) per day 

38 gpm gallon(s) per minute 

39 
Draft NUREG-1936 xxxvi April 2010 

1 ha hectare(s) 

2 HAP hazardous air pollutants 

3 HAPC habitat areas of particular concern 

4 HLW high level waste 

5 HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

6 hr hour 

7 Hz hertz 

8 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

9 ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

10 IDAs Intensely Developed Areas 

11 IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle 

12 in. inch(es) 

13 INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

14 IRSA interim resin storage area 

15 ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

16 Kcal kilocalorie 

17 kg kilogram 

18 km kilometer(s) 

km2 19 square kilometer(s) 

20 kV kilovolt(s) 

21 kW(e) kilowatts electric 

22 kWh kilowatt hour(s) 

23 L liter(s) 

24 lb pound(s) 

25 LDAs Limited Development Areas 

26 LEAs Local Educational Agencies 

27 LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

28 LFAA Low Flow Allocation Agreement 

29 LLW low-level waste 

30 LNG liquefied natural gas 

31 LOS level of service 

32 LPZ low population zone 

33 LR license renewal 

34 LRF large release frequencies 

35 LWR light-water reactor 

36 m meter(s) 

m2 37 square meter 

m3 38 cubic meter(s) 
April 2010 xxxvii Draft NUREG-1936 

1 mA milliamperes 

2 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 

3 MAPP Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway 

4 MBq million becquerels 

5 mCi millicuries 

6 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

7 MD Maryland 

8 MBSS Maryland Biological Stream Survey 

9 MDE Maryland Department of the Environment 

10 MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

11 MDOT Maryland Department of Transportation 

12 MDP Maryland Department of Planning 

13 MDSDAT Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation 

14 MEA Maryland Energy Administration 

15 MEI maximally exposed individual 

16 mg milligram(s) 

17 MGD million gallon(s) per day 

18 mGy milligray 

19 MHT Maryland Historical Trust 

20 MHW mean high water 

21 mi mile(s) 

mi2 22 square mile(s) 

23 MISO Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. 

24 MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

25 mL millilitres 

26 mm millimetres 

27 MMS Minerals Management Service 

28 mo month 

29 MOA memorandum of agreement 

30 MOU memorandum of understanding 

31 mph mile(s) per hour 

32 MPSC Maryland Public Service Commission 

33 mR milliroentgen 

34 mrad millirad(s) 

35 mrem millirem(s) 

36 MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

37 MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 

38 MSL mean sea level 

39 mSv millisievert(s) 

40 MSX Multinucleate Sphere X 

41 MT metric ton(s) (or tonne[s]) 
Draft NUREG-1936 xxxviii April 2010 

1 MTU metric ton of uranium 

2 MVA motor vehicle accidents 

3 MW megawatt(s) 

4 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

5 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

6 MWd megawatt-day(s) 

7 MWh megawatt hour(s) 

8 NA Not Applicable 

9 NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act 

10 NA-NSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

11 NCES National Center for Education Statistics 

12 NCI National Cancer Institute 

13 NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

14 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

15 NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

16 NESC National Electric Safety Code 

17 NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

18 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

19 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

20 NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

21 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

22 NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

23 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

24 NOB Natural Oyster Bar 

25 NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 

26 NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council 

27 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

28 NPS National Park Service 

29 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

30 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

31 NUREG NRC publication 

32 NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

33 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

34 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

35 Pa pascal 

36 PATH Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline Project 

37 PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 

38 pCi picocuries 
April 2010 xxxix Draft NUREG-1936 

1 PDCC Port Deposit Chamber of Commerce 

2 PIR public interest review 

3 P-IBI phytoplankton index of biotic integrity 

4 PJM PJM Interconnection, LLC 

5 PM particulate matter 

6 PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less 

7 PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

8 PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

9 PPRP Power Plant Research Program 

10 ppt parts per thousand 

11 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

12 PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

13 PWR pressurized water reactor(s) 

14 rad radiation absorbed dose 

15 RAI Request for Additional Information 

16 RCAs resource conservation areas 

17 RCP reinforced concrete pipe 

18 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

19 RCS reactor coolant system 

20 rem Roentgen equivalent man (a special unit of radiation dose) 

21 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

22 RFC ReliabilityFirst Corporation 

23 RIMS Regional Input-Output Multiplier System 

24 ROD Record of Decision 

25 ROI region of interest 

26 ROW rights-of-way 

27 RSICC Radiation Safety Information Computational Center 

28 Ryr reactor year 

29 s second(s) 

30 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

31 SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternative 

32 SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

33 SBO station blackout 

34 SCR selective catalytic reduction 

35 SEL sound exposure level 

36 SER Safety Evaluation Report 

37 SERC SERC Reliability Corporation 

38 SHA State Highway Administration 

39 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 
Draft NUREG-1936 xl April 2010 

1 SMCMC St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission 

2 SNE-MA Southern New England/Middle Atlantic 

3 SO2 sulfur dioxide 

4 SOx sulfur oxide(s) 

5 SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

6 SSC structures, systems, or components 

7 Sv sievert(s) 

8 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

9 TAP toxic air pollutant(s) 

10 TBq tera becquerel(s) 

11 TDS total dissolved solids 

12 TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

13 TIA Traffic Impact Analysis 

14 TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter(s) 

15 TOC total organic carbon 

16 TRU Transuranic waste 

17 TSP total suspended particulates 

18 U.S. United States 

19 U.S. EPR U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor 

20 U3O8 triuranium octaoxide (“yellowcake”) 

21 UHS ultimate heat sink 

22 UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

23 UniStar UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC and Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear 

24 Project, LLC (collective applicant) 

25 UO2 uranium(IV) oxide 

26 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (also Corps) 

27 USBLS United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 

28 U.S.C. United States Code 

29 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

30 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

31 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

32 VA Virginia 

33 VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

34 VOC volatile organic compound(s) 

35 WHO World Health Organization 

36 WNA World Nuclear Association 

37 WV West Virginia 
April 2010 xli Draft NUREG-1936 

1 yd yard 

yd3 2 cubic yards 

3 yr year(s) 

April 2010 1-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 1.0 Introduction 

2 By letter dated July 13, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a partial 

3 application from UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC, on behalf of Constellation Generation 

4 Group, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively known as UniStar), for a 

5 combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for Calvert Cliffs 

6 Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Unit 3 to be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 near 

7 Lusby, Maryland in Calvert County (UniStar 2007). Part 1 (Revision 0) of the application 

8 contained the applicant’s Environmental Report (ER) and site suitability information. Revision 1 

9 of the application was submitted on December 14, 2007 and was accepted on January 25, 2008 

10 (73 FR 5877). Revision 2, which was Part 2 of the partial application, contained the balance of 

11 information required for a COL application and was received on March 14, 2008 (UniStar 

12 2008a). Revision 2 was accepted on June 3, 2008 (73 FR 32606). Revision 3 of the application 

13 was submitted on August 20, 2008, Revision 4 on March 9, 2009, and Revision 5 on June 30, 

14 2009. Revision 6 of the application was submitted on September 30, 2009. The NRC staff’s 

15 review is based on Revision 6 of the application (UniStar 2009), UniStar’s responses to the 

16 NRC staff’s requests for additional information, and supplemental letters from UniStar. 

17 On July 7, 2008, Constellation Generation Group, LLC withdrew as an applicant and Calvert 

18 Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC joined as an applicant (UniStar 2008b). UniStar Nuclear Operating 

19 Services, LLC is designated in the application as the operator, and Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear 

20 Project, LLC is designated as the owner. The existing facilities at the Calvert Cliffs site are 

21 owned by Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC (Constellation). 

22 On May 16, 2008, UniStar submitted a joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any 

23 Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland to the U.S. Army Corps of 

24 Engineers (USACE or Corps) and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) (UniStar 

25 2008c). The Corps application number is NAB-2007-08123-M05 (Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear 

26 Project, LLC/UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC) on behalf of co-applicants, Calvert Cliffs 

27 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC. The MDE Tidal 

28 Application number is Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/200862371/08-WL-1462. The MDE 

29 Nontidal Application number is Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/200862335/08-NT-0191. 

30 The proposed actions related to the Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 application are (1) NRC issuance of a 

31 COL for constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site and (2) Corps 

32 permit action on a Department of the Army (DA) Individual Permit application pursuant to 

33 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act 

34 of 1899 (River and Harbors Act). The Corps, a cooperating agency with the NRC, verifies 

35 whether the information presented in this environmental impact statement (EIS) is adequate to 

36 fulfill the requirements of Corps regulations and the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-2 April 2010 

1 Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (Guidelines) (40 CFR 

2 Part 230). The Corps has the authority to issue permits for proposed work or structures in, over, 

3 and under navigable waters and for the discharge of dredged of fill material into waters of the 

4 United States. The Corps would regulate activities that would temporarily or permanently affect 

5 wetlands and waterbodies involved in this project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

6 (EPA) has the authority to review and veto Corps decisions on Section 404 permits. 

7 1.1 Background 

8 A COL is Commission approval for the construction and operation of a nuclear power facility. 

9 NRC regulations related to COLs are primarily found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

10 Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Subpart C. 

11 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

12 4321 et seq.), requires the preparation of an EIS for major Federal actions that have the 

13 potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has 

14 implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has 

15 determined the issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS. 

16 According to 10 CFR 52.80(b) an application for a COL must contain an ER. The ER provides 

17 input that the staff evaluates in preparing the NRC’s EIS. NRC regulations related to ERs and 

18 EISs are found in 10 CFR Part 51. 

19 The UniStar application references a steam electric system of the AREVA NP Inc.’s (AREVA) 

20 U.S. EPR design. Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 contains NRC regulations related to standard 

21 design certification. AREVA submitted the documentation for design certification to the NRC in 

22 December 2007 (AREVA 2007). Revision 1 to the Final Safety Analysis Report for the design 

23 certification was submitted in May 2009, and Revision 1 to the ER for the design certification 

24 was submitted in September 2009 (AREVA 2009). An application for a standard design 

25 certification undergoes an extensive review, usually lasting several years, which may result in a 

26 rulemaking certifying the reactor design. Where appropriate, this EIS incorporates the 

27 information provided in AREVA’s certification submittal that is referenced in the COL application. 

28 1.1.1 Applications and Review 

29 The purpose of UniStar’s requested NRC action is to obtain a COL to construct and operate a 

30 baseload nuclear power plant. This license is necessary but not sufficient by itself for 

31 construction and operation of the unit. A COL applicant must obtain and maintain the necessary 

32 permits from other Federal, State, and local agencies and permitting authorities. 

33 The purpose of UniStar’s requested Corps action is to obtain a DA permit decision on the 

34 Individual Permit application to construct the project that proposes structures and work in, over, 
 Introduction 

April 2010 1-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 and under navigable waters and for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

2 United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. 

3 1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review 

4 UniStar submitted an ER (UniStar 2009) as part of its COL application that focuses on the 

5 environmental effects of construction and operation of one new U.S. EPR unit. The NRC 

6 regulations setting standards for review of a COL application are listed in 10 CFR 52.81. 

7 Detailed direction for the staff to use in conducting its environmental review is found in guidance 

8 set forth in NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan (NRC 2000) and recent 

9 updates, hereafter referred to as the ESRP. 

10 In this EIS, the NRC staff evaluates the environmental effects of one new pressurized water 

11 reactor (PWR) of the U.S. EPR design with a thermal power rating of 4590 MW(t) at the Calvert 

12 Cliffs site. In addition to considering the environmental effects of the proposed action, the NRC 

13 considers alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action alternative and the 

14 construction and operation of a new reactor at one of three alternative sites. Also, the benefits 

15 of the proposed action (e.g., need for power) and measures and controls to limit adverse 

16 impacts are evaluated. The COL application includes several requests for exemptions from the 

17 U.S. EPR design certification under 10 CFR 52.93. The environmental impacts of the requested 

18 exemptions are considered in this EIS as part of the Federal action. The technical analysis for 

19 each DC exemption is included in the NRC’s Final Safety Evaluation Report (SER), including a 

20 recommendation for approval or denial of each exemption. 

21 Upon acceptance of the UniStar application, the NRC began the environmental review process 

22 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct 

23 scoping in compliance with requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 (73 FR 8719) in the 

24 Federal Register (FR) on February 14, 2008. On March 19, 2008, the NRC held two scoping 

25 meetings in Solomons, Maryland, to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental 

26 review and contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. A 

27 list of the organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B. The staff reviewed the comments 

28 received during the scoping process, and responses were developed for each comment. 

29 Comments within the scope of the NRC environmental review and their associated responses 

30 are included in Appendix D. A complete list of the scoping comments and responses is 

31 documented in the Calvert Cliffs Combined License Scoping Summary Report (NRC 2008). 

32 To gather information and to become familiar with the proposed and alternative sites and their 

33 environs, the NRC and its contractor Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) visited the 

34 Calvert Cliffs site in March 2008 and the alternative site, the former Thiokol brownfield site, in 

35 October 2008. The NRC, PNNL, and the Corps visited the alternative sites Eastalco and 

36 Bainbridge in August 2009. During the Calvert Cliffs site visit, the NRC staff met with UniStar 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-4 April 2010 

1 staff, a Corps representative, public officials, and the public. Other documents related to the 

2 Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites were reviewed and are listed as references where 

3 appropriate. 

4 To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative actions, 

5 the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on the Council on 

6 Environmental Quality guidance (40 CFR 1508.27). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

7 Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels established by the 

8 NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE: 

9 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

10 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

11 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

12 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

13 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize 

14 important attributes of the resource. 

15 This EIS presents the staff’s analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of 

16 the proposed action at the Calvert Cliffs site, including the environmental impacts associated 

17 with construction and operation of the proposed new reactor at the site, the cumulative effects of 

18 the proposed action and other actions, the impacts of construction and operation of a reactor at 

19 alternative sites, the environmental impacts of alternatives to granting the COL, and the 

20 mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. This EIS 

21 also provides the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission regarding the 

22 issuance of the COL for the proposed Unit 3. 

23 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the EPA Notice of Availability 

24 of the filing of the draft EIS to allow members of the public to comment on the results of the 

25 review. A public meeting will be held near the Calvert Cliffs site during the public comment 

26 period. This meeting will also serve as the Corps public hearing to acquire information or 

27 evidence that will be considered in evaluating a proposed DA Individual Permit. During this 

28 public meeting, the NRC staff will describe the results of the environmental review, provide 

29 members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on the EIS, 

30 respond to questions, and accept comments. The review team will respond to all the comments 

31 received during the draft EIS comment period. The comments and responses will be contained 

32 in Appendix E in the final EIS. 

33 1.1.1.2 Corps Permit Application Review 

34 The Corps is part of the review team that makes a determination on the three significance levels 

35 established by the NRC. The Corps’ independent Record of Decision regarding the 
 Introduction 

April 2010 1-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 aforementioned permit application will reference the analyses in this EIS and present any 

2 additional information required by the Corps to support its permit decision. The Corps’ role as a 

3 cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS is intended to confirm that the information 

4 presented in the EIS is adequate to fulfill the requirements of Corps regulations and the Clean 

5 Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines to construct the preferred alternative identified in the 

6 EIS. The EIS is intended to present information adequate to fulfill the requirements of Corps 

7 regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines that contains the substantive 

8 environmental criteria used by the Corps in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material into 

9 waters of the United States, and the Corps’ public interest review process. The Corps’ public 

10 interest review will be part of its permit decision document and thus, will not be addressed in 

11 this EIS. 

12 The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines stipulate at 40 CFR 230.10(a) that no discharge of dredged or 

13 fill material into waters of the United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) shall be permitted 

14 if there is a practicable alternative that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic 

15 environment, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental 

16 consequences. Even if an applicant’s preferred alternative is determined to be the least 

17 environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), the Corps must still determine 

18 whether the LEDPA is in the public interest. The Corps Public Interest Review (PIR), described 

19 at 33 CFR 320.4, directs the Corps to consider a number of factors in a balancing process. A 

20 permit will be not be issued for an alternative that is not the LEDPA, nor will a permit be issued 

21 for an activity that is determined to be contrary to the public interest. 

22 In this EIS, the Corps evaluates certain construction and maintenance activities proposed in 

23 waters of the United States, including wetlands that would be impacted by the proposed project. 

24 The Corps decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of 

25 important resources. The benefit, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the 

26 proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. Public interest 

27 factors that may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, such as: conservation; 

28 economics; aesthetics; general environmental concerns; wetlands; historic and cultural 

29 resources; fish and wildlife values; flood hazards; floodplain values; land use; navigation; shore 

30 erosion and accretion; recreation; water supply; water quality; energy needs; safety; food and 

31 fiber production; mineral needs; and considerations of property ownership, including cumulative 

32 impacts thereof and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Evaluation of the impact 

33 on the public interest will include application of the Guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, 

34 EPA, under authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Corps will address all of 

35 these issues in its permit decision document. 

36 As part of the Corps’ permit evaluation process, the Corps released a public notice on 

37 September 3, 2008 to solicit comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and 

38 officials; Indian tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-6 April 2010 

1 of UniStar’s proposed project (USACE 2008). A list of the organizations contacted by the Corps 

2 is included in Appendix B. The Corps will issue a second public notice upon release of the draft 

3 EIS, which will include notification for the public hearing. 

4 The timing of the preparation of this EIS is such that the Corps may not have completed its 

5 evaluation of the proposed project when this EIS is final. To reach a decision on the permit 

6 action, the Corps will consider the recommendations of Federal, State, and local resource 

7 agencies; and members of the public; assess the cumulative impact of the total project; and 

8 complete the following consultations and coordination efforts: Section 106 of the National 

9 Historic Preservation Act, including, as appropriate, development and implementation of any 

10 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); Endangered Species Act; Essential Fish Habitat 

11 coordination; State Forest Conservation Plans; State Water Quality Certifications; and State 

12 Coastal Zone Consistency determinations. 

13 1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities 

14 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission defined “construction” 

15 (10 CFR 50.10 and 51.4) as those activities that fall within its regulatory authority. Many of the 

16 activities required to construct a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to license 

17 the plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of the NRC 

18 action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing 

19 and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

20 associated activities. These preconstruction activities may take place before the application for 

21 a COL is submitted, during the staff’s review of a COL application, or after a COL is granted. 

22 Although preconstruction activities are outside the NRC’s regulatory authority, many of them are 

23 within the regulatory authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies. 

24 Because the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, their impacts are not 

25 reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the preconstruction 

26 activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. In addition, certain 

27 preconstruction activities that propose to construct structures or perform work in, over, and 

28 under navigable waters and for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 

29 States, including jurisdictional wetlands that require permits from the Corps, are viewed by the 

30 Corps as direct effects related to its Federal permitting action. Chapter 4 of this EIS describes 

31 the relative magnitude of impacts related to preconstruction and construction activities. 

32 1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies 

33 NEPA lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead agency preparing an EIS and 

34 other Federal agencies that may have special expertise regarding an environmental issue or 

35 jurisdiction by law. These other agencies are referred to as “cooperating agencies.” 

36 Cooperating agencies have the responsibility to assist the lead agency through early 
 Introduction 

April 2010 1-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 participation in the NEPA process, including scoping, by providing technical input to the 

2 environmental analysis and by making staff support available as needed by the lead agency. 

3 In addition to a license from the NRC, most proposed nuclear power plants require a permit 

4 from the Corps if work is proposed in navigable waters or the activity involves a discharge of 

5 dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The NRC and the Corps decided the 

6 most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in the review of new nuclear power 

7 projects would be achieved by a cooperative agreement. On September 12, 2008, the NRC 

8 and the Corps signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the review of new 

9 nuclear power plant license applications (USACE and NRC 2008), and the Baltimore District of 

10 the Corps is participating as a cooperating agency as defined in 10 CFR 51.14. 

11 As described in the MOU, the NRC is the lead Federal agency and the Corps is a cooperating 

12 agency in the development of the EIS. Under Federal law, each agency has jurisdiction related 

13 to portions of the proposed project as major Federal actions that could significantly affect the 

14 quality of the human environment. The goal of this cooperative agreement is the development 

15 of one EIS that serves the needs of the NRC’s license decision process and the Corps’ permit 

16 decision process. While both agencies must comply with the requirements of NEPA, they also 

17 have independent or individual mission requirements that must be met. The NRC makes 

18 license decisions under the Atomic Energy Act, and the Corps makes permit decisions pursuant 

19 to the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act. 

20 As a cooperating agency, the Corps is part of the NRC review team, involved in all aspects of 

21 the environmental review, including scoping, public meetings, public comment resolution, and 

22 EIS preparation. The NRC public meeting with the Corps serves the dual purpose of both 

23 agencies, with the Corps referring to the NRC-defined public meeting as its public hearing. The 

24 Corps’ district engineer or designee may participate in joint public hearings in accordance with 

25 33 CFR Part 327 with other Federal or State agencies, provided the procedures of those 

26 hearings meet the requirements of this regulation. In those cases in which the other Federal or 

27 State agency allows a cross-examination in its public hearing, the district engineer may still 

28 participate in the joint public hearing, but shall not require cross examination as a part of his 

29 participation. 

30 The Corps refers to public meetings as hearings to acquire information or evidence that will be 

31 considered in evaluating a proposed DA permit, but there is no adjudicatory process involved 

32 such as the NRC hearings conducted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 

33 A cooperating agency may adopt the EIS of a lead Federal agency without re-circulating it when 

34 the cooperating agency concludes, after an independent review of the EIS, that its comments 

35 and suggestions have been satisfied and issues a Record of Decision. The Corps’ goal in this 

36 process is to have all the information necessary to make a permit decision when the final EIS is 

37 issued. However, it is possible the Corps may still need some information from the applicant to 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-8 April 2010 

1 complete the permit documentation – information that the applicant could not make available by 

2 the time of final EIS issuance. Also, any conditions required by the Corps, such as 

3 compensatory mitigation, will be addressed in the Corps permit (if issued). Mitigation may only 

4 be employed after all appropriate and practical steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to 

5 aquatic resources, including wetlands and streams, have been taken. All remaining 

6 unavoidable impacts must be compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable. The 

7 Corps permit, if issued, would include special conditions under which UniStar must confirm that 

8 the created and enhanced wetlands meet the Federal wetland criteria outlined in the report, 

9 “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” dated January 1987 (Environmental 

10 Laboratory 1987), in accordance with Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic 

11 Resources; Final Rule, as published in April 10, 2008, Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 70, Pages 

12 19594-19705 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332). If the Corps does not find the wetland and stream 

13 mitigation satisfactory, the Corps would determine if any project modifications would be needed 

14 to enable a permit decision to be made. Also, UniStar would assume all liability for 

15 accomplishing the permitted work including any required mitigation. 

16 1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews 

17 In reviews separate from but parallel to the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety 

18 characteristics of the proposed site and emergency planning information. These analyses are 

19 documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) issued by the NRC. The SER presents the 

20 conclusions reached by the NRC regarding (1) whether there is reasonable assurance that one 

21 new U.S. EPR unit can be constructed and operated at the Calvert Cliffs site without undue risk 

22 to the health and safety of the public; (2) whether the emergency preparedness program meets 

23 the applicable requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 52, 10 CFR Part 73, and 10 CFR 

24 Part 100; and (3) whether site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and 

25 measures as referenced in the above Code of Federal Regulations can be developed. The 

26 Final SER for the UniStar COL application is currently anticipated to be published in July 2012. 

27 The reactor design referenced in the application is the U.S. EPR, which is undergoing design 

28 certification review separately from the EIS process. If the final design of the U.S. EPR is 

29 different from the design considered in this EIS, the NRC staff will determine whether the 

30 changes are significant enough to warrant an additional environmental review. The final 

31 rulemaking for the U.S. EPR is currently anticipated to be published in June 2012. 

32 1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions 

33 The proposed NRC Federal action is issuance, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, of a 

34 COL authorizing the construction and operation at the Calvert Cliffs site of one new U.S. EPR 

35 unit. The proposed Corps Federal action is a permit decision on a DA Individual Permit 

36 application pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and 
 Introduction 

April 2010 1-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Harbors Act. This EIS provides the NRC and Corps analyses of the environmental impacts that 

2 could result from building and operating one proposed new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site or at 

3 one of the three alternative sites. These impacts are analyzed by the NRC to determine if the 

4 proposed site is suitable for the addition of one new unit and whether any of the alternative sites 

5 are considered obviously superior to the proposed site. 

6 The site proposed by UniStar is located in Calvert County, Maryland, approximately 40 mi 

7 southeast of Washington D.C. and 7.5 mi north of Solomons, Maryland. The proposed Unit 3 

8 would be completely within the confines of the current Calvert Cliffs site and would be located 

9 south of the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. 

10 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions 

11 The purpose and need for the proposed NRC and Corps actions is described as follows. 

12 1.3.1 NRC’s Proposed Action 

13 The purpose and need for the proposed NRC action is to provide for additional large baseload 

14 electrical generating capacity within the State of Maryland. Studies conducted by the State of 

15 Maryland have concluded that rolling blackouts could occur as soon as 2011 and that additional 

16 capacity is needed in Maryland to provide satisfactory generating reserve (MEA 2008). Chapter 

17 8 of this EIS evaluates the need for power. Chapter 9 of this EIS discusses the alternatives to 

18 the proposed action, including the no-action alternative. 

19 A COL license from the NRC is necessary for constructing and operating the proposed power 

20 plant. Preconstruction and certain long lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring 

21 certain components and materials necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COL 

22 is granted. UniStar must obtain and maintain permits or authorizations from other Federal, 

23 State, and local agencies and permitting authorities prior to undertaking certain activities. The 

24 ultimate decision whether or not to build a facility and the schedule for building are not within the 

25 purview of the NRC or the Corps and would be determined by the license holder if the 

26 authorization is granted. 

27 1.3.2 The Corps’ Permit Action 

28 The UniStar permit application to the Corps is for work to prepare the site and construct facilities 

29 for a nuclear power generation station at the existing Calvert Cliffs site. As part of the 

30 evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps must 

31 define the overall project purpose in addition to the basic project purpose. The overall project 

32 purpose establishes the scope of the alternatives analysis and is used for evaluating practicable 

33 alternatives under the Guidelines. In accordance with the Guidelines and USACE Headquarters 

34 guidance (HQUSACE 1989), the overall project purpose must be specific enough to define the 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-10 April 2010 

1 applicant’s needs, but not so narrow and restrictive as to preclude a proper evaluation of 

2 alternatives. The Corps is responsible for controlling every aspect of the Guidelines analysis. 

3 In this regard, defining the Corps’ overall project purpose for the Corps’ permit action is the sole 

4 responsibility of the Corps. While generally focusing on the applicant’s statement, the Corps 

5 will, in all cases, exercise independent judgment in defining the purpose and need for the Corps’ 

6 project from both the applicant’s alternatives and the public’s perspective (33 CFR Part 325 

7 Appendix B (9)(c)(4), see also 53 FR 3136 ([February 3, 1988]). 

8 Where the activity associated with a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site (as defined 

9 in 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart E) and does not require access or proximity to or siting within 

10 these types of areas to fulfill its basic project purpose (i.e., the project is not “water dependent”), 

11 practicable alternatives that avoid special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless 

12 clearly demonstrated otherwise (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). The basic project purpose for the 

13 UniStar project is to generate electricity for additional baseload capacity. 

14 Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines requires that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall 

15 be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have 

16 less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other 

17 significant adverse environmental consequences.” Section 230.10(a)(2) of the Guidelines 

18 states that “an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking 

19 into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. If it 

20 is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant which could 

21 reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of 

22 the proposed activity may be considered.” Thus, this analysis is necessary to determine which 

23 alternative is the LEDPA that meets the project purpose and need. The overall purpose of the 

24 project is to construct a nuclear power plant facility to provide for additional baseload electrical 

25 generating capacity to meet the growing demand in the State of Maryland. The Corps concurs 

26 with the stated project purpose and long-term need to generate electricity to meet the growing 

27 demand in Maryland. 

28 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions 

29 Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA requires an EIS to include a detailed statement analyzing 

30 alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC regulations for implementing Section 102(2) of 

31 NEPA provide for including in an EIS a chapter that discusses the environmental impacts of the 

32 proposed action and the alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A). This EIS 

33 addresses five categories of alternatives to the proposed action: (1) the no-action alternative, 

34 (2) energy source alternatives, (3) alternative sites, and (4) system design alternatives. The fifth 

35 category, which is discussed in Appendix J, is onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to the 

36 natural and cultural resources that will be considered in the Corps permit decision. 
 Introduction 

April 2010 1-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 In the no-action alternative, the action would not go forward. The NRC would deny UniStar’s 

2 request for a COL. The no-action or permit denial alternatives also are available to the Corps. 

3 The “no-action” alternative is one which results in no construction requiring a Corps permit. It 

4 may result from (1) the applicant electing to modify its proposal to eliminate work under the 

5 jurisdiction of the Corps or (2) the denial of the permit. If the COL and/or permit were denied, 

6 the construction and operation of a new nuclear generating unit at the Calvert Cliffs site would 

7 not occur, nor would any benefits intended by the approved COL be realized. Energy source 

8 alternatives include alternative energy sources, focusing on those alternatives that could meet 

9 the purpose and need of the project to generate baseload power. The alternative sites to the 

10 proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site are addressed in the following paragraph. System 

11 design alternatives include heat dissipation and circulating water systems, intake and discharge 

12 structures, and water-use and treatment systems. Finally, onsite alternatives evaluated by the 

13 Corps to reduce potential impacts to waters of the United States, including jurisdictional 

14 wetlands, as well as potential impacts to cultural and natural resources, are described in 

15 Appendix J. 

16 In the ER, UniStar defined a region of interest as the State of Maryland for use in identifying and 

17 evaluating potential sites for power generation. The NRC staff evaluated the region of interest, 

18 the process by which UniStar selected alternative sites, and the review team evaluated the 

19 environmental impacts of construction and operation of a new power reactor at those sites using 

20 reconnaissance-level information. Using the process outlined in the ER, UniStar reviewed 

21 multiple sites and identified the suite of candidate sites for this project. The alternative sites 

22 selected from the candidate sites include three privately owned brownfield sites. The brownfield 

23 sites are located near Frederick, Mechanicsville, and Port Deposit, Maryland. The objective of 

24 the comparison of environmental impacts is to determine if any of the alternative sites is 

25 obviously superior to the Calvert Cliffs site. 

26 As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

27 the Corps is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines 

28 (33 U.S.C. 1344; 40 CFR Part 230). These Guidelines establish criteria that must be met in 

29 order for the proposed activities to be permitted pursuant to Section 404. Specifically, these 

30 Guidelines state, in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is 

31 a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impact on the 

32 aquatic ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant adverse 

33 consequences (40 CFR 230.10(a)). If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not 

34 presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used, expanded, or 

35 managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-12 April 2010 

1 1.5 Compliance and Consultations 

2 Prior to construction and operation of a new unit, UniStar is required to obtain certain Federal, 

3 State, and local environmental permits, as well as to meet applicable statutory and regulatory 

4 requirements. UniStar (2009) provided a list of environmental approvals and consultations 

5 associated with the proposed Unit 3. Potential authorizations, permits, and certifications 

6 relevant to the proposed COL are included in Appendix H. The NRC staff reviewed the list and 

7 contacted the appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies to identify any consultation, 

8 compliance, permit, or significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies 

9 that may affect the acceptability of the Calvert Cliffs site for the construction and operation of the 

10 proposed Unit 3 reactor. A chronology of the correspondence is provided as Appendix C. A list 

11 of the key consultation correspondence is provided as Appendix F, which also contains the 

12 biological assessment to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the essential fish 

13 habitat assessment. 

14 1.6 Report Contents

15 The subsequent chapters of this EIS are organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the 

16 proposed site and discusses the environment that would be affected by the addition of the new 

17 unit. Chapter 3 describes the power plant layout, structures, and activities related to building 

18 and operation to be used as the basis for evaluating the environmental impacts. Chapters 4 

19 and 5 examine site acceptability by analyzing the environmental impacts of construction and 

20 operation of the proposed Unit 3. Chapter 6 analyzes the environmental impacts of the uranium 

21 fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials, and decommissioning, while Chapter 7 

22 discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed action as defined in 40 CFR Part 1508. 

23 Chapter 8 addresses the need for power. Chapter 9 discusses alternatives to the proposed 

24 action including energy sources, alternative sites, and system design alternatives, and 

25 compares the proposed action with the alternatives. Chapter 10 summarizes findings of the 

26 preceding chapters and provides a benefit-cost evaluation. It also presents the NRC staff’s 

27 preliminary recommendation with respect to the Commission’s approval of the proposed site for 

28 a COL based on the staff’s evaluation of environmental impacts. 

29 The appendices to this EIS provide the following additional information: 

30 • Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement 

31 • Appendix B – Organizations Contacted 

32 • Appendix C – Chronology of NRC and Corps Environmental Review Correspondence 

33 • Appendix D – Scoping Comments and Responses 

34 • Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses (Reserved) 
 Introduction 

April 2010 1-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 • Appendix F – Key Consultation Correspondence (Includes Biological Assessment and 

2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment) 

3 • Appendix G – Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment 

4 • Appendix H – Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications 

5 • Appendix I – Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

6 • Appendix J – UniStar’s Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) 

7 and Onsite Alternative Analysis 

8 • Appendix K – UniStar’s Phase I Mitigation Plan for Wetland and Stream Impacts 

9 • Appendix L – Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a Reference 1000 MWe Reactor 

10 • Appendix M – Supplemental Terrestrial Ecology Information 

11 1.7 References 

12 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

13 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

14 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

15 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

16 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

17 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

18 10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, “Physical Protection of 

19 Plants and Materials.” 

20 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

21 Criteria.” 

22 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

23 Part 320, “General Regulatory Policies.” 

24 33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

25 Part 320, “Processing of Department of the Army Permits.” 

26 33 CFR Part 327. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

27 Part 327, “Public Hearings.” 

28 33 CFR Part 332. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

29 Part 320, “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.” 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-14 April 2010 

1 40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

2 “Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Materials.” 

3 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

4 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

5 53 FR 3136. February 3, 1988. “Environmental Quality; Procedures for Implementing the 

6 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” Federal Register. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

7 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

8 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

9 73 FR 5877. January 31, 2008. “UniStar Nuclear, LLC; Acceptance for Docketing of a Partial 

10 Application for a Combined License for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3.” Federal 

11 Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

12 73 FR 8719. February 14, 2008. “UniStar Nuclear, LLC; Calvert Cliffs Partial Combined 

13 License Application; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 

14 Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

15 73 FR 32606. June 9, 2008. “Constellation Generation Group, LLC and UniStar Nuclear 

16 Operating Services, LLC; Acceptance for Docketing of an Application for a Combine License for 

17 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

18 Commission. 

19 AREVA NP, Inc. (AREVA). 2007. AREVA NP Environmental Report, Standard Design 

20 Certification. ANP-10290. Rev. 0. Accession No. ML073530589. 

21 AREVA NP, Inc. (AREVA). 2009. AREVA NP Environmental Report, Standard Design 

22 Certification. ANP-10290. Rev. 1. Accession No. ML092650775. 

23 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq. 

24 Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

25 Control Act [FWPCA]). 

26 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

27 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corp of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. 

28 Department of the Army, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

29 Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). 2008. Maryland Strategic Electricity Plan. Annapolis, 

30 Maryland. 
 Introduction 

April 2010 1-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. 

3 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (Rivers and Harbors Act). 33 U.S.C. 403 as 

4 amended. 

5 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2007. Letter from R.M. Krich (UniStar) to 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “UniStar Nuclear, NRC Project No. 746, Submittal of a 

7 Partial Combined License Application for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 

8 Application for Withholding of Documents, and Request for Exemption.” July 13, 2007. 

9 Accession No. ML071980292. 

10 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008a. Letter from G. Vanderheyden (UniStar) 

11 to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “UniStar Nuclear, NRC Docket No. 52-016 Submittal of 

12 Revision 2 to the Partial Combined License Application for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

13 Plant, Unit 3 and Application for Withholding of Documents.” March 14, 2008. Accession No. 

14 ML080990114. 

15 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008b. Letter from G.J. Wrobel (UniStar) to, 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission “UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016 

17 Submittal of Corrected Revision 3 to the Combined License Application for the Calvert Cliffs 

18 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3.” August 20, 2008. Accession No. ML082390786. 

19 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008c. Letter from D. Lutchenkov (UniStar) to 

20 Maryland Department of the Environment, “Joint Federal/State Application to the United States 

21 Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of the Environment for the Alteration of 

22 any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

23 Plant - Unit 3 Calvert County, Maryland, USAEC Application Number NAB-2007-08123-M05.” 

24 May 16, 2008. Accession No. ML081840343. 

25 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

26 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6, Baltimore, Maryland, 

27 September 30, 2009. Accession No. ML092880921. 

28 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters (HQUSACE). 1989. Memorandum from P.J. 

29 Kelly (USACE), to Commander, New Orleans (USACE), “Re: Permit Elevation, Plantation 

30 Landing Resort, Inc.” April 21, 1989. Available at 

31 http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/PlantationLandingRGL.pdf. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1936 1-16 April 2010 

1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps). 2008. Public Notice in Reply to Application 

2 Number CENAB-OP-RMS NAB-2007-01823-M05 (Calvert Cliff’s 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/Unistar 

3 Nuclear Operating Services, LLC). September 3, 2008. Accession No. ML082550288. 

4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USACE and NRC). 

5 2008. Memorandum of Understanding: Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

6 Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants. September 12, 2008. 

7 Accession No. ML082540354. 

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan— 

9 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

10 Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 updates. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Calvert Cliffs Combined License Scoping 

12 Summary Report. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML091690293. 
April 2010 2-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.0 Affected Environment 

2 The site proposed by Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating 

3 Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) for a combined license (COL) and a U.S. 

4 Army Corps of Engineers (referred to as USACE or Corps) action on a U.S. Department of the 

5 Army (DA) Individual Permit is located in Calvert County, Maryland. Constellation Energy 

6 Nuclear Group currently operates two nuclear units, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

7 (CCNPP) Units 1 and 2, on the site. The site is located approximately 60 mi south of Baltimore, 

8 40 mi southeast of Washington, D.C., 10.5 mi southeast of Prince Frederick, and 7.5 mi north of 

9 Solomons, Maryland. The proposed Unit 3 location is described in Section 2.1, followed by 

10 descriptions of the land, water, ecology, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic and 

11 cultural resources, geology, meteorology and air quality, nonradiological, and radiological 

12 environment of the site and vicinity presented in Sections 2.2 through 2.11, respectively. 

13 Section 2.12 discusses related Federal projects and consultations, and references are 

14 presented in Section 2.13. 

15 2.1 Site Location 

16 UniStar’s selected location for the proposed Unit 3 is wholly within the Calvert Cliffs site and is 

17 adjacent to and just south-southeast of the existing units, as shown in Figure 2-1. It is located 

18 on the Calvert Peninsula and is bordered on the east by the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland (MD) 

19 State Route 2/4 lies to the west of the site, as does the Patuxent River. Flag Ponds Nature Park 

20 borders the site to the immediate north, and Calvert Cliffs State Park and MD State Route 765 

21 lie to the south. The Calvert Cliffs site also abuts the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 

22 Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Figure 2-2 shows the 50-mi 

23 region in which the site is located. 

24 The Calvert Cliffs site is located in a rural part of southern Maryland within Calvert County. It 

25 consists of rolling hills, part of it forested primarily with deciduous trees, with an understory of 

26 grasses, herbs, and shrubs. The topography of the site includes relatively flat lands in 

27 developed areas and steeply sloped forested valleys. The site also has emergent and forested 

28 wetlands, streams, ponds, and tidal waters. The site borders Chesapeake Bay. The Bay 

29 frontage consists of approximately 70-ft-high cliffs, stone revetment (embankment support), 

30 natural shoreline, and sandy beach. 

31 2.2 Land Use 

32 This section discusses land-related issues for the Calvert Cliffs site. Section 2.2.1 describes the 

33 site and the vicinity around the site. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing transmission line 

34 corridors. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as the area within 50 mi of the site 

35 boundary. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-2 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-1. Calvert Cliffs Site and Proposed New Plant Layout (adapted from UniStar 2009a)
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-2. The Calvert Cliffs Site and the 50-mi Region (adapted from UniStar 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-4 April 2010 

1 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 

2 The Calvert Cliffs site comprises approximately 2070 ac adjacent to Chesapeake Bay in an 

3 unincorporated area of Calvert County, Maryland. The site is approximately 40 mi southeast of 

4 Washington, D.C., and 7.5 mi north of Solomons, Maryland (UniStar 2009a). The site, including 

5 the planned footprint for the proposed Unit 3 facilities, is shown in Figure 2-3. Landscape 

6 features are shown in Figure 2-4. Within the project site, portions of the project are proposed in 

7 the Chesapeake Bay; the Lower Western Shore watershed and its unnamed tributaries to the 

8 Chesapeake Bay; in forested nontidal wetlands; and in the St. Leonard Creek watershed, which 

9 includes Johns Creek, Goldstein Branch, and some unnamed tributaries. The CCNPP site is 

10 planned to be divided since CCNPP Units 1 and 2 will have different owners than Unit 3. The 

11 owner of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 would own the north parcel. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, 

12 LLC would own the south parcel (UniStar 2009a). 

13 The Calvert Cliffs site contains two existing nuclear generating units, CCNPP Units 1 and 2, 

14 which are licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and have a combined 

15 net electric generating capacity of approximately 1700 to 1780 MW(e), depending on plant and 

16 Bay conditions. Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1974, and Unit 2 began commercial 

17 operation in 1976. Together, the two existing nuclear units; auxiliary facilities, including a barge 

18 slip; and onsite transmission line corridors occupy approximately 331 ac of the Calvert Cliffs 

19 site. Approximately 1619 ac of the site is forest area, and approximately 106 ac is open land 

20 that was previously devoted to agriculture (UniStar 2009a). 

21 Features within an 8-mi radius of the Calvert Cliffs site are shown in Figure 2-5. Access to the 

22 site is from MD State Route 2/4. There is no operating rail line within 8 mi of the site, and no 

23 natural gas pipelines traverse the site. However, the Dominion Cove Point liquefied natural gas 

24 (LNG) pipeline is located south of the Calvert Cliffs site and continues in a northern direction 

25 west of MD State Route 2/4. The Dominion Cove Point LNG import facility (a little over 100 ac 

26 of industrial land use) is about 3.5 mi southeast of the Calvert Cliffs site within Calvert County 

27 (Dominion 2009). Just beyond the 8-mi radius is the Patuxent River Naval Air Station 

28 (approximately 6500 ac) to the south of the Calvert Cliffs site in St. Mary’s County (DOD 2010). 

29 As described in the Corps’ public notice (USACE 2008), the proposed Calvert Cliffs project 

would permanently affect 343,253 ft2

 (7.88 ac) of forested nontidal wetlands; 52,707 ft2 30 (1.21 ac) 

of emergent nontidal wetlands; 114,563 ft2

 (2.63 ac) of nontidal open water; 33,400 ft2 31 (0.77 ac) 

along 8350 linear ft of streambed portions; and 248,000 ft2 32 (5.7 ac) of tidal open waters 

(approximately 138,500 ft2 33 (3.2 ac) of the tidal open water impacts would be from maintenance 

dredging; approximately 109,000 ft2 34 (2.5 ac) would be from new dredging; and approximately 

52,500 ft2 35 (1.2 ac) of the new dredging would be backfilled). This work includes a total of 

3485 ft2 36 (0.08 ac) of isolated forested wetland impact. 
April 2010 2-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-3. Calvert Cliffs Site Map (adapted from UniStar 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-6 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-4. Land Use on the Calvert Cliffs Site (adapted from UniStar 2009c) 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-5. Land-Use Classification Within 8 mi of the Calvert Cliffs Site (UniStar 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-8 April 2010 

1 The Calvert Cliffs site is subject to zoning by Calvert County. Some portions of the site are 

2 zoned light industrial and other portions are zoned farm and forest (UniStar 2009a). However, 

3 section 1-2.02 of the Calvert County Zoning Ordinance states that the Ordinance does not apply 

4 to a qualified commercial power generating facility (Calvert County 2006). Article 12 of the 

5 Zoning Ordinance defines such a facility as a commercial power generating facility as to which a 

6 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) has been issued under Public Utility 

7 Companies Article, section(s) 7-205, 7-207, and/or 7-208, Annotated Code of Maryland. 

8 Because a CPCN was issued by the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) for 

9 proposed Unit 3 in June 2009 (MPSC 2009), the existing Calvert County zoning designations do 

10 not apply to the land that would be occupied by proposed Unit 3. 

11 The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) Protection Act (Critical Area Act) was enacted in 

12 1984 by the Maryland General Assembly to help reverse the deterioration of the Chesapeake 

13 Bay and the surrounding environment (CAC 2008a). The Critical Area Act recognizes that the 

14 land immediately surrounding the Bay has the greatest potential to affect its water quality and 

15 wildlife habitats. The critical area is designated as all land within 1000 ft of the mean high water 

16 line of tidal waters or the landward edge of tidal wetlands and all waters of and lands under the 

17 Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (CAC 2008a). The critical area buffer is the land within 

18 100 ft of the mean high water line of tidal waters or the edge of tidal wetlands and tributary 

19 streams (CAC 2008a). The Critical Area Act is designed to promote environmentally sensitive 

20 stewardship of land in the critical area. It addresses three principal concerns: the 

21 accommodation of future growth and development, sensitive use of natural resources, and the 

22 preservation of certain resources for future generations. The critical area is classified into 

23 Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs), Limited Development Areas (LDAs), and Intensely 

24 Developed Areas (IDAs) based on land uses current on December 1, 1985, or June 1, 2002, for 

25 the Atlantic Coastal Bays. The regulations associated with each classification are applied in 

26 addition to those for the local jurisdiction’s zoning districts. In the case of a conflict, the more 

27 restrictive provision usually applies (CAC 2008a). The critical area boundary at the Calvert 

28 Cliffs site is shown in Figure 2-4. On August 6, 2008, the Maryland Critical Area Commission 

29 approved, with conditions, UniStar’s proposal to the MPSC to construct proposed Unit 3 at the 

30 Calvert Cliffs site (CAC 2008b). This decision was affirmed in a subsequent October 22, 2008, 

31 letter to the Maryland Power Plant Research Program (CAC 2008c). 

32 The surface landowners own the mineral resources beneath the Calvert Cliffs site (UniStar 

33 2009a). No significant mineral resources within or adjacent to the Calvert Cliffs site have been 

34 identified. 

35 Also in the area, the Dominion Cove Point LNG import facility (a little over 100 ac of industrial 

36 land use) is about 3.5 mi southeast of the Calvert Cliffs site within Calvert County (Dominion 

37 2009). Additionally, the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (approximately 6500 ac) is about 9 mi 

38 south of the Calvert Cliffs site in St. Mary’s County (DOD 2010). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1456 et seq.) requires 

2 applicants for Federal permits to conduct an activity in a coastal zone area to provide to the 

3 permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies 

4 of the State’s coastal zone program. A copy of the certification is also to be provided to the 

5 State. The State is to notify the Federal agency whether the State concurs with or objects to the 

6 applicant’s certification. Calvert County is within Maryland’s coastal zone. UniStar’s Joint 

7 Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal, or Nontidal 

8 Wetland in Maryland was submitted on May 16, 2008, to the State of Maryland and to the 

9 Corps. The application provides UniStar’s certification that proposed Unit 3 is consistent with 

10 the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Plan (UniStar 2008a). 

11 Wetlands near the proposed Unit 3 construction area consist of small headwater streams with 

12 narrow floodplains and associated riparian forest in the St. Leonard Creek watershed, minor 

13 Chesapeake Bay watershed areas, minor tributary streams, and associated small 

14 impoundments (UniStar 2009a). 

15 The topography at the Calvert Cliffs site is gently rolling with steeper slopes along stream 

16 banks. Local relief ranges from the sea level up to about 130 ft, with an average relief of 

17 approximately 100 ft. The Chesapeake Bay shoreline adjacent to the site consists mostly of 

18 steep cliffs with a narrow beach area (UniStar 2009a). 

19 Recreational areas in the immediate area of the Calvert Cliffs site are: Flag Ponds Nature Park, 

20 which is operated by Calvert County and located immediately north of the site; Calvert Cliffs 

21 State Park, which is located immediately south of the site; the Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

22 National Historic Trail, which is operated by the National Park Service and located adjacent to 

23 the Calvert Cliffs site in the Chesapeake Bay; and the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic 

24 Trail, which is still being defined by the National Park Service, but will likely flank the western 

25 and eastern portions of the Calvert Cliffs site (Figure 2-4). 

26 In addition to the historical trails, cultural resources have been identified within the area and are 

27 likely to be destroyed by building of proposed Unit 3. These include archaeological sites and 

28 architectural resources. Details are provided in Sections 2.7 and 4.6. 

29 2.2.2 Transmission Line Corridors 

30 The existing transmission system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 consists of two circuits, the north 

31 circuit that connects the plant to the Waugh Chapel Substation in Anne Arundel County, 

32 Maryland, and the south circuit that connects the plant to the Potomac Electric Power Company 

33 Chalk Point Generating Station in Prince Georges County, Maryland. The north circuit is 

34 composed of two separate three-phase, 500-kV transmission lines that run through a single 

35 corridor from the plant, while the south circuit is a single, three-phase 500-kV line (UniStar 

36 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-10 April 2010 

1 2.2.3 The Region 

2 The 50-mi region surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site is shown in Figure 2-6. Within the region, 

3 approximately 31 percent of the land is forest, 31 percent is water, 20 percent is devoted to 

4 agriculture, 13 percent is developed, and 5 percent is wetlands (UniStar 2009a). There are no 

5 lands of Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the U.S. Bureau of 

6 Indian Affairs within the 50-mi region. 

7 2.3 Water 

8 This section describes the hydrologic processes and water bodies in and around the Calvert 

9 Cliffs site, the existing water use, and the quality of water in the proposed Unit 3 environment. 

10 Building activities would make use of groundwater. During Unit 3 operations, the Chesapeake 

11 Bay would be the only source of water and the only recipient of discharge water. 

12 2.3.1 Hydrology 

13 This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrological features that could impact, or 

14 be altered by, development and operation of Unit 3. The hydrologic conditions at the Unit 3 site 

15 are described in Section 2.4 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (UniStar 2009b). A 

16 summary of the hydrologic conditions of the Unit 3 site is provided in Section 2.3 of the 

17 Environmental Report (ER) (UniStar 2009a). Both the FSAR and the ER were informed by the 

18 hydrological characterization conducted for the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and the results of 

19 investigations performed to support the COL application. The following descriptions are based 

20 on information from these sources. 

21 2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology 

22 Figure 2-7 shows the location of the Calvert Cliffs site within the Maryland portion of the 

23 Chesapeake Bay watershed. The site is on Maryland’s Calvert Peninsula, which is bounded by 

24 the Chesapeake Bay on the east and the Patuxent River on the west. The Patuxent River flows 

25 southeast and empties into the Chesapeake Bay about 8 mi south of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

26 Figure 2-8 shows that the predominant surface-water hydrologic feature of the Calvert Cliffs site 

27 is the Chesapeake Bay, which runs along the eastern edge of the site boundary. The Bay is 

28 about 195 mi long and anywhere from 3.5 to 35 mi wide. The Bay occupies approximately 

4480 mi2

 and nominally holds approximately 1.8 × 1013 29 gal of water. Between 1951 and 2000, 

30 the estimated annual freshwater inflow rate to the Bay averaged 77,500 cfs and varied between 

31 49,000 and 132,000 cfs. On a monthly basis, the rate varied between 7800 and 380,700 cfs. 

32 About 50 percent of the mean annual freshwater inflow into the Chesapeake Bay comes from 

33 the Susquehanna River, which enters the Bay more than 60 mi north of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

34 In contrast to the Susquehanna River, the Patuxent River contributes only about 1 percent of 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-6. Major Public and Trust Lands in the 50-mi Region (UniStar 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-12 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-7. Maryland Portion of Chesapeake Bay Watershed (UniStar 2009c) 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-8. Watersheds and Proposed Unit 3 Location at the Calvert Cliffs Site (UniStar 2009a)

3 the total freshwater inflow to the Bay. Between 1977 and 2005, the average annual inflow rate 

4 was 421 cfs. Rocky Gorge Dam is the nearest dam on the Patuxent River and is located more 

5 than 70 mi upstream. Hydrologic conditions in the Patuxent River near the Calvert Cliffs site are 

6 tidal and have no impact on the site’s water bodies. 

7 The Chesapeake Bay experiences tidal forces. The mean tidal range 8 mi south of the Calvert 

8 Cliffs site is 1.17 ft. Tidal flow into the Chesapeake Bay is estimated to be about 3,900,000 cfs 

9 at the entrance (about 100 mi to the south). 

10 The Chesapeake Bay is monitored in the winter and summer months for temperature and 

11 salinity by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), which is a regional partnership that includes 

12 Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia (D.C.), the U.S. Environmental 

13 Protection Agency (EPA), and citizen advisory groups. Two of the monitoring stations are near 

14 the Calvert Cliffs site; one is to the northwest and one is to the southeast. Between 1984 and 

15 2006, surface temperatures ranged from 32° to 85.5°F, and bottom temperatures ranged from 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-14 April 2010 

1 32.5° to 81.3°F. The nominal thermocline is located between 5 and 15 ft. The vertical 

2 temperature profile exhibits seasonal variation as a result of the lag between surface and 

3 bottom temperature changes. Salinity measurements at the two CBP stations show that the 

4 halocline (strong, vertical salinity gradient) is located between 5 and 15 ft. The vertical 

5 temperature profile is seasonally dependent because of the lag between surface and bottom 

6 temperature changes. Salinity measurements at the two CBP stations show that the halocline 

7 (strong, vertical salinity gradient) is located between 5 and 15 ft. Between 1984 and 2006, 

8 surface values ranged from 2.0 to 21.8 parts per thousand (ppt) while bottom values ranged 

9 from 11.3 to 25.8 ppt. In general, surface values are expected to be lower due to dilution by 

10 freshwater sources. Mean monthly surface salinity varied between 11.6 and 17.0 ppt. 

11 Sea-level rise has been 1.3 ft in the last 100 years and the Tidal Sediment Task Force of the 

12 Chesapeake Bay Program estimates that levels may rise by 2 to 3 ft in the next 100 years 

13 (UniStar 2009a). Sea-level rise and wave action have caused erosion and buildup (via 

14 deposition) of the shoreline near the Calvert Cliffs site. Estimates of shoreline changes north 

15 and south of the intake of Units 1 and 2 and barge slip range from +2 ft to -4 ft per year. 

16 Erosion has not occurred between the intake of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and the barge slip 

17 because the shoreline is stabilized. 

18 The bathymetry of the Bay near the Calvert Cliffs site differs from the adjacent nearshore 

19 bathymetry because of the presence of an intake channel constructed for existing CCNPP 

20 Units 1 and 2. Specifically, a 4830-ft-long intake channel was dredged perpendicular to the 

21 shoreline and to depths ranging from 40 to 51 ft. 

22 Secondary to the Chesapeake Bay and Patuxent River are the small streams that drain surface 

23 water from the site. Figure 2-8 shows that the Calvert Cliffs site is such that surface water is 

24 divided between two watersheds. About 20 percent of the surface area, which occupies the 

25 eastern side of the site, is in the Lower Western Shore watershed. The manmade Lake Conoy 

26 and two small ponds below it are on this side of the divide. Two streams (Branches 1 and 2) 

27 drain this eastern portion of the site and flow northeastward to the Chesapeake Bay. The 

28 remaining 80 percent of the site surface area is in the St. Leonard Creek watershed, which 

29 drains to the Patuxent River. The manmade Lake Davies, which received dredging spoils from 

30 the building of the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake and discharge facilities, is on the western side of 

31 the divide. Several short-lived streams, including Branches 3, 4, Laveel, and Goldstein, drain 

32 this western portion of the site into Johns Creek, which flows offsite into St. Leonard Creek. At 

33 the confluence with Johns Creek, St. Leonard Creek becomes tidally influenced. St. Leonard 

34 Creek empties into the Patuxent River. Within and downstream of the Calvert Cliffs site, 

35 wetlands occupy areas along the streams. All streams on the site are non-tidal. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology 

2 Groundwater aquifers in the region and the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site are described in 

3 Section 2.3 of the ER (UniStar 2009a). These aquifers are the result of variations in the geology 

4 (see Section 2.8 of this environmental impact statement (EIS)), which allows for more water to 

5 flow and be stored in some formations and much less in others. Figure 2-9 shows the major 

6 aquifers beneath the Calvert Cliffs site. Three of those aquifers are of interest for building and 

7 operation of the proposed Unit 3: Surficial, Piney Point-Nanjemoy, and Aquia. 

8 

9 Figure 2-9. Major Aquifers Beneath the Calvert Cliffs Site (UniStar 2009a)
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-16 April 2010 

1 The Surficial aquifer consists of unconsolidated sediments composed of medium-grained sands 

2 and silty or clayey sands; occasional intervals of coarse-grained sands have been observed. At 

3 the Calvert Cliffs site, the aquifer is present above elevations of 65 to 70 ft and has thickness 

4 ranging from 0 ft (where local drainages have dissected the aquifer) to 55 ft at the higher 

5 elevations. UniStar determined the geometric mean saturated conductivity of the Surficial 

aquifer sediments to be 3.2 × 10-4 6 cm/s based on slug tests in 10 wells and the average total 

7 porosity to be 42.7 percent (UniStar 2009b). 

8 Recharge to this aquifer is primarily from precipitation. From 2000 to 2005, the annual average 

9 precipitation at the site was 36 in. This amount is partitioned between runoff, evaporation, 

10 transpiration, soil water storage, and recharge based on site-specific soil, plant, and topography 

11 conditions. Regionally, the Surficial aquifer is not considered to be a reliable source of 

12 groundwater due to its thinness and topographic dissections, which lead to local groundwater 

13 discharge as springs. At the Calvert Cliffs site, there are no groundwater wells in the Surficial 

14 aquifer. 

15 Between the Surficial aquifer and the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer lies the Chesapeake Group, 

16 which is a complex series of silty clays, silt, and silty fine-grained sand deposits about 250 ft 

17 thick. Two thin and discontinuous water-bearing sand units are present within the upper part of 

18 the Group. Both the upper and lower bounds of the Chesapeake Group are considered 

19 aquitards. 

20 The Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer consists of several geologic formations that include fine- to 

21 medium-grained quartz sand, carbonate-cemented sands, sandy silts, clayey sands, and 

22 occasional shell fragments, phosphate nodules, and gravel. The thickness of all layers within 

23 this water-bearing aquifer is about 115 ft. In a groundwater modeling study that included 

Calvert County, Maryland, Drummond (2007) used a value of 1.8 × 10-3 24 cm/s to represent the 

25 saturated conductivity of the Piney-Point aquifer beneath the Unit 3 site. 

26 Recharge of this aquifer is assumed to be from precipitation received on exposed surfaces of 

27 this unit in northern Calvert County and Anne Arundel County. The possibility exists that some 

28 recharge occurs from leakage from overlying aquifers. Discharge from this aquifer is assumed 

29 to occur from subaqueous exposures of the aquifer along the Continental Shelf. There are 

30 seven wells on the Calvert Cliffs site screened within this aquifer. Four of the wells are in the 

31 vicinity of Camp Conoy and would be decommissioned during the building of proposed Unit 3. 

32 The other three wells are adjacent to and supply the Visitor’s Center, Firing Range, and some 

33 onsite trailers. Their combined permit limit is 1100 gpd. There are no plans to use these 

34 remaining wells to provide water for building activities or to install new wells in this aquifer. 

35 The lower portion of the Nanjemoy formation contains a higher proportion of clayey sediments 

36 and rests on top of the Marlboro clay. Together, the two layers act as a confining layer 

37 separating the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer and the lower Aquia aquifer. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The Aquia aquifer consists of quartz sand, cemented sandstones, and shell beds. In a 

2 groundwater modeling study that included Calvert County, Maryland, Drummond (2007) used a 

value of 3.5 × 10-3 3 cm/s to represent the saturated conductivity of the Aquia aquifer beneath the 

4 Unit 3 site. Recharge occurs from precipitation in central Anne Arundel and Prince George’s 

5 Counties where the aquifer units are exposed at the surface. Discharge is assumed to occur to 

6 the southeast from subaqueous exposures of the aquifer along the Continental Shelf. The 

7 Aquia aquifer is used extensively throughout southern Maryland. Starting in the 1980s, heavy 

8 groundwater pumping for public, commercial, and military uses created a groundwater cone of 

9 depression in the Solomons area of Calvert County and in St. Mary’s County. Water managers 

10 in these areas are seeking to shift groundwater withdrawals from the Aquia aquifer to deeper 

11 aquifers. 

12 There are five groundwater wells in the Aquia aquifer that are associated with existing CCNPP 

13 Units 1 and 2. The permitted average and maximum withdrawal rates are 450,000 and 

14 865,000 gpd, respectively. The maximum rate applies to the month of maximum groundwater 

15 withdrawal; on an annual basis, the 450,000-gpd limit still applies. 

16 Actual annual groundwater use by CCNPP Units 1 and 2 between July 2001 and June 2006 

17 averaged 387,000 gpd (UniStar 2009a). Throughout that time, the monthly average varied 

18 between 350,000 and 433,000 gpd, and the lowest and highest monthly withdrawal rates were 

19 about 252,000 and 529,000 gpd. Relative to the permitted rate of 450,000 gpd, the overall 

20 average withdrawal rate is lower by 63,000 gpd. 

21 Within the Surficial aquifer, the highest elevation of the groundwater lies directly beneath the 

22 proposed site for Unit 3. The potentiometric surface is indicative of current soil, vegetation, and 

23 topographic conditions but does not necessarily reflect what the surface would look like after the 

24 plant is built. 

25 Although there are only a few wells within the Upper and Lower Chesapeake units, the limited 

26 potentiometric surfaces show a well-defined gradient from the proposed Unit 3 site toward the 

27 Chesapeake Bay. A regional potentiometric map of the Aquia aquifer in 2003 shows a 

28 pronounced gradient (approximately 0.001) to the south in the direction of the cone of 

29 depression caused by large withdrawals in Solomons Island area at the southern tip of the 

30 Calvert Peninsula. 

31 2.3.2 Water Use 

32 Consideration of water use requires estimating the magnitude and timing of consumptive and 

33 non-consumptive water uses. Non-consumptive water use does not result in a reduction in the 

34 available water supply. For example, water withdrawn from the Chesapeake Bay and used to 

35 remove fish from the intake screens would result in no net change in water supply available to 

36 other Bay water users if the same volume of water pumped from the Bay would eventually be 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-18 April 2010 

1 returned back into the Bay. On the other hand, consumptive water use results in a net reduction 

2 of the water supply available for downstream users. For instance, the cooling water system 

3 withdraws water for normal cooling. The majority of that water is evaporated in the cooling 

4 towers, and that evaporated water would be considered a consumptive loss. The following two 

5 sections describe the consumptive and non-consumptive users of surface water and 

6 groundwater near the proposed Unit 3 site. 

7 2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use 

8 The major surface water bodies in Calvert County are the Chesapeake Bay and the Patuxent 

9 River. Unit 3 would use only Chesapeake Bay water for all uses during plant operations. Within 

10 Calvert County, there are seven permits for withdrawal of Chesapeake Bay water. CCNPP 

11 Units 1 and 2 withdraw 3500 MGD, which accounts for nearly 100 percent of the total permitted 

12 withdrawals in the county. The nearest permitted surface water withdrawal is by Dominion Cove 

13 Point LNG, which is 4 mi from Units 1 and 2. 

14 Consumptive use of Chesapeake Bay water is limited. CCNPP Units 1 and 2 are operated 

15 using once-through cooling, which means that all water withdrawn from the Chesapeake Bay is 

16 returned and none is consumed within the plant. However, the heated effluent that is returned 

17 to the Chesapeake Bay results in induced evaporation and constitutes a decrease in the water 

18 supply. If the other Calvert County users of Bay water consumed their entire permitted 

19 withdrawal amount, the total consumed would be 0.08 MGD. In contrast, consumption of water 

20 by Unit 3 would amount to 28.9 MGD. 

21 There are four permitted surface water discharges to the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County. 

22 The permitted discharge from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 is 3200 MGD, which accounts for nearly 

23 100 percent of the total permitted discharge within Calvert County. The proposed Unit 3 

24 discharge is expected to be 30 MGD. 

25 2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use 

26 Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water in the region. Between the early 1980s and 

27 2005, groundwater use has increased in southern Maryland and the eastern Maryland shore 

28 from 42 to 65 MGD in line with increasing population and demand is expected to increase in the 

29 future (Soeder et al. 2007). The increase in groundwater pumping has led to a drop in the 

30 potentiometric surface within each aquifer. Within the Aquia aquifer beneath the Calvert Cliffs 

31 site, the potentiometric surface dropped about 35 ft below sea level in 1985 to about 100 ft in 

32 2005. In contrast, greater groundwater pumping to the south of the Calvert Cliffs site lowered 

33 the potentiometric surface from 60 to more than 140 ft below sea level in the same time period. 

34 In Calvert County, there are about 500 permits for groundwater withdrawal. The Surficial 

35 aquifer, which is thin, discontinuous, and low-yielding, is primarily used for irrigation and rarely 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 for potable water. None of the Calvert County permits is for withdrawal from the Surficial 

2 aquifer. The majority of wells withdraw from the next three deeper aquifers: the Piney Point, 

3 the Nanjemoy, and the Aquia. Seven permits allow withdrawals from the deeper Magothy 

4 aquifer. None of the aquifers is classified as a sole-source aquifer. The majority of permits 

5 allow small withdrawals between 100 to 10,000 gpd, but several are very large. The seven 

6 largest permits combined allow for 3.1 MGD of withdrawal, all from the Aquia aquifer. 

7 Combined with heavy pumping of the Aquia aquifer in St. Mary’s County to the south, 

8 withdrawals from the Aquia aquifer have created a large depression in the potentiometric 

9 surface centered on the town of Solomons and the Naval Air Station (both south of the Calvert 

10 Cliffs site). 

11 UniStar identified 13 production wells on the Calvert Cliffs site. Of those, 12 wells are permitted 

12 for groundwater withdrawal and one is an historical Aquia well (the Old Bay Farm well) that is 

13 not used. Five permits exist. One permit, Maryland Water Appropriations Permit CA69G010 

14 (05), is for the five Aquia aquifer wells that are used to supply water to existing Units 1 and 2. 

15 These wells combined are permitted to withdraw 450,000 gpd annually. In the month of 

16 greatest use, the withdrawal rate is allowed to be as high as 865,000 gpd. The other four 

17 permits govern withdrawals from the remaining seven wells, all of which are screened in the 

18 Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer. Altogether, these four permits allow for a total withdrawal of 

19 1600 gpd. UniStar (2009a) plans to decommission four of these wells, which would drop the 

20 permitted withdrawal to 1100 gpd. 

21 2.3.3 Water Quality 

22 The following sections describe the water quality of surface-water and groundwater resources in 

23 the vicinity of the proposed Unit 3 site. 

24 2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality 

25 Surface water bodies whose quality could be affected by proposed Unit 3 include the 

26 Chesapeake Bay; Johns Creek; and the lakes, ponds, and streams within the boundaries of the 

27 Calvert Cliffs site. The Patuxent River and St. Leonard Creek are downstream of Johns Creek. 

28 However, the only plausible impacts to Johns Creek are so minor and localized that the 

29 downstream environment of St. Leonard Creek and Patuxent River are not discussed in this 

30 section. 

31 Water quality features of the Chesapeake Bay that are of most interest to CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

32 operations are temperature and salinity. In addition, most sections of the Chesapeake Bay, 

33 including the reach that encompasses Calvert County, are listed as Clean Water Act Section 

34 303(d) impaired waters, primarily because of low dissolved oxygen and increased nutrients and 

35 sedimentation from activities in the watersheds that drain into the Bay. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-20 April 2010 

1 Regional Chesapeake Bay temperature and salinity data are collected by participants in the 

2 CBP, which is a regional partnership that includes Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District 

3 of Columbia (DC), the EPA, and citizen advisory groups. The CBP oversees monitoring at 

4 selected locations throughout the Bay. The CBP monitoring location CB4.4 is closest to the Unit 

5 3 site and is due east of the site. In 2005, the CBP measured water temperature extremes at 

6 location CB4.4 with a minimum and maximum of 35.1 and 85.3°F, respectively (UniStar 2009a). 

7 On a seasonal basis, the average temperature varied from 42.7°F in winter to 75.4°F in 

8 summer. Salinity extremes varied from 4.42 to 22.18 ppt. On a seasonal basis, the average 

9 salinity varied from 13.3 ppt in spring to 16.38 ppt in summer. The variations are controlled by 

10 the seasonality and efficiency of mixing of freshwater and seawater, which has a nominal 

11 salinity of 30 ppt at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The extremes of dissolved oxygen 

12 concentration were 0.1 and 13.2 mg/L. The average seasonal concentrations varied from 

13 2.67 in summer to 9.89 mg/L in winter. A dissolved oxygen level of at least 5.0 mg/L is 

14 considered optimal for aquatic life. As the dissolved oxygen concentration decreases below 

15 5.0 mg/L and the water becomes more hypoxic, the stress on organisms increases. Between 

16 2.0 and 0.2 mg/L, the water is described as being severely hypoxic. Levels below 0.2 mg/L are 

17 considered to be anoxic and unable to support life. The 2005 data show that, on average, the 

18 water at CB4.4 has a dissolved oxygen concentration above 5.0 mg/L. However, the data also 

19 show that periods of time occur when concentrations fall below 0.2 mg/L, rendering the water 

20 anoxic. 

21 Twelve locations in freshwater bodies within the boundaries of the Calvert Cliffs site were 

22 sampled in October 2006 as part of a biological study conducted by UniStar (UniStar 2009a). 

23 The water bodies included Johns Creek, Goldstein Branch, Lake Conoy (also known as the 

24 Camp Conoy fishing pond), the two ponds (1 and 2) below Lake Conoy, and Lake Davies. The 

25 water quality analyses of Lake Conoy indicated generally low contaminant levels and good 

26 overall water quality. The two ponds below Lake Conoy had similar water quality characteristics 

27 with the exception that dissolved oxygen levels were very low. Though not used for drinking 

28 water, water quality in Goldstein Branch and the lower part of Johns Creek did not always 

29 comply with drinking water standards. For example, total dissolved solids (TDS) were 280 mg/L 

30 in the lower part of Johns Creek and 440 mg/L in Goldstein Branch, which meet the drinking 

31 water standard of 500 mg/L TDS. However, the TDS levels violated the drinking water standard 

32 (500 mg/L TDS) in Lake Davies. In spring 2007, sulfate levels were measured at the same 

33 locations (EA Engineering 2007a). Lake Davies and Goldstein Branch had the highest levels; in 

34 fact, two samples from Lake Davies had levels just above the drinking water standard of 

35 500 mg/L. The source of the elevated levels of dissolved solids is unknown but may reflect 

36 input from the dredging spoils placed in Lake Davies when existing Units 1 and 2 were 

37 constructed. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality 

2 Groundwater samples were collected from four wells in May 2007 for water quality determination 

3 (UniStar 2009a). Two of the wells were in the Surficial aquifer, one in the Upper Chesapeake 

4 unit and one in the Aquia. Water from the Surficial aquifer had lower alkalinity than from the 

5 deeper aquifers. The pH in one well was 3.93, which is more acidic than the 6.5 to 8.5 normally 

6 expected for groundwater. Sodium in all wells was slightly higher than the drinking water 

7 standard of 4 mg/L. Nitrate, sulfate, and chloride were all below the drinking water standard. 

8 Groundwater from the Upper Chesapeake unit was much more alkaline (about 190 mg/L) and 

9 harder (300 mg/L) than groundwater in the Surficial aquifer. Groundwater from the Aquia had 

10 characteristics somewhat between those of the upper aquifers. Nothing in the analyses 

11 suggested any unusual chemical conditions or contamination from radionuclides. 

12 Groundwater pumping throughout coastal Maryland, such as the Calvert Cliffs site, has the 

13 potential to create conditions that allow saltwater to intrude further into aquifers than would 

14 normally occur (Shedlock et al. 2007). If the intruding saltwater reaches aquifer zones where 

15 humans currently or in the future might use the freshwater resource, the value of the resource 

16 may be diminished considerably. In Maryland, saltwater intrusion problems have been limited to 

17 date to coastal areas such as Ocean City and Kent Island, Maryland, where aquifers are close 

18 to the surface and near a pumping network. At the Calvert Cliffs site, the Aquia aquifer is 

19 approximately 415 ft beneath the surface. More importantly, groundwater pumping of the Aquia 

20 aquifer for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 has not lowered the piezometric head nearly as much as it has 

21 been lowered by industrial and municipal pumping near Solomons and the Naval Air Station 

22 south of the Calvert Cliffs site. To date, saltwater intrusion has not been reported for those 

23 more-heavily pumped areas. 

24 2.3.4 Water Monitoring 

25 Regional Chesapeake Bay temperature and salinity data are collected by participants in the 

26 CBP. In its ER, UniStar (2009a) describes the onsite hydrological monitoring that occurs in 

27 accordance with its existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and 

28 Industrial Stormwater Permits. Monitoring locations for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 include the 

29 cooling water discharge, wastewater retention basins discharge, sewage treatment plant 

30 emergency outflow, and liquid radioactive waste systems discharge. 

31 Pre-application monitoring of the groundwater system underlying the Calvert Cliffs site included 

32 monitoring of existing and newly established groundwater wells. The data were collected on 

33 nine dates during the period from July 2006 to March 2007. The data appear in tables and 

34 contour plots in Section 2.3 of the ER (UniStar 2009a). 

35 UniStar supplements its onsite data collection with regional aquifer data collected by the U.S. 

36 Geological Survey (USGS), the Maryland Geological Survey, and other groups. Together, 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-22 April 2010 

1 these agencies support the Calvert County Ground Water Level Monitoring Network, which 

2 contains data on 42 wells in the deeper aquifers, including the Aquia. 

3 2.4 Ecology 

4 The Calvert Cliffs site is located on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, the largest 

5 estuary in the United States, which stretches 200 mi from Havre de Grace, Maryland, to Norfolk, 

6 Virginia. Diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats support many species, including mammals, 

7 reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and invertebrates. This section describes the terrestrial and 

8 aquatic environment and biota near the Calvert Cliffs site and other areas likely to be affected 

9 by the building, operation, or maintenance of the proposed Unit 3. It describes the spatial and 

10 temporal distribution, abundance, and other structural and functional attributes of biotic 

11 assemblages that the proposed action could affect, and it identifies “important” or irreplaceable 

12 aquatic natural resources and the location of sanctuaries and preserves that might be affected 

13 by the proposed action. 

14 2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology 

15 Historically, forests comprised of 50 or more tree species have dominated the terrestrial 

16 landscape in the Chesapeake region and still cover about 60 percent of the land area 

17 (Chesapeake Bay Program 2008a). Topography, climate, and extensive shorelines contribute 

18 to a variety of wetland habitats throughout the Chesapeake Bay region (Chesapeake Bay 

19 Program 2008b). To document the diversity present within the Calvert Cliffs site, floral and 

20 faunal field surveys as well as wetland delineation were conducted by UniStar contractors. 

21 Results from these surveys were used to describe cover types found on the site and the 

22 common species within them. Important terrestrial species are discussed in Section 2.4.1.2. 

23 2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

24 Existing Cover Types 

25 A broad-scale assessment of terrestrial vegetation was conducted by estimating community 

26 boundaries using two sets of aerial photographs. The most recent was a set of black-and-white 

27 aerial photos of the Calvert Cliffs site dated April 1993, and the other was an undated set of 

28 color infrared taken during the 1990s. These efforts were followed by direct observation of the 

29 site between May 2006 and April 2007 to delineate boundaries and determine dominant and 

30 co-dominant plant species within each type. As documented by the Maryland Department of 

31 Natural Resources (DNR, cited as MDNR), surveys for specific plants occurred in July to early 

32 August 2006, October 2006, and April 2007 to coincide with flowering periods of Maryland State 

33 listed plants known to occur in Calvert County (MDNR 2007a). Eight major cover types were 

34 identified and are described in the following sections in order of decreasing areal extent 

35 (Figure 2-10). 
April 2010 2-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-10. Plant Community (Natural Habitat Map) (UniStar 2009d) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-24 April 2010 

1 In addition to these eight cover types, limited sandy beach and sand cliff habitat are found on 

2 the Chesapeake Bay shoreline where previous development has not occurred. The beach is 

3 always narrow, approximately 20 ft wide during normal low tide. Although small tidal marshes 

4 occur in the Flag Ponds Nature Park and near St. Leonard Creek, cliffs preclude tidal marshes 

5 from occurring on the Calvert Cliffs site. Localized forest stands dominated by loblolly pine 

6 (Pinus taeda) can be found near the Bay, while inland Virginia pine can be locally dominant in 

7 disturbed areas allowed to regenerate naturally. 

8 Wildlife inhabiting the Calvert Cliffs site is commonly found in similar cover types within the 

9 region. The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox 

10 (Vulpes fulva), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), yellow warbler 

11 (Dendroica petechia), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird 

12 (Mimus polyglottos), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), and 

13 the American toad (Bufo americanus) are habitat generalists that occur in almost all cover types 

found on the site (NRC 1996; 1999(a) 14 ; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

15 Mixed Deciduous Forest

16 Virginia pine (Pinus. virginiana), mixed in with various broadleaf tree species is the predominant 

17 cover type on the Calvert Cliffs site. Dominant broadleaf species include tulip poplar 

18 (Liriodendron tulifera), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak (Q. alba), black oak 

19 (Q. velutina), southern red oak (Q. falcata), and scarlet oak (Q. coccinia), and American beech 

20 (Fagus grandifolia). Also present within the canopies are pignut hickory (Carya glabra), bitternut 

21 hickory (C. cordiformis), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), swamp 

22 chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) 

23 and pawpaw (Asimina trilobata) dominate the local understory, while American holly (Ilex opaca) 

24 can be quite common. The dense canopy limits understory growth, but where breaks in the 

25 canopy allow sunlight to penetrate to the ground, partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), Christmas 

26 fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), common violet (Viola papilionacea), and large whorled 

27 pogonia (Isotria verticillata) are present. 

28 In addition to habitat generalists, wildlife present within mixed deciduous forest include the 

29 eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (S. niger), eastern chipmunk 

30 (Tamias striatus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), great-horned owl 

31 (Bubo virginianus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), northern cardinal 

32 (Cardinalis cardinalis), yellow-billed cuckoo (Cocoyzus americanus), eastern wood-pewee 

33 (Contopus virens), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and the blue jay 

34 (Cyanocitta cristata) (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999. 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Old Field

2 Natural succession on areas previously disturbed that were not landscaped or maintained has 

3 resulted in two types of old field habitats dominated by weedy plant species. The largest old 

4 field area is located on the Lake Davies dredge disposal area, southwest of CCNPP Units 1 

5 and 2, and contains dredge spoils deposited during the building of the previous units. This site 

6 is dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis), also known as Phragmites, a widespread 

7 invasive species common in moist soils that is considered undesirable (USFS 2008a). Other 

8 plants in this area indicative of old fields include blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis) and tall 

9 fescue (Festuca arundinacea). 

10 Other previously disturbed areas represent the second type of old field habitat, which is 

11 dominated by old field plant species such as tall fescue, sericea lespedeza 

12 (Lespedeza cuneata), blackberry, Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), and asters 

13 (Aster spp.). Habitat areas of this type are found scattered throughout the central and northern 

14 portions of the Calvert Cliffs site, near the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), 

15 under both existing transmission corridors, and alongside many of the existing roadways. 

16 Wildlife that prefer open habitats including old fields and forest edges include the woodchuck 

17 (Marmota monax), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), 

18 turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and northern black racer 

19 (Coluber constrictor constrictor) (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

20 Landscaping/Developed Areas

21 Previously disturbed areas that have been subsequently landscaped are the primary habitat 

22 immediately surrounding Units 1 and 2 as well as the Camp Conoy area (Figure 2-1). Existing 

23 buildings, parking lots, and maintained open spaces around these structures are typical of this 

24 cover type. Vegetated areas within this cover type are usually lawn grasses containing varied 

25 amounts of broadleaf weedy species with planted ornamental trees and shrubs. 

26 In addition to many wildlife species found in old fields and forest edges, the killdeer 

27 (Charadrius vociferous), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and the ruby-throated 

28 hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) have adapted to use landscaping and developed areas 

29 (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

30 Mixed Deciduous Regeneration Forest

31 Recent timber harvest activities have altered some of the mixed deciduous stands on the 

32 Calvert Cliffs site. Following harvest, regeneration of the forest has produced vigorous and 

33 dense stands of Virginia pine, tulip poplar, numerous oak species, sweet gum, and red maple. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-26 April 2010 

1 Little understory or ground cover is present within these stands, although scattered mountain 

2 laurel and American holly can be found. 

3 One wildlife species commonly found in young forest stands is the tufted titmouse 

4 (Baeolophus bicolor). Wildlife found in other Calvert Cliffs site habitats that would also occur in 

5 mixed regeneration forest includes the habitat-generalist white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail 

6 rabbit, and eastern wild turkey (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

7 Well-Drained Bottomland Deciduous Forest

8 Areas alongside small streams, such as Johns Creek and Goldstein Branch, that lie within the 

9 wetland delineation area and small stands of tulip poplar, American beech, sweet gum, black 

10 gum, and red maple indicate moist yet well-drained soils. The same understory species, 

11 mountain laurel and American holly, are present within this cover type. However, New York fern 

12 (Thelypteris noveboracensis) dominates a patchily distributed groundcover. This cover type 

13 indicates a transition between upland and bottomland cover types and varies in width depending 

14 on topography and soils. 

15 Wildlife specific to wetlands, such as the raccoon (Procyon lotor), beaver (Castor canadensis), 

16 red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Canada goose 

17 (Branta canadensis), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and the spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) 

18 could be found in this habitat along with forest species (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

19 Poorly Drained Bottomland Deciduous Forest

20 Soils within valley bottoms are seasonally saturated, and red maple, sweet gum, and black gum 

21 stands dominate the overstory. Shrubs are sparse to absent, and ground cover plants that can 

22 thrive in moist-to-wet soils and deep shade are quite dense in most areas. Forb communities 

23 are dominated by New York fern, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and royal fern 

24 (Osmunda regalis); sedges and rushes present include tussock sedge (Carex stricta), eastern 

25 bur-reed (Sparangium americanum), and soft rush (Juncus effusus); and forbs such as lizard tail 

26 (Saururus cernuus) and skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) are quite common. Wildlife 

27 would be similar to those found in well-drained bottomland deciduous forest (NRC 1996; Tetra 

28 Tech NUS 2007a). 

29 Herbaceous Marsh

30 Two broad types of herbaceous marsh cover exist within the Calvert Cliffs site. Phragmites31 dominated marsh occurs in lowlands with flat topography adjacent to Johns Creek in the 

32 western portion of the site as well as in small gaps in the canopy surrounding the headwaters of 

33 Johns Creek, Goldstein Branch, and other small streams. Areas similar in topography that 

34 occur around Lake Conoy and its outflow to the Chesapeake Bay are dominated by sedges, 

35 rushes, bulrushes, and lizard tail along with dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and 

2 halberd-leaved tearthumb (Polygonum arifolium). 

3 Similar to other wetlands, the beaver, raccoon, red-winged blackbird, great blue heron, Canada 

4 goose, greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), and 

5 the northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) would be common in herbaceous marsh (NRC 1996; 

6 Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

7 Successional Hardwood Forest

8 Fast-growing hardwood tree species have recently become established within old field cover 

9 types, including black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and 

10 eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The understory is dense and comprised of the same 

11 plant species found in the old field cover type. Wildlife found in other deciduous forest types of 

12 the Calvert Cliffs site would also be found in successional hardwood forest (NRC 1996; Tetra 

13 Tech NUS 2007a). 

14 Open Water

15 Although not a major cover type, a small amount of open water exists inland of the Chesapeake 

16 Bay. The Camp Conoy fishing pond and the Lake Davies dredge disposal areas provide a 

17 small amount of open water habitat. Both are manmade waterbodies not present before the 

18 building of Units 1 and 2. Although few terrestrial species would be endemic to this habitat, it is 

19 used by many and is an important resource. 

20 Existing Natural and Anthropogenic Features 

21 Although forest cover dominates the Calvert Cliffs site, habitat disturbance has occurred in the 

22 form of buildings, infrastructure, maintained landscape, logging, and field agriculture. The 

23 existing power block, support facilities, roads, parking areas, maintained landscaping, and 

24 deposited dredge spoils represent the most obvious disturbance within the central portion of the 

25 site. Recreational facilities at Camp Conoy also contribute to this existing disturbance footprint. 

26 Although now repopulated with tree cover, logging operations within the last 20 years west of 

27 Camp Conoy Road have changed the forest structure from a mature stand of climax forest 

28 species to a successional forest stand of more shade-intolerant species. Although no 

29 agriculture or farming activities now occur on the Calvert Cliffs site, old field habitats to the north 

30 are remnant agricultural fields that have undergone succession, reverting back to a natural 

31 state. Transmission line corridor maintenance activities, including mowing and herbicide 

32 treatments, prevent these areas from reverting back to forest. Also, small openings in the 

33 interior forest canopy are scattered within the proposed Unit 3 construction area, a likely result 

34 of windfall from hurricane force winds. The result of these natural and manmade disturbances 

35 is a diversification of habitats that is beneficial to edge species such as the white-tailed deer but 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-28 April 2010 

1 also a reduction and fragmentation of interior forest that is locally detrimental to the scarlet 

2 tanager (Piranga olivacea) and other species that rely on this habitat. 

3 2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines 

4 The existing transmission system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 consists of a north circuit that 

5 connects the plant to the Waugh Chapel Substation in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and 

6 south circuit that connects the plant to the Potomac Electric Power Company Chalk Point 

7 Generating Station in Prince Georges County, Maryland. No new transmission corridors would 

8 be constructed off the Calvert Cliffs site, as existing transmission corridors would be used for 

9 power distribution from the proposed Unit 3. 

10 Offsite Transmission and Access Corridors 

11 Many species of wildlife use both natural and manmade features in the landscape to travel from 

12 one environ to another, essentially a corridor. Ground-borne mammals may use roads, trails, 

13 levees, streams, strips of forest, or topography features such as ridge tops or valleys depending 

14 on their habitat preferences (Atwood et al. 2004; Frey and Conover 2006; Spackman and 

15 Hughes 1994). Forest interior birds have used green belts and habitat edges to navigate 

16 through less suitable habitat (Levey et al. 2005; Mason et al. 2006). In relatively undisturbed 

17 forest tracts like those on the Calvert Cliffs site and throughout Calvert County, stream bottoms 

18 and ridge tops marked by slight changes in vegetation likely serve as travel corridors for local 

19 fauna, as no large migrations are known to occur within this region. Wildlife that have home 

20 ranges larger than the entire site and routinely travel through the site and beyond may use the 

21 Goldstein Branch valley bottom or adjoining hilltops for north-south travel, while the Johns 

22 Creek drainage may facilitate east-west movement. 

23 2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

24 Important species are defined as rare, commercially or recreationally valuable, essential to the 

25 maintenance of an important species, playing a critical role in the function of an ecosystem, or 

26 serving as biological indicators for environmental change (NRC 2000). Rare species are 

27 defined as one of the following: listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and 

28 Wildlife Service (FWS) as defined in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

29 17.11 thru 17.12; proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; published in the Federal 

30 Register as a candidate for listing; or listed as threatened, endangered, or other species of 

31 concern status by the State in which the proposed facility is located. Thirteen important species 

32 are known or are likely to occur on the Calvert Cliffs site (Table 2-1). 

33 Migratory birds and their nests and eggs are afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

34 Act (MBTA). During the site visit, active osprey nests were observed on poles above the 

35 existing water intake structure. Eastern bluebirds are also known to nest onsite, and the 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Constellation staff maintains nest boxes for this species (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

2 Both osprey and eastern bluebirds are listed as migratory under the MBTA. Forty-five additional 

3 migratory bird species were observed within various cover types on the Calvert Cliffs site. 

4 Table 2-1. Important Species Identified as Known or Likely to Occur on the Calvert Cliffs Site 

Common Name Latin Name Type Criteria 

chestnut oak Quercus prinus Plant Ecological Role 

mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia Plant Ecological Role 

New York fern Thelypteris noveboracensis Plant Ecological Role 

showy goldenrod Solidago speciosa Plant State Threatened 

Shumard’s oak Quercus shumardii Plant State Threatened 

spurred butterfly pea Centrosema virginianum Plant Rare(a)

tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Plant Ecological Role / Ecological 

Indicator 

northeastern tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Insect Federally Threatened and 

State Endangered 

Puritan tiger beetle Cicindela puritana Insect Federally Threatened and 

State Endangered 

eastern narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne carolinensis Amphibian State Endangered and 

Critically Imperiled 

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird State Threatened 

scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Bird Ecological Indicator 

white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Mammal Recreationally Valuable 

Source: UniStar 2009a; MDNR 2007a 

(a) Classified as Rare by the Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 

5 Plants 

6 Seven plant species that occur within the Calvert Cliffs site have met various importance criteria 

7 and have been classified as such. Two species, the showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa) and 

8 Shumard’s oak (Quercus shumardii), are listed as threatened in the State of Maryland. The 

9 spurred butterfly pea (Centrosema virginianum), although not Federally or State-listed, is 

10 classified as rare by the Maryland Natural Heritage Program. Chestnut oak (Quercas prinus), 

11 mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), New York fern, and tulip poplar are indicative of high-quality 

12 habitats and contribute significantly to ecological functions. 

13 Chestnut Oak (Quercus prinus)

14 Chestnut oak is a common and widespread tree species in the eastern United States (USDA 

15 2008d) indicating good ecological health. Unlike tulip poplars, they persist on dry, shallow, and 

16 rocky soils (eFloras 2008b) that can be found on the slopes surrounding stream bottoms on the 

17 Calvert Cliffs site. Many chestnut oaks are found on the slopes of the Johns Creek and 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-30 April 2010 

1 Goldstein Branch floodplains, providing stability to the steeper slopes. Mast produced by this 

2 oak also provides food resources for forest wildlife. Thus, this tree species contributes to the 

3 ecological function of Calvert Cliffs site’s forest health and ecological stability. 

4 Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia)

5 Mountain laurel is common and widespread throughout the eastern one-third of the United 

6 States, from Maine to Florida and west to Louisiana and Indiana (USDA 2008a). It is an upland 

7 shrub that dominates the forested understory on the Calvert Cliffs site, including the proposed 

8 Unit 3 construction site and steep slopes of Johns Creek and Goldstein Branch. Mountain 

9 laurel’s predominance in the landscape and widespread use by terrestrial wildlife make it 

10 important to the ecological function of the forested portions of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

11 New York Fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis)

12 The New York fern is a common herbaceous plant widespread throughout much of eastern 

13 North America (USDA 2008h). Its presence indicates ecologically stable wetland and moist soil 

14 communities (USDA 2008h), and its predominance in the landscape contributes to the 

15 ecological integrity of the environments in which it occurs. It forms large continuous patches of 

16 dense groundcover throughout most of the Calvert Cliffs site forested lowlands and also partially 

17 up adjoining slopes, including within the proposed Unit 3 construction area. 

18 Showy Goldenrod (Solidago speciosa)

19 The showy goldenrod, a State of Maryland threatened species, is a perennial forb that typically 

20 occurs in open areas where it receives full sun (USDA 2008g; UW 2008). Patches of showy 

21 goldenrod were observed in several locations around Camp Conoy during 2006 floral surveys 

22 conducted by UniStar contractors (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

23 Shumard’s Oak (Quercus shumardii)

24 Shumard’s oak is distributed throughout the southern and eastern United States, west to Texas 

25 and north into Michigan (USDA 2008e), but it is not widely distributed in Maryland (USDA 2008f) 

26 It is found scattered throughout hardwood forest stands and is often associated with other oak 

27 species (USFS 2008b). Shumard’s oak is in the red oak family and is very similar in 

28 appearance to red oak (Quercas rubra). It prefers moist, well-drained loamy soils that typically 

29 occur on upland sites. It was observed at multiple locations on the site within the Johns Creek 

30 floodplain in 2006 and 2007. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Spurred Butterfly Pea (Centrosema virginianum)

2 The spurred butterfly pea is a climbing forb found throughout the southeastern United States, as 

3 far north as southern New Jersey, along the Atlantic Coast. It occurs often in acidic, well4 drained soils within forested or more open areas but has a wide tolerance of habitat conditions 

5 (USDA 2008b). It was previously reported on the Calvert Cliffs site southwest of the proposed 

6 Unit 3 construction area, and more recently observed in the Johns Creek floodplain west of the 

7 proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). 

8 Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)

9 Tulip poplar, a common tree species throughout eastern and southeastern portions of the 

10 United States (USDA 2008c), is an indicator species of good ecological condition. The tulip 

11 poplar is an integral part of the flora of the Calvert Cliffs site. Tulip poplars establish in openings 

12 with moist, deep well-drained soils (USDA 2002). Many large specimens contribute structure to 

13 forest communities within the proposed construction area and surrounding areas. 

14 Insects 

15 Two Federally listed insects, the Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela puritana) and the northeastern 

16 beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis), inhabit sandy beaches and cliffs of the Calvert 

17 Cliffs site. 

18 Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis)

19 The northeastern beach tiger beetle is a Federally threatened species and endangered in the 

20 State of Maryland (55 FR 32088; MDNR 2007a). No critical habitat has been designated for the 

21 northeastern beach tiger beetle. Historically, the northeastern beach tiger beetle is a 

22 subspecies that occurred along the Atlantic Coast from Cape Cod south to central New Jersey 

23 and on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia. The species has been 

24 extirpated from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Long Island, and New Jersey, and the current 

25 distribution is limited to two sites in coastal Massachusetts and throughout the Chesapeake 

26 shoreline (FWS 1994). Chesapeake Bay populations now constitute a significant portion of the 

27 known population of northeastern beach tiger beetles. Additional range-wide distribution and 

28 life history information on this species can be found in Appendix M. 

29 Adult northeastern beach tiger beetles have historically occurred on the Calvert Cliffs site on the 

30 northernmost 300-ft section of beach that borders Flag Ponds Nature Park, but none were 

31 observed during 2006 (Knisley 2006). No suitable breeding habitat, larvae, or burrows have 

32 been observed on the Calvert Cliffs site, and Knisley (2006) reports this species is not likely to 

33 have an established population on the site. However, it is likely the adults move south from the 

34 Flag Ponds population onto the Calvert Cliffs site. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-32 April 2010 

1 Larvae of the northeastern beach tiger beetles are found in burrows on the beach in the upper 

2 intertidal to high drift zone where prey is abundant. Although burrows may be inundated at high 

3 tide, larvae have adapted by closing the burrow until water levels drop or may relocate to dig a 

4 new burrow in a more suitable location. They emerge as adults in mid June after two years of 

5 development, and adult populations peak shortly thereafter and decline through August. Adults 

6 are active on wider beach sections near the water’s edge on warm, sunny days (FWS 1994). 

7 The larvae are parasitized by a wasp and are also susceptible to erosion, flooding, and food 

8 availability. Annual population levels of this species fluctuate widely, and localized extirpation 

9 and repopulation is likely a survival mechanism as adults are able to disperse widely. Marked 

10 individuals have been recovered 5-12 mi away, and some adults have been observed more 

11 than 50 mi from known populations. Larvae-to-adult survival may be as low as 5 percent, and 

12 causes for the low survival rate have been attributed to beach habitat destruction and direct 

13 mortality. Beach alteration resulting from stabilization, recreational beach use, and natural 

14 phenomena contribute to habitat destruction, while the latter two may also result in direct 

15 mortality (FWS 1994). A five-year review by the FWS is pending for the northeastern beach 

16 tiger beetle (73 FR 3991).

17 Puritan Tiger Beetle (Cicindela puritana)

18 The Puritan tiger beetle was Federally listed as threatened in 1970 due to its limited distribution 

19 coupled with threats from habitat loss and degradation, and vulnerability to natural and human 

20 threats (55 FR 32088). No critical habitat has been designated for the Puritan tiger beetle. A 

21 more recent status review of this species recommended the Puritan tiger beetle be reclassified 

22 to Federally endangered, but this finding is still under review (FWS 2007). It is also a State of 

23 Maryland endangered species (MDNR 2007b). The Puritan tiger beetle has a very limited 

24 distribution, only occurring in three known locations: the Chesapeake Bay shoreline in Calvert 

25 County, around the mouth of the Sassafras River in eastern Maryland, and along the 

26 Connecticut River in Connecticut and Massachusetts (FWS 1993). Additional range-wide 

27 distribution and life history information on this species can be found in Appendix M. 

28 The larvae live in deep burrows excavated into sandy deposits on the high, steep bluffs of the 

29 Bay that are eroded and maintained by wave action. Adults prefer narrow, open sandy 

30 beaches found below such bluffs and are active both day and night. Adult beetle populations 

31 peak in late June to early July as they emerge from burrows after a two-year larval period. Little 

32 is known about adult dispersal, although some records indicate long-range dispersal of 25-30 mi 

33 may be possible. By August, only a few adults remain. Tiger beetles in general are 

34 carnivorous, and both the larvae and adult Puritan tiger beetles prey on invertebrates, with 

35 larvae catching prey at the burrow entrance. Adults are prey for other predators, including 

36 robber flies and spiders, and larvae are parasitized by a wasp. Larvae may also be susceptible 

37 to erosion during winter, the same forces that maintain the habitat they use. Shoreline 

38 development is the most serious threat to Puritan tiger beetle populations. Development often 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 requires bank stabilization, and as banks are stabilized plant cover becomes established, 

2 reducing or eliminating occupation by this beetle species (FWS 1993). A population has been 

3 present on the beach and bluffs of the Calvert Cliffs site since 1997. 

4 Amphibians 

5 Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis)

6 The eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis) is the sole amphibian that is 

7 State-listed as endangered and critically imperiled in Maryland. Maryland is the northernmost 

8 state in which this species is known to occur (UMMZ 2008), and it has been found within Calvert 

9 County (MDNR 2007a; USGS 2008). Although named a toad, this species is actually a frog 

10 known to use a wide variety of habitats that provide adequate moisture and shelter throughout 

11 the southeastern United States (UMMZ 2008). The eastern narrowmouth toad finds shelter by 

12 burrowing in a wide variety of shaded moist habitats including conifer, hardwood, and mixed 

13 forests and woodlands. Breeding ponds can be either permanent or temporary shallow pools or 

14 even deep water if floating vegetation is present (UMMZ 2008). Males call from pond edges 

15 after adequate rain initiates breeding and eggs are deposited in small floating clusters. Primary 

16 prey includes ants, termites, and beetles. 

17 A habitat evaluation was conducted to determine suitability of wetlands on the Calvert Cliffs site 

18 for eastern narrow mouthed toads (UniStar 2008c). Most wetlands on site contained moving 

19 water, which is unsuitable breeding habitat for this frog (UMMZ 2008). However, the pond at 

20 Camp Conoy and a swale in the Lake Davies area of the site were deemed suitable. Surveys 

21 were conducted repeatedly during 2008 per a Maryland DNR survey protocol. No eastern 

22 narrow-mouthed toad adults or larvae were observed (UniStar 2008c) and it is highly likely this 

23 species does not occur within the proposed construction area. 

24 Birds 

25 Important avian species on the Calvert Cliffs site include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

26 leucocephalus) and forest interior dwelling species (FIDS) represented by the scarlet tanager. 

27 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

28 The bald eagle was delisted by the FWS in 2007 (50 CFR Part 17). It is still afforded Federal 

29 protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and also 

30 classified as threatened by the State of Maryland (MDNR 2007a). Bald eagle pairs defend a 

31 core-use area that encompasses a nest site and favored foraging perches (Stinson et al. 2007). 

32 Nest trees are usually large super-dominant trees away from human disturbance and within a 

33 mile of a large open water habitat, and nest sites are often reused. Foraging perches are 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-34 April 2010 

1 prominent locations within sight of an open expanse of water (Stinson et al. 2007), such as 

2 along the top of the bluffs along the Chesapeake Bay. 

3 Bald eagles typically lay eggs in March or April, and young fledge 12 weeks after a 35-day 

4 incubation period. Ideal nesting habitat is mature forest in close proximity to open water, such 

5 as the Chesapeake Bay or the Camp Conoy fishing pond. Bald eagles were observed on the 

6 Calvert Cliffs site during 2006 and 2007. 

7 Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea)

8 For the purposes of this EIS the scarlet tanager represents FIDS, a group of birds that function 

9 as indicators species because of their sensitivity to land management practices. FIDS require 

10 large forest areas to thrive (CAC 2000), and their absence from the landscape has been 

11 recognized as an indication of forest fragmentation (Donovan and Flather 2002; Keller and 

12 Yahner 2007; Villard et al. 1995). FIDS habitat, as defined by forest characteristics as outlined 

13 in the Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the CBCA (CAC 2000), can 

14 be of two types: 

15 1. Forested tracts at least 20.2 ac in size with 10 or more ac of its area greater than 300 ft from 

16 the nearest edge, with either a closed canopy or dominated by trees larger than 5 in. in 

17 diameter at breast height. 

18 2. Riparian forests at least 50 ac in size with an average width of 300 ft along perennial 

19 streams with either a closed canopy or dominated by trees larger than 5 in. in diameter at 

20 breast height. 

21 Using these guidelines, it appears Calvert County contains a substantial amount of FIDS habitat 

22 (Figure 2-11). The scarlet tanager was the most frequently observed of the 10 FIDS on the 

23 Calvert Cliffs site during the 2006 spring breeding season and occurs in the southern, 

24 southwestern, and western portions of the site (NRC 1996; Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). Scarlet 

25 tanagers nest within the mid story and canopy of extensively forested areas. They lay three to 

26 five eggs, which incubate for 13 to 14 days, and young fledge only 9 to 11 days after hatching 

27 (SMBC 2008). The scarlet tanager is a neotropical migrant that leaves the site during autumn 

28 and winter, which is why they were not recorded in surveys occurring within these seasons 

29 during 2006 and 2007. Although quite common, tanager populations have been declining in 

30 Maryland, and the cause is attributed to forest habitat fragmentation (CAC 2000). 

31 Mammals 

32 The white-tailed deer was the only terrestrial mammal determined to be an “important species” 

33 on the Calvert Cliffs site (UniStar 2009a). Due to extensive hunting in rural Maryland and also 

34 in Calvert County, white-tailed deer are a recreationally valuable species. They were observed 

35 in all cover types and were observed more frequently than other mammal species. White-tailed 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-35 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-11. FIDS Habitat within Calvert County, Maryland 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-36 April 2010 

1 deer have adapted to many different habitats and are considered habitat generalists. White2 tailed deer populations have benefited from landscape scale disturbances and have thrived in 

3 edge habitats-places where two or more distinct habitats meet such as where the edge of a 

4 forest meets an opening (Cadenasso and Pickett 2000). White-tailed deer breed annually in 

5 autumn, with peak activity occurring in November. Single fawns are born 200 to 210 days after 

6 conception, with twins and triplets common to does older than 1.5 years of age. Fawns retain 

7 their white spots and remain with their mother until the autumn after birth. Female white-tailed 

8 deer are sexually mature during their first winter, while males mature the year following birth. 

9 Historically, large carnivores, such as wolves (Canis lupus) and cougars (Puma concolor), 

10 preyed on white-tailed deer and kept populations in balance. However, as a result of the 

11 elimination of these predators from much of their range coupled with land management 

12 practices that have fragmented the landscape, burgeoning white-tailed deer populations have 

13 become a management issue. Locally, some deer herds have exceeded the carrying capacity 

14 of their range and have damaged vegetation (Long et al. 2007; Rossell et al. 2007; Taverna et 

15 al. 2005), earning the reputation of a nuisance species requiring special management actions. 

16 Habitats of Importance 

17 Habitat is deemed important if it meets one of four criteria and occurs on lands that may be 

18 adversely affected by plant or transmission line building, operation, or maintenance. Set-aside 

19 lands, habitats designated by State/Federal governments to receive protection priority, 

20 wetlands/floodplains (see Section 2.4.1.1), and critical habitat designated as such for species 

21 Federally listed as threatened or endangered are all considered “important habitats” (NRC 

22 2000). Although the Calvert Cliffs site does not contain any critical habitat for threatened or 

23 endangered species, there are State sanctuaries adjacent to the site, as well as both wetlands 

24 and lands that receive priority protections within the Calvert Cliffs site boundary. 

25 Immediately north of the Calvert Cliffs site, the 327-ac Flag Ponds Nature Park managed by the 

26 Maryland DNR, has been set aside to preserve the diversity of landforms, natural vegetation, 

27 and wildlife habitats. This park contains beach habitat previously occupied by the Puritan tiger 

28 beetle and currently occupied by adult northeastern beach tiger beetles; both species are 

29 Federally threatened and State endangered. Calvert Cliffs State Park, a 1079-ac wildlands 

30 area, borders the Calvert Cliffs site to the south. The state park also contains cliff and beach 

31 habitats that host both listed species of tiger beetles. 

32 Although the Calvert Cliffs site does not contain areas designated as critical habitat for 

33 threatened or endangered species, the State of Maryland, through the CBCA Act of 1984, 

34 established all land within 1000 ft of mean high water line of tidal waters or the landward edge of 

35 tidal wetlands and all waters of and lands under the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as 

36 critical area (CAC 2008d). In addition, regulations that are implemented through the CBCA 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-37 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Commission establish protections for a 100-ft-wide, naturally vegetated, forested buffer 

2 landward from the mean high water line of tidal waters or from the edge of tidal wetlands and 

3 tributary streams of the Chesapeake Bay regardless of whether they actually occur within the 

4 CBCA (CAC 2008e). Lands within the CBCA are categorized by use and development intensity 

5 to prioritize conservation efforts. As mentioned in Section 2.2.1, the three categories are IDAs, 

6 LDAs, and RCAs. IDAs are plots at least 20 ac in size resulting from predominantly residential, 

7 commercial, institutional, or industrial land-use activities, with little or no natural habitat (CAC 

8 2008f). Conservation of water quality and erosion management is emphasized within LDAs. 

9 Also important is forest cover, as conservation measures stipulate forest cover loss must be 

10 mitigated and/or created where development takes place in unforested LDA tracts. RCAs are 

11 natural environments or resource-utilization areas whereas agriculture, aquaculture, commercial 

12 forestry, or fisheries activities occur (CAC 2008f). New development in RCAs is limited to low 

13 intensity to preserve the natural character and allow habitat preservation. Best management 

14 practices (BMPs) must be employed to manage runoff, erosion, and excessive nutrient loading 

15 into wetlands. 

16 The CBCA Commission has also established that interior forest habitat, defined as the area 

17 within a forest stand that lies greater than 300 ft from an open area such as pasture, agricultural 

18 fields, or lawn (CAC 2000), is an important habitat that must be managed within the 

19 Chesapeake Bay watershed. Interior forest habitats are critically important to FIDS and are 

20 found within the project area. 

21 Aerial photographs indicate that parts of the Calvert Cliffs site harbor regionally important 

22 unfragmented forest tracts, including within the proposed construction area. Therefore, the 

23 forested areas on the site, including those close to Johns Creek in the proposed Unit 3 

24 construction area, are valuable in sustaining local FIDS populations. 

25 Each species listed as important in this document has different habitat requirements. As 

26 described previously, scarlet tanagers and other FIDS depend on interior forest, while white27 tailed deer are habitat generalists and are not reliant on any single habitat component. Bald 

28 eagles nest in tall trees near open water, where they forage on fish, birds, and small mammals. 

29 Both species of listed tiger beetles, Puritan and northeastern beach, have very specific habitat 

30 requirements and limited distributions; these habitats are of very high value for the continued 

31 existence of both species. Conversely, all of the plants listed above as important are common, 

32 fairly widespread, and do not rely on any specific habitats within the Calvert Cliffs site. 

33 Wetlands 

34 Wetlands are distributed throughout Calvert County, Maryland. Most are associated with the 

35 Chesapeake Bay or with the Patuxent River, which forms the western boundary of the county 

36 and eventually drains in the Bay. Three cover types within the Calvert Cliffs site boundary are 

37 classified as wetlands and qualify as important habitats: well-drained bottomland deciduous 

38 forest, poorly drained bottomland deciduous forest, and herbaceous marsh. Boundaries of 

39 these habitats, as well as all wetlands, were established during 2006 by UniStar using the Corps 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-38 April 2010 

1 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Figure 2-12) (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The poorly 

2 drained forest bottomland deciduous forest and the herbaceous wetlands qualify as wetlands as 

3 defined in 33 CFR 328.3 of the Clean Water Act and Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 

4 26.23.01.01(B)(62) for the Maryland Nontidal Wetland Protection Act (COMAR 2007). Well5 drained bottomland deciduous forest occurs within valley floodplains, but is not indicative of 

6 wetlands (Environmental Laboratory 1987). 

7 UniStar’s delineation methods followed Part IV, Section D, Subsection 2 of the Corps of 

8 Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the USACE 

9 memorandum on clarification and interpretation of that manual (USACE 1992). UniStar did not 

10 delineate any wetlands within the existing power block or the existing 500-kV transmission 

11 corridors. 

12 The eastern portion of the Calvert Cliffs site mostly drains into the Chesapeake Bay through a 

13 series of unnamed intermittent and first-order perennial streams. Topography of the bluffs along 

14 the Chesapeake Bay precludes tidal influence into these streams. The portion of the delineation 

15 area west of Camp Conoy Road drains toward the Patuxent River, forming much of the 

16 headwaters of Johns Creek, the Goldstein Branch, and to a limited extent the Woodland Branch. 

17 Lake Davies, the dredge spoil area created during the building of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 drains 

18 into sediment basins that ultimately discharge into both Johns Creek and the Goldstein Branch. 

19 UniStar determined that 58.2 ac of delineated wetlands exist within the Calvert Cliffs site 

20 wetland delineation area (State of Maryland 2008). For ease of characterization and discussion, 

21 the wetland delineation area was divided by UniStar into nine assessment areas. Each area is 

22 a contiguous wetland/aquatic area with a high degree of hydrological interaction and biological 

23 similarity. Assessment areas I, II, and III contain the small, unnamed streams that flow into the 

24 Chesapeake Bay (Table 2-2). Assessment areas IV, V, and VI form the Johns Creek watershed 

25 upgradient from the confluence with the Goldstein Branch. Assessment area VII is the 

26 Goldstein Branch watershed. Assessment area VIII is made up of seeps and headwaters that 

27 flow north toward the Woodland Branch, while area IX drains into the Calvert Cliffs site storm 

28 drain system developed during the building of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. 

29 Assessment Area I

30 Wetlands in area I consist of three narrow stream channels contained within a poorly drained 

31 bottomland deciduous forest cover type defined by steep wooded embankments that are deeply 

32 incised and lack adjacent wetlands. Adjoining emergent vegetation patches are less than 3 ft 

33 wide; thus, the wetland boundary length is long with respect to the total jurisdictional wetland 

34 area. Two of the streams, which join just north of Camp Conoy and flow into the Chesapeake 

35 Bay, appear to be perennial, while the third, which also joins the other two, appears to be 

36 intermittent. This assessment area also includes an artificial storm water basin near the existing 

37 barge dock. This basin appears to have permanent open water as indicated by a narrow 

38 surrounding of emergent vegetation. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-39 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 

3 Figure 2-12. Calvert Cliffs Wetland Delineation Area (Tetra Tech NUS 2007a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-40 April 2010 

1 Table 2-2. Calvert Cliffs Site Delineated Wetland Summary Table 

Assessment 

Area 

Wetland 

Area 

(ac) 

Wetland 

Boundary 

Length (ft) Description 

I 2.2 7500 Streams and bordering wetlands north of Camp Conoy, south 

of existing power block. 

II 6.2 9900 Camp Conoy Fishing Pond and associated streams, seeps, 

and bordering wetlands. 

III 0.8 4100 Stream and bordering wetlands in southeast corner. 

IV 12.8 38,700 Headwaters of upper Johns Creek watershed. 

V 9.1 12,500 Johns Creek main channel and bordering wetlands. 

VI 14.0 6400 Old Lake Davies artificial sediment basins. 

VII 11.6 27,200 Goldstein Branch main channel, tributaries, and headwaters. 

VIII 0.4 3000 Headwaters on forested slope south of Calvert Cliffs Parkway. 

IX 1.1 3000 Seeps, headwaters, and wetlands immediately west of 

existing Calvert Cliffs site parking lot. 

Total 58.2 -- -- 

Source: State of Maryland 2008

2 Assessment Area II

3 This assessment area consists of the Camp Conoy Fishing Pond, three stream channels that 

4 feed the pond, the pond outflow stream, and three small isolated wetlands upgradient from the 

5 pond. The Camp Conoy Fishing Pond was constructed by excavating and impounding a stream 

6 channel with an earthen dam. The pond is a permanent open-water habitat with submergent 

7 and emergent wetland vegetation classified as herbaceous marsh cover type. It is fed by three 

8 small headwater streams located west and southwest of the pond. Each stream channel has 

9 bordering wetlands that range in width from 3 ft to more than 100 ft, classified as poorly drained 

10 bottomland deciduous forest. The fishing pond has an outlet stream that flows through an 

11 outflow pipe and then northeast to the Chesapeake Bay. The outlet stream also has two small 

12 impoundments with herbaceous marsh cover. Tidal influence is blocked by cliffs near the Bay. 

13 The three isolated wetlands upgradient of the pond are groundwater seepages that percolate 

14 back underground. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-41 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Assessment Area III

2 An unnamed perennial stream fed by four separate seepages and an intermittent stream 

3 constitute assessment area III. Four seepages merge to form the perennial stream, which is not 

4 sharply defined or confined within distinct banks. The seepages are under a mixed deciduous 

5 canopy. The intermittent stream carries surface runoff from land near Camp Conoy Road and is 

6 deeply incised and lacks adjacent wetlands. It merges with the perennial stream forming a 

7 patch of poorly drained bottomland deciduous cover that gets progressively wider downgradient 

8 to more than 50 ft wide. 

9 Assessment Area IV

10 Two headwater subsystems and the associated wetlands that form the upper portion of the 

11 Johns Creek watersheds make up area IV. Assessment area IV is bounded by a ridge that is 

12 followed by Camp Conoy Road that separates this area from areas I, II, and III. One headwater 

13 stream subsystem is formed from a cluster of seepages near existing Calvert Cliffs site facilities. 

14 The other headwaters flow from private land south of the site. These two subsystems merge in 

15 a relatively flat area west of Camp Conoy under a mixed deciduous canopy, forming a poorly 

16 drained bottomland deciduous forest type surrounded by well-drained bottomland deciduous 

17 forest cover type. Phragmites, an invasive herbaceous marsh plant, dominates wetland areas 

18 where the forest canopy has opened up in area IV. 

19 Assessment Area V

20 Assessment area V, like area IV, is in the Johns Creek watershed. Although the border 

21 between Areas IV and V is arbitrary, assessment area V consists of the main channel of Johns 

22 Creek, adjacent wetlands, and a few seepages that form intermittent streams on the slope 

23 immediately north of the main channel of Johns Creek. Seepages immediately south of Johns 

24 Creek are not included as they are outside the Wetland Delineation Area (Figure 2-12). The 

25 width of the Johns Creek floodplain ranges from about 100 to more than 200 ft in this 

26 assessment area, and cover types are similar to area IV as poorly drained bottomland 

27 deciduous forest is bordered by well-drained bottomland deciduous forest. The forest canopy is 

28 open over the wettest portions and herbaceous marsh vegetation dominated by Phragmites has 

29 become established. Although Johns Creek has tidal influence, this influence is limited to the 

30 area west of MD State Route 2/4, downstream of this assessment area. 

31 Assessment Area VI

32 During the building of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, dredge spoils were deposited in a series of 

33 artificial sediment basins known as Lake Davies. These basins allow storm water runoff that 

34 accumulates within the dredge spoils to flow into Johns Creek and Goldstein Branch. These 

35 basins constitute assessment area VI. Wetland vegetation, classified as herbaceous marsh, is 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-42 April 2010 

1 dominated by dense stands of Phragmites throughout area VI. The upper basin appears to 

2 have been excavated to a level below the water table and provides deep, open water at the 

3 center. 

4 Assessment Area VII

5 The entire Goldstein Branch, including the main channel, seepages, and streams that make its 

6 headwaters, and adjacent wetlands make up assessment area VII. Many seepages make up 

7 the headwaters originate on steep (15 percent) slopes and flow into a relatively level floodplain 

8 of the Goldstein Branch that reaches widths of 150 ft. There is also an isolated depression 

9 within the Lake Davies dredge spoil area that is likely hydrologically associated with Goldstein 

10 Branch. Since Goldstein Branch is a tributary of Johns Creek, this area is connected to areas 

11 IV, V, and VI. Goldstein Branch headwaters occur under a mixed deciduous forest. The 

12 floodplain supports poorly drained bottomland deciduous forest and areas of open canopy again 

13 support herbaceous marsh dominated by stands of Phragmites. 

14 Assessment Area VIII

15 Assessment area VIII includes small headwaters and adjacent wetlands located on the forested 

16 slope immediately south of the Calvert Cliffs Parkway and the stream they form. This stream 

17 forms 150 ft south of the Parkway and then flows north under the Parkway to Woodland Branch. 

18 The wetlands border is defined by the change from the poorly drained bottomland deciduous 

19 forest to the mixed deciduous forest. 

20 Assessment Area IX

21 Assessment area IX is created by seepages, headwaters, and adjacent wetlands within a mixed 

22 deciduous forest stand immediately west of the existing Calvert Cliffs site parking lot. It is a 

23 remnant of a stream system that originally flowed into Chesapeake Bay but was graded and 

24 filled during building of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Now storm water runoff around the existing 

25 switchyard gathers in a ditch and merges with flow from the seepages and enters a storm drain 

26 system discharged into assessment area I. Dense Phragmites stands dominate assessment 

27 area IX. 

28 Calvert County

29 Wetlands are distributed throughout Calvert County, Maryland. Most are associated with the 

30 Chesapeake Bay or the Patuxent River, eventually draining into the Bay (Figure 2-13). Nontidal 

31 wetlands that best represent nontidal wetland habitats classified as nontidal wetlands of Special 

32 State Concern often contain threatened or endangered species and unique or rare habitats 

33 (MDE 2008). Although the Calvert Cliffs site does not contain any nontidal wetlands of Special 

34 State Concern, tidal beaches immediately north of the site host the northeastern beach tiger 

35 beetle are of special concern and are protected as such. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-43 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-13. Vicinity Wetlands in Calvert County, Maryland 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-44 April 2010 

1 Disease Vector and Pest Species 

2 In epidemiology, a vector does not cause a disease, but instead spreads infection from one host 

3 to another. Numerous disease vectors exist in the animal kingdom. Blood-sucking insects such 

4 as mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas are widely known to transmit disease to both animals and 

5 humans. Mammals such as bats, raccoons, and skunks (Mephitidae spp.) have also been 

6 implicated in the spread of disease. Although many vector species likely occur on the Calvert 

7 Cliffs site, the deer tick (Ixodes scapularis) is likely the only one of consequence, spreading the 

8 non-fatal yet debilitating Lyme disease. After feeding on an infected host, the deer tick 

9 transmits the disease-causing bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi through feeding on subsequent 

10 hosts (CDC 2008c). 

11 The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is the most destructive forest pest in the State of Maryland 

12 (MDA 2008). Gypsy moth caterpillars forage on oak leaves and the leaves of other tree 

13 species, and high infestations have resulted in defoliated trees and affected large land areas. 

14 However, the Maryland Department of Agriculture monitors the presence and severity of 

15 infestations, applying treatments when necessary. Evidence of earlier infestations was not 

16 observed on the Calvert Cliffs site. However, future infestations of gypsy moths are possible at 

17 the site because the habitat is suitable. 

18 Two non-native invasive plant species were observed on the site during 2006: Phragmites and 

19 Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimeneum). The widespread Phragmites forms dense 

20 monocultures within wetlands and moist soils, eliminating other native wetland plants and 

21 changing wetland ecology. Although native, it is believed Phragmites monocultures are 

22 resultant of non-native genotypes. Japanese stiltgrass is a shade-tolerant invader of forested 

23 floodplains (USFS 2008c) and has been found in scattered groundcover patches within the 

24 Calvert Cliffs site’s forests. It also invades where soil disturbance allows establishment and can 

25 displace native floodplain plant species. 

26 2.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring 

27 There are no known ecological or biological studies ongoing or planned at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

28 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 

29 The aquatic habitats associated with the Calvert Cliffs site include several small headwater 

30 streams, small ponds, and the Chesapeake Bay. The site is located on the western shore of 

31 Chesapeake Bay, which is the largest and most important aquatic resource near the plant. 

32 Other primary aquatic habitats near the site include St. Leonard Creek and the Patuxent River. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-45 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.4.2.1 Freshwater Habitats – Site and Vicinity 

2 Most of the freshwater streams on the site are small, intermittent or perennial streams that flow 

3 offsite into St. Leonard Creek, which is a subwatershed within the Lower Patuxent River 

4 watershed. A few small streams belonging to the Lower Western Shore watershed flow from 

5 the site directly into Chesapeake Bay. Several small, artificial ponds exist on the site. 

6 Existing Natural and Anthropogenic Stressors 

7 The Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) was established to ascertain the status of the 

8 biological resources in Maryland’s streams (Roth et al. 2005). Data from the MBSS probability9 based sampling program provide for general characterization of conditions within each of the 

10 23 counties in the State and Baltimore City, which is considered equivalent to a county. This 

11 information was used to consider the conditions of the streams in and around Calvert County, 

12 including those on the site. Southerland et al. (2005b) focused on five key stressors – 

13 acidification (the process by which the acid balance in a stream changes from neutral towards 

14 increasing acidity), nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus), physical habitat changes 

15 (water temperature, sedimentation, channelization, bank erosion), biotic interactions (non-native 

16 and invasive aquatic biota), and land use changes (conversion into agricultural or urban areas). 

17 Overall Condition of Calvert County Streams 

18 Some conditions listed in the 2003 Lower Patuxent River characterization report as potential 

19 issues for the watershed are relevant to evaluating the ecological conditions of streams on the 

20 Calvert Cliffs site. About 42,600 ac of wetlands within the watershed had been lost by about 

21 1998, which is a comparatively large loss relative to other Maryland watersheds (MDNR 2004). 

22 Streams in the Lower Patuxent River watershed are generally less buffered by trees than many 

23 other watersheds in the State. 

24 Urbanization is one of the major stressors affecting streams in Calvert County (Kazyak et al. 

25 2005). The amount of impervious surface within the St. Leonard Creek subwatershed, which 

26 includes Johns Creek (its tributaries Goldstein Branch, Laveel Branch, and Branches 3 and 

27 4) and part of Woodland Branch on the Calvert Cliffs site, is about 0.9 percent (MDNR 2004). 

28 Maryland DNR (2004) defined several kinds of ecologically important areas, including 

29 Ecologically Significant Areas (imprecisely defined areas where rare or protected species, or 

30 other important natural resources have been identified), Contiguous Forest Areas (large 

31 sections of interior forest with at least 250 contiguous ac), and Conservation Areas (lands 

32 protected by public and private organizations), that occur on the Calvert Cliffs site. Branch 4 

33 and Laveel Branch (both part of the Johns Creek system) are shown as occurring within an 

34 Ecologically Significant Area (MDNR 2004). Johns Creek is in a Contiguous Forest Area 

35 (MDNR 2004). The general ecological condition of streams in Calvert County from 2000 to 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-46 April 2010 

1 2004, based on fish, benthic, and combined biotic indices, was poor (Kazyak et al. 2005). 

2 Physical habitat was at least partially degraded in 88 percent of the streams in Calvert County 

3 (Kazyak et al. 2005). The primary physical habitat issue for Calvert County streams was bank 

4 erosion. For key chemical constituents, most streams had phosphorus levels greater than those 

5 shown to affect streams (Kazyak et al. 2005). The two most widespread stressors among 

6 county streams were invasive plants and areas with urban land use occupying greater than 

7 5 percent of the watershed (Kazyak et al. 2005). 

8 Watersheds 

9 Streams on the Calvert Cliffs site flow into one of two watersheds. The Lower Patuxent River 

10 watershed drains about 80 percent of the land area on the site and the Lower Western Shore 

11 watershed drains the remaining 20 percent (UniStar 2007). 

12 Lower Patuxent River. Conditions within the Lower Patuxent River watershed can be estimated 

13 from the 2000 to 2004 MBSS data from the entire Patuxent River watershed (Southerland et al. 

14 2005c). The Lower Patuxent River rated “good” for the amount of trash in the streams, 

15 appropriate pH levels, high acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) values, low nitrate-nitrogen, and 

16 high dissolved oxygen content. The system rated “fair” for combined biotic integrity (fish 

17 integrity rated poor) and for overall physical habitat quality (partially degraded). Total 

18 phosphorus levels in the Lower Patuxent River watershed were high. 

19 Lower Western Shore. The Lower Western Shore watershed rated good in 2000 to 2004 for the 

20 amount of trash in the streams, appropriate pH levels, high ANC values, low nitrate-nitrogen, 

21 and high dissolved oxygen content (Southerland et al. 2005c). The system rated “fair” for 

22 overall physical habitat quality (partially degraded) and poor for combined biotic integrity (fish 

23 integrity rated very poor). Total phosphorus levels in the watershed were moderate. 

24 Onsite Streams and Ponds 

25 The Calvert Cliffs site contains the headwaters of several streams that eventually flow offsite. 

26 West of Camp Conoy is a system of headwater streams that join to form Johns Creek, which 

27 flows west to St. Leonard Creek off the site (Tetra Tech NUS 2007b). Headwater streams are 

28 small, intermittent or perennial first- or second-order streams (Freeman et al. 2007) that typically 

29 occupy small catchment basins, have small channels, and typically have lower fish diversity and 

30 abundance than larger streams (Richardson and Danehy 2007). Headwater streams connect 

31 terrestrial and downstream ecosystems by transporting sediment, nutrients, and organic debris 

32 (particularly fallen leaves) downstream (Gomi et al. 2002; Freeman et al. 2007). Headwater 

33 streams strongly affect the quality and quantity of the water found downstream (Alexander et al. 

34 2007) and provide unique habitats that offer potential refuge from predation for some species, 

35 respite from competition for some taxa, and trophic links to some terrestrial animals via the 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-47 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 emergence of adult insects from the larval or juvenile stages that inhabit streams (Baxter et al. 

2 2005; Meyer et al. 2007; Richardson and Danehy 2007). 

3 UniStar sampled the fish and invertebrate faunas inhabiting two streams and four freshwater 

4 impoundments on the Calvert Cliffs site were sampled during two seasonal surveys, September 

5 (i.e., fall) 2006 and March (i.e., spring) 2007 (EA Engineering 2007a). Two locations, one 

6 upstream and one downstream, were sampled in Johns Creek. One location each was sampled 

7 in Goldstein Branch, Pond 1, and Pond 2. Three locations each were sampled in Lake Davies 

8 and Camp Conoy fishing pond. Fish and invertebrate sampling followed standard methods 

9 outlined in the Maryland Stream Sampling Manual (MDNR 2001). Stream-dwelling epibenthic 

10 invertebrates were grouped into the seven categories used to calculate a Benthic Index of Biotic 

11 Integrity (B-IBI) based on criteria established for Maryland Coastal Plain streams (Southerland 

12 et al. 2005a). The B-IBI is used to categorize the ecological conditions in Maryland streams as 

13 very poor, poor, fair, and good. Habitats in Johns Creek and Goldstein Branch were 

14 characterized during the 2006 and 2007 surveys by following standard EPA guidelines and 

15 State of Maryland procedures (Barbour et al. 1999; MDNR 2001; EA Engineering 2007a). An 

16 additional field survey for benthic invertebrates was conducted in April 2008 at selected 

17 locations on the Calvert Cliffs site that were not sampled in the 2006 and 2007 surveys (UniStar 

18 2008a). 

19 Johns Creek

20 Johns Creek is about 3.5 mi long and is the major freshwater stream on the Calvert Cliffs site 

21 (UniStar 2007). Johns Creek is comprised of several tributaries, including Branches 3 and 4, 

22 Goldstein Branch, Laveel Branch, and several unnamed tributaries (Figure 2-8). Most of the 

23 headwater tributaries of Johns Creek originate on the site and are within or very near the 

24 location of the proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2008a). The Johns Creek headwaters originate via 

25 groundwater discharges at distinct seepage areas. Goldstein Branch, which receives runoff 

26 from Lake Davies, is a major tributary of Johns Creek, entering the creek near the western 

27 boundary of the Calvert Cliffs site. Johns Creek flows west into St. Leonard Creek and is 

28 nontidal. The water quality and fauna of Branch 4 and Laveel Branch have not been 

29 characterized. 

30 Several water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, total phosphorus, total nitrogen) 

31 measured in Johns Creek in 2006 and 2007 can be evaluated by comparing their values to the 

32 low, moderate, and high thresholds used by the MBSS to define conditions in streams 

33 (Southerland et al. 2005b). Ammonia nitrogen could not be evaluated because the detection 

34 limit used by the aquatic surveys (1.0 mg/L) was greater than the high threshold value 

35 (0.07 mg/L) used by the state. Most of the parameters measured in Johns Creek that could be 

36 evaluated were rated good (EA Engineering 2007a). Only total phosphorus rated moderate at 

37 both steam locations for both surveys. Total nitrogen and pH rated moderate at the upstream 

38 location in the fall 2006, but improved by the following spring. Organic contaminants were not 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-48 April 2010 

1 detected in Johns Creek water samples (EA Engineering 2007a). Of the five metals detected in 

2 the waters of Johns Creek, only barium is considered a pollutant by the EPA, but there are no 

3 freshwater criteria for barium (EPA 2002). 

4 The upstream location sampled in Johns Creek had only one fish species, the eastern 

5 mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), caught during the fall survey (EA Engineering 2007a). In spring 

6 2007, the least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepyptera) and the eastern mudminnow were caught 

7 at the upstream station. The downstream location that was sampled had much greater fish 

8 abundance and species numbers. Eight species were collected during each survey. Creek 

9 chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) were the predominant 

10 fish caught in the fall, together accounting for about 55 percent of the total catch. In the spring, 

11 the American eel (Anguilla rostrata) was the predominant species caught, with 45 individuals 

12 accounting for about 46 percent of the total catch. Tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), 

13 creek chubsucker, and pumpkinseed were also common, together accounting of about 

14 43 percent of the total catch in 2007 (EA Engineering 2007a). The predominant fish species 

15 occurring in Johns Creek, except the American eel, are those among the most tolerant of 

16 various pollutants, increased acidity, and other stressors (Southerland et al. 2005a, b). 

17 The epibenthic invertebrate community at the upstream location sampled in the fall 2006 was 

18 moderately abundant (1628 individuals) and was characterized primarily by midge larvae 

19 (Chironomidae), true fly larvae, and oligochaete worms (EA Engineering 2007a). Invertebrate 

20 abundance was much lower in the spring 2007 (591 individuals) and was characterized primarily 

21 by midge larvae, oligochaete worms, and damselfly larvae (EA Engineering 2007a). The 

22 downstream community sampled in the fall was moderately abundant (1414 individuals) and 

23 was characterized by the amphipod Gammarus sp., which accounted for about 51 percent of 

24 the total abundance at the location (EA Engineering 2007a). Several species of midge larvae 

25 were also common. Similar to the upstream location, abundance at the downstream location 

26 was much reduced in the spring 2007 when only 247 individuals were captured in the dip net. 

27 The amphipod Gammarus sp. was still the predominant taxon, accounting for about 27 percent 

28 of the sampled community (EA Engineering 2007a). Both sites were rated “fair” by the B-IBI in 

29 the fall and spring as B-IBI scores ranged from 3.0 to 3.9. Both sites were rated high for 

30 numbers of taxa in both seasons, but both were rated low for the percentage of intolerant taxa in 

31 the fall 2006 surveys (EA Engineering 2007a). The B-IBI scores calculated for the downstream 

32 location in the fall and both locations in the spring were greater than the average Calvert County 

33 value of 3.3 calculated for 2000 to 2004 (Kazyak et al. 2005). The B-IBI score for the upstream 

34 location in the fall was lower than the Calvert County average value for 2000 to 2004. 

35 The assessments conducted in 2006 and 2007 scored the stream habitat at the downstream 

36 location of Johns Creek slightly higher than that at the upstream location. However, the overall 

37 habitat at both locations was rated optimal, the highest habitat quality category (EA Engineering 

38 2007a). There were no differences in habitat quality between seasons. Some individual habitat 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-49 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 parameters scored less than optimal at both locations. For example, at the upstream location, 

2 pool variability was poor, epifaunal substrate was marginal, and sediment deposition was 

3 suboptimal in the fall. The downstream location was rated marginal for sediment deposition and 

4 suboptimal for pool variability in the fall. 

5 Three additional headwater tributaries on Johns Creek in the area were sampled by UniStar’s 

6 contractors for invertebrates in April 2008. No fish collections were made. All of these 

7 unnamed tributaries were farther upstream than the locations sampled in 2006 and 2007. One 

8 headwater stream subsystem (Branch 3) and its associated wetlands originate at a cluster of 

9 seeps near existing CCNPP facilities. The stream flows southwest until it meets the Johns 

10 Creek mainstem. The other headwater stream subsystem and its associated wetlands originate 

11 at seeps on privately owned, forested land south of the Calvert Cliffs site. This stream, which is 

12 located near the proposed cooling tower location, flows generally to the northwest. The two 

13 stream subsystems merge about 1800 ft west of Camp Conoy (UniStar 2008a). 

14 These three streams were sampled for benthic invertebrates at locations designated as UT-JC15 101, UT-JC-102, and UT-JC-103. The two most upstream locations, UT-JC-101 and UT-JC16 102, barely met the minimum requirements for benthic invertebrate sampling as specified by 

17 MBSS guidelines (MDNR 2001). The location UT-JC-103 was sampled to represent the 

18 upstream watershed and stream characteristics of three smaller reaches occurring farther 

19 upstream on this tributary. The invertebrate communities at all three locations were similar, 

20 rating fair per MBSS guidelines. Key invertebrates were the larvae of stoneflies, mayflies, and 

21 caddisflies, although amphipods were common at location UT-JC-103 (UniStar 2008a). 

22 Habitat at each of the three locations was rated suboptimal per EPA guidelines. However, there 

23 were differences among the locations. Habitat quality was higher at location UT-JC-102, which 

24 scored only one point below the threshold for optimal habitats, than at the other locations. 

25 Habitat quality was lower at location UT-JC-101, which rated slightly greater than the threshold 

26 for poor habitats (UniStar 2008a). 

27 Two additional locations were sampled in April 2008, both in areas proposed for potential 

28 restoration. One location was in the main creek channel just downstream from location UT-JC29 103. This invertebrate community was distinguished by amphipods and stoneflies and was 

30 rated good by MBSS criteria (UniStar 2009c). The fifth location sampled in Johns Creek was on 

31 a downstream tributary. The invertebrate community was characterized by midges and 

32 stoneflies and was rated fair by MBSS guidelines. 

33 Goldstein Branch

34 Goldstein Branch is a tributary of Johns Creek that generally flows from the north along the 

35 Calvert Cliffs property boundary entering the creek at the property boundary just east of 

36 highway MD State Route 2/4 (UniStar 2007; TetraTech NUS 2007b). Most of the headwaters of 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-50 April 2010 

1 Goldstein Branch originate on the Calvert Cliffs site. This headwater system is distinct from that 

2 comprising upper Johns Creek (Tetra Tech NUS 2007b). A tributary flowing from the east 

3 carries water from Lake Davies into Goldstein Branch. 

4 Of the water quality parameters measured in Goldstein Branch, only total phosphorus exceeded 

5 the high Maryland DNR threshold. All other parameters were lower than the respective 

6 Maryland DNR low threshold values (EA Engineering 2007a). Organic contaminants were not 

7 detected in Goldstein Branch water samples (EA Engineering 2007a). Of the five metals 

8 detected in the waters of Goldstein Branch, only barium is considered a pollutant by the EPA, 

9 but there are no freshwater criteria for barium (EPA 2002). Barium levels in Goldstein Branch 

10 (33 to 53 mg/L) were higher than in any other onsite waterbody except Lake Davies. 

11 Nine fish species were collected from the single station sampled in Goldstein Branch. The 

12 tessellated darter and American eel were the two predominant species collected in both 

13 surveys, together accounting for about 66 and 67 percent of the total fish collected in 2006 and 

14 2007, respectively (EA Engineering 2007a). Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) was also 

15 abundant in spring 2007. The predominant fish species occurring in Goldstein Branch, except 

16 the American eel, are those among the most tolerant of various pollutants, increased acidity, 

17 and other stressors (Southerland et al. 2005a, b). 

18 The epibenthic invertebrate community in Goldstein Branch was moderately abundant in the fall 

19 2006 and was characterized primarily by the snail Physa sp., the midge larva Microtendipes sp., 

20 the amphipod Gammarus sp., and oligochaete worms. Abundance decreased by the spring 

21 2007. Characteristic fauna included the amphipod Gammarus sp., two species of midge larvae, 

22 and the snail Physa sp. (EA Engineering 2007a). The B-IBI scores rated the stream as poor in 

23 the fall and fair in the spring with B-IBI scores of 2.7 and 3.6, respectively (EA Engineering 

24 2007a). Goldstein Branch was rated high for number of taxa and number of scrapers (animals 

25 that scrape small algae off the stream substrates for food) in both seasons. The stream was 

26 rated low for percentage of taxa intolerant of chemical contamination in both seasons. The 

27 B-IBI score calculated for the Goldstein Branch in the spring was greater than the average 

28 Calvert County value of 3.3 calculated for 2000 to 2004 (Kazyak et al. 2005). 

29 The assessments conducted in 2006 and 2007 scored the overall stream habitat in Goldstein 

30 Branch as optimal (EA Engineering 2007a). However, some individual habitat parameters 

31 scored less than optimal. For example, pool variability was poor and sediment deposition was 

32 marginal during both seasons. 

33 Two upstream locations of Goldstein Branch were sampled for benthic invertebrates in 

34 April 2008. Invertebrate abundance was relatively low, and the fauna at both locations was 

35 characterized by amphipods (UniStar 2008a). The invertebrate communities were rated poor 

36 and very poor by MBSS standards (UniStar 2009c). 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-51 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Woodland Branch

2 Woodland Branch is a small stream that has three unnamed branches on the northern edge of 

3 the Calvert Cliffs site that meet off the site to form the mainstem stream that eventually flows 

4 into St. Leonard Creek. Woodland Branch is located within a Contiguous Forest Area (MDNR 

5 2004). The downstream main branch, which is off the site, is listed as an Ecologically 

6 Significant Area (MDNR 2004). No recent fish surveys were conducted in Woodland Branch. 

7 Two sections of the stream that may be potential restoration sites were sampled for benthic 

8 invertebrates in April 2008 (UniStar 2009e). The downstream location was characterized by 

9 Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, which are considered indicators of habitat 

10 conditions in streams (Wallace et al. 1996). The upstream location was characterized by 

11 amphipods, midge larvae, and mayflies. The invertebrate communities at the two locations 

12 were rated good and fair, respectively, by MBSS criteria. Water quality in Woodland Branch 

13 was not determined. 

14 Branches 1 and 2 

15 Branch 1, also called Conoy Creek, is a complex of systems that includes Camp Conoy fishing 

16 pond and associated wetlands and streams (Figure 2-8) (UniStar 2008a). This stream 

17 ultimately discharges into Chesapeake Bay. Ponds 1 and 2 are part of this system. No recent 

18 fish or invertebrate surveys included Branch 1. Water quality in Branch 1 was not determined. 

19 Branch 2, also called Lone Creek, is a system of wetlands and streams that drain the area to 

20 the north of Camp Conoy fishing pond (Figure 2-8) (UniStar 2008a). One stream, which has 

21 short-lived flow upstream and intermittent flow downstream, originates near the northwest 

22 corner of Camp Conoy and flows to the north and east. A second, perennial stream originates 

23 as the outflow from an existing manmade storm water basin south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. 

24 The two streams meet north of Camp Conoy and flow east, entering Chesapeake Bay just south 

25 of the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 Barge Dock. A third, small stream originates north of the 

26 central part of Camp Conoy and flows north to the main stream. The perennial and intermittent 

27 stream channels are deeply incised and generally lack adjacent vegetated wetlands. In April 

28 2008, benthic invertebrates were sampled at one upstream location within the section of Lone 

29 Creek that would be affected by the building of the new unit and one downstream location that is 

30 being proposed as a potential restoration site. Invertebrates found at the upstream location 

31 consisted primarily of amphipods, midge larvae, and true fly larvae. Flatworms (Turbellaria), 

32 stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies were also found. The invertebrate community at this 

33 location was rated fair by MBSS standards (UniStar 2008a). The downstream potential 

34 restoration site was characterized primarily by amphipods and midge larvae (UniStar 2009e). 

35 The invertebrate community at this location was rated very poor by MBSS standards. Water 

36 quality in Branch 2 was not determined. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-52 April 2010 

1 Ponds 1 and 2

2 Ponds 1 and 2 are two small impoundments associated with the outflow from Camp Conoy 

3 fishing pond (Tetra Tech NUS 2007b). Both ponds are shallow, with water depths generally 

4 less than 2 ft. 

5 The dissolved oxygen concentration measured during the fall 2006 survey was moderate (about 

6 3.2 mg/L) in Pond 1 but was extremely low (<1.0 mg/L) in Pond 2. Dissolved oxygen content in 

7 both ponds recovered to high levels (>11.0 mg/L) by the following spring (EA Engineering 

8 2007a). Total phosphorus in both ponds exceeded the Maryland DNR high threshold in Pond 1 

9 during both surveys and in Pond 2 in the fall 2006, and was moderate in Pond 2 in the spring 

10 2007. Total nitrogen was low in Pond 2 in both seasons and was moderate in Pond 1 in the fall 

11 2006, but decreased considerably by the following spring. Of the five metals detected in the 

12 waters of Ponds 1 and 2, only barium is considered a pollutant by the EPA, but there are no 

13 freshwater criteria for barium (EPA 2002). Organic contaminants in Ponds 1 and 2 were not 

14 analyzed. 

15 Five fish species were collected from Ponds 1 and 2 during the 2006–2007 surveys. Eastern 

16 mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) were the 

17 predominant species in Pond 1 in the fall 2006 survey, accounting for about 84 percent of the 

18 fish caught in the pond. Fewer fish were caught in Pond 1 during the spring 2007 survey, and 

19 American eel replaced mosquitofish as the numerically dominant species, with green sunfish 

20 also common (EA Engineering 2007a). Fish were much less abundant in Pond 2 in fall 2006, 

21 with only eight individuals caught. More fish were caught in the spring 2007, with green sunfish 

22 and American eel predominant, accounting for about 91 percent of the total catch. Tubificid 

23 (oligochaete) worms comprised the most abundant epibenthic invertebrate taxon in both ponds 

24 in 2006, accounting for 55 and 28 percent of the fauna in Ponds 1 and 2, respectively (EA 

25 Engineering 2007a). The small clam, Musculium sp., was also relatively abundant in Pond 2, 

26 accounting for 28 percent of the individuals captured. Naidid worms, which were not present in 

27 either pond in 2006, were the most abundant fauna in the spring 2007 survey, accounting for 

28 84 and 39 percent of the fauna in Ponds 1 and 2, respectively (EA Engineering 2007a). 

29 The numbers of EPT taxa in both ponds were few (0–1 taxon) regardless of season. 

30 Invertebrates inhabiting the sediments within Ponds 1 and 2 were less abundant in the fall than 

31 in the spring (EA Engineering 2007a). Relatively few taxa comprised either community with 9 to 

32 13 taxa recorded in the fall and 6 to 18 taxa recorded in the spring for the respective ponds. 

33 Oligochaete worms, midge larvae, and true fly larvae were predominant in both ponds in the fall 

34 with oligochaetes most abundant in Pond 1 and the fly larva Chaoborus sp. was most abundant 

35 in Pond 2. In the spring, tubificid worms were the most abundant taxon in both ponds, 

36 accounting for 85 and 52 percent of the community in Ponds 1 and 2, respectively. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-53 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Lake Davies

2 The Lake Davies area is the site where material dredged from Chesapeake Bay during the 

3 building of Units 1 and 2 was placed (UniStar 2008a). Three settling ponds were formed as 

4 water was decanted from the dredged material. The larger pond encompasses about 0.53 ac 

5 and is vegetated by the invasive reed Phragmites australis. Water depth is not known but 

6 depends considerably on the amount of recent precipitation. 

7 Surface water dissolved oxygen levels were moderate (3.4–4.0 mg/L) during the fall 2006 

8 survey but were much higher the following spring (EA Engineering 2007a). Total phosphorus 

9 levels exceeded the Maryland DNR high high standard in the fall but were moderate the 

10 following spring. Total nitrogen was moderate in the fall but very low the following spring. Of 

11 the five metals detected in the waters of Lake Davies, only barium is considered a pollutant by 

12 the EPA, but there are no freshwater criteria for barium (EPA 2002). The concentrations of 

13 calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were much greater than in any other onsite 

14 waterbody that was sampled. Organic contaminants in Lake Davies were not analyzed. 

15 Only one fish species, the eastern mosquitofish, was collected from Lake Davies during aquatic 

16 surveys conducted on the Calvert Cliffs site. An average of 27 individuals per stations was 

17 found in the fall 2006 (EA Engineering 2007a). No fish were collected from Lake Davies in the 

18 spring 2007 (EA Engineering 2007a). Fewer invertebrate taxa were captured in samples from 

19 Lake Davies in the fall 2006 than in the spring 2007 (EA Engineering 2007a). Epibenthic 

20 invertebrate abundance was highly variable among the three samples collected by dip net in the 

21 lake during either survey and was lower in the fall than in the spring (EA Engineering 2007a). 

22 Chironomid insect larvae (midges) were the most abundant invertebrates in the lake and 

23 accounted for the largest number of taxa. Only one EPT taxon was found in Lake Davies. Only 

24 three taxa were found inhabiting the sediment within Lake Davies in the fall 2006 with low 

25 abundances at the three locations sampled. Eighteen taxa were collected from the sediment in 

26 Lake Davies in the spring 2007 when abundances were greater (EA Engineering 2007a). The 

27 larvae of one true fly taxon and two midge species were predominant. 

28 Camp Conoy Fishing Pond

29 The Camp Conoy fishing pond (also known as Lake Conoy) is an artificial impoundment that 

30 was probably created for recreational fishing and boating when the land was part of a YMCA 

31 camp (UniStar 2008a). One side of the pond, which encompasses about 2.6 ac, consists of a 

32 dam over which a paved road traverses. The pond banks are lined with forest and grass; 

33 emergent vegetation, including Phragmites, occupies the shallow nearshore area. Water depth 

34 is not known, but estimated to about 5 ft at the deepest. A corrugated pipe provides the outflow 

35 from the pond, which varies in water level by about 2 to 3 ft annually. Water levels in the pond 

36 are no longer managed actively. The fish and invertebrate faunas in the pond were sampled in 

37 2006 and 2007. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-54 April 2010 

1 Water quality within the pond generally was good with only total phosphorus concentrations 

2 exceeding the Maryland DNR low threshold value (EA Engineering 2007a). Of the five metals 

3 detected in the waters of Camp Conoy fishing pond, only barium is considered a pollutant by the 

4 EPA, but there are no freshwater criteria for barium (EPA 2002). The concentrations of these 

5 metals in Camp Conoy fishing pond were among the lowest of any of the waterbodies on the 

6 site that were sampled. Organic contaminants in Camp Conoy fishing pond were not analyzed. 

7 Aquatic surveys conducted at the fishing pond in fall 2006 and spring 2007 determined that the 

8 fish community was comprised of seven species and was numerically dominated by bluegill 

9 (Lepomis macrochirus), which accounted for about 79 and 82 percent of the fish caught in the 

10 pond in the fall and spring, respectively (EA Engineering 2007a). The eastern mosquitofish was 

11 the second most abundant species caught in the pond in the fall 2006 survey, accounting for 

12 17 percent of the total abundance, but it was not present in the spring 2007. 

13 More epibenthic invertebrate taxa were found in the dip net samples collected from Camp 

14 Conoy fishing pond than any other pond on the Calvert Cliffs site. Averages of 26 and 30 taxa 

15 were found in the fall 2006 and spring 2007, respectively. Abundance was variable, was lower 

16 in the fall than in the spring (EA Engineering 2007a). Midge larvae were the most abundant 

17 taxa in both seasons although oligochaete worms were also abundant in the spring 2007. One 

18 to two EPT taxa were found in the Camp Conoy fishing pond, depending on season. The 

19 invertebrate fauna inhabiting the sediment within Camp Conoy fishing pond were more diverse 

20 and generally more abundant in both surveys than that within the sediments of any other pond 

21 sampled (EA Engineering 2007a). Thirty-one taxa were found during the fall survey, and 38 

22 were collected during the spring survey. Midge larvae represented the predominant taxa in the 

23 pond in both seasons, although true fly larvae and oligochaete worms were also common 

24 (EA Engineering 2007a). 

25 2.4.2.2 Important Freshwater Species – Site and Vicnity 

26 Several criteria, described in the terrestrial ecology section (see Section 2.4.1.3), are used to 

27 identify important species that may be affected by the building or operation of a new facility. 

28 Ten species and EPT taxa that inhabit the freshwater systems onsite meet these criteria 

29 (Table 2-3). Most of these species are discussed by category in the following sections. The 

30 State-listed species are discussed in the last subsection within this Section 2.4.2.2. There are 

31 no Federally protected species inhabiting the freshwater habitats onsite. 

32 Commercially Important Freshwater Species 

33 Commercial fisheries are not allowed at any of the Calvert Cliffs site’s freshwater streams or 

34 ponds. However, the American eel is a commercially fished species that occurs in the freshwater 

35 habitats on the site and the Chesapeake Bay at the Calvert Cliffs site. The American eel fishery 

36 in the U.S. stretches from the Gulf of Mexico to Maine (Secor et al. 2006). The harvest primarily 

37 focuses on the yellow-phase eels. Most eels are caught in eel pots, but fyke nets account for at 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-55 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 2-3. Important Freshwater Species at the Calvert Cliffs Site 

Common Name Scientific Name Type Category 

claspingleaf pondweed Potamogeton perfoliatus Plant State Rare 

leafy pondweed Potamogeton foliosus Plant State Endangered 

spiral pondweed Potamogeton spirillus Plant Highly State Rare 

southern wild rice Zizaniopsis miliacea Plant State Endangered 

star duckweed Lemna trisulca Plant State Endangered 

American eel Anguilla rostrata Fish Commercial Fishery

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Fish Ecological Role 

Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki Fish Ecological Role 

tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi Fish Ecological Role 

American beaver Castor canadensis Mammal Ecological Role 

EPT taxa Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera Invertebrate Ecological Indicator

Source: MDNR 2007b, c

2 least some of the total catch. There is a relatively small recreational fishery for American eels, 

3 primarily for use as bait for game fishing (ASMFC 2006a). The largest commercial landings of 

4 American eel occurred between 1974 and 1985, with a gradual decline since then (Secor et al. 

5 2006). About half of the commercial catch comes from the Chesapeake Bay. 

6 American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) 

7 The American eel is broadly distributed along the east coast of North America, throughout the 

8 Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico (Murdy et al. 1997). Eels are abundant in all tributaries 

9 in the Chesapeake Bay system (Murdy et al. 1997). American eels live in many habitats, but 

10 higher densities occur where there is variety in stream velocity and depth and where non-eel 

11 fish abundance is high (Wiley et al. 2004). Eels inhabiting freshwaters are nocturnal predators 

12 on invertebrates and small fish (Murdy et al. 1997). The American eel in the western Atlantic is 

13 considered to be one population (72 FR 4967), and there is no estimate of its overall abundance 

14 (Secor et al. 2006). The FWS evaluated the American eel for possible protection under the U.S. 

15 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), but concluded that protection 

16 under the ESA was not warranted (72 FR 4967) because recruitment was stable and that there 

17 were no significant threats at the population level. 

18 Spawning occurs only in the Sargasso Sea, probably beginning in January (Murdy et al. 1997) 

19 and peaking in February and March (McCleave 2008). Eel larvae drift around the western 

20 Atlantic for about a year then begin to enter coastal waters. The larval eels metamorphose into 

21 glass eels, which are about 2.5 in. long, and enter nearshore estuaries. They become 

22 pigmented elvers, which may remain in the estuary or travel to streams or rivers. Elvers 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-56 April 2010 

1 develop into yellow-phase eels at about two years of age and spend from 5 to 20 years in the 

2 Chesapeake system before maturing and migrating to the Sargasso Sea (Murdy et al. 1997; 

3 ASMFC 2006a). 

4 The American eel was the most abundant fish collected in Johns Creek during the spring 2007 

5 survey, with 45 individuals accounting for about 46 percent of the fish caught there (EA 

6 Engineering 2007a). The species also was among the predominant species in Goldstein Creek 

7 and in Ponds 1 and 2. American eels occurred in impingement samples collected from CCNPP 

8 Units 1 and 2 in 20 of 21 years from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). Juvenile American eels were 

9 caught in entrainment samples collected from within the intake system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

10 in April and May 2006 and February through April 2007 (UniStar 2008d). The estimated juvenile 

eel density was 0.02 per 100 m3

 in 2006 and 0.04 per 100 m3 11 in 2007, with total entrainment 

12 during the 19-month study estimated at about 1.6 million juveniles during maximum design flow 

13 conditions. Juvenile eels were not found in samples collected in 2006 on the Bay side of the 

14 baffle wall separating the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system from the Bay. 

15 Recreationally Important Freshwater Species 

16 The Camp Conoy fishing pond is the main freshwater body onsite with a history of recreational 

17 fishing. The primary fish caught was likely the bluegill, which was found in the pond during field 

18 surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007 (EA Engineering 2007a). However, the pond is no longer 

19 open to fishing (UniStar 2007). The bluegill is discussed as an ecologically important species. 

20 Ecologically Important Freshwater Species 

21 Several ecologically important species or taxa occur in freshwater habitats on the Calvert Cliffs 

22 site. Ecologically important species are those that are important to the structure or function of 

23 the system or that may be indicators of habitat quality in the system. The bluegill, eastern 

24 mosquitofish, and tessellated darter contribute to community structure by being the predominant 

25 species in the onsite streams or ponds. The beaver is functionally important because it is an 

26 ecological engineer with the ability to strongly modify freshwater habitats. EPT taxa, the 

27 nymphs of mayflies and stoneflies and the larvae of caddisflies, are indicators of habitat quality 

28 because they are sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance while showing some insensitivity to 

29 natural disturbance (Wallace et al. 1996). 

30 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 

31 The bluegill is native to a broad portion of the eastern United States, ranging from Texas and 

32 the Mississippi valley to the Great Lakes region and Florida (Murdy et al. 1997). It has been 

33 introduced into many areas, primarily for recreational fishing. Bluegill occurs in most 

34 Chesapeake area streams (Murdy et al. 1997). Typical habitat includes lakes and ponds and 

35 slowly flowing streams. Spawning occurs from April through September. Bluegill feed primarily 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-57 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 on insects, crustaceans, and fish but may also consume some plant material. Bluegill 

2 comprises an important recreational fishery throughout its range and probably was the primary 

3 species caught at the Camp Conoy fishing pond when it was open to fishing. Bluegill was the 

4 predominant species collected from Camp Conoy fishing pond fall 2006 and spring 2007 

5 surveys conducted on the Calvert Cliffs site (EA Engineering 2007a). No bluegills were caught 

6 in Johns Creek or Goldstein Branch during either survey. 

7 Eastern Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) 

8 The eastern mosquitofish is a small, live-bearing fish with a native distribution that ranges from 

9 the northern Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi Valley to Illinois and eastward from New Jersey to 

10 Florida (Murdy et al. 1997). The species has been introduced into several U.S. states and many 

11 countries, primarily to control mosquitoes. Calvert County provides eastern mosquitofish to 

12 residents for mosquito control (Morse 2007). Eastern mosquitofish inhabit freshwater streams 

13 and ponds but also tolerate brackish waters. Reproduction occurs from April through 

14 September with more than one brood being produced per female. Mosquitofish feed on small 

15 invertebrates, including insects and insect larvae, but also include some plant material in their 

16 diet (Murdy et al. 1997). These fish are prey for wading birds, fish, amphibians, and larger 

17 invertebrates. Eastern mosquitofish was one of the predominant fish species collected in ponds 

18 on the Calvert Cliffs site during the fall 2006 aquatic surveys and was the only species collected 

19 in Lake Davies (EA Engineering 2007a). Eastern mosquitofish abundance was very reduced in 

20 all onsite water bodies in the spring 2007 survey, and none was found in Lake Davies 

21 (EA Engineering 2007a). 

22 Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi)

23 The tessellated darter is a small freshwater perch that ranges from Florida to the St. Lawrence 

24 Seaway and Lake Ontario (Murdy et al. 1997). In the Chesapeake Bay area, the species occurs 

25 in all tributaries and may be found in waters having salinities as high as 13 percent. Tessellated 

26 darters spawn from April to June and deposit eggs in nests underneath and on the sides of 

27 rocks (Murdy et al. 1997). These fish feed on small invertebrates and algae, and in turn may be 

28 prey for larger fish. There is no commercial or recreational fishery for tessellated darters. 

29 The tessellated darter was one of the predominant fish species inhabiting surveyed streams on 

30 the Calvert Cliffs site. The species was the most abundant fish caught in Goldstein Branch in 

31 the fall 2006 and spring 2007 surveys (EA Engineering 2007a). Tessellated darter abundance 

32 was lower in Johns Creek, but the species was still among the most commonly collected fish 

33 and was the second most abundant in the spring 2007 survey (EA Engineering 2007a). 

34 Tessellated darters were not found in any of the ponds on the Calvert Cliffs site. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-58 April 2010 

1 North American Beaver (Castor canadensis)

2 The North American beaver occurs throughout most of North America from Alaska to eastern 

3 Canada and southward to Mexico (Boyle and Owens 2007). Beavers are semi-aquatic 

4 mammals that inhabit streams, ponds, and nearshore portions of large lakes (Jenkins and 

5 Busher 1979). The beaver is the largest North American rodent, reaching a length of 4 ft, about 

6 30 percent of which consists of a large, flat tail that is used for swimming in the water and for 

7 balance when beavers walk on land (Boyle and Owens 2007). Beavers form monogamous 

8 pairs and typically breed during January and February. The gestation period lasts about three 

9 months after which the young (kits) are born (Boyle and Owens 2007). Kits are able to swim 

10 within minutes of birth, but require about 2 years of parental care before they leave the family 

11 group. Beavers feed mainly on woody plant bark, shoots, and leaves but also consume 

12 herbaceous plants, ferns, and aquatic plants. However, beavers actually consume only about 

13 one-third of the plant material harvested. A small fraction of the harvested plants may be used 

14 for dam and lodge construction (Rosell et al. 2005). 

15 Beavers, through activities that include felling of trees and building dams across streams, are 

16 considered ecosystem engineers that exert significant effects on the physical and biological 

17 properties of local ecosystems (Rosell et al. 2005). Beavers build dams to create small 

18 impoundments in which they build lodges needed for protection from predators and to survive 

19 during cold winters (Boyle and Owens 2007). Beaver impoundments provide valuable habitat 

20 that is used by many other organisms, including fish, amphibians, and birds (Häggland and 

21 Sjöberg 1999; Aznar and Desrochers 2008; Stevens et al. 2007). Importantly, beavers can 

22 control the water levels in their impoundments even during unfavorable weather conditions 

23 (Hood and Bayley 2008) and, therefore, may be able to ameliorate some of the effects of 

24 climate changes. 

25 The occurrence of beavers on the Calvert Cliffs site was primarily documented indirectly by 

26 observations of gnawed vegetation, dead trees, and beaver dams on Johns Creek and 

27 Goldstein Branch (TetraTech 2007a; UniStar 2008a). Beavers were observed near the Camp 

28 Conoy fishing pond in April 2007. No abundance estimates for the Calvert Cliffs site were 

29 made, but the population was said to be substantial (TetraTech NUS 2007a). Beaver activity on 

30 the site has changed large areas of forested wetlands to freshwater marsh. 

31 Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) Taxa 

32 Although not one species, the assemblage commonly known as EPT taxa is included because 

33 of its widespread use as an indicator of water quality in freshwater ecosystems. The EPT 

34 assemblage is based on three insect orders, Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), 

35 and Trichoptera (caddisflies) (Stribling et al. 1998). Adults of species comprising all three 

36 orders are terrestrial, but often live near freshwater habitats (Pennak 1978). The developmental 

37 stages (nymphs of mayflies and stoneflies, and larvae of caddisflies) occur in aquatic habitats. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-59 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Mating typically occurs in spring and summer and more than one generation may be produced 

2 in a season. The proportion of EPT taxa often provides a better indication of water quality than 

3 more traditional species diversity or biotic indices and is often much less variable (Wallace et al. 

4 1996; Lydy et al. 2000). Southerland et al. (2005b) found that the number of EPT taxa in 

5 Maryland streams decreased as total nitrogen/total phosphorus ratio increased and as total 

6 phosphorus increased. EPT taxa also showed lower values associated with the lowest and 

7 highest pH and ANC class values (Southerland et al. 2005b). EPT taxa were recorded during 

8 the surveys conducted onsite in 2006 and 2007. Three to five EPT taxa were found in Johns 

9 Creek and Goldstein Branch for both surveys. EPT taxa were less numerous in the onsite 

10 ponds, ranging from zero to two taxa (EA Engineering 2007a). 

11 Federally and State-Listed Freshwater Species 

12 This section describes Federally and Maryland State-listed freshwater species and other 

13 species of concern. No aquatic critical habitats are proposed or designated near the Calvert 

14 Cliffs site. There are no Federally listed freshwater species that occur in Calvert County 

15 (MDNR 2007a). State-listed aquatic species that may occur near the Calvert Cliffs site are 

16 listed in Table 2-3. 

17 The State of Maryland lists three State-endangered aquatic plants – star duckweed 

18 (Lemna trisulca), leafy pondweed (Potamogeton foliosus), and southern wild rice 

19 (Zizaniopsis miliacea) – as occurring in Calvert County (MDNR 2007a). It is unlikely that leafy 

20 pondweed and southern wild rice occur on the site because of the lack of suitable habitat on the 

21 site (Tetra Tech NUS 2007c). The most likely habitat for star duckweed on the site is found at 

22 Camp Conoy Fishing Pond and nearby ponds and in beaver-flooded areas along Johns Creek. 

23 The State of Maryland also lists the spiral pondweed (Potamogeton spirillus) and the 

24 claspingleaf pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus) as State Highly Rare and State Rare, 

25 respectively, and as occurring in Calvert County (MDNR 2007a). It is unlikely that claspingleaf 

26 pondweed occurs on the site because of the lack of suitable habitat on the site. The most likely 

27 habitat for spiral pondweed on the site occurs at Camp Conoy fishing pond and nearby ponds. 

28 Neither leafy pondweed nor spiral pondweed was observed during the rare plant survey 

29 conducted at these habitats on the site (Tetra Tech NUS 2007c). 

30 2.4.2.3 Non-Native and Nuisance Freshwater Species – Site and Vicinity 

31 The introduction of nonnative plants and animals into streams can affect native aquatic 

32 communities by introducing diseases and parasites, and increasing predation on and 

33 competition with native species (Southerland et al. 2005b). None of the freshwater aquatic 

34 plants and invertebrates of concern in Maryland (MISC 2008a, b) was found on the Calvert Cliffs 

35 site during any of the plant, wetlands, or aquatic surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007. One 

36 freshwater fish, the western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), is listed as an invasive species in 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-60 April 2010 

1 Maryland. That species name was used in the Aquatic Survey Report (EA Engineering 2007a) 

2 but was attributed to the eastern mosquitofish, which is correctly named G. holbrooki. Thus, 

3 the western mosquitofish was not on the site during the aquatic surveys conducted in 2006 

4 and 2007. 

5 Several nonnative fish species that occur on the Calvert Cliffs site, such as largemouth bass 

6 (Micropterus salmoides), green sunfish, bluegill, black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and 

7 white crappie (P. annularis) are intentionally stocked elsewhere in the State by the Maryland 

8 DNR to support recreational fisheries (Southerland et al. 2005b). 

9 One important nonnative aquatic species, also discussed in Section 2.4.1.3, is the common 

10 reed Phragmites, which is well-documented as occurring on site. Phragmites successfully 

11 colonizes disturbed areas where natural or anthropogenic events have changed marsh plant 

12 communities, hydrology, and topography. Phragmites changes marsh habitat as it becomes 

13 established (Lathrop et al. 2003). These changes, particularly increased sedimentation and 

14 organic matter accumulation, affect marsh function (Lathrop et al. 2003) and may affect resident 

15 killifish (Able and Hagan 2003), including the spotfin killifish (Fundulus luciae), which is listed as 

16 “Rare?” by the State of Maryland. 

17 On the Calvert Cliffs site, Phragmites covered much of the Lake Davies disposal area, and the 

18 exposed marshy areas along Johns Creek, Goldstein Branch, and its tributaries where beaver 

19 dams caused stream flooding (Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). Those affected areas have reduced 

20 plant cover diversity and their value as food, and cover for wildlife has been adversely affected 

21 (Tetra Tech NUS 2007a). 

22 2.4.2.4 Estaurine Habitats – Site and Vicinity 

23 The aquatic species within the Chesapeake Bay include organisms that inhabit the water 

24 column (fish, plankton) and the Bay bottom (benthic flora and fauna). A few taxa, for example 

25 blue crabs, transcend both habitats. The Chesapeake Bay is the third largest estuary in the 

26 world and currently supplies cooling water for CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The Bay, despite 

27 significant declines in resources since colonial times, is still very biologically productive and is 

28 an important part of the cultural and economic fabric of the area. 

29 Existing Natural and Anthropogenic Stressors 

30 Aquatic habitats in Chesapeake Bay, which is the nation’s largest estuary, have faced and 

31 continue to face many stresses. The main problems facing the Bay can be linked to one 

32 overriding factor – the tremendous growth of the human population surrounding the Bay 

33 (USGS 2005). This growth has contributed to poor water quality in the Bay, loss of important 

34 habitat, and reduced populations of biological communities. Excess nutrients and sediment in 

35 the water caused the Bay to be listed in 1999 as an impaired water body under the Clean Water 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-61 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Act (USGS 2005). Population growth has led to the alteration of natural forested habitat to 

2 agricultural and urban areas. Agricultural lands contribute high levels of nutrients and sediment 

3 to receiving streams and subsequently the Bay (Southerland et al. 2005b). Urban areas add 

4 contaminants to the mix and, by changing the land from pervious to impervious surfaces, 

5 provide a conduit for easy transport to streams and eventually the Bay (Claggett 2007). 

6 Increased nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loads in the Bay lead to greater phytoplankton 

7 biomass (eutrophication), which then translates to decreased water clarity, subsequent loss of 

8 submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and eventually depletion of dissolved oxygen in bottom 

9 waters as decaying phytoplankton use oxygen stores in the water (Kemp et al. 2005). 

10 Many anthropogenic stressors have caused declines in key biological resources within the Bay. 

11 For example, reduced water clarity has contributed to severe reductions in the abundance and 

12 extent of SAV in the Bay (Rybicki and Landwehr 2007), and coastal wetlands have been lost 

13 because of development of valuable coastal property (Cahoon 2007). One of the strongest 

14 factors contributing to living resource loss is overfishing, which has caused declines in 

15 populations of several fish species (Murdy et al. 1997) and invertebrates such as blue crabs 

16 (Abbe 2002) and eastern oysters (EOBRT 2007). Some of these changes have induced other 

17 changes in the Bay, which may make it difficult to completely restore the Bay’s ecosystem to 

18 previous conditions. For example, reduced oyster populations provide less shell substrate as 

19 habitat for developing sea nettle polyps, which may reduce sea nettle abundance, which in turn 

20 contributes to increased abundance of sea nettle prey such as comb jellies that feed on oyster 

21 larvae (Breitburg and Fulford 2006). 

22 Historically the primary contaminants entering the Bay have been pesticides and herbicides 

23 associated with agriculture, particularly on the Delmarva Peninsula (Denver and Ator 2007). 

24 Other contaminants emerging as potential issues assaulting the Bay include pharmaceuticals, 

25 hormones, detergents, disinfectants, and fire retardants (Denver and Ator 2007). 

26 Pharmaceuticals, drugs for human and veterinary use, enter aquatic habitats mainly through 

27 ingestion and excretion but also by being flushed down drains and passing through septic 

28 systems or treatment plants (Pait et al. 2006). Although pharmaceuticals were developed to 

29 have biological effects, the potential effects of these chemicals on aquatic biota are incompletely 

30 understood (Halling-Sørensen et al. 1998). In Chesapeake Bay water samples collected near 

31 Baltimore and Annapolis, 13 pharmaceutical compounds were detected, although the 

32 concentrations were fairly low (Pait et al. 2006). 

33 Episodic natural events also stress resources in the Bay. Hurricanes and other large storms 

34 constitute one of the natural disturbances that can affect the Bay ecosystems, albeit the 

35 disturbance is unpredictable and periodic. Hurricane Isabel, which passed west of the Bay in 

36 September 2003, caused an increase in freshwater flow from the Susquehanna River into the 

37 Bay that decreased salinities and contributed to an increase in the number of adult bay anchovy 

38 (Anchoa mitchilli) and young-of-the-year Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) in the lower 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-62 April 2010 

1 bay (Houde et al. 2005). The storm also induced an unusual fall phytoplankton bloom in the 

2 Bay that probably resulted from high winds mixing the water column, which moved nitrogen into 

3 the euphotic zone where it fueled the increase in phytoplankton (Miller et al. 2006). 

4 Water Column Habitats 

5 The primary residents of the water column in the Chesapeake Bay are plankton, fish, and sea 

6 turtles. Fish and sea turtles are discussed in the sections on important estuarine species and 

7 threatened and endangered species because many of the studies of these groups focus on key 

8 species rather than on entire assemblages. Designated essential fish habitat (EFH) for several 

9 Federally managed fish species exists in Chesapeake Bay. The EFH assessment, included in 

10 Appendix F, supports the consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 

11 compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 

12 (MSFCMA), as amended, which requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all 

13 actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may 

14 adversely affect EFH. 

15 Plankton

16 Most plankton are small, free- floating or weakly swimming organisms that drift through the 

17 water column. Plankton, despite being small and short-lived, form the base of most of the food 

18 chains in oceans, estuaries, and lakes and have key ecosystem roles in the distribution, 

19 transfer, and recycling of nutrients and minerals. Plankton are separated into two major 

20 functional groups, phytoplankton and zooplankton. The phytoplankton community consists of 

21 unicellular plants, such as diatoms and dinoflagellates, and is the major contributor to primary 

22 production in most waterbodies. Phytoplankton often rapidly grow into large aggregates or 

23 blooms. Subsequent decomposition of the dead phytoplankton can lead to local depletion of 

24 oxygen in the water. Some phytoplankton are toxic, and their blooms contribute to fish kills and 

25 shellfish poisoning. Zooplankton primarily includes microscopic animals that are consumers of 

26 phytoplankton and other zooplankton. Zooplankton are primary prey for many fish species, thus 

27 playing a central role in the functioning of aquatic ecosystems. Zooplankton include animals 

28 that spend their entire lives in the plankton community (holoplankton) and the larval forms of 

29 many species of invertebrates and fish that are planktonic community residents for only a short 

30 time (meroplankton). Important zooplankton include unicellular (Foraminifera, Radiolaria) and 

31 multicellular animals (copepods). Fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles, called ichthyoplankton, 

32 comprise an important part of the larger zooplankton community. 

33 The Chesapeake Bay phytoplankton community off the Calvert Cliffs site was not sampled as 

34 part of the aquatic studies conducted in 2006 and 2007. However, phytoplankton are monitored 

35 Bay-wide as part of the CBP, which includes one station just north of the site and provides 

36 information about the Mid Bay region, the general area that includes the site. The 

37 phytoplankton community is evaluated by application of a phytoplankton index of biotic integrity 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-63 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 (P-IBI). The P-IBI is a multi-metric index based on parameters specific to certain salinity 

2 regimes and seasons chosen from an overall list of 12 metrics, such as chlorophyll a content, 

3 diatom biomass, and dinoflagellate biomass, selected to measure various aspects of the 

4 community (Lacouture et al. 2006). The P-IBI value calculated in 2007 for the Mid Bay station 

5 north of the site was 3.0 to 3.9, which is considered Fair to Fair-Good (Lacouture et al. 2006). 

6 Overall, the Mid Bay region received a phytoplankton condition score of 79 percent, which was 

7 rated good and represented a 10 percent increase over the 2006 score (Chesapeake 

8 EcoCheck 2007). 

9 The Chesapeake Bay zooplankton community off the Calvert Cliffs site was not sampled as part 

10 of the aquatic studies conducted in 2006 and 2007. However, zooplankton are monitored Bay11 wide, and there is one station just north of the site. The general condition of the zooplankton 

12 communities in Chesapeake Bay is suboptimal (UniStar 2009a). Zooplankton abundance levels 

13 in many spawning or nursery areas are below those necessary to provide adequate food for 

14 migratory fish larvae. Sharp declines in zooplankton abundance have occurred in much of the 

15 middle and lower Chesapeake Bay mainstem and in lower tributaries (UniStar 2009a). There 

16 was a 32 percent reduction in abundance from 1984 to 2002 at the monitoring station just 

17 north of the site. Although the general zooplankton food base for key fish species is declining 

18 and shifting to smaller sizes, there are some indications that conditions are improving 

19 (UniStar 2009a). 

20 An entrainment study conducted in 2006 and 2007 at the cooling water intake system for 

21 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 also included ichthyoplankton sampling from April through December 

22 2006 in Chesapeake Bay waters just outside the baffle wall separating the intake forebay from 

23 open bay waters. The highest average densities of ichthyoplankton occurred during May 

24 through August with a peak in June (UniStar 2008b). Virtually no ichthyoplankton were 

25 collected from October and April. Bay anchovy eggs accounted for about 79 percent of the total 

26 ichthyoplankton collected outside the baffle wall during the study. Sciaenid eggs, which could 

27 include Atlantic croaker, northern kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis), silver perch (Bairdiella 

28 chrysoura), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), comprised about 

29 11 percent of the total ichthyoplankton collected. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) eggs 

30 and larvae were found primarily in May 2007. Other taxa of interest included eggs of an 

31 unidentified species of Fundulus and juvenile weakfish, each found only in July. Naked goby 

32 (Gobiosoma bosc) juveniles and larvae were the third most common taxon, but accounted for 

33 only about 3 percent of the total ichthyoplankton collected. 

34 Benthic Habitats 

35 Benthic habitats in Chesapeake Bay are inhabited by several major categories of taxa, those 

36 that live in sediments (benthic infauna) and SAV. Two key benthic species are the blue crab 

37 and the eastern oyster, although each inhabits the water column during some part of its life. 

38 Those two species are discussed in the Important Estuarine Species section. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-64 April 2010 

1 Benthic Sediments and Infauna

2 It is important to understand the condition of the benthic infaunal communities in the 

3 Chesapeake Bay and especially near the Calvert Cliffs site. Benthic animals, largely because of 

4 their relative immobility, integrate environmental conditions that have occurred over relatively 

5 long time periods and are important contributors to ecosystem function (Bilyard 1987). 

6 The Maryland DNR sponsors a water quality monitoring program throughout the state waters of 

7 Chesapeake Bay. Since 1984, sampling the benthic sediments and their constituent fauna have 

8 been important components of this program. The program includes sampling at 27 fixed 

9 stations within the Bay, two of which (Stations 001 and 006) are relatively close (just to the 

10 north) of the Calvert Cliffs site (Llansó et al. 2007a). One fixed station (071) is located in the 

11 Patuxent River just upstream from the mouth of St. Leonard Creek. The Maryland DNR 

12 program evaluates conditions of the benthic infaunal communities by calculating a B-IBI, which 

13 is based on several attributes of the communities compared (Weisberg et al. 1997). The B-IBI 

14 provides a validated way to combine several benthic community attributes into a single value 

15 that estimates overall benthic community condition (Llansó et al. 2007a). 

16 EA Engineering collected benthic sediments from three nearshore stations near the present 

17 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 barge dock in the fall 2006 and the spring 2007 surveys (EA Engineering 

18 2007a). One station was located at the site of the proposed cooling water discharge pipe, and 

19 two others were located within 500 ft of the pipe. One of the latter stations was within the 

20 approximate area that would be dredged. These sediments were analyzed for sediment grain21 size distribution, total organic carbon (TOC) content, nutrients, anthropogenic contaminants, 

22 and infaunal community structure (EA Engineering 2007a). Standard sampling and analytical 

23 methods were followed. 

24 Sediments at all three stations were comprised primarily of sand (94 to 96 percent) and gravel 

25 (2 to 5 percent) with a small percentage of clay (EA Engineering 2007a). TOC in the sediments 

26 ranged from 2.36 to 3.07 percent. The sediment type sampled near the barge dock was typical 

27 of the region. The two stations sampled under the Maryland DNR program are also very sandy 

28 with a very small silt/clay fraction (Llansó et al. 2007b). However, the TOC content of the 

29 CCNPP sediments was much higher than that of the two Maryland DNR stations (<1 percent 

30 each). Most metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, polychlorinated biphenyl 

31 congeners, pesticides, semi-volatile organic compounds and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

32 analyzed in the CCNPP sediments were reported as not detected (EA Engineering 2007a). The 

33 few organic compounds that were detected in the sediments occurred at concentrations less 

34 than the respective method detection limits. Of the seven metal compounds analyzed, six 

35 occurred at levels greater than the method detection limits, but all were substantially less than 

36 the threshold effects levels (the concentration below which effects are expected to be rare) 

37 (Buchman2008) established for them. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-65 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The benthic infaunal community found at each of the three stations was generally sparse and 

2 comprised of relatively few taxa. Infaunal abundance varied from 32 to 85 individuals per 

0.05 m2 3 samples (EA Engineering 2007a). These samples contained from 9 to 13 species. The 

4 abundance values for the CCNPP sediments were generally similar to those reported for the 

5 two Maryland DNR stations sampled in the summer 2006 (Llansó et al. 2007b). However, 

6 species numbers at the CCNPP stations were slightly greater than those for the Maryland DNR 

7 stations. The infaunal community at the two CCNPP stations near the site of the proposed 

8 cooling water discharge pipe primarily was comprised of the small clam Gemma gemma and 

9 polychaete worms, such as Streblospio benedicti and Glycinde solitaria. The small clam was 

10 not found at the station south of the barge dock near the area proposed to be dredged. The 

11 infaunal community there consisted predominantly of polychaete worms, such as S. benedicti. 

12 The general infaunal community composition at the Calvert Cliffs site was similar to those at the 

13 two Maryland DNR stations. Gemma gemma was predominant at both Maryland DNR stations 

14 in summer 2006. Polychaete worms, such as S. benedicti, were common. Another small clam, 

15 Mulinia lateralis, was common at the Maryland DNR stations. 

16 The Maryland DNR monitoring program, using the calculated B-IBI scores, rated the two stations 

17 north of Calvert Cliffs site as degraded and severely degraded (Llansó et al. 2007a). B-IBI 

18 values for the infaunal community at the three CCNPP stations sampled in 2006 are similar to 

19 those reported for the Maryland DNR stations and are in the degraded to severely degraded 

20 categories. The Maryland DNR program rated the single Patuxent River station as severely 

21 degraded and showing a significant downward trend in habitat quality (Llansó et al. 2007a). 

22 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

23 SAV in Chesapeake Bay includes 23 species of vascular plants, those plants that have true 

24 leaves, stems, and roots, and 3 species of the algal muskgrass family (Family Characeae) 

25 (Orth et al. 2007a). Included in this list are several non-native species, such as Hydrilla 

26 (Hydrilla verticillata), water chestnut (Trapa natans), and Eurasian milfoil 

27 (Myriophyllum spicatum) (MISC 2008a). SAV is important in the diet of waterfowl and serves as 

28 important habitat for juvenile fish and shellfish, especially in Chesapeake Bay (Rybicki and 

29 Landwehr 2007). SAV provides other services, such as wave attenuation, sediment 

30 stabilization, water quality improvement, and primary production, to the Bay ecosystem (Shafer 

31 and Bergstrom 2008). Extensive SAV beds historically existed within the coastal bays, lagoons, 

32 and estuaries of Chesapeake Bay, but the beds have experienced severe declines in 

33 abundance and occurrence (Shafer and Bergstrom 2008). Among the potential causes for the 

34 decline are wasting disease, very strong storms, and decreased water clarity caused by higher 

35 levels of suspended sediment and long-lasting algal blooms (Rybicki and Landwehr 2007; 

36 Shafer and Bergstrom 2008). A non-native waterfowl, the mute swan (Cygnus olor), feeds on 

37 SAV year-round in Chesapeake Bay and can significantly affect the percent cover, density, and 

38 height of SAV (Tatu et al. 2007a, b). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-66 April 2010 

1 Because of the importance of SAV to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, surveys of the 

2 nearshore Chesapeake Bay area off the Calvert Cliffs site were conducted in the early fall 

3 (September 2006) and spring (May 2007) to identify the presence of any SAV that might be 

4 affected by the building and operation of the new unit (EA Engineering 2007b). Sampling for 

5 SAV was done by using an iron dethatching rake following a protocol developed by the 

6 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The study area included the Bay bottom 

7 between the present barge dock and the intake area for Units 1 and 2. Water depths in most of 

8 the survey area were 6.6 ft or less, but some stations in isolated pockets of deeper water within 

9 the overall study area were included in the survey to provide a more comprehensive 

10 understanding of the distribution of SAV within the study area (EA Engineering 2007b). Sixty11 five stations were sampled during each survey. No vascular plant SAV species were observed 

12 at any of the stations during either surveys, and no SAV species were observed along the 

13 shoreline or floating throughout the study area (EA Engineering 2007b). However, unidentified 

14 species of muskgrass (Chara sp.) and red marine alga (Chondria sp.) were collected during the 

15 early fall 2006 survey from the stations closest to the shoreline. Two species of muskgrass, 

16 Chara braunii and C. zeylanica, are considered SAV (Orth et al. 2007a). Thus, although the 

17 species of Chara found off the site in 2006 was not identified, the occurrence of SAV at the site 

18 cannot be completely dismissed. Pieces of another type of macrophytic alga were collected 

19 during the spring 2007 survey. 

20 The general absence of SAV at the Calvert Cliffs site was checked by examining the records 

21 maintained by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). VIMS uses aerial photography 

22 and field surveys to document the presence, species composition, and distribution of SAV in the 

23 Chesapeake Bay and many of its tributaries. VIMS reported that no SAV occurred along the 

24 coast near the study area between 1994 and 2005 (EA Engineering 2007b). The 2006 VIMS 

25 aerial SAV survey indicated that there was no SAV in the nearshore area between Cove Point 

26 and the area north of Calvert Beach (Orth et al. 2007b). 

27 Shoreline Habitats 

28 The natural portion of the shoreline along the Calvert Cliffs site consists of narrow sandy beach 

29 at the foot of steep, sandy cliffs. Adjacent to the barge dock, a small patch of Phragmites and 

30 small trees exist on the sandy, built-up area at the outlet of the outfall pipe. Between the barge 

31 dock and the intake area for CCNPP Units 1 and 2, the shoreline is armored with large 

32 boulders. No surveys of the beach or armored shoreline for estuarine fauna were conducted 

33 during the 2006 and 2007 sampling. The beach and bluff area south of the barge dock was 

34 surveyed for the occurrence of tiger beetles (see Section 2.4.1.3). 

35 2.4.2.5 Important Estuarine Species – Site and Vicinity 

36 Several criteria (see Section 2.4.1.3) identify important species that may be affected by building, 

37 operating, or maintaining a new facility. Species meeting these criteria may be commercially or 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-67 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 recreationally important fishery species or may have vital roles in estuarine ecosystem 

2 dynamics. Species that have designated EFH in the Chesapeake Bay and Federally or 

3 State-listed species are also considered important. Thirty species that inhabit the estuarine 

4 waters of Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs site were identified as important species 

5 (Table 2-4). The Federally and State-listed species are discussed in the last subsection within 

6 this Section 2.4.2.5. The Biological Assessment completed in support of the ESA Section 7 

7 consultation with NMFS is also presented in Appendix F of this EIS. 

8 The impingement and entrainment by the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 are given for each species 

9 based on historical (1975 to 1996) impingement data (Ringger 2000) and more recent (2006 to 

10 2007) entrainment data (UniStar 2008d). 

11 Table 2-4. Important Estuarine Species that May Occur in Chesapeake Bay Near the Calvert 

12 Cliffs Site 

Common Name Scientific Name Type Category 

sea purslane Sesuvium maritimum Plant State Endangered 

alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Fish Federal Species of Concern 

American shad Alosa sapidissima Fish Ecological Role; Historical Fishery 

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus Fish Recreational; Commercial 

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Fish Ecological Role; Commercial 

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Fish Federal Candidate Species 

bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Fish Ecological Role 

black sea bass Centropristis striata Fish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

blueback herring Alosa aestivalis Fish Federal Species of Concern 

bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Fish Ecological Role; Recreational; EFH 

cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus Fish Ecological Role 

clearnose skate Raja eglanteria Fish EFH 

little skate Leucoraja erinacea Fish EFH 

Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus Fish EFH 

red drum Sciaenops ocellatus Fish EFH 

shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Fish Federally Endangered; State-Endangered 

spot Leiostomus xanthurus Fish Recreational; Commercial 

spotfin killifish Fundulus luciae Fish State “Rare?” (State’s nomenclature) 

striped bass Morone saxatilis Fish Ecological Role; Recreational 

summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus Fish Recreational; EFH 

weakfish Cynoscion regalis Fish Recreational; Commercial 

white perch Morone americana Fish Ecological Role; Recreational; Commercial

windowpane 

flounder 

Scophthalmus aquosus Fish EFH 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-68 April 2010 

1 Table 2-4. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Type Category 

winter skate Leucoraja ocellata Fish EFH 

green turtle Chelonia mydas Turtle Federally Threatened; State-Threatened 

Kemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii Turtle Federally Endangered; State-Endangered 

leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Turtle Federally Endangered; State-Endangered 

loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Turtle Federally Threatened; State-Threatened 

blue crab Callinectes sapidus Crustacean Ecological Role; Recreational; Commercial

eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica Mollusk Ecological Role; Recreational; Commercial

Sources: (50 CFR 17.11; MDNR 2007b, c) 

2 Fish 

3 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)

4 The American shad is an anadromous schooling fish that ranges along the western Atlantic coast 

5 from the St. Lawrence River to Florida (Murdy et al. 1997). All American shad from rivers along 

6 the Atlantic coast migrate to live in the Gulf of Maine for the summer and fall. The spawning 

7 migration generally runs from late winter to late spring. American shad enter Chesapeake Bay 

8 from January to June to spawn in low-salinity to freshwater flats in tributaries reaching as far 

9 north as the Susquehanna River (Murdy et al. 1997; Hoffman et al. 2008). Eggs are fertilized in 

10 the water column of freshwater rivers and tributaries. Some adults die after spawning, whereas 

11 others return to the ocean. Most juvenile American shad in Chesapeake Bay, which are about 

12 2 to 3 in. long (Hoffman et al. 2008), leave the freshwater habitats during November and 

13 December, ultimately moving into the ocean from February to March (Hoffman et al. 2008). 

14 Younger juveniles in the Bay probably feed primarily on planktonic crustaceans but consume 

15 more larval fish as they age (Hoffman et al. 2008). Shad spend about 4 to 6 years in the ocean 

16 before returning to the Chesapeake Bay to spawn (Murdy et al. 1997). 

17 The American shad was part of the early historical and cultural fabric of the United States, 

18 earning the nickname “Founding Fish” (McPhee 2002). The shad fishery was prominent on the 

19 northeast U.S. coast from the mid-1700s until its decline because of overfishing and loss of 

20 important spawning habitat (Murdy et al. 1997). Maryland placed a moratorium on recreational 

21 shad fishing in 1980 (Sadzinski and Jarzynski 2005). The State allows very limited commercial 

22 fishing and catch-and-release recreational fishing. Since the mid-1990s, Maryland has 

23 undertaken a program to restore the shad to three Chesapeake Bay tributaries, the Patuxent, 

24 Choptank, and Nanticoke Rivers (Richardson et al. 2007). From 1996 to 2006, more than 

25 8.3 million larval, early juvenile, and late juvenile American shad were stocked into the Patuxent 

26 River. Monitoring in 2006 found that 96 percent of fish caught were of hatchery origin. 

27 Richardson et al. (2007) concluded that the number of wild adults returning to the river to spawn 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-69 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 is increasing, which indicates that the restoration effort is working. American shad were not 

2 found in impingement samples collected from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000), nor in the 

3 entrainment samples collected in the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system or baffle wall in 2006 

4 and 2007 (UniStar 2008d). 

5 Shad also contribute ecologically by linking estuarine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems. 

6 Spawning migrations of shad and other anadromous herrings transport marine-based nutrients 

7 into freshwaters (Garman 1992; MacAvoy et al. 2000). Migrating herrings are among the 

8 predominant prey for nesting bald eagles (Watts et al. 2007). 

9 Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) 

10 The Atlantic croaker is an inshore demersal fish found from the Gulf of Maine to Florida and 

11 throughout the Gulf of Mexico (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007a). Adults are found mainly in 

12 salinities greater than 5 ppt in Chesapeake Bay. Spawning in the Middle Atlantic Bight region 

13 occurs in continental shelf waters, beginning in April and peaking from August through October 

14 (Murdy et al. 1997). Larvae, which migrate into Chesapeake Bay at a size of about 0.4 in. 

15 (Schaffler et al. 2009), use low-salinity estuaries as nurseries before moving to higher salinity 

16 waters as juveniles (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007a). The youngest croakers are 

17 planktivorous, but juveniles and adults transition to diets of benthic worms, mollusks, and 

18 crustaceans (ASMFC 2007a). Adults may occasionally eat other fish. Striped bass, flounder, 

19 weakfish, and spotted seatrout prey on Atlantic croakers. Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) 

20 occasionally feed on croakers, providing a trophic link from the Bay to terrestrial systems (Watts 

21 et al. 2007). 

22 Atlantic croaker was the second most abundant fish caught during trawl surveys conducted 

23 throughout the Bay from 1995 to 2000 (Jung and Houde 2003). The species comprises 

24 important, yet highly variable, commercial and recreational fisheries in Chesapeake Bay, with 

25 the recreational catch exceeding the commercial catch (Murdy et al. 1997). The commercial 

26 catch of Atlantic croaker has shown a somewhat cyclical pattern since about 1970 (Meserve 

27 2007a), probably earlier (Hare and Able 2007). Peak catches occurred in the late 1970s 

28 followed by reduced catches through the early 1990s. The catch again reached a peak in 1997 

29 and remained high through 2003 before beginning a downward trend that has continued at least 

30 through 2006 (Meserve 2007a). The national trend for the recreational fishery has differed, 

31 showing a fairly consistent, increasing trend since the early 1980s. Atlantic croaker occurred in 

32 the impingement samples collected from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system in all years 

33 from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000), and was among the five most commonly impinged species in 

34 5 of the 21 years. About 19 percent of impinged Atlantic croaker survive. An estimated 

35 19.9 million Atlantic croaker juveniles and larvae were entrained by the intake system for 

36 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 under maximum design flow conditions during the 19-month 2006 and 

37 20007 study (UniStar 2008d). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-70 April 2010 

1 Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)

2 Atlantic menhaden are common fish that occur from Nova Scotia to Florida and are abundant 

3 throughout Chesapeake Bay from spring to fall (Murdy et al. 1997). Spawning in the 

4 Chesapeake Bay region typically occurs in the open ocean in the spring and fall (Murdy et al. 

5 1997). Some spawning activity may occur in bays and sounds. After the pelagic eggs, which 

6 are about 0.05 in. in diameter, hatch at sea, larvae (about 0.5 to 1.3 in. long) ride ocean currents 

7 into estuaries and grow in fresh to brackish waters before leaving the estuary as juveniles 

8 (1.5 to 4.3 in. long) (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2006b). Menhaden are thought to comprise a 

9 single population (ASMFC 2006b). Menhaden migrate south in the winter, although sometimes 

10 juveniles overwinter in the Bay (Murdy et al. 1997). Menhaden are commercially harvested 

11 primarily for reduction to fish oil, fertilizer, and fish meal, but secondarily for bait (Murdy et al. 

12 1997; ASMFC 2006b). The reduction fishery peaked in the late 1950s and, following a sharp 

13 decline through the 1970s, reached a secondary peak in the 1990s (ASMFC 2006b). There has 

14 been a steady decline since the 1990s. The general decline since the 1960s may be related to 

15 overfishing of adults in the north followed by a shift in fishing to smaller, pre-spawning fish, 

16 which has reduced recruitment (CBEF 2006). Atlantic menhaden are very important to the 

17 Chesapeake Bay ecosystem where they transform phytoplankton primary productivity to fish 

18 biomass that serves as forage for top aquatic predators such as bluefish, striped bass, and 

19 weakfish. Menhaden comprise a major part of the diet during the peak period of striped bass 

20 and bluefish growth and, therefore, are important to the yearly production of both species 

21 (Hartman and Brandt 1995). Menhaden also transfer energy to terrestrial ecosystems, 

22 particularly to fish-eating birds such as ospreys and bald eagles (Watts and Paxton 2007; 

23 Watts et al. 2007). 

24 Menhaden occurred in impingement samples collected in all years from 1975 to 1995 and were 

25 among the five most commonly impinged species in 14 of the 21 years (Ringger 2000). About 

26 52 percent of the impinged Atlantic menhaden survive. About 522 million menhaden eggs, 

27 larvae, and juveniles were estimated to be entrained by the intake system for CCNPP Units 1 

28 and 2 under maximum design flow conditions during the 19-month 2006 and 2007 study 

29 (UniStar 2008d). Eggs accounted for about 92 percent of the entrained menhaden. 

30 Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)

31 The bay anchovy is a common schooling species found from the Gulf of Maine to Florida and 

32 throughout the Gulf of Mexico and is most abundant in estuaries (Murdy et al. 1997). Adults 

33 may reach a maximum length of about 4 in. This species occurs throughout Chesapeake Bay 

34 and the lower reaches of its tributaries. The bay anchovy was the most abundant pelagic fish 

35 caught during trawl surveys conducted throughout the Bay from 1995 to 2000 (Jung and Houde 

36 2003), accounting for about 96 percent of the total abundance and 36 percent of the total 

37 biomass. Bay anchovies spawn at night from April through September with peak spawning in 

38 Chesapeake Bay occurring in July (Luo and Musick 1991; Murdy et al. 1997). A conceptual 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-71 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 model of bay anchovy spawning shows the major spawning area is in the lower Bay and size2 related migration occurs within Chesapeake Bay (Jung and Houde 2004a). Young juveniles 

3 migrate to the upper Bay in summer and remain there until they reach a length of about 1.8 in. 

4 and begin to migrate down the Bay. Larger fish, about 2.4 in. long, tend to overwinter around 

5 the middle portion of the Bay. This migration of a very abundant fish within the Bay means that 

6 a large amount of energy available to predators is dynamic, moving around the Bay (Wang and 

7 Houde 1995). Annual recruitment in the Bay is highly variable and can vary as much as nine8 fold (Jung and Houde 2004a). The bay anchovy probably is the most abundant fish in 

9 Chesapeake Bay. It is planktivorous, feeding on copepods and other planktonic crustaceans 

10 (Jung and Houde 2004b). Bay anchovies are important prey for many of the predatory fish in 

11 the Bay, including bluefish, striped bass, and weakfish. Young predatory fish feed heavily on 

12 bay anchovy juveniles (Scharf et al. 2002). Young anchovies are also eaten by sea nettles 

13 (Chrysaora quinquecirrha) and comb jellies (Mnemiopsis leidyi) (Jung and Houde 2004a). 

14 Bay anchovy was among the five most commonly impinged species in each of the years 

15 sampled at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). It was the most 

16 commonly impinged species in 13 of the 21 years. About 68 percent of impinged bay anchovies 

17 survive. Bay anchovy eggs and larvae were the most abundant ichthyoplankton component 

18 collected in the Bay near the Calvert Cliffs site in 2006 and 2007, accounting for more than 

19 82 percent of the total fauna collected in 2006 (UniStar 2008d). These bay anchovy life stages 

20 were also the predominant taxon found in the entrainment samples collected from the 

21 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system during the same time period (UniStar 2008d). About 

22 9.17 billion bay anchovy eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults were estimated to be entrained by 

23 the intake system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 under maximum design flow conditions during the 

24 19-month 2006 and 2007 study (UniStar 2008d). Fertilized eggs accounted for about 

25 76 percent of this total. 

26 Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata)

27 Black sea bass range from Nova Scotia to Florida (Drohan et al. 2007), occurring in the 

28 Chesapeake Bay from spring to late fall. They are common in the middle and lower Bay (Murdy 

29 et al. 1997) and migrate offshore in winter. Adults typically live near structured habitats, such as 

30 pilings, rocky areas, and shellfish beds (Murdy et al. 1997; Drohan et al. 2007). Juveniles in the 

31 Bay live in vegetated areas, and some may overwinter in deeper waters in the Bay during mild 

32 years (Drohan et al. 2007). Spawning occurs in late spring to early fall over nearshore 

33 continental shelf habitats near large estuaries (Drohan et al. 2007). Development from egg 

34 through larval stages occurs in offshore water with juveniles (1.2 to 2.4 in. long) migrating into 

35 estuaries during summer. Maturation occurs when fish are about 3 to 6 in. long. The 

36 Chesapeake Bay supports a popular sport fishery and a small commercial fishery for black sea 

37 bass (Murdy et al. 2007). EFH that includes Chesapeake Bay has been designated for black 

38 sea bass juveniles and adults. Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-72 April 2010 

1 provided in the EFH Assessment (Appendix F). Black sea bass occurred in 6 of the 21 yearly 

2 impingement samples collected from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 between 1975 and 1995 but only 

3 occurred in one year from 1984 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). Black sea bass eggs and larvae do not 

4 occur near Calvert Cliffs (Drohan et al. 2007) and, therefore, have not been entrained into the 

5 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intakes. Juvenile black sea bass were not caught in entrainment samples 

6 collected at the intake for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 or outside the baffle wall in 2006 and 2007 

7 (UniStar 2008d). 

8 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)

9 Bluefish occur from Nova Scotia to Brazil (Murdy et al. 1997) and visit the Chesapeake Bay 

10 from spring to autumn (Murdy et al. 1997). Bluefish are abundant near the mouth of the Bay 

11 and common in the upper Bay in some years, but rarely occur north of Baltimore (Murdy et al. 

12 1997). Spawning takes place in offshore waters during the northward migration, with peak 

13 spawning off Chesapeake Bay occurring in July (Murdy et al. 1997). After spawning, smaller 

14 fish enter nearshore bays, such as Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay, while larger fish swim 

15 northward. Juveniles (1.8 to 2.4 in. long) move into estuaries and nearshore environments of 

16 the Bay in late summer, and eventually migrate out of the Bay in the autumn (Harding and Mann 

17 2001; Shepherd and Packer 2006). The bluefish is one of the most important recreational and 

18 commercial species in Chesapeake Bay with the recreational catch five to six times greater than 

19 the commercial catch (ASMFC 2006c). Recreational and commercial catches in Maryland have 

20 decreased substantially since peak values in the late 1980s, but have remained relatively stable 

21 since the mid-1990s (MDNR 2008b). EFH that includes Chesapeake Bay has been designated 

22 for bluefish juveniles and adults. Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are 

23 provided in the EFH Assessment (Appendix F). Bluefish occurred in the impingement samples 

24 collected from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system in 9 of the 21 years from 1975 to 1995 

25 (Ringger 2000), although they occurred in only one year after 1984. Bluefish were not found in 

26 the entrainment samples collected at the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system or outside the 

27 baffle wall in 2006 and 2007 (UniStar 2008d). 

28 Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus)

29 Butterfish range from Nova Scotia to Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico (Murdy et al. 1997) but 

30 are most abundant between Cape Hatteras and the Gulf of Maine (Cross et al. 1999). Butterfish 

31 move into Chesapeake Bay about March and remain until about November. They are most 

32 abundant in the lower Bay but occasionally may be common in the upper Bay as far north as the 

33 Patapsco River (Murdy et al. 1997). Butterfish overwinter in deep offshore waters. The short34 lived species spawns offshore from May to July in the mid-Atlantic area with eggs remaining 

35 offshore during the 48-hour incubation period (Cross et al. 1999). Juveniles, which range from 

36 0.6 to 4.7 in. long (Cross et al. 1999), move into nearshore waters, including estuaries (Murdy et 

37 al. 1997), and may be associated with jellyfish. Adults may reach a length of about 12 in. and, 

38 in the Chesapeake Bay, mature by their third summer (Cross et al. 1999). Commercial catches 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-73 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 of butterfish peaked about 1973 along the Atlantic coast and have declined fairly steadily since, 

2 with the lowest landings occurring in 2005 (Overholtz 2006). Butterfish were of minor 

3 commercial importance in the Chesapeake Bay in the late 1990s, with most of the catch coming 

4 from Virginia waters (Murdy et al. 1997). There is little recreational fishing for butterfish. EFH 

5 that includes Chesapeake Bay has been designated for butterfish eggs, larvae, juveniles, and 

6 adults. Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are provided in the EFH 

7 Assessment (Appendix F). Butterfish occurred in 15 of the 21 yearly impingement samples 

8 collected from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 between 1975 and 1995 (Ringger 2000). However, the 

9 species only occurred in 5 years from 1984 to 1995. No butterfish life stages were caught in 

10 entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 or outside the baffle wall in 

11 2006 and 2007 (UniStar 2008d). 

12 Clearnose Skate (Raja eglanteria)

13 Clearnose skates live in coastal waters from Massachusetts to Texas, but are rare in the 

14 northern parts of the range (Murdy et al. 1997; Packer et al. 2003a). Clearnose skates are 

15 primarily summer-to-fall residents of the Chesapeake Bay and are most abundant in the lower 

16 Bay (Murdy et al. 1997). These skates move out of the Bay to shallow offshore waters in the 

17 fall. Reproduction in waters north of Cape Hatteras occurs in spring and summer, with each 

18 fertilized egg being deposited in a benthic egg case (Packer et al. 2003a). Juveniles hatch from 

19 the egg cases after about 3 months and may eventually reach a length of about 30 in. at an age 

20 of more than 6 years. A relatively small fishery exists for skates (seven species are usually 

21 considered and managed together in the fishery) with smaller skates primarily caught for lobster 

22 bait (Packer et al. 2003a). Clearnose skates do not contribute much to the total skate catch and 

23 are not being overfished (Sosebee 2006). In the Chesapeake Bay, clearnose skates are 

24 considered a nuisance catch (Murdy et al. 1997). EFH that includes Chesapeake Bay has been 

25 designated for clearnose skate juveniles and adults. Additional life history, fishery, and 

26 ecological information are provided in the EFH Assessment (Appendix F). Clearnose skates 

27 were not listed in the yearly impingement samples collected from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

28 between 1975 and 1995 (Ringger 2000). Clearnose skates were not caught in entrainment 

29 samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 or outside the baffle wall in 2006 and 2007 

30 (UniStar 2008d). 

31 Cownose Ray (Rhinoptera bonasus)

32 Cownose rays are found from South America to Massachusetts and the Gulf of Mexico (Murdy 

33 et al. 1997). They occur in the Chesapeake Bay from about May to October. The Bay is a main 

34 nursery area for young-of-the-year rays (Grusha 2005). Cownose rays are large, maturing at 

35 about 31- to 35-in. disc width (Grusha 2005) and reaching a maximum disc width of about 3.3 ft 

36 (Murdy et al. 1997). Mating occurs in late summer, and females carry the developing young 

37 until entering the Bay in May. Young have about 16-in. disc width when born. Cownose rays 

38 are ecologically important in Chesapeake Bay because of their occurrence in large schools and 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-74 April 2010 

1 their benthic feeding behavior. Cownose rays feed in shallow waters on several species of 

2 clams (Smith and Merriner 1985). Feeding involves disruptively excavating the bottom with the 

3 pectoral fins and rapidly sucking in and expelling water and sediment with the mouth. This 

4 behavior creates large circular pits in the bottom and may disrupt small patches of SAV 

5 (Stankelis et al. 2003). Cownose rays occur near the Calvert Cliffs site, and significant fish kills 

6 of cownose rays occurred because of impingement on the trash racks of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

7 in summer 2005 (80 to 100 rays) and 2006 (50 to 200 rays) (NRC 2005, 2006c, 2006d, 2006e, 

8 2006f, 2006g). 

9 Little Skate (Leucoraja erinacea)

10 Little skates range from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras and are most abundant between 

11 Georges Back and Delaware Bay (Murdy et al. 1997; Packer et al. 2003b). Little skates 

12 occasionally occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay in the winter and spring (Murdy et al. 1997). 

13 Reproduction may take place throughout the year. Development time varies depending on the 

14 season in which the capsule is deposited but typically extends at least 6 months (Packer et al. 

15 2003b). Juveniles are about 4 in. long at hatching. Little skates are fished primarily for use as 

16 lobster bait and account for most of the bait fishery, but they are not presently being overfished 

17 (Sosebee 2006). EFH that includes Chesapeake Bay has been designated for little skate 

18 juveniles and adults. Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are provided in 

19 the EFH Assessment (Appendix F). Little skates were not listed in the yearly impingement 

20 samples collected from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 between 1975 and 1995 (Ringger 2000). Little 

21 skates were not caught in entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 or 

22 outside the baffle wall in 2006 and 2007 (UniStar 2008d).

23 Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) 

24 Red drum occur from the Gulf of Maine to the northern coast of Mexico but are less abundant 

25 along the Atlantic coast than in the Gulf of Mexico (Murdy et al. 1997). Adults reside in 

26 Chesapeake Bay from May to November, with highest numbers near the Bay mouth in spring 

27 and fall (Murdy et al. 1997). Red drum may reach as far up the Bay as the Patuxent River. 

28 Spawning occurs at night in nearshore waters from late summer through autumn, and tidal 

29 currents carry larvae to nursery habitats in estuaries where they stay through the juvenile stage 

30 (ASMFC 2006d; Rooker et al. 1999). The Chesapeake Bay supports a small red drum fishery 

31 (Murdy et al. 1997). EFH that includes Chesapeake Bay has been designated for red drum 

32 eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults. Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are 

33 provided in the EFH Assessment (Appendix F). Red drum occurred in the impingement 

34 samples collected from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system only in 1983 (Ringger 2000). 

35 Red drum were not specifically identified in the entrainment samples collected in the CCNPP 

36 Units 1 and 2 intake system or outside the baffle wall in 2006 and 2007 (UniStar 2008d). 

37 However, sciaenid eggs, which were not identified further, were the second most common 

38 organism entrained. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-75 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)

2 Spot primarily range from the Gulf of Maine to Florida and are most abundant between North 

3 Carolina and the Chesapeake (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007b). Spot migrate seasonally 

4 between coastal waters and estuaries, entering Chesapeake Bay as adults and juveniles during 

5 the spring (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007b). Spot were the fourth most abundant pelagic fish 

6 caught during trawl surveys conducted throughout the Bay from 1995 to 2000 (Jung and Houde 

7 2003). Peak spawning occurs in February in offshore coastal waters. Larvae, about 0.4 to 

8 0.6 in. long (Phillips et al. 1989), enter the Bay and use the estuarine habitats as nursery 

9 grounds until they leave in December (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007b). Juvenile spot range 

10 from about 3 to 8 in. in length (Phillips et al. 1989) and occupy low salinity areas, tidal creeks, 

11 and eelgrass beds in Chesapeake Bay, gradually moving to tidal creeks (ASMFC 2006f). Spot 

12 feed on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and are prey for key predators, such as bluefish, striped 

13 bass, weakfish, and summer flounder (ASMFC 2007b). The spot commercial and recreational 

14 catch in Chesapeake Bay has been declining in recent years, possibly from loss of important 

15 estuarine nursery habitat (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007b). The national commercial catch 

16 has declined gradually since the late 1980s, while the recreational catch has stayed relatively 

17 consistent such that it exceeded the commercial catch in 2006 (Meserve 2007b). Spot occurred 

18 in impingement samples every year sampled at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 and 

19 was among the five most commonly impinged species in 16 of the 21 years (Ringger 2000). 

20 About 80 percent of impinged spot survive. About 13.9 million spot larvae and juveniles 

21 were estimated to be entrained by the intake system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 under 

22 maximum design flow conditions during the 19-month 2006 and 2007 study (UniStar 2008d). 

23 Juveniles accounted for about 94 percent of this total. They were not found in samples 

24 collected outside the intake system baffle wall. 

25 Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis)

26 Striped bass, called rockfish in some areas, occur from the St. Lawrence River in Canada to the 

27 St. Johns River in Florida and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Murdy et al. 1997). Striped bass 

28 occur year-round in all tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. Striped bass reside in deeper channels 

29 in the Bay during summer and winter, but move to the lower reaches of rivers in the fall. 

30 Chesapeake Bay’s tributaries provide spawning area for about 70 to 90 percent of the Atlantic 

31 coast striped bass (Phillips 2005), with the spawning migration beginning in March and peaking 

32 in April or early May (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2006d). Striped bass spawn above the salt 

33 front in Chesapeake Bay tributaries, such as the Patuxent River (Secor and Houde 1995). 

34 Larvae can swim when they reach a length of about 0.3 in. and develop swim bladders. They 

35 initially spend some time in nearshore areas or move just downstream to brackish water (Murdy 

36 et al. 1997; ASMFC 2006d). Some year-old fish eventually swim into the Bay. Older juveniles 

37 and adults form schools in estuarine waters, with some males and many females eventually 

38 leaving for open-ocean waters at about age five to eight (Secor and Piccoli 2007). Striped bass 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-76 April 2010 

1 comprise important commercial and recreational fisheries in Chesapeake Bay that are tightly 

2 regulated because of large population fluctuations that reached very low levels in the 1980s 

3 (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2006d). Maryland placed a moratorium on striped bass fishing in 

4 1985. Fishing resumed in 1990 with a very small catch (534 fish) followed by increasingly larger 

5 catches until a peak of more than 780,000 fish was reached in 1998 (NOAA 2008a). From 2000 

6 to 2006, the catch varied between about 300,000 and 656,000 fish, the latter catch occurring in 

7 2006 (NOAA 2008a). 

8 Striped bass are top predators that play a significant role in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, 

9 interacting with several trophic levels. Younger bass predominantly consume small 

10 invertebrates and larger bass primarily feed on fish (Hartman and Brandt 1995; Walter and 

11 Austin 2003). Atlantic menhaden are major prey for larger striped bass in most parts of the Bay, 

12 but gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) have a larger role in low-salinity areas. Bay anchovy 

13 are important prey in waters off the mouth of the Bay (Overton et al. 2008). Striped bass 

14 juveniles are prey for bluefish and weakfish (Hartman and Brandt 1995). Striped bass face at 

15 least two primary natural threats. Reductions in Atlantic menhaden abundance change the 

16 trophic structure of the Bay and may contribute to malnutrition in striped bass (NOAA 2008a). 

17 Malnutrition caused by reduced menhaden populations may contribute to increased 

18 susceptibility of striped bass to bacterial infections, the most serious of which involves 

19 Mycobacterium spp. (Jacobs et al. 2006). The incidence of mycobacteriosis in striped bass 

20 internal organs may exceed 50 percent with skin lesions often greater than 30 percent of the 

21 fish in certain parts of the Bay (Vogelbein et al. 2006). Coincident with this increased incidence 

22 of disease has been a detectable increase in the rate of natural mortality (Kahn and Crecco 

23 2006) although a direct link between the two has not been established. Striped bass occurred 

24 in impingement samples collected from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system in 10 of the 

25 21 years from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). Striped bass were not found in the entrainment 

26 samples collected in the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system in 2006 and 2007 or outside the 

27 baffle wall (UniStar 2008d). 

28 Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)

29 Summer flounder range from Nova Scotia to South Florida and only visit Chesapeake Bay from 

30 spring to autumn, although some have been known to overwinter in the Bay (Murdy et al. 1997). 

31 Summer flounder migrate out of estuaries in late summer to early fall, but some may leave as 

32 late as early winter; many return to the same estuary (Sackett et al. 2007). Summer flounder 

33 are more common in the lower Chesapeake Bay than in the upper Bay. Spawning occurs 

34 during the migration offshore in the autumn, and larvae move into Chesapeake Bay from 

35 October through May, remaining in inshore areas for the first year of life (Murdy et al. 1997). 

36 Young-of-the-year (about 1 in. long) may reach the Calvert Cliffs site area sometime in spring 

37 (Nichols 2008). Juveniles (about 3 to 10 in. long) may occur in the area from spring through fall 

38 (Nichols 2008). The summer flounder constitutes a major commercial and recreational fishery 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-77 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 and is a highly sought-after food fish (Murdy et al. 1997). The commercial fishery is primarily 

2 offshore, whereas the recreational fishery is in estuaries and bays (Latour et al. 2008). 

3 Although the summer flounder recreational catch has varied over the years; it approaches the 

4 commercial catch because of its popularity with anglers (Murdy et al. 1997). Summer flounder 

5 are not yet overfished, but overfishing is occurring (Terceiro 2006). EFH that includes 

6 Chesapeake Bay has been designated for summer flounder larvae, juveniles, and adults. 

7 Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are provided in the EFH Assessment 

8 (Appendix F). Summer flounder were collected in impingement samples from the CCNPP Units 

9 1 and 2 intake system in 18 of the 21 years from 1975 to 1995 and was the fifth most-impinged 

10 species in 1984 (Ringger 2000). About 90 percent of impinged summer flounder survive. 

11 Summer flounder were not found in the entrainment samples collected in the CCNPP Units 1 

12 and 2 intake system or outside the baffle wall in 2006 and 2007 (UniStar 2008d). 

13 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)

14 Weakfish range from Nova Scotia to Cape Canaveral, Florida, and are most abundant from 

15 North Carolina to Long Island (Murdy et al. 1997). Larger weakfish enter the lower Chesapeake 

16 Bay in April to May with smaller individuals arriving in summer (Murdy et al. 1997). Adults 

17 generally inhabit shallow, sandy parts of the Bay where salinity exceeds 10 ppt. Peak spawning 

18 occurs near the Bay mouth and in nearshore waters from May through June (Murdy et al. 1997). 

19 Larvae travel to lower salinity riverine habitats to grow until leaving the estuary in winter 

20 (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007c). Weakfish may mature at an average length of about 6.6 in. 

21 (Nye et al. 2008). Weakfish eat many fish and invertebrate taxa, but older individuals consume 

22 a greater proportion of fish (Murdy et al. 1997). Although the weakfish is a commercially and 

23 recreationally important species in Chesapeake Bay, the fishery has declined since the 1940s 

24 (Murdy et al. 1997; ASMFC 2007c). Weakfish stock seriously declined in the late 1980s but 

25 rebounded substantially through 1998 (ASMFC 2007c). Weakfish were the fifth most abundant 

26 pelagic fish caught during trawl surveys conducted throughout the Bay from 1995 to 2000 

27 (Jung and Houde 2003). However, the stock declined precipitously after 1999. The most likely 

28 causes were reduced available forage, resulting from the decline in Atlantic menhaden, and 

29 increased predation pressure by striped bass (ASMFC 2006e). Population estimates are not 

30 available for the years since 2003, but commercial and recreational landings since 2003 

31 decreased to all-time low values (Meserve 2008). Weakfish occurred in impingement samples 

32 collected from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system in 16 of the 21 years from 1975 to 1995 

33 and was the second most-impinged species in 1984 (Ringger 2000). About 38 percent of 

34 impinged weakfish survive. About 3.2 million weakfish larvae and juveniles were estimated to 

35 be entrained by the intake system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 under maximum design flow 

36 conditions during the 19-month 2006 and 2007 study (UniStar 2008d). Larvae accounted for 

37 about 89 percent of this total but were rare in samples collected outside the intake system baffle 

38 wall. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-78 April 2010 

1 White Perch (Morone americana)

2 White perch occur from Nova Scotia to South Carolina, with the most abundant numbers 

3 occurring from the Hudson River to the Chesapeake Bay where it is a year-round resident in all 

4 tributaries (Murdy et al. 1997). White perch, which overwinter in deep channels in the Bay, were 

5 the third most abundant pelagic fish caught during trawl surveys conducted throughout the Bay 

6 from 1995 to 2000 (Jung and Houde 2003). White perch usually inhabit waters with a salinity 

7 less than 18 ppt but can tolerate and thrive in salinities ranging from freshwater to 32 ppt (Murdy 

8 et al. 1997; King et al. 2004). Spawning occurs in the low-salinity to freshwater reaches of 

9 larger rivers, where the demersal eggs attach to the bottom (North and Houde 2001), from April 

10 through June. The young use the same area for nursery habitat (Murdy et al. 1997). The upper 

11 mainstem of the tidal Patuxent and its tributaries and the upper reach of St. Leonard Creek are 

12 known spawning areas (MDNR 2004). Juveniles spend their first summer and fall downstream 

13 of their spawning area where they feed on aquatic insects and small crustaceans (MDNR 

14 2008c). In the Patuxent River, juveniles move to tidal freshwaters or brackish habitats for the 

15 first year of life (Kraus and Secor 2004). Despite its relatively small size, the brackish part of the 

16 Patuxent River yielded much higher juvenile abundance estimates than other larger sub17 estuaries in the Bay (Kraus and Secor 2005). Adults feed on shrimp, crabs, and fish. The white 

18 perch is an important commercial and recreational fish in Chesapeake Bay, particularly in 

19 Maryland waters. The commercial fishery has been in decline in recent years, but the 

20 recreational fishery is significant with most of the catch occurring in the spring and autumn 

21 (Murdy et al. 1997). White perch populations in Maryland waters appear to be relatively stable 

22 (MDNR 2005). White perch is eaten by ospreys (Watts et al. 2007), thus providing a link 

23 between estuarine and terrestrial ecosystems. White perch occurred in impingement samples 

24 collected from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system in 19 of the 21 years from 1975 to 1995 

25 (Ringger 2000). About 11.5 million white perch fertilized eggs were estimated to be entrained 

26 by the intake system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 under maximum design flow conditions during 

27 the 19-month 2006 and 2007 study (UniStar 2008d). White perch fertilized eggs were not found 

28 in samples collected outside the intake system baffle wall. 

29 Windowpane Flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus)

30 Windowpane flounder (or windowpane) range from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida (Murdy 

31 et al. 1997) and are most common around Georges Bank (Chang et al. 1999). Windowpane live 

32 year-round in Chesapeake Bay and may be common as far north as the Choptank River (Murdy 

33 et al. 1997). They can be abundant in the lower Bay. Windowpane spawn from spring to 

34 autumn, but may not spawn during the middle of summer (Murdy et al. 1997; Chang et al. 

35 1999). Eggs float and are about 0.06 in. in diameter. Larvae range in length from about 0.08 to 

36 0.8 in., and juveniles reach lengths up to nearly 8 in. (Morse and Able 1995). EFH that includes 

37 Chesapeake Bay has been designated for windowpane juveniles and adults although there is 

38 no commercial or recreational windowpane fishery in Chesapeake Bay (Murdy et al. 1997). 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-79 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are provided in the EFH Assessment 

2 (Appendix F). Windowpane flounder occurred in 5 of the 21 yearly impingement samples 

3 collected from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 between 1975 and 1995 (Ringger 2000). However, the 

4 species only occurred in one year from 1981 to 1995. Windowpane flounder were not caught in 

5 entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 in 2006 and 2007, nor were 

6 they found in samples collected outside the baffle wall (UniStar 2008d). 

7 Winter Skate (Leucoraja ocellata)

8 Winter skates range from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras and are most abundant on 

9 Georges Bank and in the northern mid-Atlantic Bight (Packer et al. 2003c). In the lower 

10 Chesapeake Bay, winter skates are occasional residents from winter to spring (Murdy et al. 

11 1997). Winter skate may reproduce all year, although peak reproductive activity seems to occur 

12 in summer and fall (Packer et al. 2003c). Fully developed juveniles hatch from egg capsules at 

13 about 4 to 5 in. in total length. Winter skates are fished as part of the export market for skate 

14 wings. Winter skates are considered as being overfished (Sosebee 2006). There are no 

15 commercial or recreational winter skate fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay (Murdy et al. 1997). 

16 EFH that includes Chesapeake Bay has been designated for winter skate juveniles and adults. 

17 Additional life history, fishery, and ecological information are provided in the EFH Assessment 

18 (Appendix F). Winter skates were not listed in the yearly impingement samples collected from 

19 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 between 1975 and 1995 (Ringger 2000). Winter skates were not caught 

20 in entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 in 2006 and 2007, nor were 

21 they found in samples collected outside the baffle wall (UniStar 2008d). 

22 Invertebrates 

23 Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)

24 Blue crabs range from Nova Scotia to Argentina and have been recorded from Europe, the 

25 Mediterranean, and Japan (Williams 1984). Blue crab habitat ranges from the coastal ocean 

26 waters to less saline estuaries and some freshwater systems. Blue crabs can withstand 

27 salinities from 0 ppt to 48 ppt (Williams 1984). Blue crabs are opportunistic scavengers 

28 consuming plant material, other invertebrates, and fish (Dittel et al. 2006). 

29 Blue crab mating begins in late May in the lower Bay and in June to July in the upper Bay 

30 (Carver et al. 2005). Mating continues from July through September. After mating, females in 

31 the upper Chesapeake Bay spend the remainder of the summer in the mating area and begin 

32 migrating toward the mouth of the Bay in the fall (Aguilar et al. 2005). Females migrate down 

33 the eastern side of the main bay channel using the ebb tide flow at night for transport 

34 (Tankersley et al. 1998). Some crabs may spawn upon reaching the mouth of the Bay, but 

35 others have to overwinter there before completing spawning the next spring. Eggs hatch, 

36 releasing planktonic larvae, when females are at the mouth of the Bay or in open ocean waters. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-80 April 2010 

1 Females tend to live out their lives near the mouth of the Bay (Williams 1984), but the larvae 

2 migrate up the Bay after passing through a few developmental stages in the ocean. Newly 

3 settled juvenile crabs are about 0.6 in. in body width (Dittel et al. 2006). 

4 The blue crab fishery is the most important in the Chesapeake Bay (Fogarty and Miller 2004). 

5 The annual commercial harvest for most years between 1945 and 1980 in the Maryland portion 

6 of the Bay ranged from about 45 to 60 million pounds (MDNR 2008d), adjusted for reporting 

7 changes instituted in 1981 (Fogarty and Miller 2004). The harvest was about 65 million pounds 

8 in 1981, which was the largest harvest recorded in Maryland. The annual harvest generally 

9 decreased from 1981 to 2000 when the lowest recorded harvest, about 20 million pounds, 

10 occurred (MDNR 2008d). The harvest increased from 2000 to 2004, but has declined steadily 

11 since, reaching the second lowest recorded value, about 21.8 million pounds, in 2007. The 

12 small 2007 harvest was attributed to low reproduction in 2006, climate-induced crab migration 

13 farther north up the Bay, and reduced fishing effort (MDNR 2008d). Maryland instituted 

14 emergency crabbing regulations early in 2008, partly in response to the low 2007 harvest 

15 (MDNR 2008e). 

16 Blue crab population estimates from 1990 to 1997, based on data from the annual Chesapeake 

17 Bay winter dredge surveys (MDNR 2007e), and ranged from about 487 million crabs to 852 

18 million crabs (except for an estimate of 367 million crabs in 1992). Since 1997, the population 

19 estimates have been lower, typically less than 352 million crabs. 

20 The historical (1968 to 2000) blue crab population in the CCNPP area has been studied, but 

21 blue crabs were not assessed during the field surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007. The 

22 historical study, which used commercial peeler crab pots to sample the crabs, was initially 

23 conducted from 1968 to 1971 before the Calvert Cliffs plant began operation to establish a 

24 baseline that would allow the thermal effects of the cooling water discharge on the crab 

25 population to be evaluated (Abbe 1973). Comparison of the first 28 years of the Calvert Cliffs 

26 data set (1968 to 1995) with the Maryland DNR fisheries statistics during the same time period 

27 showed that the two were highly correlated (Abbe and Stagg 1996). These data also suggested 

28 a decline in the percentage of legal size crabs in the 1990s compared to the 1970s and 1980s 

29 and that males were becoming smaller. Examination of the entire 33-year data set showed that 

30 although the general catch per unit effort was consistent, there was a declining trend in the 

31 numbers and sizes of legal size males but not most female size classes (Abbe 2002). This 

32 reduction in male size is the result of a fishery that targets larger males, not because of the 

33 operation of the Calvert Cliffs plant. This size-selective fishery has been shown to reduce the 

34 average size and density of males in a population and to decrease the ratios of males to 

35 females (NMFS 2007b). This reduces the number of males available for mating and reduces 

36 the amount of sperm produced by males. Because most females typically mate once, the 

37 reduced sperm availability limits the maximum number of broods that each female can produce. 

38 Blue crabs were not in the entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 in 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-81 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2006 and 2007, nor were they found in samples collected outside the baffle wall (UniStar 

2 2008d). Blue crabs were abundant in the impingement samples collected from the CCNPP 

3 Units 1 and 2 intake system from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). The total numbers impinged 

4 annually ranged from about 82,000 crabs to about 1.66 million crabs. More than 99 percent of 

5 impinged blue crabs survive. 

6 Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica)

7 The eastern oyster, which is sometimes called the American oyster, is one of the species that 

8 defines the Chesapeake ecologically and culturally. Ecologically, oysters exert strong effects by 

9 constructing living oyster reefs that serve as habitat for themselves and many other species. 

10 The importance of the commercial fishery that developed around the eastern oyster in 

11 Chesapeake Bay has made the oyster virtually synonymous with the Bay (Ulanowicz and 

12 Tuttle 1992). 

13 The NMFS reviewed the status of the eastern oyster in response to a petition to list the species 

14 as threatened or endangered (EOBRT 2007). NMFS declined to list the eastern oyster under 

15 the ESA (72 FR 35388). Eastern oysters reportedly are distributed from Canada to Florida and 

16 into the Gulf of Mexico; records of the species in Central and South America may represent 

17 different species (EOBRT 2007). Eastern oysters have inhabited the Chesapeake Bay for about 

18 6000 to 7000 years (Hargis and Haven 1999). Oysters in Chesapeake Bay are generally 

19 more common in relatively shallow waters (< 26 ft deep) having low to moderate salinities 

20 (5–15 ppt) at temperatures ranging from 68–86°F (Hargis and Haven 1999; EOBRT 2007). 

21 Spawning typically occurs in response to environmental conditions, such as temperature greater 

22 than 68°F and salinities greater than 10 ppt (EOBRT 2007). In the Chesapeake Bay, spawning 

23 occurs between May and October (McCormick-Ray 2005). Males and females broadcast 

24 gametes into the overlying water column, in which fertilization occurs. Oysters pass through 

25 several larval stages, usually spending about a month as plankton (EOBRT 2007). After this 

26 period of planktonic development, larvae seek appropriate habitat, such as the complex habitats 

27 provided by oyster reefs, for settlement and metamorphosis to the sessile adult stage. The 

28 newly settled oysters are called spat, and the process though which larvae settle to the bottom 

29 and attach to hard substrate is called spatfall (Tarnowski 2007). Oyster eggs or larvae were not 

30 in the entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 in 2006 and 2007, nor 

31 were they found in samples collected outside the baffle wall (UniStar 2008d). 

32 Oysters contribute to several important ecosystem functions. Oysters feed by straining 

33 phytoplankton and organic debris from the water column and large oyster populations filter 

34 considerable amounts of phytoplankton, helping to reduce the adverse effects of eutrophication 

35 (Ulanowicz and Tuttle 1992, Cerco and Noel 2007). One of the most important oyster 

36 contributions is the creation of large, complex reefs constructed of oyster shells that are critical 

37 for the settlement of oyster spat and provide valuable habitat for many species of fish and 

38 invertebrates (McCormick-Ray 2005; EOBRT 2007). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-82 April 2010 

1 Oysters in Chesapeake Bay were abundant in the 1600s and early 1700s, and also formed large 

2 reefs that extended to the water surface often becoming a hazard to navigation (Kennedy and 

3 Breisch 1981). Oyster harvesting in the Bay increased substantially as oysters were overfished 

4 in New England. The demand for oysters was such that the Maryland harvest increased almost 

5 fivefold from about 1860 to 1875, reaching a peak of about 15 million bushels in the early 1880s 

6 (Kennedy and Breisch 1981). Harvests declined very rapidly thereafter. In addition to providing 

7 food, oysters were harvested for use as agricultural lime, building roads, and to provide chicken 

8 grit (Kennedy and Mountford 2001). The wholesale destruction of oyster reefs made the 

9 situation worse because it reduced the source of spat that could replenish oyster populations and 

10 removed that exact habitat most needed for successful oyster spat settlement, the oyster reefs 

11 themselves. Oyster populations in the 1900s were severely affected by two lethal diseases. 

12 Dermo, which caused by the parasitic protozoan Perkinsus marinus and affects oyster immune 

13 systems, appeared in the late 1940s causing significant oyster mortalities in Virginia (EOBRT 

14 2007). Dermo continues to cause significant oyster mortality in the Bay, and occurred on 

15 93 percent of the Maryland oyster bars surveyed for the disease in the fall of 2007 (Tarnowski 

16 2008). MSX (named for its original description as Multinucleate Sphere X [unknown]) is caused 

17 by another protozoan, Haplosporidium nelsoni. MSX was discovered in the late 1950s when it 

18 caused significant mortalities among adult and young oysters in Delaware Bay and had moved 

19 into Chesapeake Bay by 1959 (EOBRT 2007). MSX requires that salinities consistently be 

20 greater than 15 ppt for an infection to be maintained within a population. Once infected, oysters 

21 live only about 6 weeks. MSX occurs primarily in the southern Bay with about 30 percent of the 

22 bars sampled for the disease being infected (Tarnowski 2008). The population issues facing the 

23 eastern oyster in Chesapeake Bay led to a 5-year evaluation of several approaches to rebuilding 

24 oyster stocks in the Bay, including importing the nonnative Suminoe oyster (C. ariakensis) into 

25 Bay waters (USACE 2009a). The Record of Decision identified that improving native oyster 

26 restoration efforts, placing a moratorium on oyster harvests, and increasing native oyster 

27 aquaculture programs were preferable to introducing a nonnative oyster (USACE 2009b). 

28 Flag Pond Oyster Bar/Natural Oyster Bar 19-2

29 The Calvert Cliffs site is just landward of the Flag Pond oyster bar, an oyster bar available for 

30 public use identified and mapped as Natural Oyster Bar 19-2 (NOB 19-2) by the State of 

31 Maryland. The bar occupies about 680 ac and is about 2.7 mi long and about 0.7 mi wide at its 

32 widest point, which occurs directly off the present area of the cooling water system discharge of 

33 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (Abbe 1988). Most oysters on the bar occur in waters shallower than 

34 26 ft. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), in agreement with the State of Maryland, 

35 removed the oysters from a 500-ac area of the oyster bar prior to the building of CCNPP Units 1 

36 and 2. Most of the 8756 bushels of oysters removed from the bar by 1969 were from two small 

37 sections of the bar located immediately off the location of the proposed Units 1 and 2 intake 

38 area. These small patches were about 29 ac in area and had been seeded with spat in 1962 

39 and 1963 (BGE 1971). The oysters were relocated to an oyster bar in the Patuxent River. BGE 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-83 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 (1971) reported that the 500-ac area from which oysters had been removed was closed and 

2 taken off the State oyster bar charts. The Maryland DNR began mapping Natural Oyster Bars in 

3 the mid-1980s as part of efforts to restore hard-bottom areas to increase potentially successful 

4 spatset (MPSC 2008). The former Flag Pond oyster bar was included within a larger area 

5 designated as NOB 19-2 during this process. In the region off the Calvert Cliffs site, NOB 19-2 

6 extends about 3300 ft from the shoreline into the Bay (MDNR 2008a, b). Abbe (1988, 1992) 

7 stated that about 71 percent of the habitat within the bar was not suitable oyster habitat because 

8 it consisted of unstable sand or mud. The oyster population on the bar in 1979 was estimated to 

be about 7 × 103 9 bushels, which was considered small (Abbe 1988). The State of Maryland 

stocked the Flag Pond oyster bar with 102 × 103 10 bushels of oyster shells in the CCNPP 

discharge area in 1980 and 197 × 103 11 bushels off Camp Conoy in 1982 (Abbe 1988). In 1984, 

another 70 × 103 12 bushels were placed off Camp Conoy (Abbe 1992). Oyster density on the Flag 

13 Pond oyster bar increased from 1983 through 1985 because of the shell planting done by the 

state, reaching a peak of 243 oysters/m2 14 in 1985. However, the number of legal oysters (3 in. or 

15 greater in shell length) remained consistent during that period, with about 4.0 to 6.1 legal 

oysters/m2 16 occurring on the bar. The total numbers of oysters on Flag Pond oyster bar 

17 decreased steadily after 1985, although the numbers of legal oysters present was consistent with 

18 those of the previous years. Abbe (1992) also observed these high occurrences of spatfall. 

19 The State of Maryland conducts an annual fall oyster survey on about 280 oyster bars located 

20 throughout the state. The most recent report, which includes spatfall, disease incidence, and 

21 mortality data collected from 1985 to 2007, provides an historical overview of conditions on the 

22 Flag Pond oyster bar (Tarnowski 2008). Since 1985, spatfall intensity (i.e., the number of spat 

23 per bushel of available habitat) has been low, with most years having ten or fewer spat per 

24 bushel. The highest spatfall years were 1986, 1987, and 1991, with spatfall intensity ranging 

25 from 128 to 330 spat per bushel. Spatfall in 1986 and 1987 was related to the stocking effort 

26 that occurred in the early 1980s (Abbe 1992). Spatfall intensity at Flag Pond is consistently one 

27 of the lowest in the state, with spatfall being recorded on six surveys since 1995 and only one of 

28 the last five (2003 to 2007) surveys (Tarnowski 2008). The prevalence of the oyster disease 

29 dermo on the Flag Pond oyster bar was extremely high (88–97 percent of the samples showed 

30 the disease) from 1991 to 1993, as it was throughout the state. The disease could not be 

31 evaluated during most of 1999 to 2002 when it was again a major problem throughout most of 

32 the state. The incidence of dermo increased to 43 percent and 87 percent of the samples 

33 evaluated in 2006 and 2007, respectively (Tarnowski 2008). The increase was part of a general 

34 bay-wide trend probably associated with reduced streamflow into the Bay. MSX disease has 

35 been detected at the Flag Pond oyster bar in only 3 of the years surveyed: 1992, 1995, and 

36 2002 (Tarnowski 2008). Mortality, the proportion of dead oysters collected, varied from 1986 to 

37 1999, ranging from 10 to 77 percent annually. However, mortality has been low since then, with 

38 values less than 25 percent since 2002 (Tarnowski 2008). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-84 April 2010 

1 UniStar sponsored a study of part of the Flag Pond oyster bar in November 2006. The patenttong survey encompassed an area of about 160,000 m2 2 located just north of the present barge 

3 dock. EA Engineering (2007a) found that oyster abundance in the surveyed area was low, with 

4 an estimated total population in the area of about 9.6 bushels, which implies the bar does not 

5 support an oyster population sufficient to be fished or to produce enough new habitat for oyster 

6 larval settlement. 

7 Although oyster populations on NOB 19-2 have been relatively low historically and are currently 

8 very low, the Maryland DNR emphasizes protection of the bottom habitat within oyster bars and 

9 requires replacement of any area of the bay bottom that might be affected by a proposed action 

10 (MPSC 2008). Therefore, an acoustic survey of the Bay bottom within a selected portion of 

11 NOB 19-2 was conducted in August 2008 to evaluate potential oyster habitat off the Calvert Cliffs 

12 site. The survey did not include the entire oyster bar, but focused on the area most likely to be 

13 affected by the building of proposed Unit 3 (Conkwright et al. 2008). The survey found that most 

14 of the bottom in the oyster bar consists of sand or shell and hard bottom. The only major 

15 exception was the muddy bottom of the deep channel that was dredged as the intake channel for 

16 CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Conkwright et al. (2008) concluded that there is viable oyster habitat off 

17 the Calvert Cliffs site with the primary highest-quality habitats located nearshore at the present 

18 barge dock area and extending northward to the dredged intake channel and within a large area 

19 extending southeast of the barge dock area. The survey also found that there was old shell 

20 material just under the sediment surface that might be used to restore habitat. 

21 Federally and State-Listed Estuarine Species 

22 This section describes Federally and Maryland State-listed estuarine species and other species 

23 of concern. No aquatic critical habitats are proposed or designated near the Calvert Cliffs site. 

24 The State of Maryland lists the sea-purslane (Sesuvium maritimum) as State Endangered and 

25 the spotfin killifish (Fundulus luciae) as State “Rare?” (State’s nomenclature) for Calvert County 

26 (MDNR 2007a). Federally listed aquatic species known to occur in the Chesapeake Bay near 

27 the Calvert Cliffs site include the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon 

28 (Acipenser oxyrinchus), loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), 

29 Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The 

30 alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) are considered species 

31 of concern by NMFS (NMFS 2007b). Species of concern are not protected under the ESA, but 

32 concerns about their status indicate that they may warrant listing in the future. 

33 Sea-purslane (Sesuvium maritimum). Sea-purslane is a small, low-growing annual plant that 

34 often may be overlooked in coastal environments. It occurs on sandy beaches and dunes, in 

35 brackish marshes, and on coastal banks along the Atlantic coast from New York to Florida and 

36 on the Gulf coast from Florida to Texas and has been recorded from Puerto Rico (eFloras 

37 2008a; USDA 2008i). Flowering typically occurs from summer to fall. Although the beach 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-85 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 habitat along Chesapeake Bay was not included in the floral studies conducted on the Calvert 

2 Cliffs site, the Rare Plant Survey report stated that the correct habitat for the sea-purslane did 

3 not occur on the site but that the possible occurrence of sea purslane on the site cannot be 

4 completely discounted (Tetra Tech NUS 2007c). 

5 Spotfin Killifish (Fundulus luciae). The spotfin killifish, which is the smallest species of the 

6 genus Fundulus, reaching a total length of about 2 in., occurs in intertidal marshes from Georgia 

7 to Massachusetts (Murdy et al. 1997). In the Chesapeake Bay, spotfin killifish live in small 

8 brackish pools and streamlets in the upper parts of intertidal marshes typically associated with 

9 saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) (Byrne 1978; Murdy et al. 1997). These habitats are 

10 not found at the Calvert Cliffs site. Spotfin killifish occur in waters of widely varying temperature, 

11 salinity, and dissolved oxygen content. Spawning occurs primarily in the spring, but may last 

12 until early fall. Fertilized eggs are attached to benthic materials and usually hatch within about 

13 two weeks, although hatching is delayed in relatively high salinity waters (Byrne 1978). Larvae 

14 and juveniles range in length from about 0.2 to 0.7 in. (Byrne 1978). Spotfin killifish are 

15 omnivorous, feeding on detritus, diatoms, and small invertebrates, and probably live about one 

16 year (Byrne 1978). Wading birds and some fish prey on killifish. There are no fisheries for 

17 these killifish. Spotfin killifish were not listed in the yearly impingement samples collected from 

18 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 between 1975 and 1995 (Ringger 2000). Spotfin killifish were not caught 

19 in entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 in 2006 and 2007, nor were 

20 they found in samples collected outside the baffle wall (UniStar 2008d). 

21 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). The shortnose sturgeon is a long-lived, 

22 Federally and Maryland State-listed endangered species (NMFS 1998; MDNR 2007b) found 

23 along the western Atlantic coast from St. John River, New Brunswick to St. Johns River, Florida 

24 (Murdy et al. 1997; Wirgin et al. 2005). Shortnose sturgeon live primarily in freshwater or in low25 salinity estuaries but may swim into higher salinity coastal waters on occasion (Murdy et al. 

26 1997; NMFS 1998). Females deposit eggs that attach to the bottom substrate and remain there 

27 for a few days (Kynard 1997). The eggs hatch into secretive, poorly swimming yolk-sac larvae 

28 that develop into feeding larvae within several days. The feeding larvae are able to move 

29 downstream, but stop migrating before reaching the estuary. Growth of young-of-the-year fish 

30 is fairly rapid with young often reaching lengths of about 6 in. or more during the first season 

31 (Dadswell et al. 1984). Adults reach a maximum length of 4.6 ft. Historically, the shortnose 

32 sturgeon was found in the Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers and probably in other major 

33 Chesapeake Bay tributaries, although historical records apparently were based on few verified 

34 records (Dadswell et al. 1984). However, populations have been decimated by loss of critical 

35 spawning habitat primarily from damming of rivers and pollution (Murdy et al. 1997). There 

36 were few published records of shortnose sturgeon occurrence in the Bay before 1996. In 1979, 

37 BGE researchers captured a shortnose sturgeon during trawl studies near the Calvert Cliffs site 

38 (UniStar 2008b). Recent studies of the shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac River showed that a 

39 reproducing, resident population may eventually be re-established in the Bay. A study 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-86 April 2010 

1 conducted from 2004 to 2007 documented the movements of two female shortnose sturgeons in 

2 Potomac River (Kynard et al. 2009). A third female was tagged after the completion of the study 

3 (FWS 2009). Despite the capture of egg-bearing females in the Potomac, there is no evidence 

4 yet that reproduction has been successful in the river, and no Chesapeake Bay tributaries are 

5 known to support reproducing populations at this time (FWS 2009). These Potomac River 

6 records confirm the presence of suitable habitat for the species and suggest that a breeding 

7 population eventually may be established in the river. Shortnose sturgeon were not in the 

8 entrainment samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 in 2006 and 2007, nor were 

9 they found in samples collected outside the baffle wall (UniStar 2008d). No shortnose sturgeon 

10 occurred in the impingement samples collected at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 

11 (Ringger 2000). NMFS initiated a status review for the shortnose sturgeon in November 2007 to 

12 update the biological information on the status of the species and to consider if shortnose 

13 sturgeon should be identified and assessed as Distinct Population Segments rather than as a 

14 single unit (72 FR 67712). Although a recent study provided genetic evidence for the existence 

15 of distinct population segments (Wirgin et al. 2009), no change in the shortnose sturgeon status 

16 has been made. A biological assessment that provides life history, population, and ecological 

17 information is included in Appendix F. 

18 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). The Atlantic sturgeon is a Federal Species of 

19 Concern (NMFS 2007a) and a Maryland Highly State Rare Species (MDNR 2007b) that occurs 

20 along the western Atlantic coast from Ungava Bay, Quebec, to the Gulf of Mexico (Murdy et al. 

21 1997). Atlantic sturgeon enter Chesapeake Bay in April and May to spawn in tributaries (Murdy 

22 et al. 1997). In general, adults migrate upriver in the spring or early summer to spawn, although 

23 the specific timing varies with latitude (Murdy et al. 1997; Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 

24 2007). Atlantic sturgeon spawn at depths of 36 to 89 ft between the fall line and salt front in 

25 large rivers where flows range from 1.5 to 2.5 ft/s (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007; 

26 NMFS 2007a). Tidal tributaries are used as nursery grounds, and juveniles may spend several 

27 years in fresh to brackish water areas before moving to coastal waters as 30-in.-long subadults 

28 (Murdy et al. 1997; Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 2007; NMFS 2007a). The Atlantic 

29 sturgeon is a long-lived species that spends most of its life in marine waters. Adults may reach 

30 a maximum size of 14 ft. Dam construction on natal rivers, pollution, and overfishing have 

31 dramatically reduced the populations of this once abundant and highly sought after food species 

32 (both meat and roe) and conservation efforts are in place to revive the numbers and 

33 subsequently the fishery (Murdy et al. 1997). Population data for the Atlantic sturgeon are 

34 scarce, and there are only two subpopulations that have size estimates, neither of which 

35 includes Chesapeake Bay (NMFS 2007a). Atlantic sturgeon were not caught in the entrainment 

36 samples collected from the intake for Units 1 and 2 in 2006 and 2007, nor were they found in 

37 samples collected outside the baffle wall (UniStar 2008d). No Atlantic sturgeon occurred in the 

38 impingement samples collected at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-87 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). The alewife is a Federal Species of Concern (NMFS 2007b) 

2 that occurs in western Atlantic coastal waters, rivers, and estuaries from Newfoundland to 

3 northern South Carolina (Murdy et al. 1997). Alewife enter Chesapeake Bay in the spring to 

4 spawn with most spawning occurring in March and April (Murdy et al. 1997). Alewife spawn in 

5 shallow, low-flowing water, including rivers, streams, and ponds, where the young remain until 

6 migration to the sea in early fall (Murdy et al. 1997). Larvae range to about 0.8 in. long and 

7 juveniles to about 1.8 in. total length (Fay et al. 1983). Adults, which may reach 15 in. total 

8 length, migrate downstream soon after spawning (ASMFC 2007d). Alewife are planktivores 

9 feeding on comb jellies, crustaceans, and small fish. Alewife and blueback herring are closely 

10 related and together are called river herring. The close physical similarity of the two species 

11 has caused them to be fished and managed as a single group (NMFS 2007b). 

12 River herring comprise one of the oldest fisheries in North America (NMFS 2007b) that 

13 historically was one of the most valuable in Chesapeake Bay (Murdy et al. 1997). The catch in 

14 Maryland peaked at about 8,000,000 lb in the 1930s but dropped to 70,000 lb in recent years 

15 (MDNR 2008f). The decline during the last 50 years is mainly because of loss of spawning 

16 habitat (Murdy et al. 1997). River herring also comprised a relatively important recreational 

17 fishery, but that has also declined considerably. River herring population levels have declined 

18 substantially during the last 30 years, probably because of loss of spawning habitat, fishing 

19 pressure, and increased predation pressure from growing striped bass populations (NMFS 

20 2007b). These population declines prompted NMFS to identify river herring as species of 

21 concern in 2006 (NMFS 2007b). 

22 Alewife and blueback herring provide a connection between ecosystems because their 

23 spawning migrations transport marine-based nutrients into freshwaters (Garman 1992; 

24 MacAvoy et al. 2000). River herring are important prey for top predators, such as bluefish and 

25 striped bass (Hartman and Brandt 1995, MDNR 2008f). Alewife occurred in 13 of the 21 

26 impingement samples collected at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 but were only 

27 caught in two years sampled after 1984 (Ringger 2000). About 2.6 million river herring 

28 (Alosa spp.) larvae were estimated to be entrained by the intake system for CCNPP Units 1 and 

29 2 under maximum design flow conditions in 2006 and 2007 (UniStar 2008d). No river herring 

30 were found in samples collected outside the baffle wall. 

31 Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis). The blueback herring is a Federal Species of Concern 

32 (NMFS 2007b) that occurs along the western Atlantic coast and in rivers and estuaries from 

33 Nova Scotia to Florida (Murdy et al. 1997). Herring enter Chesapeake Bay in April and May to 

34 spawn, usually in deeper waters of swift-flowing rivers and streams (Murdy et al. 1997). 

35 Blueback herring larvae are slightly smaller than alewife larvae, reaching a length of about 

36 0.6 in. (Fay et al. 1983). Blueback herrings are planktivores feeding on comb jellies, 

37 crustaceans, and small fish. Blueback herring are commercially fished but are typically included 

38 with alewife in fishery data and management plans. Fishery and population information are 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-88 April 2010 

1 discussed in the alewife section. Blueback herring occurred in 20 of the 21 impingement 

2 samples collected at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 and were among the five most 

3 abundant species caught in five of those years (Ringger 2000). Potential blueback herring 

4 entrainment is discussed as river herring in the alewife section. 

5 Sea Turtles

6 Four species of sea turtles that are protected under the ESA may occur in Chesapeake Bay 

7 during part of the year. A biological assessment that provides life history, population, and 

8 ecological information is included in Appendix F. Most of these turtles in the Chesapeake Bay 

9 are larger juveniles that use the Chesapeake Bay as feeding habitat (Mansfield 2006). Turtles 

10 visit Chesapeake Bay primarily in the spring and summer (VIMS 2000). The two most common 

11 species in the Bay are the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and Kemp’s ridley turtle 

12 (Lepidochelys kempii) (Mansfield 2006). Also occurring in the Bay are the green turtle (Chelonia 

13 mydas) and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) (VIMS 2000). Abundances of all four 

14 species are typically estimated by counting the number of nesting females or directly counting 

15 the number of nests in which eggs have been deposited (Broderick et al. 2006). Abundances of 

16 males are often unknown. Recent estimates of turtle occurrence in lower Chesapeake Bay have 

17 been made by using aerial surveys (Mansfield 2006). Abundances of turtles within the Bay have 

18 decreased substantially since the 1980s. Spring and summer turtle abundances have declined 

19 by about 63 percent and 75 percent, respectively (Mansfield 2006). Mansfield (2006) suggested 

20 that these decreases could indicate that the Bay might have reached its carrying capacity, in part 

21 because of reductions in the forage base, such as blue crabs. 

22 All four sea turtle species face similar threats, with the primary threat being the incidental 

23 capture by many types of fishing gear (NOAA 2008a). Additional threats include harvesting of 

24 eggs, juveniles, and adults, and disturbance of nesting sites. Predators, other than humans, 

25 may also have significant effects on sea turtles. The primary predators on turtle adults include 

26 several large shark species, particularly tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) (Heithaus et al. 2008). 

27 A search of the event logs maintained by the NRC revealed the occurrence of a fatal sea turtle 

28 impingement on the trash racks at the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 facility (NRC 2001). The 

29 impinged species was not identified. 

30 Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta). The loggerhead turtle is a Federally and State threatened 

31 species (MDNR 2007b; NOAA 2008d) that is found in temperate and tropical seas around the 

32 world (NOAA 2008d). In the Atlantic Ocean, loggerheads range from Argentina to 

33 Newfoundland. Loggerheads in the northwest Atlantic nest primarily on beaches from Alabama 

34 to southern Virginia (Conant et al. 2009). Oceanic juveniles, which are about 18 to 25 in. long 

35 (Bjorndal et al. 2000), migrate to nearshore waters near estuaries, such as Chesapeake Bay, 

36 providing important habitat (NMFS and FWS 2007a). The Chesapeake Bay is used primarily by 

37 juveniles but is also frequented by adults in the summer. Loggerheads are known to occur in 

38 the Bay off Calvert County (Lutcavage 1981). Loggerheads in the southeastern U.S. may reach 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-89 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 a length of 36 in. and weigh as much as 250 lb (NOAA 2008d). In the lower Chesapeake Bay 

2 area and coastal Virginia, loggerhead diet has shifted from invertebrates to fish since the 1980s 

3 (Seney and Musick 2007). Horseshoe crabs were a prominent prey in the 1980s with blue 

4 crabs becoming predominant in the late 1980s and 1990s. After the mid-1990s, menhaden and 

5 Atlantic croaker became important prey. The changes probably resulted from declines in the 

6 invertebrate populations. Conant et al. (2009) determined that the global loggerhead turtle 

7 population can be differentiated into nine distinct population segments (DPS). Conant et al. 

8 (2009) concluded that the Northwest Atlantic DPS, which includes all turtles that frequent 

9 Chesapeake Bay, was at risk for extinction primarily because of juvenile and adult mortality as 

10 bycatch from recreational and commercial fishing. 

11 Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). The green turtle population occurring in the Chesapeake Bay is 

12 Federally and State threatened (MDNR 2007b; NMFS 2007c). On the U.S. Atlantic coast, the 

13 green turtle ranges from southern Florida to Massachusetts. In the United States, the major 

14 nesting area is in Florida where nesting typically occurs from June to September with most 

15 occurring in June and July (NMFS 2007c). Older juveniles migrate to inshore areas where they 

16 mature. Adults may reach length of 3 ft and weigh 300 to 350 lb and are the largest of the hard17 shelled sea turtles (NMFS 2007c). Estimates have shown that green turtle populations 

18 worldwide have been declining for at least 100 years (NMFS 2007c) although a few populations, 

19 including the Florida population, have shown small increases in the last few years (NMFS and 

20 FWS 2007b). 

21 Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The leatherback turtle is a Federally and State 

22 endangered species (MDNR 2007b; NOAA 2008c) that is found worldwide in many ocean 

23 habitats. In the western Atlantic, it ranges from the Gulf of Maine to the Caribbean and is found 

24 in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA 2008c). The primary nesting areas are in South America and west 

25 Africa, with minor sites in the Caribbean Sea and southeast Florida. There is some indication 

26 that nesting in the Caribbean and Florida has been increasing. Nesting in Florida increased 

27 about ten-fold from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, with about 800 to 900 nests found recently 

28 (NMFS and FWS 2007c). Little is known about the distribution of juveniles, although they seem 

29 to occur in warmer waters (NOAA 2008c). Leatherback turtles are the largest living reptiles with 

30 adults reaching lengths of about 6 ft and weighing as much as 1984 lb. 

31 Kemp’s Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). The Kemp’s ridley turtle is a Federally and State 

32 endangered species (MDNR 2007b; NOAA 2008b) that occurs along the Atlantic coast from 

33 Florida to New England and throughout the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA 2008b). About 95 percent of 

34 Kemp’s ridley turtles nest in Tamaulipas State, Mexico although some nesting has occurred in 

35 within the United States in the Carolinas and Florida. Numbers of nesting females have 

36 continued to increase in the 2000s. In 2006, about 100 nests were found in the United States. 

37 Nesting occurs from May to July, with females laying two to three clutches. Eggs hatch within 

38 about two months, and hatchlings move to offshore waters. Juveniles drift in association with 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-90 April 2010 

1 the seaweed Sargassum sp. for about two years and return to near coastal areas as subadults. 

2 Kemp’s ridley turtles are the smallest marine turtles, reaching a maximum length of 28 in. and a 

3 weight of 100 lb (NOAA 2008b). A historical record of Kemp’s ridley turtle near the Calvert Cliffs 

4 site (Hardy 1962) is based on the identification of a beak from a dead turtle. Many young 

5 Kemp’s ridley turtles inhabit the Chesapeake Bay during the summer, but most live in the lower 

6 Bay (UniStar 2008a). 

7 2.4.2.6 Non-Native and Nuisance Estuarine Species – Site and Vicinity 

8 Maryland lists the curly leaved pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) as a non-native, invasive 

9 estuarine plant species of concern that occurs in the State (MISC 2008a). This species occurs 

10 in fresh to brackish waters, where it often forms dense beds. It was not found during the SAV 

11 survey conducted in the Bay near the Calvert Cliffs site (EA Engineering 2007b). 

12 Maryland lists the green crab (Carcinus maenas) and the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir 

13 sinensis) as non-native, invasive estuarine invertebrate species of concern that occur in the 

14 Chesapeake Bay. The green crab is established at the mouth of the Bay (MISC 2006). The 

15 Chinese mitten crab has been found off Kent Point and at the mouth of the Patapsco River 

16 (MDNR 2008a). Neither was found among the benthic samples collected in the Bay near the 

17 Calvert Cliffs site in 2006 and 2007 (EA Engineering 2007a). 

18 Two invasive aquatic vertebrates are of potential concern, the mute swan (Cygnus olor) and the 

19 nutria (Myocastor coypus) (MISC 2008b). Potentially suitable habitat for both species exists on 

20 the Calvert Cliffs site (UniStar 2008a). Neither species is known to reside on the site (UniStar 

21 2008a). 

22 Pfiesteria (Pfiesteria piscicida) is one of the algal species known to produce toxins. Blooms of 

23 Pfiesteria may be unusual in that they can generate fish kills at relatively low cell densities 

24 (100 to 300 cells/mL). Pfiesteria is capable of sexual and asexual reproduction and has a 

25 complex life cycle characterized by various flagellated, amoeboid, and cyst stages 

26 (UniStar 2008a). Pfiesteria is most commonly found low in the water column and close to 

27 bottom sediments (Glibert and Burkholder 2006) during the warmer summer months in the mid28 Atlantic region but has been detected in the sediments during the cooler months. The alga was 

29 first discovered in the Chesapeake Bay in 1992 (Lewitus et al. 1995). A second species, 

30 Pfiesteria shumwayae, occurs in the Bay but is much less common than P. piscicida (Bowers et 

31 al. 2006). Water samples collected from the Patuxent River from 2000 to 2002 did not contain 

32 either species (Bowers et al. 2006). 

33 Sea nettles range from Cape Cod south along the United States East Coast to the Caribbean 

34 and the Gulf of Mexico but occur in Chesapeake Bay in numbers unequaled elsewhere 

35 (UniStar 2008a). The sea nettle is most abundant in the tributaries of the middle Bay where 

36 salinities are about 10 ppt to 20 ppt. It is considered a nuisance species in part because it has 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-91 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 an annoying sting that is not dangerous to swimmers but makes swimming unpleasant. This 

2 categorization belies the likely ecological importance of a key predator on zooplankton, fish 

3 eggs and larvae, and comb jellies (Purcell et al. 1994, Breitburg and Fulford 2006). Bottom4 dwelling polyps are dormant during the winter and become active in spring, releasing tiny sea 

5 nettles from May through August. Adult sea nettles may have few natural predators in the 

6 middle reaches of Chesapeake Bay (UniStar 2008a). 

7 Comb jellies are related to jellyfish but do not have stinging tentacles. Comb jellies have 

8 transparent, jelly-like bodies with bright, iridescent bands of tiny hairs called combs, which are 

9 used for limited locomotion. The species occurring in Chesapeake Bay are the sea walnut 

10 (Mnemiopsis leidyi) and the pink comb jelly (Beroe ovata) (Bishop 1972). The sea walnut is 

11 probably one of the key water-column species in the Bay because it feeds on large quantities of 

12 zooplankton daily and is an important predator of fish eggs (Purcell et al. 2001). Year-to-year 

13 variation in sea walnut abundance may be related to variation in abundance of predators. In the 

14 Chesapeake Bay, the main predator of the sea walnut is the sea nettle (Purcell et al. 2001). 

15 Abundances of the two species appear to be inversely related (Feigenbaum and Kelly 1984) 

16 until the comb jellies reach a large size, which gives them a refuge from sea nettle predation. 

17 The pink comb jelly also feeds on comb jellies, but it only occurs in higher salinity regions of the 

18 Bay and probably has little effect on the sea walnut (Purcell et al. 2001). 

19 2.4.2.7 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines 

20 The existing transmission system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 consists of a north circuit that 

21 connects the plant to the Waugh Chapel Substation in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and 

22 south circuit that connects the plant to the Potomac Electric Power Company Chalk Point 

23 Generating Station in Prince Georges County, Maryland (Section 2.2.2). No new transmission 

24 corridors would be constructed off the Calvert Cliffs site, as existing transmission corridors 

25 would be used for power distribution from the proposed Unit 3. 

26 The transmission line leading from the Calvert Cliffs site to the Waugh Chapel Substation is 

27 near at least one stream on the site (Woodland Branch, which it crosses offsite) and probably 

28 crosses several other small streams in Calvert and Anne Arundel Counties. The conditions in 

29 Woodland Branch were described in Section 2.4.2.1. Conditions in the other small streams 

30 crossed by the transmission line are unknown but probably are similar to those in Woodland 

31 Branch and other small streams in the region. The transmission line that connects the Calvert 

32 Cliffs switchyard to the Chalk Point Generating Station crosses small streams in Calvert County 

33 and also crosses the Patuxent River at Chalk Point. The reach of the Patuxent River near 

34 Chalk Point is at the upper part of the tidal influence in the river where waters are oligohaline 

35 (0.5 to 5 ppt) in winter and spring and mesohaline (5 to 19 ppt) in summer and fall (MDNR 

36 PPRP 2008). The mainstem of the Patuxent River at Chalk Point is a known white perch 

37 spawning area but does not contain historic or current oyster beds (MDNR 2004). The benthic 

38 community in the area was rated “good” (B-IBI scores >3.0) during 2003 to 2005 (MDNR 2007f). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-92 April 2010 

1 2.4.2.8 Aquatic Monitoring 

2 There are no known ecological or biological aquatic studies ongoing at the Calvert Cliffs site, 

3 and no surveys are planned. 

4 2.5 Socioeconomics 

5 This section describes the socioeconomic baseline for the proposed Unit 3 to be built by the 

6 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and operated by UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC 

7 at the existing Calvert Cliffs site that contains Units 1 and 2. The scope of the review of 

8 demographic and community characteristics is guided by the magnitude and nature of the 

9 expected impacts that may result from the building, maintenance, and operation of the proposed 

10 project. 

11 The discussion of these impacts considers the entire region within a 50-mi radius of the 

12 proposed Unit 3 site, with a focus on Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. This is because (1) the 

13 construction and operation work forces are expected to be drawn primarily from these two 

14 counties, (2) the two counties would receive the majority of any benefits and stresses to 

15 community services by these workers, (3) the distribution of population that lies within the 50-mi 

16 radius of the proposed unit, and (4) over 90 percent of the current Calvert Cliffs site workforce 

17 resides within these two counties. 

18 The region is a 50-mi circle centered on the powerblock and covers all or portion of 14 counties 

19 in Maryland (Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen 

20 Anne’s, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, Worcester, Calvert, Charles, St. Mary’s), two Delaware 

21 counties (Kent and Sussex), 13 Virginia counties (Fairfax, Prince William, Stafford, King 

22 George, Westmoreland, Northumberland, Lancaster, Richmond, Middlesex, King and Queen, 

23 Essex, Caroline, Arlington) and Washington D.C. The population of counties located in or 

24 partially in the 50-mi CCNPP radius is shown in Table 2-5 for 2000 and 2006. 

25 The review team examined the possibility that a significant number of workers (numbering up to 

26 4000 during the peak project period) may choose to live in a county within 50 mi of proposed 

27 Unit 3, but outside of Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. Geographically, access to the proposed 

28 site is limited to the north and northeast because the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries form 

29 physical barriers for most of the remaining counties within the 50-mi radius. This leaves 

30 relatively easy access to Washington, D.C., all of Charles County, nearly all of Prince George’s 

31 County and portions of four other counties (Anne Arundel, Arlington, Fairfax, and Middlesex) as 

32 potential areas of residence for proposed Unit 3 construction and operation workers. However, 

33 significant socioeconomic impacts are unlikely in these areas because the population of these 

34 seven areas is large relative to the size of the workforce needed to support the building and 

35 operation of proposed Unit 3 and this impact would be undetectable in each of those counties 

36 even if a significant portion of the workforce chose to reside there. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-93 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 2-5. Total Population for Counties within or partially within the 50-mi Radius of CCNPP 

2 in 2000 and 2006

County 2000 2006 

Maryland 

Anne Arundel County 489,656 509,300 

Montgomery County 873,341 932,131 

Prince George’s County 801,515 841,315 

Caroline County 29,772 32,617 

Dorchester County 30,674 31,631 

Kent County 19,197 19,983 

Queen Anne’s County 40,563 46,241 

Somerset County 24,747 25,774 

Talbot County 33,812 36,062 

Wicomico County 84,644 91,987 

Worcester County 46,543 48,866 

Calvert County 74,563 88,804 

Charles County 120,546 140,416 

St. Mary’s County 86,211 98,854 

Delaware 

Kent 126,697 147,601 

Sussex 156,638 180,288 

Virginia 

Fairfax 969,749 1,010,443 

Prince William 280,813 357,503 

Stafford 92,446 120,170 

King George 16,803 21,780 

Westmoreland 16,718 17,188 

Northumberland 12,259 12,820 

Lancaster 11,567 11,519 

Richmond 8809 9142 

Middlesex 9932 10,615 

King and Queen 6630 6903 

Essex 9989 10,633 

Caroline 22,121 26,731 

Arlington 189,453 199,776 

Washington, D.C. 572,059 581,530 

Source: USCB 2006a, b, c, g, h 

3 Table 2-6 shows the county of residence for the current CCNPP workforce. Just over 

4 91 percent of the current 833 Calvert Cliffs site employees reside in Calvert County 

5 (67.5 percent) and St. Mary’s County (23.8 percent) in 2006. The remaining 9 percent are 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-94 April 2010 

1 Table 2-6. Distribution of Current Calvert Cliffs Site Employees by County of Residence in 2006 

As Percent of Workforce 

County 

Workforce, 

2006 By County Cumulative 

As Percent of 2006 

County Population(a)

Calvert 562 67.5 67.5 0.6 

St. Mary’s 198 23.8 91.2 0.2 

Charles 30 3.6 94.8 <0.1 

Anne Arundel 27 3.2 98.1 <0.1 

Prince Georges 6 0.7 98.8 <0.1 

Baltimore(b) 4 0.5 99.3 <0.1 

Howard(b) 2 0.2 99.5 <0.1 

Allegany(b) 1 0.1 99.6 <0.1 

Washington, D.C. 1 0.1 99.8 <0.1 

Other Out of State(c) 2 0.2 100.0 -- 

Total 833 

Source: UniStar 2009a; USCB 2006a, b 

(a) County Population data were from USCB 2006a Part 1, 2006a Part 2, 2006b. 

(b) Outside the 50-mi radius of the proposed Unit 3. 

(c) Undetermined if in or outside the 50-mi radius of the proposed Unit 3. 

2 distributed across seven other Maryland counties (~8.3 percent) and out-of-state locations 

3 (~0.3 percent), with less than 4 percent of the employees residing in any one area outside of 

4 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. Also, the current Calvert Cliffs workforce is less than 1 percent 

5 of the population in each of the other counties or locations. Accordingly, the review team’s 

6 focus in this EIS is on impacts in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. 

7 2.5.1 Demographics 

8 For the purposes of this analysis, the review team divided the total population within the 

9 analytical area into three major groups: residents who live permanently in the area, transients 

10 who may temporarily live in the area but have a permanent residence elsewhere, and migrant 

11 workers who travel into the area to perform seasonal work and then leave after their job is done. 

12 Transients and migrant workers are not fully characterized by the U.S. Census, which generally 

13 captures only resident populations. 

14 The data used in this section were from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), the States of 

15 Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The most recent data and 

16 information are used where possible, with 2000 census data used in some cases to provide 

17 comparability between multiple jurisdictions. Population projections to 2030 were obtained from 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-95 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 the above sources and extended to 2060 using a trend line. In addition, the NRC SECPOP 

2 2000 code (SECPOP stands for Sector Population, Land Fraction, and Economic Estimation 

3 Program) was used to develop the projections for the emergency planning zone (EPZ), as the 

4 population and projections data for the EPZ were not available from USCB. 

5 2.5.1.1 Resident Population 

6 The geographic distribution of the estimated 3.2 million residents in 2000 is shown in 

7 Figure 2-14. The center of the circle on this map is the proposed Unit 3 site, with concentric 

8 circles in 10-mi increments up to 50 mi from the proposed location. The sectors within each 

9 circle further show the population distribution by direction. 

10 The area within the emergency evacuation zone, defined by the 10-mi radius of the proposed 

11 Unit 3 site, is predominately rural, characterized by farmland and forests, small residential 

12 communities, and bounded to the east by the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, and to the south 

13 and west by the waters of the Patuxent River. The cities and unincorporated towns within a 

14 10-mi driving distance of the Calvert Cliffs site include California, Calvert Beach-Long Beach, 

15 Chesapeake Ranch Estates-Drum Point, Lusby, and Prince Frederick. 

16 In the year 2000, about 10 percent of the resident population lived within 30 mi of the Calvert 

17 Cliffs site. Of the remaining 90 percent of the resident population, just over 70 percent lived in 

18 the outer 10-mi portion of the radius, with population density being greatest in the segments 

19 lying to the north and northwest of the Calvert Cliffs site in the Washington, D.C. area. 

20 Major population centers within about 50 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site are Washington, D.C. 

21 (approximately 55 driving miles to the northwest) and Annapolis, Maryland (approximately 

22 50 driving miles to the north). Smaller cities and towns within a 50-mi radius include Glenarden 

23 (approximately 50 driving miles to the northwest), North Beach (approximately 26 driving miles 

24 to the north), La Plata, approximately 36 driving miles to the west), Leonardtown (approximately 

25 20 driving miles to the southwest), and Seat Pleasant (approximately 49 driving miles to the 

26 northwest). 

27 Calvert County is included in the DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area, and St. Mary’s 

28 County is a part of the smaller Lexington Park, Maryland, Micro Area. Select demographic data 

29 for the Calvert County and St. Mary’s County, in 2000, 2003 and 2004 (UniStar 2009a) and 

30 2007 (MDP 2008a) are presented in Table 2-7. The table shows the combined population in 

31 2000 was 160,774 and grew at an annual rate of 2.47 percent to 2007, with Calvert County’s 

32 growth rate slightly larger than the growth rate in St. Mary’s County. Calvert County is the 

33 fastest growing of the 23 counties in the State of Maryland, and St. Mary’s County ranks second 

34 with annual growth rates of 2.61 percent and 2.35 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2007 as 

35 compared to the State average of 0.85 percent (UniStar 2009a, MDP 2008a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-96 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-14. Population within the 50-mi Radius of Proposed Unit 3 by 10-mi Increments 

3 and Direction (UniStar 2009a)
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-97 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 2-7. Select Demographic Characteristics for the Resident Population in Calvert and 

2 St. Mary’s Counties 

Calvert 

County 

St. Mary’s 

County Maryland UnitedStates 

Demographic Characteristics 

Population, 2000 74,563 86,211 5,296,486 281,421,906

Population estimate, 2007 88,223 100,378 5,618,344 301,621,157

Average annual growth rate, 2000-2007 2.61% 2.35% 0.87% 1.00%

Population per square mile, 2000 376.5 238.6 541.9 79.6

Ethnic Composition, 2004 

Caucasians 84.70% 82.10% 64.50% 70.40%

African-American 12.80% 13.90% 29.10% 12.80%

Hispanic 1.90% 2.20% 5.40% 14.10%

Other 0.6% 1.8% 1.0% 2.7%

Income Characteristics, 2003 

Median household income $71,488 $58,651 $54,302 $43,318 

Persons below poverty 5.30% 7.40% 8.80% 12.50%

Source: UniStar 2009a; MDP 2008a

3 The year 2000 data in Figure 2-14 are summarized by distance in Table 2-8 with projections to 

4 the year 2060. The growth rates shown are a composite based on county-level population 

5 projections made by the USCB and each state (UniStar 2009a). The aggregate annual growth 

6 rate of 0.99 percent, which ranges from a low of 0.75 percent for the period 2050 to 2060 to a 

7 high of 1.36 percent for the period 2000 to 2010, results in nearly a doubling of the population in 

8 the 60-year period. 

9 2.5.1.2 Transient Population 

10 Transients include people who work in or visit schools, hospitals and nursing homes, 

11 correctional facilities, hotels and motels, and recreational areas or special events where there 

12 may be seasonal and workday variations in population. In this study, the transient population is 

13 defined as persons who live outside the referenced area, but may be predictably expected to be 

14 in the area at some point, to include: 

15 • Workers who live permanently outside of the area and commute to a worksite in Calvert and 

16 St. Mary’s Counties on a regular basis. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-98 April 2010 

1 Table 2-8. Projection of the Resident Population for Geographic Areas within a 50-mi Radius 

2 of the Proposed Unit 3 Site by 10-mi Increments from 2000 to 2060

Population within Radius Distance 

Year 0-10 mi 10-20 mi 20-30 mi 30-40 mi 40-50 mi Total 

10-yr Annual 

Average 

Growth Rate

2000 40,745 112,841 162,006 618,907 2,267,761 3,202,260 -- 

2010 46,272 128,170 183,991 703,086 2,576,246 3,637,765 1.36% 

2015 49,031 135,788 194,909 744,798 2,729,381 3,853,907 -- 

2020 51,126 141,542 203,279 776,201 2,843,806 4,015,954 1.04% 

2030 55,256 152,988 219,647 839,208 3,075,213 4,342,312 0.82% 

2040 61,716 170,849 245,359 936,915 3,432,515 4,847,354 1.16% 

2050 66,723 184,811 265,321 1,013,675 3,714,072 5,244,602 0.82% 

2060 71,812 198,759 285,436 1,090176 3,994,214 5,640,397 0.75% 

2000-2060 0.99% 

Source: UniStar 2009a 

Note: Population projections are provided for 2015 because that is near the year proposed Unit 3 is estimated to 

start operation. 

3 • Visitors who live outside the area and travel at least 50 mi each way in order to conduct 

4 personal business, shop, and/or engage in recreation. Visitors may come to the area for the 

5 day or seek overnight accommodations. 

6 Individuals who simply travel through the area from a point outside the area to a destination 

7 outside the area are not included. 

8 Because the USCB does not report information about the transient population in this area, the 

9 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 Evacuation Time Estimate report (UniStar 2009a) was used to obtain the 

10 estimated 2000 transient population in the Calvert Cliffs site vicinity, as shown in Table 2-10. 

11 This shows that the total transient population is about 8000 persons in the site vicinity, and that 

12 less than 25 percent were within 5 mi of the CCNPP facility. 

13 Recreational use by visitors and tourists is considered to be the primary contributor to the 

14 transient population in the area. The Southern Region of Maryland, which includes Calvert 

15 County, St. Mary’s County, and Charles County, recorded 541,791 visitors in 2004 (UniStar 

16 2009a). Major parks within the 10-mi vicinity include Calvert Cliffs State Park and Flag Ponds 

17 Park. Calvert Cliffs State Park had 17,113 day and 2175 overnight visitors from July 2005 to 

18 June 2006. The peak month for day users was October (5650 people), the peak month for 

19 overnight users was July (875 people), and the month with the most visitors (both day and night 

20 users) was October (6035 people). Flag Ponds Park receives approximately 20,000 annual 

21 visitors, primarily during the three summer months. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-99 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 2-9. Projected Population Growth in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties and Maryland from 

2 2000-2030 

Calvert County St. Mary’s County Maryland 

Year Population 

Average Annual 

Growth % Population

Average Annual 

Growth % Population 

Average Annual 

Growth % 

2000 74,563 -- 86,211 -- 5,296,486 -- 

2010 95,450 2.80 107,700 2.49 5,897,600 1.13 

2015 98,650 0.67 119,450 2.18 6,176,075 0.94 

2020 101,750 0.63 130,750 1.89 6,386,225 0.68 

2030 105,850 0.40 151,700 1.60 6,737,750 0.55 

2040 128,245 2.12 181,412 1.96 7,110,558 0.55 

2050 141,127 1.00 212,317 1.70 7,503,995 0.55 

2060 154,009 0.91 246,228 1.60 7,919,200 0.55 

2000-2030 1.40 2.53 0.91 

Source: MDP 2008b; UniStar 2009a 

3 Table 2-10. Transient Population in the Calvert Cliffs Site Vicinity in 2000 

0-1 mi 1-2 mi 2-3 mi 3-4 mi 4-5 mi 5-10 mi 1-10 mi 

0 263 741 535 392 6079 8010 

Source: UniStar 2009a 

4 2.5.1.3 Agricultural, Seasonal and Migrant Labor 

5 No farm in Calvert County or St. Mary’s County employed seasonal or migrant workers in 2004. 

6 In addition, it is highly unlikely that seasonal agricultural migrant workers would be hired in the 

7 area in the future because the number of farms and the acreage devoted to farming in the region 

8 has been declining because the land is increasingly converted to non-farm uses (UniStar 2009a). 

9 2.5.2 Community Characteristics 

10 This section characterizes the communities that may be impacted by the building and operation 

11 activities associated with the proposed Unit 3. The characteristics evaluated include the 

12 economy, tax based revenue, transportation, aesthetics and recreation, housing, public services 

13 (police, fire, and hospitals), healthcare, and education. Information and data for this 

14 characterization were drawn from planning agencies within the 50-mi radius of the Calvert Cliffs 

15 site, including the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), the Delaware Economic 

16 Development Office, the Virginia Employment Commission, the USCB, and agencies within 

17 Calvert and St. Mary’s County governments. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-100 April 2010 

1 While 30 counties and the District of Columbia lie within a 50-mi radius of the Calvert Cliffs site, 

2 the discussion in this section focuses on the characteristics in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties 

3 that are nearest the site. As stated earlier, over 90 percent of the current CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

4 workforce resides in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, and it is expected that increases in the 

5 workforce for building and operation of the new unit would accrue to the two counties in roughly 

6 the same proportion. As a result, any stress to the community infrastructure and services 

7 caused by changes in the workforce for building and operation of the proposed plant would be 

8 expected to occur primarily in these two counties. The review team realizes some workers may 

9 choose to live outside of Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. If that were the case, the review 

10 team’s analysis may overstate the expected impacts on the two counties. However, as 

11 previously stated, any impacts occurring outside of these two counties would be negligible due 

12 to the large population of those counties relative to the size of the workforce. 

13 Many of the towns in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, such as Lusby and Solomons, are 

14 considered “designated places” by the USCB but have no political or tax structure independent 

15 of the county (UniStar 2009a). This includes Prince Frederick, the Calvert County seat. 

16 Incorporated towns include North Beach in Calvert County and Leonardtown in St. Mary’s 

17 County (UniStar 2009a). 

18 Land use affects a number of community actions that pertain directly to the economy, housing, 

19 and schools, and indirectly to a number of other community services. The Maryland Legislature 

20 has mandated that each county and municipality adopt a comprehensive land-use plan, per the 

21 Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act to include Smart Growth initiatives 

22 (UniStar 2009a). In addition, the Maryland Master Facilities Plan for schools, coupled with the 

23 land-use plans, effectively limit the development of new housing without the construction of 

24 accompanying infrastructure so as to avoid straining community services. Thus, development is 

25 allowed, but the developer directly bears the costs (UniStar 2009a). 

26 Both counties have adopted land-use plans that guide development and growth. Calvert County 

27 has developed two plans, a Comprehensive Plan (CCCP 2004) and a Land Preservation, Parks 

28 and Recreation Plan (CCBCC 2006), with benchmarks for economic development, social 

29 services, and preservation of resources to maintain and improve the overall quality of life. 

30 These plans have and are envisioned to address the rapid growth the County has experienced 

31 over the last 20 years. St. Mary’s County developed a comprehensive plan in 2002, which was 

32 amended in 2003 (SMCBCC 2003). Similar to Calvert County’s Comprehensive Plan, the St. 

33 Mary’s Plan addressed growth through the provision of infrastructure and preservation of 

34 resources. 

35 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-101 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.5.2.1 Economy 

2 This section provides information on the labor force and income. The labor force is 

3 characterized by total employment, employment by occupation, and major type of industry. 

4 Income is listed at the total and per capita level. Given that 91 percent of the current CCNPP 

5 Units 1 and 2 workforce lives in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, these two counties represent 

6 the economic impact area when discussing employment, income, and other economic impacts. 

7 Table 2-11 provides a breakdown of employment levels by class of employment and occupation 

8 for each county in the economic impact area and the State of Maryland. Approximately 

9 30 percent of employed workers in the economic impact area provided civilian government 

10 services and 70 percent work in private sector services, with about 11 percent employed in the 

11 construction sector. 

12 Table 2-11. Employment by Class and Occupation in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties and 

13 Maryland 2006

Economic Impact Area 

Labor Force Calvert County St. Mary’s County Maryland 

Civilian Labor Force (persons) 49,575 52,371 3,036,959 

Employed 96.7% 95.1% 94.7% 

Unemployed 3.3% 4.9% 5.3% 

Employed Workers 

Class of worker 

Private wage and salary 66.9% 61.7% 73.0% 

Government workers 27.5% 31.8% 21.8% 

Self-employed workers 4.7% 6.4% 5.1% 

Other 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 

Occupation 

Management and professional 40.5% 40.1% 42.6% 

Service 14.8% 15.9% 15.2% 

Sales and office 24.3% 22.0% 25.0% 

Farming, fishing, and forestry 0.1% 0.9% 0.1% 

Extraction, maintenance and repair 1.9% 1.8% 1.3% 

Construction 12.2% 11.3% 7.7% 

Production, transportation, and material moving 6.3% 7.9% 8.1% 

Source: USCB 2006c 

14 Most of the economic impact area’s reported 11,000 construction workers in 2006 are not 

15 engaged in heavy construction activities and are not suited for the type of construction activities 

16 for a nuclear facility. Heavy construction workers include supervisors, boilermakers, brick and 

17 stone masons, carpenters, laborers, paving and surfacing, operating engineers, electricians, 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-102 April 2010 

1 insulation workers, plumbers and steamfitters, rebar workers, and sheet metal workers. For 

2 these trades, the review team identified 117,480 reported workers in Maryland (USBLS 2007a) 

3 and 110,640 in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (USBLS 2007b). Some double counting may 

4 exist between the two areas, but these numbers indicate the availability of a sufficient number of 

5 workers qualified for the building of proposed Unit 3. 

6 At the State level, the construction workforce is projected to increase by approximately 

7 20 percent from 2006 to 2016 (MDLLR 2008a). In the three southern Maryland counties 

8 (Calvert, St. Mary’s and Charles), the construction workforce is projected to increase by 

9 approximately 21 percent from 2004 to 2014, and accounting for new hires to replace those 

10 retiring, the construction sector workforce is expected to grow by about 50 percent (MDLLR 

11 2008b). 

12 Calvert County is a bedroom community for the Washington, D.C., area, with North Beach and 

13 Chesapeake Beach the principal economic centers, and the unincorporated towns of Calvert 

14 Beach-Long Beach, Chesapeake Ranch Estates-Drum Point, Dunkirk, Huntington, Lusby, 

15 Ownings, Prince Frederick, St. Leonard, and Solomons the nuclei for residential, commercial, 

16 and light industrial activity and development (UniStar 2009a). The approximately 1900 

17 businesses in Calvert County employ 17,500 workers. An estimated 21 businesses employ 100 

18 or more workers, which include Constellation Energy, Calvert Memorial Hospital (CMH), ARC of 

19 Southern Maryland, DynCorp International, and Recorded Books (MDBED 2008a). 

20 Leonardtown is the economic hub of St. Mary’s County and unincorporated communities include 

21 California, Charlotte Hall, Golden Beach, and Lexington Park (UniStar 2009a). There are 

22 1960 businesses in St. Mary’s County with employment of 27,000. The major employer is the 

23 Patuxent Naval Air Station (over 20,000 civilians and military personnel) and approximately 

24 37 businesses that employ at least 100 people each; many of these jobs are defense related. 

25 Most non-defense employers in the county are in the education sector (MDBED 2008b). 

26 According to the MDP, the total and average per capita income in 2005 for the two counties and 

27 the State are as shown in Table 2-12. 

28 Table 2-12. Total and Per Capita Income in 2005 ($2000) 

 Calvert County

St. Mary’s 

County Maryland 

Total $2.97 Billion $2.94 Billion $211.0 Billion 

Per Capita $33,447 $30,473 $37,616 

Source: MDP 2007 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-103 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.5.2.2 Taxes 

2 Tax based revenues are the responsibility of the Maryland State Department of Assessments 

3 and Taxation (MDSDAT), and the County Finance and Budget Department. The major tax 

4 categories are sales and use, income, and real and personal property. The tax rates for these 

5 three categories for Maryland and Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties are shown in Table 2-13. 

6 Table 2-13. Sales & Use, Income, and Property Tax Rates (%) for Maryland and Calvert and 

7 St. Mary’s Counties in 2007 

Sales and Use 

Maryland Calvert County St. Mary’s County 

6.0 -- -- 

Income 

Maryland Calvert County St. Mary’s County 

4.75 2.8 3.0 

Property (rate per $100 valuation) 

Maryland Calvert County St. Mary’s County 

Real Personal Real Personal Real Personal 

0.112 -- 0.892 2.230 0.857 2.195 

Source: MD Comp 2008a, MD Comp 2008b, and MDSDAT 2008 

8 Personal Income Taxes 

9 The State of Maryland levies a personal income tax of 2 percent on the first $1000 of taxable 

10 income up to 6.25 percent on incomes exceeding a million dollars. Nonresidents pay a special 

11 tax rate of 1.25 percent in addition to the State income tax rate. Each individual county in 

12 Maryland also levies a personal income tax. Calvert County’s personal income tax rate is 

13 2.8 percent and St. Mary’s County’s is 3 percent. According to the Comptroller of Maryland 

14 (MD Comp 2007), total and per capita personal income was $247.5 billion and $44,077, 

15 respectively, with personal income tax at the State level of $7.462 billion and per capita income 

16 tax of $1329. In the economic impact area the per capita personal income taxes was $669 in 

17 Calvert County and $583 in St. Mary’s County (MDP 2008c). 

18 Sales and Use Taxes 

19 The State sales tax rate for Maryland is 6 percent of the sale price of taxable goods. The sale 

20 of a service is usually not taxable. Food sold in grocery stores, prescription medicines and 

21 newspapers are generally not taxable. The State level sales and use tax revenue of $3.447 

22 billion translates to $614 on a per capita basis. Any purchases made out of state are subject to 

23 Maryland’s 6 percent use tax. There are no local sales taxes in the State of Maryland. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-104 April 2010 

1 Property Taxes 

2 In Maryland, non-utility generators such as CCNPP are subject to three tax rates that cover State 

3 real property taxes, county real property taxes, and county personal property taxes. Public utility 

4 generators are also subject to local public utility taxes; however, CCNPP is not a public utility. 

5 The relevant tax rates are for the three categories for Maryland and Calvert and St. Mary’s 

6 Counties are as shown in Table 2-13. In the economic impact area, the per capita property tax 

7 was $843 in Calvert County and $636 in St. Mary’s County (CC DF&B 2007 and SMCBCC 

8 2008a). 

9 For tax assessment purposes, the Calvert Cliffs site is located in Calvert County. UniStar would 

10 pay all of its property taxes to Calvert County, which would include levies for Calvert County 

11 School District. During the 2000 to 2008 time frame, County property taxes paid in regards to 

12 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 have ranged from $12.7 million (2002) to $22.4 million (2008). The 2008 

13 taxes represented 10.14 percent of Calvert County total revenues (UniStar 2009f). 

14 Revenues and Expenditures 

15 The profile of revenues for 2007 that accrued to the State and the two counties in the economic 

16 impact area is shown in Table 2-14. With respect to the expected impacts of the proposed 

17 power plant, the State would be impacted primarily through the sales and use and personal 

18 income taxes, and the two counties through the property and personal income taxes with the 

19 largest impact in Calvert County. 

20 2.5.2.3 Transportation 

21 Air 

22 There are three major commercial airports in the 50-mi radius (Baltimore-Washington area): 

23 Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Reagan National Airport, and 

24 Washington Dulles International Airport (MDBED 2008c). There are no commercial airports in 

25 the Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, but there are several private and government airfields, 

26 including Chesapeake Ranch Airpark in Calvert County, a helipad on the Calvert Cliffs site that 

27 is used for corporate and Medivac flights, and St. Mary’s County Airport (Captain Duke Airport). 

28 In St. Mary’s County, the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, 11 mi south of the Calvert Cliffs site, 

29 provides aircraft test and development operations. The St. Mary’s County Transportation 

30 Master Plan Update suggests determining the needed additional infrastructure to ready the 

31 County’s airport for future commuter air service (SMC DPW 2006, SMC DPW 2008a, 

32 MDBED 2008c). 

33 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-105 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 2-14. Revenues by Major Category for the State of Maryland and Calvert and St. Mary’s 

2 Counties in 2007 

Jurisdiction 

Economic Impact Area 

Tax Category State of Maryland Calvert County St. Mary’s County 

Property (Millions $) 

Real $791,643 2.6% $74,335 38.0% $63,880 38.3%

Personal -- -- $236 0.1% $158 0.1%

Public utilities -- -- $22,418 11.5% $2,708 1.6%

All other -- -- ($2,260) (1.2%) $3,195 1.9%

Sales and use $3,447,827 11.4% -- -- -- -- 

Personal income $7,462,097 24.6% $59,065 30.2% $58,522 35.0%

Other taxes $2,649,164 8.7% $12,574 6.4% $12,741 7.6%

Shared revenue -- -- $6,840 3.5% $7,325 4.4%

Licenses and permits $606,589 2.0% $258 0.1% $894 0.5%

Charges for services $832,173 2.7% $3,356 1.7% $5,970 3.6%

Fines and forfeitures $374,581 1.2% $124 0.1% $275 0.2%

Grants $6,211,156 20.5% $10,463 5.4% $6,375 3.8%

Other $7,948,277 26.2% $8,157 4.2% $4,936 3.0%

Total revenue $30,323,507 100% $195,565 100% $166,978 100%

Source: MD Comp 2007, CC DF&B 2007, and SMCBCC 2008a

3 Bus 

4 Calvert County provides bus service to individuals that live in the County and work in the 

5 Washington, D.C., area (CCOT 2007). This daily service is reportedly well used, with increasing 

6 ridership over time (SMCBCC 2003). Calvert County operated 17 passenger buses over 7 

7 routes covering 475,635 mi and carried approximately 113,354 passengers in FY 2005 (UniStar 

8 2009a). In addition, Calvert County’s Public Transportation Division operates a courtesy route 

9 system and a demand route system to meet the transportation needs of the general public, the 

10 elderly, and persons with disabilities (CCOT 2007). The St. Mary’s Transit System provides 

11 daily service that includes evenings and weekends, with total ridership increasing from 

12 approximately 54,395 passengers in FY 2000 to over 300,000 passengers in FY 2006 (SMC 

13 DPW 2008b). The St. Mary’s County Master Plan indicates that excess capacity existed in 

14 2003 (SMCBCC 2003); however, a more recent transportation plan provides a number of 

15 improvements to increase ridership and expand service (SMC DPW 2006). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-106 April 2010 

1 Roads/Highways 

2 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties are both served by State highways and County roads, with 

3 neither county served by interstate highways. As shown in Figure 2-15, the major highway in 

4 Calvert County is MD State Route 2/4, which runs on a north-south axis just to the west of the 

5 Calvert Cliffs site, and has four lanes (two in each direction). MD State Route 2/4 has turn lanes 

6 to ease access at selected intersections and traffic lights at busier intersections. The major 

7 State highway in St. Mary’s County is MD State Route 235 that runs from northwest to 

8 southeast and intersects MD State Route 4 near the town of California. 

9 The road system in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties comprises 672 and 810 road miles in 

10 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, respectively. In each county, the State is responsible for 

11 maintenance and upkeep for about 75 percent of the roads, with the remainder under the 

12 responsibility of the County and Municipal governments. 

13 The Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge at the south end of Calvert County connects Calvert and 

14 St. Mary’s Counties. The four-lane MD State Route 2/4 narrows to two lanes across the bridge 

15 where Route 2 exits and continues south, and Route 4 continues across the bridge. The bridge 

16 is in need of repair and presents a bottleneck to traffic during peak periods (SMC DPW 2006). 

17 A number of alternatives are being considered to upgrade the bridge from a level of service 

18 (LOS) rating of an F to a C or better. LOS is on a scale from A to F where A is the best and F is 

19 the worst. The Maryland State Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration 

20 expect to complete the planning process in 2010 and construction by 2020 (SMO 2008). 

21 UniStar reported for 2007 the average daily traffic volume that passed by the Calvert Cliffs site 

22 on MD State Route 2/4 was 25,461 (Station ID: B040012) vehicles traveling in both directions 

23 (MDOT 2007a), which provides for approximately 12,800 vehicles traveling in each direction on 

24 an average day (UniStar 2009a). Based on a nearby MDOT measurement station (Station ID: 

25 P0065), the 2007 monthly variation in vehicle traffic to the south before MD State Route 2/4 

26 splits into MD State Route 2 and MD State Route 4 had a comparable volume of traffic to what 

27 UniStar reported from a low of 92 percent of the average daily volume to a high of 108 percent 

28 (MDOT 2007b). 

29 UniStar commissioned a study of traffic conditions and impacts for the section of MD State 

30 Route 2/4 in the area of the Calvert Cliffs site (KLD 2009). The latest revision of the study 

31 includes revised assumptions to accommodate comments from the Maryland State Highway 

32 Administration. The traffic data used in the study were collected at signalized intersections in 

33 2006 and in 2008 for unsignalized intersections and then projected to 2009 levels for a baseline. 

34 The peak hours of traffic were indentified as 6:45 AM to 7:45 AM and 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM. Both 

35 signalized intersections are operating well (LOS C or better). The unsignalized intersections 

36 operate between an LOS of C to F with a lack of capacity for vehicles turning onto MD 2/4 

37 (KLD 2009). The KLD Engineering study is the basis for impact assessments in Sections 4.4 

38 and 5.4 because it is a more predictable and accurate estimate of traffic near the Calvert Cliffs 

39 entrance. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-107 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-15. Highways and Major Roads within Approximately 10 mi of the Proposed Calvert 

3 Cliffs Site (KLD 2009)

4 Rail 

5 There are no train depots in either Calvert or St. Mary’s Counties, with the nearest depots in 

6 Prince George’s and Waldorf in Charles Counties (MDBED 2008d). The addition of commuter 

7 light rail service between Washington, D.C., and La Plata in Charles County by approximately 

8 2018 has been discussed (SMCBCC 2003). 

9 Barge 

10 There are no deep water ports in either Calvert or St. Mary’s Counties; both counties are served 

11 by the Port of Baltimore (MDBED 2007). The Calvert Cliffs site has a barge dock used to 

12 deliver large equipment and large quantities of materials (UniStar 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-108 April 2010 

1 2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation 

2 Physical structures at the Calvert Cliffs site are not visible from points outside the site boundary 

3 due to the heavily wooded and rolling topography surrounding it. Recreational users of 

4 Chesapeake Bay to the north and east typically cannot see the site because of its elevation 

5 above the water and setback distance from the shoreline. Some portions of the site may be 

6 visible from certain locations on the Bay or from elevated positions or along the shoreline, such 

7 as the locations of intake and discharge equipment. Consequently, the review team has 

8 determined that from an aesthetic appearance standpoint, the existing Calvert Cliffs site does 

9 not negatively impact the view shed experience of the public. 

10 Recreation opportunities are provided to the populations of Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties 

11 from properties and facilities owned by Federal, State, and county and local governments, and 

12 by private/non-government organizations. The information in this section was primarily drawn 

13 from the parks and recreation plans for Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties (CCBCC 2006; 

14 SMCBCC 2005), which supplement the comprehensive plans for each of the two counties 

15 (CCCP 2004; SMCBCC 2003). 

16 Recreation lands for the two counties account for 6.5 percent and 4.4 percent of land area for 

17 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, respectively. The land area ranges from parcels less than 

18 0.1 ac in size to nearly 3000 ac in size, with the smaller parcels predominantly owned by County 

19 and local governments. 

20 Major park facilities located within Calvert County include Calvert Cliffs State Park located south 

21 of the Calvert Cliffs site and the Flag Ponds Nature Park to the north. The Calvert Cliffs State 

22 Park is about 1400 ac in size, with 1.3 mi of Chesapeake Bay shoreline. It contains ponds, 

23 creeks, and marshlands, and is 90 percent forested. Recreational activities include bird 

24 watching, fishing, fossil hunting, hiking, picnicking, and a playground (MDNR 2007d). Flag 

25 Ponds Nature Park, the major park operated by Calvert County, encompasses 327 ac of land 

26 area, has 1 mi of shoreline on Chesapeake Bay, and contains woods, ponds, swamps, 

27 freshwater marshes, cliffs, and sandy beaches. Activities include hiking, swimming, 

28 picnicking, fishing, bird watching and wildlife viewing, and the Park has two freshwater ponds 

29 (UniStar 2009a). 

30 Four State park facilities located in St. Mary’s County include St. Mary’s River State Park, Point, 

31 Lookout State Park, St. Clements Island State Park, and Greenwell State Park. These four 

32 parks comprise nearly 4000 ac and collectively provide summer camps and special events, 

33 horseback riding, camping, fishing, biking, hiking, and picnicking (SMTT 2008; SMCBCC 2005). 

34 There are two National Historic Trails located near the Calvert Cliffs site in Calvert County – the 

35 Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled Banner National 

36 Historic Trail. The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail is comprised of a 

37 series of water routes along the Chesapeake Bay, and the Star-Spangled Banner National 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-109 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Historic Trail features land and water routes. Both counties apply the State-recommended goal 

2 of 30 ac of recreational land per 1000 people. Because not all land is qualified to be counted 

3 toward the goal, both counties were in a deficit situation in 2005 and their need to add 

4 recreational land increases with time, as shown in Table 2-15. This shows that Calvert County 

5 needed to add 667 ac of recreational land in order to meet the 30-ac goal in 2005, and this 

6 increases to 991 ac of additional recreational land in 2020. Similarly for St. Mary’s County, the 

7 need for additional recreational land increases from 1004 ac in 2005 to 1640 ac in 2020. 

8 Table 2-15. Recreational Acreage Needed in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties to Meet Goal 

9 from 2005-2020

Calvert County 

(Current Qualified Supply = 1889 ac) 

St. Mary’s County 

(Current Qualified Supply = 1861 ac) 

Year Goal Deficit Goal Deficit 

2005 2556 667 2865 1004 

2010 2730 841 3081 1220 

2015 2820 931 3294 1433 

2020 2880 991 3501 1640 

Source: CCBCC 2006; SMCBCC 2005 

10 In addition, numerous recreational opportunities are provided in both counties that cover a 

11 broad range of activities to include: indoor and outdoor sports (land and water), theater and 

12 educational, camping, fishing, hiking, picnicking, and other. 

13 2.5.2.5 Housing 

14 Table 2-16 provides USCB information for the housing markets in Calvert County and St. Mary’s 

15 County in 2006. Within Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, of the 72,256 total housing units, 

16 92 percent (66,638) were occupied; of these, 84 percent (56,126) were owner occupied. The 

17 higher renter occupied share for St. Mary’s County probably reflects the shorter tenure of 

18 military and civilian residents associated with the Patuxent Naval Air Station. Despite the 

19 apparent availability of housing indicated by the USCB data, discussions with county agency 

20 representatives indicate that the current availability of new houses or rental houses might be 

21 much more limited. The median value of owner-occupied housing in 2006 was $394,700 in 

22 Calvert County and $322,000 in St. Mary’s County. The median rent in Calvert County was 

23 $1021 and $896 in St. Mary’s County (USCB 2006d, e). 

24 In addition to the rental housing shown in Table 2-16, there are approximately 24 hotels, motels, 

25 and bed and breakfasts totaling nearly 1500 units within 30 mi of Lusby, which is 6 mi due south 

26 of the CCNPP. The occupancy rate for hotels and motels is highest during the summer season 

27 (April through August), and Mondays through Wednesdays when they are operating at about 

28 80 percent capacity (UniStar 2009a). 

29 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-110 April 2010 

1 Table 2-16. Number of Housing Units in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties in 2006 

Housing Units 

Calvert 

County 

St. Mary’s 

County 

Total 32,106 40,150 

Of Which Occupied 94.3% 90.5% 

Unoccupied 5.7% 9.5% 

Single family detached including manufactured homes 88.6% 79.7% 

Single family attached 4.8% 5.2% 

Of Which 

2 or more units 6.6% 15.1% 

Total Occupied 30,284 36,354 

Of Which Owner 84.9% 71.9% 

Renter 15.1% 28.1% 

Source: USCB 2006d, e 

2 The review team determined through analysis of UniStar’s ER, interviews, and analysis of other 

3 data sources that neither Native American reservations nor any housing reserved for Native 

4 Americans exist in Calvert or St. Mary’s Counties. 

5 2.5.2.6 Public Services 

6 This section provides information about social services provided to the residents of Calvert and 

7 St. Mary’s Counties to address public health and safety in the areas of social, water and 

8 wastewater, police, fire, and health. Education services are covered in Section 2.5.2.7. The 

9 review team expects the public service impacts from the proposed action would be largely 

10 proportional to where the workers reside. Therefore, for reasons described previously, Calvert 

11 and St. Mary’s Counties would likely endure the extent of such impacts, and the review team 

12 would not expect any significant public service impacts beyond the two counties. Consequently, 

13 the ensuing discussion of baseline conditions is confined to Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. As 

14 part of its review, the review team visited the region and Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties to 

15 meet with local officials regarding the potentially affected public services and to validate 

16 UniStar’s assertions in the ER (Secrest, Mussatti, and Scott 2010). 

17 Water Supply and Wastewater 

18 Calvert County is served by more than 20 water and sewer district systems, of which 6 provide 

19 combined water and sewer services, 14 provide water services, and 5 provide only sewer 

20 services (UniStar 2009a). There are approximately 4000 water system accounts with average 

21 consumption of 108 thousand gallons per account (UniStar 2009a). The water systems operate 

22 at an average capacity of 43 percent, ranging from a low of 5 percent to a high of 70 percent 

23 (UniStar 2009a). Households not connected to a water system rely on groundwater from one of 

24 seven aquifers (Patapsco, Aquia, Piney Point-Nanjemoy, Magothy, Brandywine, Choptank-St. 

25 Mary’s, and Brightseat). These aquifers are expected to adequately meet the needs of a 

26 growing population in Calvert County (UniStar 2009a). The sewage systems in Calvert County 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-111 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 treat an average of 214,479 gallons of sewage per account per year, with average capacity 

2 utilization of 54 percent ranging from 33 percent to 57 percent (UniStar 2009a). 

3 According to the 2008 Calvert County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan, which is 

4 aligned with the county’s Comprehensive Plan, Calvert County is not expecting to have any 

5 major water shortages by 2030 (the last year in plan projections) (Calvert County 2008). 

6 Residents not serviced by a public sewer district/system rely on septic tanks for wastewater 

7 treatment. 

8 The St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission (SMCMC) provides water and sewer services 

9 in St. Mary’s County to approximately 41,000 people, with average capacity of 43 percent, 

10 ranging from 3 to 75 percent (UniStar 2009a). St. Mary’s County water infrastructure includes 

11 27 water systems with 72 wells and 54 pumping stations as well as 12 elevated storage tanks 

12 (SMCMC 2005). Households not connected to a water system rely on groundwater from one of 

13 four aquifers (Aquia, Piney Point, Nanjemoy, and Magothy). SMCMC provides sewage services 

14 to approximately 36,000 people, with an average capacity of 58 percent, ranging from 57 to 

15 85 percent (UniStar 2009a). St. Mary’s County sewer infrastructure includes four treatment 

16 plants (6.3 mgd capacity), 53 pumping stations and 200 plus miles of sanitary sewers 

17 (SMCMC 2005). Residents not serviced by a public sewer district/system rely on septic tanks 

18 for wastewater treatment. 

19 Police Services 

20 Law enforcement in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties is provided by Maryland State Police and 

21 the Sheriff’s Offices from the two counties. The number of officers in the Calvert County and St. 

22 Mary’s County Sheriffs Offices are 136 and 117, respectively (UniStar 2009a). The number of 

23 calls and crime rates for violent and property crimes are provided in Table 2-17 for the State and 

24 the two counties. 

25 Table 2-17. Police Activity Levels in 2005 and 2006 

Number of Calls Violent Crime Property Crime 

Year Total Rate per 1000 Number Rate per 1000 Number Rate per 1000

Maryland 

2005 (a) (a) 38,369 7.0 198,474 35.5 

2006 (a) (a) 38,119 6.8 195,479 34.9 

Calvert County 

2005 71,959 821 231 2.6 1617 18.5 

2006 65,454 738 257 2.9 1578 17.8 

St. Mary’s County 

2005 51,405 360 3.7 1958 20.2 

2006 66,006 320 3.3 2396 24.7 

Source: CC DF&B 2007; SMCBCC 2007, 2008b; MDP 2008c 

(a) Statistics not available on a State level. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-112 April 2010 

1 Fire Department Services 

2 The seven fire stations in Calvert County are manned by 870 volunteer firemen, with additional 

3 support provided by six volunteer rescue squads and one dive rescue team. The fire 

4 department has 12 fire engines (attack/pumpers), 3 ladder trucks, 5 tankers, and an assortment 

5 of other vehicles. The Calvert County Fire Department has identified a need for staff and 

6 equipment. St. Mary’s County has nine fire stations and seven volunteer rescue squads 

7 manned by approximately 730 volunteer fire fighters. Calvert County and St. Mary’s County are 

8 part of Region V of the Maryland Emergency Medical Services (EMS) System, and, in most 

9 cases, EMS services are provided from the same stations and by many of the same volunteers 

10 that staff the fire stations. In addition, the Maryland State Police provide MEDVAC services to 

11 both counties in emergency evacuation situations (UniStar 2009a). The number of fire, EMS, 

12 and rescue calls responded to by the Calvert and St. Mary’s County is provided in Table 2-18. 

13 Table 2-18. Number of Fire, EMS, and Rescue Calls/Responses in 2006 and 2007 

Calvert County 

2006 2007 

Type of Call Numbers Rate per 1000 Number Rate per 1000 

Total 18,337 209.4 20,435 231.6 

Fire 3108 35.4 3787 42.9 

EMS 13,335 152.2 14,275 161.8 

Rescue 1894 21.6 2373 26.9 

Source: Secrest, Mussatti, and Scott 2010 

14 Healthcare Services

15 In 2003, the DC Metropolitan Statistical Area had 22,334 doctors (including private practice) and 

16 39 community hospitals totaling 9342 beds (USCB 2006f), and Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties 

17 had one hospital each (USCB 2007). Calvert Memorial Hospital (CMH), located in Prince 

18 Frederick, is a nongovernmental not-for-profit hospital that provides general medical, 

19 emergency, and surgical services and employs approximately 289 medical staff and 1065 

20 support staff. The hospital is licensed for 120 beds and had 8201 admissions in 2006 

21 (UniStar 2009a). CMH’s emergency department has 19 beds and 5 triage beds for minor 

22 injuries/illness, which treat a patient load of approximately 100 patients each day. In addition, 

23 CMH has a 10-bed intensive care unit and a decontamination area capable of treating 

24 10 patients per hour and an additional onsite portable decontamination unit that can handle 

25 50 patients per hour (UniStar 2009a). Recent renovations have expanded CMH’s capacities. In 

26 addition to the primary facilities in Prince Frederick, CMH also has urgent care centers in 

27 Dunkirk and Solomons, and a community health center in North Beach that provides primary 

28 care services (UniStar 2009a). 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-113 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 St. Mary’s Hospital, located in Leonardtown, is also a nongovernmental not-for-profit hospital 

2 that provides general medical and surgical services (UniStar 2009a). In 2007, the hospital 

3 employed 252 medical and 1090 support staff and had 9254 patient admissions, 43,222 

4 emergency care visits, and 48,040 outpatient visits. St. Mary’s Hospital has 108 beds and, on 

5 average, the hospital housed 76.7 patients for an average excess capacity of about 29 percent 

6 (UniStar 2009a). 

7 St. Mary’s Hospital provides emergency acute care, and an Express Care facility is located in 

8 Charlotte Hall to treat minor injuries and illnesses. Under the umbrella of the Chesapeake 

9 Potomac Healthcare Alliance, partner facilities include the Chesapeake Potomac Home Health 

10 Agency and the Chesapeake Potomac Regional Cancer Center (UniStar 2009a). 

11 St. Mary’s County also has 135 physicians practicing in 35 specialties throughout the county 

12 and had 3 Nursing and Personal Care facilities with 473 employees in 2000 (UniStar 2009a). 

13 Social Services 

14 Social services in both counties are provided by both County Departments and non-government 

15 organizations. The Calvert County Department of Health and Human Services provides and/or 

16 coordinates the provision of social services for the county, including coordination with the 

17 Department of Social Services, Aging Services, the Calvert Alliance Against Substance Abuse, 

18 the Substance Abuse program, the Calvert County Health Department, the Calvert County 

19 Memorial Hospital, the Calvert Hospice, the Calvert County Family Network, the Southern 

20 Maryland Chapter of the Red Cross, the Department of Community Resources, and the 

21 Maryland Cooperation Extension Office. The St. Mary’s County Department of Social Services 

22 provides for and/or coordinates social services together with the St. Mary’s County Public 

23 Health Department. These services include Emergency Food Providers, Family to Family 

24 Foster Care in Southern Maryland, the Director of Emergency & Transitional Housing Programs, 

25 and the Child Care Administration Regional Office for St. Mary’s County (UniStar 2009a). 

26 Numerous non-government organizations also provide social services, some of which include 

27 churches and church organizations, the Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities. 

28 2.5.2.7 Education 

29 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties are served by its own school district and a number of private 

30 schools. In combination, the two counties’ public schools (CCPS 2008; SMCPS 2008) 

31 accounted for an enrollment of 34,117 students in the 2005/2006 school year (MSDE 2005a), 

32 and the 33 private schools had an enrollment of 4718 students (MSDE 2005b). Summary data 

33 for the public and private school systems in each county are presented in Table 2-19. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-114 April 2010 

1 Table 2-19. Public and Private School Enrollment in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties in the 

2 2005-06 School Year 

Calvert County St. Mary’s County 

School Type Public Private Public Private 

Prekindergarten 361 402 741 678 

Kindergarten 1070 109 1044 208 

Elementary (Grades 1-5) 6091 469 5869 1006 

Middle School (Grades 6-8) 4155 258 3752 631 

High School (Grades 9-12) 5791 159 5243 798 

Total Enrollment 17,468 1397 16,649 3321 

Source: MSDE 2005a, b

3 The Calvert County School District employed 2155 people (1560 instructional staff and 595 

4 non-instructional) in the 2005-2006 school year (MSDE 2005c). The district had four high 

5 schools, six middle schools, 13 elementary schools (one begin operation in the 2008-09 school 

6 year), and six schools tailored for special needs (CCPS 2008). The student/teacher ratios 

7 ranged from 14 to 19 students per full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher, with the range centered at 

8 15-17 (GS 2008). Sixteen private schools operated in Calvert County in the 2005-2006 school 

9 year (MSDE 2005b). 

10 The Calvert County School District reports that all schools and classrooms are operating at 

11 capacity. Despite operating at capacity, the district has indicated that additional classroom 

12 equipment is not needed and that modular classrooms will be added in place of additional 

13 construction. The greatest need is growth in special education and other specialized teaching 

14 programs (UniStar 2009a). 

15 The St. Mary’s County School District employed 1931 people (1375 instructional staff and 

16 556 non-instructional) in the 2005-2006 school year (MSDE 2005c). The district had five high 

17 schools, four middle schools, 18 elementary schools, and two schools tailored for special needs 

18 (SMCPS 2008). The student/teacher ratios ranged from 11 to 21 students per FTE teacher, 

19 with the range centered at 16-18 (GS 2008). Thirty-one private schools operated in St. Mary’s 

20 County in the 2005-2006 school year (MSDE 2005b). The State of Maryland Agency for 

21 Public School Construction reported that St. Mary’s County public elementary schools had a 

22 98.6-percent utilization rate for the 2005-2006 school year, the middle schools had a 

23 95.4-percent utilization rate, and the high schools had a utilization rate of 102.1 percent 

24 (UniStar 2009a). The St. Mary’s County Public School district may experience a significant 

25 reduction in operating funds if the Impact Aid to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) initiative is 

26 passed. The LEAs reduces educational funds for military children living off base. If the initiative 

27 is passed, the district will lose all impact dollars when the Navy moves all families currently 

28 living on the Patuxent Naval Air Station to off-base housing (UniStar 2009a). 

29 There are two colleges Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties – St. Mary’s College of Maryland and 

30 The College of Southern Maryland. St. Mary’s College of Maryland, located in St. Mary’s City, is 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-115 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 a public institution and had enrollment of 1908 students in the 2005-2006 school year. The 

2 College of Southern Maryland is a public institution and had enrollment of 4961 students in the 

3 2005-2006 school year. It has campuses in Leonardtown (St. Mary’s County), Prince Frederick 

4 (Calvert County), and La Plata and Waldorf (Charles County). St. Mary’s College confers 

5 baccalaureate degrees and The College of Southern Maryland confers Associates degrees and 

6 Certificates/Diplomas (UniStar 2009a). 

7 2.6 Environmental Justice 

8 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy established by Executive Order 12898 

9 (59 FR 7629) under which each Federal agency identifies and addresses, as appropriate, 

10 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.(a) 11 The Council on Environmental 

12 Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice (CEQ 1997). 

13 Although it is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission has voluntarily committed to 

14 undertake environmental justice reviews. On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy 

15 statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040). 

16 This section characterizes the demographics and geographic characteristics of the proposed 

17 site and the surrounding minority and low-income populations that reside within a 50-mi region 

18 surrounding the proposed Unit 3. The 50-mi region surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site includes 

19 portions of Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., and Delaware. The characterization in this 

20 section forms the analytical baseline from which potential environmental justice effects would be 

21 determined. The characterization of populations of interest includes an assessment of 

22 “populations of particular interest or unusual circumstances,” such as minority communities 

23 exceptionally dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as 

24 Native American settlements. 

25 2.6.1 Methodology 

26 The review team first examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income 

27 populations within 50 mi of the proposed site, employing a geographic information system (GIS) 

28 and the 2000 Census to identify minority and low-income populations. The analysis of the 

29 location of minority and low-income populations within the 50-mi radius of the proposed Unit 3 

was performed by using the ArcView® 30 GIS software and USCB’s 2000 census data at the 

 

(a) Minority categories are defined as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander; Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; “other” may be considered a separate 

minority category. Low income refers to individuals living in households meeting the official poverty 

measure. To see the U.S. Census definition and values for 2000, visit the U.S. Census website at 

http://ask.census.gov/. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-116 April 2010 

census block level (USCB 2000).(a) 1 The review team verified its analysis by conducting field 

2 inquiries with numerous agencies and groups (Appendix B). The first step in the review team’s 

3 environmental justice methodology is to examine each census block group that is fully or 

4 partially included within the 50-mi region to determine for each block group whether the 

5 percentage of any minority or low-income population is great enough to identify that block group 

6 as a minority or low-income population of interest. If either of the two criteria discussed below is 

7 met for a census block group, that census block group is considered a minority or low-income 

8 population of interest warranting further investigation. The two criteria are whether: 

9 • the population of interest that resides in the census block group exceeds 50 percent of the 

10 total population of the census block group, or 

11 • the percentage of the population of interest in the census block group is significantly greater 

12 (at least 20 percent) than the minority or low-income population percentage in the respective 

13 state. 

14 The identification of census block groups that meet the above two-part criteria is not in and of 

15 itself sufficient for the review team to conclude that disproportionately high and adverse impacts 

16 exist. Likewise, the lack of census block groups meeting the above criteria cannot be construed 

17 as evidence of no disproportionate and adverse impacts. Accordingly, the review team also 

18 conducts an active public outreach and on-the-ground investigation in the region of the plant to 

19 determine whether minority and low income populations may exist in the region that are not 

20 identified in the census mapping exercise. To reach an environmental justice conclusion, 

21 starting with the identified populations of interest, the review team must examine impact 

22 pathways and investigate all populations in greater detail to determine whether 

23 disproportionately high and adverse effects may be present. To do this the review team 

24 addresses the following considerations: 

25 Health Considerations 

26 1. Are the radiological or other health effects significant or above generally accepted 

27 norms? 

28 2. Is the risk or rate of hazard significant and appreciably in excess of the general 

29 population? 

30 3. Do the radiological or other health effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or 

31 multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards? 

 

(a) A census block is the smallest geographic area that the U.S. Census Bureau collects and tabulates 

decennial census data. A block group is the next level above census blocks in the geographic 

hierarchy and is a subdivision of a census tract or block numbering area.
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-117 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Environmental Considerations 

2 4. Is there an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely 

3 affects a particular group? 

4 5. Are there any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or [are] 

5 likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population? 

6 6. Do the environmental effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 

7 exposures from environmental hazards? (NRC 2007b). 

8 If this investigation in greater detail does not yield any potentially high and adverse impacts on 

9 populations of interest, the review team may conclude that there are no disproportionately high 

10 and adverse effects. If, however, the review team finds any potentially disproportionate and 

11 adverse effects, the review team would fully characterize the nature and extent of that impact 

12 and consider possible mitigation measures that may be used to lessen that impact. The 

13 remainder of this section discusses the results of the search for potentially affected populations 

14 of interest. 

15 2.6.1.1 Minority Populations 

16 The racial population is expressed in terms of the number and/or percentage of people that are 

17 minorities in an area, and, in this discussion, the sum of the racial minority populations is 

18 referred to as the aggregate racial minority population. Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin are 

19 considered an ethnic minority and may be of any race; therefore, they are not included in the 

20 aggregate racial minority population. The review team did not include Hispanics in its aggregate 

21 race estimate because the Federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two 

22 separate and distinct concepts (USCB 2001). 

23 For each of the 2362 census block groups within the 50-mi radius, the percent of the census 

24 block group’s population represented by each minority classification (each race, aggregate 

25 minority population, and Hispanic/Latino origin) was calculated and compared to the two criteria 

26 listed above. The GIS analysis found 658 block groups that have significant African American 

27 populations, one with significant American Indian, 38 with significant Asian populations, 42 

28 classified as significant ‘other,’ and 153 with significant Hispanic populations in the region. 

29 There were 758 block groups meeting the aggregate minority population criteria. Using the 

30 methodology described in Section 2.6.1, and is discussed further in Section 4.4.2, the review 

31 team identified Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties as the area that would receive the greatest 

32 proportion of all socioeconomic impacts. St. Mary’s County had one block group meeting the 

33 criteria for African American populations and one meeting aggregate minority populations. 

34 Calvert County did not have any block groups meeting the racial criteria. There are no 

35 Federally recognized Native American tribes within the 50-mi comparative geographic area, 

36 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, or the State of Maryland. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-118 April 2010 

1 Table 2-20 shows the overall representation of the populations of interest in the Unit 3 50-mi 

2 region. Figure 2-16 shows the geographic locations of the minority populations of significance 

3 within the 50-mi radius (UniStar 2009a). 

4 Table 2-20. Regional Minority and Low-Income Populations by Census Block Analysis Results

Category 

Number of Blocks 

(out of 2362 Total) 

Percent of 

Total 

African American 728 30.1 

Aggregate Minority 826 34.8 

Hispanic 153 6.5 

American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 0.04 

Asian 38 1.61 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 

Persons Reporting Some Other Race 42 1.8 

Low-Income Population 82 3.5 

5 2.6.1.2 Low- Income Populations 

6 The review team used census data to identify low-income households. Table 2-21 shows the 

7 number of census block groups within different areas of the 50-mi region. There are 1200 

8 census block groups in the Maryland portion of the 50-mi radius, of which 30 are classified as 

9 low income. Of the total of 96 census block groups in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, there 

10 are no low-income census block groups in Calvert County, and there is one low-income census 

11 block group in St. Mary’s County. Figure 2-17 shows the locations of the low-income 

12 populations within the 50-mi radius. 

13 2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach 

14 The review team interviewed local, state, and county officials, business leaders, and key 

15 members of minority communities in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties to assess the potential for 

16 disproportionate socioeconomic effects that may be experienced by minority and low-income 

17 communities during a project with the magnitude of the proposed Unit 3. The review team 

18 issued an advanced notice of public hearings for EIS scoping purposes and completed outreach 

19 to minority and low-income populations, as evidenced by comments from minority community 

20 leaders following the March 19, 2008, public meeting in Solomons, Maryland. Through this 

21 outreach process, the review team did not identify any additional groups of minority or low22 income persons not already identified in the GIS analysis of Census data. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-119 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-16. Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-120 April 2010 

1 Table 2-21. Low Income Census Block Groups in 2000 

State/Area 

50-mi Radius 

Total Number of 

Census Block Groups 

Number of Low Income 

Census Block Groups 

Maryland 1200 30 

Virginia 704 3 

Washington, D.C. 433 40 

Delaware 25 2 

Total 2362 75 

Calvert County, MD 41 0 

St. Mary’s County, MD 55 1 

Total 96 1 

2 2.6.3 Subsistence and Communities with Unique Characteristics 

3 For each of the identified low-income and minority populations, it is necessary to determine if any 

4 of those populations appears to have a unique characteristic at the population level that would 

5 cause an impact to disproportionately affect them. Examples of unique characteristics might 

6 include lack of vehicles, sensitivity to noise, close proximity to the plant, subsistence activities, or 

7 lack of basic health care, but such unique characteristics need to be demonstrably present in the 

8 population and relevant to the potential environmental impacts of the plant. If the impacts from 

9 the proposed action would appear to affect an identified minority or low-income population more 

10 than the general population because of one of these or other unique characteristics, then a 

11 determination is made whether the impact is disproportionate when compared to the general 

12 population. 

13 Subsistence uses of natural resources are often to supplement income by providing food or other 

14 resources that free up actual earnings for additional store-bought foodstuffs, medications or other 

15 needs. Often, subsistence is undertaken for ceremonial and traditional cultural purposes. 

16 Subsistence often involves the use of publicly held resources such as rivers (subsistence fishing) 

17 or forests (hunting or gathering of vegetation), but also includes the use of privately owned 

18 resources, such as home vegetable gardens. Common categories of subsistence uses include 

19 gathering plants, fishing, and hunting. Subsistence information is often site specific and difficult 

20 to differentiate from the recreational uses of natural resources. Therefore, the review team 

21 presents subsistence information in a more qualitative manner based on diverse sources of 

22 published and anecdotal information. 

23 About 220 ac of the 2070 ac occupied by the Calvert Cliffs site are currently developed. The 

24 general public is not allowed uncontrolled access to the site for safety and security reasons; 

25 thus, no ceremonial, culturally significant, or subsistence gathering of vegetation occurs on the 

26 site. No information for plant gathering could be found in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

27 Therefore, the review team assumes that if collection of plants for ceremonial, cultural, or 

28 subsistence purposes is occurring in Calvert or St. Mary’s Counties that collection is taking 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-121 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-17. Distribution of the Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-122 April 2010 

1 place at a de minimis level. As with plant gathering, the review team did not find any available 

2 information pertaining to subsistence, cultural, or ceremonial hunting practices of any species 

3 within the 50-mi radius. 

4 The review team considered UniStar’s process on environmental justice issues and conducted 

5 its own interviews with local officials in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. The review team also 

6 considered public comments related to the proposed project. Finally, the review team 

7 performed literature reviews for academic studies and performed internet searches for 

8 documented subsistence activities by minority and low-income populations. The review team 

9 did not find any indications that any populations had unique characteristics or practices that 

10 could potentially lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact in the Calvert County 

11 area. However, the review team did review a study (Gibson and McClafferty 2005) with 

12 information on subsistence fishing. 

13 The study for three areas (Chesapeake Bay, including the Lower Patapsco and Back Rivers in 

14 the Baltimore region, the Lower Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in the Washington, D.C., region, 

15 and the Elizabeth and James Rivers in the Tidewater region of Virginia) provides some 

16 information on fishing characteristics of minority and low-income populations (Gibson and 

17 McClafferty 2005). However, the three areas where the subsistence fishing occurs are around 

18 the outer edge of the 50-mi region and not in the near vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. This 

19 study found that African-Americans constituted the majority of minorities that harvested fish and 

20 shellfish in the three regions, ranging from 33 to 49 percent of the total, with the Hispanic/Latino 

21 segment the next largest. Minorities and low-income individuals were much more likely to fish 

22 from the shore/pier, and low-income individuals are likely to travel less than 10 miles to fish. 

23 There was not a clear pattern that minorities traveled shorter or greater distances. Finally, 

24 minorities were more likely to consume the fish they caught and tended to do so to help reduce 

25 expenditures on food. Individuals making less than $40,000 a year also ate their catch to 

26 reduce expenditures on food. 

27 The review team examined whether populations with unique characteristics that would make 

28 them susceptible to a disproportionately high and adverse impact would be affected by a 

29 physical or environmental pathway of a potential impact from the proposed plant Through its 

30 review of the applicant’s ER, its own outreach and research, and through scoping meeting 

31 comments, the review team did not indentify any communities with potentially unique 

32 characteristics for further consideration within the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site.

33 2.6.4 Migrant Populations 

34 The U.S. Census Bureau defines a migrant worker as an individual employed in the agricultural 

35 industry in a seasonal or temporary nature and who is required to be absent overnight from their 

36 permanent place of residence. From an environmental justice perspective, there is a potential 

37 for such groups in some circumstances to be disproportionately affected by emissions in the 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-123 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 environment. No farm in Calvert County or St. Mary’s County employed seasonal or migrant 

2 workers in 2004. Given that the number of farms and acreage devoted to farming in the region 

3 has been declining, it is unlikely seasonal agricultural migrant workers would be hired in the 

4 future (UniStar 2009a). 

5 2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary 

6 The review team found low-income, Black, Hispanic, and aggregated minority populations within 

7 the 50-mi radius that exceed the percentage criteria established for environmental justice 

8 analyses. Consequently, the review team performed additional analyses before making a final 

9 environmental justice determination. Based on the information in the UniStar ER, public input, 

10 and its own outreach and analysis, the review team determined that because there are minority 

11 and low-income populations of interest in the region, impacts to these communities must be 

12 considered in greater detail, as discussed in Section 2.6.1. The result of the review team 

13 analyses can be found in Section 4.5 of this EIS for construction impacts, and in Section 5.5 for 

14 operation impacts. 

15 2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

16 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC and Corps have elected to use the National 

17 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), process to comply with the obligations 

18 found under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA; 

19 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). 

20 As a cooperating agency, the Corps is part of the NRC review team, involved in all aspects of 

21 the environmental review. Assuming a DA permit is granted, the Corps is the primary Federal 

22 agency that will review and permit the site preparation activities related to working in wetlands, 

23 streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. The NRC will determine whether or not to issue a COL for 

24 the new unit. For the purposes of Section 106, the Corps is the lead Federal agency consulting 

25 with the State Historic Preservation Office/Officer (SHPO) and UniStar and is a signatory on the 

26 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). 

27 This section discusses the historic and cultural background in the Calvert Cliffs site region. It 

28 also details the efforts that have been taken to identify cultural resources within the APE and 

29 describes the resources that were identified during this review. A description of the consultation 

30 efforts accomplished to date is also provided. The assessments of effects from the proposed 

31 building and operation are found in Sections 4.6 and 5.6, respectively. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-124 April 2010 

1 2.7.1 Cultural Background 

2 The cultural background of the Calvert Cliffs site and its surrounding areas was described in the 

3 CCNPP license renewal supplemental EIS (NRC 1996) and is summarized here. The area in 

4 and around the Calvert Cliffs site has a rich cultural history and a substantial record of 

5 significant cultural resources. The site is located in Calvert County, Maryland, on the west bank 

6 of the Chesapeake Bay, which influenced settlement in the area. This part of southern 

7 Maryland has a cultural sequence that extends back to about 10,000 B.C. Aboriginal 

8 occupation of the area lasted until the early 1600s when European encroachment pushed the 

9 remaining Native American groups from the area. 

10 The archaeological record indicates that prehistoric occupation of the area was as follows: 

11 Paleo-Indian (10,000 to 7500 B.C.), Archaic (7500 to 1000 B.C.), and Woodland (1000 B.C. to 

12 1600 A.D.) (NRC 1996). 

When Euroamericans arrived in the area in the 17th and 18th 13 centuries, the area was occupied 

14 by American Indian groups descended from the earlier chiefdoms that populated the 

15 southeastern United States. Two Algonkian tribes known as the Nanticokes and the Piscataway 

16 occupied the region for several centuries. The Susquehannocks, an Iroquoian group from the 

17 area that was to become Pennsylvania, moved into the area just before European contact (NRC 

18 1996). 

19 The European colonization of Maryland began in the early 1600s. The land on which the 

20 Calvert Cliffs site is located is believed to have been part of an original land grant of 1000 ac in 

21 1658 from Cecilius Calvert, the Second Lord Baltimore, to Richard Preston. This grant is 

22 commonly referred to as “Preston’s Cliff’s or “Charles’ Gift.” In the mid-1700s, the general area 

23 was referred to as “Gideon and Cleverlys Right.” By 1782, the acreage where the power plant 

24 is located was owned by Andrew Wilson, whose heirs owned the land until 1916, at which time it 

25 was sold to Goodman Goldstein. The land was purchased from the Goldstein heirs in May 1967 

26 by BGE to be the site of the CCNPP (NRC 1996). 

27 According to the National Park Service, the closest Native American lands to the site are the 

28 Pamunkey and Mattaponi reservations in King William County, Virginia (UniStar 2009a). There 

29 are no known Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) claims by 

30 Native Americans on lands within the Calvert Cliffs site boundary (UniStar 2009a). 

31 2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Proposed Unit 3 Site 

32 To identify the historic and cultural resources at the COL site, the review team reviewed the 

33 following information: 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-125 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 • Calvert Cliffs COL ER (UniStar 2009a) – UniStar’s contractor, Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (Tetra 

2 Tech) and MACTEC, contracted with GAI Consultants, Inc., a cultural resource contractor, to 

3 identify and evaluate terrestrial cultural resource sites in the area and Panamerican 

4 Consultants, Inc. to investigate submerged cultural resources. 

5 • Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: 

6 Regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NRC 1996). 

7 • NRC Site Visit March 2008 – NRC staff consulted with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) 

8 and also conducted an on-the-ground visit of the COL site. 

9 • UniStar RAI Responses – Letters dated June 13, 2008, August 18, 2008, and October 31, 

10 2008 (UniStar 2008a, d, e). 

11 • UniStar Draft Technical Report – CCNPP Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources 

12 Investigations August 2008 (Munford et al. 2008). 

13 • UniStar Draft Technical Report – Submerged Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed 

14 Outfall Pipe, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Construction, Calvert County, 

15 Maryland 2008 (Faught 2008). 

16 • Maryland Historical Trust Letter – MHT Review of Phase II National Register Evaluations 

17 and Assessment of Effects for Cultural Resources, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

18 Expansion, Calvert County, Maryland February 13, 2009 (MHT 2009). The MHT houses 

19 the Maryland SHPO. 

20 Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their 

21 undertakings on historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 

22 Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP is the official list of historic places that have been 

23 determined to be worthy of preservation. The list was established by the NHPA and is 

24 maintained by the National Parks Service. The eligibility of cultural resources for listing on the 

25 NRHP are assessed on four criteria including: 

26 • Criterion A: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad 

27 patterns of our history, or 

28 • Criterion B: Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

29 • Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

30 construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or 

31 that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 

32 distinction; or 

33 • Criterion D: Have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important to prehistory and 

34 history. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-126 April 2010 

1 There are three Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) for cultural resources for the Corps that may be 

2 affected by the proposed project. The APE for archaeological sites is 727 ac based on physical 

3 disturbance that may result from project-related building activities, including the site of the 

4 reactor and auxiliary buildings and laydown areas (UniStar 2009a). The APE for historic 

5 architectural resources and visual effects includes the 727 ac for construction areas and 

6 extends 1000 ft beyond the construction boundary. A third APE for submerged cultural 

7 resources was defined as a 650 × 1400 ft area centered at the proposed outfall pipeline 

8 (UniStar 2009a). The NRC has determined that the APE for the COL review is the area at the 

9 power plant site and the immediate environs that may be directly or indirectly impacted by 

10 NRC-authorized construction and operation of the proposed new unit. The APE is influenced by 

11 the limitation of the scale and nature of the NRC undertaking, which does not include most of 

12 the ground disturbing activities which constitute preconstruction activities. 

13 Areas in the Chesapeake Bay near the existing Calvert Cliffs site were previously dredged for 

14 the existing discharge conduit and channel, cooling water intake channel, the barge dock and 

15 channel, and the shore protection revetment. Building the new intake channel and discharge 

16 conduit would occur within areas previously dredged or disturbed by construction activities for 

17 Units 1 and 2. (UniStar 2009a). 

18 The NRHP-eligible archaeological sites, structures, buildings and districts located within 10 mi 

19 of the proposed Unit 3 site were identified in the ER (UniStar 2009a). A total of 17 

20 archaeological sites, 37 isolated finds, and 5 historic architectural resources were identified. 

21 UniStar subcontracted with Tetra Tech, MACTEC, and GAI Consultants, Inc. to identify and 

22 evaluate any cultural resources located within the proposed project areas associated with 

23 Unit 3. GAI conducted a Phase Ia cultural resources investigation of the proposed Unit 3 site in 

24 October 2006 to identify previously recorded or surface-visible archaeological resources and 

25 architectural resources and to identify areas with archaeological potential that would require a 

26 Phase Ib survey (UniStar 2009a). The Phase Ib cultural resources investigation was conducted 

27 in March 2007 to identify subsurface archaeological resources, record all known archaeological 

28 and architectural resources in the proposed project area, and to evaluate the recorded 

29 resources for eligibility to the NRHP (UniStar 2009a). Supplemental Phase I investigations were 

30 conducted at Preston’s Cliffs Wetland Mitigation Area, Camp Conoy Wetland Mitigation Area, 

31 and the Old Bay Farm Access Road (UniStar 2009a). Table 2-24 summarizes the results of the 

32 Phase I and Phase II archaeological investigations. The survey resulted in the identification of 

33 17 archaeological sites, 14 of which are associated with the historical era, 2 multi-component 

34 sites, which are associated with the pre-contact and historic eras, and 1 site associated with the 

35 pre-contact era. The cultural resources investigations did not discover any human remains in 

36 the proposed project area. 
 Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-127 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Five archaeological sites (18CV7, 18CV474, 18CV480, 18CV481, and 18CV482) were 

2 recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Phase II NRHP investigations 

3 were not conducted at site 18CV7. Only a small portion of the site extended into the Preston’s 

4 Cliffs Wetland Mitigation Area and may be impacted by tree planting activities (MHT 2009). The 

5 MHT recommended that Phase II investigations were not warranted and requested that the site 

6 be avoided. MHT also recommended that if the area is to be reforested that the site be 

7 reforested through the hand-planting of seedlings (MHT 2009). 

8 The Phase II NRHP evaluation investigations of the remaining four archaeological sites were 

9 completed and UniStar submitted a draft report to the NRC in August 2008 (Munford et al. 

10 2008). Table 2-22 and Table 2-23 summarize the results of the NRHP investigations. Based on 

11 the Phase II evaluations, one site (18CV474) is recommended to be NRHP eligible under 

12 Criterion D. The remaining three sites subjected to Phase II evaluations (18CV480, 18CV491, 

13 and 18CV482) did not meet the minimum criteria for inclusion on the NRHP, and no further 

14 archaeological investigations are required. 

15 According to the Phase II NRHP evaluation and the MHT letter dated February 13, 2009, site 

16 18CV474 has been identified as a mid-nineteenth to early-twentieth century domestic site 

17 possessing remarkably good archaeological integrity and the potential to yield important 

18 information on Maryland’s Western Shore Region (UniStar 2009a). A total of 3644 artifacts 

19 have been recovered from the site, including a variety of temporally diagnostic ceramics 

20 (pearlware, yellowware, and whiteware), bottle glass, cut nails, brick fragments, window glass, 

21 lamp chimney glass, buttons, tobacco pipe fragments, and a glass bead. Four intact features 

22 have also been identified, including a stone foundation and chimney base, a builder’s trench, an 

23 area of stone paving, and a possible pier support for a north addition. The temporally diagnostic 

24 artifacts and cartographic sources indicate that the site was occupied from ca. 1850 to 1910, 

25 and the limited quantity and variety of decorated ceramics suggests that the residents were of a 

26 lower socioeconomic status than the landowners, who were likely residing at site 18CV480. 

27 The property encompassing these sites was owned and occupied by the Somervell family 

28 during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and census data indicates that this locally 

29 prominent family relied heavily on enslaved labor throughout the first half of the nineteenth 

30 century. The Slave Schedule of the 1860 census identifies Alexander Somervell as the owner 

31 of 52 enslaved African Americans, and Charles Somervell (Alexander’s son) as the owner of 

32 sixteen slaves. Housing for these slaves may have been dispersed throughout the Somervell 

33 plantation, and the archaeological investigations conducted at site 18CV474 indicate that the 

34 site may represent one such residence for some of the slaves and/or tenants, sharecroppers, or 

35 freed African Americans. Site 18CV474 is NRHP eligible under Criterion D. While much of the 

36 architecture is not intact, the artifacts, features, and architectural remnants provide irreplaceable 

37 information of the lives of African Americans during slavery and during the period after the Civil 

38 War.
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-128 April 2010 Table 2-22. Calvert Cliffs Archaeological Sites Identified - Phase I/II Investigations 1 Site Site Type Age Work Effort Integrity Information Potential GAI/UniStar Recommended NRHP Status GAI/UniStar Recommendations SHPO Concurrence 18CV474 Domestic Site Mid-nineteenth/ Early Twentieth Century Phase I/II Good High NRHP Eligible/Criterion D Avoid or Phase III Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV475 Artifact Scatter/ Foundation Nineteenth Century Phase I Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV476 Refuse Dump Twentieth Century/ Modern Phase I Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV477 Refuse Dump/ Outbuilding Mid-late Twentieth Century Phase I Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV478 Artifact Scatter Twentieth Century Phase I Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV479 Lithic Scatter Indetermined/ Prehistoric Phase I Moderate Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV480 Domestic Site Mid-nineteenth/ Early Twentieth Century Phase I/II Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV481 Domestic Site Late Nineteenth/ Early Twentieth Century Phase I/II Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV482 Domestic Site Late Nineteenth Century Phase I/II Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 18CV483 Domestic Site/ Artifact Scatter Mid-nineteenth/ Early Twentieth Century Phase I Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work Needed Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 
April 2010 2-129 Draft NUREG-1936 

Affected Environment 

Table 2-22. (contd) 1 

Site Site Type Age Work Effort Integrity 

Information 

Potential 

GAI/UniStar 

Recommended 

NRHP Status 

GAI/UniStar 

Recommendations

SHPO 

Concurrence 

18CV484 Field Scatter Twentieth Century Phase I Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work 

Needed 

Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 

18CV485 Artifact Scatter Mid-nineteenth/ Early 

Twentieth Century 

Phase I Good Low Not Eligible No Further Work 

Needed 

Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 

18CV486 Artifact Scatter Nineteenth/ Twentieth 

Century 

Phase I Good Low Not Eligible No Further Work 

Needed 

Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 

18CV487 Artifact Scatter Nineteenth Century Phase I Good Low Not Eligible No Further Work 

Needed 

Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 

18CV489 Artifact Scatter Nineteenth/ Early 

Twentieth Century 

Phase I Poor Low Not Eligible No Further Work 

Needed 

Concurred 2/13/09 MHT Letter 

Source: Munford and Hyland 2007, Munford et al 2008 

Table 2-23. Calvert Cliffs Architectural Structures Identified - Phase I/II Investigations 2 

Resource 

MHT# Resource Name Resource Description Construction Date 

GAI/UniStar Recommended 

NRHP Status SHPO Concurrence

CT-58 Parran's Park Agricultural Outbuildings Circa 1750 and Early 

Twentieth Century 

NRHP Eligible/Criterion A Concurred 2/13/09 

MHT Letter 

CT-59 Preston's Cliff/ Charles' 

Gift/Wilson Farm 

Chimney Stacks, Ruins of House, and Agricultural Outbuildings 

1691-1935 NRHP Eligible/Criterion A & C Concurred 2/13/09 

MHT Letter 

CT-154 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear 

Power Plant 

Nuclear Power Generation Facility 1975 Not Eligible Concurred 11/20/06 

MHT Letter 

CT1295 and CV-172 

Baltimore and Drump Point Railroad 

Abandoned Railroad Bed 1868-1891 NRHP Eligible/Criterion A & C Concurred 2/13/09 

MHT Letter 

CT-1312 Camp Conoy Recreation Facility Circa 1930 NRHP Eligible/Criterion A Concurred 2/13/09 

MHT Letter 

Source: Munford and Hyland 2007, Munford et al 2008
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-130 April 2010 

1 The Phase II cultural resources investigation identified five architectural resources (Table 5-25). 

2 The property types include agricultural outbuildings, ruins, a graded railroad bed, and buildings 

3 associated with a seasonal recreation camp established by the Baltimore YMCA (Camp Conoy). 

4 Of these, four architectural resources are recommended as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP; 

5 CT-58 (Parran’s Park), which is associated with tobacco farming and agricultural history and is 

6 recommended for NRHP status under criterion A, CT-59 (Preston’s Cliff/Charles’s Gift/Wilson 

7 Farm), which is associated with agricultural history at the local level and is recommended for 

8 NRHP status under criteria A and C, and CT-1295 and CV-172 (Baltimore & Drum Point 

9 Railroad), which is recommended for NRHP status under criteria A and C, and CT-1312 (Camp 

10 Conoy), which is associated with recreational history and is recommended eligible to the NRHP 

11 under criterion A. 

12 Panamerican Consultants, Inc., working as a sub-consultant to MACTEC, conducted a cultural 

13 resources survey of the submerged cultural resources APE. Nine magnetic anomalies and five 

14 sidescan sonar object were identified. None were identified as cultural resources. The draft 

15 report documenting the investigation (Faught 2008) was submitted to the MHT. Based on the 

16 documentation presented in the report, the MHT concurred that the building of proposed outfall 

17 pipe is unlikely to impact any significant cultural resources, and further archaeological 

18 investigations are not warranted for Section 106 purposes (MHT 2009). 

19 2.7.3 Consultation 

20 In February, 2008, the NRC initiated consultation on the proposed action by writing the MHT 

21 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (NRC 2008a, b). Also in March, 2008, the 

22 NRC initiated consultations with three tribes and the Commission on African History and Culture 

23 (See Appendix F for complete listing). In the letters, the NRC provided information about the 

24 proposed action, indicated that review under the NHPA would be integrated with the NEPA 

25 process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8, invited participation in the identification and possible 

26 decisions concerning historic properties, and invited participation in the scoping process. The 

27 Corps issued a public notice that initiates consultation and solicits comments from the public; 

28 Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in 

29 order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received 

30 will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a 

31 permit and to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general 

32 environmental effects, and the other public interest factors (USACE 2008). 

33 To date, literature reviews and consultations with regional American Indian Tribes have not 

34 identified any traditional cultural properties in the vicinity of the proposed construction area of 

35 the COL unit. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-131 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 On March 19, 2008, the NRC conducted two public scoping meetings in Solomons, Maryland, at 

2 the Holiday Inn Select at 155 Holiday Drive. No comments or concerns regarding historic and 

3 cultural resources were made at these public scoping meetings. On February 13, 2009, the 

4 Corps received a response from the MHT regarding the review of the Phase II National Register 

5 Evaluations and Assessment of Effects for Cultural Resources at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear 

6 Power Plant (MHT 2009). The response letter from the MHT (SHPO) concurred that sites 

7 18CV474, CT-1295 (Drum Point Railroad Bed), and CT-1312 (Camp Conoy) are NRHP eligible 

8 and would be adversely affected by the proposed project. 

9 In addition to the response above, the MHT stated that “if site avoidance is not possible, Phase 

10 III data recovery investigations would be warranted to mitigate the undertaking’s adverse effects 

11 on the archaeological property.” On April 21, 2009, the Corps and UniStar met with the MHT to 

12 begin negotiations and execution of a MOA that stipulates the agreed-upon mitigation 

13 measures, including the Phase III investigations, methods of public outreach and interpretation, 

14 and the curation of all artifacts and materials generated by the investigations conducted at 

15 archaeological site 18CV474. Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation for the two historic 

16 built environment resources, Drum Point Railroad Bed (CT-1295) and Camp Conoy (CT-1312), 

17 are also addressed in the MOA. The parties (Corps, UniStar and SHPO) have negotiated and 

18 executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that stipulates the agreed-upon mitigation 

19 measures” including a data recovery plan and an unanticipated discoveries plan (MHT 2010). 

20 The Unanticipated Discoveries Plan and the Mitigation Plan prepared by UniStar was signed on 

21 March 16, 2010 by the Corps, UniStar and the Maryland SHPO (USACE 2010). 

22 2.8 Geology 

23 A detailed description of the geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the 

24 CCNPP site is provided in Section 2.5 of the UniStar FSAR (UniStar 2009b) as part of the COL 

25 application. A description of the hydrogeologic setting of the proposed site is addressed in the 

26 ER as well (UniStar 2009a). In addition to the site characterization conducted for the Units 1 

27 and 2, results of the UniStar subsurface investigations performed as part of UniStar’s safety 

28 analysis for this COL application (Section 2.5 of the FSAR) provide further definition of the site 

29 geology. These descriptions are based on published geologic reports of the region along with 

30 site-specific characterization activities conducted during the building of Units 1 and 2 and 

31 characterization activities conducted during preapplication activities for proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 

32 2009b). Considering the geological characteristics of the site and vicinity are essential to the 

33 safe design and operation of the plant, but building and operating the plant does not have a 

34 significant environmental impact on geological resources (such as, damage to unstable slopes, 

35 adjacent utilities, or to nearby structures). The NRC staff’s independent assessment of the site 

36 safety issues related to the Unit 3 site will consider the applicant’s detailed analysis and 

37 evaluations of geological, seismic, and geotechnical data. The NRC staff’s detailed description 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-132 April 2010 

1 of the geological features in the Unit 3 site vicinity will be addressed in the NRC staff’s Safety 

2 Evaluation Report (in progress). 

3 The Calvert Cliffs site lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province as illustrated in 

4 Figure 2-18. The Coastal Plain Province is an extensive sedimentary structure that forms much 

5 of the eastern seaboard of the United States. In the vicinity of Maryland, the Coastal Plain is 

6 bounded on the west by the Fall Line that separates the Coastal Plain from the Piedmont 

7 Physiographic Province; the Calvert Cliffs site is about 40 mi east of the Fall Line. To the east, 

8 the Coastal Plain extends out beneath the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Continental Shelf. 

9 The thickness of the Coastal Plain province increases from 0 ft at the Fall Line to about 8000 ft 

10 along the Maryland coast. 

11 Figure 2-19 shows the stratigraphic column that represents the geology beneath the Calvert 

12 Cliffs site. The surficial sediments consist of alluvium and upland fluvial deposits of sands and 

13 gravels. Beneath the surficial sediments is the Chesapeake Group, which consists of 

14 alternating silt and clay units with some thin and discontinuous sand layers. In the vicinity of the 

15 Calvert Cliffs site, the Chesapeake Group is considered a confining unit with respect to 

16 groundwater. The deepest foundations of the plant structures of proposed Unit 3 would be built 

17 on structural fill placed within the Choptank formation of the Chesapeake Group. 

18 Below the Chesapeake Group are the 20-ft-thick Piney Point formation and the 180-ft-thick 

19 Nanjemoy formation. The Nanjemoy formation is separated from the deeper Aquia formation by 

20 the 15- to 20-ft-thick Marlboro clay layer. The base of the 150-ft-thick Aquia formation is 

21 bounded by a 10- to 20-ft-thick layer of clay. The sedimentary formations continue downward 

22 another 2000 ft or more. However, they do not interact with the building or operation of 

23 proposed Unit 3 and, therefore, are not considered further in this EIS. 

24 The surface elevations of the Calvert Cliffs site range from 0 to nearly 130 ft mean sea level 

25 (MSL). The terrain consists of gently rolling hills cut by small stream valleys. The topographic 

26 high runs approximately north-south and roughly parallels the Calvert peninsula. The proposed 

27 Unit 3 would be on the east side of the north-south high and at an elevation of about 85 ft. A 

28 few streams flow a short distance east-northeastward to the Chesapeake Bay. The remaining 

29 streams flow west into Johns Creek. From there, the water flows into St. Leonards Creek and 

30 then into the Patuxent River, which empties into Chesapeake Bay about 10 mi south of the 

31 Calvert Cliffs site. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-133 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 2-18. Physiographic Map of Maryland and Surrounding Area (the Fall Line separates 

3 the Piedmont and Coastal Plains Provinces) (UniStar 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-134 April 2010 

ERA PERIOD EPOCH AGE(Ma) UNIT THICKNESS (FT) 

Holocene 0.01 Alluvium & Beach Deposits 

Quarternary 

Pleistocene 1.8 Terrace & Lowland Deposits 

0-50 

Pliocene 5.3 

Upper 11.2 

Upland Deposits 0-50 

Miocene 

Middle 16.4 

Chesapeake Group 

St. Marys Formation 

Choptank Formation 

Calvert Formation 

245-280 

Middle 49 Piney Point Formation 

Eocene 

Lower 54.8 Nanjemoy Formation 

Upper 61 Marlboro Clay Aquia Formation 

Cenozoic 

Tertiary 

Paleocene 

Lower 65 Brightseat Formation 

Upper 99 Magothy, Monmouth, Matawan 

Formations undifferentiated 30? 

Mesozoic 

Cretaceous 

Lower 144 

Potomac Group 

Patapsco Formation 

Arundel/Patuxent Formations 

(undivided) 

1000-1100 

750-900 

Proterozoic/ 

Paleozoic 

 543+ Metamorphic/igneous Not Known 

1 Figure 2-19. Stratigraphic Column for the Calvert Cliffs Site (UniStar 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-135 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 On the eastern boundary of the proposed Unit 3 site, a portion of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline 

2 consists of a narrow beach at the base of a steep cliff as high as 100 ft. The cliff face is 

3 eroding, primarily by wave action at the base. The Maryland DNR estimated rates of shoreline 

4 change in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. The agency estimated the rate of shoreline 

5 change south of the barge slip to be erosion on the order of 2 to 4 ft/yr, and north of the intake 

6 to be between 2 ft/yr accretion (slow increase to land by the deposition of waterborne sediment) 

7 and 4 ft/yr erosion. FSAR Section 2.9 discusses shoreline erosion processes and slope failure 

8 along the Chesapeake Bay (UniStar 2009b). Approximately 2500 ft of Calvert Cliffs site 

9 shoreline is stabilized to prevent erosion. This section of shoreline encompasses the intake, 

10 discharge, and barge structures associated with existing Units 1 and 2. Upslope and away from 

11 the Bay, there have been no similar instances of recognizable erosion and deposition 

12 processes. The potential for erosion and deposition associated with Units 1 and 2 is minimized 

13 through BMPs implemented through a NPDES Stormwater Permit. 

14 Mineral resources at the proposed Unit 3 site are primarily sand and gravel, which are used as 

15 aggregate in the construction industry. Clay, which is present in thin layers, can be used for 

16 ceramics. Water is abundant in multiple aquifers (MDNR 2008g). 

17 2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality 

18 The following sections describe the climate and air quality of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

19 Section 2.9.1 describes the climate of the region and area in the immediate vicinity of the site, 

20 Section 2.9.2 describes the air quality of the region, Section 2.9.3 describes atmospheric 

21 dispersion at the site, and Section 2.9.4 describes the meteorological monitoring program at the 

22 site. 

23 2.9.1 Climate 

24 The Calvert Cliffs site is located in Calvert County in the southern portion of Maryland. Its 

25 climate is influenced by the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay to the east, and the 

26 Appalachian Mountains to the west. These features give the site a more moderate climate than 

27 is found at inland sites at the same latitude. The first-order National Weather Service station at 

28 Baltimore, about 50 mi to the north, has long periods of record, which provide a good indication 

29 of the general climate at the site because of its proximity and similarities in topography and 

30 vegetation. 

31 The following climatological statistics are derived from local climatological data for Baltimore 

32 (NCDC 2004) based on a period of record exceeding 50 years. Temperatures are more 

33 variable in the winter than in the summer because of the differences in air mass source regions. 

34 Daytime maximum temperatures range from about 41°F in January to about 87°F in July, and 

35 nighttime minimum temperatures range from about 24°F in January to about 67°F in July. 

36 Monthly average wind speeds range from about 8 mph in the summer to more than 10 mph in 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-136 April 2010 

1 March and April. Precipitation is uniformly distributed throughout the year; all months average 

2 more than 3 in. of precipitation, with only August having more than 4 in. Snow is generally 

3 limited to November through March, although snow has been recorded in April and May. 

4 On a larger scale, climate change is a subject of national and international interest. The recent 

5 compilation of the state of knowledge in this area by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

6 (GCRP), a Federal Advisory Committee, (GCRP 2009) has been considered in preparation of 

7 this EIS. The GCRP has provided valuable insights regarding the state of knowledge of climate 

8 change. The projected change in temperature from “present day” (1993-2008) over the period 

9 encompassing the licensing action (i.e., to the period 2040 to 2059 in the GCRP report) in the 

10 vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site is an increase of between 1 to 4°F. While the GCRP has not 

11 incrementally forecast the change in precipitation by decade to align with the licensing action, 

12 the projected change in precipitation from the “recent past” (1961-1979) to the period 2080 to 

13 2099 was presented; the GCRP report forecasts only minor change (GCRP 2009). 

14 Based on the assessments of the GCRP and the National Academy of Sciences’ National 

15 Research Council, the EPA determined that potential changes in climate caused by greenhouse 

16 gas (GHG) emissions endanger public health and welfare (74 FR 66496). The EPA indicated 

17 that, while ambient concentrations of GHGs do not cause direct adverse health effects (such as 

18 respiratory or toxic effects), public health risks and impacts can result indirectly from changes in 

19 climate. As a result of the determination by the EPA and the recognition that mitigative actions 

20 are necessary to reduce impacts, the review team concludes that the effect of GHG on climate 

21 and the environment is already noticeable, but not yet destabilizing. In CLI-09-21, the 

22 Commission provided guidance to the NRC staff to consider carbon dioxide and other GHG 

23 emissions in its NEPA reviews and directed that it should encompass emissions from 

24 constructing and operating a facility as well as from the fuel cycle (NRC 2009). The review 

25 team characterized the affected environment and the potential GHG impacts of the proposed 

26 action and alternatives in this EIS. Consideration of GHG emissions was treated as an element 

27 of the existing air quality assessment that is essential in a NEPA analysis. In addition, where it 

28 was important to do so, the review team considered the effects of the changing environment 

29 during the period of the proposed action on other resource assessments. 

30 2.9.1.1 Wind 

31 UniStar (2009a) provided wind roses for the Calvert Cliffs site for the years 2000 through 2005 

32 and for four other locations (Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Richmond, Norfolk, and 

33 Patuxent River Naval Air Station) for different time periods. There are distinct differences in the 

34 wind rose that can be attributed to topographical influences. Wind roses for Richmond, Norfolk, 

35 Patuxent River, and the Calvert Cliffs site are reasonably similar because they have a prevailing 

36 southwest or south-southwest wind. The wind rose for the Baltimore-Washington International 

37 Airport is distinctly different than the other four, having a prevailing west wind. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-137 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Monthly wind roses for the Calvert Cliffs site show a very predominant offshore (southwest 

2 wind) component from May through August and predominant northwest component from 

3 December through February. The wind roses for the remaining months show transitional wind 

4 patterns. Winds from the east through southeast are infrequent in all months. The annual 

5 average 10-m wind speed at the Calvert Cliffs site estimated from the meteorological data 

6 provided by UniStar is about 6.4 mph. The annual average wind speeds at Baltimore7 Washington International Airport, Richmond, Norfolk, and Patuxent River reported in the ER are 

8 8.9, 10.5, 7.9, and 9.3 mph, respectively. The monthly variation of wind speeds is similar at all 

9 four locations, with a maximum in about March and a minimum in the July-August time frame. 

10 While the patterns are similar, the differences in monthly average are consistent. Monthly 

11 average wind speeds at Richmond are about 30 percent higher than Calvert Cliffs, the wind 

12 speeds at Patuxent River are about 50 percent higher, and those at Norfolk are almost 

13 75 percent higher. 

14 2.9.1.2 Temperature 

15 The temperature measured at the 33-ft level of the Calvert Cliffs meteorological tower is 

16 considered to be representative of the Calvert Cliffs site. Temperature data from the tower for 

17 the 2000 through 2005 time period show the monthly average temperatures range from a low of 

18 about 34°F in January to a high of about 75°F in July and August. Monthly-average maximum 

19 and minimum temperatures for the Calvert Cliffs site for 2000 through 2005 presented in the ER 

20 (UniStar 2009a) are consistent with the long-term climatological values for Baltimore. During 

21 the 6-year period, the minimum temperature was about 9°F, and the maximum temperature 

22 was 96°F. 

23 2.9.1.3 Atmospheric Moisture 

24 The only atmospheric moisture measurement made at the Calvert Cliffs site is precipitation. 

25 Hourly precipitation data are collected near the meteorology tower. The ER presents 

26 precipitation data for the years 2000 through 2005. The precipitation data for these years 

27 indicate that there is somewhat less precipitation and a larger seasonal variation in precipitation 

28 than at Baltimore and other locations in the area. 

29 Neither humidity nor fog (visibility) is measured onsite. The ER lists both monthly mean relative 

30 humidity and monthly mean number of days with heavy fog for Baltimore-Washington 

31 International Airport, Richmond, and Norfolk. Monthly mean relative humidities for these 

32 locations average between 66 and 70 percent and have seasonal variations of about 10 to 

33 15 percent. Monthly average relative humidity minima occur in April, and maxima occur in 

34 August and September. It is likely that the relative humidity at the Calvert Cliffs site is similar to 

35 the relative humidity presented in the ER. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-138 April 2010 

1 Fog restricting visibility to less than 1/4 mi typically occurs on about 1 to 3 days per month at 

2 Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Richmond, and Norfolk. It is somewhat less frequent 

3 at Norfolk than at either of the other locations. Local conditions affect the formation of fog more 

4 than they do relative humidity and precipitation. 

5 2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Stability 

6 Atmospheric stability is a meteorological parameter that describes the dispersion characteristics 

7 of the atmosphere. It can be determined by the difference in temperature between two heights. 

8 A seven-category atmospheric stability classification scheme based on temperature differences 

9 is set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1 (NRC 2007a). When the temperature 

10 decreases rapidly with height, the atmosphere is unstable and atmospheric dispersion is 

11 greater. Conversely, when temperature increases with height, the atmosphere is stable and 

12 dispersion is more limited. 

13 Onsite temperature measurements at the 10- and 60-m level of the Calvert Cliffs meteorological 

14 tower are used to determine stability classes for the Calvert Cliffs site. On an annual basis, the 

15 atmosphere at the Calvert Cliffs site is unstable about 21.3 percent of the time, neutral about 

16 34.3 percent of the time, and stable about 44.3 percent of the time. These percentages vary 

17 seasonally, with a larger frequency of both unstable and stable hours in summer and early fall 

18 months and a larger frequency of neutral conditions during the winter and early spring (UniStar 

19 2009a). 

20 2.9.1.5 Severe Weather 

21 The Calvert Cliffs site can experience severe weather in several forms including thunderstorms, 

22 ice storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Thunderstorms occur on an average of about 28 days 

23 per year, with 90 percent of these days in the spring and summer (April through September). 

24 On average, hail is associated with several thunderstorms each year. Severe winter weather 

25 (heavy snow and ice) typically occurs several times per winter season. 

26 Hurricanes rarely strike the Maryland coastal region. National Climatic Data Center records 

27 only list two strikes since 1851. However, on average of about once a year, a hurricane or 

28 tropical storm will come within 100 mi of the Maryland coast. 

29 Since 1950, there have been 13 tornadoes reported in Calvert County. Based on statistics of 

30 tornadoes reported in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site (Ramsdell and Rishel 2007), the staff 

31 estimates the probability of a tornado striking the Calvert Cliffs proposed Unit 3 reactor building 

to be about 1 in 10,000 (1 × 10-4 32 ) per year. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-139 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.9.2 Air Quality 

2 The discussion on air quality includes the six common “criteria pollutants” for which the EPA has 

3 set national ambient air quality standards (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

4 oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead). The air quality discussion also includes heat-trapping 

5 “greenhouse gases” (primarily carbon dioxide) which have been the principal factor causing 

6 climate change over the last 50 years (GCRP 2009). 

7 The Calvert Cliffs site is in Calvert County, Maryland. Calvert County is in the Southern 

8 Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.156). With the exception of the 

9 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone, air quality in Calvert County is in 

10 attainment with or better than national standards for criteria pollutants. Emissions from new 

11 sources in attainment areas are evaluated by the State of Maryland through the Prevention of 

12 Significant Deterioration program. The NRC will comply with the requirements of the Clean Air 

13 Act (42 U.S.C. 7506) and air conformity regulation under 40 CFR 93.150 outside of the NEPA 

14 process. 

15 Calvert County is in moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. In nonattainment 

16 areas, the emissions of pollutants that are precursors to ozone are regulated by the State of 

17 Maryland. The primary precursors to ozone are oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and VOCs. In the 

18 State of Maryland, evaluation of new sources in nonattainment areas is through the 

19 nonattainment New Source Review Program (COMAR 2000). 

20 There are no mandatory Class 1 Federal Areas where visibility is an important value in either 

21 Maryland or Delaware. The Class 1 Federal Areas closest to the Calvert Cliffs site are the 

22 Shenandoah National Park about 90 mi west of the site, the James River Face Wilderness Area 

23 about 150 mi west-southwest of the site in Virginia, and the Brigantine Wilderness Area about 

24 120 mi northeast of the site in New Jersey. 

25 Carbon dioxide concentration has been building up in the Earth’s atmosphere since the 

26 beginning of the industrial era in the mid-1700s, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, 

27 oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of forests. Human activities have also increased the 

28 emissions of other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons. These 

29 emissions are thickening the blanket of heat-trapping gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, causing 

30 global surface temperatures to rise (GCRP 2009). 

31 2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion 

32 Atmospheric dispersion factors (χ/Q values) are used to evaluate the potential consequences of 

33 routine and accidental releases. Meteorological data of the period from 2000 through 2006 

34 have been used by UniStar to develop a joint frequency distribution of wind speed, wind 

35 direction, and atmospheric stability to calculate the atmospheric dispersion factors for use in 

36 evaluating the consequences of normal reactor operations. UniStar used the AREVA NP 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-140 April 2010 

1 AEOLUS3 computer code for calculating both long-term dispersion factors for assessing the 

2 consequences of normal reactor operations and short-term dispersion factors for assessing the 

3 potential consequences of postulated design basis accidents. 

4 Table 2-24 lists atmospheric dispersion and deposition factors for the location of the nearest 

5 residence within 5 mi in each downwind sector. These factors were calculated using the 

6 methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (NRC 1977) assuming a mixed-mode 

7 release and building wake. Table 2-25 lists dispersion and deposition factors for the closest 

8 vegetable gardens within 5 mi. Atmospheric dispersion and deposition factors for all sectors to 

9 a distance of 50 mi listed in the ER (UniStar 2009a) are used to estimate potential population 

10 doses from normal reactor operations. 

11 The AEOLUS3 code implements the methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1 (NRC 

12 1982) for calculation of atmospheric dispersion factors for evaluation of potential consequences 

13 of postulated design basis accidents. For environmental impact evaluation, realistic 

14 atmospheric dispersion factors are calculated for the exclusion area boundary and the outer 

15 boundary of the low population zone (LPZ). Realistic atmospheric dispersion factors are 

16 dispersion factors that are exceeded no more than 50 percent of the time. Table 2-26 lists the 

17 short-term dispersion factors for the Calvert Cliffs site for use in evaluating design basis 

18 accidents. 

19 Table 2-24. Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for the Nearest 

20 Residence for Evaluation of Normal Effluents 

Downwind 

Sector Distance (m) 

Undecayed, 

Undepleted 

χ/Q (s/m3

)

(a) 

Decayed, 

Depleted χ/Q 

(s/m3

)

(b)

Undecayed, 

Undepleted 

Gamma χ/Q 

(s/m3

)

(c) D/Q (1/m2)(d)

SE 1574 8.7×10-07 7.9×10-07 6.6×10-07 8.2×10-09

SSE 1969 3.5×10-07 3.2×10-07 2.8×10-07 3.0×10-09

S 2206 3.7×10-07 3.4×10-07 2.9×10-07 4.1×10-09

SW 1945 4.0×10-07 3.7×10-07 3.2×10-07 4.3×10-09

WSW 1634 4.3×10-07 4.0×10-07 3.7×10-07 4.1×10-09

W 2074 2.1×10-07 2.0×10-07 1.9×10-07 1.5×10-09

WNW 2485 1.1×10-07 9.9×10-08 1.0×10-07 6.8×10-10

NW 4097 5.7×10-08 5.2×10-08 4.9×10-08 3.3×10-10

Source: UniStar 2009a 

(a) ER Table 2.7-101 

(b) ER Table 2.7-105 

(c) ER Table 2.7-109 

(d) ER Table 2.7-113 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-141 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 2-25. Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for the Nearest 

2 Vegetable Gardens for Evaluation of Normal Effluents 

Downwind 

Sector 

Distance 

(m) 

Undecayed, 

Undepleted 

χ/Q (s/m3

)

(a) 

Decayed, 

Depleted χ/Q 

(s/m3

)

(b)

Undecayed, 

Undepleted 

Gamma χ/Q 

(s/m3

)

(c) D/Q (1/m2

)

(d)

SE 1574 8.7×10-07 7.9×10-07 6.6×10-07 8.2×10-09

SSE 2130 3.1×10-07 2.8×10-07 2.4×10-07 2.5×10-09

S 2206 3.7×10-07 3.4×10-07 2.9×10-07 4.1×10-09

SW 2256 3.0×10-07 2.8×10-07 2.4×10-07 3.1×10-09

WSW 1634 4.3×10-07 4.0×10-07 3.7×10-07 4.1×10-09

W 2529 1.5×10-07 1.4×10-07 1.3×10-07 9.5×10-10

WNW 2795 8.8×10-08 8.2×10-08 8.5×10-08 5.3×10-10

NW 4097 5.7×10-08 5.2×10-08 4.9×10-08 3.3×10-10

Source: UniStar 2009a 

(a) ER Table 2.7-102. 

(b) ER Table 2.7-106. 

(c) ER Table 2.7-110. 

(d) ER Table 2.7-114. 

3 Table 2-26. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Calvert Cliffs Design Basis Accident 

4 Calculations 

Time Period Boundary χ/Q (s/m3)

Worst 2 hours(a) Exclusion area boundary 8.08 × 10-5 

Worst 2 hours Low population zone 1.53 × 10-5

0 to 8 hours(b) Low population zone 1.18 × 10-5

8 to 24 hours(b) Low population zone 9.39 × 10-6

1 to 4 days(b) Low population zone 6.61 × 10-6

4 to 30 days(b) Low population zone 3.99 × 10-6

Source: UniStar 2009a 

(a) Period of maximum 2-hour release to the environment. 

(b) Times are relative to beginning of the release to the environment. 

5 UniStar provided the staff with meteorological data for the 7-year period from January 2000 

6 through December 2006 (UniStar 2009a). The staff used these data to independently estimate 

7 atmospheric dispersion factors for the site. Based on its evaluation of the meteorological data 

8 and the results of its dispersion calculations, the staff accepts the UniStar dispersion factors 

9 listed in Table 2-24, Table 2-25, and Table 2-26. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-142 April 2010 

1 2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring 

2 Onsite meteorological measurements began at the Calvert Cliffs site to support the applications 

3 for construction permits for CCNPP Units 1 and 2. These measurements, which include wind 

4 speed and direction and atmospheric stability, continue in support of operations of the existing 

5 units. The meteorological instrumentation was updated in December 2005. 

6 The tower is located in an open field approximately 2900 ft west of the planned location of the 

7 proposed Unit 3 reactor building. In the current system, wind and temperature measurements 

8 are made at 10 and 60 m above ground on an open-lattice tower. In addition, the precipitation 

9 is measured near the tower using a tipping-bucket rain gage, and atmospheric pressure is 

10 measured in a meteorological building near the tower. The meteorological measurement 

11 system does not include instruments for measuring humidity. According to UniStar (ER 

12 Section 6.4.1.3), the tower and meteorological instrument specifications meet the guidance set 

13 forth in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.23 (NRC 2007a). 

14 Signals from the meteorological instruments are routed to two data loggers in the meteorology 

15 building for processing. Data processing includes calculation of 15-minute and hourly averages 

16 of wind speed, wind direction, and temperature. In addition, the system calculates the standard 

17 deviation of wind direction fluctuations and the temperature difference between 10 and 60 m. 

18 The meteorological instruments are checked daily and calibrated semi-annually (ER, Section 

19 6.4.2.4). 

20 The review team viewed the meteorological site and instrumentation, reviewed the available 

21 information on the meteorological measurement program, and evaluated data collected by the 

22 program. Based on this information, the review team concludes that the program provides data 

23 that represent the onsite meteorological conditions for the purposes of the review team’s 

24 environmental review and that the data also provide a reasonable basis for making estimates of 

25 atmospheric dispersion for the evaluation of the consequences of routine and accidental 

26 releases for the environmental review. 

27 2.10 Nonradiological Health 

28 This section describes aspects of the environment at the Calvert Cliffs site and within the vicinity 

29 of the site associated with nonradiological human health impacts. The section provides the 

30 basis for evaluation of impacts to human health from building and operation of proposed Unit 3. 

31 Building activities have the potential to affect public and occupational health, create impacts 

32 from noise, and impact health of the public and workers from transportation of construction 

33 materials and personnel to the Calvert Cliffs site. Operation of proposed Unit 3 has the potential 

34 to impact the public and workers at the Calvert Cliffs site from operation of the cooling system, 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-143 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 noise generated by operations, electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by transmission 

2 systems, and transportation of operations and outage workers to and from the Calvert Cliffs site. 

3 2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health 

4 This section describes public and occupational health at the Calvert Cliffs site and vicinity 

5 associated with air quality, occupational injuries, and etiological agents (i.e., disease causing 

6 microorganisms). 

7 2.10.1.1 Air Quality 

8 Public and occupational health can be impacted by changes in air quality from activities that 

9 contribute to fugitive dust, vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions, and automobile exhaust 

10 from commuter traffic (NRC 1996). Air quality for Calvert County is discussed in Section 2.9.2. 

11 Fugitive dust and other particulate material (including PM10 (particulate matter less than 

12 10 microns in size) and PM 2.5) can be released into the atmosphere during any site excavations 

13 and while grading is being conducted. Most of these activities that generate fugitive dust are 

14 short in duration, over a small area, and can be controlled using watering, application of soil 

15 adhesives, seeding, and other BMPs (UniStar 2009a). Mitigation measures to minimize and 

16 control fugitive dust are required for compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations 

17 that govern such activities (NRC 1996; UniStar 2009a). 

18 Exhaust emissions during normal plant operations associated with onsite vehicles and 

19 equipment as well as from commuter traffic can affect air quality and human health. 

20 Nonradiological supporting equipment (e.g., diesel generators, fire pump engines) and other 

21 nonradiological emission-generating sources (e.g., storage tanks) or activities are not expected 

22 to be a significant source of criteria pollutant emissions. Diesel generators and supporting 

23 equipment would be in place for emergency-use only but would be started regularly to test that 

24 the systems are operational. Emissions from nonradiological air pollution sources were 

25 permitted for proposed Unit 3 by the Maryland Public Service Commission on June 26, 2009 

26 (see Appendix H). UniStar will also need to obtain a Clean Air Act Title V permit from the MDE 

27 to comply with Code of Maryland Regulations 26.11.03 and 20.79.03.02.B(2)(c). The infrequent 

28 emissions from the emergency diesel generators for Unit 3 are not expected to significantly 

29 impact ambient air quality levels at the Calvert Cliffs site or in the vicinity of the site. 

30 2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries 

31 In general, occupational health risks to workers and onsite personnel engaged in activities such 

32 as building, maintenance, testing, excavation, and modifications are expected to be dominated 

33 by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) or occupational illnesses. 

34 Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the 

35 average U.S. industrial rates. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-144 April 2010 

1 (USBLS 2007a, b), injury rates drop significantly for large building projects such as nuclear 

2 power facilities (e.g., for the years 2003 to 2007, the overall injury-only rate for utility system 

3 building activities ranged from 4.6 percent to 6.7 percent compared to 1.2 percent to 3.0 percent 

4 for similar projects with 1000 or more workers) (USBLS 2008a, b). These records of statistics 

5 are used to estimate the likely number of occupational injuries and illnesses for operation of 

6 Units 1 and 2 and predict the likely number of cases for the proposed Unit 3. 

7 Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and Occupational 

8 Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards, practices, and procedures to 

9 minimize worker exposures. Appropriate State and local statues also must be considered when 

10 assessing the occupational hazards and health risks associated with the Calvert Cliffs site. 

11 Currently, the Calvert Cliffs site has programs and personnel to promote safe work practices 

12 and respond to occupational injuries and illnesses for Units 1 and 2. Procedures are in place 

13 with the objective to provide personnel who work at the Calvert Cliffs site with an effective 

14 means of preventing accidents due to unsafe conditions and unsafe acts. They include safe 

15 work practices to address hearing protection; confined space entry; personal protective 

16 equipment; heat stress; electrical safety; ladders; chemical handling, storage, and use; and 

17 other industrial hazards. Personnel are provided training on safety procedures. In addition, 

18 UniStar requires contractors to develop and implement safety procedures with the intent of 

19 preventing injuries, occupational illnesses, and deaths (UniStar 2009a). 

20 2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents 

21 Public and occupational health can be compromised by activities at the Calvert Cliffs site that 

22 encourage the growth of disease causing microorganisms (etiological agents). Thermal 

23 discharges from Units 1 and 2 into the Chesapeake Bay have the potential to increase the 

24 growth of thermophilic microorganisms. The types of organisms of concern include enteric 

25 pathogens (such as Salmonella spp. and Pseudomonas aerugionsa), thermophilic fungi, 

26 bacteria (such as Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.), and free-living amoeba (such as Naegleria

27 fowleri). These microorganisms could result in potentially serious human health concerns, 

28 particularly at high exposures levels. It is important to note that N. fowleri is typically found in 

29 freshwater systems and is not likely to occur in the saline waters of the Chesapeake Bay. 

30 Available data assembled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 

31 years 1937 to 2007 report no occurrence of a waterborne disease from exposure to N. fowleri or 

32 other reported waterborne disease in Maryland (CDC 1998a, 2000, 2002a, 2004a, 2006a, 2007, 

33 2008a, 2008b). Outbreaks of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis, which occurred in 

34 Maryland from 1996 to 2006, were within the range of national trends (CDC 1997, 1998b, 1999, 

35 2001, 2002b, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2006b) in terms of cases per 100,000 population or 

36 total cases per year, and the outbreaks were associated with recreational waters. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-145 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2.10.2 Noise 

2 The State of Maryland regulates the maximum noise level in residential areas. During the day 

3 (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.), the maximum noise level is 65 dBA, and, at night, it is 55 dBA. Decibels are 

4 the unit of measure of sound. Tipler (1982) lists the following typical sound levels: quiet office 

5 50 dBA, normal conversation 60 dBA, busy traffic 70 dBA, and noisy office with office machines 

6 80 dBA. Changes in noise level of less than 3 dBA are generally not noticeable, and an 

7 increase in noise level is generally perceived as doubling the volume. 

8 A noise survey was conducted on and around the Calvert Cliffs site in November 2006 and 

9 again in August 2007 to determine ambient noise levels. The results of this survey are 

10 presented in the ER (UniStar 2009a). The results of the November 2006 survey and second 

11 August 2007 survey are described in a UniStar submission to the Maryland DNR (UniStar 

12 2007). These results establish a background noise level for the area in the vicinity of the 

13 proposed Unit 3 site. 

14 In these surveys, measurements were made at eight locations, one location near CCNPP Units 

15 1 and 2, four locations near the site boundary, and three locations farther offsite. The average 

16 noise level for the 24-hour period with the lowest wind speed near Units 1 and 2 was about 

17 65 dBA, as was the noise level near MD State Route 2/4, which runs along the western 

18 boundary of the site. The noise level near an offsite saw mill averaged about 60 dBA, and the 

19 noise level in a residential area averaged about 55 dBA. The noise levels at the remaining, 

20 more isolated measurement locations were about 50 dBA. 

21 2.10.3 Transportation 

22 The highway transportation network in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site is shown in 

23 Figure 2-1. The sole access road to the Calvert Cliffs site for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 operations 

24 workers, construction and operations workers for Unit 3, and construction material deliveries is 

25 MD State Road 2/4, approximately 2 mi west of the site. Various feeder roads would be used 

26 by construction and operations personnel to access MD State Road 2/4 on the way to the 

27 Calvert Cliffs site. According to the ER (UniStar 2009a), a new access road that connects 

28 directly to MD State Road 2/4 at Nursery Road, south of the proposed new unit, would be built 

29 to ease congestion cause by construction personnel traffic. There is no rail service to the 

30 Calvert Cliffs site, and there are no rail depots in Calvert County (UniStar 2009a) where the 

31 proposed Unit 3 would be located. The Calvert Cliffs site includes a barge dock that is used for 

32 offloading large equipment items. 

33 2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields 

34 Transmission lines generate both electric and magnetic fields, referred to collectively as EMF. 

35 Public and worker health can be compromised by acute and chronic exposure to EMF from 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-146 April 2010 

1 power transmission systems, including switching stations (or substations) onsite and 

2 transmission lines connecting the plant to the regional electrical distribution grid. Transmission 

3 lines operate at a frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second), which is considered to be 

4 extremely low frequency (ELF). In comparison, television transmitters have frequencies of 55 to 

5 890 MHz, and microwaves have frequencies of 1000 MHz and greater (NRC 1996). 

6 Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 

7 metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMF associated with transmission lines 

8 (NRC 1996). Objects near transmission lines can become electrically charged by close 

9 proximity to the electric field of the line. An induced current can be generated in such cases, 

10 where the current can flow from the line through the object into the ground. Capacitive charges 

11 can occur in objects that are in the electric field of a line, storing the electric charge, but isolated 

12 from the ground. A person standing on the ground can receive an electric shock from coming 

13 into contact with such an object because of the sudden discharge of the capacitive charge 

14 through the person’s body to the ground. Such acute effects are controlled and minimized by 

15 conformance with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria. UniStar stated that all new 

16 transmission lines would be contained within the Calvert Cliffs property lines. Finally, UniStar 

17 stated that the design and building of the proposed Unit 3 substation and transmission circuits 

18 would comply with NESC provisions that limit the induced current due to electrostatic effects to 

19 5 milliamperes (mA). 

20 Long-term or chronic exposure to power transmission lines has been studied for a number of 

21 years. These health effects were evaluated in the GEIS (NRC 1996) for nuclear power in the 

22 U.S., and are discussed in the ER (UniStar 2009a). The GEIS (NRC 1996) reviewed human 

23 health and EMF and concluded: 

24 The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with nuclear plants and 

25 associated transmission lines are uncertain. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered 

26 consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other 

27 agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic 

28 acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state 

29 of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is 

30 possible. 

31 2.11 Radiological Environment

32 A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the 

33 Calvert Cliffs site since before operations began in late 1974. This program measures radiation 

34 and radioactive materials from all sources, including existing Units 1 and 2. The REMP includes 

35 the following pathways: direct radiation; atmospheric, aquatic, and terrestrial environments; and 

36 groundwater and surface water. A pre-operational environmental monitoring program was 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-147 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 conducted before 1975 to establish a baseline to observe fluctuations of radioactivity in the 

2 environment after operations began. After routine operation of CCNPP Unit 1 and Unit 2 started 

3 in 1975 and 1977, respectively, the monitoring program continued to assess the radiological 

4 impacts to workers, the public, and the environment. 

5 The results of this monitoring are documented in annual reports entitled Annual Radiological 

6 Environmental Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and 

7 the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Constellation 2003a, 2004a, 2005a, 2006a, 

8 2007a) and Radioactive Effluent Release Report and Dose Assessment (Constellation 2003b, 

9 2004b, 2005b, 2006b, 2007b) for the Calvert Cliffs site. These reports show that exposures or 

10 concentrations in air, water, and vegetation are comparable to, if not statistically indiscernible 

11 from, pre-operational levels. 

12 Constellation (2005b) reported one event in which tritium was detected in shallow groundwater. 

13 In December 2005 during routine monitoring of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, tritium was detected in 

14 a groundwater piezometer (#11). On four sampling dates in December 2005, concentrations 

15 ranged from 1720 to 2880 pCi/L. On the next seven sample dates, which occurred between 

16 January 19 and May 16, 2006, tritium was not detected above the nominal detection limit 

17 of about 1500 pCi/L. For context, the drinking water standard for tritium is 20,000 pCi/L 

18 (41 FR 28402). The observation of tritium in piezometer #11 in December 2005 was attributed 

19 to liquid radioactive waste that was inadvertently discharged through a previously ruptured 

20 underground pipe sometime prior to April 2001 when the pipe was repaired to prevent further 

21 discharges (NRC 2006a). 

22 The NRC’s Lessons Learned Task Force Report (NRC 2006b) made recommendations 

23 regarding potential unmonitored groundwater contamination at U.S. nuclear plants. 

24 Constellation Energy Group implemented additional groundwater sampling in various locations 

25 that may be a source of groundwater contamination around CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The results 

26 of this additional groundwater sampling are summarized in the Annual Radioactive Effluent 

27 Release Report for 2007 (Constellation 2007b). 

28 2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultations 

29 The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the 

30 issuance of a COL to UniStar for proposed Unit 3. Any such activities could result in cumulative 

31 environmental impacts and the possible need for another Federal agency to become a 

32 cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)). After reviewing the 

33 Federal activities in the region surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site, the staff determined that it 

34 would be advantageous for the Corps to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the 

35 EIS. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-148 April 2010 

1 Given the proximity of the Calvert Cliffs site to Washington, D.C., there are numerous Federal 

2 lands within a 50-mi radius of the site including several Department of Defense facilities and the 

3 Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. There are no wilderness areas or rivers included in the 

4 national wild and scenic rivers system within the 50-mi region. The closest Native American 

5 Tribal reservations are more than 50 mi from the Calvert Cliffs site. 

6 The NRC is required under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments 

7 of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any 

8 environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the EIS. During the course of preparing 

9 this EIS, the NRC consulted with various other Federal agencies, Tribal contacts, and State and 

10 local agencies. Key consultation correspondence is included in Appendix F. 

11 2.13 References 

12 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

13 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

14 33 CFR Part 328. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

15 Part 328, “Definition of Waters of the United States.” 

16 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

17 Part 800. “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

18 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

19 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

20 40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regualtions. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93, 

21 “Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.” 

22 50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, 

23 “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.” 

24 41 FR 28402. July 9, 1976. “Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides.” Federal Register. 

25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

26 55 FR 32088. August 7, 1990. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

27 Determination of Threatened Status for the Puritan Tiger Beetle and the Northeastern Beach 

28 Tiger Beetle.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

29 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. “Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994; Federal 

30 Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” 

31 Executive Order 12898. Federal Register. Office of the President. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-149 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

2 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

3 Commission. 

4 72 FR 4967. February 2, 2007. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month 

5 Finding on a Petition to List the American Eel as Threatened or Endangered." Federal Register. 

6 U.S. Department of the Interior. 

7 72 FR 35388. June 27, 2007. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding on 

8 Whether to List Eastern Oyster as a Threatened or Endangered Species.” Federal Register. 

9 U.S. Department of Commerce. 

10 72 FR 67712. November 30, 2007. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status 

11 Review for Shortnose Sturgeon.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

12 73 FR 3991. January 23, 2008. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 

13 5-year Reviews of 10 Listed Species.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

14 74 FR 66496. December 15, 2009. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

15 Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” Federal Register. U.S. 

16 Environmental Protection Agency. 

17 Abbe, G.R. 1973. “Catches of the Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) from 1968 to 1971 in the 

18 Area of Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

19 Philadelphia 125(6):89-120. 

20 Abbe, G.R. 1988. “Population Structure of the American Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) on an 

21 Oyster Bar in Central Chesapeake Bay: Changes Associated with Shell Planting and Increased 

22 Recruitment.” Journal of Shellfish Research 7(1):33-40. 

23 Abbe, G.R. 1992. “Population Structure of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) (Gmelis, 

24 1971), on Two Oyster Bars in Central Chesapeake Bay: Further Changes Associated with Shell 

25 Plating, Recruitment and Disease.” Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2):421-430. 

26 Abbe, G.R. 2002. “Decline in Size of Male Blue Crabs (Callinectes sapidus) from 1968 to 2000 

27 near Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.” Estuaries 25(1):105-114. 

28 Abbe, G.R. and C. Stagg. 1996. “Trends in Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus Rathbun) Catches 

29 near Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, from 1968 to 1995 and Their Relationships to the Maryland 

30 Commercial Fishery.” Journal of Shellfish Research 15(3):751-758. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-150 April 2010 

1 Able, K.W. and S.M. Hagan. 2003. “Impact of Common Reed, Phragmites australis, on 

2 Essential Fish Habitat: Influence on Reproduction, Embryological Development, and Larval 

3 Abundance of the Mummichog (Fundulus hereoclitus).” Estuaries 26(1):20-50. 

4 Aguilar, R., A.H. Hines, T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, M.A. Kramer, and R.N. Lipcius. 2005. “The 

5 Timing and Route of Movement and Migration of Post-Copulatory Female Blue Crabs 

6 (Callinectes sapidus Rathbun) from the Upper Chesapeake Bay.” Journal of Experimental 

7 Marine Biology and Ecology 319(1-2):117-128. 

8 Alexander, R.B., E.W. Boyer, R.A. Smith, G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Moore. 2007. “The Role of 

9 Headwater Streams in Downstream Water Quality.” Journal of the American Water Resources 

10 Association 43(1):41-59. 

11 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006a. “Species Profile: American 

12 Eel, Management Program Seeks to Improve Our Understanding of Species Through Data 

13 Collection.” ASMFC Fisheries Focus 15(9):4-6. 

14 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006b. 2006 Stock Assessment 

15 Report for Atlantic Menhaden. Prepared by the Atlantic Menhaden Technical Committee for the 

16 Atlantic Menahden Management Board, Washington, D.C. Available at: 

17 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/menhaden/reports/stockAssessments/2006StockAsse

18 ssmentReport.pdf. 

19 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006c. “Species Profile Bluefish Joint 

20 Plan Seeks to Restore Premier Fighting Fish.” ASMFC Fisheries Focus 15(4):1-2. 

21 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006d. “Species Profile: Red Drum 

22 Amendment Seeks to Increase Recruitment and Protect Reproductive Adults.” ASMFC 

23 Fisheries Focus 15(1):1-3. 

24 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006e. 2006 Weakfish Stock 

25 Assessment, Terms of Reference and Advisory Report, Technical Committee Supplemental 

26 Material. Prepared by the ASMFC Weakfish Stock Assessment Subcommittee, Washington, 

27 D.C. Available at: 

28 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/weakfish/stockassessmentreports/2006WeakfishStock

29 Assessment.pdf. 

30 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006f. Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) – 

31 Life History and Habitat Needs. Available at http://www.asmfc.org. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-151 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007a. “Species Profile: Atlantic 

2 Croaker Amendment Seeks to Maintain Healthy Mid-Atlantic Stock Component.” ASMFC 

3 Fisheries Focus 16(3):1-3. 

4 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007b. “Species Profile: Spot Popular 

5 South Atlantic Stock Benefits from Bycatch Reduction Efforts.” ASMFC Fisheries Focus

6 14(4/5):1-2. 

7 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007c. “Species Profile: Weakfish the 

8 Challenge of Managing a Stock Decline When Fishing Is Not the Cause.” ASMFC Fisheries 

9 Focus 16(4):1-3. 

10 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 2007d. “Species Profile: Shad and 

11 River Herring Atlantic States Seek to Improve Knowledge of Stock Status and Protect 

12 Populations Coastwide.” ASMFC Fisheries Focus 16(8):1-4. 

13 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser 

14 oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

15 Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts. Accession No. ML090780577. 

16 Atwood, T.C., H.P. Weeks, and T.M. Gehring. 2004. “Spatial Ecology of Coyotes Along a 

17 Suburban-to-Rural Gradient.” Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):1000-1009. 

18 Aznar, J.C. and A. Desrochers. 2008. “Building for the Future: Abandoned Beaver Ponds 

19 Promote Bird Diversity.” Ecoscience 15(2):250-257. 

20 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 1992. 16 U.S.C. 688 et seq. 

21 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). 1971. Supplement to Environmental Report 

22 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Baltimore, Maryland. 

23 Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment 

24 Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

25 and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

26 Washington, D.C. 

27 Baxter, C.V., K.D. Fausch, and W.C. Saunders. 2005. “Tangled Webs: Reciprocal Flows of 

28 Invertebrate Prey Link Streams and Riparian Zones.” Freshwater Biology 50(2):201-220. 

29 Bilyard, G.R. 1987. “The Value of Benthic Infauna in Marine Pollution Monitoring Studies.” 

30 Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(11):581-585. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-152 April 2010 

1 Bishop, J.W. 1972. “Ctenophores of the Chesapeake Bay.” Chesapeake Science, 

2 13(Supplement 1): S98-S100. 

3 Bjorndal, K. A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. 2000. “Somatic Growth Model of Juvenile 

4 Loggerhead Sea Turtles Caretta caretta: Duration of Pelagic Stage.” Marine Ecology Progress 

5 Series 202:265-272. 

6 Bowers, H.A., T.M. Trice, R.E. Magnien, D.M. Goshorn, B. Michael, E.F. Schaefer, P.A. Rublee, 

7 and D.W. Oldach. 2006. “Detection of Pfiesteria spp. by PCR in Surface Sediments Collected 

8 from Chesapeake Bay Tributaries (Maryland).” Harmful Algae 5(4):342-351. 

9 Boyle, S. and S. Owens. 2007. North American Beaver (Castor canadensis): A Technical 

10 Conservation Assessment. Prepared by BIO-logic Environmental for the U.S. Department of 

11 Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Montrose, Colorado. Available at 

12 http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanbeaver.pdf. 

13 Breitburg, D.L. and R.S. Fulford. 2006. “Oyster-Sea Nettle Interdependence and Altered 

14 Control within the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem.” Estuaries and Coasts 29(5):776-784. 

15 Broderick, A.C., R. Frauenstein, F. Glen, G.C. Hays, A.L. Jackson, T. Pelembe, G.D. Ruxton, 

16 and B.J. Godley. 2006. “Are Green Turtles Globally Endangered?” Global Ecology and 

17 Biogeography 15(1):21-26. 

18 Buchman, M.F. 2008. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs). National Oceanic 

19 and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration Report 08-1, Seattle, 

20 Washington. 

21 Byrne, D.M. 1978. “Life History of the Spotfin Killifish, Fundulus luciae (Pisces: 

22 cyprinodontidae), in Fox Creek Marsh, Virginia.” Estuaries 1(4):211-227. 

23 Cadenasso, M.L. and S.T.A. Pickett. 2000. “Linking Forest Edge Structure to Edge Function: 

24 Mediation of Herbivore Damage.” Journal of Ecology 88:31-44. 

25 Cahoon, D.R. 2007. “Chapter 12: Factors Affecting Coastal Wetland Loss and Restoration.” 

26 In Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem and 

27 Implications for Environmental Management, S.W. Phillips, ed. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

28 1316, USGS, Reston, Virginia. 

29 Calvert County. 2006. Calvert County Zoning Ordinance. Accessed November 3, 2008 at 

30 http://www.co.cal.md.us/government/departments/planning/2006zoningordinance/. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-153 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Calvert County. 2008. Calvert County Comprehensive Water & Sewerage Plan 2008. 

2 Accessed on October 26, 2009 at 

3 http://www.co.cal.md.us/business/planning/documents/2008watersewerplan/. 

4 Calvert County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). 2006. Calvert County Land 

5 Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan. Accessed June 19, 2008 at 

6 http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/Planning_Zoning/PDF_Files/AdoptedOpenSpacePlan.pdf. 

7 Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (CCCP). 2004. 2004 Comprehensive Plan; Calvert 

8 County, Maryland. Accessed August 8, 2008 at 

9 http://www.co.cal.md.us/government/departments/planning/comprehensiveplan/. 

10 Calvert County Department of Finance and Budget (CC DF&B). 2007. Calvert County, 

11 Maryland, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Accessed August 8, 2008 at 

12 http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/Finance/2007cafr.pdf. 

13 Calvert County Office of Transportation (CCOT). 2007. Calvert County Office of 

14 Transportation. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

15 http://www.co.cal.md.us/residents/transportation/. 

16 Calvert County Public Schools (CCPS). 2008. Calvert County Public Schools. Accessed 

17 December 2, 2008 at http://www.calvertnet.k12.md.us/. 

18 Carver, A. M., T.G. Wolcott, D.L. Wolcott, and A.H. Hines. 2005. “Unnatural Selection: Effects 

19 of a Male-Focused Size-Selective Fishery on Reproductive Ppaotential of a Blue Crab 

20 Population.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:29-41. 

21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

22 United States 1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 45(53):1-88. 

23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998a. “Surveillance for Waterborne24 Disease Outbreaks – United States, 1995–1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

25 47(SS-5):1-72. 

26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998b. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

27 United States, 1997.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(54):1-87. 

28 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

29 United States, 1998.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 47(53):1-93. 

30 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2000. “Surveillance for Waterborne31 Disease Outbreaks – United States, 1997–1998.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

32 49(SS-4):1-36. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-154 April 2010 

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

2 United States 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(53):1-104. 

3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002a. “Surveillance for Waterborne4 Disease Outbreaks – United States, 1999–2000.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51( 

5 SS-8):1-48. 

6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002b. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

7 United States, 2000.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49(53):1-102. 

8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

9 United States, 2001.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(53):1-108. 

10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004a. “Surveillance for Waterborne 

11 Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water – United States, 2001–2002; and 

12 Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water 

13 not Intended for Drinking — United States, 2001–2002.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

14 53(SS-8):1-45. 

15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004b. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

16 United States, 2002.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51(53):1-84. 

17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

18 United States, 2003.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 52(54):1-85. 

19 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006a. “Surveillance for Waterborne 

20 Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water – United States, 2003–2004; and 

21 Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water 

22 not Intended for Drinking — United States, 2003–2004.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

23 55(SS-12):1-65. 

24 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006b. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

25 United States, 2004.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53(53):1-79. 

26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

27 United States, 2005.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 54(53):2-92. 

28 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008a. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

29 United States, 2006.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 55(53):1-94. 

30 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008b. “Primary Amebic 

31 Meningoencephalitis — Arizona, Florida, and Texas, 2007.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

32 Report 57(21):573-596. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-155 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008c. Learn About Lyme Disease. 

2 Accessed December 29, 2007 at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/index.htm. Accession 

3 No. ML100490737. 

4 Cerco, C.F. and M.R. Noel. 2007. “Can Oyster Restoration Reverse Cultural Eutrophication in 

5 Chesapeake Bay?” Estuaries and Coasts 30(2):331-343. 

6 Chang, S., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source 

7 Document: Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

8 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods 

9 Hole, Massachusetts. Accession No. ML072070389. 

10 Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation, Inc. (CBEF). 2006. Chesapeake Bay Ecological 

11 Foundation, Inc. – 2008 Ecological Depletion of Atlantic Menhaden Effects on Atlantic Coast 

12 Striped Bass. Accessed February 15, 2008 at http://www.chesbay.org/articles/latest.asp. 

13 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008a. Habitats, Forests. Accessed February 5, 2008 at 

14 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/habitats.htm. 

15 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008b. Habitats, Wetlands. Accessed February 5, 2008 at 

16 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/habitats.htm. 

17 Chesapeake EcoCheck. 2007. Reporting Region Summary: 2007, Mid Bay, Health Report 

18 Card. Accessed September 29, 2008 at http://www.eco-check.org 

19 lreportcard/chesapeake/2007/summaries/mid _bay. 

20 Claggett, P.R. 2007. “Chapter 2: Human Population Growth and Land-Use Change.” In 

21 Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem and 

22 Implications for Environmental Management, S.W. Phillips, ed. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

23 1316, USGS, Reston, Virginia. 

24 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

25 Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

26 Control Act [FWPCA]). 

27 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 2006. 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. 

28 COMAR 20.19.03.02.b(2)(c) 2010. “Federal or State Emission Standards.” Code of Maryland 

29 Regulations. 

30 COMAR 26.11.03. 2010. “Permits, Approvals, and Registration – Title V Permits.” Code of 

31 Maryland Regulations. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-156 April 2010 

1 COMAR 26.11.17. 2000. “Nonattainment Provisions for Major New Sources and Major 

2 Modifications Authority.” Code of Maryland Regulations. 

3 COMAR 26.23.01.01. 2007. “Nontidal Wetlands.” Code of Maryland Regulations. 

4 Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, 

5 E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 

6 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered 

7 Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine 

8 Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available at: 

9 http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/ConantTA_2009_NMFSTechReport.pdf. 

10 Conkwright, R.D., K.A. Offerman, and S.V. Ryswick. 2008. Appendix G, Calvert Cliffs Acoustic 

11 Bottom Survey. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

12 Constellation Energy Group, LLC (Constellation). 2003a. Annual Radiological Environmental 

13 Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent 

14 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, January 1 - December 31, 2002. Accession No. 

15 ML031400478. 

16 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2003b. Letter from Mark Tonacci 

17 (Constellation) to the NRC dated July 16, 2003, “Subject: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

18 Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318; 2002 Radioactive Effluent Release Report 

19 and Dose Assessment.” Accession No. ML032030050. 

20 Constellation Energy Group, LLC (Constellation). 2004a. Annual Radiological Environmental 

21 Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent 

22 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, January 1 - December 31, 2003. Accession No. 

23 ML041380033. 

24 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2004b. Letter from Mark Tonacci 

25 (Constellation) to the NRC dated July 15, 2004, “Subject: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

26 Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318; 2003 Radioactive Effluent Release Report 

27 and Dose Assessment.” Accession No. ML042020066. 

28 Constellation Energy Group, LLC (Constellation). 2005a. Annual Radiological Environmental 

29 Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent 

30 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, January 1 - December 31, 2004. Accession No. 

31 ML051370609. 

32 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2005b. Letter from Mark Tonacci 

33 (Constellation) to the NRC dated July 14, 2005, “Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-157 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318; 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report and Dose 

2 Assessment.” Accession No. ML052020232. 

3 Constellation Energy Group, LLC (Constellation). 2006a. Annual Radiological Environmental 

4 Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent 

5 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, January 1 – December 31, 2005. Accession No. ML061440213. 

6 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2006b. Letter from Steven Sanders 

7 (Constellation) to the NRC dated July 13, 2006, “Subject: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

8 Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

9 Installation, Docket No. 72-8; 2005 Radioactive Effluent Release Report and Dose 

10 Assessment.” Accession No. ML061980021. 

11 Constellation Energy Group, LLC (Constellation). 2007a. Annual Radiological Environmental 

12 Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent 

13 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, January 1 - December 31, 2006. Accession No. ML071590393. 

14 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2007b. Letter from Steven Sanders 

15 (Constellation) to the NRC dated July 11, 2007, “Subject: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

16 Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 

17 Docket No. 72-8; 2006 Radioactive Effluent Release Report and Dose Assessment.” Accession 

18 No. ML072050475. 

19 Cross, J.N., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C. McBride. 1999. Essential Fish 

20 Habitat Source Document: Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, Life History and Habitat 

21 Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-145. National Marine Fisheries 

22 Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

23 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. The 1997 Annual Report of the Council on 

24 Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML093280365. 

25 Dadswell, M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synoposis of 

26 Biological Data on Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NOAA 

27 Technical Report NMFS 14, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

28 Denver, J.M. and S.W. Ator. 2007. “Chapter 8: The Occurrence of Pesticides in the Bay 

29 Watershed.” In Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Chesapeake Bay 

30 Ecosystem and Implications for Environmental Management, S.W. Phillips, ed. U.S. Geological 

31 Survey Circular 1316, USGS, Reston, Virginia. 

32 Dittel, A.I., C.E. Epifanio, and M.L. Fogel. 2006. “Trophic Relationships of Juvenile Blue Crabs 

33 (Callinectes sapidus) in Estuarine Habitats.” Hydrobiologia 568(1):379–390. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-158 April 2010 

1 Dominion. 2009. Dominion Cove Point LNG. Accessed December 16, 2009 at 

2 http://www.dom.com/business/gas-transmission/cove-point/index.jsp. 

3 Donovan, T.M. and C.H. Flather. 2002. “Relationships Among North American Songbird 

4 Trends, Habitat Fragmentation, and Landscape Occupancy.” Ecological Applications

5 12(2):364-374. 

6 Drohan, A.F., J.P. Manderson, and D.B. Packer. 2007. Essential Fish Habitat Source 

7 Document: Black Sea Bass, Centropristis striata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

8 Second Edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-200. Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

9 Drummond, D.D. 2007. “Water-Supply Potential of the Coastal Plain Aquifers in Calvert, 

10 Charles, and St. Mary’s Counties, Maryland, with Emphasis on the Upper Patapsco and Lower 

11 Patapsco Aquifers.” Report of Investigations No. 76, Department of Natural Resources, 

12 Resource Assessment Service, Maryland Geological Survey, Maryland. 

13 EA Engineering Science and Technology Inc. (EA Engineering). 2007a. Aquatic Field Studies 

14 for UniStar Calvert Cliffs Expansion Project May 2007. Prepared for UniStar Nuclear 

15 Development, LLC by EA Engineering Science and Technology, Sparks, Maryland. Accession 

16 No. ML090690170. 

17 EA Engineering Science and Technology Inc. (EA Engineering). 2007b. Submerged Aquatic 

18 Vegetation Surveys for UniStar Calvert Cliffs Expansion Project June 2007. Prepared for 

19 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC by EA Engineering Science and Technology Sparks, 

20 Maryland. Accession No. ML100040305. 

21 Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team (EOBRT). 2007. Status Review of the Eastern Oyster 

22 (Crassostrea virginica). Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional 

23 Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts. 

24 eFloras. 2008a. Flora of North America. Accessed March 13, 2008 at 

25 http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242415129. 

26 eFloras. 2008b. Mountain Chestnut Oak, Rock Chestnut Oak. Accessed February 15, 2008 at 

27 http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233501064. 

28 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

29 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corp of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands 

30 Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, Department of the Army, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

31 Accession No. ML042790476. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-159 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Faught, M.K. 2008. Final Report, Submerged Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Outfall 

2 Pipe, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Construction, Calvert County, Maryland. 

3 Prepared for MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Memphis, 

4 Tennessee. Accession No. ML100040309. 

5 Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983. Species Profiles Life Histories and 

6 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic)—

7 Alewife/Blueback Herring. FWS/OBS-82/11.9,TR EL-82-4, Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of 

8 Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Slidell, 

9 Lousiana. Accession No. ML073460154. 

10 Feigenbaum, D. and M. Kelly. 1984. “Changes in the Lower Chesapeake Bay Food Chain in 

11 Presence of the Sea Nettle Chrysaora quinquecirrha (Scyphomedusa).” Marine Ecology 

12 Progress Series 19:39-47. 

13 Fogarty, M.J. and T.J. Miller. 2004. “Impact of a Change in Reporting Systems in the Maryland 

14 Blue Crab Fishery.” Fisheries Research 68(1-3):37-43. 

15 Frey, S.N. and M.R. Conover. 2006. “Habitat Use by Meso-Predators in a Corridor 

16 Environment.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4):1111-1118. 

17 Freeman, M.C., C.M. Pringle, and C.R. Jackson. 2007. “Hydrologic Connectivity and the 

18 Contribution of Stream Headwaters to Ecological Integrity at Regional Scales 1.” Journal of the 

19 American Water Resources Association 43(1):5-14. 

20 Garman, G.D. 1992. “Fate and Potential Significance of Postspawning Anadromous Fish 

21 Carcasses in an Atlantic Coastal River.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

22 121:390-394. 

23 Gibson, J.C. and J.A. McClafferty. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Angler Interviews, Identifying 

24 Populations at Risk for Consuming Contaminated Fish in Three Regions of Concern. CMI25 HDD-05-01, prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program by Conservation Management Institute, 

26 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Accessed December 2, 

27 2008 at 

28 http://www.nbii.gov/images/uploaded/155729_1170437308921_2004_ConsumptionAdvisories_

29 AnglerSurvey.pdf. 

30 Glibert, P.A. and J.M. Burkholder. 2006. “Toward an Emerging Consensus on the Ecology of 

31 Pfiesteria.” Harmful Algae 5(4):339–341. 

32 Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. “Understanding Processes and Downstream 

33 Linkages of Headwater Systems.” BioScience 52(10):905-916. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-160 April 2010 

1 Great Schools (GS). 2008. Great Schools. Accessed September 4, 2008 at 

2 http://www.greatschools.net/. 

3 Grusha, D.S. 2005. Investigation of the Life History of the Cownose Ray, Rhinoptera bonasus

4 (Mitchill 1815). A Thesis Presented To: The Faculty of the School of Marine Science, the 

5 College of William and Mary. MS Thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

6 Häggland, A. and G. Sjöberg. 1999. “Effects of Beaver Dams on the Fish Fauna of Forest 

7 Streams.” Forest Ecology and Management 115(2-3):259-266. 

8 Halling-Sørensen, B., S. Nors Nielsen, P.F. Lanzky, F. Ingerslev, H.C. Holten Liitzhofl, and S.E. 

9 Jorgensen. 1998. “Occurrence, Fate, and Effects of Pharmaceutical Substances in the 

10 Environment - A Review.” Chemosphere 36(2):357-393. 

11 Harding, J.M. and R. Mann. 2001. “Diet and Habitat Use by Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) in a 

12 Chesapeake Bay Estuary.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 60(4):401–409. 

13 Hardy, J.D. 1962. “Comments on the Atlantic Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea kempi, in 

14 the Chesapeake Bay.” Chesapeake Science 3(3):217-220. 

15 Hare, J.A. and K.W. Able. 2007. “Mechanistic Links Between Climate and Fisheries Along the 

16 East Coast of the United States: Explaining Population Outbursts of Atlantic Croaker 

17 (Micropogonias undulatus).” Fisheries Oceanography 16(1):31–45. 

18 Hargis Jr., W.J. and D.S. Haven. 1999. “Chesapeake Oyster Reefs, Their Importance, 

19 Destruction and Guidelines for Restoring Them.” Chapter 23 in Oyster Reef Habitat 

20 Restoration: A Synopsis and Synthesis of Approaches. M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, and J.A. 

21 Wesson, eds. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 

22 Hartman, K.J. and S.B. Brandt. 1995. “Trophic Resource Partitioning, Diets, and Growth of 

23 Sympatric Estuarine Predators.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:520-537. 

24 Heithaus, M.R., A.J. Wirsing, J.A. Thomson, and D.A. Burkholder. 2008. “A Review of Lethal 

25 and Non-Lethal Effects of Predators on Adult Marine Turtles.” Journal of Experimental Marine 

26 Biology and Ecology 356(1-2):43-51. 

27 Hoffman, J.C., L.E. Limburg, D.A. Bronk, and J.E. Olney. 2008. “Overwintering Habitats of 

28 Migratory Juvenile American Shad in Chesapeake Bay.” Environmental Biology of Fishes

29 81(3):329–345. 

30 Hood, G.A. and S.E. Bayley. 2008. “Beaver (Castor canadensis) Mitigate the Effects of Climate 

31 on the Area of Open Water in Boreal Wetlands in Western Canada.” Biological Conservation

32 141(2):556-567. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-161 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Houde, E.D., J. Bichy, and S. Jung. 2005. “Effects of Hurricane Isabel on Fish Populations and 

2 Communities in Chesapeake Bay.” In Hurricane Isabel in Perspective: Proceedings of a 

3 Conference, K.G. Sellner, ed. Chesapeake Research Consortium, CRC Publication 05-160, 

4 Edgewater, Maryland. 

5 Jacobs, J.M., A. Baya, M. Rhodes, R. Reimschuessel, and R.M. Harrell. 2006. “The Influence 

6 of Dietary Intake on the Progression and Severity of Mycobacteriosis in Striped Bass (Morone 

7 saxatilis).” In USGS/NOAA Workshop on Mycobacteriosis in Striped Bass, May 7-10, 2006, 

8 Annapolis, Maryland. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5214, USGS, Reston, 

9 Virginia. 

10 Jenkins, S.H. and P.E. Busher. 1979. “Castor canadensis.” Mammalian species, American 

11 Society of Mammalogists 120:1-8. 

12 Jung, S., and E.D. Houde. 2003. “Spatial and Temporal Variabilities of Pelagic Fish 

13 Community Structure and Distribution in Chesapeake Bay, USA.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

14 Science 58(2):335-351. 

15 Jung, S. and E.D. Houde. 2004a. “Recruitment and Spawning-Stock Biomass Distribution of 

16 Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli ) in Chesapeake Bay.” Fishery Bulletin 102(1):63–77. 

17 Jung, S. and E.D. Houde. 2004b. “Production of Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in Chesapeake 

18 Bay: Application of Size-based Theory.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 281:217-232. 

19 Kahn, D.M. and V. Crecco. 2006. “Tag-Recapture Data from Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass 

20 Indicate that Natural Mortality has Increased.” In USGS/NOAA Workshop on Mycobacteriosis in 

21 Striped Bass, May 7-10, 2006, Annapolis, Maryland. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 

22 2006-5214, USGS, Reston, Virginia. 

23 Kazyak, P., J.V. Kilian, S.A. Stranko, M.K. Hurd, D.M. Boward, C.J. Millard, and A. Schenk. 

24 2005. Maryland Biological Stream Survey 2000-2004, Volume 9: Stream and Riverine 

25 Biodiversity. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

26 Keller, G.S. and R.H. Yahner. 2007. “Seasonal Forest-Patch Use by Birds in Fragmented 

27 Landscapes of South-Central Pennsylvania.” The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119(3):410-

28 418. 

29 Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, 

30 T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, 

31 R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. “Eutrophication of 

32 Chesapeake Bay: Historical Trends and Ecological Interactions.” Marine Ecology Progress 

33 Series 303:1-29. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-162 April 2010 

1 Kennedy, V.S. and L.L. Breisch. 1981. Sixteen Decades of Political Management of the Oyster 

2 Fishery in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay. University of Maryland Center for Environmental 

3 Science, Cambridge, Maryland. 

4 Kennedy, V.S. and K. Mountford. 2001. “Human Influences on Aquatic Resources in the 

5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed.” Chapter 10 in Discovering the Chesapeake, The History of an 

6 Ecosystem. P.D. Curtin, G.S. Brush, and G.W. Fisher, eds., Johns Hopkins University Press, 

7 Baltimore, Maryland. 

8 King, R.S., J.R. Beaman, D.F. Whigham, A.H. Hines, M.E. Baker, and D.E. Weller. 2004. 

9 “Watershed Land Use Is Strongly Linked to PCBs in White Perch in Chesapeake Bay 

10 Subestuaries.” Environmental Science & Technology 38(24):6546-6552. 

11 KLD Engineering, P.C. (KLD). 2009. Traffic Impact Study at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

12 Plant, Draft Final Report, Rev. 2. TR-427, Hauppauge, New York. Accession No. 

13 ML093570407. 

14 Knisley, C.B. 2006. Current Status of Two Federally Threatened Tiger Beetles at Calvert Cliffs 

15 Nuclear power Plant. Letter report to Carla Logan, Constellation Generation Group, October 26, 

16 2006. Glen Allen, Virginia. Accession No. ML090690159. 

17 Kraus, R.T. and D.H. Secor. 2004. “Dynamics of White Perch Morone americana Population 

18 Contingents in the Patuxent River Estuary, Maryland, USA.” Marine Ecology Progress Series

19 279:247-259. 

20 Kraus, R.T. and D.H. Secor. 2005. “Application of the Nursery-Role Hypothesis to an Estuarine 

21 Fish.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 291:301-305. 

22 Kynard, B. 1997. “Life History, Latitudinal patterns and Status of the Shortnose Sturgeon, 

23 Acipenser brevirostrum.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:319-334. 

24 Kynard, B., M. Breece, M. Atcheson, M. Kieffer, and M. Mangold. 2009. “Life History and 

25 Status of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Potomac River.” Journal of 

26 Applied Ichthyology 25 (Supplement 2):34-38. 

27 Lacouture, R.V., J.M. Johnson, C. Buchanan, and H.G. Marshall. 2006. “Phytoplankton Index 

28 of Biotic Integrity for Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries.” Estuaries and Coasts

29 29(4):598–616. 

30 Lathrop, R.G., L. Windham, and P. Montesano. 2003. “Does Phragmites Expansion Alter the 

31 Structure and Function of Marsh Landscapes? Patterns and Processes Revisited.” Estuaries

32 26(2B):423-435. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-163 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Latour, R.J., J. Gartland, C.F. Bonzek, R.A. Johnson. 2008. “The Trophic Dynamics of 

2 Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in Chesapeake Bay.” Fishery Bulletin 106:47-57. 

3 Lewitus, A.J., R.V. Jesien, and T.M. Kana. 1995. “Discovery of the ‘Phantom’ Dinoflagellate in 

4 Chesapeake Bay.” Estuaries 18(2):373-378. 

5 Levey, D.J., B.M. Bolker, J.J. Tewksbury, S. Sargent, and N.M. Haddad. 2005. “Effects of 

6 Landscape Corridors on Seed Dispersal by Birds.” Science 309(146):146-148. 

7 Llansó, R.J., J. Dew, and L.C. Scott. 2007a. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring 

8 Program, Long-Term Benthic Monitoring and Assessment Component, Level I Comprehensive 

9 Report, July 1984-December 2006 (Volume 1). Prepared by Versar, Inc., for Maryland DNR, 

10 Annapolis Maryland. 

11 Llansó, R.J., J. Dew, and L.C. Scott. 2007b. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring 

12 Program, Long-Term Benthic Monitoring and Assessment Component, Level I Comprehensive 

13 Report, July 1984-December 2006 (Volume 2). Prepared by Versar, Inc., for Maryland DNR, 

14 Annapolis Maryland. 

15 Long, Z.T., T.H. Pendergast IV, and W.P. Carson. 2007. “The Impact of Deer on Relationships 

16 between Tree Growth and Mortality in an Old-Growth Beech-Maple Forest.” Forest Ecology and 

17 Management 252:230-238. 

18 Luo, J. and J.A. Musick. 1991. “Reproductive Biology of the Bay Anchovy in Chesapeake Bay.” 

19 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:701-710. 

20 Lutcavage, M. 1981. The Status of Marine Turtles in Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Coastal 

21 Waters. A Thesis Presented To: The Faculty of the School of Marine Science, the College of 

22 William and Mary. MA Thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

23 Lydy, M.J., C.G. Crawford, J.W. Frey. 2000. “A Comparison of Selected Diversity, Similarity, 

24 and Biotic Indices for Detecting Changes in Benthic-Invertebrate Community Structure and 

25 Stream Quality.” Archives of Evironmental Contamination and Toxicology 39:469–479. 

26 MacAvoy, S.E., S.A. Macko, S.P. McIninch, and G.C. Garman. 2000. “Marine Nutrient 

27 Contributions to Freshwater Apex Predators.” Oecologia 122:568–573. 

28 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). 16 U.S.C. 1801 et 

29 seq. 

30 Mansfield, K.L. 2006. Sources of Mortality, Movements and Behavior of Sea Turtles in Virginia31 A Dissertation Presented To: The Faculty of the School of Marine Science, the College of 

32 William and Mary. PhD Dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-164 April 2010 

1 Maryland Comptroller (MD Comp). 2007. State of Maryland, Comprehensive Annual Financial 

2 Report. Accessed August 15, 2008 at 

3 http://www.marylandtaxes.com/publications/fiscalrprts/cafr2007.pdf. 

4 Maryland Comptroller (MD Comp). 2008a. Comptroller of Maryland, Sales and Use Tax. 

5 Accessed November 18, 2008 at http://individuals.marylandtaxes.com/usetax/default.asp. 

6 Maryland Comptroller (MD Comp). 2008b. Comptroller of Maryland, Income Tax Information. 

7 Accessed November 18, 2008 at http://individuals.marylandtaxes.com/incometax/default.asp. 

8 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 

9 2000. A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay 

10 Critical Area. Annapolis, Maryland. 

11 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 

12 2008a. Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays. Accessed on 

13 August 4, 2008 at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/index.html. 

14 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 

15 2008b. Letter from Amber Widmayer (CAC, Natural Resource Planner) to Susan Gray 

16 (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant Research Program), “Re: 

17 Notification of Critical Area Commission Action on Request for Approval of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear 

18 Power Plant Expansion Project,” August 8, 2008. 

19 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 

20 2008c. Letter from Margaret G. McHale (Critical Area Commission, Chair) to Susan Grey 

21 (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program), “Re: Revised 

22 Initial Conditions for CPCN Case 9127 – Proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3,” October 22, 2008. 

23 Accessed November 3, 2008 at 

24 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/CaseNum/submit.cfm?DirPath=C:\Casenum\9100-

25 9199\9127\Item_80\&CaseN=9127\Item_80. 

26 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 

27 2008d. Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays. Accessed 

28 August 4, 2008 at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/index.html. 

29 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 

30 2008e. Preserving Our Precious Natural Resources. Accessed February 19, 2008 at 

31 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/preserving.html. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-165 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 

2 2008f. Categories of Land within the Critical Area. Accessed February 19, 2008 at 

3 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/section2a.html. 

4 Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2008. Gypsy Moth Program. Accessed February 

5 20, 2008 at http://www.mda.state.md.us/plants6 pests/forest_pest_mgmt/gypsy_moth/gypsy_moth_program_policy.php. 

7 Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (MDBED). 2007. Maryland 

8 Department of Business and Economic Development. Facts and Figures, Transportation. 

9 Accessed at www.choosemaryland.org/factsandfigures/transportation/transportationindex.html. 

10 Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (MDBED). 2008a. Calvert 

11 County. MDBED – Regions and Counties – County Profiles – Calvert County. Accessed 

12 November 18, 2008 at 

13 http://www.choosemaryland.org/regionsandcounties/southernregion/CalvertCounty.html. 

14 Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (MDBED). 2008b. St. Mary’s 

15 County. MDBED – Regions and Counties – County Profiles – St. Mary’s County. Accessed 

16 November 18, 2008 at 

17 http://www.choosemaryland.org/regionsandcounties/southernregion/StMarysCounty.html. 

18 Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (MDBED). 2008c. Air. MDBED 

19 – Facts & Figures – Transportation – Air. Accessed November 18, 2008 at 

20 http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsandfigures/transportation/airdata.html. 

21 Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (MDBED). 2008d. Rail. 

22 MDBED – Facts and Figures – Transportation – Rail. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

23 http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsandfigures/transportation/raildata.html. 

24 Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). 2008. Nontidal Wetlands of Special State 

25 Concern. Accessed October 2, 2008 at 

26 www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wetlandswaterways/ssc.pdf. 

27 Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (MDLLR). 2008a. Career and 

28 Workforce Information, Occupational Projections – C – Maryland Occupational Projections – 

29 2006-2016. Accessed November 18, 2008 at 

30 http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/iandoproj/occc.shtml. 

31 Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (MDLLR). 2008b. Career and 

32 Workforce Information, Occupational Projections – C – Southern Maryland WIA Occupational 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-166 April 2010 

1 Projections – 2004-2014. Accessed November 18, 2008 at 

2 http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/iandoproj/southern/occc.shtml. 

3 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2001. Maryland Biological Stream 

4 Survey Sampling Manual, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment. Monitoring and Non-Tidal 

5 Assessment Division, Annapolis, Maryland. 

6 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2004. Lower Patuxent River in Calvert 

7 County Watershed Characterization December 2003. Annapolis, Maryland. 

8 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005. 2002-2004 Fishery Management 

9 Plans Legislative Report. Fisheries Service; Fishery Management Plan Program, Annapolis, 

10 Maryland. 

11 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007a. Current and Historical Rare, 

12 Threatened, and Endangered Species of Calvert County, Maryland. Wildlife and Heritage 

13 Service, Annapolis, Maryland. 

14 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007b. Rare, Threatened, and 

15 Endangered Animals of Maryland. Wildlife and Heritage Program, Annapolis, Maryland. 

16 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007c. Rare, Threatened, and 

17 Endangered Plants of Maryland. Wildlife and Heritage Program, Annapolis, Maryland. 

18 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007d. Calvert Cliffs State Park. 

19 Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

20 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/southern/calvertcliffs.html. 

21 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007e. Fisheries Service, Bay-wide Blue 

22 Crab Winter Dredge Survey 2007. Accessed March 7, 2008 at 

23 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/crab/winter_dredge.html. 

24 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007f. Maryland Tributary Strategy 

25 Patuxent River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data. Annapolis, Maryland. 

26 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008a. Chinese Mitten Crab Watch. 

27 Accessed March 13, 2008 at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/mitten_crab.asp. 

28 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008b. A Chesapeake Bay Fishery 

29 Management Update, Section 8. Bluefish. Accessed September 26, 2008 at 

30 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/FMP/FMPBluefish04.pdf. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-167 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008c. A Chesapeake Bay Fishery 

2 Management Update, Section 19. White Perch. Accessed September 26, 2008 at 

3 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/FMP/FMPWhitePerch04.pdf. 

4 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008d. DNR Announces Estimated 2007 

5 Blue Crab Harvest Numbers. Accessed February 6, 2008 at 

6 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2008/020408.html. 

7 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008e. Summary of Maryland’s 2008 

8 Emergency Crabbing Regulation Changes. Accessed October 26, 2008 at 

9 www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/crab/SummaryofCrabChanges08.pdf. 

10 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008f. A Chesapeake Bay Fishery 

11 Management Update, Section 1. Alosines (Shad and River Herring). Accessed September 26, 

12 2008 at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/management/FMP/FMPAlosines04.pdf. 

13 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008g. Maryland Geological Survey, A 

14 Brief Description of the Geology of Maryland. Accessed September 12, 2008 at 

15 http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/mdgeology.html. 

16 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program (MDNR PPRP). 

17 2008. Environmental Review of Proposed Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. PSC 

18 Case No. 9127. Maryland Power Plant Research (PPRP). 

19 Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). 2007. Historical and Projected Total Personal 

20 Income for Maryland’s Jurisdictions (in thousands of constant 2000 $). Accessed November 18, 

21 2008 at http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/projection/income/TotalPersInc_2007.pdf. 

22 Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). 2008a. Table 1A. Total Resident Population for 

23 Maryland’s Jurisdictions, 2000 – 2007. Accessed October 24, 2008 at 

24 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/Pop_estimate/Estimate_07/county/table1a.pdf. 

25 Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). 2008b. Historical and Projected Total Population for 

26 Maryland’s Jurisdictions (Revisions, October 2007). Accessed October 24, 2008 at 

27 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/popproj/TOTPOP_PROJ07.pdf. 

28 Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). 2008c. 2007 Maryland Statistical Handbook. 

29 Accessed August 28, 2008 at 

30 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/md_statistical_handbook07.pdf. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-168 April 2010 

1 Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (MDOT). 2007a. Traffic 

2 Monitoring System Report Module, Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Calvert County. 

3 Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

4 http://www.sha.state.md.us/tmsreports/report_date.asp?rdoReportType=traffic&reportfullname=

5 AADT.rpt. 

6 Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (MDOT). 2007b. Traffic 

7 Trends System Report Module, Monthly Variation in ATR Stations. Accessed November 19, 

8 2008 at http://www.sha.state.md.us/traffictrends2/. 

9 Maryland Historic Trust (MHT), Maryland Department of Planning. 2009. Letter from J. Rodney 

10 Little (Maryland Historical Trust) to William Seib (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Re: MGT 

11 Review of Phase II National Register Evaluations and Assessment of Effects for Cultural 

12 Resources, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Expansion, Calvert County, Maryland. February 

13 13, 2009. Acession No. ML090570416. 

14 Maryland Invasive Species Council (MISC). 2006. Invasive Species of Concern in Maryland, 

15 Invader of the Month: Archived Invaders – Little Green Invaders, Green Crab. Accessed 

16 October 13, 2008 at 

17 http://www.mdinvasivesp.org/archived_invaders/archived_invaders_2006_02.html. 

18 Maryland Invasive Species Council (MISC). 2008a. Invasive Species of Concern in Maryland: 

19 Aquatic Plants. Accessed March 13, 2008 at 

20 http://www.mdinvasivesp.org/list_aquatic_plants.html. 

21 Maryland Invasive Species Council (MISC). 2008b. Invasive Species of Concern in Maryland: 

22 Vertebrates. Accessed March 13, 2008 at http://www.mdinvasivesp.org/list_vertebrates.html. 

23 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2008. Appendix G, Calvert Cliffs Acoustic 

24 Bottom Survey. Oyster Report, Case No. 9127. Accessed October 28, 2008 at 

25 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/CaseNum/submit.cfm?DirPath=C:\Casenum\9100-

26 9199\9127\Item_78\&CaseN=9127\Item_78. 

27 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009. In the Matter of the Application of UniStar 

28 Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of Public 

29 Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in Calvert 

30 County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Order Number 82741. 

31 Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). 2005a. Maryland State Department of 

32 Education, Maryland Public School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity and Gender and Number of 

33 Schools, September 30, 2005. Accessed December 2, 2008 at 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-169 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/85E7723B-CB82-46B0-AD4B2 EAD45A69B4F2/8628/enroll05.pdf. 

3 Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). 2005b. Maryland State Department of 

4 Education, Nonpublic School Enrollment, State of Maryland, September 30, 2005. Accessed 

5 December 2, 2008 at http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/85E7723B-CB82-

6 46B0-AD4B-EAD45A69B4F2/8776/nonpub05.pdf. 

7 Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). 2005c. Maryland State Department of 

8 Education, Staff Employed at School and Central Office Levels October 2005. Accessed 

9 December 2, 2008 at http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/726B3C64-BD92-

10 456A-8B3C-2D0ADE555862/9461/stfemp06.pdf. 

11 Maryland State Department of Assessments & Taxation (MDSDAT). 2008. State Department 

12 of Assessments & Taxation, Origin & Functions. Accessed November 18, 2008 at 

13 http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/25ind/html/06assesf.html. 

14 Mason, J., C. Moorman, G. Hess, and K. Sinclair. 2006. “Designing Suburban Greenways to 

15 Provide Habitat for Forest-Breeding Birds.” Landscape and Urban Planning 80(2007):153-164. 

16 McCleave, J.D. 2008. “Contrasts Between Spawning Times of Anguilla Species Estimated 

17 from Larval Sampling at Sea and from Otolith Analysis of Recruiting Glass Eels.” Marine 

18 Biology 155:240-262. 

19 McCormick-Ray, J. 2005. “Historical Oyster Reef Connections to Chesapeake Bay - a 

20 Framework for Consideration.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64:119-134. 

21 McPhee, J. 2002. The Founding Fish. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. 

22 Meserve, N. 2007a. 2007. Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery 

23 Management Plan for Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), 2006 Fishing Year. Atlantic 

24 States Marine Fisheries Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

25 Meserve, N. 2007b. 2007 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery 

26 Management Plan for Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), 2006 Fishing Year. Atlantic States Marine 

27 Fisheries Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

28 Meserve, N. 2008. 2007 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery 

29 Management Plan for Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), 2006 Fishing Year. Atlantic States Marine 

30 Fisheries Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-170 April 2010 

1 Meyer, J.L., D.L. Strayer, J.B. Wallace, S.L. Eggert, G.S. Helfman, and N.E. Leonard. 2007. 

2 “The Contribution of Headwater Streams to Biodiversity in River Networks.” Journal of the 

3 American Water Resources Association 43(1):86-103. 

4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

5 Miller, W.D., L.W. Harding, Jr., and J.E. Adolf. 2006. “Hurricane Isabel Generated an Unusual 

6 Fall Bloom in Chesapeake Bay.” Geophysical Research Letters 33:L06612, 

7 doi:10.1029/2005GL025658. 

8 Morse, D. August 9, 2007. “Putting the Bite on Mosquitoes, Some Public and Private Control 

9 Efforts Rely on a Ravenous Little Fish.” The Washington Post Accessed August 28, 2008 at 

10 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802205.html. 

11 Morse, W.W. and K.W. Able. 1995. “Distribution and life history of windowpane, Scophthalmus 

12 aquosus, off the northeastern United States.” Fishery Bulletin 93:675-693. 

13 Munford, B.A. and M.G. Hyland. 2007. Draft Interim Report Phase lb Cultural Resources 

14 Investigation. Prepared for UniStar Nuclear, LLC. by GAI Consultants, Inc., Homestead, 

15 Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML100040308. 

16 Munford, B.A., L.A. Frye, and M.G. Hyland. 2008. 2008 Phase I Cultural Resources 

17 Investigations and Phase II National Register Evaluations for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 

18 Calvert County, Maryland. Prepared for UniStar Nuclear, LLC, by GAI Consultants, Inc., 

19 Homestead, Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML100970243. 

20 Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay. 

21 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

22 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. 2003 Local Climatological Data Annual 

23 Summary with Comparative Data – Baltimore, Maryland (BWI). NCDC, Asheville, North 

24 Carolina. 

25 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

26 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. 

27 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose 

28 Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for 

29 the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML070170263. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-171 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007a. Species of Concern, Atlantic sturgeon, 

2 Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus. Accessed October 7, 2008 at 

3 www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticsturgeon_detailed.pdf. 

4 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007b. Species of Concern, River herring (Alewife 

5 and Blueback herring), Alosa pseudoharengus and A. aestivalis. Accessed October 7, 2008 at 

6 www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_detailed.pdf. Accession No. ML100481337. 

7 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007c. Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). Accessed 

8 September 30, 2008 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm. Accession No. 

9 ML093270453. 

10 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 2007a. 

11 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. National 

12 Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

13 Jacksonville, Florida. 

14 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 2007b. 

15 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. National Marine 

16 Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, 

17 Florida. 

18 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 2007c. 

19 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 

20 National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

21 Jacksonville, Florida. 

22 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008a. 46th Northeast Regional 

23 Stock Assessment Workshop (46th SAW) Part A. Assessment Report. Ref Doc. 08-03a; 252 p., 

24 Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

25 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008b. Kemp’s Ridley Turtle 

26 (Lepidochelys kempii). Accessed September 30, 2008 at 

27 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kempsridley.htm. Accession No. ML093270433. 

28 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008c. Leatherback Turtle 

29 (Dermochelys coriacea). Accessed September 30, 2008 at 

30 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm. Accession No. ML093270442. 

31 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008d. Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta 

32 caretta). Accessed September 30, 2008 at 

33 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm. Accession No. ML093270448. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-172 April 2010 

1 Nichols, J. 2008. Email from J. Nichols (NOAA) to H. Nash (NRC), “Summer Flounder Size 

2 Range.” December 24, 2008. Accession No. ML093070050. 

3 North, E.W. and E.D. Houde. 2001. “Retention of White Perch and Striped Bass Larvae: 

4 Biological-Physical Interactions in Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Turbidity Maximum.” Estuaries

5 24(5):756-769. 

6 Nye, J.A., T.E. Targett, and T.E. Helser. 2008. “Reproductive Characteristics of Weakfish in 

7 Delaware Bay: Implications for Management.” North American Journal of Fisheries 

8 Management 28:1-11. 

9 Orth, R.J., D.J. Wilcox, L.S. Nagey, A.L. Owens, J.R. Whiting, and A.K. Kenne. 2007a. 2006 

10 Monitoring – 2006 Report, Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay 

11 and Coastal Bays. Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) Special Scientific Report 

12 Number 150. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland. 

13 Accessed September 19, 2008 at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav06/sav_species_text.html. 

14 Orth, R.J., D.J. Wilcox, L.S. Nagey, A.L. Owens, J.R. Whiting, and A.K. Kenne. 2007b. 

15 Monitoring – 2006 Report, Cove Point, Md. (61) (No SAV), 2006 Distribution of Submerged 

16 Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays. Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

17 Special Scientific Report Number 150. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, 

18 Annapolis, MD. Accessed February 13, 2008 at 

19 http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav06/quads/cv061th.html. 

20 Overholtz, W. 2006. Butterfish. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, 

21 Massachusetts. 

22 Overton, A.S., C.S. Manooch III, J.W. Smith, and K. Brennan. 2008. “Interactions Between 

23 Adult Migratory Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) and Their Prey During Winter Off the Virginia 

24 and North Carolina Atlantic Coast from 1994 Through 2007.” Fishery Bulletin 106(2):174-182. 

25 Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003a. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

26 Clearnose Skate,(Raja eglanteria) Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical 

27 Memorandum NMFS-NE-174. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

28 Accession No. ML072080214. 

29 Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003b. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

30 Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical 

31 Memorandum NMFS-NE-175. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

32 Accession No. ML072080217. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-173 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003c. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: 

2 Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical 

3 Memorandum NMFS-NE-179. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

4 Accession No. ML072070390. 

5 Pait, A.S., R.A. Warner, S.I. Hartwell, J.O. Nelson, P.A. Pacheco, and A.L. Mason. 2006. 

6 Human Use Pharmaceuticals in the Estuarine Environment: A Survey of the Chesapeake Bay, 

7 Biscayne Bay and Gulf of the Farallones. NOS NCCOS 7, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

8 Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

9 Pennak, R.W. 1978. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, 

10 New York. 

11 Phillips, J.M., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P. Moran. 1989. Species profiles life histories and 

12 environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid-Atlantic)--spot. U.S. Fish 

13 Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.98). TR EL-82-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

14 Washington, D.C. 

15 Phillips, S.W. 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Science Plan, 2006-2011. 

16 Open-File Report 2005-1440, USGS, Reston, Virginia. 

17 Purcell, J.E., D.A. Nemazie, S.E. Dorsey, E.D. Houde, and J.C. Gamble. 1994. “Predation 

18 Mortality of Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Eggs and Larvae Due to Scyphomedusae and 

19 Ctenophores in Chesapeake Bay.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 114:47-58. 

20 Purcell, J.E., T.A. Shiganova, M.B. Decker, and E.D. Houde. 2001. “The Ctenophore 

21 Mnemiopsis in Native and Exotic Habitats: U.S. Estuaries versus the Black Sea Basin.” 

22 Hydrobiologia 451:145-176. 

23 Ramsdell, J.V. and J.P. Rishel. 2007. Toronado Climatology of the Contiguous United States. 

24 NUREG/CR-4461, Rev. 2; PNNL-15112, Rev. 1. Washington, D.C. 

25 Richardson, B.M., R.P. Morin, C.P. Stence, and M.W. Baldwin. 2007. Restoration of American 

26 Shad and Hickory Shad in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay, 2006 Final Progress Report. Maryland 

27 Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

28 Richardson, J.S. and R.J. Danehy. 2007. “A Synthesis of the Ecology of Headwater Streams 

29 and Their Riparian Zones in Temperate Forests.” Forest Science 53(2):131-147. 

30 Ringger, T.G. 2000. “Investigations of Impingement of Aquatic Organisms at the Calvert Cliffs 

31 Nuclear Power Plant, 1975-1995.” Environmental Science and Policy 3:S261-S273. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-174 April 2010 

1 Rooker, J.R., S.A. Jolt, G.J. Holt, and L.A. Fuiman. 1999. “Spatial and Temporal Variability in 

2 Growth, Mortality, and Recruitment Potential of Postsettlement Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) 

3 in a Subtropical Estuary.” Fishery Bulletin 97(3):581-590. 

4 Roth, N.E., M.R. Southerland, G.M. Rogers, and J.H. Vølstad. 2005. Maryland Biological 

5 Stream Survey 2000-2004; Volume IV: Ecological Assessment of Watersheds Sampled in 

6 2003. Publication # DNR-12-0105-0038, prepared by Versar, Inc., for Maryland Department of 

7 Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

8 Rosell, F., O. Bozser, P. Collen, and H. Park. 2005. “Ecological Impact of Beavers (Castor 

9 fiber and Castor canadensis) and Their Ability to Modify Ecosystems.” Mammal Review

10 35(3-4):248-276. 

11 Rossell Jr., C.R., S. Patch, and S. Salmons. 2007. “Effects of Deer Browsing on Native and 

12 Non-Native Vegetation in a Mixed Oak-Beech Forest on the Atlantic Coastal Plain.” 

13 Northeastern Naturalist 14(1):61-72. 

14 Rybicki, N.B. and J.M. Landwehr. 2007. “Chapter 11: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and 

15 Water Clarity.” In Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Chesapeake Bay 

16 Ecosystem and Implications for Environmental Management. S.W. Phillips, ed. U.S. Geological 

17 Survey Circular 1316, USGS, Reston, Virginia. 

18 Sackett, D.K., K.W. Able, and T.M. Grothues. 2007. “Dynamics of Summer Flounder 

19 (Paralichthys dentatus) Seasonal Migrations Based on Ultrasonic Telemetry.” Estuarine, 

20 Coastal and Shelf Science 74:119-130. 

21 Sadzinski, B. and T. Jarzynski. 2005. Maryland’s 2004 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima), 

22 Alewife Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus) and Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) Compliance 

23 Report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Stevensville, Maryland. 

24 Schaffler, J.J., C.S. Reiss, and C.M. Jones. 2009. “Patterns of Larval Atlantic Croaker Ingress 

25 Into Chesapeake Bay, USA.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 378:187-197. 

26 Scharf, F.S., J.A. Buckel, and F. Juanes. 2002. “Size-Dependent Vulnerability of Juvenile Bay 

27 Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) to Bluefish Predation: Does Large Body Size Always Provide a 

28 Refuge?” Marine Ecology Progress Series 233:241-252. 

29 Secor, D., G. Chaput, J. Collie, and J. Hightower. 2006. Terms of Reference and Advisory 

30 Report to the American Eel Stock Assessment Peer Review. Assessment Report No. 06-01 of 

31 the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-175 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Secor, D.J. and E.D. Houde. 1995. “Temperature Effects on the Timing of Striped Bass Egg 

2 Production, Larval Viability, and Recruitment Potential in the Patuxent River (Chesapeake 

3 Bay).” Estuaries 18:527-544. 

4 Secor, D.J. and P.M. Piccoli. 2007. “Oceanic Migration Rates of Upper Chesapeake Bay 

5 Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis), Determined by Otolith Microchemical Analysis.” Fishery 

6 Bulletin 105(1):62–73. 

7 Secrest, T.J., D.C. Mussatti, and M.J. Scott. 2010. Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 COL Discussions 

8 Regarding Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice—Interviews with the Public. Accession 

9 No. ML100050174. 

10 Seney, E.E. and J.A. Musick. 2007. “Historical Diet Analysis of Loggerhead Sea Turtles 

11 (Caretta caretta) in Virginia.” Copeia 2:478-489. 

12 Shafer, D.J. and P. Bergstrom. 2008. Large-Scale Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration 

13 in Chesapeake Bay, Status Report, 2003-2006. ERDC/EL TR-08-20, U.S. Army Corps of 

14 Engineers, Washington, D.C. 

15 Shedlock, R.J., D.W. Bolton, E.T. Cleaves, J.M. Gerhart, and M.R. Nardi. 2007. A Science 

16 Plan for a Comprehensive Regional Assessment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System in 

17 Maryland. United States Geological Society, Open-File Report 2007–1205. U.S. Geological 

18 Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

19 Shepherd, G.R. and D.B. Packer. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish,

20 Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, Second Edition. NOAA Technical 

21 Memorandum NMFS-NE-198. Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

22 Smith, J.W. and J.V. Merriner. 1985. “Food habits and feeding behavior of the cownose ray, 

23 Rhinoptera bonasus, in Lower Chesapeake Bay.” Estuaries 8(3):305-310. 

24 Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC). 2008. Scarlet Tanager Life History. Accessed 

25 February 7, 2008 at 

26 http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/MigratoryBirds/Life_History/default.cfm?Com

27 monname=Scarlet%20Tanager. 

28 Soeder, D.J., J.P. Rafensperger, and M.R. Nardi. 2007. Effects of Withdrawals on Ground29 Water Levels in Southern MD and the Adjacent Eastern Shore, 1980–2005. United States 

30 Geological Society Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5249. U.S. Geological Survey, 

31 Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML093220802. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-176 April 2010 

1 Sosebee, K. 2006. Skates. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries 

2 Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Available at 

3 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/op/skate/archives/27_Skates_2006.pdf. 

4 Southerland, M.T., G.M. Rogers, M.J. Kline, R.P. Morgan, D.M. Boward, P.F. Kazyak, 

5 R.J. Klauda, and S.A. Stranko. 2005a. Maryland Biological Stream Survey 2000-2004, New 

6 Biological Indicators to Better Assess the Condition of Maryland Streams. Volume XVI, 

7 Publication # DNR-12-0305-0100, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, 

8 Maryland. 

9 Southerland, M., L. Erb, G. Rogers, R. Morgan, K. Eshleman, M. Kline, K. Kline, P. Kazyak, 

10 J. Kilian, J. Ladell, and J. Thompson. 2005b. Maryland Biological Stream Survey 2000-2004, 

11 Stressors Affecting Maryland Streams. Volume XIV, Publication # DNR-12-0305-0101, 

12 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

13 Southerland, M.T., L.A. Erb, G.M. Rogers, and P.F. Kazyak. 2005c. Maryland Biological 

14 Stream Survey 2000-2004, Statewide and Tributary Basin Results. Volume VII, Publication # 

15 DNR-12-0305-0109, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

16 Southern Maryland Online (SMO). 2008. Plans Unveiled for MD4, Thomas Johnson Bridge 

17 Plans. Accessed November 19, 2008 at http://somd.com/news/headlines/2008/7796.shtml. 

18 Spackman, S.C. and J.W. Hughes. 1994. “Assessment of Minimum Stream Corridor Width for 

19 Biological Conservation: Species Richness and Distribution Along Mid-Order Streams in 

20 Vermont, USA.” Biological Conservation 71(3):325-332. 

21 St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners (SMCBCC). 2003. Quality of Life in St 

22 Mary’s County – A Strategy for the 21st Century. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

23 http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/planzone/docs/CompPlanamendedMarch03.pdf. 

24 St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners (SMCBCC). 2005. St. Mary’s County 2005 

25 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

26 http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/recreate/docs/2005R&PLandPreservationPlan.pdf. 

27 St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners (SMCBCC). 2007. St. Mary’s County, 

28 Maryland, Approved Budget, Fiscal Year 2007. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

29 http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/finance/documents/2007%20Budget%20Book.pdf. 

30 St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners (SMCBCC). 2008a. St. Mary’s County, 

31 Maryland, Recommended Budget, Fiscal Year 2009. Accessed August 15, 2008 at 

32 http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/finance/documents/RecommendBudgetFY09.pdf. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-177 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners (SMCBCC). 2008b. St. Mary’s County 

2 FY08 Approved Budget. Accessed November 19, 2008 at http://www.co.saint3 marys.md.us/finance/documents/FY08BudgetComplete.pdf. 

4 St. Mary’s County Department of Public Works (SMC DPW). 2006. St. Mary’s County 

5 Transportation Plan, August 2006. Accessed August 11, 2008 at http://www.co.saint6 marys.md.us/dpw/docs/tranposrtationplan/LongTermReport-Adopted.pdf. 

7 St. Mary’s County Department of Public Works (SMC DPW). 2008a. Airport Operations 

8 Division. Accessed November 18, 2008 at http://www.co.saint9 marys.md.us/dpw/dpwtemplate.asp?content=airportoverviewcontent.asp. 

10 St. Mary’s County Department of Public Works (SMC DPW). 2008b. Transportation Services 

11 Division, Other Program Information. Accessed November 19, 2008 at http://www.co.saint12 marys.md.us/dpw/dpwtemplate.asp?content=stsotherprograminfocontent.asp. 

13 St. Mary’s County Public Schools (SMCPS). 2008. St. Mary’s County Public Schools. 

14 Accessed December 2, 2008 at http://www.smcps.k12.md.us/. 

15 St. Mary’s Travel and Tourism (SMTT). 2008. State Parks. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

16 http://tour.co.saint-marys.md.us/tourismtemplate.asp?content=stateparkscontent.asp. 

17 Stankelis, R.M., M.D. Naylor, and W.R. Boynton. 2003. “Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the 

18 Mesohaline Region of the Patuxent Estuary: Past, Present, and Future Status.” Estuaries

19 26:186-195. 

20 State of Maryland. 2008. Recommended Licensing Conditions – Revised 24 October 2008. 

21 Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) Case No. 9127, UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC. 

22 Stevens, C.E., C.A. Pazkowski, and A.L. Foote. 2007. “Beaver (Castor canadensis) as a 

23 Surrogate Species for Conserving Anuran Amphibians on Boreal Streams in Alberta, Canada.” 

24 Biological Conservation 134(1):1-13. 

25 Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2007. Washington State Status Report for 

26 the Bald Eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Available 

27 at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/status/baldeagle/baldeagle_status07.pdf. 

28 Stribling, J.B., B.K. Jessup, J.S. White, D. Boward, and M. Hurd. 1998. Development of a 

29 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams. CBWP-EA-98-3, Maryland Department 

30 of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-178 April 2010 

1 Tankersley, R.A., M.G. Wieber, M.A. Sigala, and K.A. Kachurka. 1998. “Migratory Behavior of 

2 Ovigerous Blue Crabs (Callinectes sapidus): Evidence for Selective Tidal-Stream Transport.” 

3 The Biological Bulletin 195(2):168-173. 

4 Tarnowski, M., ed. 2007. Maryland Oyster Population Status Report, 2006 Fall Survey. 

5 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

6 Tarnowski, M., ed. 2008. Maryland Oyster Population Status Report, 2007 Fall Survey. 

7 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

8 Tatu, K.S., J.T. Anderson, L.J. Hindman, and G. Seidel. 2007a. “Diurnal Foraging Activities of 

9 Mute Swans in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.” Waterbirds 30(1):121-128. 

10 Tatu, K.S., J.T. Anderson, L.J. Hindman, and G. Seidel. 2007b. “Mute Swans’ Impact on 

11 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay.” Journal of Wildlife Management, 

12 Research Library Core 71(5):1431. 

13 Taverna, K., R.K. Peet, and L.C. Phillips. 2005. “Long-Term Change in Ground-Layer 

14 Vegetation of Deciduous Forests of the North Carolina Piedmont, USA.” Journal of Ecology

15 93:202-213. 

16 Terceiro, M. 2006. Summer Flounder Assessment and Biological Reference Point Update for 

17 2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

18 Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

19 Tetra Tech NUS. 2007a. Final Faunal Survey Report for Proposed UniStar Nuclear Project 

20 Area, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site, Calvert County, Maryland. Germantown, 

21 Maryland. Accession No. ML090690114. 

22 Tetra Tech NUS. 2007b. Final Wetland Delineation Report for Proposed UniStar Nuclear 

23 Project Area, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site, Calvert County, Maryland. Germantown, 

24 Maryland. Accession No. ML100040304. 

25 Tetra Tech NUS. 2007c. Final Rare Plant Survey Report for Proposed UniStar Nuclear Project 

26 Area, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site, Calvert County, Maryland. Tetra Tech NUS, 

27 Germantown, Maryland. Accession No. ML090690117. 

28 Tipler, PA. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York. 

29 Ulanowicz, R.E. and J.H. Tuttle. 1992. “The Trophic Consequences of Oyster Stock 

30 Rehabilitation in Chesapeake Bay.” Estuaries 15(3):298-306. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-179 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2007. Technical Report in Support of Application 

2 of UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for Certificate of 

3 Public Convenience and Necessity Before The Maryland Public Service Commission for 

4 Authorization to Construct Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and Associated 

5 Transmission Lines. November 6, 2007. Accession No. ML100960624. 

6 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008a. Letter from G. Vanderheyden (UniStar) to U.S. 

7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated May 13, 2008, “Subject: 

8 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of Response to Requests for 

9 Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 and Request for 

10 Withholding of Documents.” June 12, 2008. Accession No. ML100040300. 

11 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008b. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

12 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letters dated May 13, 2008, June 12, 2008, and 

13 August 29, 2008, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of 

14 Response Requests for Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 

15 – Supplemental Aquatic RAIs.” September 29, 2008. Accession No. ML082760508. 

16 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008c. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

17 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated September 10, 2008, “Subject: 

18 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of Response to Calvert Cliffs 

19 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, COLA, Request for Additional Information Terrestrial Ecology.” 

20 October 17, 2008. Accession No. ML082960400. 

21 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008d. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

22 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated October 14, 2008, “Subject: UniStar 

23 Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Submittal 

24 of Response to Requests for Additional Information, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

25 Issues.” October 31, 2008. Accession No. ML083110676. 

26 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008e. Letter from G. Vanderheyden (UniStar) to U.S. 

27 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated May 13, 2008, “Subject: 

28 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of Supplemental Response to 

29 Requests for Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3.” 

30 August 18, 2008. Accession No. ML100970387. 

31 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Combined 

32 License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6, September 30, 2009, Baltimore, 

33 Maryland. Accession No. ML092880921. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-180 April 2010 

1 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009b. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Combined 

2 License Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 6, September 30, 2009, 

3 Baltimore, Maryland. Accession No. ML092880897. 

4 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009c. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

5 Regulatory Commission, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016 Calvert 

6 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Follow-up Responses to Environmental Report RAIs 1001 

7 through 1011, dated March 5, 2009, and RAI 1011 dated July 17, 2009.” July 31, 2009. 

8 Accession No. ML092190627. 

9 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009d. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: 

11 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 

12 Environmental RAIs No. 1001 through 1011.” March 5, 2009. Accession No. ML090710146. 

13 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009e. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

14 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: UniStar 

15 Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Follow-up 

16 Responses to Environmental Report RAI NO.1 003-2, Aquatic Ecology and RAI NO.1 008-4, 

17 Ecological Impacts (Fish Return System).” July 24, 2009. Accession No. ML092150728. 

18 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009f. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

19 Regulatory Commission, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016 Calvert 

20 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Follow-up Responses to Environmental Report RAI No. 124, 

21 Estimated Tax Benefit, and Application for Withholding of Documents. September 17, 2009. 

22 Accession No. ML092640126. 

23 University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ). 2008. Gastrophryne carolinensis, Eastern 

24 Narrow-Mouthed Toad. Accessed April 29, 2008 at 

25 http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Gastrophryne_carolinensis.htm.

26 University of Wisconsin (UW). 2008. Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium, Freckmann Family 

27 Asteraceae Solidago speciosa Nutt, showy goldenrod. Accessed February 8, 2008 at 

28 http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=SOLSPE2. Accession No. ML093210616. 

29 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1992. Memorandum from A.E. Williams (USACE, 

30 Major General, USA, Director of Civil Works), “Subject: Clarification and Interpretation of the 

31 1987 Manual.” March 6, 1992. Available at http://www.wetlands.com/pdf/wdm0225e.pdf. 

32 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Public Notice in Reply to Application Number 

33 CENAB-OP-RMS NAB-2007-01823-M05 (Calvert Cliff’s 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/Unistar Nuclear 

34 Operating Services, LLC). September 3, 2008. Accession No. ML082550288. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-181 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009a. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

2 Statement for Oyster Restoration in Chesapeake Bay Including the Use of a Native and/or 

3 Nonnative Oyster, Volumes I and 2. Norfolk, Virginia. 

4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009b. Record of Decision. Final Programmatic 

5 Environmental Impact Statement for Oyster Restoration in Chesapeake Bay Including the Use 

6 of a Native and/or Nonnative Oyster. Norfolk, Virginia. 

7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from K.B. Anderson (USACE) to R.J. 

8 Nelson (Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), Review 

9 of US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer regarding 

10 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Plant (CENAB-OP-RMS) effect on historic properties and Memorandum 

11 of Agreement. March 16, 2010. Accession No. ML100810272. 

12 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007a. May 2007 State Occupational Employment 

13 and Wage Estimates, Maryland. Accessed October 29, 2008 at 

14 http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_md.htm. Accession No. ML100490592. 

15 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007b. May 2007 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 

16 Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC17 VA-MD-WV. Accessed November 18, 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_47900.htm. 

18 Accession No. ML100780174. 

19 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2008a. TABLE 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

20 Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007. Accessed December 

21 30, 2009 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1917.pdf. Accession No. ML093210629. 

22 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2008b. TABLE 6. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

23 Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007 – Maryland. Accessed 

24 December 30, 2009 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/pr076md.pdf. Accession No. 

25 ML093210629. 

26 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Race [71] – Universe: Total Population, Census 2000 

27 Summary File 1 (SF 1). Accessed February 12, 2010 at http://factfinder.census.gov. 

28 Accession No. ML100740438. 

29 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin 2000. Accessed 

30 on February 3, 2010 at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf. Accession No. 

31 ML100890583. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-182 April 2010 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006a. Maryland County Population Estimates 2000-2006, Parts 

2 1 and 2. Accessed November 18, 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov (USCB – Census 2000 – 

3 American FactFinder – Data Sets, Annual Population Estimates – 2006 Population Estimates – 

4 Detailed Tables). Accession Nos. ML093270583, ML093270584. 

5 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006b. Washington, D.C. Population Estimates 2000-2006. 

6 Accessed October 24, 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov (USCB – Census 2000 – American 

7 FactFinder – Data Sets, Annual Population Estimates – 2006 Population Estimates – Detailed 

8 Tables). Accession No. ML093270589. 

9 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006c. Calvert County, Maryland, Selected Economic 

10 Characteristics: 2006. Accessed October 24, 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov (USCB - 

11 Census 2000 – American FactFinder – Calvert County, Maryland – Economic Characteristics). 

12 Accession No. ML093270591. 

13 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006d. Calvert County, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2006. 

14 Accessed November 19, 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov (USCB – Census 2000 – American 

15 FactFinder – Calvert County, Maryland – Housing Characteristics). Accession No. 

16 ML093270592. 

17 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006e. St. Mary’s County, Selected Housing Characteristics: 

18 2006. Accessed November 19, 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov (USCB – Census 2000 – 

19 American FactFinder – Calvert County, Maryland – Housing Characteristics). Accession No. 

20 ML093270597. 

21 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006f. Extracted from State and Metropolitan Area Data Book: 

22 2006 on Healthcare. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

23 http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/smadb/smadb-06tableb.pdf. Accession No. 

24 ML10490598. 

25 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006g. Delaware County Population Estimates 2000-2006. 

26 Accessed October 24, 2008 at USCB – Census 2000 – American FactFinder – Data Sets, 

27 Annual Population Estimates – 2006 Population Estimates – Detailed Tables. 

28 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006h. Virginia County Population Estimates 2000-2006, Parts 1 

29 and 2. Accessed October 24, 2008 at USCB AFF 2006b P2. Maryland County Population 

30 Estimates 2000-2006. At USCB – Census 2000 – American FactFinder – Data Sets, Annual 

31 Population Estimates – 2006 Population Estimates – Detailed Tables. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-183 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007. County and City Data Book, Table B-6. Counties – 

2 Physicians, Community Hospitals, Medicare, Social Security, and Supplemental Security 

3 Income, Maryland. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

4 http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/07ccdb/tabb6.pdf. Accession No. ML093270598. 

5 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. USDA Plant Fact Sheet; Tulip Poplar, 

6 Liriodendron tulipifera L., Plant Symbol = LITU. Accessed on February 15, 2008 at http://plant7 materials.nrcs.usda.gov/intranet/pfs.html. Accession No. ML093270599. 

8 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008a. Plants Profile, Kalmia latifolia, L., mountain 

9 laurel. Accessed February 19, 2008 at 

10 http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=Kalmia+latifolia&mode=sciname&submi

11 t.x=15&submit.y=10. Accession No. ML093210630. 

12 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008b. Plants Profile, Centrosema virginianum (L.) 

13 Benth., spurred butterfly pea. Accessed February 15, 2008 at 

14 http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch. Accession No. ML093270601. 

15 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008c. Plants Profile, Liriodendron tulipifera L. 

16 tuliptree. Accessed February 14, 2008 at http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LITU. 

17 Accession No. ML093210632. 

18 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008d. Plants Profile, Quercus prinus, L., chestnut 

19 oak. Accessed February 15, 2008 at http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUPR2. 

20 Accession No. ML093210633. 

21 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008e. Plants Profile, Quercus shumardii Buckley 

22 Shumard’s oak. Accessed February 14, 2008 at 

23 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUSH. Accession No. ML093210634. 

24 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008f. Flora of North America, Taxon: Quercus 

25 shumardii. Accessed December 14, 2008 at http://www.efloras.org/. Accession No. 

26 ML09270604. 

27 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008g. Plants Profile, Solidago speciosa Nutt, showy 

28 goldenrod. Accessed February 8, 2008 at http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SOSP2. 

29 Accession No. ML093220804. 

30 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008h. Plants Profile, Thelypteris noveboracensis (L.) 

31 Nieuwl., New York fern. Accessed February 19, 2008 at 

32 http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch. Accession No. ML093210638. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-184 April 2010 

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008i. Plants Profile, Sesuvium maritimum (Walter) 

2 Britton, Sterns & Poggenb. Slender Seapurslane. Accessed March 13, 2008 at 

3 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SEMA3. Accession No. ML100481397. 

4 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 2010. CNIC--Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Accessed 

5 January 29, 2010 at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/Patuxent/AboutCNIC/index.htm. Accession No. 

6 ML100760365. 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. National Recommended Water Quality 

8 Criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047, Washington, D.C. 

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Puritan Tiger Beetle (Cicindela puritana G. Horn) 

10 Recovery Plan. Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts. 

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cincindela 

12 dorsalis dorsalis Say), Recovery Plan. Accession No. ML071970332. 

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. Puritan Tiger Beetle (Cicindela puritana), Draft 5-

14 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Annapolis, Massachusetts. 

15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Shortnose Sturgeon in the Potomac River. U.S. 

16 Fish and Wildlife Service Update. Maryland Fishery Resources Office, Annapolis, Maryland. 

17 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2008a. Weed of the Week, Common Reed, Phragmites australis

18 Cav. Trin. ex Steud. Accessed October 2, 2008 at 

19 http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/common-reed.pdf. Accession No. 

20 ML093270607. 

21 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2008b. Index of Species Information, Species: Quercus 

22 shumardii. Accessed February 8, 2008 at 

23 http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/queshu/all.html. Accession No. ML093270606. 

24 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2008c. Nepalese Browntop. Accessed February 21, 2008 at 

25 http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject.cfm?sub=3051. Accession No. ML093270608. 

26 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Science 

27 Plan, 2006-2011. Open-File Report 2005-1440, Reston, Virginia. 

28 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. ARMI National Atlas for Amphibian Distributions, 

29 Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad. Accessed February 7, 2008 at 

30 http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/armiatlas/species.cfm?recordID=173467. Accession No. 

31 ML093210639. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-185 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

2 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press, 

3 New York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts4 report.pdf. 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.111 - Methods for 

6 Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases 

7 from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors. Washington, D.C. 

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1982. Regulatory Guide 1.145 - Atmospheric 

9 Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. 

10 Revision 1, Washington, D.C. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

12 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, 

13 Washington, D.C. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

15 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, 

16 Washington, D.C. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan—

18 Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, NRC, 

19 Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 updates. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Event Notification Report for June 5, 2001. 

21 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 38049. Available at 

22 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2001/20010605en.html. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Event Notification Report for July 18, 

24 2005. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 41845. 

25 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event26 status/event/2005/20050718en.html. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Letter from B. McDermott (NRC) to J.A. 

28 Spina (Constellation Generation Group, LLC.), “Subject: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant – 

29 NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000317/2006003 and 05000318/2006003.” July 21, 2006. 

30 Accession No. ML062060024. 

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

32 Learned Task Force Final Report. Accessed at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops33 experience/tritium/lr-release-lessons-learned.pdf. Accession No. ML083220312. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-186 April 2010 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Event Notification Report for July 12, 

2 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Numbers: 42699 and 

3 42700. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event4 status/event/2006/20060712en.html. 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Event Notification Report for July 13, 

6 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42702. 

7 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event8 status/event/2006/20060713en.html. 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006e. Event Notification Report for July 14, 

10 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42704. 

11 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event12 status/event/2006/20060714en.html. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006f. Event Notification Report for August 16, 

14 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42776. 

15 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event16 status/event/2006/20060816en.html. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006g. Event Notification Report for September 

18 6, 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42827. 

19 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event20 status/event/2006/20060906en.html. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Regulatory Guide 1.23 - Meteorological 

22 Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Revision 1, Washington D.C. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. 

24 (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP Site). CLI-07-27, Docket No. 52-008-ESP. 

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Letter from R. Raione (NRC) to D. Klima 

26 (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), “Subject: Request for Participation in the Scoping 

27 Process for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant, Unit 3 Combined License Application Review. 

28 February 29, 2008. Accession No. ML080430649. 

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from R. Raione (NRC) to J.R. Little 

30 (Maryland Historical Trust), “Subject: Request for Participation in the Scoping Process for the 

31 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant, Unit 3 Combined License Application Review.” February 29, 2008. 

32 Accession No. ML080430656. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-187 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and 

2 Tennessee Valley Authority. CLI-09-21, Docket No. 52-018-COL, 52-019-COL, 52-014-COL, 

3 52-015-COL. 

4 Villard, M., G. Merriam, and B.A. Maurer. 1995. “Dynamics in Subdivided Populations of 

5 Neotropical Migratory Birds in a Fragmented Temperate Forest.” Ecology 76(1):27-40. 

6 Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 2000. Help Virginia’s Sea Turtles! Support the 

7 VIMS Sea Turtle Stranding Program Brochure. Gloucester Point, Virginia. 

8 Vogelbein, W.K., J.M. Hoenig, and D.T. Gauthier. 2006. “Epizootic Mycobacteriosis in 

9 Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass: What is the Fate of Infected Fish?” In USGS/NOAA Workshop 

10 on Mycobacteriosis in Striped Bass, May 7-10, 2006, AnnPiperapolis, Maryland. USGS 

11 Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5214, USGS, Reston, Virgina. 

12 Wallace, J.B., J.W. Grubagh, and M.R. Whiles. 1996. “Biotic Indices and Stream Ecosystem 

13 Processes: Results form an Experimental Study.” Ecological Applications 6(1):140-151. 

14 Walter III, J.F., and H.M. Austin. 2003. “Diet Composition of Large Striped Bass (Morone 

15 saxatilis) in Chesapeake Bay.” Fishery Bulletin 101(2):414–423. 

16 Wang, S. and E.D. Houde. 1995. “Distribution, Relative Abundance, Biomass and Production 

17 of Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) in the Chesapeake Bay.” Marine Ecology Progress Series

18 121:27-38. 

19 Watts, B.D., G.D. Therres, and M.A. Byrd. 2007. “Status, Distribution, and the Future of Bald 

20 Eagles in the Chesapeake Bay Area.” Waterbirds 30(Special Publication 1):25-38. 

21 Watts, B.D. and B.J. Paxton. 2007. “Ospreys of the Chesapeake Bay: Population Recovery, 

22 Ecological Requirements, and Current Threats.” Waterbirds 30 (Special Publication 1):39-49. 

23 Weisberg, S.B., L.C. Sciiappner, J.A. Ranasinghe, R.J. Dial, D.M. Dauer, and J.B. Frithsen. 

24 1997. “An Estuarine Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay.” Estuaries

25 20(1):149-158. 

26 Wiley, D.J., R.P. Morgan II, R.H. Hilderbrand, R.L. Raesly, and D.L. Shumway. 2004. 

27 “Relations between Physical Habitat and American Eel Abundance in Five River Basins in 

28 Maryland.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:515-526. 

29 Williams, A.B. 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United 

30 States, Maine to Florida. D.C. Fisher, ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1936 2-188 April 2010 

1 Wirgin, I., C. Grunwald, E. Carlson, J. Stabile, D.L. Peterson, and J. Waldman. 2005. “Range2 Wide Population Structure of Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Based on Sequence 

3 Analysis of the Mitochondrial DNA Control Region.” Estuaries 28(3):406-421. 

4 Wirgin, I., C. Grunwald, J. Stabile, and J.R. Waldman. 2009. “Delineation of discrete population 

5 segments of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on mitochondrial DNA control 

6 region sequence analysis.” Conservation Genetics doi: 10.1007/s10592-009-9840-1. 
April 2010 3-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description 

2 The proposed Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Unit 3 (referred to as the proposed 

3 Unit 3) site is located in Calvert County in rural Maryland. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC 

4 and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a combined construction permit and operating 

6 license (combined license or COL) for the proposed Unit 3. In addition to the COL application, 

7 UniStar applied for a Department of Army (DA) permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

8 (USACE or Corps) to conduct activities that result in alteration of waters of the United States, 

9 including wetlands. The proposed new unit would be situated wholly within the existing Calvert 

10 Cliffs site and adjacent to existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The site is situated on the western 

11 shore of the Chesapeake Bay, approximately 40 mi southeast of Washington, D.C. 

12 This chapter describes the key plant characteristics that are used to assess the environmental 

13 impacts of the proposed actions. The information is drawn from UniStar’s Environmental Report 

14 (ER) (UniStar 2009a), its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (UniStar 2009b), UniStar’s joint 

15 application to the Corps and the Maryland Department of the Environment (UniStar 2008a), the 

16 Corps Public Notice (USACE 2008), and supplemental documentation from UniStar as 

17 referenced. 

18 Whereas Chapter 2 of this environmental impact statement (EIS) describes the existing 

19 environment of the proposed site and its vicinity, this chapter describes the physical layout of 

20 the proposed plant. This chapter also describes the physical activities involved in building and 

21 operating the plant and associated transmission lines. The environmental impacts of building 

22 and operating the plant are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this EIS, respectively. This 

23 chapter is divided into five sections. Section 3.1 describes the external appearance and layout 

24 of the proposed plant. Section 3.2 describes the major plant structures and distinguishes 

25 structures that interface with the environment from those that do not interface with the 

26 environment or that interface with the environment temporarily. Section 3.3 describes the 

27 activities involved in building or installing each of the plant structures. Section 3.4 describes the 

28 operational activities of the plant systems that interface with the environment. References cited 

29 are listed in Section 3.5. 

30 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 

31 The 2070-ac Calvert Cliffs site currently contains two pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and 

32 their associated facilities, which occupy approximately 220 ac. These facilities, along with 

33 auxiliary facilities including the barge slip and onsite transmission line corridors, occupy 331 ac 

34 of the Calvert Cliffs site. The two units share a turbine building and other support structures. 

35 The service building and intake and discharge system are located east of the turbine building. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-2 April 2010 

1 An independent spent fuel storage installation is located near the center of the site. An 

2 abandoned summer camp, Camp Conoy, is located on the site south of the existing units. The 

3 land that would be disturbed for Unit 3 is estimated at 460 ac, approximately 320 ac of which 

4 would be permanently converted to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained grounds. 

5 The balance of 140 ac would be disturbed only temporarily to accommodate the concrete batch 

6 plant and construction offices, warehouses, laydown areas, and parking associated with 

7 facilitating site preparation and building activities. The site, including the planned footprint of the 

8 proposed Unit 3 facilities, is shown in Figure 3-1. A conceptualization of the proposed Unit 3 

9 superimposed on the site is shown in Figure 3-2. 

10 The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former 

11 Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 

12 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two 

13 emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste 

14 processing building, and the access building (UniStar 2009a). The vent stack for Unit 3 would 

15 be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 ft above grade or about 7 ft above the reactor 

16 building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the 

17 Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical 

18 draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 ft, this 528-ft diameter tower (at the base) 

19 would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to 

20 minimize visible water vapor plume (UniStar 2009a). Unit 3 buildings would be built of concrete 

21 or steel with metal siding. The exterior finishes for Unit 3 buildings would be similar in color and 

22 texture to those of the Unit 1 and 2 buildings (UniStar 2009a). 

23 Forested areas, surrounding the facilities, obscure most views of the existing and proposed 

24 Calvert Cliffs units. Units 1 and 2 are visible from the Chesapeake Bay to the east. From the 

25 Bay, views of Unit 3 would be limited because of elevation differences between the Chesapeake 

26 Bay, the site, and the forested 1000-ft setback. Onsite forested areas and gently rolling hills 

27 and valleys would screen views so that only the tops of taller structures are likely to be visible 

28 from the nearest residential properties at a distance of 3000 to 4000 ft. The intake forebay and 

29 structure, pump house, and associated discharge piping at the shoreline for Unit 3 would likely 

30 have limited visual impact considering their proposed locations in proximity to the existing 

31 CCNPP Unit 1 and 2 intake structure and barge slip facility (UniStar 2009a). 

32 3.2 Proposed Plant Structures 

33 This section describes each of the major plant structures: the reactor power system, structures 

34 that would have a significant interface with the environment during operation, and the balance of 

35 plant structures. All of these structures are relevant in the discussion of the impacts of building 

36 the proposed Unit 3 in Chapter 4. Only those structures that interface with the environment are 

37 relevant to the operational impacts discussed in Chapter 5. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 3-1. Calvert Cliffs Site and Layout of Proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2008a) 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-4 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-2. Calvert Cliffs Site with Existing Units 1 and 2 at Left and Superimposed Illustration 

3 of Proposed Unit 3 at Right, Looking to the Southeast (UniStar 2009a) 

4 3.2.1 Reactor Power Conversion System 

5 UniStar has proposed building and operating a one-unit PWR steam electric system using the 

6 AREVA NP Inc.’s (AREVA) U.S. EPR design. AREVA submitted the Standard Design 

7 Certification Application for the U.S. EPR on December 11, 2007 (AREVA 2007) to the NRC. 

8 AREVA submitted changes to the U.S. EPR design information in Revision 1 of its Design 

9 Control Document (AREVA 2009). The NRC staff is performing a detailed review of that 

10 application. The four-loop PWR is rated at 4590 MW(t) with a design gross electrical output of 

11 approximately 1710 MW(e) and a net output of 1562 MW(e). The reactor coolant system (RCS) 

12 consists of the reactor pressure vessel; a pressurizer; one reactor coolant pump per loop; one 

13 steam generator per loop; and ancillary systems, piping, and control systems. The pressure 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 vessel contains the fuel assemblies consisting of zirconium alloy clad uranium dioxide fuel rods 

2 that produce heat through a sustained criticality reaction. Heat created in the reactor core is 

3 transferred to the steam generators, and conversion of water to steam in the secondary side of 

4 the generators drives the turbine generator, creating electricity. The reject heat from the plant to 

5 the environment, principally the atmosphere, is calculated to be 3238 MW(t) (UniStar 2009a). 

6 Figure 3-3 provides an illustration of the reactor power conversion system. 

7 3.2.2 Structures with a Major Plant-Environmental-Interface 

8 The review team divided the plant structures into two primary groups: those that interface with 

9 the environment and those that are internal to the reactor and associated facilities but without 

10 direct interaction with the environment. Examples of interfaces with the environment are 

11 withdrawal of water from the environment at the intake structures, release of water to the 

12 environment at the discharge structure, and release of excess heat to the atmosphere. The 

13 structures or locations with environmental interfaces are considered in the review team’s 

14 assessment of the environmental impacts of facility construction and preconstruction and facility 

15 operation in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. The power-production processes that would occur 

16 within the plant itself and that do not affect the environment are not relevant to a National 

17 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and are not discussed further in this EIS. However, 

18 such internal processes are considered by the NRC in the AREVA design certification 

19 documentation and in NRC safety review of the UniStar COL application. This section 

20 describes the structures with a significant plant-environment interface. The remaining structures 

21 are discussed in Section 3.2.3, inasmuch as they may be relevant in the review team’s 

22 consideration of impacts discussed in Chapter 4. 

23 Figure 3-4 illustrates the Calvert Cliffs site layout with a grid overlay used to reference the 

24 locations of various plant structures and activity areas as they are described in the following 

25 sections. Existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 are located primarily in the 1C to 4D quadrants. 

26 Proposed Unit 3 structures are located primarily in the 3E to 5H quadrants. 

27 3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage 

28 Landscaping and the stormwater drainage system affect both the recharge to the subsurface 

29 and the rate and location that precipitation drains into adjacent creeks and streams. Impervious 

30 areas eliminate recharge to aquifers beneath the site. Pervious areas managed to reduce 

31 runoff and maintained free of vegetation would experience considerably higher recharge rates 

32 than adjacent areas with local vegetation. The stormwater management system, including site 

33 grading, drainage ditches, swales, and stormwater retention ponds, provides a safety function to 

34 keep locally intense precipitation from flooding safety-related structures. Figure 3-4 illustrates 

35 the site drainage for proposed Unit 3 in quadrants 3:5E:H. The grading of the surface 

36 topography directs water away from safety structures and into ditches that drain away from the 

37 site into creeks and stormwater basins. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-6 April 2010 1 Figure 3-3. Simplified Flow Diagram of the Reactor Power Conversion System (UniStar 2009a) 2 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-7 Draft NUREG-1936 1 Figure 3-4. Grid Overlay of the Calvert Cliffs Site Layout Showing Major Structure and Activity Areas (Modified from 2 UniStar 2009a) 3 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-8 April 2010 

1 3.2.2.2 Cooling-Water System 

2 The cooling-water system represents the largest interface from the plant to the environment. 

3 Proposed Unit 3 is designed to use two cooling systems, a circulating water supply system 

4 (CWS) and an essential service water system (ESWS). The planned CWS, which cools the 

5 reactor circulating water, is a closed-cycle cooling system that uses a single mechanical draft 

6 cooling tower, drawing water from and discharging a portion of it into the Chesapeake Bay. The 

7 remaining portion of the water is released to the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through the 

8 mechanical draft cooling tower. The ESWS is a safety system to provide cooling water to heat 

9 exchangers located in the safeguards building and the cooling system for the emergency diesel 

10 generators located in the emergency power generating buildings. The ESWS would be used for 

11 normal operations, refueling, shutdown and cooldown, anticipated operational events, design 

12 basis accidents, and severe accidents. The planned ESWS is a closed-looped system with 

13 four, two-cell mechanical draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. UniStar’s proposed 

14 desalination plant (see Section 3.2.3), which uses water withdrawn from the Bay and is 

15 designed to use seawater reverse osmosis technology, would supply water to the ESWS for 

16 normal operations. However, during accidents, the makeup water for the ESWS would be 

17 supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a safety-related ultimate heat sink (UHS) intake 

18 structure (UniStar 2009a). These components represent interfaces between the plant and the 

19 environment. 

20 Cooling-Water Intake Structures 

For the proposed Unit 3, a 9000-ft2 21 (0.21-ac), wedge-shaped pool would be built adjacent to the 

22 southern end of the existing forebay shared by CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intakes. Water would 

23 enter the wedge-shaped pool directly from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 forebay. Two 60-in.-

24 diameter safety-related intake pipes would extend from the wedge-shaped pool 550 ft to a 

25 common forebay (shared by CWS and UHS intakes) that would measure 100-ft-long by 80-ft26 wide by about 12-ft-deep. No screens or fish-return system would be installed at the pipe 

27 openings, but there would be trash racks (without an associated fish-return system). The bars 

28 on the trash racks would be spaced 3.5 in. apart. The CWS and safety-related UHS intake 

29 structures would be located adjacent to each other in quadrant 1D (Figure 3-4) in the common 

30 forebay landward of the nearby Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Both the CWS and UHS intake 

31 structures would have trash racks (with 3.5-in. bar spacing) and traveling screens. The traveling 

32 screens for each system would be dual-flow type screens with a double entry-center exit flow 

33 pattern. The screen panels would be metallic or plastic mesh with a mesh size of 0.079 to 

34 0.118-in. square (UniStar 2009a). The proposed CWS intake structure is a concrete structure 

35 78-ft long and 55-ft wide. The CWS intake would have individual pump bays housing makeup 

36 pumps and a wash system to provide a pressurized spray to remove fish, crabs, and debris 

37 from the screens and transfer them to the fish-return system. Although the design is not 

38 complete, the fish-return system would be similar to those for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (UniStar 

39 2008b). To build the proposed fish-return outfall, an 18-in.-diameter pipe would be installed in a 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 mechanically excavated trench east of the common forebay. Any bends in the pipes would be 

2 greater than 90° to facilitate fish passage. The pipes would be smooth-walled and smooth3 jointed to reduce potential fish abrasion (UniStar 2009c). The proposed UHS intake structure is 

4 a concrete structure 75-ft long and 60-ft wide. It would have individual pump bays housing 

5 water makeup pumps (UniStar 2009d). The UHS portion of the intake system provides a safety6 related function and would not be connected to a fish-return system. 

7 Discharge Structure 

8 Water released from the retention basin would flow through the discharge pipes that release the 

9 discharge water into a seal well and then into the Chesapeake Bay. The seal well is located 

10 between quadrants 1D and 1E in Figure 3-4. The top of the seal well rises 5 ft above ground 

11 surface, and the bottom of the seal well rests 20 ft below ground. A 30-in.-diameter pipe exits 

12 the bottom of the seal well and extends 550 ft into Chesapeake Bay about 1151 ft south and 

13 650 ft east of the intake piping suction point for Unit 3 (relative to plant north) (UniStar 2009a). 

14 UniStar proposes to use a three port diffuser, which, at 550 ft from the shoreline, would rise 3 ft 

15 above the bed of the Chesapeake Bay. Each diffuser port would direct water out of the pipe at 

16 an angle of 22.5° above horizontal. This would be the only discharge into the Chesapeake Bay 

17 from Unit 3 other than stormwater runoff and the fish-return outfall (see Section 3.3.1.5 for a 

18 description of the fish-return outfall). 

19 Cooling Towers 

20 Proposed Unit 3 would use closed-cycle, mechanical draft cooling towers to dissipate heat from 

21 the CWS and the ESWS. As described in Section 3.1, Unit 3 requires one cooling tower for the 

22 CWS; it is 164 ft tall and 528 ft in diameter at the base. The Unit 3 CWS cooling tower, located 

23 in quadrant 5H of Figure 3-4, would be a round concrete structure. In addition, the ESWS 

24 consists of four two-cell cooling towers. The ESWS towers are located near the reactor building 

25 in quadrants 3F and 4E. The ESWS cooling towers provide heat rejection for the UHS in 

26 emergency conditions and, therefore, are also safety-related structures. 

27 3.2.2.3 Other Permanent Plant-Environment Interfacing Structures 

28 Roads, groundwater wells, and buildings are additional permanent plant-environment interfacing 

29 structures that would be built on the proposed site. 

30 Roads 

31 The workforce and some building materials would enter and exit the site via roads. Solid waste 

32 and radioactive waste are expected to be transported offsite via roadways. A new access road 

33 for Unit 3 would allow the flow of traffic from Unit 3 to Maryland State Route 2/4. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-10 April 2010 

1 Groundwater Wells 

2 Water is withdrawn from subsurface aquifers via wells for Units 1 and 2. Groundwater would be 

3 used during the building of Unit 3 but is not proposed to be used for the operation of Unit 3. 

4 However, supply wells used as a backup to the desalination plant are permanent structures. 

5 Diesel Generator Building 

6 Diesel generators would be installed on the site to provide a backup source of power when the 

7 normal power source is disrupted. Combustion emissions would be released to the atmosphere 

8 from the generators only during emergency operations and periodic testing. The diesel 

9 generators would be located in the power block region of the site. 

10 Radioactive Waste Facility 

11 The radioactive waste facility would house the holding and processing systems for low-level 

12 liquid radioactive waste and solid radioactive waste. It also would house the collection and 

13 processing system for gaseous radioactive waste. Radioactive waste management is described 

14 in more detail in Section 3.4.3. Packaged solid wastes and liquid mixed wastes would be stored 

15 in the radioactive-waste building until shipment offsite for further processing or disposal. The 

16 environmental interfaces for the radioactive-waste treatment facility would be liquid effluent 

17 discharges to the blowdown discharge line, gaseous effluent venting, and solid-waste handling 

18 for offsite shipment. 

19 Sanitary Waste Treatment Plant 

20 UniStar plans to build a new wastewater treatment facility to treat sanitary waste for proposed 

21 Unit 3. Wastes from Units 1 and 2 would not be treated by this facility. 

22 Barge Facility 

23 An existing barge dock located in quadrant 1E of Figure 3-4 would be refurbished and the 

24 navigation access channel extended to allow transport of large components by barge to the site. 

25 Two existing pile-cap crane supports and one mooring bollard would be removed (UniStar 

26 2008b; UniStar 2008c). Once the barge dock area has been refurbished, it would be used by 

27 barges that may be as large as 200 ft long and 50 ft wide. More typically, the barges used are 

28 about 35 ft wide. Barge drafts range from 2 ft to 11 ft, depending on the load. 

29 3.2.2.4 Other Temporary Plant-Environment Interfacing Structures 

30 Some temporary plant-environment interfacing structures would need to be removed before 

31 proposed Unit 3 operation commences; for example a concrete batch plant. The impacts from 

32 the operation and installation of these structures are discussed in Chapter 4. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Dewatering wells 

2 Groundwater wells can be used to dewater areas that would otherwise be flooded by the influx 

3 of groundwater and are planned to dewater deep excavations in the power block region in 

4 quadrants 3E and 3F of Figure 3-4. 

5 Concrete Batch Plant 

6 The temporary concrete batch plant and material storage would occupy 26.2 ac. This area 

7 would house the equipment and facilities needed for delivery, materials handling and storage, 

8 and preparation of concrete. 

9 3.2.2.5 Power Transmission System 

10 The purpose of the proposed plant is to provide baseload power to the regional electrical power 

11 grid. The electrical power would be routed from the Calvert Cliffs site using the existing CCNPP 

12 Units 1 and 2 transmission lines. The review team considers the transmission lines between 

13 Unit 3 and the switchyard for Units 1 and 2 as the plant-environment interface for electrical 

14 transmission. The Unit 3 switchyard is shown in quadrants 5E and 5F of Figure 3-4. 

15 Two existing transmission system routes operated for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 would be used for 

16 proposed Unit 3. The north route consists of two 500-kV lines that connect the Calvert Cliffs site 

17 to the Waugh Chapel substation in Anne Arundel County. The south route consists of three 

18 500-kV lines that connect to the Mirant Corporation Chalk Point Generating Station in Prince 

19 George’s County (Figure 3-5). 

20 To accommodate the proposed Unit 3, UniStar has determined the following new facilities and 

21 upgrades to the existing power transmission system would be needed (UniStar 2009a): 

22 • One new 500-kV, 16 breaker, breaker-and-a-half substation that would be located 

23 approximately 100 ft southeast of Unit 3. The substation would occupy approximately 20 ac. 

24 This 700 ft by 1200 ft tract of land would be located about 1000 ft southwest of the power 

25 block. 

26 • Two new 500-kV, 3500 megawatt ampere circuits connecting Unit 3 to the existing 

27 substation serving Units 1 and 2. The circuits would be approximately 1 mi long on 

28 individual transmission towers. 

29 • Breaker upgrades at the Waugh Chapel, Chalk Point, and other affected substations. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-12 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-5. Existing Transmission System to Support Operation of Proposed Unit 3 

3 (UniStar 2009a) 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface 

2 The structures described in the following sections would have minimal plant-environment 

3 interface during plant operation. 

4 3.2.3.1 Power Block 

5 The power block refers to the reactor building, the control building, the turbine building, the 

6 radioactive waste building, service buildings, and associated structures. As described 

7 previously, the Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four 

8 safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, 

9 the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building (UniStar 2009a). The vent 

10 stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 ft above grade or about 

11 7 ft above the reactor building. The power block contains many safety-related structures. 

12 3.2.3.2 Pipelines 

13 The review team assumed that pipelines would follow existing roads or roads created when 

14 building Unit 3. Therefore, the installation of pipelines would be limited to areas already 

15 disturbed. Major pipelines include pipes running from the wedge-shaped pool in the 

16 Chesapeake Bay to the common forebay, from the CWS makeup intake to the CWS cooling 

17 tower basin, from the UHS intake to the ESWS cooling towers basins, and from the discharge 

18 retention basin to the Chesapeake Bay discharge. Pipelines associated with the UHS, including 

19 the intake pipelines from the wedge-shaped pool to the common forebay, are safety related. 

20 3.2.3.3 Wastewater Retention Basin 

21 A shallow 200-ft by 300-ft basin would receive and mix discharges of CWS cooling tower 

22 blowdown, ESWS cooling towers blowdown, brine discharge from the desalination plant, 

23 reverse osmosis system waste discharge, and sanitary wastes. A pipeline connects the 

24 wastewater retention basin to the seal well near the shoreline. The retention basin is shown in 

25 quadrant 5G of Figure 3-4. 

26 3.2.3.4 Miscellaneous Buildings 

27 A variety of small miscellaneous buildings would exist throughout the site to satisfy worker 

28 needs, building activities, and operational requirements. Some miscellaneous buildings may be 

29 temporary and would be removed after startup. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-14 April 2010 

1 3.2.3.5 Parking 

2 The existing parking area would be expanded to support construction. Another smaller parking 

3 area would also be built. These parking areas would be located in quadrants 4D, 5D, and 5E of 

4 Figure 3-4, respectively. 

5 3.2.3.6 Laydown Areas 

6 Multiple laydown areas would be established to support fabrication and installation activities and 

7 may be maintained as laydown areas for future maintenance and refurbishment of the plant. 

8 Laydown areas are graded relatively level and covered with crushed stone or gravel. Normally 

9 only limited vegetation is allowed in laydown areas. The locations of two new laydown areas 

10 are shown in Figure 3-4 in the region of quadrants 3:4F:G and 4H. Another laydown area is 

11 located in quadrants 6D:E. UniStar plans to use an existing laydown area for Units 1 and 2 

12 (quadrants 5:6B:C of Figure 3-4) when building Unit 3. 

13 3.2.3.7 Seal Well 

14 The last structure encountered before the water released from the cooling tower retention basin 

15 enters the Chesapeake Bay is a seal well. The seal well is located between quadrants 1D and 

16 1E (Figure 3-4). The top of the seal well rises 5 ft above ground surface, and the bottom of the 

17 seal well rests 20 ft below ground. A 30-in. pipe exits the bottom of the seal well. 

18 3.2.3.8 Desalination Plant 

19 UniStar plans to build a desalination (also called desalinization or desal) plant to supply all 

20 Unit 3 freshwater needs including potable and sanitary water, demineralized water, and fire 

21 protection system water. The plant would use reverse osmosis technology to purify seawater 

22 from the CWS intakes. Seawater entering the osmosis equipment would be pretreated with a 

23 membrane filtration system. The desalination plant would be used to improve the quality of 

24 Chesapeake Bay water to provide a freshwater supply for several functions, including supplying 

25 ESWS cooling water and potable water needs. The desalination plant would be located in 

26 quadrant 4H of Figure 3-4. 

27 3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities 

28 The NRC’s authority is limited to activities that have a reasonable nexus to radiological health 

29 and safety or common defense and security (72 FR 57416). The NRC has defined 

30 “construction” according to the bounds of its regulatory authority. Examples of construction 

31 (defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a)) activities for safety-related structures, systems, or components 

32 include driving of piles; subsurface preparation; placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent 

33 retaining walls within an excavation; installation of foundations or in-place assembly, erection, 

34 fabrication, or testing. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Other activities related to building the plant that do not require NRC approval (but may require a 

2 DA permit from the Corps) may occur before, during, or after NRC-authorized construction 

3 activities. These activities are termed “preconstruction” in 10 CFR 51.45(c) and are typically 

4 regulated by other local, State, Tribal, or Federal agencies. Preconstruction includes activities 

5 such as site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading, erosion control, and other environmental 

6 mitigation measures); erection of fences; excavation; erection of support buildings or facilities; 

7 building service facilities (e.g., roads, parking lots, railroad lines, barge slips, transmission lines); 

8 and procurement or fabrication of components occurring at other than the final, in-place location 

9 at the facility. Further information about the delineation of construction and preconstruction 

10 activities is presented in Chapter 4. 

11 This section describes the structures and activities associated with building Unit 3, providing an 

12 overall characterization of the major activities for the principal structures and furnishing a 

13 framework for the activities involved in building the proposed nuclear power plant. Table 3-1 

14 provides general definitions and examples of activities that would be performed in building the 

15 new unit. 

16 Table 3-1. Descriptions and Examples of Activities Associated with Building Proposed Unit 3 

Activity Descriptions Examples 

Clearing Removing vegetation or existing structures from the 

land surface. 

Cutting planted pines from an area to be 

used for construction laydown. 

Excavation 

dewatering 

Pumping water from wells or pumping water directly 

to keep excavations from flooding with groundwater 

or surface runoff. 

Pumping water from excavation of base for 

reactor building. 

Deep excavation Digging an open hole in the ground. Deep 

excavation requires equipment with greater vertical 

reach than a backhoe. Deep excavation generally 

requires dewatering systems to keep the hole from 

flooding. 

Excavating to support fabrication of 

basemat for the reactor. 

Dredging Removing substrates and sediment in navigable 

waters including wetlands. 

Enlarging of the barge slip. 

Erection Assembling all modules into their final positions, 

including all connection between modules. 

Using a crane to assemble reactor modules.

Fabrication Creating an engineered material from the assembly 

of a variety of standardized parts. Fabrication can 

include conforming native soils to some engineered 

specification (e.g., compacting soil to meet some 

engineered fill specification). 

Preparing and pouring concrete; laying 

rebar for basemat. 

Grubbing Removing roots and stumps by digging. Removing stumps and roots of pines logged 

from the construction laydown area. 

Grading Reforming the elevation of the land surface to 

facilitate operation of the plant and drainage of 

precipitation. 

Substantially leveling the site from its 

current profoundly more rugged terrain. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-16 April 2010 

1 Table 3-1. (contd) 

Activity Descriptions Examples 

Hauling Transporting material and workforce along 

established roadways. 

Driving on new access road by construction 

workforce. 

Paving Laying impervious surfaces, such as asphalt and 

concrete, to provide roadways, walkways, parking 

areas, and site drainage. 

Paving parking area. 

Well drilling Drilling and completing wells. Drilling wells for dewatering or water supply.

Shallow 

excavation 

Digging holes or trenches to depths reachable with a 

backhoe. Shallow excavation may not require 

dewatering. 

Placing pipelines; setting foundations for 

small buildings. 

Dredge 

placement 

Placing fill material in areas not designated as 

wetlands. These materials can come from dredging 

wetlands. 

Placing sediments removed from the barge 

slip and navigation channel in an existing, 

upland (non-wetland) disposal area or as 

sound bedding for underground pipe 

installation. 

Vegetation 

management 

Thinning, planting, trimming, and clearing 

vegetation. 

Maintaining switchyard free of vegetation 

during building. 

Filling of a 

wetland or 

waterbody 

Discharging of dredge and/or fill material into waters 

of the United States including wetlands. 

Placement of a culvert for a roadway. 

Rock Armoring Placing rocks on the Bay bottom to protect in-water 

structures 

Placing rock armoring on the Bay side of the 

baffle wall for the new intake, at the CWS 

discharge diffuser, and at the fish-return 

system discharge. 

Pile Driving Driving sheet-metal baffle wall components and 

support pilings into the Bay bottom 

Installing sheet-pile wall to separate the new 

intake area from the Bay 

2 3.3.1 Major Activity Areas 

3 UniStar has stated (UniStar 2008c) that building activities for the new unit would permanently 

affect 343,253 ft2

 (7.88 ac) of forested nontidal wetlands; 52,707 ft2 4 (1.21 ac) of emergent nontidal wetlands; 114,563 ft2

 (2.63 ac) of nontidal open water; 33,400 ft2 5 (0.77 ac) along 8350 ft of 

stream bed portions; and 248,000 ft2

 (5.7 ac) of tidal open waters. Approximately 138,500 ft2 6 

7 (3.2 ac) of the tidal open water impacts are from maintenance dredging, whereas approximately 

109,000 ft2

 (2.5 ac) is from new dredging (USACE 2008). Approximately 52,500 ft2 8 (0.9 ac) of 

the new dredging would be backfilled. UniStar also has stated this work includes 3485 ft2 9 

10 (0.08 ac) of isolated forested wetland impacts (UniStar 2008c). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.3.1.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage 

2 Preparing to build and operate proposed Unit 3 would require land to be cleared and graded for 

3 the main reactor buildings and support facilities and additional space for material and equipment 

4 laydown areas. After the site is graded, a stormwater drainage system would be created around 

5 the facilities to direct stormwater away from the operational areas. Drainage ditches and pipes 

6 would route surface water to water-retention and/or infiltration ponds. 

7 3.3.1.2 Power Block 

8 The power block, the area where the reactor, turbine, and associated structures are to be located 

would require clearing and grading an area that would permanently affect 2470 ft2 9 (0.06 ac) 

10 along 617 linear feet of stream bed and create impervious surfaces of most of this area (UniStar 

11 2008c, USACE 2008). Deep excavations would be required for some of the deeper foundations. 

12 These deep excavations are expected to require installation of dewatering wells. An onsite 

13 concrete batch plant would fabricate concrete for numerous pours. The structures would be 

14 erected with many components delivered as large modules installed via crane. 

15 3.3.1.3 Cooling Tower 

16 Clearing and grading the area for erection of the circulating water system mechanical draft 

cooling tower would permanently affect 32,670 ft2 17 (0.75 ac) of non-tidal forested wetlands and 

5780 ft2 18 (0.13 ac) along 1445 linear feet of stream bed (UniStar 2008b, USACE 2008). The 

19 tower would be fabricated onsite. 

20 3.3.1.4 Cooling-Water Intake Structures 

21 The site plan for the Unit 3 intake structure is illustrated in Figure 3-6. UniStar plans to build a 

9000-ft2 22 , wedge-shaped pool for Unit 3 by building a sheet-pile wall extending 180 ft from the 

23 shoreline to the existing baffle wall for the embayment for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (UniStar 2008b; 

24 USACE 2008). The proposed sheet-pile wall would extend about 90 ft channelward of the 

25 approximate mean high water (MHW) shoreline. The new baffle wall would not have an 

26 opening connecting the wedge-shaped pool directly with the Chesapeake Bay. The steel sheet 

27 piling would be supported by 30-in.-diameter soldier piles placed on 10-ft centers. A 50-ft 

28 section of existing shoreline armor protection would be removed prior to the sheet-pile wall 

29 installation. Building the sheet-pile wall is expected to take about 2 months. 

30 Once the sheet-pile wall is in place, about 60 ft of shoreline armor within the wedge-shaped pool 

31 would be removed and a temporary sheet-pile wall would be installed upland along the intake 

32 water pipeline route. The temporary upland sheet-pile wall would extend about 30 ft 

33 channelward into the wedge-shaped pool to facilitate dewatering and installation of intake pipes 

34 and associated trash racks. The area within the wedged-shaped pool surrounded by the 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-18 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-6. Site Plan at Unit 3 Intake Structure (UniStar 2009e) 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 pipeline sheet piling would be dewatered and dredged by mechanical method to create an 

approximately 30-ft-wide by 30-ft-long by 25-ft-deep area. This would result in about 900 yd3 2 of 

3 sand and gravel that would be deposited at an existing environmentally controlled upland area 

4 at Lake Davies. After dredging, two 60-in.-diameter intake pipes would be installed with trash 

5 racks at the pipe openings, extending approximately 20 ft channelward of the approximate 

6 MHW shoreline to a bottom elevation of −25 ft mean low water. About 80 ft of the shoreline 

7 within the pool would be armored, with the armoring extending about 10 ft from shore. 

8 After installation of the pipes and associated trash racks, approximately 80 ft of shoreline armor 

9 protection extending 10 ft channelward of the approximate MHW shoreline would be emplaced 

10 within the wedged-shaped pool. Armor protection would be extended out beyond the new 

11 sheet-pile wall approximately 75 ft, extending about 25 to 95 ft channelward (UniStar 2009f). 

12 The armoring would be added to the Bay bottom as a series of four overlying layers, ranging 

13 from washed gravel on the bottom to large quarry rock (averaging about 2 tons each) on the top 

14 (UniStar 2009c). The overall thickness of the armoring would vary according to the water depth. 

About 4650 ft2 15 (0.11 ac) of the Bay bottom would be armored. Finally, the temporary sheet-pile 

16 wall around the intake pipes would be removed, allowing the area to flood and submerge the 

17 pipes. Building of the intake system is expected to take about 4 months. 

18 3.3.1.5 Fish-return System 

19 A fish-return system similar to those for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 would be built for Unit 3 (UniStar 

20 2008b). The fish return would be located on the east (Bay) side of the Unit 3 intake forebay. 

21 The CWS intake pump system would have traveling screens with a wash system to provide a 

22 pressurized spray to remove fish, crabs, and debris from the screens and transfer them to the 

23 fish-return system. The traveling screens for each system would be dual-flow type screens with 

24 a double entry-center exit flow pattern. The screen panels would be metallic or plastic mesh 

25 with a mesh size of 0.079 to 0.118-in. square (UniStar 2009a). The separate UHS pump 

26 system would not be connected to the fish-return system because the UHS makeup system 

27 operates infrequently or in the case of a design-basis accident (UniStar 2009e). 

28 To build the proposed fish-return outfall, a pipe would be installed in a mechanically excavated 

29 trench. Any bends in the pipes would be greater than 90° to facilitate fish passage. The pipes 

30 would be smooth-walled and smooth-jointed to reduce potential fish abrasion (UniStar 2009c). 

31 The pipe would be installed 4.0 ft below the Bay bottom and would emerge from the Bay bottom 

32 40 ft channelward of the approximate MHW shoreline directly off the common forebay. The 

33 outfall location would be protected with a 10-ft by 10-ft riprap apron. About 40 ft of the existing 

shoreline revetment would be removed, and approximately 500 yd3 34 of material would be 

35 dredged within the work area to install the pipe (UniStar 2008c; USACE 2008). The trench 

36 would be about 5 ft wide at the bottom and about 65 ft wide at the level of the Bay floor as 

shown in Figure 3-7 (UniStar 2008b). An area of about 2600 ft2 37 would be directly disturbed by 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-20 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-7. Fish-return System (UniStar 2008b) 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 the dredging (UniStar 2008b). The dredged material would be returned to the trench after the 

2 pipe is placed, and the existing shoreline revetment restored to its original design after pipe 

3 installation. 

4 3.3.1.6 Discharge Structure 

5 UniStar would use mechanical dredging methods to install a cooling water discharge pipe with a 

6 three single-port diffuser outfall structures approximately 550 ft from the shoreline out into the 

7 Chesapeake Bay about 1151 ft south and 650 ft east of the intake piping suction point for 

8 proposed Unit 3 (relative to plant north) (UniStar 2009a). The trench bottom width would range 

9 from 3 to 6 ft wide, and the maximum width of the trench at the level of the Bay bottom would be 

10 about 70 ft (Figure 3-8). 

11 The discharge point would be elevated 3 ft above the Bay bottom. This installation would 

temporarily affect approximately 38,500 ft2 12 (0.9 ac), along 550 ft of the Bay bottom. In addition, 

13 a 20-ft by 40-ft riprap scour pad would be installed at the diffuser outfall, permanently affecting 

800 ft2

 (0.02 ac). Approximately 7000 yd3 14 of material would result from dredging for the pipe 

installation. Approximately 5800 yd3 15 would be reused as trench fill with the remainder, about 

1200 yd3 16 , deposited at an existing, upland (non-wetland), environmentally controlled area at the 

17 Lake Davies laydown area onsite (UniStar 2008c; USACE 2008). The pipe would be installed 

18 with a minimum of 4 ft of cover to protect it from storms and snagging by small-boat anchors. 

19 Riprap with a median diameter of 12 in. and filter fabric would be placed on top of the back-filled 

20 material to provide the minimum 4-ft cover over the pipe. The riprap would be placed within the 

21 discharge pipe trench to the top of the trench at the original grade of the Bay bottom, but would 

22 not extend above the existing Bay bottom. 

23 3.3.1.7 Barge Facility 

24 To facilitate receipt of equipment and materials, the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 barge slip 

25 would be restored and extended to reestablish use when building proposed Unit 3. Two existing 

26 pile-cap crane supports and one mooring bollard would be removed (UniStar 2008a; 

27 UniStar 2008b) (Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10). An area approximately 1500-ft-long by 130-ftwide (average width), covering 195,000 ft2 28 , would be dredged to a bottom elevation of 16 ft 

29 below mean low water (UniStar 2008b). This would require the mechanical dredging of about 

50,000 yd3 30 of bottom substrates (UniStar 2008b, UniStar 2008c). UniStar considers the removal 

of sediment from about 1065 ft of the total length, about 45,000 yd3 31 , as maintenance dredging 

32 (UniStar 2008b; UniStar 2008c). Sediment removal from the remaining 435-ft length, about 

5000 yd3 33 , is an extension beyond the original dredging limits and is required to reach the bottom 

34 elevation of 16 ft below mean low water. UniStar has requested permission from the Corps to 

35 conduct maintenance dredging for 10 years (UniStar 2008c). The dredged material removed 

36 from the barge slip either would be used during plant development as sand bedding for 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-22 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-8. Discharge Outfall Details (UniStar 2008b) 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 3-9. Proposed Restoration of Barge Slip (UniStar 2008b) 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-24 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-10. Modifications at Existing Barge Unloading Facility (UniStar 2008b) 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 underground pipe installation or deposited at an existing upland (non-wetland), environmentally 

2 controlled area at the Lake Davies laydown area onsite. The dredged material would be 

3 characterized prior to use. 

4 As a part of the refurbishment, a new sheet-pile wall would be installed along the shoreline in 

5 front of the existing bulkhead, which was built as a part of the original dock design. The 

6 bulkhead would consist of a new sheet-pile wall driven immediately in front of the existing 

7 bulkhead. The new bulkhead would be about 90-ft-long, starting from the barge slip and 

8 extending south to an existing outfall culvert (UniStar 2008b; USACE 2008). The sheet-pile wall 

9 would be supported by 30-in.-diameter soldier piles. On the land side of the new sheet-pile 

10 bulkhead, a concrete apron would be placed, along with a gravel apron, to allow equipment to 

11 be offloaded from barges with wheeled-mounted transporters. 

12 Additional nearshore maintenance dredging would be required to remove silt that has 

13 accumulated in the shoreward portion of the barge dock area over the past 30 years, altering 

14 the normal flow pattern from an existing culvert outfall. Silt build-up over the years has caused 

15 the discharge from the culvert outfall to meander in a north-south direction prior to discharging 

16 into the barge slip area. Restoration activities in this area would include the emplacement of a 

17 40-ft by 40-ft by 2-ft-deep riprap apron extending approximately 40 ft channelward of the 

18 approximate MHW shoreline directly in front of the existing outfall, allowing the discharge to flow 

19 directly into the Bay as originally designed. The existing waterway depths range from 

20 approximately the mean low water level to 16.0 ft below mean low water level within the 

21 proposed work area. 

22 Refurbishment is expected to take about 2 weeks. Once the barge dock area has been 

23 refurbished, it would be used by barges that may be as large as 200 ft long and 50 ft wide. 

24 More typically, the barges used are about 35 ft wide. Barge drafts range from 2 ft to 11 ft, 

25 depending on the load. UniStar expects that the barge dock would be in use for about 5 years 

26 but stated, although there are no specific plans for maintenance dredging, eventual replacement 

27 of major components could require dredging in the future. UniStar has requested permission 

28 from the Corps to conduct maintenance dredging for 10 years (UniStar 2008c). 

29 3.3.1.8 Construction Support and Laydown Areas 

30 Building materials are brought to the site and stored in what are called laydown areas. UniStar 

31 expects to clear and grade five laydown areas in various areas onsite. These laydown areas 

would permanently affect 95,832 ft2

 (2.20 ac) of nontidal forested wetlands; 52,708 ft2 32 (1.21 ac) 

of emergent wetlands; 114,563 ft2 (2.63 ac) of open water; and 1535 ft2 33 (0.04 ac) along 

34 384 linear feet of stream bed (UniStar 2008c, USACE 2008). Laydown areas would be covered 

35 with gravel or crushed rock to prevent erosion. Vegetation would be suppressed. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-26 April 2010 

1 3.3.1.9 Switchyard and Onsite Transmission Corridor 

2 UniStar proposes to build one new 500-kV substation that would be located on a 700-ft by 

3 1200-ft tract of land approximately 1000 ft southwest of the Unit 3 power block and 2000 ft west4 southwest of the existing switchyard. Two new 500-kV, 3500-megawatt ampere circuits would 

5 connect Unit 3 to the existing substation serving Units 1 and 2. These additions to the existing 

switchyard would require clearing and grading an area permanently affecting 179,903 ft2 6 

(4.13 ac) of nontidal forested wetlands and 16,710 ft2 7 (0.38 ac) along 4178 linear feet of stream 

8 bed (UniStar 2008c; USACE 2008). The switchyard would be covered with gravel or crushed 

9 rock and would remain vegetation free. 

10 The circuits would be approximately 1 mi long on individual transmission towers. The new 

11 towers are expected to use tubular or lattice designs and would conform to the criteria of the 

12 National Electric Safety Code and site standards. 

13 3.3.1.10 Roadways 

14 A heavy haul road leading from the barge slip to the construction site in nontidal areas would 

need to be created, permanently affecting 2570 ft2 15 (0.06 ac) along 642 linear feet of stream bed 

16 (UniStar 2008b, USACE 2008). 

17 A new access road with three separate stream crossings would be required to bring personnel 

18 and material to the construction site. Clearing and grading of this access road would require: 

19 (1) 200 linear feet of 30-in.-diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and emplacement of a 15-ft 

20 by 15-ft riprap scour pad; (2) 100 linear feet of 36-in.-diameter RCP and emplacement of a 15-ft 

21 by 15-ft riprap scour pad; and (3) 520 linear feet of two 54-in.-diameter RCP and emplacement 

22 of a 40-ft by 40-ft riprap scour pad. The invert of each pipe would be depressed to match the 

23 slope and invert of the stream or wetland being crossed. This roadwork would permanently 

affect a 31,363-ft2

 (0.72-ac) area of forested wetlands and 4336 ft2 24 (0.10 ac) along 1084 linear 

25 feet of stream bed (UniStar 2008b; USACE 2008). 

26 3.3.1.11 Pipelines 

27 Laying pipelines would occur in several areas on the site as described related to stormwater 

28 drainage, intake, and discharge structures. They would generally be buried in trenches. 

29 Pipeline installation would require the clearing of land along the pipeline corridor and shallow 

30 excavation (trenching). 

31 3.3.1.12 Concrete Batch Plant 

32 Erecting the temporary concrete batch plant would occur on a cleared, graded area. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.3.1.13 Parking 

2 Parking areas would be graded and paved. 

3 3.3.1.14 Miscellaneous Buildings 

4 Excavation for shallow foundations would be required prior to fabrication and erection of 

5 miscellaneous buildings. 

6 3.3.1.15 Cranes and Crane Footings 

7 Fabricating footings and erecting cranes would be necessary to build the larger plant structures. 

8 3.3.2 Summary of Resource Parameters During Construction and 

9 Preconstruction 

10 Table 3-2 provides a list of the significant resource commitments of construction and 

11 preconstruction. The values in this table combined with the affected environment described in 

12 Chapter 2 provide the basis for the construction and preconstruction impacts assessed in 

13 Chapter 4. These values were stated in the ER (UniStar 2009a), and the review team 

14 determined that the values are not unreasonable. 

15 Table 3-2. Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Building Proposed Unit 3

Resource Areas Value Description 

All Resource Areas 68 to 86 months Upper limit of duration of construction and 

combined construction and preconstruction 

activities, respectively, for one U.S. EPR unit 

Land Use, Terrestrial Ecology, 

Aquatic Ecology, Cultural and 

Historic Resources (Site and 

Vicinity)

460 ac Disturbed area footprint, 320 ac permanently 

dedicated to Unit 3 and supporting facilities 

Land Use, Terrestrial Ecology, 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

(Offsite, Transmission Lines) 

1 mi Existing circuits from Units 1 and 2 to be 

extended onsite to Unit 3 substation; no new 

offsite transmission lines 

Hydrology-Groundwater 100,000 gpd Normal annual groundwater withdrawal; 

180,000 gpd maximum withdrawal during 

month of maximum use 

Terrestrial and Wetland 

Resources 

11.7 ac Loss of wetland habitat 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-28 April 2010 

1 Table 3-2. (contd) 

Resource Areas Value Description 

Aquatic Ecology 8350 linear ft 

2.7 ac 

0.16 ac 

4.5 ac 

0.88 ac 

177 to 208 dB 

Stream channels, filling 

Conoy Fishing Pond, filling 

Bay bottom, armoring 

Bay bottom, dredging 

Bay bottom, trenching 

Bay waters, pile driving noise 

Socioeconomics, 

Transportation, Air Quality 

3950 workers 

790–1383 workers 

Peak onsite workforce 

In-migrating workforce 

Terrestrial Ecology 

Nonradiological Health, 

Socioeconomics 

83–108 dBA 

73–102 dBA 

Peak noise level 

Noise level 50 ft from activity 

Source: UniStar 2009a 

2 3.4 Operational Activities 

3 The operational activities considered in the review team’s environmental review are those 

4 associated with structures that interface with the environment, as described in Section 3.2.2. 

5 Examples of operational activities are withdrawing water for the cooling system, discharging 

6 blowdown water and sanitary effluent, and discharging waste heat to the atmosphere. Safety 

7 activities within the plant are discussed by the applicant in the FSAR portion of its application 

8 (UniStar 2009b) and are reviewed by the NRC as part of its safety evaluation report (SER) (in 

9 progress). 

10 The following sections describe the operational activities, including operational modes 

11 (Section 3.4.1), plant-environment interfaces during operations (Section 3.4.2), the radioactive 

12 and nonradioactive waste management systems (Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4), and summarize the 

13 values of parameters likely to be experienced during operations (Section 3.4.5). 

14 3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes 

15 The operational modes for proposed Unit 3 considered in the assessment of operational 

16 impacts on the environment (Chapter 5) are normal operating conditions and emergency 

17 shutdown conditions. These are the nominal conditions under which maximum water 

18 withdrawal, heat dissipation, and effluent discharges occur. Cooldown, refueling, and accidents 

19 are alternative modes to normal plant operation during which water intake, cooling tower 

20 evaporation water discharge, and radioactive releases may change from nominal conditions. 

21 The primary plant cooling shifts from the CWS to the ESWS during these alternate modes. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation 

2 This section describes the operational activities related to structures with an interface to the 

3 environment. 

4 3.4.2.1 Circulating Water System – Intakes, Discharges, Cooling Tower 

5 Waste heat is a byproduct of normal power generation at a nuclear power plant. The CWS for 

6 the proposed Unit 3 is a closed-cycle wet cooling system that is used to transfer heat from the 

7 main condenser and the closed cooling water system to a single plume-abated mechanical draft 

cooling tower. During normal plant operation, the CWS would dissipate up to 1.108 x 1010 8 

Btu/hr (2.792 x 109 9 Kcal/hr) of waste heat (UniStar 2009a). 

10 Excess heat in the cooling water is transferred to the atmosphere by evaporative and 

11 conductive cooling in the cooling tower. In addition to evaporative losses, a small percentage of 

12 water is also lost in the form of droplets (drift) from the cooling tower; air impacts from cooling 

13 tower operation would also include visible plumes. The water not evaporate or drift from the 

14 tower is routed back to the cooling tower basin; this water is known as blowdown water. 

15 Evaporation of CWS water from the cooling tower increases the concentration of dissolved 

16 solids in the cooling water system. To limit the concentration of dissolved solids, a portion of the 

17 blowdown water is removed and replaced with makeup water from the Chesapeake Bay. The 

18 blowdown water would be directed to a common retention basin that receives waste input from 

19 several sources. Time spent in the basin allows for settling of suspended solids and chemical 

20 treatment, if required, prior to discharging to the Chesapeake Bay. 

21 UniStar provided the following bounding rates for the CWS: 

22 • The maximum makeup water flow rate would be 44,320 gpm, with a flow velocity along the 

23 new intake channel less than 0.5 fps. 

24 • The maximum consumptive water use rate (evaporation and drift) would be 22,199 gpm. 

25 • The maximum blowdown rate would be 22,121 gpm. 

26 For the potable and sanitary water system, UniStar would treat desalinated water to meet all 

27 Federal and State release requirements. For the demineralized water system, UniStar would 

28 treat desalinated water to meet requirements specified in guidance from the Electric Power 

29 Research Institute. The treatment would include the addition of a corrosion inhibitor. For the 

30 fire water distribution system, UniStar would use untreated desalinated water. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-30 April 2010 

1 3.4.2.2 Essential Service Water System 

2 The ESWS is a closed-loop system that provides cooling water to the component cooling water 

3 system (CCWS) heat exchangers and the cooling jackets of the emergency diesel generators 

4 (UniStar 2009a). The ESWS dissipates waste heat during normal operations; operational 

5 events, such as refueling and shutdown; and accidents. The ESWS consists of four safety6 related mechanical draft cooling towers, each with a dedicated CCWS heat exchanger and 

7 water storage basin. A fifth, non-safety-related tower is available for use during severe accident 

8 conditions. During normal operation, the basins would be supplied with non-safety-related 

9 makeup water from the desalination plant. During a design basis accident, the basins would be 

10 supplied with safety-related makeup water from the Chesapeake Bay via the UHS intake 

11 structure. 

12 Within each ESWS tower, excess heat in the cooling water is transferred to the atmosphere via 

13 conduction, evaporation, and drift. The evaporation process increases the concentration of 

14 dissolved solids in the cooling water. To limit the concentration of dissolved solids, a portion of 

15 the water is continuously discharged from the system as blowdown water, which is routed using 

16 gravity to the common retention basin. After solids settlement and chemical treatment (if 

17 required), the water from the common retention basin would ultimately be discharged to the 

18 Chesapeake Bay. UniStar provided the following bounding rates for the ESWS: 

19 • The maximum makeup water flow rate would be 1490 gpm. 

20 • The maximum consumptive water use rate (evaporation and drift) would be 1368 gpm. 

21 • The maximum blowdown rate would be 122 gpm. 

22 3.4.2.3 Power Transmission System 

23 Inspections and maintenance of the transmission line corridors (to include maintenance of the 

24 transmission line hardware and tree trimming and application of herbicide) would be performed 

25 periodically on an as-needed basis. 

26 3.4.2.4 Emergency Diesel Generators 

27 Unit 3 would have six standby diesel generators and two Station Blackout diesel generators. 

28 When operated, the generators would produce gaseous emissions that would comply with all 

29 emissions standards, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 

30 requirements governing diesel emissions being phased in over the 2008-2015 period. For 

31 safety and maintenance purposes, the generators would be run for about 100 hours per year. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.4.3 Radioactive Waste Management System 

2 Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would be used to collect 

3 and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating proposed Unit 3. These 

4 systems would process radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents to maintain releases 

5 within regulatory limits and to levels as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) before 

6 releasing them to the environment. Waste-processing systems would be designed to meet the 

7 design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (“Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and 

8 Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ‘As Low as is Reasonably Achievable’ for 

9 Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents”). The radioactive 

10 waste-management systems would not be shared between the existing Units 1 and 2 and 

11 proposed Unit 3. Radioactive materials in the reactor coolant would be the primary source of 

12 gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in an U.S. EPR. Radioactive fission products build 

13 up within the fuel as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products would be 

14 contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small quantities could escape the fuel rods into the reactor 

15 coolant. Neutron activation of the primary coolant system would also add radionuclides to the 

16 coolant. 

17 The offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM) for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (Constellation 2005) 

18 describes the methods and parameters used for calculating offsite radiological doses from liquid 

19 and gaseous effluents. The ODCM also describes the methodology for calculation of gaseous 

20 and liquid monitoring alarm/trip set points for release of effluents from CCNPP. Operational 

21 limits for releasing liquid and gaseous effluents are also specified in the ODCM to ensure 

22 compliance with NRC regulations. 

23 Summary descriptions of the liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems 

24 for the proposed Unit 3 are presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of 

25 these systems can be found in Chapter 11 of the U.S. EPR Design Control Document 

26 (AREVA 2009). 

27 3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste Management System 

28 The liquid radioactive waste-management system functions to collect, segregate, process, 

29 handle, store, and dispose of liquids containing radioactive material such that any discharged 

30 liquid effluents are below concentration levels specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2 

31 (UniStar 2009b). This is managed using evaporation, centrifugal separation, demineralization, 

32 and filtration in several process trains consisting of tanks, pumps, ion exchangers, and filters. 

33 The system is designed to handle both normal and anticipated operational occurrences. Normal 

34 operations include processing of (1) RCS effluents, (2) floor drain effluents and other wastes 

35 with potentially high suspended solid contents, and (3) chemical wastes. In addition, the 

36 radioactive waste-management system can handle effluent streams that typically do not contain 

37 radioactive material, but that may, on occasion, become radioactive (e.g., steam generator 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-32 April 2010 

1 blowdown as a result of steam generator tube leakage). With two exceptions, liquid effluents 

2 processed through the liquid radioactive waste-management system are discharged to the 

3 environment. The exceptions are (1) steam generator blowdown that is normally returned to the 

4 condensate system after processing and (2) reactor coolant that can be degassed prior to 

5 reactor shutdown and returned to the RCS. 

6 Liquid effluent discharges are monitored to confirm release levels are not exceeded. The total 

7 liquid radioactive source term estimated for liquid effluents is listed in the ER, Table 3.5-7 

8 (UniStar 2009a). Calculated doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) and the 

9 population within 50 mi are presented in Section 5.9.2. 

10 3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Management System 

11 The gaseous radioactive waste-management system functions to collect, process, and 

12 discharge radioactive or hydrogen-bearing gaseous wastes. This is managed using a once13 through, ambient-temperature, activated-carbon delay system. Radioactive isotopes of iodine 

14 and the noble gases xenon and krypton are created as fission products within the fuel rods 

15 during operation. Some of these gases that escape to the RCS through cladding defects and 

16 subsequently decay to stable isotopes are released to the environment via plant ventilation or 

17 are captured and then released by the gaseous radioactive waste-management system. 

18 All gaseous effluents from the gaseous waste processing system, the containment ventilation 

19 purge system, the main condenser exhaust and ventilation from the radioactive waste building, 

20 the fuel pool building, the nuclear auxiliary building, and the safeguards and access controlled 

21 areas are released via the plant stack. Gaseous effluent discharges are monitored to verify 

22 release levels are not exceeded. The total gaseous radioactive source term estimated for 

23 gaseous effluents is listed in Table 3.5-8 of the ER (UniStar 2009a). Calculated doses to the 

24 MEI from gaseous effluents are evaluated in Section 5.9.2. 

25 3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System 

26 The solid radioactive waste-management system functions to treat, temporarily store, package, 

27 and dispose of dry or wet solids. The system is a three-part system, the radioactive 

28 concentrates processing system, the solid waste processing system, and the solid waste 

29 storage system. This is managed with the same process used to treat, store, and dispose of 

30 solid radioactive waste at currently operating CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The solid radioactive 

31 wastes include spent ion exchange resins, deep bed filtration media, spent filter cartridges, dry 

32 active wastes, and mixed wastes. The system is designed to handle both normal and 

33 anticipated operational occurrences. There are no onsite facilities for permanent disposal of 

34 solid wastes; therefore, packaged wastes would be temporarily stored in the auxiliary and 

35 radwaste buildings prior to being shipped to a licensed disposal facility. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The estimated annual solid radwaste volume produced by an U.S. EPR is estimated to be 

7933 ft3 2 . This solid radwaste would include an estimated 1990 Ci of radioactive material 

3 (UniStar 2009a). The storage and transportation of used reactor fuel is discussed in Chapter 6, 

4 “Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning,” of this EIS. 

5 3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 

6 The following sections provide descriptions of the nonradioactive waste systems proposed for 

7 Unit 3. This category of nonradioactive effluent includes gaseous emissions, liquids, hazardous 

8 waste, mixed wastes, and solids. All discharges to surface waters would be regulated by a 

9 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that would limit the volume 

10 and constituent concentrations. 

11 3.4.4.1 Solid Waste Management 

12 When building Unit 3, solid effluents that could be disposed in a landfill include clays, sand, 

13 gravels, silts, topsoil, tree stumps, root mats, brush and limbs, vegetation, and rock. Such a 

14 landfill for land-clearing debris does not require a permit but must comply with regulations 

15 issued by the State of Maryland for solid waste facilities. 

16 Because the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 operations currently recycle, recover, or send off for 

17 disposal its solid wastes, it does not release solid waste as effluent. Based on this experience, 

18 UniStar expects to have nearly zero solid waste effluent during operation of Unit 3 (UniStar 

19 2009a). 

20 3.4.4.2 Liquid Waste Management 

21 Water withdrawn from Chesapeake Bay for cooling and other operation purposes would be 

22 released as liquid effluent discharges back to the Chesapeake Bay. Cooling water from the 

23 CWS and ESWS would contain both biocides and chemicals. The biocides would be used to 

24 control biofouling of the CWS, and chemicals would be used to control scaling, corrosion, 

25 foaming, and solids deposition. UniStar states that water entering the CWS from the 

26 Chesapeake Bay would be treated in a manner similar to water treatment for Units 1 and 2 

27 (UniStar 2009a). The intake water would be treated with sodium hypochlorite, which acts as a 

28 biocide to minimize marine growth and control fouling on the heat exchangers. Depending on 

29 the water chemistry within the internal cooling systems, the cooling water may receive biocide, 

30 dechlorination (sodium hydroxide), scale inhibitor (a dispersant), and possibly an antifoaming 

31 agent. UniStar may elect to prevent Legionella sp. growth using hyperchlorination in 

32 combination with intermittent chlorination, biocide, and scale inhibitor. Discharges of liquid 

33 effluents would be controlled by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) via the 

34 NPDES permit. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-34 April 2010 

1 All sanitary wastes generated during preconstruction and construction activity would be 

2 transported and treated offsite by a private contractor. A wastewater treatment plant would be 

3 built and used to treat sanitary wastes during operation of Unit 3. The plant would not treat 

4 wastes from the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. UniStar would use a private contractor to 

5 manage sanitary waste handling. Waste sludge from the sanitary system would be removed 

6 and transported to a waste processing plant. 

7 The Potable and Sanitary Water Distribution System is expected to supply drinking water at a 

8 rate of 93 gpm during operations and 216 gpm during shutdown and cooldown conditions. 

9 Effluent discharges, which would go directly to the seal well prior to discharge to Chesapeake 

10 Bay, would be regulated by MDE via the NPDES permit. The effluent limits are expected to be 

11 similar to those for existing Units 1 and 2 (e.g., Table 3.6-3 of the ER) (UniStar 2009a). 

12 Proposed Unit 3 would discharge no wastes to groundwater. 

13 Volumetrically, the liquid effluent streams would be predominantly CWS blowdown water with 

14 various other waste streams mixed in. One of those would be the reject stream from the 

15 desalinization plant. The salt concentration of that stream would be about twice that of 

16 Chesapeake Bay salinity and somewhat less than that of CWS blowdown water. Therefore 

17 when the two are mixed, the concentration in the blowdown water would determine the upper 

18 boundary of the salinity of the mixture. 

19 The potential release of nonradioactive liquid effluents to the Chesapeake Bay would be 

20 controlled by the Unit 3 NPDES permit. Three permitted outfalls are anticipated: 

21 • Plant effluents (e.g., treated sanitary wastes, desalinization reject stream, cooling tower 

22 blowdown) 

23 • Stormwater from various drainages across the proposed Unit 3 site 

24 • Intake screen backwash. 

25 Other nonradioactive liquid wastes that would be generated would be collected and processed 

26 using various physical, chemical, and biological means. Only if testing demonstrates that the 

27 liquid wastes are within the limits for discharge would the wastes be released. 

28 3.4.4.3 Gaseous Waste Management 

29 The operation of Units 1 and 2 currently has gaseous emissions, primarily from diesel 

30 generators and the combustion turbine generator, that are subject to air permits issued by MDE. 

31 The addition of Unit 3 would require additional diesel and combustion turbine generators with 

32 attendant emissions regulated under an amended or new MDE permit. No other sources for 

33 gaseous emissions are currently planned at the Calvert Cliffs site (UniStar 2009a). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-35 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 3.4.4.4 Hazardous and Mixed Waste Management 

2 Table 3.6-6 of the ER lists the types of hazardous wastes generated by existing Units 1 and 2 at 

3 the Calvert Cliffs site, including paint, lead, mercury, and acids. Similar wastes are expected to 

4 be generated from the operation of proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). The generation, 

5 treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes are governed by the Federal Resource 

6 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. UniStar addresses the RCRA 

7 requirements for existing Units 1 and 2 and would manage hazardous wastes from proposed 

8 Unit 3 in a similar manner. 

9 Mixed waste is a combination of hazardous waste and low-level radioactive material, special 

10 nuclear material, or byproduct material. Mixed waste can be created during activities such as 

11 routine maintenance, refueling, and radiochemical laboratory work. NRC (in 10 CFR) and EPA 

12 (in 40 CFR) regulations govern generation, management, handling, storage, treatment, 

13 disposal, and protection requirements associated with these wastes. Management of these 

14 wastes would conform to the EPA requirements and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

15 with the State of Maryland. The quantities expected from proposed Unit 3 are small, similar to 

16 those from other nuclear power plants. Mixed wastes from Units 1 and 2 are infrequently 

17 shipped to offsite permitted facilities. UniStar expects to do the same for mixed wastes 

18 generated by operation of proposed Unit 3. 

19 3.4.5 Summary of Resource Parameters during Operation 

20 Table 3-3 provides a list of the significant resource commitments involved in operating Unit 3 

21 that are relevant to more than one resource evaluation. The values in this table, combined with 

22 the affected environment described in Chapter 2, provide part of the basis for the operational 

23 impacts assessed in Chapter 5. These values were stated in the ER (UniStar 2009a), and the 

24 review team has determined that the values are reasonable. 

25 Table 3-3. Resource Parameters During Operation 

Resource Value Description 

Site (land) 320 ac Permanently dedicated to Unit 3 and 

supporting facilities 

Electrical Output 1710 MW(e) 

1562 MW(e) 

4590 MW(t) 

Total output 

Net output 

Thermal output 

Structure Heights 211 ft above grade 

164 ft above grade 

Vent stack, tallest new structure 

Cooling tower 

Water Use (CWS) 30,032 gpm 

44,320 gpm 

Normal plant operations 

Maximum rate 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-36 April 2010 

1 Table 3-3. (contd) 

Resource Value Description 

Chesapeake Bay Water Use 41,095 gpm normal 

47,383 gpm maximum 

Normal withdrawal 

Maximum withdrawal 

Effluent Discharge to 

Chesapeake Bay from Seal 

Well 

21,019 gpm normal 

24,363 gpm 

Normal release 

Maximum release 

CWS and ESWS/UHS 

Cooling Tower Evaporation 

19,582 gpm 

23,524 gpm 

Normal rate 

Maximum rate 

CWS and ESWS/UHS 

Cooling Tower Drift 

41 gpm 

43 gpm 

Normal rate 

Maximum rate 

Operation Workforce 363 workers 

182 workers 

Normal operating workforce 

In-migrating workers 

Source: UniStar 2009a 

2 3.5 References 

3 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, ”Standards for 

4 Protection against Radiation.” 

5 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

6 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

7 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

8 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

9 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 

10 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

11 AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA). 2007. AREVA NP Environmental Report, Standard Design 

12 Certification. ANP-10290. Rev. 0. Accession No. ML073531265. 

13 AREVA NP, Inc. (AREVA). 2009. AREVA NP Environmental Report, Standard Design 

14 Certification. ANP-10290. Rev. 1. Accession No. ML092650775. 

15 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2005. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

16 for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Revision 8. Lusby, Maryland. Accession No. 

17 ML052020232. 

18 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-37 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008a. Letter from D. Lutchenkov (UniStar) to 

2 Maryland Department of the Environment, “Joint Federal/State Application to the United States 

3 Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of the Environment for the Alteration of 

4 any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

5 Plant - Unit 3 Calvert County, Maryland, USAEC Application Number NAB-2007-08123-M05.” 

6 May 16, 2008. Accession No. ML081840343. 

7 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008b. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated May 13, 2008, “Subject: 

9 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of Response Requests for 

10 Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 – Supplemental Aquatic 

11 RAIs.” September 29, 2008. Accession No. ML082760508. 

12 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008c. Letter from R.D. Leone (UniStar) to T.J. 

13 Romine (Maryland Public Service Commission), “Re: In the Matter of the Application of UniStar 

14 Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of Public 

15 Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in Calvert 

16 County, Maryland—Case No. 9127.” August 1, 2008. Accession No. ML091671372. 

17 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

18 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6, Baltimore, Maryland. 

19 Accession No. ML092880921. 

20 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009b. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

21 Combined License Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 6, Baltimore, 

22 Maryland. Accession No. ML092880897. 

23 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009c. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: 

25 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 

26 Environmental RAIs No. 1001 through 1011.” March 5, 2009. Accession No. ML090710146. 

27 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009d. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

28 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, 

29 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Intake Structure Relocation Changes for 

30 Environmental Report.” January 14, 2009. Accession No. ML090220368. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1936 3-38 April 2010 

1 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009e. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: 

3 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 

4 Follow-up Responses to Environmental Report RAI No.1003-2, Aquatic Ecology and RAI No. 

5 1008-4, Ecological Impacts (Fish Return System).” July 24, 2009. Accession No. 

6 ML092150728. 

7 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009f. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 29, 2009. “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC 

9 Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Follow-up Response to Requests 

10 for Additional Information Nos. 1001-14 and 1008-6.” In response to NRC’s Request for 

11 Additional Information dated February 3, 2009. Accession No. ML092120061. 

12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps). 2008. Public Notice in Reply to Application 

13 Number CENAB-OP-RMS NAB-2007-01823-M05 (Calvert Cliff’s 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/Unistar 

14 Nuclear Operating Services, LLC). September 3, 2008. Accession No. ML082550288. 
April 2010 4-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

2 This chapter examines the environmental issues associated with the building of proposed new 

3 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site as described in the application for a combined license (COL) 

4 submitted by UniStar to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). As part of its 

5 application, UniStar submitted an Environmental Report (ER) (UniStar 2009a), which discusses 

6 the environmental impacts of building, operating, and decommissioning proposed Unit 3, and a 

7 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (UniStar 2009b), which addresses safety aspects of 

8 construction and operation. UniStar also submitted a Joint Federal/State Application for the 

9 Alteration of Any Floodplain, Waterway Tidal, or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland to the U.S. Army 

10 Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) and to the Maryland Department of the Environment 

11 (MDE) (UniStar 2008c). 

12 In addition, UniStar submitted an application to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

13 (DNR, cited as MDNR) in support of an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

14 Necessity (CPCN) (UniStar 2007). A CPCN is required by the State of Maryland before UniStar 

15 can start construction activities. In response to the CPCN application, Maryland DNR’s Power 

16 Plant Research Program (PPRP) conducted an extensive review of the UniStar submittal 

17 (MDNR PPRP 2008), and the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a CPCN for 

18 proposed Unit 3 on June 26, 2009 (MPSC 2009). 

19 As discussed in Section 3.3 of this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC’s authority 

20 related to building new nuclear generating units is limited to construction “activities that have a 

21 reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety and/or common defense and security” 

22 (72 FR 57416). Many of the activities required to build a nuclear power plant do not fall within 

23 the NRC’s regulatory authority and, therefore, are not “construction” as defined by the NRC. 

24 Such activities are referred to as “preconstruction” activities in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

25 Regulations (CFR) Part 51.45(c). The NRC staff evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

26 impacts of the construction activities that would be authorized with the issuance of a COL. The 

27 environmental effects of preconstruction activities (e.g., clearing and grading, excavation, and 

28 erection of support buildings) are included as part of this EIS in the evaluation of cumulative 

29 impacts. 

30 As described in Section 1.1.3 of this EIS, the Corps is a cooperating agency on this EIS 

31 consistent with the updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with the NRC 

32 (USACE and NRC 2008). The NRC and the Corps established this cooperative agreement 

33 because both agencies have concluded it is the most effective and efficient use of Federal 

34 resources in the environmental review of a proposed new nuclear power plant. The goal of this 

35 cooperative agreement is the development of one EIS that provides all the environmental 

36 information and analyses needed by the NRC to make a license/permit decision and all the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-2 April 2010 

1 information needed by the Corps to perform analyses, draw conclusions, and make a permit 

2 decision in the Corps’ Record of Decision (ROD) documentation. To accomplish this goal, the 

3 environmental review described in this EIS was conducted by a joint NRC/Corps team. The 

4 review team was composed of NRC staff and its contractors and staff from the Corps. 

5 The Corps is responsible for ensuring that the information presented in this EIS is adequate to 

6 fulfill the requirements of Corps regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) “Guidelines,” 

7 which contains the substantive environmental criteria used by the Corps in evaluating 

8 discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the Corps public 

9 interest review process. The Corps will decide whether to issue a permit based on an 

10 evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the 

11 public interest. In accordance with the Guidelines, no discharge of dredged or fill material shall 

12 be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less 

13 adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, provided the alternative does not have other 

14 significant adverse consequences. The Corps permit decision will reflect the national concern 

15 for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be 

16 expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable 

17 detriments. Factors that may be relevant to the proposal,including the cumulative effects 

18 thereof, will be considered;among those factors are conservation, economics, aesthetics, 

19 general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife 

20 values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, 

21 recreation, water supply, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral 

22 needs, considerations of property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the 

23 people. 

24 Many of the impacts the Corps must address in its analysis are the result of preconstruction 

25 activities. Also, most of the activities conducted by a COL applicant that would require a permit 

26 from the Corps would be preconstruction activities. On May 16, 2008, UniStar submitted an 

27 application to the Corps for a permit to conduct the following activities: filling, dredging, grading, 

28 and building structures (UniStar 2008c). 

29 While both the NRC and the Corps must meet the requirements of the National Environmental 

30 Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), both agencies also have mission requirements that 

31 must be met in addition to the NEPA requirements. The NRC‘s regulatory authority is based on 

32 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). The Corps’ regulatory 

33 authority related to the proposed action is based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

34 Appropriation Act of 1899 (Rivers and Harbors Act) (33 U.S.C. 403), which prohibits the 

35 obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the United States without a permit from the 

36 Corps, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), which prohibits the discharge 

37 of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the Corps. 

38 Therefore, the applicant may not commence preconstruction or construction activities in 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, without a Corps permit. The Corps will complete its 

2 evaluation of the proposed project after it fully considers the recommendations of Federal, 

3 State, and local resource agencies and members of the public; assesses the cumulative impact 

4 of the total project; and after the following consultations and coordination efforts are completed: 

5 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, including, as appropriate, development 

6 and implementation of any Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); Endangered Species Act; 

7 Essential Fish Habitat coordination; State Forest Conservation Plans; State Water Quality 

8 Certifications; and State Coastal Zone Consistency determinations. Because the Corps is a 

9 cooperating agency under the MOU for this EIS, the Corps’ decision of whether to issue a 

10 permit will not be made until after public comment has been received on this NRC/Corps draft 

11 EIS and the final EIS is issued. 

12 The collaborative effort between the NRC and the Corps in presenting their discussion of the 

13 environmental effects of building the proposed project, in this chapter and elsewhere, must 

14 serve the needs of both agencies. Consistent with the MOU, the staffs of the NRC and the 

15 Corps collaborated in the (1) review of the COL application and information provided in 

16 response to requests for additional information (developed by the NRC and the Corps) and 

17 (2) development of the EIS. Section 10 CFR 51.45(c) requires that the impacts of 

18 preconstruction activities be addressed by the applicant as cumulative impacts in its ER. 

19 Similarly, the NRC’s analysis of the environmental effects of preconstruction activities on each 

20 resource area would be addressed as cumulative impacts, normally presented in Chapter 7. 

21 However, because of the collaborative effort between the NRC and the Corps in the 

22 environmental review, the combined impacts of construction activities that would be authorized 

23 by the NRC with its issuance of a COL and the preconstruction activities are presented in this 

24 chapter. For each resource area, the NRC also provides an impact characterization solely for 

25 construction activities that meet the NRC’s definition of construction at 10 CFR 50.10(a). 

26 Thereafter, both the assessment of the impacts of 10 CFR 50.10(a) construction activities and 

27 the assessment of the combined impacts of construction and preconstruction are used in the 

28 description and assessment of cumulative impacts in Chapter 7 of this EIS. 

29 For most environmental resource areas (e.g., aquatic ecology), the environmental impacts are 

30 not the result of either solely preconstruction or solely construction activities. Rather, the 

31 impacts are attributable to a combination of preconstruction and construction activities. For 

32 most resource areas, the majority of the impacts would occur as a result of preconstruction 

33 activities. 

34 This chapter is divided into 12 sections. In Sections 4.1 through 4.9, the review team evaluates 

35 the potential impacts on land use, meteorology and air quality, water use and quality, terrestrial 

36 and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, 

37 nonradiological and radiological health effects, and applicable measures and controls that would 

38 limit the adverse impacts of station construction. An impact category level – SMALL, 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-4 April 2010 

1 MODERATE or LARGE – of potential adverse impacts has been assigned by the review team 

2 for each resource area using the definitions for these terms established in Chapter 1. In some 

3 resource areas, for example in the socioeconomic area where the impacts of taxes are 

4 analyzed, the impacts may be considered beneficial and would be stated as such. The review 

5 team’s determination of the impact category levels is based on the assumption that the 

6 mitigation measures identified in the ER or activities planned by various state and county 

7 governments, such as infrastructure upgrades (discussed throughout this chapter), are 

8 implemented. Failure to implement these upgrades might result in a change in the impact 

9 category level. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is presented in 

10 Section 4.10. A summary of the construction impacts and the proportional distribution of 

11 impacts based on construction and preconstruction is presented in Section 4.11. Citations for 

12 the references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 4.12. The technical analyses provided 

13 in this chapter support the results, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Chapters 7, 

14 9, and 10 of this EIS. 

15 The review team’s evaluation of the impacts of construction of Calvert Cliffs proposed Unit 3 

16 draws on information presented in UniStar’s ER and supplemental documents, the PPRP review 

17 of the proposed project and the CPCN (MPSC 2009), and the Corps’ permitting documentation, 

18 as well as other government and independent sources. 

19 4.1 Land-Use Impacts 

20 This section provides information on land-use impacts associated with building proposed Unit 3 

21 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Topics discussed include land-use impacts at the Calvert Cliffs site, in 

22 the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site, and in transmission line corridors and other offsite areas. 

23 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 

24 Proposed Unit 3 would be located southeast of existing Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

25 (CCNPP) Units 1 and 2. The proposed location for Unit 3 is entirely within the existing Calvert 

26 Cliffs site. Approximately 460 ac would be disturbed during construction (UniStar 2009a). Unit 

27 3 and auxiliary facilities would occupy approximately 320 ac at the site (UniStar 2009a). 

28 Approximately 36 ac would be used to permanently store excavated material from the power 

29 block, circulating water supply system cooling tower and other construction areas that are not 

30 suitable for construction backfill (UniStar 2009a). Approximately 134 ac of land that is currently 

31 zoned Forest and Farm District by Calvert County would be permanently affected, and 13 ac 

32 would be temporarily affected by building activities (UniStar 2009a). Some wetlands on the 

33 Calvert Cliffs site would be affected by Unit 3 building activities. Wetland impacts are discussed 

34 in Section 4.3.3. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The location of proposed Unit 3 and supporting facilities is not currently farmed and does not 

2 possess any prime farmland soils (UniStar 2009a). The proposed building activities would 

3 result in the permanent loss, through filling, of approximately 11.7 ac of non-tidal wetland habitat 

4 and approximately 30.7 ac of non-tidal wetland buffer (UniStar 2009a). 

5 Heavy equipment and reactor components would be barged up the Chesapeake Bay to the 

6 existing barge slip on the Calvert Cliffs site. The slip area would be dredged, and the existing 

7 heavy haul road from the barge slip would be modified and extended to the proposed Unit 3 

8 construction site and laydown areas. A new access road, approximately 2.5 mi long, would be 

9 built from Maryland (MD) State Road 2/4 to the Unit 3 construction site, providing access to the 

10 construction areas without impeding traffic to Units 1 and 2 (UniStar 2009a). A site perimeter 

11 road system and access road around the cooling tower area to the power block would be built. 

12 Another road would be built to the proposed water intake structure. 

13 The new intake, discharge, and barge facilities would be located in the 100-year coastal 

floodplain.(a) 14 In addition, some mitigation activities, including wetland enhancement and creation 

15 and stream restoration and enhancement, would occur at and south of the area of the barge slip 

16 within the 100-year coastal floodplain (see Section 4.3). With those exceptions, facility 

17 development activities would be outside the 500-year floodplain in areas designated as areas of 

18 minimal flooding (UniStar 2009a). 

19 Building Unit 3 would affect approximately 33.4 ac within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area 

20 (CBCA), including approximately 14.35 ac within the CBCA buffer zone that extends 100 ft 

21 landward of mean high tide (UniStar 2009a). The proposed intake and discharge pipelines; the 

22 intake forebay and structure; the heavy haul road; stormwater retention basins; bio-retention 

23 drainage ditches; wetland enhancement and creation and stream restoration and enhancement; 

24 and security fencing would be within the buffer zone. Critical and buffer areas are discussed 

25 further in Section 2.2.1 of this EIS. 

26 The intake structure, pipelines, and common forebay; barge slip; and heavy haul road would be 

27 located in the intensively developed area (IDA) adjacent to existing Units 1 and 2. Development 

28 in the more highly protected resource conservation area (RCA) would include the eastern edge 

29 of the power block and stormwater management structures and some stream and wetlands 

30 creation, restoration, and enhancement (see Section 4.3). UniStar states in its COL application 

31 that all applicable State and County regulations and ordinances pertaining to the CBCA 

32 Protection Act would be complied with when building and operating Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). 

 

(a) A one-hundred-year floodplain would be covered by floodwaters in the event of a 100-year flood. A 

100-year flood is a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in 

any given year. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-6 April 2010 

1 Small portions of the currently proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail 

2 and the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail would be converted from recreational land 

3 use to industrial land use with the expansion of the in-water exclusion area to comply with 

4 security measures for the proposed Unit 3. However, because most portions of the water trails 

5 would still be available for recreational use, the impact would be negligible. 

6 Several facilities associated with Camp Conoy and the Eagle’s Den conference center would be 

7 demolished. Adjacent pavement would also be removed. From an ecological perspective, the 

8 demolition would result in a beneficial increase in pervious surface area. Cultural aspects of 

9 demolition are addressed in Section 4.6. 

10 Offsite land-use changes in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site would be expected as a result of 

11 building activities. Information on roads, housing, and construction-related infrastructure 

12 impacts is discussed in Section 4.4. 

13 Within the Calvert Cliffs site boundary, one new 500-kV substation to transmit power from 

14 proposed Unit 3 and two new 500-kV circuits connecting the proposed new unit’s substation to 

15 the existing Units 1 and 2 substation would be needed. The two existing 500-kV circuits that are 

16 currently connected to Units 1 and 2 substation would be disconnected from the substation and 

17 extended 1 mi to the proposed Unit 3 substation (UniStar 2009a). The new circuits would 

18 require new onsite transmission towers. The new transmission towers would not be located in 

19 waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. 

20 Based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

21 review team concludes that the land-use impacts of construction and preconstruction activities 

22 would be SMALL, and mitigation measures would not be warranted. The review team’s 

23 conclusion reflects the following important considerations: (1) proposed Unit 3 would be built on 

24 an industrial site containing other nuclear facilities, (2) the State of Maryland has granted the 

25 applicant a CPCN for the proposed project, and (3) the Maryland Critical Area Commission 

26 approved, with conditions, UniStar’s proposal to build proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

27 Based on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

28 only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the land-use impacts of 

29 NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL. This project also requires certification 

30 from the State of Maryland that the proposed plant would be consistent with Maryland’s coastal 

31 zone management program (see Section 2.2.1). 

32 4.1.2 Transmission Line Corridors and Offsite Areas 

33 As mentioned above, there would be a 1-mi extension of two existing 500-kV circuits onsite. 

34 Because the Calvert Cliffs site currently has industrial land use for the operation of Units 1 and 2 

35 and because much of the land in the 1-mi onsite transmission corridor was previously disturbed, 

36 impacts to land use as a result of the transmission connection between the existing and 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 proposed switchyards would be minor. No new offsite transmission corridors are planned for 

2 proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). Breaker upgrades and associated modifications would be 

3 required at the Waugh Chapel, Chalk Point, and other substations, but all of the changes would 

4 be implemented within the boundaries of the existing substations and no new land would be 

5 needed (UniStar 2009a). However, some offsite land use changes in the vicinity of the Calvert 

6 Cliffs site would be expected as a result of building activities. These changes are expected to 

7 be minor and temporary; information on transportation, recreation, and housing-related 

8 infrastructure impacts is discussed in Section 4.4.4. The review team concludes that the land9 use impacts of construction and preconstruction activities of offsite transmission line corridors 

10 and other offsite areas would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

11 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2) specifically states that the transmission lines are not construction activities. 

12 There would be no transmission corridor impacts from construction activities. The NRC staff 

13 concludes the land-use impacts from NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL, 

14 and no mitigation would be warranted.

15 4.2 Water-Related Impacts 

16 Water-related impacts involved in building a nuclear power plant are similar to impacts that 

17 would be associated with any large industrial facility development project and similar to those 

18 realized while building Units 1 and 2. Prior to initiating onsite activities, including any site19 preparation work, UniStar would be required to obtain the appropriate authorizations regulating 

20 alterations to the hydrological environment. These authorizations would likely include: 

21 • Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the MDE 

22 and verifies that the project does not conflict with State water-quality management 

23 programs. 

24 • Coastal Zone Management Consistency. This concurrence of consistency with the State 

25 costal program's policies would be issued by the MDE and applies to any activity that is in, 

26 or affects land use, water use, or any natural resource in the coastal zone, if the activity 

27 requires a Federal license or permit. 

28 • Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

29 Construction and Industrial Stormwater Permits. These permits regulate limits of pollutants 

30 in liquid discharges to surface water and point source stormwater discharges. U.S. 

31 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stormwater regulations established requirements 

32 for stormwater discharges from various activities, including construction and preconstruction 

33 activities. The EPA has delegated the authority for administering the NPDES program in the 

34 State of Maryland to the MDE. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-8 April 2010 

1 • Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. This section prohibits the obstruction or alteration 

2 of navigable waters of the United States without a permit. Permits for related activities in the 

3 Chesapeake Bay are obtained from the Corps. 

4 4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations 

5 Building the proposed Unit 3 would impact several surface water bodies and some of the 

6 aquifers underlying the site. Surface water bodies that would be altered by site preparation and 

7 building activities include the Chesapeake Bay, Camp Conoy Fishing Pond, Lake Davies, 

8 existing debris and sediment basins, wetlands, and the streams and creeks that drain the 

9 watersheds. The Camp Conoy Fishing Pond and Lake Davies are both man-made. Lake 

10 Davies was the location that received the dredge spoils during excavation of the intake and 

11 discharge structures for Units 1 and 2. 

12 UniStar plans to construct a water-intake structure, water discharge pipe, heavy haul road, and 

13 upgraded and enlarged barge slip near and in the Chesapeake Bay. Within the proposed Unit 3 

14 site boundary, about 320 ac would be permanently altered to build the proposed unit and 

15 another 140 ac would be temporarily disturbed. Water bodies such as Camp Conoy Fishing 

16 Pond and several streams would be filled in. Lake Davies would receive sediments dredged for 

17 the barge slip. Several stormwater impoundments would be created and their outlets routed to 

18 either Johns Creek on the west or the unnamed streams on the east. The excavation for the 

19 power block would extend down to as much as 40 ft below plant grade. To facilitate 

20 emplacement of below-grade elements, the excavation would likely require dewatering to 

21 remove water that enters from surface drainage and groundwater infiltration. 

22 The local groundwater aquifers that could be impacted by proposed activities are the Surficial 

23 aquifer, the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifers, and the Aquia aquifer. Surface modifications during 

24 site preparation would alter the thickness of the Surficial aquifer and the nature and location of 

25 recharge and discharge zones. Water for construction and preconstruction purposes would be 

26 obtained from wells screened within the Aquia aquifer. 

27 In summary, the hydrological alterations associated with building the proposed unit are limited to 

28 dredging for the intake and discharge structures, altering the surface topography and hydrology 

29 (e.g., site grading, laydown yards, stormwater collection trenches and basins), dewatering the 

30 excavation for installation of the nuclear facilities, and withdrawing groundwater from the Aquia 

31 aquifer for construction and preconstruction purposes. 

32 4.2.2 Water Use Impacts 

33 To support all the activities prior to completion of proposed Unit 3, UniStar (in collaboration with 

34 Maryland DNR’s PPRP), has identified the water requirements for purposes such as worker 

35 needs, concrete mixing and curing, and dust control (UniStar 2009a). The water requirements 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 would be met using groundwater from onsite wells, water from excavation dewatering, and 

2 water trucked in from offsite sources. After the desalination plant becomes operational, some of 

3 the water needs would be provided by desalinated Chesapeake Bay water. 

4 Together with the Maryland DNR, UniStar identified three sources to supply water for 

5 construction and preconstruction (MDNR PPRP 2008). The primary source would be 

6 groundwater obtained from the Aquia aquifer from one or two new wells to be installed within 

7 the boundary of the Unit 3 site. The PPRP recommended that UniStar be granted an 8-year 

8 groundwater appropriation to provide water at an average rate of 100,000 gpd during each year 

9 and a maximum rate of 180,000 gpd during the month of maximum use. The PPRP 

10 recommendation of 8 years exceeds the UniStar estimate of time to complete the project to 

11 provide additional time should delays occur in building schedules. The other two sources of 

12 water would be excavation dewatering and treated effluent from local wastewater treatment 

13 plants. The water from both sources would be used (if appropriate) for dust control. 

14 One of the sources of water is the Surficial aquifer, which would be dewatered to permit 

15 foundation installation. Extensive pumping of the Surficial aquifer may reduce or eliminate the 

16 springs and seeps that feed the ephemeral streams and wetlands that immediately surround the 

17 powerblock. UniStar (2009a) conducted a modeling study to determine the impact of these 

18 activities on water flow into Johns Creek. Because the precise nature of the revised surfaces 

19 and associated stormwater retention basins is unknown, UniStar considered three recharge 

20 rates: 2.5, 5.0 (the expected value), and 10.0 in./yr. The results showed that, relative to 

21 predisturbance conditions, groundwater flow to Johns Creek could drop by 50 percent under the 

22 low recharge rate, drop by 20 percent under the expected rate, and increase by 20 percent 

23 under the high rate. Discussions between UniStar and the PPRP suggested that the dewatering 

24 period may extend for only two years rather than the entire site preparation and building period 

25 (MDNR PPRP 2008). The review team identified no water users that rely on these small 

26 creeks. 

27 The impacts of this water-use plan are discussed in the next sections. 

28 4.2.2.1 Surface Water Use Impacts 

29 According to the ER, UniStar expected to use water from the desalination (also called 

30 desalinization) plant when it became operational (UniStar 2009a). During discussions with the 

31 Maryland PPRP, UniStar acknowledged that the desalination plant would not be operational 

32 until the last two quarters of the last year of construction and preconstruction (MDNR PPRP 

33 2008). When the desalination plant comes online, UniStar plans to use it primarily for plant 

34 commissioning rather than completing the buildings. Any Chesapeake Bay water that was 

35 desalinated and used prior to operation would be undetectable to the resource given the volume 

36 of water the Chesapeake Bay represents. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-10 April 2010 

1 The impacts to surface water are limited to the immediate vicinity of the construction area and 

2 excavations. The impacts are limited to the first two years of the construction period, and 

3 Chesapeake Bay water would not be used for the planned activities. During dry periods, flow in 

4 the small local creeks may be reduced due to changes in the magnitude and distribution of 

5 groundwater recharge onsite caused by land-cover changes. Those creeks flow into Johns 

6 Creek before it leaves the site. However, the review team identified no water users that rely on 

7 Johns Creek. 

8 Based on these factors, the information provided by UniStar, and the review team’s independent 

9 evaluation, the review team concludes that the surface water use impacts of construction and 

10 preconstruction activities would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be warranted. Based on 

11 the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a 

12 portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the surface water use impacts of 

13 NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no 

14 further mitigation measures would be warranted. 

15 4.2.2.2 Groundwater Use Impacts 

16 Surficial Aquifer 

17 UniStar plans to pump water from the Surficial aquifer to dewater those areas where 

18 foundations must be built. Once the foundations are completed, the dewatering can be 

19 discontinued. Within a few years, the water levels in the Surficial aquifer should return to levels 

20 close to their predisturbance levels. There are no nearby users of water from this aquifer, and 

21 the impact would be limited to the dewatering period. 

22 Piney Point-Nanjemoy Aquifer 

23 UniStar has seven wells screened within this aquifer. Four of these wells are in the vicinity of 

24 Camp Conoy and would be removed. The other three wells supply the Visitor’s Center, Firing 

25 Range, and some trailers. Their combined permit limit is 1100 gpd. There are no plans to use 

26 these remaining wells to provide water for construction and preconstruction activities or to install 

27 new wells in this aquifer. 

28 Aquia Aquifer

29 Bechtel (2008a) evaluated the impact of increasing the groundwater pumping rate from the 

30 2002 rate of 392,000 gpd to 738,000 gpd to provide water for building Unit 3. Its results 

31 suggested that the maximum effect to the closest water user would be a 14-ft decline in Aquia 

32 aquifer piezometric level and that the decline would dissipate within 3 years of ceasing the 

33 increased pumping. The 2008 piezometric level of the Aquia aquifer at Calvert Cliffs was about 

34 -90 ft (90 ft below ground surface). The top of the Aquia aquifer at Calvert Cliffs is about -415 ft, 

35 so a temporary decline in piezometric level of 14 ft is relatively small and would not lead to 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 desaturation of the aquifer. Because the Aquia aquifer would remain saturated during these 

2 temporary declines in water level, wells completed in this formation would still have piezometric 

3 levels well above the top of the Aquia aquifer and would be able to continue functioning 

4 normally. 

5 As noted, UniStar proposes to use water from one or two new Aquia aquifer wells that would be 

6 installed within the boundary of the Unit 3 site. The permitted average withdrawal would be 

7 about 100,000 gpd during a 365-day period. During the month of maximum withdrawal, the 

8 permitted rate would be 180,000 gpd. That withdrawal rate is significantly less than the current 

9 rate of 392,000 gpd and the higher rate of 738,000 gpd evaluated by Bechtel (2008a). 

10 Therefore, the decline in the Aquia aquifer would be less than the 14-ft decline estimated by 

11 Bechtel. Because additional pumping is only needed during site preparation and building Unit 3 

12 and because the quantity to be pumped is only 26 percent of what is currently pumped for Units 

13 1 and 2, the change to the Aquia aquifer’s piezometric surface is limited, temporary, and 

14 localized. The PPRP evaluated the impact and reached a similar conclusion (MDNR PPRP 

15 2008). 

16 The impact to the Surficial aquifer is localized, and there are no nearby users of water from that 

17 aquifer. Water from the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer would not be used. The permitted Aquia 

18 aquifer pumping rate would be smaller than the withdrawal rate for Units 1 and 2 and would 

19 occur for no more than 86 months. Based on these factors, the information provided by 

20 UniStar, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

21 groundwater use impacts of construction and preconstruction activities for proposed Unit 3 

22 would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be warranted. Based on the above analysis, and 

23 because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed 

24 activities, the NRC staff concludes that the groundwater use impacts of NRC-authorized 

25 construction activities would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no mitigation 

26 measures would be warranted. 

27 4.2.3 Water Quality Impacts 

28 Impacts to the quality of the water resources of the site are expressed for surface-water (the 

29 streams, creeks, and Chesapeake Bay) and groundwater (i.e., the Surficial and Aquia aquifers) 

30 conditions that are most directly affected by construction and preconstruction. 

31 4.2.3.1 Surface Water Quality Impacts 

32 While building the proposed Unit 3, the potential exists for soil erosion to degrade the water 

33 quality of surface-water bodies such as Johns Creek, associated branches and unnamed 

34 streams, and the nearshore environment of Chesapeake Bay. In addition, installation of intake, 

35 discharge, and barge slip structures in and along the shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay will 

36 disturb sediments, potentially increasing turbidity both near and downstream of the sites of 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-12 April 2010 

1 these facilities. To build and operate the proposed unit, UniStar must obtain multiple approvals 

2 from regulatory and State agencies, including a Section 404 permit from the Corps, a NPDES 

3 general construction permit from the MDE, a Section 401 Certification from the State of 

4 Maryland, and a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency determination from the 

5 State of Maryland. In addition, UniStar is required by MDE to develop a Sediment and Erosion 

6 Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Together, the approvals, the 

7 SWPPP, and the CPCN conditions (MSPC 2009) will confirm that UniStar follows best 

8 management practices (BMPs) to minimize the impacts to surface waterbodies. 

9 Because hydrological alterations resulting from site preparation and building activities, including 

10 dredging for the intake, discharge, and barge slip, would be localized and temporary; disturbed 

11 land would be stabilized to prevent erosion; and permits, certifications, and SWPPP require the 

12 implementation of BMPs to minimize impacts, the review team concludes that the surface water 

13 quality impacts of construction and preconstruction activities for proposed Unit 3 would be 

14 SMALL, and no mitigation beyond the BMPs would be warranted. Based on the above analysis, 

15 and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed 

16 activities, the NRC staff concludes that the surface water quality impacts of NRC-authorized 

17 construction activities would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no further mitigation 

18 measures beyond the BMPs would be warranted.

19 4.2.3.2 Groundwater Quality Impacts 

20 During site preparation and building activities of proposed Unit 3, the potential exists for spills to 

21 transport pollutants (e.g., gasoline) to the Surficial aquifer. As noted, UniStar would be subject 

22 to a multitude of permit requirements that serve to prevent and promptly mitigate any spills. 

23 Another potential mechanism that could degrade water quality is the disposal of dredged 

24 sediments from Chesapeake Bay in Lake Davies. However, there is no evidence that disposal 

25 of sediments dredged while building Units 1 and 2 in Lake Davies caused a discernible 

26 degradation of water quality. Furthermore, the quantity of sediments dredged for Unit 3 would 

27 be less than the quantities for Units 1 and 2 because Unit 3 would use the existing intake 

28 channel. With less sediment being disposed, the impact to water quality from building Unit 3 

29 would likely not be discernible. 

30 Increased pumping in the Aquia aquifer has the potential to reduce potentiometric surfaces and 

31 induce saltwater intrusion. However, Maryland CPCN-permitted pumping rate for Unit 3 is only 

32 22 percent of the permitted pumping rate for Units 1 and 2, and the CPCN-permitted duration of 

33 pumping for Unit 3 is only 8 years. The temporary groundwater withdrawal is unlikely to be 

34 sufficient to induce intrusion. Withdrawals elsewhere on the Calvert Peninsula are much higher 

35 and have yet to show evidence of saltwater intrusion. 

36 Because of the BMP protection and the lack of observed impacts from previous activities related 

37 to building Units 1 and 2, the review team concludes that the groundwater quality impacts of 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 construction and preconstruction activities for proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL, and no further 

2 mitigation beyond the BMPs for spills would be warranted. Based on the above analysis, and 

3 because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed 

4 activities, the NRC staff concludes that the groundwater quality impacts of NRC-authorized 

5 construction activities would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no further mitigation 

6 measures beyond the BMPs would be warranted. 

7 4.2.4 Water Monitoring 

8 UniStar states in the ER that it will prepare an Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Control 

9 Plan in support of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. This permit is required before 

10 site preparation can commence on the proposed Unit 3. 

11 Some of the observation wells would be impacted by site preparation and building activities and 

12 would be taken out of service prior to the start of work. UniStar states that the monitoring 

13 network would be evaluated to identify any groundwater data gaps and determine whether 

14 additional wells are needed to fill those gaps. UniStar also states that revisions to the 

15 monitoring network would be implemented to identify the impacts of preoperational activities. 

16 UniStar would continue to monitor groundwater levels. 

17 4.3 Ecological Impacts 

18 This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from the construction of 

19 proposed Unit 3. This section is divided into two subsections: terrestrial and wetland impacts 

20 and aquatic impacts. 

21 4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts 

22 This section provides information on the site-preparation activities and construction of proposed 

23 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site and the impacts to the terrestrial ecosystem. Topics discussed 

24 include terrestrial resource impacts at the site, erosion and sedimentation control, sensitive 

25 resources, spill prevention and response, and noise. The detailed acreage estimates used for 

26 analysis in this section are taken from Table 4.3-1 of UniStar’s ER (UniStar 2009a). Although 

27 acreage sums do not match revised totals describing the same disturbance areas cited earlier in 

28 the ER, the discrepancies in the total amounts of area disturbed are not expected to change the 

29 outcome of this analysis. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-14 April 2010 

1 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

2 Wildlife Habitat 

3 All activities related to building the proposed Unit 3, including ground-disturbing activities, would 

4 occur within the existing Calvert Cliffs site boundary. Although impacts could not be avoided, 

5 the footprint of the Unit 3 area was designed to minimize impacts to high-quality terrestrial 

6 habitats. Approximately 460 ac of terrestrial wildlife habitat would be disturbed while building 

7 Unit 3 (Table 4-1). Approximately 320 ac of habitat, including 33.4 ac in the CBCA, would be 

8 permanently lost as it would be cleared, grubbed, and graded to develop the power block, 

9 cooling tower, switchyard, roadways, parking lots, permanent construction laydown area, borrow 

10 area, and retention basins (Figure 4-1). Temporary impacts to 169 ac of wildlife habitat would 

11 occur to accommodate a batch plant and temporary construction laydown areas, construction 

12 offices, warehouses, and parking (Table 4-1). No area within CBCA limited development areas 

13 (LDAs) would be disturbed, and all temporary impacts would occur outside the CBCA. 

14 Habitat loss would occur within all nine cover classes (Table 4-1, Figure 4-1). Most of this loss 

15 would be in mixed deciduous forest cover, which is the most abundant cover type within the site 

16 boundary. Loss of approximately 12 ac of wetlands, a valuable and important resource in the 

17 Chesapeake Bay region, would also occur (see Wetlands section for detailed analyses). About 

18 253 ac of forest would be lost. Merchantable timber would be removed, and stumps, shrubs, 

19 saplings, groundcover, and leaf litter would be grubbed and cleared. Although individual trees 

20 may be retained for aesthetic purposes, habitats and their ecological functions within the 

21 proposed clearing and building area would be lost. 

22 The State of Maryland has determined that the amount of forest retained after the proposed 

23 construction would exceed thresholds defined in the Maryland Forest Conservation Act (Natural 

24 Resources Article 5-1601-1612) and would not require mitigation for forest loss (MDNR PPRP 

25 2008). However, to minimize the impacts of forest loss, UniStar has prioritized forest stands for 

26 future permanent preservation based on age, successional stage, and ease of replacement. 

27 Priority is given to forest types indicative of mature, stable, forested wetlands. Mature, late28 successional deciduous forest types are given second priority for preservation. Sweetgum 

29 (Liquidambar styraciflua)-tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) forest occupies flatter, richer soils 

30 and is ranked third. Forest stands dominated by fast-growing, early-successional tree species 

31 are given lowest priority for preservation. 

32 The power block and adjoining permanent laydown yard were placed in the Camp Conoy area 

33 to minimize impacts to the CBCA and interior forest. Previous development had fragmented the 

34 local forest and precluded its use by forest interior dwelling species (FIDS). In addition, the 

35 width of the proposed entrance road has been narrowed, and temporary staging areas are 

36 proposed in old field cover types in the western part of the Calvert Cliffs site. Also, the concrete 

37 batch plant location would become the proposed permanent laydown area just southeast of the 

38 proposed power block. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 4-1. Areal Extent of Disturbance to Cover Types on the Calvert Cliffs Site 

Cover Type 

CBCA 

IDA(a)

(ac) 

CBCA 

RCA(b)

(ac) 

CBCA 

Total 

(ac) 

Permanent 

Impacts 

(outside 

CBCA (ac) 

Temporary 

Impacts 

outside 

CBCA (ac) 

Total 

(ac) 

Lawns/Developed Areas 3.09 5.21 8.30 19.33 24.30 51.93 

Old Field 1.22 0.23 1.45 27.35 96 124.8 

Mixed Deciduous Forest 14.76 5.20 19.96 133.81 26.44 180.21 

Mixed Deciduous 

Regeneration Forest 

0 0 0 36.28 12.00 48.28 

Well-Drained Bottomland 

Deciduous Forest 

0 0 0 1.37 0.05 1.42 

Poorly Drained Bottomland 

Deciduous Forest 

0.15 0.50 0.65 8.87 0.31 9.83 

Herbaceous Marsh 0.05 0.02 0.07 1.74 1.63 3.44 

Successional Hardwood 0 1.71 1.71 3.5 7.82 13.03 

Open Water 0.02 0.01 0.03 2.66 0 2.69 

Total 19.29 12.88 32.17(c) 234.91 168.55 435.63(d)

Source: UniStar 2009a 

(a) IDA = intensely developed area 

(b) RCA = resource conservation area 

(c) UniStar’s revised total CBCA area disturbed is 33.4 ac; however, the cover type(s) of the additional 1.2 ac of 

disturbance was not identified. Regardless of cover type or habitat of the additional 1.2 ac, the conclusion in 

this EIS is unlikely to change. 

(d) UniStar’s revised total area disturbed is 460 ac; however, the cover type(s) of the additional 25 ac of 

disturbance was not identified. Regardless of cover type or habitat of the additional 25 ac, the conclusion in 

this EIS is unlikely to change. 

2 
Draft NUREG-1936 4-16 April 2010 

Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

1 

Figure 4-1. Locations of Impacts within Vegetation Cover Types of the Calvert Cliffs Site (UniStar 2009b) 2 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 BMPs would be employed to minimize impacts to areas surrounding the disturbance footprint. 

2 For example, silt fences, as specified in an erosion and sedimentation plan that would have to 

3 be approved by the MDE prior to site disturbance, would be erected. Exposed soil would be 

4 covered or bermed until backfilling and final grading activities would be completed. 

5 Chesapeake Bay Critical Area 

6 The proposed Unit 3 disturbance footprint would affect the CBCA, including forested habitat, and 

7 tidal and non-tidal wetlands in the IDA and the RCA. Approximately 33.4 ac within the CBCA 

8 would be affected by the proposed disturbance. Activities that would occur within the CBCA 

9 include installation of a new water intake structure and pump houses, installation of a fish-return 

10 system, terracing of the forested hill just west of the new intake and fish-return, building the 

11 heavy haul road, grading and filling areas for the power block and laydown area, and altering the 

12 existing barge dock. About 19 ac of this would occur within the IDA, and almost 13 ac would 

13 occur in the RCA. Although IDAs are plots that contain little or no natural habitat as a result of 

14 previous development and land use activities, 15 ac of forest cover within the IDA would be 

15 affected. There would be no disturbance in the LDA. Dredging to enhance the barge slip would 

16 affect a small amount of tidal wetland, and an even smaller amount of forest. Impervious 

17 surfaces within the CBCA would increase by 2.8 ac as a result of the proposed actions. 

18 Mitigation for these impacts, as well as loss of interior forest/FIDS habitat and wetlands, is 

19 proposed to occur within the CBCA (Figure 4-2). The applicant proposes to create 7.2 ac of 

20 forested wetland in the Camp Conoy area. Tulip poplar, sweetgum, green ash 

21 (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), 

22 and loblolly pine (P. taeda) would also be planted to recreate a 16.4 ac stand of mixed 

23 deciduous forest in a disturbed area north of the existing Units 1 and 2 (MDNR PPRP 2008). It 

24 is expected that mitigation plantings would provide FIDS habitat within 20 to 30 years, with 

25 natural succession ultimately reproducing the forest structure that now exists within the 

26 proposed Unit 3 area. In addition, 3.2 ac of upland forest would be planted where existing 

27 buildings and associated impervious surfaces would be removed from the Eagle’s Den site 

28 (UniStar 2008d). 

29 The specified portions of the CBCA would be adversely affected by the proposed construction. 

30 However, impacts would mainly occur in the IDA. The primary conservation concern within 

31 IDAs is impacts to water quality. Impervious surfaces increase stormwater runoff, which 

32 adversely affects water quality, and impervious surface area would increase (see Sections 

33 4.2.3.1 and 4.3.2 for additional discussion). A total of 22 ac of forest would be lost within the 

34 CBCA. Although mitigation would create 26.4 ac of forest, adverse impacts to the CBCA are 

35 significant. Adverse impacts to non-tidal wetlands (including within CBCA) are discussed in the 

36 wetlands section. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-18 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 4-2. Proposed Mitigation Actions on the Calvert Cliffs Site (MDNR PPRP 2008) 

3 Wildlife Habitat Summary 

4 Impacts from building the proposed Unit 3 and supporting facilities to wildlife habitat would be 

5 unavoidable. Approximately 460 ac of habitat would be affected, and 320 ac would be 

6 permanently lost. Forested cover would be reduced by about 253 ac, and 13 ac of wetland 

7 habitat would be lost. The remaining forest area satisfies the Maryland Forest Conservation Act 

8 breakeven point; therefore, mitigation of forest removal is not planned. 

9 Interior forest, a habitat relied upon by FIDS, would be adversely affected. The disturbance 

10 footprint would affect 16.3 ac of interior forest habitat within the CBCA on the Calvert Cliffs site. 

11 Increased forest fragmentation and additional impacts to riparian forest (amounting to about 

12 19 ac in addition to the lost interior forest), the other key FIDS habitat, would result in a total of 

13 about 35 ac, or 56 percent, of onsite FIDS habitat being lost (MDNR PPRP 2008). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Fragmentation of forest could also result in lower productivity by allowing invasive species a 

2 foothold into previously undisturbed habitats. For example, the brown-headed cowbird 

3 (Molothrus ater), a nest parasite that thrives along forest edges, lays its eggs in the nests of 

4 other birds. Cowbird eggs hatch quicker than eggs of the host species, and the young cowbird 

5 either ejects other eggs from the nest or out competes other nestlings for food. This could affect 

6 FIDS such as the scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), with the end result being decreased FIDS 

7 productivity. However, post-disturbance riparian forest mitigation actions could partially offset 

8 forest fragmentation because plantings are expected to result in a net gain of more than 15 ac 

9 of FIDS habitat over time. 

10 The CBCA would be adversely affected at the locations described above by the proposed 

11 building of Unit 3. A sum of 22.3 ac of forest would be lost within the CBCA onsite, but post12 disturbance mitigation actions should create an additional 26.4 ac of forest, including forested 

13 wetlands, to partially offset impacts to the CBCA, Calvert Cliffs site wetlands, and FIDS habitat 

14 loss. Impacts would primarily occur in the IDA surrounding the existing barge dock and water 

15 intake structure. The primary conservation concern within IDAs is decreased water quality, 

16 which would result from the increase in impervious surface area would increase. Some existing 

17 impervious surfaces would be removed elsewhere in the CBCA, and UniStar must have an 

18 MDE-approved erosion and sedimentation plan before ground-disturbing activities commence. 

19 This plan would contain BMPs, such as silt fences and berming that address water quality 

20 issues during and after building Unit 3. MDE would determine the need, if any, for further 

21 mitigation measures. 

22 Flora and Fauna 

23 Direct mortality would occur to wildlife inhabiting the proposed disturbance footprint. Commonly 

24 occurring arboreal, fossorial, and less mobile wildlife that would be affected during land-clearing 

25 activities such as timber harvest, grubbing, and grading include the beaver (Castor canadensis), 

26 woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern 

27 chipmunk (Tamias striatus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), American toad 

28 (Bufo americanus), and various snakes, frogs, and small mammals. Larger and more mobile 

29 species would likely flee. None of these species is of conservation concern in the State of 

30 Maryland and all are common in suitable habitats throughout the region. The review team 

31 concludes that direct mortality is not expected to depress local populations at detectable levels. 

32 During site field surveys, 46 migratory bird species were recorded within various cover types of 

33 the Calvert Cliffs site (Tetra Tech NUS 2007). Land-clearing activities conducted during the 

34 nesting season would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds nesting with the 

35 work zone. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would not place any time-of-year 

36 restrictions on land clearing due to Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) consideration and has 

37 deemed proposed mitigation sufficient for offsetting impacts to migratory birds (FWS 2009). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-20 April 2010 

1 Therefore, the review team concludes that loss of migratory bird productivity would be localized 

2 and is not expected to destabilize regional populations. Mortality from avian collision with 

3 existing transmission lines and new permanent structures, including cooling towers, is 

4 discussed in Chapter 5. 

5 Activities including the presence of humans, machinery, construction lighting, traffic, noise, and 

6 fugitive dust would likely displace wildlife in habitats surrounding the proposed disturbance 

7 footprint. Sufficient habitat exists in the vicinity of the proposed construction area and 

8 elsewhere on the Calvert Cliffs site to allow avoidance behavior from high noise levels. As 

9 animal density increases within these habitats, increased competition may displace individuals 

10 into sub-optimal habitats, potentially predisposing individuals to higher mortality rates. Habitat 

11 displacement and increased traffic from building activities would increase wildlife mortality on 

12 roadways areas as animals flee disturbance areas. Mammals that may suffer increased 

13 roadside mortality include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern cottontail 

14 rabbit, eastern gray squirrel, eastern chipmunk, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and woodchuck. Most 

15 turtle, snake, and amphibian species are also at risk for roadway mortality. However, 

16 displacement of individuals and subsequent competition and roadway mortality would occur to 

17 mostly common and abundant species. The review team concludes that these impacts would 

18 not be detectable beyond the local vicinity and would not destabilize regional populations. 

19 Refueling stations, fuel storage, oil storage, and storage of other fluids also pose a risk to 

20 surface waters that some wildlife species rely upon. However, activities and spill 

21 countermeasures would be conducted in a way to minimize the potential for spill and limit the 

22 spread, thereby limiting mortality and morbidity of wildlife. BMPs related to the management of 

23 effluent and stormwater runoff as required by the Storm Water Management Plan and NPDES 

24 permit would also limit these impacts. 

25 In summary, impacts to flora and fauna include direct mortality from land clearing, increased 

26 traffic, and chemical spills. Displacement of individuals, increased competition, and lost 

27 productivity could also result. However, the review team does not expect that the sum of these 

28 activities would be measurable at a population level beyond the project footprint and immediate 

29 vicinity. 

30 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines 

31 Impacts related to building new transmission lines onsite for proposed Unit 3 are incorporated in 

32 the discussion of onsite impacts in the preceding section. No new offsite transmission lines 

33 would be installed. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 4.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

2 This section describes the potential impacts to important species, including Federally threatened 

3 or endangered terrestrial species or terrestrial species proposed for Federal listing, State-listed 

4 species, and other ecologically important species, resulting from construction of the new unit at 

5 the Calvert Cliffs site and the onsite 500-kV transmission lines. The potential impacts of 

6 construction activities on these species are described in the following sections. There are no 

7 areas designated as critical habitat in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

8 Chestnut Oak (Quercus prinus) 

9 Chestnut oak is important as a mast-producing tree that contributes to the structural integrity 

10 and ecosystem health of the Calvert Cliffs site’s forested tracts. Although its removal from a 

11 forest stand could affect wildlife food resources, impacts on the regional population would be 

12 negligible as it is common within mixed deciduous stands of the site and is widely distributed 

13 across the eastern United States (USDA 2008a). 

14 Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia) 

15 Mountain laurel is a common shrub in the forest understory on the Calvert Cliffs site and 

16 throughout the eastern United States. It contributes to forest structure and is not a significant 

17 food source for wildlife (USDA 2008b). Although this species would be removed from the 

18 disturbance footprint, impacts to mountain laurel would be negligible as it is ubiquitous on 

19 the site. 

20 New York Fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) 

21 New York fern is a widespread and abundant ground cover plant under forest canopies of the 

22 Calvert Cliffs site and the eastern United States and Canada (USDA 2008c). It contributes to 

23 forest structure. Although this species would be removed from the disturbance footprint, 

24 impacts to New York fern would be negligible as it also is ubiquitous on the site. 

25 Showy Goldenrod (Solidago speciosa) 

26 The State of Maryland lists the showy goldenrod as a threatened species that prefers open 

27 areas in full sun. Large patches of showy goldenrod observed within the proposed power block 

28 area at several locations around Camp Conoy would be removed or transplanted. Adverse 

29 impacts could be avoided, but UniStar chose to build components of Unit 3 within previously 

30 disturbed old field areas, which are showy goldenrod habitat, to limit impacts to forests and 

31 wetlands. The applicant has proposed a mitigation and monitoring plan to mitigate the impacts, 

32 and the plan would be conducted in accordance with the Maryland Department of Natural 

33 Resources guidelines for rare, threatened, and endangered plant reintroductions (MDNR 2008). 

34 Showy goldenrod rhizomes (root structure) and seeds would be collected from at least 10 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-22 April 2010 

1 locations within the disturbance footprint and replanted/resewn in an attempt to preserve local 

2 genetic diversity. A survey of the mitigation planting site would occur before mitigation and 

3 annually in September–October for five continuous years (MDNR PPRP 2008). A baseline 

4 report and five annual reports, including transplant results, photo-documentation, site maps, 

5 problem descriptions, and actions taken, would be submitted to the Maryland DNR (2008a). 

6 The Maryland DNR generally discourages transplanting as a means of avoiding impact to a 

7 listed plant species. Although success of the proposed mitigation actions cannot be 

8 determined, showy goldenrod is a plant commonly and successfully sewn into plantings, 

9 gardens, and prairie restorations (Kentucky Native Plant Society 2005). Therefore, some level 

10 of success is likely to result from the proposed mitigation actions. Net effects to the showy 

11 goldenrod would be noticeable but would not jeopardize the continued existence of this species 

12 on the site, assuming some transplants are successful. 

13 Shumard’s Oak (Quercus shumardii) 

14 Shumard’s oak is another State threatened species that occurs on the Calvert Cliffs site and 

15 throughout the southeastern United States (USDA 2008d). Although no individual trees were 

16 observed within the proposed disturbance footprint, several were observed immediately 

17 adjacent to the switchyard, laydown area 1, and cooling tower construction areas. These trees 

18 would not be removed, but clearing and grubbing may affect the root zones of the trees nearest 

19 the construction zone. The applicant has proposed to retain as much of the existing vegetation 

20 as possible in the vicinity of the Shumard’s oaks to serve as a buffer from disturbance. As a 

21 result of the buffer, adverse impacts to Shumard’s oak are expected to be negligible. 

22 Spurred Butterfly Pea (Centrosema virginianum) 

23 Although not listed as threatened or endangered, the State of Maryland does classify the 

24 spurred butterfly pea as rare. The presence of the spurred butterfly pea has not been 

25 confirmed, and the location where it is most likely to occur is outside the proposed disturbance 

26 area. Therefore, it would not likely be affected by the proposed activities related to building a 

27 new nuclear unit at Calvert Cliffs. 

28 Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 

29 The tulip poplar was identified as important because it is a common tree throughout the Calvert 

30 Cliffs site and vicinity, it contributes to the local forest structure, and it indicates good ecological 

31 health. Removal of tulip poplar trees would reduce the number present on the site, but impacts 

32 to the tulip poplar’s regional abundance (USDA 2008e) would be negligible. 

33 Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis) 

34 The northeastern beach tiger beetle is a Federally threatened species (55 FR 32088) that uses 

35 sandy beach habitats and has been observed on the Calvert Cliffs site. However, none were 

36 observed during 2006 surveys (Knisley 2006). Historically, this beetle has been confined to the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 northernmost 300-ft section of beach on the site that borders Flag Ponds Natural Area. In 2004, 

2 four adult northeastern beach tiger beetles were observed on the beach approximately 3 mi 

3 northwest of the existing Calvert Cliffs water intake structure, but none were observed from 

4 2006 to 2008 in annual surveys (Knisley 2006, 2009). The location of the 2004 observation is 

5 the nearest known occurrence of this species to the proposed activity. No suitable breeding 

6 habitat, larvae, or burrows have been observed on the Calvert Cliffs site, and it is believed this 

7 species does not have an established population on the site (Knisley 2006). 

8 There are no areas designated as critical habitat for the northeastern beach tiger beetle in the 

9 vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. Proposed activities would not take place within approximately 

10 5000 ft of the northernmost section of beach where this beetle has been observed. Therefore, 

11 adverse impacts to northeastern beach tiger beetles from building proposed Unit 3 would 

12 be negligible. 

13 Puritan Tiger Beetle (Cicindela puritana) 

14 The Puritan tiger beetle has been listed as Federally threatened since 1970 (55 FR 32088). 

15 Success of subsequent recovery efforts has been inadequate, and the known distribution of this 

16 beetle is extremely limited (FWS 1993). Puritan tiger beetles are known to occur at only three 

17 locations, one being the Chesapeake Bay shore in Calvert County, Maryland (FWS 1993). 

18 Puritan tiger beetles thrive on steep, unvegetated bluffs with a narrow beach below, and this 

19 habitat is found along with these beetles on the southern end of the Calvert Cliffs site where it 

20 borders the Chesapeake Bay. Proposed activities, including mitigation activities, have the 

21 potential to affect the Puritan tiger beetle (MACTEC 2009). Such activities would occur in two 

22 areas where beetles have been observed. Alteration of the barge slip, including dredging, 

23 removal of existing structures, restoration of the bulkhead and a stream outfall culvert and 

24 widening of the heavy haul road to the barge dock would affect a small beach where a small 

25 number of adult Puritan tiger beetles have been observed on occasion (Knisley 2009; UniStar 

26 2008d). The bluff has been removed near the barge slip, and the wide beach was described as 

27 marginal to poor habitat for Puritan tiger beetles (Knisley 2006). Further south, the beach 

28 narrows as rocks become more numerous. Although the habitat is not optimal, adult Puritan 

29 tiger beetles have been observed using this portion of the Calvert Cliffs site (Knisley 2006, 

30 2009). The beach habitat near the barge slip that would be affected is likely used by adults 

31 during foraging only, and densities there were noted to be low (Knisley 2006, 2009). Adult tiger 

32 beetles are quick and agile and would hastily move away from disturbance. UniStar committed 

33 to a time-of-year restriction from June 1 to August 31 when adult Puritan tiger beetles are active 

34 (UniStar 2009c). The restriction is for work at the barge dock area and would only apply to 

35 activities from mean low water landward to the sheet pile bulkhead. Such restriction is expected 

36 to adequately minimize adult beetle mortality near the barge dock during construction. 

37 The second area where proposed activity has potential to affect the Puritan tiger beetle involves 

38 stream enhancement where an unnamed stream empties into the Chesapeake Bay south of the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-24 April 2010 

1 existing barge dock (Figure 4-2). This activity includes prevention of the upstream migration of 

2 a headcut, minor bank grading, and riparian and native plant re-vegetation. Suitable tiger beetle 

3 habitat, including bare, steep bluffs and narrow, sandy beach, exists at the mouth of this stream. 

4 UniStar has committed to the same time-of-year restriction, June 1 to August 31, for this stream 

5 enhancement activity as for the activities in the barge dock area (UniStar 2009c). UniStar has 

6 also committed to limiting the physical extent of the stream enhancement activities associated 

7 with the unnamed stream to a segment of 100-ft-wide section centered at the outlet into 

8 Chesapeake Bay. The Corps permit, if issued, would require physical demarcation of the work 

9 area while work is being conducted. This restriction would minimize disturbance of nearby 

10 larval tiger beetle habitat. 

11 Another activity that has the potential to affect the Puritan tiger beetle is the demolition of the 

12 building and removal of impervious surfaces at the Eagle’s Den location. The Eagle’s Den is 

13 located at the immediate top of the bluff that faces Chesapeake Bay. The bluff face is where 

14 Puritan tiger beetle larvae live. The beach immediately below the Eagle’s Den is mapped as 

15 beetle habitat but described as rocky and marginally suited, although the nearby beach habitat 

16 is mapped as optimal tiger beetle habitat. (Knisley 2006). A geotechnical evaluation would be 

17 conducted to determine stability of the Eagle’s Den area, and used to determine appropriate 

18 construction loads and methods. Work activities within the CBCA are pending approval from 

19 the CBCA Commission, and mitigation may be warranted. 

20 There are no areas designated as critical habitat for the Puritan tiger beetle in the vicinity of the 

21 Calvert Cliffs site. However, UniStar committed to time-of-year work restrictions and delimited 

22 beach work-zones to minimize impacts to adult and larval beetles. Therefore, impacts to 

23 Puritan tiger beetles and their habitats from the proposed project would be minimal. 

24 In accordance with Section 7 of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), 

25 the NRC and the Corps plan to jointly consult with the FWS regarding Federally listed species. 

26 Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis) 

27 The eastern narrow-mouthed toad is a State of Maryland endangered species. It is technically 

28 not a toad species, but a toad-like frog that requires shelter and moisture to survive (University of 

29 Michigan Museum of Zoology 2008). They occur in a wide variety of habitats, including Calvert 

30 County (USGS 2008; MDNR 2007). Surveys indicated it is highly unlikely they occur within the 

31 proposed disturbance area and, therefore, it is unlikely that they would be affected. 

32 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

33 Four active bald eagle nests are known to occur on the Calvert Cliffs site, three of which were 

34 occupied in 2007. Proposed activities do not encroach within 1500 ft of the three nests, well 

35 beyond the 660-ft buffer recommended for commercial building activities that would occur within 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 sight of active bald eagle nests (FWS 2007). Therefore, the potential to disturb eagles using 

2 these three nest sites would be minimal. However, a fourth nest would have to be removed. 

3 The fourth eagle nest is located within the proposed power block site, and the tree containing 

4 the nest would have to be removed. The applicant would have to obtain an authorization under 

5 the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for taking of eagles from the FWS (73 FR 29075). An 

6 incidental take permit is also required from the State of Maryland, and an application for this 

7 permit was submitted to the Maryland DNR in July 2008 (MDNR PPRP 2008). The permit 

8 would also allow take of any additional eagle nests within the proposed disturbance area and 

9 within 0.25 mi of the disturbance boundary, although none are known to occur within this area. 

10 The applicant has proposed to protect a 100-ac tract of forested habitat on the south portion of 

11 the Calvert Cliffs site that has had an active eagle nest site since 2000 and was occupied by an 

12 eagle pair in 2008 (MDNR PPRP 2008). No tree harvesting would occur within the protected 

13 100-ac tract, and human activity would be limited for 15 years (MDNR PPRP 2008). Although 

14 mitigation measures would be taken, bald eagle productivity on the site would be adversely 

15 affected by proposed Unit 3 because at least one nest would be removed, noise and other 

16 construction and preconstruction activities would disturb eagles protecting nests, and trees 

17 suitable for future nests would be removed. Regional eagle populations are stable and have 

18 been increasing as evidenced by the Federal delisting of the bald eagle, but further mitigation 

19 may be required by FWS or Maryland DNR. 

20 Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) 

21 The scarlet tanager is a small bird that relies upon interior forest for nesting habitat. This 

22 species is migratory, has been observed and is believed to nest on the Calvert Cliffs site, and 

23 represents other FIDS within this EIS. Clearing and fragmentation of forests could result in 

24 FIDS habitat loss and degradation. As discussed in the wildlife habitats section of this chapter, 

25 impacts to interior forest and FIDS habitat are unavoidable. Proposed locations for the 

26 switchyard, cooling tower, offices, and warehouses occur within forested tracts that have not 

27 been previously fragmented during past development of the site. These activities would result 

28 in the loss of interior forest that FIDS rely upon. 

29 As stated in Chapter 2, there are two types of FIDS habitats: interior forest and riparian forest. 

30 Both FIDS habitat types must have either a closed canopy or dominant trees greater than 5 in. 

31 in diameter. Forested stands meeting the criteria for FIDS habitat can be found on the Calvert 

32 Cliffs site and throughout Calvert County (Table 4-2). Unfragmented riparian FIDS habitat is 

33 present along the Patuxent River, especially in southwestern Calvert County. Upland interior 

34 forest is also present throughout the county, although more fragmented in the northern quarter. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-26 April 2010 

1 Currently about 63 ac of FIDS habitat exists within the CBCA on the Calvert Cliffs site 

2 (Table 4-2). Proposed grubbing and grading related to building the switchyard, cooling tower, 

3 construction offices, and warehouses would occur within forested tracts that have not been 

4 previously fragmented, resulting in the loss of about 16 ac of interior forest and a loss of almost 

5 35 ac of FIDS habitat. 

6 Table 4-2. FIDS Habitat Impact Table 

Project Phase Forest Cover (ac) Forest Interior (ac) FIDS Habitat (ac) 

Existing 70.3 30.9 62.5 

Post-disturbance 49.3 14.6 27.7 

Post-mitigation 75.7 14.6 77.8 

Net Result +5.4 -16.3 +15.3 

Source: MDNR PPRP 2008 

7 Proposed post-disturbance mitigation actions (see preceding CBCA section) is expected to 

8 increase the amount of riparian forest habitat, resulting in a net gain of about 15 ac of FIDS 

9 habitat in 20 to 30 years. However, the impacts of permanently losing just over 16 ac of interior 

10 forest are significant. 

11 White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

12 White-tailed deer were identified as an important species because they are recreationally 

13 valuable. The primary impact to white-tailed deer from Unit 3 is habitat loss and increased 

14 roadway mortality due to displacement. Displaced deer would temporarily redistribute to 

15 adjacent habitats following land clearing. Competition would increase in those areas, and some 

16 deer may relocate offsite and be exposed to hunting mortality. However, white-tailed deer are 

17 widespread and abundant, and the net effect of these activities on the local white-tailed deer 

18 population would be minimal. 

19 Important Species Summary 

20 Direct mortality during ground-clearing activities may occur to small, slow-moving, burrowing, 

21 and cavity-dwelling species. Increased mortality of mobile and immobile species may result 

22 from increased traffic volume on nearby roadways. Land clearing during nesting would lower or 

23 eliminate local migratory bird productivity during that year. Noise related to building Unit 3 may 

24 displace wildlife, increasing resource demand in adjacent habitats that may exceed carrying 

25 capacity ultimately resulting in higher mortality rates. Accidental toxicant spills could affect 

26 wildlife, especially aquatic wildlife in adjacent wetlands, but BMPs should minimize the potential 

27 effects of accidental spills. The chestnut oak, mountain laurel, New York fern, and tulip poplar 

28 are common and widespread on the site, and losses of these due to disturbance would not alter 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 site ecology. Showy goldenrod populations within the disturbance area would be affected, but 

2 mitigation actions could partially compensate for local impacts. The spurred butterfly pea likely 

3 does not occur within the proposed construction zone and would be unaffected. The 

4 northeastern beach tiger beetle also does not occur in the proposed construction zone and 

5 would be unaffected. Puritan tiger beetle adults occasionally occur on a small beach area 

6 affected by alteration of the barge dock. However, adult tiger beetles are mobile predators that 

7 would likely flee during high activity periods. Optimal habitat for this species would be 

8 unaffected by the building of Unit 3, the applicant has committed to mitigation actions, and 

9 impacts to suitable habitat and individuals would be minimal. Mitigation activities would occur 

10 adjacent to suitable Puritan tiger beetle habitat, but these activities would not occur when adult 

11 beetles are active. The eastern narrow-mouthed toad is unlikely to occur within the proposed 

12 disturbance area and would not be affected by building activities. Bald eagle productivity would 

13 be adversely affected, as an active nest would be removed to accommodate the power block. 

14 Some mitigation measures are proposed (MDNR PPRP 2008), but further mitigation may be 

15 warranted. Although much of the building would occur in previously fragmented forest, activities 

16 related to building Unit 3 would remove and fragment forest cover and adversely affect habitat 

17 for the scarlet tanager and other FIDS. FIDS habitat is regulated within the CBCA, and 

18 mitigation would result in a net gain of FIDS habitat on site within the CBCA over time (MDNR 

19 PPRP 2008). The white-tailed deer population on the Calvert Cliffs site may experience habitat 

20 loss and increased mortality on local roadways or from hunting in offsite habitats if they are 

21 displaced. However, deer are abundant and highly adaptable. 

22 Activities related to building Unit 3 are not expected to increase mortality rates enough to 

23 destabilize site wildlife populations, and changes in abundance would not be detectable at a 

24 regional population level. Interior forest and a bald eagle nest would be adverselyaffected. 

25 Mitigation measures are proposed that could moderate these impacts. Further mitigation 

26 measures may be warranted. 

27 Wetlands 

28 Non-tidal wetlands would be affected during building the proposed Unit 3 (Table 4-3, 

29 Figure 4-3). Although impacts cannot be avoided entirely, the proposed disturbance footprint 

30 has been designed to limit impacts to wetlands to the extent possible. There are no Wetlands of 

31 Special Concern on the Calvert Cliffs site, and tidal beaches immediately north of the site in the 

32 Flag Ponds Nature Park that are classified by the State of Maryland as of Special Concern 

33 would not be affected by the proposed activities. 

34 Approximately 12 ac of non-tidal wetlands with 8350 ft of intermittent and upper perennial 

35 stream channels would be graded and permanently lost within the CCNPP Wetlands 

36 Delineation Area (MDNR PPRP 2008). This loss represents approximately 20 percent of all 

37 non-tidal wetlands on the Calvert Cliffs site. The proposed activities would also affect 30.8 ac of 

38 non-tidal wetland buffer. Impacts to wetlands within the CBCA are included in this discussion. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-28 April 2010 

1 Table 4-3. Areal Extent of Impacts to Non-tidal Wetlands of the Calvert Cliffs Site 

Wetland 

Assessment 

Area 

Existing 

Wetlands (ac) 

Wetland 

Losses (ac) 

Buffer 

Losses (ac) 

Wetland 

Remaining (ac) 

Impact 

(%) 

I 2.2 0.03 2 2.17 1 

II 6.18 4.84(a) 6.79 1.34 78 

III 0.77 0 0 0.77 

IV 12.79 4.97 15.84 7.82 39 

V 9.13 0 0 9.13 

VI 14.01 0 0 14.01 

VII 11.55 0.72 3.41 10.83 6 

VIII 0.45 0 0 0.45 

IX 1.12 1.1 2.81 0.02 98 

Totals 58.20 11.66 30.85 46.54 20 

 Source: MDNR PPRP 2008 

(a) Includes 0.05 ac of isolated wetland that is Maryland jurisdictional only. 

2 Assessment Area I

3 Proposed activities within area I include building the power block, heavy haul road, and security4 related structures. These activities would fill 0.03 ac of wetlands. Almost all of the impacts 

5 result from the filling of intermittent and upper perennial stream channels and adjacent wetlands 

6 that have been degraded by past development and are narrow and deeply scoured. 

7 Approximately 0.02 ac of open water habitat within an existing stormwater retention basin would 

8 also be filled for the heavy haul road. About 2.0-ac of non-tidal, forested wetland buffer would 

9 be affected in this area. No wetland impacts in area I occur within 100 ft of the Chesapeake 

10 Bay mean high tide line, the most sensitive part of the CBCA. 

11 Wetlands in area I are not of high value relative to other Calvert Cliffs wetlands. Past erosion 

12 events have degraded wetlands in area I and limit their function to groundwater 

13 recharge/discharge and wildlife habitat. 

14 Assessment Area II

15 A permanent laydown yard is proposed to be constructed within area II and would result in the 

16 filling of almost 4.8 ac of wetlands. This includes 2.7 ac of open water within the Camp Conoy 

17 Fishing Pond, 0.7 ac of emergent wetlands, 1.5 ac of forested wetlands that border the pond, 

18 and 1152 ft of intermittent and upper perennial stream channels that flow into and out of the 

19 pond. In addition, 6.8 ac of non-tidal wetland buffer would be filled. Although no areas within 

20 800 ft of the Chesapeake Bay would be affected, 0.2 ac of wetlands would be filled in the 

21 outermost 200 ft of the CBCA 1000-ft buffer zone. 

22 
April 2010 4-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 1 Figure 4-3. Location and Extent of Non-tidal Wetlands of the Calvert Cliffs Site (UniStar 2009b) 2 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-30 April 2010 

1 Wetlands in area II are relatively valuable. These wetlands primarily provide wildlife habitat, 

2 groundwater recharge/discharge, aquatic habitat, particle retention, nutrient removal, production 

3 export, and shoreline stabilization. The Camp Conoy Fishing Pond has been valued for 

4 recreation, uniqueness, and aesthetics. However, heightened security concerns have 

5 eliminated use of the pond in recent history. The uniqueness and high quality of Area II 

6 wetlands means the loss of these wetland resources would be noticeable. 

7 Assessment Area III

8 Wetlands in area III would not be graded, filled, or otherwise directly affected by the proposed 

9 activities. 

10 Assessment Area IV

11 The areal extent of affected wetlands in area IV would be greater than in any other assessment 

12 area. Activities related to building the switchyard and 500-kV transmission line would fill 5 ac of 

13 wetlands. This impact includes filling 5387 ft of intermittent and perennial streams, forested 

14 wetlands, and forested springs that feed Johns Creek headwaters. Activities would also affect 

15 15.8 ac of non-tidal wetland buffer covered in forest. 

16 Wetlands in area IV form a portion of the headwaters for Johns Creek and primarily provide 

17 wildlife habitat while also functioning as groundwater recharge/discharge, particle retention, 

18 nutrient removal, and production export. Area IV wetlands are also valued for their uniqueness, 

19 recreation, and educational opportunities. Loss of these wetlands would also affect local wildlife 

20 habitat and result in fragmentation of interior forest. In addition, Johns Creek would be affected 

21 by the activities in area IV (see Section 4.3.3.2 for further discussion). 

22 Assessment Area V

23 Wetlands in area V would not be graded, filled, or otherwise directly affected by the proposed 

24 activities. 

25 Assessment Area VI

26 Wetlands in area VI would not be graded, filled, or otherwise directly affected by the proposed 

27 activities. 

28 Assessment Area VII

29 Building the access road and temporary laydown yard would affect 0.7 ac of wetlands, including 

30 2000 ft of intermittent and perennial stream channel, and 3.4 ac of non-tidal wetland buffer in 

31 area VII. These wetlands are characterized as forested wetlands and springs that contribute to 

32 the headwaters of the Goldstein Branch. The portion of the wetlands in area VII consists of 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 0.25 of 2.07 ac of non-tidal wetland buffer. BMPs, such as the use of a super silt fence, would 

2 limit further impact to emergent herbaceous wetlands and buffer adjacent to the laydown yard. 

3 Area VII wetlands are valuable because they function primarily as nutrient removal and wildlife 

4 habitat and contribute to groundwater recharge/discharge, aquatic habitat, particle retention, 

5 and production export. Although these wetlands receive runoff from landscaped areas, MD 

6 State Route 2/4, and adjacent private lands, the wetlands are not degraded. Loss of wetlands 

7 in area VII would increase nutrient loads to Goldstein Branch and decrease local wildlife habitat 

8 availability. 

9 Assessment Area VIII

10 Wetlands in area VIII would not be graded, filled, or otherwise directly affected by the proposed 

11 activities. 

12 Assessment Area IX

13 All wetlands in area IX, including 1.12 ac of emergent herbaceous wetland, 0.64 ac of forested 

14 wetland, 2.8 ac of non-tidal wetland buffer, and 1200 ft of intermittent stream channels containing 

15 multiple springs, would be filled during activities related to grading and filling of the parking lot. 

16 Wetlands within area IX are located adjacent to the existing Calvert Cliffs site parking lot and 

17 have been affected by past development as part of the non-tidal wetland buffer is mowed grass 

18 along roadways. They contribute the least in terms of wetland function (wildlife habitat only) and 

19 value (aesthetics only) when compared to all other Calvert Cliffs wetland assessment areas. 

20 Since area IX wetlands do not contribute substantially to ecosystem function, loss of these 

21 wetlands would not be significant. 

22 Wetland Permits and Mitigation 

23 The Corps has the authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

24 waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. For Corps permitting purposes, 

25 the applicant is required to obtain a Water Quality Certification in accordance with Section 401 

26 of the Clean Water Act from the MDE. A permit is also required from the MDE under the 

27 Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act. Permits, if issued, would include a final mitigation 

28 plan that meets the requirements of the respective agencies. BMPs would be employed to 

29 minimize impacts to adjacent wetlands near and down-gradient from the disturbance zone. For 

30 example, silt fences, as specified in an erosion and sedimentation plan that would have to be 

31 approved by the MDE prior to site disturbance, would be erected. Exposed soil would be 

32 covered or bermed until backfilling and final grading. Construction effluent and stormwater 

33 runoff would be monitored as required by the Storm Water Management Plan, NPDES permit, 

34 and other applicable construction permits. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-32 April 2010 

1 UniStar has committed to actions that would mitigate wetland impacts (Table 4-4), including 

2 stream enhancement, stream restoration, and wetland habitat creation (MACTEC 2008). A total 

3 of 24.9 ac of non-tidal wetlands would be created or enhanced (MDNR PPRP 2008). 

4 Table 4-4. UniStar Proposed Wetland Mitigation Actions within the Calvert Cliffs Site 

Site Action Impact Area (ac) 

Lake Davies Dredge Disposal Area Eradicate Phragmites in the central basin 2.4 

Lake Davies Dredge Disposal Area Create open water habitat 0.9 

Lake Davies Dredge Disposal Area Plant herbaceous wetland vegetation 1.3 

Johns Creek Phragmites eradication and plant forested 

wetland vegetation 

15.7 

Camp Conoy Grade and plant forested wetland vegetation 4.6 

Totals 24.9 

Source: MDNR PPRP 2008. 

5 Mitigation standards set forth by the MDE Wetlands and Waterways Program require at least a 

6 2:1 replacement ratio and sometimes 3:1 for forested non-tidal wetlands (MDE 2008). 

7 Emergent wetlands are replaced at a 1:1 ratio. To mitigate for the filling of approximately 

8 8350 ft of intermittent and perennial stream channels, the applicant proposed to conduct 

9 stream restoration and enhancement to 10,429 ft of existing streams on the Calvert Cliffs site 

10 (Figure 4-4) (MDNR PPRP 2008). Restoration, involving reestablishment of physical, biological, 

11 and riparian functions of five stream segments totaling 6283 ft would involve installing instream 

12 structures, vegetative and bioengineered bank stabilization, and riparian enhancement. Stream 

13 enhancement to 4146 ft of stream in five segments would include stream channel alteration, 

14 planting of native riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat improvement, and bank stabilization. 

15 Creation, restoration, and enhancement would not result in the net gain in the areal extent of 

16 wetlands on the Calvert Cliffs site. However, these activities would likely increase the functional 

17 value of wetlands restored or enhanced, an important component of wetland mitigation (USACE 

18 2002). The MDE would also require a monitoring program for five years following the mitigation 

19 actions. Remedial actions could then be implemented if mitigation actions are not successful. 

20 Summary of Impacts to Wetland Resources 

21 Although no Maryland wetlands of Special Concern would be affected by building Unit 3, 

22 impacts to non-tidal wetlands from building the proposed Unit 3 and supporting facilities would 

23 be unavoidable. Non-tidal wetlands would be graded and filled, contributing to wildlife mortality 

24 and habitat loss. However, proposed mitigation would create new wetlands and enhance or 

25 restore other wetlands and streams. As part of these proposed measures, native-forested 

26 wetland trees would be planted within forest gaps to reduce fragmentation, and invasive plants 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 4-4. Proposed Wetland and Stream Mitigation Actions on the Calvert Cliffs Site (MDNR 

3 PPRP 2008) 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-34 April 2010 

1 would be removed to increase wetland function. The Corps requires mitigation only be 

2 employed after all appropriate and practical steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to 

3 aquatic resources, including nontidal wetlands and streams, have been taken. Further, the 

4 Corps requires all remaining unavoidable impacts to be compensated to the extent appropriate 

5 and practicable. 

6 4.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring 

7 UniStar has not proposed terrestrial monitoring when building Unit 3, but the Corps would 

8 monitor or require monitoring for compliance with a Corps permit, if issued. The State and other 

9 Federal agencies may also require monitoring associated with compliance of permits issued to 

10 assure compliance and assess success. 

11 4.3.1.5 Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

12 Impacts from building the proposed Unit 3 and supporting facilities to wildlife habitat, non-tidal 

13 wetlands, and important species are unavoidable. All habitat types on the site would be 

14 affected; several habitats would be noticeably altered. Forest cover would be lost, and 

15 fragmentation would result in loss of interior forest, adversely affecting FIDS on the Calvert Cliffs 

16 site. Non-tidal wetlands would also be graded and filled, resulting in degradation and loss of 

17 wetland function downstream. Areas within the CBCA would also be lost or degraded. Ground18 clearing and other subsequent activities when building Unit 3 would result in the removal of an 

19 active bald eagle nest, and populations of showy goldenrod would be lost. Mitigation proposed 

20 by UniStar may partially offset some of these impacts through time. 

21 Based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

22 review team concludes that the impacts from the combined construction and preconstruction 

23 activities for proposed Unit 3 to terrestrial ecosystems of the Calvert Cliffs site would be 

24 MODERATE for important species, including Federally and State-listed species, and wildlife 

25 habitats, including wetlands. 

26 The Corps, FWS, and the State of Maryland may require further avoidance, minimization, and 

27 mitigation measures. If issued, the Corps permit would include special conditions that would 

28 require UniStar to confirm the created and enhanced wetlands meet the Federal wetland criteria 

29 outlined in the report entitled, “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual” (USACE 

30 1987). If the Corps does not find the wetlands and stream mitigation satisfactory, the Corps 

31 would determine if adverse impacts to the waterway and wetlands are more than minimal and if 

32 any project modifications would be warranted. Also, the Corps would require UniStar to assume 

33 all liability for accomplishing the corrective work in accordance with Compensatory Mitigation for 

34 Losses of Aquatic Resources (73 FR 19594) (33 FR Parts 325 and 320). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-35 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 NRC-authorized construction activities with the potential to affect terrestrial species and habitats 

2 include the use of cranes and the erection of safety-related structures; movement of 

3 construction vehicles and heavy equipment around the site; the noise associated with 

4 construction, machinery, and testing of diesel and combustion turbine generators; fugitive dust; 

5 overhead lighting; and minor changes in the surface water drainage. Construction-related 

6 activities are not expected to increase wildlife mortality rates enough to destabilize site wildlife 

7 populations, and changes in abundance would not be detectable at a regional population level. 

8 In addition, BMPs discussed in Chapter 3 would mitigate the effects of construction activities on 

9 wetlands and important terrestrial species such that they would not be detectable. Based on 

10 this information, the NRC staff concludes that the terrestrial ecology impact from NRC11 authorized construction activities would be SMALL. 

12 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts 

13 Aquatic resources in Johns Creek and its unnamed tributaries, Laveel Branch, Goldstein 

14 Branch, Branch 1, Branch 2, Branch 3, Camp Conoy Fishing Pond, Pond 1, and Pond 2 would 

15 be affected mainly by building the power block, the cooling tower, switchyard, construction 

16 access road, heavy haul road, temporary and permanent laydown areas, spoils area, borrow 

17 area, permanent parking lots, various stormwater retention basins, and the batch plant. 

18 Woodland Branch, located on the north part of the Calvert Cliffs site, could be indirectly 

19 affected, but its general geographic separation from the main construction area reduces the 

20 likelihood of impacts. 

21 Aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay would be impacted mainly by building the new water 

22 intake and discharge systems, installing a new fish-return system, and refurbishing the existing 

23 barge dock area, including dredging, in Chesapeake Bay. 

24 4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity 

25 Onsite Ponds and Streams 

26 The activities that would affect the freshwater aquatic resource on the Calvert Cliffs site include 

27 clearing and grading the land, building or refurbishing roads, installing temporary utilities and 

28 facilities, and creating parking and construction equipment preparation areas. These activities 

29 would eliminate some onsite aquatic resources, may increase erosion, and would increase 

30 runoff into downstream resources. 

31 Aquatic Resource Elimination

32 Clearing and grading of about 460 ac of mostly forested uplands would have the greatest effect 

33 on the freshwater aquatic resources on the Calvert Cliffs site. Some of this land would be 

34 replaced with impervious surfaces. The major impacts would be the elimination of the Camp 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-36 April 2010 

1 Conoy Fishing Pond, the removal of the upper reaches of Branches 2 and 3 and an unnamed 

2 tributary to Johns Creek, the isolation of parts of the upper reach of Branch 1, and the disruption 

3 of the drainage in the Lake Davies dredge spoils disposal area (UniStar 2009a). 

4 The alteration of headwater tributaries, such as those that would be eliminated during the 

5 building of Unit 3, would have important effects on downstream water quality and ecosystem 

6 functions, such as increased turbidity and reduced transport of organic material (Section 2.4.2). 

7 Although the specific downstream effects of removing three of the headwater streams that flow 

8 into Johns Creek are not quantifiable, the overall effects on the creek watershed may be 

9 somewhat ameliorated because there are several tributaries that would not be affected by 

10 building the new unit. 

11 Increased Erosion

12 Clearing and grading activities disturb vegetation and expose newly bare soils to erosion, 

13 significantly increasing the sediment loads in nearby streams. Increased sedimentation is one 

14 of the primary stressors to streams in Maryland reducing habitat quality for fish and 

15 invertebrates (Southerland et al. 2005). UniStar proposes to install berms and use plants to 

16 stabilize exposed soils to reduce the risk of sediments washing into streams and other onsite 

17 water bodies (UniStar 2009a). UniStar would install sand filters around the power block margin, 

18 the cooling tower area, the switchyard, and laydown areas to catch water from storms. The 

19 sand filters would consist of base materials that promote infiltration of runoff from small 

20 rainstorms (UniStar 2009a). However, the base materials’ infiltration capacity would be 

21 exceeded during large storms, and the runoff would be routed through overflow pipes to the 

22 stormwater retention basins. The stormwater retention basins would be unlined, planted with 

23 wetland grasses and herbs that occur in the area, have simple earth-fill closure on the 

24 downstream end, and would include discharge piping to nearby streams. UniStar has prepared 

25 a SWPPP that specifies the soil control measures that would be followed to reduce sediment 

26 entry into aquatic habitats (Bechtel 2008b). 

27 Increased Runoff

28 The activity of building Unit 3 would also change the watershed by adding about 130 ac of 

29 impervious surfaces for the power block, cooling tower, switchyard, laydown areas, other work 

30 areas, and roads (UniStar 2009a). These surfaces keep rainfall from penetrating directly into 

31 the ground, increasing runoff that may adversely change stream hydrography and transfer 

32 pollutants into streams and ponds. This runoff would be directed through the storm retention 

33 basins as previously described. 

34 The amount of impervious surface added by Unit 3 would increase the developed portion of the 

35 site. About 16 percent (331 ac) of the total site acreage (2070 ac) is classified as urban 

36 (Section 2.1). The impervious surface to be added by Unit 3 would increase the developed 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-37 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 acreage (about 461 ac) to approximately 22 percent of the site. Maryland studies indicate that 

2 watersheds covered with greater than 15 percent impervious surfaces usually do not have good 

3 quality stream habitats (MDNR 2004). The increased amount of impervious surfaces may 

4 worsen the already somewhat degraded conditions of the streams on the Calvert Cliffs site 

5 (Section 2.4.2). Most of the drainage on the site flows into the St. Leonard Creek 

6 subwatershed, which comprises about 22,792 ac of land and water (MDNR 2004). Impervious 

7 surfaces comprise about 0.9 percent (205 ac) of the subwatershed (MDNR 2004). The process 

8 of building Unit 3 would raise the percentage of impervious surface in the subwatershed to 

9 about 1.5 percent (335 ac), which approaches the threshold (2 percent) at which stream habitat 

10 begins to deteriorate (MDNR 2004). Increased impervious surface on the site could lead to 

11 increased use of chemicals to remove ice from roads and other impervious surfaces during the 

12 winter. Ice removal can increase salinity in nearby streams and ponds (Kaushal et al. 2005; 

13 Ramakrishna and Viraraghavan 2005), which can significantly affect aquatic plants and animals 

14 (Blasius and Merritt 2002; Karraker et al. 2008). 

15 Chesapeake Bay 

16 The process of building the intake and discharge structures, fish-return system, and 

17 improvement of the barge dock access channel would cause temporary and permanent loss or 

18 conversion of aquatic habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. 

19 The major events associated with building proposed Unit 3 that would affect aquatic resources 

20 in the Chesapeake Bay share certain activities, such as dredging, pile driving, and armoring the 

21 Bay bottom. All work would be conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local permits 

22 (Appendix H). The aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay likely would not be adversely affected 

23 by the installation of new transmission facilities for the Unit 3 because the facilities would be 

24 built on the uplands part of the Calvert Cliffs site. The primary activities associated with each 

25 structure to be built would be: 

26 • Cooling Water Intake Structure—pile driving associated with installation of the new sheet27 pile walls, dewatering and dredging for the intake pipe installation, removal and replacement 

28 of shoreline armoring, and armoring the Bay bottom near the new permanent sheet-pile wall. 

29 • Fish-return System—dredging for the return pipe installation, removing and replacing 

30 shoreline armoring, and armoring the Bay bottom at the discharge point. 

31 • Cooling Water Discharge Structure—dredging for the discharge pipe installation and 

32 armoring the Bay bottom at the discharge point; some impacts associated with vessel use 

33 would be possible because a barge-mounted clamshell dredge would be used to dig the 

34 trench for the pipeline (UniStar 2008a). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-38 April 2010 

1 • Barge Dock Improvements—removal of existing crane piles, dredging the barge dock 

2 channel and nearshore area, installing a sheet-pile wall in the nearshore, and armoring the 

3 nearshore Bay bottom; vessel movements during construction would also affect aquatic 

4 resources. 

5 Dredging and Pipeline Trenching

6 Dredging involves the physical removal of native Bay-bottom sediment to create a channel deep 

7 enough for vessels to use. Dredging the Bay bottom would be done on the south side of the 

8 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 barge dock by using a shore-based clamshell dredge (UniStar 2008a). 

9 Mechanical dredging uses a crane and bucket to excavate and transfer bottom sediments to a 

10 barge for transport to the disposal area. Some dredged material and water can be lost from the 

11 bucket as it is raised and deposited into the barge. The amount of material re-entering the 

12 water column as it is transferred from the barge to trucks would be small. Dredging or pipeline 

13 trenching causes major impacts to the localized benthos because both remove the entire 

benthic community from within the dredged or trenched area. At least 195,000 ft2

 (18,116 m2 14 or 

15 about 4.5 ac) of Bay bottom would be affected during the barge dock channel dredging (UniStar 

16 2008b). In addition to the physical removal of Bay bottom, dredging increases the suspended 

17 sediment load in the water column. The extent and duration of increased sediment loads 

18 depend on the nature of the sediment (e.g., sandy versus silty) and the prevailing water currents 

19 in the area. The surficial sediments in the area that would be dredged are sandy (Section 2.4.2) 

20 and would likely settle out of the water column relatively quickly. The nature of the deeper 

21 sediment layers is not known, but it may consist of hard-packed clay such as that uncovered by 

22 the scouring of the bottom near the cooling water discharge for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

23 (UniStar 2009a). Fine material has the potential to remain in the water column much longer 

24 than coarse material. Suspended sediment decreases light penetration, which decreases 

25 phytoplankton photosynthesis. Suspended sediment also may affect fish by clogging the gills 

26 and may affect filter-feeding invertebrates and fish. The dredging or trenching for Unit 3 would 

27 not resuspend contaminants because the contaminant loads in the sediments in the barge dock 

28 area recently were shown to be very low (Section 2.4.2). 

29 The effects of digging a pipeline trench on estuarine resources are similar to those from 

30 dredging. The trench for the cooling water discharge pipeline would be dug using a barge31 mounted clamshell dredge (UniStar 2008b). The minimum area of Bay bottom that would be 

disturbed by this dredging is 38,500 ft2

 (3577 m2, or about 0.88 ac). About 5800 yds3 32 of 

7000 yds3 33 of sediment that would be removed for the trench would be stored and used to 

34 backfill the trench. The backfilling method was not specified, but presuming that the barge35 mounted clam dredge would be used, some of the native Bay-bottom sediment next to the 

36 trench may be covered during the process. The trench would be covered by filter fabric and 

37 imported rock riprap. The riprap would not extend above the natural Bay bottom topography. 

38 Thus, the area of disturbance to the benthos would be slightly larger than the specified 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-39 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 dimensions of the trench, although the extent is not known. The trenching and backfilling would 

2 also cause some sediment to become suspended in the water column. Suspended sediment 

3 typically settles out of the water column quickly and the effects from the increased turbidity are 

4 temporary. Other potential impacts associated with the discharge pipeline are armoring that 

5 would be placed near the diffuser and the use of vessels to move the dredge barge. Both are 

6 discussed in following sections. 

7 Installation of the proposed Unit 3 intake pipes and trash rack may include the fabrication of a 

8 sheet-pile cofferdam and dewatering system to minimize some of the effects of dredging 

(UniStar 2009a). The area that would be included within the cofferdam is about 900 ft2 9 

10 (about 0.02 ac). 

11 Measures UniStar suggests can be used to reduce the potential impacts from dredging include: 

12 • Restricting dredging to certain times of the year. The State of Maryland placed a condition 

13 on UniStar’s CPCN permit that specifies dredging should occur at appropriate times of the 

14 year (MPSC 2009). 

15 • Installing a silt curtain around each dredge or active dredge area to minimize sediment 

16 release 

17 • Confirming clam-shell dredges are fully closed and hoisted slowly to limit spillage 

18 • Not filling spoils barges to levels that would cause sediment to overflow 

19 • Not washing vessel decks so that sediment and other material are not released overboard 

20 • Performing water-quality monitoring according to permit requirements. 

21 UniStar has not committed to these measures, except the CPCN permit condition, and the 

22 review team has not relied on them being done in its assessment of potential dredging impacts. 

23 Benthic recolonization after dredging or trenching depends on the nature of the substrate that 

24 remains after dredging, the fauna present in the surrounding area, and the timing of the 

25 dredging or trenching. Sediment recolonization would occur via adult emigration from 

26 undisturbed areas and seasonal reproduction and larval recruitment by animals living in 

27 undisturbed areas (Maurer et al. 1986). Thus, recolonization rates depend on natural 

28 reproductive cycles and active or passive transport to the affected sediments. In the case of 

29 dredging, it is possible that the resulting substrate at the barge slip area would consist of hard 

30 clay, which is difficult for infauna to colonize. Eventually softer material, such as sands or muds, 

31 would deposit onto the dredged area making it more suitable to recolonization. This process 

32 probably would take years, depending on sediment depositional rates in the area and the 

33 degree to which the barge dock is used. The substrate used to backfill the pipeline trench is 

34 likely to be a mix of materials that differs from the native material that was removed. This 

35 material eventually would be colonized by infaunal organisms, although the time frame for this 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-40 April 2010 

1 colonization is not predictable. In one documented case, installation of a pipeline that was 

2 generally similar in size to the Unit 3 discharge pipeline caused complete loss of benthic fauna 

3 in the pipeline corridor (Lewis et al. 2002a) that was followed by substantial recolonization within 

4 one year (Lewis et al. 2002b). The fauna found in the area of the Unit 3 discharge pipe includes 

5 relatively widespread species that are likely to provide offspring for recolonization or are able to 

6 directly recolonized new habitat. Recolonization is affected by the timing of dredging or 

7 trenching, which determines when the substrate is suitable to be inhabited, and the timing of 

8 reproduction, which determines the availability of larvae. 

9 The benthic infaunal community in the areas proposed for dredging or trenching for Unit 3 is not 

10 unique or rare as it is similar to the communities elsewhere in the region and also to the 

11 community type that has been in the area for many years. The community is also moderately 

12 degraded to degraded (Section 2.4.2). Although this community probably provides some forage 

13 for fish and crabs, the area is not one of high benthic productivity. Although the dredging and 

14 trenching in the project area would have a major, localized effect on the benthos, these activities 

15 are not expected to seriously affect the benthos in the CCNPP general area or in the region 

16 along this coast of the Chesapeake Bay. 

17 Pile Driving

18 Pile driving would be used in three project areas, all involving the installation of sheet-pile walls. 

19 The installation would use a vibratory hammer to install the sheet-piling and a conventional pile20 driving hammer to install the 30-in. soldier piles placed on 10-ft centers to support the sheet21 piling. Pile driving generates noise at levels that may be harmful to estuarine organisms, 

22 particularly fish. Additional impacts would result if vessels are used to place and drive the piling 

23 and soldier piles. The vessel-associated impacts are described in a following section. 

24 The harmful effects of the noise occur because sound is transmitted in water as pressure waves 

25 that may cause temporary hearing loss and damage auditory tissue (generally, sensory hair 

26 cells of the ear) and non-auditory tissue (UniStar 2008b). The specific effects often depend on 

27 the physiology of individual fish species. The Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group (FHWG), 

28 established by three western states to improve understanding of fishery impacts from 

29 underwater sound pressure caused by pile driving, set interim guidelines to assess the potential 

30 for projects that involve in-water pile driving to affect fish. The FHWG established two criteria to 

31 estimate the sound and vibration levels from pile driving that would injure fish. Both are 

32 measured at a standard distance of 10 m (32.8 ft) from the pile-driving activity. The peak 

33 sound-pressure level (peak pressure or peak) is maximum excursion of pressure associated 

34 with the sound (Popper et al. 2006) and is measured as decibels (dB) relative to reference level 

35 of one micropascal (dB re 1 μPapeak). Peak pressure determines the likelihood that the swim 

36 bladder and ear are exposed to extreme mechanical stress (Popper et al. 2006). The sound 

37 exposure level (SEL) is the constant sound level of 1-second duration that would contain the 

same acoustic energy as the originally produced sound and is measured as dB re 1 μPa2 38 •s. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-41 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The interim criteria (Popper et al. 2006) specified a peak level of 206 dB and a cumulative SEL 

2 level of 187 dB for fish weighing 2 grams (0.004409 lb) and heavier or a cumulative SEL of 

3 183 dB for fish lighter than 2 grams (<0.004409 lb). UniStar estimated the noise levels for the 

4 pile driving conducted during the building activities for Unit 3 by applying FHWG compilations of 

5 measurements of noise and vibration impacts associated with various methods of pile driving, 

6 types of materials, and water depth. The estimated peak and cumulative SEL values for driving 

7 a 24- or 36-in. steel pile with a conventional pile-driving hammer in about 16 ft water depth are 

8 about 203 to 208 dB and 177 to 180 dB, respectively. These values suggest that the sound 

9 impacts from driving 30-in. steel piles with conventional hammers at the Calvert Cliffs site may 

10 produce sound impacts that approach or exceed the interim peak pressure guidance criterion of 

11 206 dB, but probably would not exceed the minimum SEL criterion of 183 dB for fish lighter than 

12 2 grams (<0.004409 lb) (UniStar 2008b). Sheet-pile driving produces peak pressures ranging 

13 from 175 dB to 180 dB and cumulative SEL values ranging from 160 dB to 165 dB, which are 

14 below the respective interim criteria values (UniStar 2008b). 

15 Sounds from pile driving also could affect sea turtles, but the effects are difficult to estimate. 

16 There has been little work done to determine the hearing sensitivity of sea turtles at various 

17 sound frequencies (Viada et al. 2007), and most of the inference about the potential for injury 

18 due to sound is based on studies of turtle anatomy. There is some evidence that sea turtles 

19 initially might avoid sounds ranging from about 170 to 179 dB, but eventually can become 

20 habituated to the noise (Bartol and Musick 2003). 

21 Armoring

22 The benthic substrate near key underwater structures in the project area would be armored by 

importing rocks. The largest area, about 7125 ft2 23 (0.16 ac), that would receive rock armor is 

24 next to the new sheet-pile wall that would be installed to create the intake embayment for Unit 3 

25 (UniStar 2009b). Armor would also be added to the Bay bottom at the openings of the intake 

26 pipes within the wedge-shaped pool, end of the fish-return system, the cooling water discharge 

27 diffuser, and the nearshore area of the barge dock. Although some sediment suspension would 

28 occur during installation of the rock armor, the most noticeable effect would be the conversion of 

29 the benthic community from a soft-bottom infaunal community to a hard-bottom epifaunal 

30 community, which eventually should colonize the rocks. The epifaunal community that 

31 eventually colonizes the rock armor probably would include oysters, barnacles, mussels, and 

32 sea anemones, all of which colonized new hard-bottom habitat near the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

33 discharge diffuser (Abbe 1987). The loss of soft-bottom habitat would reduce the potential 

34 forage area for some fish species (e.g., flounder) and blue crabs. However, the area is not one 

35 of high benthic productivity, and the area that would be lost is small relative to the size of similar 

36 habitat available in the vicinity. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-42 April 2010 

1 Vessel Movements

2 Vessel use during the dredging or the installation of the in-water structures as well as delivery of 

3 heavy components for proposed Unit 3 would affect the aquatic resources of the area, 

4 particularly the benthos. The main effects from using vessels would include turbulence from 

5 propellers (prop wash), anchor cable scraping across the Bay bottom, and accidental spill of 

6 materials overboard. Vessels would be used during the installation of the cooling water 

7 discharge pipeline, during the offloading of materials from barges, and probably during the 

8 installation of the sheet-pile wall at the new intake area. Prop wash can significantly disturb 

9 benthic habitats if the turbulence is strong or long lasting. The primary occurrence of vessels 

10 would be during the operation of the barge dock, which is expected to last about 5 years. The 

11 barge docking procedures would minimize the potential impacts from prop wash (UniStar 

12 2008b). Docked barges would not be maneuvered within the barge facility. Tow tugs would 

13 push barges toward the dock and remove unloaded barges by slowly pulling them away from 

14 the dock. The water depth (16 ft) at the barge dock relative to the draft of the tugs maneuvering 

15 the barges should also reduce the potential for prop wash disturbance. 

16 Anchor cables would affect the benthos by disrupting the upper layers of the sediment as they 

17 sweep across it. This type of damage is most likely to occur during the installation of the cooling 

18 water discharge pipeline and during the installation of the sheet-pile wall for the new intake 

19 system. This disturbance should be localized and temporary. Benthic fauna can be expected to 

20 recolonize the swept areas. 

21 Accidental spills of materials from vessel decks would introduce contaminants into the Bay. The 

22 potential for this occurrence can be minimized by not allowing decks to be washed during vessel 

23 operation. As mentioned above, UniStar has not committed to these measures, except the 

24 CPCN permit condition, and the review team has not relied on these measures in its 

25 assessment of potential dredging impacts (MPSC 2009). 

26 Vessel operations during the placement of in-water structures for Unit 3 would cause short-term, 

27 localized impacts to the aquatic resources at the Calvert Cliffs site. These impacts should not 

28 affect the general resources in the area of the site or the region along this coast of the 

29 Chesapeake Bay. Transporting heavy components to Calvert Cliffs by barge would increase 

30 vessel traffic in the Bay, which could increase the potential for strikes of slowly moving animals. 

31 4.3.2.2 Important Aquatic Species 

32 This section describes the potential impacts to important aquatic species including Federally 

33 threatened or endangered species, State-listed species, and ecologically important or fisheries 

34 species resulting from building the new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site and the onsite 500-kV 

35 transmission line. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-43 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Important Freshwater Species 

2 No State-listed freshwater species is likely to be affected by building proposed Unit 3. The 

3 State of Maryland lists the freshwater plants star duckweed (Lemna trisulca), leafy pondweed 

4 (Potamogeton foliosus) and southern wildrice (Zizaniopsis miliacea) as State endangered and 

5 spiral pondweed (Potamogeton spirillus) and the claspingleaf pondweed (Potamogeton 

6 perfoliatus) as State Highly Rare and State Rare, respectively (Section 2.4.2). None of the 

7 species were reported on the site during the flora and rare plant surveys conducted in 2006 and 

8 2007, although suitable habitat for them exists onsite (Section 2.4.2). 

9 The American eel (Anguilla rostrata) occurs within several freshwater habitats, including Johns 

10 Creek, Goldstein Branch, Camp Conoy fishing pond, Pond 1, and Pond 2 that would be directly 

11 or indirectly affected by Unit 3 (Section 2.4.2). Habitats that would be removed (Camp Conoy 

12 pond, upper headwaters of Johns Creek) contained no or few American eels during the 2006 

13 and 2007 aquatic surveys (Section 2.4.2). The largest numbers of American eels were found at 

14 the downstream station in Johns Creek (near the confluence with Laveel Branch) and the 

15 Goldstein Branch station. Both stream sections would most likely experience the indirect effects 

16 of building the new unit that would occur farther upstream. The State of Maryland placed a 

17 condition on UniStar’s CPCN permit that requires UniStar to include a stream restoration and 

18 enhancement program in its wetland mitigation plan that would allow the passage of the 

19 American eel and other migratory fish species (MPSC 2009). A recent entrainment study 

20 showed that American eel juveniles might occur in the area of the Chesapeake Bay intake 

21 system for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from February through May (EA Engineering 2008). Any 

22 construction activities occurring during that time frame could affect American eel juveniles. 

23 Three other fish species, the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia 

24 holbrooki), and tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), were listed as important to the 

25 freshwater habitats on site because of their ecological roles. Bluegill occurred in Camp Conoy 

26 fishing pond in 2006 and 2007 and in Pond 1 and Pond 2 in fall 2006 (Section 2.4.2). The lack 

27 of bluegill in Pond 1 and Pond 2 during the spring 2007 survey likely means there are no 

28 resident populations in the ponds. Therefore, the filling of Camp Conoy fishing pond would 

29 most likely eliminate the species from the Calvert Cliffs site. The bluegill is a commonly stocked 

30 species in Maryland (Section 2.4.2), so the elimination of the small population from the Calvert 

31 Cliffs site is not expected to adversely affect other stocked bluegill populations in the region. 

32 The eastern mosquitofish was most abundant in the Camp Conoy fishing pond, Pond 1, Pond 2, 

33 and Lake Davies during the fall 2006 survey (Section 2.4.2). It occurred in low numbers in 

34 Johns Creek and Goldstein Branch. The lack of eastern mosquitofish in the ponds during the 

35 spring 2007 may mean that the species cannot establish resident populations in them. 

36 Therefore, activities that affect these waterbodies should not adversely affect the regional 

37 population of eastern mosquitofish. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-44 April 2010 

1 The tessellated darter occurred only in the downstream Johns Creek and the single Goldstein 

2 Branch station (Section 2.4.2). These two stations would most likely experience the indirect 

3 effects of building activities that would occur farther upstream. Because the effects would occur 

4 upstream of the areas where the tessellated darter was found, no overall adverse effects to the 

5 population of the species in the St. Leonard Creek watershed are expected. 

6 One mammal, the North American beaver, was listed as an important freshwater species 

7 (Section 2.4.2). The occurrence of beavers on the Calvert Cliffs site was documented by 

8 observations of beaver activities (gnawed trees, dams) and individuals at Camp Conoy fishing 

9 pond in April 2007. No estimates of the population size on the site were made. Beavers on the 

10 site primarily inhabit portions of Johns Creek and parts of Goldstein Branch (Section 2.4.2). If 

11 beavers reside within the freshwater habitats that would be eliminated by building the new unit, 

12 it is likely that they may be able to migrate to less disturbed areas, although it is possible that 

13 some individuals may be killed. Beavers living in the downstream reaches of Johns Creek and 

14 Goldstein Branch would likely experience the indirect effects of building activities that would 

15 occur farther upstream. Despite these potential effects on the beavers living onsite, beaver 

16 populations have been increasing in Maryland (Tetra Tech NUS 2007), and overall adverse 

17 effects to the regional beaver populations are not expected. 

18 The developmental stages of the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera are 

19 grouped (as EPT taxa) and used as ecological indicators. More EPT taxa occurred in Johns 

20 Creek and Goldstein Branch than in any of the ponds sampled on the site in 2006 and 2007. 

21 No more than two EPT taxa occurred in any single sample collected from the onsite ponds. 

22 Because EPT taxa live in aquatic habitats only part of the year, the disruption of the habitat by 

23 building activities is probably of greater concern than direct mortality. The elimination of some 

24 of the headwaters of Johns Creek and the filling of Camp Conoy Fishing Pond will remove 

25 habitat available for occupancy by EPT taxa. However, the generally low numbers of EPT taxa 

26 in these waterbodies indicates that the habitat is not optimal for EPT taxa, and its loss should 

27 not adversely affect regional populations of these insects. 

28 Important Estuarine Species 

29 Two State-listed estuarine species could occur on the site (Section 2.4.2). Sea purslane 

30 (Sesuvium maritimum) and the spotfin killifish (Fundulus luciae) are listed as State endangered 

31 and State “Rare?” respectively. Neither have been found on the site (Section 2.4.2), and neither 

32 are expected to be adversely affected by building activities associated with proposed Unit 3. 

33 Several Federally listed species may occur near the Calvert Cliffs site. The shortnose sturgeon

34 (Acipenser brevirostrum), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley turtle

35 (Lepidochelys kempii) are endangered. The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and green turtle 

36 (Chelonia mydas) are threatened. The Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus) is a Federal candidate 

37 species. The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) are Federally 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-45 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 listed species of concern. In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the NRC and the Corps are 

2 jointly consulting with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding Federally listed 

3 estuarine species. The biological assessment is provided in Appendix F. 

4 The shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon are benthic fish that feed primarily on bottom5 dwelling invertebrates (Section 2.4.2). Therefore, the primary impacts from building activities 

6 would be loss of habitat for feeding because of dredging or armoring. However, the soft-bottom 

7 sediment at the Calvert Cliffs site is not highly productive and does not represent a major 

8 feeding resource for these species. Chesapeake Bay populations of shortnose sturgeon and 

9 Atlantic sturgeon are not expected to be adversely affected by the building activities in the Bay 

10 because neither species is common in the Calvert Cliffs site area (Section 2.4.2). 

11 The primary impacts to all four turtle species would be from interactions with vessels transiting 

12 through the Bay and operating in the Calvert Cliffs area. Only two protected sea turtle species, 

13 the loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley, may typically occur near the Calvert Cliffs site area 

14 (Section 2.4.2), although both are much more common in the lower Bay (UniStar 2008b). 

15 Activities at the site would not be expected to directly affect green and leatherback turtles 

16 because they do not typically occur there. Noise from pile driving in the Chesapeake Bay could 

17 affect sea turtles in the area, but the severity is difficult to determine because of the lack of 

18 information regarding sea turtle susceptibility to noise. The Corps and U.S. Minerals 

19 Management Service (MMS) considered the potential effect of pile-driving noise on sea turtles 

20 in its evaluation of potential impacts from the Cape Wind Farm project and concluded that 

21 significant adverse effects were unlikely because turtles probably would avoid the area where 

22 building activities were occurring (MMS 2009). 

23 Alewife and blueback herrings are relatively small planktivorous fish that occur in the Calvert 

24 Cliffs site area (Section 2.4.2). The primary effect of site preparation and construction activities 

25 on these species would be interruption of feeding because of increased suspended sediment 

26 from dredging, but this interruption would occur in a relatively small area and would be 

27 temporary. Pile-driving sounds may also affect these species, but fish are mobile and may 

28 avoid the area. Neither dredging nor pile driving is expected to adversely affect Chesapeake 

29 Bay alewife or blueback herring populations. 

30 Other planktivorous fish or water-column-feeding fish, such as American shad 

31 (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), 

32 butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), 

33 and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), primarily would be affected by the interruption of feeding 

34 because of suspended sediments from dredging. This interruption would occur in a relatively 

35 small area and would be temporary. Pile-driving sounds may also affect these species, but fish 

36 are mobile and may avoid the area. Neither suspended sediment from dredging nor pile-driving 

37 noise would adversely affect Chesapeake Bay populations of these species. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-46 April 2010 

1 Benthic-feeding fish, such as Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), black sea bass 

2 (Centropristis striata), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), summer 

3 flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), white perch (Morone americana), windowpane flounder 

4 (Scophthalmus aquosus) clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria), little skate (Leucoraja erinacea), 

5 and winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata), primarily would be affected by loss of feeding habitat 

6 through the removal of soft sediments during dredging and the addition of rock armoring to the 

7 Bay bottom. However, the soft-bottom sediment at the Calvert Cliffs site is not highly productive 

8 and does not represent a major feeding resource for these species. Pile-driving sounds also 

9 could affect these species, but fish are mobile and may avoid the area. Neither loss of the small 

10 area of feeding habitat nor pile-driving noise is likely to adversely affect Chesapeake Bay 

11 populations of these species. 

12 Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) occupy water column and benthic habitats. Blue crabs use the 

13 water column primarily to move from place to place within the Bay and would not be adversely 

14 affected by the relatively small area likely to be disturbed by suspended sediments from 

15 dredging or trenching activities. Blue crabs spend considerable time on benthic habitats, which 

16 make them susceptible to activities that disturb the sediments. Some blue crabs likely would 

17 get trapped within the clamshell dredge as it excavates benthic substrates. However, mortality 

18 from this entrapment would likely be too small to adversely affect regional blue crab populations. 

19 Loss of a small area of soft-bottom habitat would not adversely affect blue crabs. 

20 The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is one important species over which the State of 

21 Maryland has expressed its concern about potential impacts from building Unit 3. The State of 

22 Maryland has determined that eastern oyster habitat near the plant is valuable and is to be 

23 protected to the extent possible. Oysters would be affected by suspended sediments in the 

24 water column that would interfere with filter feeding. The area affected by increased turbidity 

25 likely would be small because of the steps UniStar proposes to limit suspended sediment loads. 

26 The primary impacts to oysters and their habitat would result from the dredging of the barge 

27 dock area and the trenching for placement of the cooling water discharge pipe. These activities 

28 would disturb habitat within Natural Oyster Bar 19-2 (NOB 19-2), also known as the Flag Pond 

29 Oyster Bar. Oyster abundances within NOB 19-2 were found to be very low during a survey 

30 conducted by UniStar in late 2006 and in several surveys conducted by the State of Maryland 

31 (summarized in Section 2.4.2). Although direct impacts to oysters would, therefore, be relatively 

32 minor, the oyster bar is considered valuable habitat for potential restoration by the State of 

33 Maryland. Most of the dredging proposed by UniStar would be maintenance dredging of the 

34 area next to the barge dock that has been dredged previously. This area was not included in 

35 the 2008 survey of NOB 19-2 (Section 2.4.2), but presumably is no longer viable oyster habitat. 

36 However, the Bay bottom just bayward of the barge dock was found to be high-quality oyster 

37 habitat, some of which would be disturbed by dredging or digging the trench for the cooling 

38 water discharge pipe. The dredged area would be lost as future oyster habitat. Even though 

39 the discharge pipe trench would be covered with native Bay material, it is likely that this would 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-47 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 not constitute good quality oyster habitat. Some disturbance of oyster habitat is unavoidable, 

2 and the State of Maryland has specified that UniStar should use appropriate time-of-year 

3 dredging restrictions to minimize impacts to the oyster bar and should fund the cost of moving, 

4 creating, or restoring oyster habitat equal to the area of bottom in NOB 19-2 that would be 

5 directly, adversely affected by building Unit 3 (MPSC 2009). The State’s conditions imposed on 

6 activities affecting the oyster bed would, if followed, minimize direct effects to oysters and would 

7 be expected to result in no net loss of potential oyster habitat. 

8 4.3.2.3 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines 

9 Placement of new transmission lines onsite for proposed Unit 3 would not likely affect the 

10 freshwater aquatic resources on the Calvert Cliffs site because the new lines would not cross 

11 any waterbodies (UniStar 2009a). No new offsite transmission lines would be installed. 

12 Therefore, no offsite aquatic resources would be affected. 

13 4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring 

14 UniStar does not plan to conduct any monitoring of aquatic resources during activities related to 

15 building the proposed Unit 3 other than that required in Chesapeake Bay for the operation of the 

16 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (UniStar 2009a). The SWPPP developed by UniStar includes regular 

17 (daily and after major rainstorms) monitoring of stormwater discharges and the conditions of the 

18 engineered erosion control measures to determine they are effective in minimizing silt runoff. 

19 The plan also requires evaluation of the need to repair or replace the installed controls, which 

20 may include silt fences, hay bales, berms, and settling ponds. The Corps and the State of 

21 Maryland may require monitoring for compliance with their respective Federal and State 

22 permits, if issued. 

23 4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts to Aquatic Resources 

24 Freshwater Aquatic Resources 

25 The review team evaluated the proposed construction and preconstruction activities related to 

26 the building of proposed Unit 3 and the potential impacts to aquatic biota, including State-listed 

27 species, in the onsite freshwater habitats and the Chesapeake Bay. Activities affecting onsite 

28 freshwater habitats include clearing and grading the land, building or refurbishing roads, 

29 installing temporary and permanent utilities and facilities, and creating parking and construction 

30 equipment preparation areas. These activities would eliminate some onsite aquatic resources, 

31 increase erosion, and increase runoff into downstream resources. Building Unit 3 would also 

32 change the watershed permanently by adding about 130 ac of impervious surfaces. 

33 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s evaluation, the review 

34 team concludes that the impacts from the combined construction and preconstruction activities 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-48 April 2010 

1 for proposed Unit 3 to the freshwater aquatic biota, including State-listed species, and habitats 

2 within the St. Leonard Creek and Lower Western Shore watersheds would be MODERATE, 

3 primarily because of the loss of an onsite pond, the headwaters of small tributaries, and the 

4 addition of 130 ac of impervious surfaces to the watershed. Such impacts would noticeably 

5 alter the St. Leonard Creek subwatershed, which is the largest component of the Lower 

6 Patuxent River watershed. UniStar proposes to restore or enhance two small streams in the 

7 Lower Western Shore watershed and portions of the Woodland Branch and Johns Creek in the 

8 St. Leonard Creek watershed. Further mitigation measures, such as time-of-year work 

9 restrictions, may be warranted and are being considered by the Corps and the State of 

10 Maryland. The Corps requires that mitigation may only be employed after all appropriate and 

11 practical steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to aquatic resources, including nontidal 

12 wetlands and streams, have been taken. Further, the Corps requires all remaining unavoidable 

13 impacts to be compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable. Most of the impacts to 

14 freshwater resources would be from preconstruction activities, such as clearing and grading 

15 forested land, eliminating streams and ponds, and adding impervious surfaces to the 

16 watersheds. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to freshwater aquatic biota, 

17 including State-listed species, and habitats from NRC-authorized construction activities would 

18 be SMALL, and no further mitigation specific to NRC-authorized construction would be 

19 warranted. 

20 Chesapeake Bay Aquatic Resources 

21 Similarly, the review team evaluated the impacts to the Chesapeake Bay’s aquatic biota, 

22 including Federally and State-listed species, and habitats. Activities affecting the nearshore 

23 habitats in Chesapeake Bay include the installation of the cooling water intake and discharge 

24 system and the refurbishing of the barge dock area. These activities would temporarily increase 

25 suspended sediment loads in the area and subject organisms to increased noise and potential 

26 interactions with vessels. Some soft-bottom habitat would be temporarily disturbed by the 

27 activities, and at least 0.16 ac would be permanently converted to rocky habitat by the armoring 

28 at the intake and discharge structures, thus noticeably altering the benthic habitat in the wedge29 shaped pool and surrounding the discharge structure. 

30 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s evaluation, the review 

31 team concludes that the impacts from construction and preconstruction activities for proposed 

32 Unit 3 to the Chesapeake Bay aquatic biota, including Federally and State-listed species, and 

33 habitats would be MODERATE. Further mitigation measures for preconstruction and 

34 construction activities, such as time-of-year work restrictions, may be warranted and are being 

35 considered by the Corps and the State of Maryland. The Corps requires that mitigation may 

36 only be employed after all appropriate and practical steps to avoid and minimize adverse 

37 impacts to estuarine aquatic resources have been taken. Further, the Corps requires all 

38 remaining unavoidable impacts to be compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-49 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The only NRC-authorized construction activity that would affect aquatic resources, including 

2 Federally and State-listed species, in the Bay is building part of the safety-related makeup water 

3 system, specifically installing and armoring the two intake pipelines. The two pipelines would 

4 extend a short distance into the wedge-shaped pool affecting a small part of the benthic habitat. 

5 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to the aquatic biota, including Federally 

6 and State-listed species, and habitats of the Chesapeake Bay from NRC-authorized 

7 construction activities would be SMALL. 

8 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 

9 Socioeconomic impacts may occur in the 50-mi region surrounding the proposed Unit 3. This 

10 evaluation assesses the impacts of project-related activities and of the peak workforce on the 

11 region. Unless otherwise specified, the primary source of information for this section is the ER 

12 (UniStar 2009a). 

13 The planned project activities would differ significantly from those activities required to construct 

CCNPP Units 1 and 2.(a) 14 Based on review team interviews with local officials and discussions 

15 with the applicant, the review team identified the following differences between the construction 

16 phase of the current Units 1 and 2, and the building strategy for the proposed new unit. 

17 Although many activities would be similar, Units 1 and 2 were constructed simultaneously and 

18 almost entirely onsite. For the single Unit 3, many of the components of the AREVA NP Inc. 

19 (AREVA) U.S. EPR nuclear unit would be built at dedicated fabrication facilities outside the 

20 Calvert Cliffs site region and would be delivered to the Unit 3 site ready to assemble, reducing 

21 onsite labor requirements. UniStar estimates the peak onsite labor force for Unit 3 to be 3950 

22 workers (specific assumptions are discussed in following sections). Because fewer onsite 

23 workers would be needed to build Unit 3 than were needed for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and 

24 because impacts are related to the number of construction workers in-migrating, the review 

25 team expects the physical, social, and economic impacts on the region would be less than the 

26 impacts experienced during the construction of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The remainder of this 

27 section provides support for this assertion, based upon a detailed assessment of each 

28 socioeconomic impact area, employing baseline conditions described in Section 2.5 of this EIS.

29 Although the review team considered the entire region within a 50-mi radius of the Calvert Cliffs 

30 site when assessing socioeconomic impacts, the discussion is limited to the two-county area of 

31 Calvert County and St. Mary’s Counties, which is approximately the western half of the 20-mi 

32 radius. Based on commuter patterns, the distribution of residential communities in the area, and 

33 the nature of the likely socioeconomic impacts of construction and preconstruction activities, the 

34 review team found negligible impacts on other counties within the 50-mi radius in Maryland, 

 

(a) CCNPP Unit 1 began operation in 1975, and Unit 2 began operation in 1977 (Constellation Website at 

http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.0275303d670d51908d84ff10025166a0/; 

also available on the NRC website at htt://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-50 April 2010 

1 Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. Access to the two Delaware counties and eight 

2 Maryland counties to the west is limited by the Chesapeake Bay, and access to 11 of the 13 

3 Virginia counties is limited by the Potomac River. Potential impacts to the remaining four 

4 Maryland counties, two Virginia counties, and Washington, D.C. that lie to the north and 

5 northwest of the Calvert Cliffs site are limited by the size of these areas relative to the 

6 workforce. And, while the highway system is good, access is limited by the absence of 

7 interstate highways. 

8 4.4.1 Physical Impacts 

9 Construction and preconstruction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts 

10 such as noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Vibration and shock impacts are not expected 

11 because of the strict control of blasting and other shock-producing activities. This section 

12 addresses potential impacts that may affect people, buildings, and roads. 

13 4.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public 

14 The land surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site is zoned for a combination of light industrial, farm, 

15 forest, and residential uses, and is bounded by the Chesapeake Bay and to the west by forested 

16 land. No significant industrial or commercial facilities other than the Calvert Cliffs site exist or 

17 are planned in the vicinity. The recreational areas closest to the plant include the Flag Ponds 

18 Nature Park to the north and the Calvert Cliffs State Park to the south, both of which are 

19 adjacent to the plant site. Most construction and preconstruction activities take place during the 

20 work week and most visitors use these parks on weekends. Also, the heavy forest cover of the 

21 large Calvert Cliffs site itself is expected to buffer many effects of traffic, noise, and dust, and 

22 therefore the increase in these attributes from construction and preconstruction activities is not 

23 expected to significantly affect either Flag Ponds or Calvert Cliffs State Park (UniStar 2009a). 

24 All construction and preconstruction activities would occur within the Calvert Cliffs site boundary 

25 and would be performed in compliance with all Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

26 (OSHA) standards, BMPs, and other applicable regulatory and permit requirements. While 

27 approximately 41,000 people live within 10 mi of the site (see Section 2.5.1.1), the only people 

28 likely to be vulnerable to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from project 

29 activities include construction workers and, to a lesser extent, other personnel working onsite at 

30 the existing adjacent operating units. People working or living immediately adjacent to the site 

31 and transient populations, such as recreational visitors, tourists, or temporary employees for 

32 other businesses in the area, would be impacted significantly less than construction workers 

33 because of access and distance, which would limit exposure to construction and preconstruction 

34 activities (UniStar 2009a). 

35 Construction workers would have adequate training and personal protective equipment to 

36 minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures. Emergency first-aid care would be available 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-51 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 at the site, and regular health and safety monitoring would be conducted. People working 

2 onsite or living near the Calvert Cliffs site would not experience any physical impacts greater 

3 than those that would be considered an annoyance or nuisance. Construction and 

4 preconstruction activities would be performed in compliance with Federal, State, and local 

5 regulations and site-specific permit conditions (UniStar 2009a). 

6 4.4.1.2 Noise 

7 Construction and preconstruction activities are inherently noisy, and noise is an environmental 

8 concern because it can cause adverse health effects, annoyance, and disruption of social 

9 interactions. Noise would result from clearing, earthmoving, foundation preparation, pile driving, 

10 concrete mixing and pouring, steel erection, and various stages of facility equipment fabrication, 

11 assembly, and installation. Non-routine activities such as blasting, if needed, would only be 

12 conducted during weekday business hours. The Calvert Cliffs site’s relative isolation from 

13 populated areas and the wooded areas surrounding the site would provide natural noise 

14 abatement. In addition, good practices such as maintenance of equipment, controlling access 

15 to high noise areas, duration of emission and shielding high noise sources close to their origin 

16 would be used (UniStar 2009a). All project activities would also be subject to regulations 

17 stemming from the Noise Control Act of 1972, Federal regulations for noise from construction 

18 equipment (40 CFR Part 204), OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.95), and State regulations 

19 (COMAR 2007). The review team expects noise impacts on recreation and the general public 

20 would be minimal with the use of good practices described above and because noise attenuates 

21 with distance. 

22 4.4.1.3 Air Quality 

23 As of 2006, Calvert County was in attainment for all the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,(a) 24 except for the 8-hour ozone standard due to Calvert County’s proximity to 

25 Washington, D.C. Calvert County is part of the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control 

26 Region (40 CFR 81.156), for which the attainment status is listed as better than national 

27 standards for total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and 

28 unclassifiable/attainment for carbon monoxide (see Section 2.9). Temporary and minor effects 

29 on local ambient air quality may occur as a result of normal industrial activities. Emissions of 

30 fugitive dust and particulate matter (PM) smaller than 10 micrometers (PM10) in size are 

31 generated during earth-moving and material-handling activities. Construction equipment and 

32 offsite vehicles also produce emissions. The pollutants of primary concern include PM10 fugitive 

33 dust, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and, to a lesser extent, sulfur 

34 dioxides. Mitigation measures (e.g., paving or stabilizing disturbed areas, water suppression, 

35 reduced material handling) would minimize such emissions. Odors could result from exhaust 

 

(a) Areas of the United States having air quality as good as or better than the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards are designated by EPA as “attainment areas.” 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-52 April 2010 

1 emissions, but odors dissipate onsite and would have no discernible impact on the local air 

2 quality. All equipment would be serviced regularly, and all industrial activities would be 

3 conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local emission requirements. 

4 UniStar stated that specific mitigation measures to control fugitive dust would be identified in a 

5 dust-control plan or a similar document prepared prior to starting the project in accordance with 

6 all applicable State and Federal permits and regulations (UniStar 2009a). These mitigation 

7 measures could include but are not limited to the following: 

8 • stabilizing access roads and spoils piles 

9 • limiting speeds on unpaved access roads 

10 • periodically watering unpaved access roads to control dust 

11 • performing housekeeping (e.g., remove dirt spilled onto paved roads) 

12 • covering haul trucks when loaded or unloaded 

13 • minimizing material handling (e.g., drop heights, double-handling) 

14 • ceasing grading and excavation activities during high winds and during periods of extreme 

15 air pollution 

16 • phasing grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils 

17 • re-vegetating road medians and slopes. 

18 4.4.1.4 Buildings 

19 Construction and preconstruction activities would not affect any offsite buildings. The Camp 

20 Conoy structure and the Eagle’s Den conference center would be demolished. Onsite safety 

21 related buildings associated with CCNPP Units 1 and 2 have been built to safely withstand any 

22 possible impact from natural phenomena such as earthquakes and, therefore, can withstand 

23 shock and vibration from activities associated with development at the Calvert Cliffs site 

24 (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A). Other onsite buildings were built according to building codes 

25 and standards, which includes consideration of seismic loads (UniStar 2009a). Information 

26 about historic properties and the impacts of construction on a number of peripheral onsite 

27 buildings that will be removed is provided in Sections 2.7 and 4.6. Offsite buildings are not 

28 expected to be affected by project activities due to their distance from the site. The nearest 

29 residence is approximately 3000 ft from the site, and, as discussed earlier, project-related 

30 activities would comply with all regulations pertaining to offsite vibrations. 

31 4.4.1.5 Transportation 

32 This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and materials to and from the Calvert 

33 Cliffs site from three perspectives: the socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of dust 

34 and particulate matter put into the air by vehicle traffic, and the potential health impacts caused 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-53 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 by additional traffic-related accidents. The socioeconomic impacts are addressed here and in 

2 Section 4.4.4.1. The air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.4.1.1, and the human health 

3 impacts are addressed in Section 4.8. Public roads would be used to transport construction 

4 materials and equipment. Calvert County has a well-developed transportation system and 

5 would not be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed project-related activities. A new 

6 site access road from MD State Route 2/4 would be built, and an existing heavy haul road near 

7 the barge slip would be upgraded and extended. Construction workers would access the site 

8 through MD State Route 2/4, which is clearly marked with signs and maintained clear of debris. 

9 The barge facility would be refurbished to transport large components and equipment, and the 

10 existing onsite heavy-haul road would be refurbished and extended. The review team expects 

11 neither the refurbishment activities, nor the use of the barge facility and heavy-haul road, to 

12 impact the public because these activities would occur within a restricted access area. 

13 4.4.1.6 Aesthetics 

14 The proposed footprint for Unit 3 is in a light industrial area, surrounded primarily by forested land. 

15 With the exception of elevated activities involving cranes, construction and preconstruction 

16 activities will generally not be visible from points outside the Calvert Cliffs site boundary due to the 

17 surrounding heavily wooded area. Limited project activities may be visible from locations in the 

18 Chesapeake Bay, including elevated activities, activities conducted along the shoreline, barge 

19 unloading, installation of intake/discharge equipment, and refurbishment of the heavy-haul road, 

20 but the elevation and setback would limit general visibility. 

21 Water turbidity may be present during dredging operations to refurbish the barge facility. 

22 Mitigation measures include implementing the SWPPP, transporting excavated and dredged 

23 material to an onsite spoils area, and complying with required Federal and State regulations and 

24 permits (Section 4.2.3.1) (UniStar 2009a). Therefore, the aesthetic impact of turbidity is 

25 expected to be insignificant and temporary. 

26 4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts 

27 All construction and preconstructon activities would occur within the site boundary. The review 

28 team has evaluated information provided by UniStar, visited the site and its environs, and 

29 performed an independent review of the potential physical impacts of construction and 

30 preconstruction activities on the local area and region of the proposed Unit 3 site. The review 

31 team concludes that the expected physical impacts of construction and preconstruction activities 

32 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond the strategies outlined by the applicant in its 

33 ER would be warranted. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-54 April 2010 

1 4.4.2 Demography 

2 UniStar estimated the peak project workforce for Unit 3 would be 3950 workers. UniStar further 

3 assumed the proposed project schedule would last approximately 86 months, which includes 

4 site development activities, with peak employment occurring within the last quarter of fourth year 

5 through the first quarter of the fifth year of the project. While there are enough construction 

6 workers in absolute numbers in the socioeconomics impact area, not all workers have the skills 

7 necessary to build a nuclear plant. Consequently, the review team determined through review 

8 of the ER (UniStar 2009a) and interviews with labor officials in the area that between 20 and 

9 35 percent of the skilled workforce would need to come from outside the two-county economic 

10 impact area of Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. The actual percentage of in-migrating workers 

11 would depend on the level of competition for those particular skills from other nuclear and non12 nuclear related projects occurring at the same time. 

13 The review team assumes, for the purpose of this study, that: 

14 • The number of workers that would move their place of residence (in-migrate) to the region 

15 and the economic impact area would range from 20 to 35 percent of the 3950 peak project 

16 workforce. 

17 • The U.S. Census Bureau average household size of 2.61 persons would be representative 

18 of worker households. 

19 • Each in-migrating construction worker at the proposed Unit 3 would generate an additional 

20 0.6855 indirect jobs as a result of his or her economic activity in the economic impact area. 

21 • The place of residence for in-migrating construction workers within the economic impact 

22 area would follow the same distribution as the distribution of current CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

23 operations and maintenance workforce. 

24 The result of these assumptions means a peak increase in the economic impact area’s 

25 population of 1876 to 3284 persons, distributed between the two counties, as shown in 

26 Table 4-5. 

27 The review team estimated the demographic consequence of this increase in population would 

28 range from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent for the entire economic impact area based on population 

29 projected for 2015 (Table 2-9), when the construction workforce is expected to be near its peak. 

30 The increase for Calvert County ranges from 1.4 to 2.5 percent and 0.4 to 0.7 percent for 

31 St. Mary’s County. Given that in-migrating workforce would represent a small percentage of the 

32 economic impact area’s total population, the review team determined this effect would not be 

33 significant on the economic impact area and the remainder of the region. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-55 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 4-5. Potential Peak Increase in Population During Peak Construction and 

2 Preconstruction Activities of Proposed Unit 3

Economic Impact Area 

 Total 

Calvert 

County 

St. Mary’s 

County 

Locations 

Outside 

Economic 

Impact Area 

Peak Direct Workforce 3950 -- -- -- 

Percent of Current CCNPP Units 1 & 2 

Workforce Distribution 

-- 68% 23% -- 

Workers that In-Migrate (20-35%) 790-1383 537-940 182-318 71-124 

Indirect Jobs Created (20-35%) 542-948 368-644 125-218 49-85 

Total In-Migrant Household Population 2062-3608 1402-2454 474-830 186-324 

Source: UniStar 2009a 

3 4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community 

4 This section evaluates the economic impacts of construction and preconstruction on the area 

5 within 50 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site, focusing primarily on the two-county economic impact 

6 area. The evaluation assesses the impacts of building proposed Unit 3 and demands placed by 

7 the larger workforce on the surrounding region. 

8 4.4.3.1 Economy 

9 The impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on the local and regional economy 

10 depend on the region’s current and projected economy and population. For this analysis, the 

11 review team based its analysis upon the latest information provided by UniStar and assumes 

12 construction and preconstruction activities would last approximately 86 months with commercial 

13 operations beginning in 2016 (UniStar 2009e). 

14 New indirect jobs are created through a process called the “multiplier effect,” whereby a new 

15 (direct) job in a given area stimulates spending on goods and services that results in the 

16 economic need for a fraction of a new (indirect) job, typically in service-related industries. The 

17 cumulative effect of a new direct job workforce being added to an economy induces the creation 

18 of a number of new indirect jobs. The ratio of new indirect jobs to the number of new direct jobs 

19 is called the “employment multiplier.” The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic 

20 Analysis (BEA), Economics and Statistics Division, provides regional multipliers for industry 

21 employment and earnings and a custom set of multipliers was provided by BEA to UniStar for 

22 the two county economic impact area (UniStar 2009a). The BEA employment multiplier is 

23 applied to only in-migrating workers because the BEA model assumes the income effect from 

24 construction workers that already live in the area will have no additional impact on the economy. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-56 April 2010 

1 For every construction worker, BEA estimates an additional 0.6855 jobs would be created 

2 (UniStar 2009a). Only the in-migrating direct jobs are counted so that a net impact can be 

3 estimated. Other indirect and induced jobs are assumed to be allocated to area residents who 

4 would be leaving other jobs to take Unit 3-related employment. Considering this multiplier 

5 effect, the construction and preconstruction activities could create approximately 790 to 1383 

6 additional indirect jobs. Table 4-6 shows the annual average number of directly employed 

7 construction workers and the associated indirect employment. 

8 Table 4-6. Proposed Unit 3 Direct and Indirect Employment During Construction and 

9 Preconstruction Activities from 2011–2016

Total CCNPP 3 Employment 

Year Direct(a) 

Indirect 

(20-35%)(b) Total

2011 1000 137-240 1137-1240 

2012 2350 322-564 2672-2914 

2013 3275 449-786 3724-4061 

2014 3863 530-927 4392-4789 

2015 3742 513-898 4255-4639 

2016 1928 264-463 2193-2391 

(a) Source: UniStar 2009a. 

(b) Review team assessment.

10 The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic 

11 impacts on the surrounding region, providing additional income to the regional economy, 

12 reducing unemployment, and creating business opportunities for housing and service-related 

13 industries. UniStar estimates the peak workforce of 3950 would earn an average of $70,720 

14 annually for a total of $279 million. The review team concludes, based on its own independent 

15 review of the likely economic effects of the proposed action, that beneficial economic impacts 

16 could be experienced throughout the region. The review team expects economic impacts to 

17 beminimal but beneficial, both within and outside the economic impact area, due to the size of 

18 the economies and the expected distribution of residences. 

19 4.4.3.2 Taxes 

20 The tax structure of the region is discussed in Section 2.5 of this EIS. Several tax revenue 

21 categories would be affected by the building of proposed Unit 3. These include taxes on wages 

22 and salaries, sales and use taxes on construction-related purchases, workforce expenditures, 

23 property taxes related to the new units, and personal property taxes on owned real property. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-57 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 This section provides an estimate of the personal income tax revenues that would accrue to the 

2 two counties in the economic impact area and the State of Maryland. The review team 

3 considers the wages of Maryland residents who would work at the proposed site to be a net 

4 transfer with no analytical worth. For workers in-migrating outside of Maryland, the review team 

5 considers the full value of their Unit 3-based earnings as applicable to this analysis. 

6 Because the number of new income tax payers in Maryland resulting from the Unit 3 project 

7 would not change noticeably in the context of the State’s income tax base, income tax revenue 

8 attributable to the Unit 3 project would be minimal. Determining the exact amount of income tax 

9 revenue relies on a number of factors such as income tax rates, residency status, deductions 

10 taken and other factors. Assuming an in-migrating worker earns a representative annual salary 

11 of approximately $70,720 (UniStar 2009a), and using Calvert County’s income tax rate of 

12 2.8 percent, Calvert County revenue attributable to construction and preconstruction during 

13 peak years of activity would be $1 to $1.9 million. In St. Mary’s County income tax revenues at 

14 the peak would be approximately $386,000 to $675,000. Given the large income tax base in the 

15 State of Maryland and the economic impact area, this increase would only represent a minimal 

16 but beneficial impact. 

17 As discussed in Section 2.5.2.2, the State of Maryland obtains revenues based on sales and 

18 use taxes generated by retail expenditures on goods and services. The State would receive 

19 sales tax revenue from all Unit 3-related purchases (i.e., materials or equipment). Given the 

20 difficulty in estimating spending patterns, it is not possible to estimate the sales and use tax 

21 revenue for Maryland attributed to the development of Unit 3. However, because this revenue 

22 would be paid to the State rather than local jurisdictions, the impact to the two-county economic 

23 impact area would be minimal and beneficial. 

24 Individuals and businesses in Maryland pay taxes on real property to the State and on real and 

25 personal property to the counties (see Table 2-13 for the tax rates by jurisdiction). In 2006, 

26 Constellation Energy paid about $16.2 million in Calvert County property taxes (including 

27 $10.3 million in personal property and $5.5 million in operating real property taxes) for Units 1 

28 and 2, and, in 2007, it paid about $16.2 million in property taxes (including $10.6 million in 

29 personal property and $5.6 million in operating real property taxes) (UniStar 2009a). As the 

30 assessed value of property increases each year during the project so would the taxes paid to 

31 Calvert County. These incremental increases in taxes would have a significant impact on 

32 Calvert County’s annual property tax revenues. UniStar estimated tax payments to be 

33 $1.1 million (2009), $3.5 million (2010), $8.5 million (2011), $18.8 million (2012), $40.7 million 

34 (2013), $61.6 million (2014), and $71.3 million (2015) (UniStar 2009d). In 2015 when tax 

35 payments are expected to be $71.3 million, this would represent a 32.2 percent increase in the 

36 2009 Calvert County revenue. 

37 Another source of revenue from property taxes would be from housing purchased by the long38 term construction workforce. In-migrating workers may have new housing built for them, which 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-58 April 2010 

1 would add to the county’s taxable property base; or they could purchase existing houses, which 

2 would drive housing demand and housing prices up, slightly increasing values (and property 

3 taxes levied). The increased housing demand would have little effect on tax revenues in the 

4 heavily populated two-county economic impact area. Therefore, the impact from property taxes 

5 on housing for the State and the two-county economic impact area would be minimal and 

6 beneficial. However, the impact of the site-related property taxes paid to Calvert County would 

7 likely be significant and beneficial. 

8 4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community 

9 Based on its independent analysis, the review team concludes that the economic impacts of 

10 building activities would be SMALL and beneficial in Calvert County and the rest of the 50-mi 

11 region. The tax revenue that accrues to the County and State governments over the 

12 approximately 86-month construction period would constitute a slight increase in total taxes 

13 collected by the State of Maryland and St. Mary's County. However, the impact would be 

14 significant in Calvert County. Consequently, the review team concludes that the tax revenue 

15 impacts from construction and preconstruction activities to the region would be SMALL and 

16 beneficial, except for Calvert County for which the impact would be LARGE and beneficial.

17 4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

18 This section provides the estimated impacts on infrastructure and community services to include 

19 transportation, recreation, housing, public services, and education. 

20 4.4.4.1 Transportation 

21 Public roads and waterways would be used to transport construction materials and equipment 

22 because the nearest operating rail line is 8-mi from the Calvert Cliffs site. Project-related 

23 impacts on traffic are determined by five elements: 

24 1. the number and timing of construction worker vehicles on the roads per shift 

25 2. the number of shift changes for the workforce per day 

26 3. the number and timing of truck deliveries to the site per day 

27 4. the projected population growth rate in Calvert County 

28 5. the capacity and usage of the roads. 

29 The major transportation routes described in Section 2.5.2.3 would be used by construction 

30 workers to commute to and from work and to transport a majority of the construction materials 

31 and equipment to the Calvert Cliffs site. As a result, traffic flows would increase substantially on 

32 MD State Route 2/4 during the peak project period and would be highest during shift changes, 

33 with impacts decreasing with distance, as vehicles would travel to the site via alternate routes. 

34 It is possible that there would be noticeable impacts on rural roads that connect to MD State 

35 Route 2/4. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-59 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted (KLD 2009) on the roadways in the site vicinity 

2 with input from Maryland State Highway Administration and Calvert County. The TIA Study 

3 shown in Figure 2-16 extended 4 mi in each direction (8-mi total) from the Calvert Cliffs site 

4 entrance and included five intersections: 

5 • Calvert Beach Road (signalized) 

6 • Calvert Cliffs Parkway (signalized) 

7 • Nursery Road (unsignalized) 

8 • Pardoe Road (unsignalized) 

9 • Cove Point Road (unsignalized). 

10 There are no planned highway improvements, so the TIA analyzed two scenarios regarding the 

11 ability of the MD State Route 2/4 to accommodate expected future traffic volumes using the 

12 existing highway network (KLD 2009). The baseline scenario was for a ‘no-build’ situation to 

13 account for normal growth in traffic volumes of 4 percent per year and an increase in traffic 

14 given a ‘build’ situation to accommodate a peak of 2067 vehicles during the morning peak and 

15 3009 during the evening peak. For a maximum calculation, the TIA included not only 

16 construction workers, operations staff, and deliveries, but also outage workers. Increased traffic 

17 due to an outage would be temporary, only lasting a few weeks each year. Construction 

18 workers were distributed in 3 shifts a day with 60 percent in the first shift, 35 percent in the 

19 second shift and 5 percent in the third shift. 

20 The TIA results for the baseline 4 percent growth without Unit 3 indicated the unsignalized 

21 intersections and the Calvert Beach Road/Ball Road intersection would not function properly by 

22 2018, indicating upgrades would be needed regardless of the development of Unit 3. The 

23 results of the TIA analysis for the peak site development period indicate the existing 

24 intersections would fail under the traffic load even if all the intersections were signalized. 

25 The recommendation from the TIA study was the addition of a new signalized intersection on 

26 MD 2/4 for construction worker access. Other recommendations included adding turning lanes 

27 on MD 2/4 at the Calvert Beach Road/Ball Road; lane reconfiguration at Calvert Cliffs 

28 Parkway; and signalizing and adding lanes at the Nursery Road, Pardoe Road, and Cove 

29 Point Road intersections. The study concludes that if the above recommendations are 

30 implemented, all intersections will operate at acceptable levels at peak periods (LOS D or 

31 better). 

32 A critical area not addressed by the TIA is access from the south over the Thomas Johnson 

33 Memorial Bridge that connects Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, where the four-lane MD State 

34 Route 2/4 narrows to two lanes across the bridge. As reported in Section 2.5.2.3, the Maryland 

35 State Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration expect to complete the 

36 planning process for bridge expansion in 2010 and construction by 2020. The State expects to 

37 begin bridge renovations after completion of proposed Unit 3 (KLD 2009). Currently, access is 

38 limited from the west, to St. Mary’s and Charles Counties, which will channel traffic flow to the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-60 April 2010 

1 North and South in Calvert County, thus increasing the need to implement the mitigation 

2 measures discussed in the TIA to help alleviate the choke point at the Thomas Johnson 

3 Memorial Bridge. 

4 Based on the information provided by UniStar, interviews with local planners and officials, and 

5 the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the offsite impacts on 

6 road transportation of building Unit 3 would be temporary and noticeable but not destabilizing 

7 during the peak project period for roads in the vicinity of the site, and minimal elsewhere. 

8 However, UniStar, in coordination with the State, commissioned a traffic study that identified 

9 mitigating strategies that would mitigate the traffic to a manageable level. 

10 Large components and equipment would be transported to the site via barge and the heavy11 haul road (UniStar 2009a). This would mean the barge facility would have to be upgraded and 

12 the heavy-haul road to be upgraded and extended. The review team determined the 

13 refurbishment of the barge facility and extension of the heavy-haul road would be confined to an 

14 access-restricted area, thus imposing a minimal and temporary impact on the public. 

15 4.4.4.2 Recreation 

16 Impacts on recreation may result from increased demand/use of existing and planned resources 

17 and from aesthetic/visual and noise impacts, which were discussed earlier in Section 4.4.1. The 

18 increase in demand on existing/planned resources would result from usage by the increased 

19 population in the two counties. Recreational users near the site may experience traffic 

20 congestion on the roads at shift change; however, most recreational activities occur on the 

21 weekends and not during normal weekday business hours when shift changes would occur. 

22 Given the relatively small number of people in-migrating relative to the large surrounding 

23 population and the fact that recreational users would likely not be on the road at shift change, 

24 the review team concludes that recreational impacts from construction and preconstruction 

25 would be minimal. 

26 4.4.4.3 Housing 

27 The assumptions behind the review team’s estimated in-migration of workers was established in 

28 Section 4.4.2 of this chapter, with the number of in-migrating households resulting from 

29 construction and preconstruction activities for Unit 3 ranging from 537 to 940 for Calvert County 

30 and 182 to 318 for St. Mary’s County (Table 4-5). The Census Bureau estimates that in 2006 

31 there were 1830 and 3814 unoccupied housing units in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, 

32 respectively (Table 2-21). 

33 The Calvert County Department of Economic Development has indicated the housing market in 

34 Calvert County might be tight (UniStar 2009a), despite an annual average issuance of 648 

35 construction permits for single family and multifamily units from 2000 through 2007 (MDP 2008). 

36 St. Mary’s County Government indicates there is an adequate supply of housing (UniStar 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-61 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 2009a), and an annual average of 974 construction permits were issued for single family and 

2 multifamily units from 2000 through 2007 (MDP 2008). The Calvert County Department of 

3 Economic Development also indicated a larger number of the in-migrants associated with the 

4 project workforce may seek housing in St. Mary’s County due to the differential in housing 

5 prices in the two counties (UniStar 2009a; MDP 2008). 

6 Some of the workforce may choose to stay in rental housing, apartments, or in one of the 

7 28 hotels/motels/bed and breakfast facilities in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, which offer 

8 approximately 1500 rooms (UniStar 2009a). Given the supply of 1500 hotel/motel/bed and 

9 breakfasts rooms and a peak summer occupancy rate of 80 percent (Section 2.5.2.5), 

10 approximately 300 rooms remain available for construction workers. Based on these 

11 assumptions, the review team believes that additional hotel/motel/bed and breakfasts facilities 

12 may be needed. Thirty-three apartment and townhouse complexes in Calvert and St. Mary’s 

13 Counties provide one- to three-bedroom rental units, of which 28 are located in St. Mary’s 

14 County. St. Mary’s County government officials indicated that a number of apartment units 

15 currently used by a major employer for temporary housing may become available (UniStar 

16 2009a). 

17 The boom-and-bust nature of large-scale construction projects aggravates the housing impacts 

18 in local communities. The typical pattern begins when in-migrating workers and their families 

19 (along with local residents with enhanced economic resources because of project- and worker20 related jobs and expenditures) increase the demand for housing. Increased demand creates 

21 upward pressure on both the housing supply and prices in the local area. When construction 

22 ends, most in-migrating workers leave, and local indirect jobs also are lost. Because a 

23 considerable construction workforce already lives locally, many of these impacts could be 

24 avoided. In addition, the high population growth rate in the region would mitigate much of the 

25 economic decline after the completion of construction. 

26 Housing supply is a dynamic process that can respond relatively quickly to changes in demand. 

27 Based on housing construction permit information from Maryland discussed above, which 

28 shows approximately 1622 permits issued from 2000 to 2007 for single and multi-family homes 

29 and the review team’s expert opinion, the supply of housing in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties 

30 could be adapted in a relatively short time period to meet the projected change in demand 

31 associated with the proposed project. Based on the information provided by UniStar, the review 

32 team’s interviews with local real estate agents and City and County Planners, and the review 

33 team’s independent evaluation, the review team expects the housing-related impacts of 

34 construction and preconstruction on Unit 3 would be minimal and temporary. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-62 April 2010 

1 4.4.4.4 Public Services 

2 This section describes the public services available and discusses the impacts of construction 

3 and preconstruction at the proposed Unit 3 site on water supply and waste treatment; police, fire 

4 and medical services; education; and social services in the region. 

5 Water Supply Facilities 

6 Project-related water requirements and their impacts are discussed in Section 4.2 of this EIS. 

7 The impact to the local water supply systems from project-related population growth can be 

8 estimated by calculating the amount of water that would be needed by the total population 

9 increase in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. According to a 2003 EPA report on potable water 

10 usage, the average person in the United States uses about 90 gpd (EPA 2003). For an 

11 assumed project-related population increase of 1402 to 2454 people in Calvert County and 474 

12 to 830 people in St. Mary’s County, the increased water consumption would be 126,188 gpd to 

13 220,829 gpd in Calvert County and 42,681 gpd to 74,692 gpd in St. Mary’s County, respectively. 

14 This increase is well within the excess capacity of 2.4 MGD in the Calvert County water systems 

15 and 4.8 MGD in the St. Mary’s County water systems. This would leave sufficient unused 

16 capacity to meet base growth of less than 1 percent in Calvert County and approximately 

17 2 percent in St. Mary’s County if all of the growth (base plus Unit 3) is connected to a water 

18 supply system. The review team concludes that the impacts of construction and preconstruction 

19 activities on community water systems would be minor and temporary. 

20 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 

21 Section 2.5.2.6 describes the public wastewater treatment systems in Calvert and St. Mary’s 

22 Counties, their permitted capacities, and current utilization. Wastewater treatment facilities in 

23 the two counties have excess capacities. In 2005, the seven sewage treatment plants in Calvert 

24 and St. Mary’s Counties operated at an average capacity of 54 percent and 58 percent, 

25 respectively. Assuming that 100 percent of the water consumed by in-migrating workers would 

26 be disposed of through the wastewater treatment facilities, the project-related population 

27 increase in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties would need 126,188 gpd to 220,829 gpd of 

28 additional wastewater treatment capacity in Calvert County and 42,681 gpd to 74,692 gpd in 

29 St. Mary’s County. Currently, Calvert County has approximately 700,000 gpd of excess 

30 wastewater treatment capacity, while St. Mary’s County has 2.9 million gpd of excess capacity. 

31 Residents not serviced by a public sewer district/system rely on septic tanks for wastewater 

32 treatment. The review team concludes that the impacts of building Unit 3 on wastewater 

33 treatment facilities would be temporary and well below the excess capacity levels of each local 

34 wastewater treatment facility. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-63 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities 

2 A temporary increase in population from the site construction workforce for a new nuclear facility 

3 can increase the burden on local fire and police departments, but this increase is temporary. 

4 Based on police and fire activity levels shown in Tables 2-18 and 2-19 in Section 2.5.2.6, the 

5 expected increase in police and fire services are shown in Table 4-7. 

Table 4-7. Expected Increase in Police and Fire Services Related to Proposed Unit 3(a) 6 

Calvert County St. Mary’s County 

Number % Increase Number % Increase 

Police 

Total Calls 2998 854 

Violent Crime 11 4 

Property Crime 70 

≤3.3% 

30 

≤1% 

Fire [based on 2006 only] 

Total Calls 794 

Fire 135 

EMS 577 

Rescue 82 

≤3.3% 

 

Note: The baseline numbers above include the projected population by 2015 (Table 2-7) and the average annual 

police and fire service levels in Tables 2-17 and 2-18. The increase is based upon peak population increases shown 

in Table 4-5. 

7 The Calvert and St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Departments believe that the increase in population 

8 due to building Unit 3 would increase the demand for police services, but they would not need 

9 additional staffing or equipment (UniStar 2009a). Similarly, representatives of the Calvert and 

10 St. Mary’s Counties Fire Departments felt there would be additional needs that would be met by 

11 the existing level of staff and equipment. Based on the number of healthcare facilities in Calvert 

12 and St. Mary’s Counties and their capacity and usage as discussed in Section 2.5.2.6, the review 

13 team determined local healthcare services could accommodate a similar increase in demand. 

14 Once the project has been completed, many of the construction workers would leave the area, 

15 relieving those burdens. During construction and preconstruction activities, the temporary 

16 increase in demand for community resources could be mitigated in several ways. First, the 

17 more communities that host new workers, the less pressure each individual community would 

18 experience on its infrastructure. Consequently, any incentives UniStar can provide its 

19 employees to move into the area in an organized manner instead of all at once would mitigate 

20 (but not remove) this short-term demand. Next, communities can avoid the long-term 

21 commitment to the maintenance and operation of infrastructure purchases to fulfill short-term 

22 demand increases. Instead of purchasing new fire or police equipment, affected communities 

23 could lease vehicles or building space. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-64 April 2010 

1 Based on the magnitude of the expected impacts, the response of police and fire department 

2 representatives, and the capabilities of the healthcare systems in the two counties, the review 

3 team determined that the construction- and preconstruction-related impact on these services 

4 would be temporary and not noticeable within each community’s anticipated growth. 

5 Social Services 

6 Social services in both counties are provided by the County governments and non-government 

7 organizations as described in Section 2.5.2.6. The social services include health, aging, 

8 substance abuse, shelter, family services (food, clothing, temporary shelter, and foster care). 

9 To the extent UniStar’s contractors hire individuals who use the services provided by the 

10 Department of Human Resources or nonprofit organizations, building Unit 3 could reduce the 

11 burden on some social service providers, such as unemployment offices and income assistance 

12 programs. However, new families moving into a community would bring new demand for both 

13 state- and privately-provided social services, such as child and family services, substance 

14 abuse centers, and legal services. The enhanced employment opportunities created by the 

15 multiplier effect during the project may provide some benefits to the disadvantaged population. 

16 As the project winds down and direct and indirect jobs are lost, demands on social services may 

17 increase. Impacts to social services would be mitigated by tax revenue forecasts discussed in 

18 Section 4.4.3.2 from Unit 3 activities. The review team concludes that the impact on social 

19 services within any given county in the local area would not be significant. 

20 4.4.4.5 Education 

21 The review team expects the increase in school-age children to reach a peak of approximately 

22 280 to 491 students in Calvert County and 81 to 141 students in St. Mary’s County associated 

23 with the workforce increase resulting from the construction and preconstruction activities of 

24 proposed Unit 3 (Section 4.4.2). This represents an increase in the student population of 

25 1.5 percent to 2.6 percent in Calvert County’s public and private schools and 0.4 percent to 

26 0.7 percent in St. Mary’s County public and private schools. The remaining school-age children 

27 outside of Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties would be distributed throughout the remaining 

28 counties in the region, but in such limited numbers that they are not considered in this analysis. 

29 The public school districts in both counties are operating at or near capacity. The increase 

30 represents the normal/base increase of the school-age population in Calvert County over a 

31 period of about 4 years and a normal/base increase of the school-age population in St. Mary’s 

32 County over a period of about 2 years. The Calvert County Public School District reports that 

33 growth will be met by the use of modular classrooms. The tax revenues received by Calvert 

34 County would include levies for the public school system to meet needs for special services, 

35 teacher recruitment, and modular classrooms. St. Mary’s schools would not receive tax 

36 revenue for Unit 3. Of greater significance is the pending issue of the potential curtailment of 

37 Impact Aid funds to the St. Mary’s schools, as discussed in Chapter 2. This would impact the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-65 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 provision of educational services whether or not the proposed Unit 3 is built. The review team 

2 concluded the expected impacts to the Calvert County and St. Mary’s County Public School 

3 systems would be temporary and not beyond levels already anticipated from normal population 

4 growth in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. 

5 4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services Impacts 

6 Based on the information provided by UniStar, interviews with staff from County departments 

7 and non-governmental social service providers in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, and the 

8 review teams’ evaluation, the review team concludes that the impact of construction and 

9 preconstruction activities on regional infrastructure and community services, including 

10 recreation; housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical facilities; social 

11 services; and education would be SMALL and adverse. The estimated peak workforce of 3950 

12 would have a MODERATE temporary and adverse impact on transportation on MD State Route 

13 2/4 next to the plant, and a SMALL and adverse impact elsewhere. These transportation14 related impacts could be made more manageable with proper planning and mitigation measures 

15 similar to those discussed by UniStar in its TIA analysis. These conclusions are predicated on 

16 the specific assumptions about the size, composition, and behavior of the project workforce 

17 discussed in detail in Section 4.4.2 of this EIS. 

18 4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts 

19 The review team has assessed the proposed construction and preconstruction activities related 

20 to building Unit 3 and the potential socioeconomic impacts in the region. Physical impacts on 

21 workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, roads, aesthetics, noise 

22 levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span issues of demographics, economy, 

23 taxes, infrastructure, and community services. The review team concludes all physical impacts 

24 from construction and preconstruction would be SMALL in the region and in the local area. 

25 Based on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

26 only a part of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the physical impacts of NRC27 authorized construction activities would be SMALL, and no mitigation beyond the applicant’s 

28 commitments would be warranted. 

29 Social and economic impacts span issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and 

30 community services. Infrastructure and community services include transportation; recreation; 

31 housing; water supply and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical facilities; social 

32 services; and education. Based on information supplied by UniStar and the review team 

33 interviews conducted with public officials in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, the review team 

34 concludes impacts from construction and preconstruction activities on the affected local 

35 economies for proposed Unit 3 would be beneficial and SMALL in the 50-mi radius region with 

36 two exceptions. The first exception is property tax revenues in Calvert County, which would be 

37 beneficial and LARGE, and the second is a potential MODERATE and temporary traffic-related 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-66 April 2010 

1 impact on MD State Route 2/4 next to the Calvert Cliffs site, which could be mitigated by the 

2 implementation of traffic-related strategies similar to those discussed by UniStar. 

3 Based on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

4 only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC5 authorized construction activities on socioeconomics would be SMALL with two exceptions, 

6 which are outlined below. The NRC staff also concludes that no further mitigation measures 

7 beyond the actions outlined by the applicant in its ER would be warranted.

8 To determine the portion of the MODERATE and temporary transportation impact attributable to 

9 NRC-authorized construction activities, the NRC staff assumes, based on UniStar’s 

10 characterization of construction-related labor hours (UniStar 2009a), 77 percent of traffic related 

11 impacts would be associated with NRC-authorized construction activities. Using this allocation, 

12 the NRC staff concludes the transportation impact from Unit 3 NRC-authorized construction 

13 activities would be MODERATE and temporary based on the increased traffic on MD State 

14 Route 2/4. UniStar may choose to implement traffic mitigation activities noted in 

15 Section 4.4.4.1, which would make the traffic impacts more manageable. 

16 To determine the portion of the LARGE beneficial tax impact in Calvert County impact 

17 attributable to NRC-authorized construction activities, the NRC staff assumes, based on 

18 UniStar’s characterization of construction-related labor hours (UniStar 2009a), 77 percent of tax 

19 related impacts would be associated with NRC-authorized construction activities. Using this 

20 allocation, the NRC staff concludes the tax impact on Calvert County from NRC-authorized 

21 construction activities would be beneficial and LARGE based on the significant increase in tax 

22 revenues for Calvert County attributable to Unit 3. 

23 4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts 

24 The review team evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority and low-income 

25 populations at those census blocks identified in Section 2.6 of this EIS could be 

26 disproportionately affected by the potential impacts of building proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert 

27 Cliffs site. To perform this assessment, the review team (1) identified all potentially significant 

28 pathways for human health, environmental, physical, and socioeconomic effects, (2) determined 

29 the impact of each pathway for populations within the identified census blocks, and (3) 

30 determined whether or not the characteristics of the pathway or special circumstances of the 

31 minority and low-income populations would result in a disproportionate impact on minority or 

32 low-income people within each census block. To perform this assessment, the review team 

33 followed the methodology described in Section 2.6.1. In the context of construction and pre34 construction activities at the Calvert Cliffs site, the review team considered the questions 

35 outlined in Section 2.6.1. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-67 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 As discussed in Section 2.6.3, the review team did not find any evidence of unique 

2 characteristics or practices in the region that could lead to a disproportionate impact on any 

3 minority or low-income population. 

4 4.5.1 Health Impacts 

5 For all three health-related considerations described in Section 2.6.1, the review team 

6 determined through literature searches and consultations with NRC staff health experts that the 

7 expected building-related level of environmental emissions is well below the protection levels 

8 established by NRC and EPA regulations and cannot impose a disproportionately high and 

9 adverse radiological health effect on any identified minority or low-income populations. From 

10 the review team’s investigation, no project-related potential pathways to adverse health impacts 

11 were found to occur in excess of the safe levels stipulated by NRC and EPA health and safety 

12 standards. The NRC staff determined that the maximum annual radiological dose rate to 

13 construction workers during construction would be approximately 38.8 mrem/yr. This dose is 

14 much smaller than the 100 mrem annual dose limit to an individual member of the public (see 

15 Section 4.9.5). The NRC staff determined that the offsite dose rate would also be well below 

16 regulatory limits and impacts would be small. Furthermore, there are no radiological 

17 components from construction or preconstruction activities and, therefore, such activities cannot 

18 contribute to a cumulative radiological effect to either workers or to members of nearby 

19 communities (the nearest residence to the site is about 3000 ft away). The review team’s 

20 investigation and outreach did not identify any unique characteristics or practices among any 

21 minority or low-income populations that would result in disproportionate adverse impacts on 

22 those populations (Secrest, Mussatti, and Scott 2010). Though no migrant farm workers exist 

23 near the site, no impacts would be expected on migrant farm worker populations even if they 

24 were employed near the Calvert Cliffs site. 

25 As described in Section 4.5.2, the potential environmental and physical effects of construction 

26 and preconstruction are generally confined within the site boundaries, leading to no offsite 

27 health impacts on any identified population from those effects. Where there are potential offsite 

28 non-radiological health effects, the review team did not identify any studies, reports, or 

29 anecdotal evidence that would indicate any environmental pathway that would physiologically 

30 impact minority or low-income populations differently from other segments of the general 

31 population during construction and preconstruction activities. Moreover, the review team’s 

32 regional outreach provided no indication in either the location or practices of minority and low33 income populations in the 50-mi region that suggests they would experience non-radiological 

34 impacts any differently than the general population. In addition, the review team determined 

35 that the non-radiological health effects of construction and preconstruction activities and other 

36 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative 

37 impacts to non-radiological health would be localized and minimal (see Sections 4.8.4 and 

38 Section 7.7). The review team’s investigation and outreach did not identify any unique 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-68 April 2010 

1 charateristics or practices among minority and low-income populations that would result in 

2 disproportionate adverse impacts on them (Secrest, Mussatti, and Scott 2010). No impacts 

3 would be expected on migrant farm workers if they were to exist near the Unit 3 site. 

4 Any increase in traffic accidents due to heavier traffic is unlikely to have a disproportionate 

5 impact on any particular population subgroup in the 50-mile region or Calvert County. The 

6 roads nearest the plant would be more crowded and more traffic accidents may occur, but these 

7 increases are likely to be located on the principal commuting routes, which are not located in 

8 communities with disproportionately large minority or low-income populations. There is no 

9 information to suggest that nearby minority or low-income communities would be 

10 disproportionately vulnerable to hazards while on the road. Finally, as discussed in 

11 Section 2.6.2 of this EIS, the review team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics 

12 or practices in any minority or low-income population that may result in different non-radiological 

13 health impacts compared to the general population. Therefore, non-radiological health effects 

14 would not have a disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations. 

15 4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts 

16 Building a nuclear power plant is similar in environmental effects to building any large-scale 

17 industrial project. For the three environmental considerations identified in Section 2.6.1, the 

18 review team determined that the physical impacts from onsite construction and preconstruction 

19 activities at the proposed Unit 3 would attenuate rapidly with distance. In addition, the review 

20 team did not find any evidence of unique characteristics or practices among any minority or low21 income populations of interest and expect there would be no disproportionately high and 

22 adverse physical or environmental impact on any minority or low-income population. There are 

23 four primary exposure media in the environment: soil, water, air, and noise. The following four 

24 subsections discuss each of these pathways in greater detail. 

25 4.5.2.1 Soil 

26 Construction and preconstruction activities on the Calvert Cliffs site represent the largest source 

27 of soil-related environmental impacts. Soil disturbance activities are localized to the site, are 

28 sufficiently distant from surrounding populations, and have little migratory ability, resulting in no 

29 noticeable offsite impacts. Soil migration will be prevented by adherence to regulations and 

30 permits and the use of BMPs. In addition, the site is well defined, access is restricted, and no 

31 minority or low-income communities or individuals would be relocated (UniStar 2009a). As 

32 discussed in Section 2.6 of this EIS, the staff did not identify any evidence of unique 

33 characteristics or practices in the minority or low-income populations that may result in different 

34 soil-related impacts compared to the general population. The review team concludes soil35 related environmental impacts during the building of Unit 3 would pose no disproportionate and 

36 adverse impact on any minority or low-income populations within the 50-mi region. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-69 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 4.5.2.2 Water 

2 Surface water from the Chesapeake Bay would not be used for construction and 

3 preconstruction activities. Instead, UniStar would use groundwater from one or two new Aquia 

4 aquifer wells to be installed. Any necessary dewatering of the excavation would be localized 

5 and temporary and would impact only the Surficial Aquifer. Both surface water and groundwater 

6 impacts have been evaluated as SMALL (see Section 4.2.2). Water-related environmental 

7 impacts from erosion-related degradation of surface water and the introduction of anthropogenic 

8 substances into surface and groundwater would occur but would be mitigated through 

9 adherence to permit requirements and BMPs. Impacts to the shoreline waters may result from 

10 increased water turbidity during dredging activities and would also be minimized through 

11 adherence to permit requirements and BMPs. 

12 Increased water turbidity from construction and preconstruction activities could temporarily 

13 disturb any subsistence catch rates at the Calvert Cliffs site shoreline where impacts would 

14 occur. As discussed in Section 2.6.3, the review team has indentified subsistence fishing 

15 practices within the 50-mi region, however, none near the Calvert Cliffs shoreline. 

16 Consequently, the water-related impacts of the proposed action would be of limited magnitude, 

17 localized, and temporary. Given the distance between the location of these effects and the 

18 locations of identified minority and low-income populations, the review team determined the 

19 potential negative offsite environmental effects from impacts to water sources would be minimal, 

20 and there would be no water-related disproportionate or adverse impacts on minority and low21 income populations. 

22 4.5.2.3 Air 

23 Air emissions are expected from increased vehicle traffic, construction equipment, and fugitive 

24 dust from construction and preconstruction activities. Emissions from vehicles and construction 

25 equipment are unavoidable, but would be localized, minor, and not disproportionately located in 

26 the vicinity of identified minority and low-income populations. As discussed in Section 2.6, the 

27 review team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics or practices in the minority 

28 and low-income populations that may result in different air quality-related impacts compared to 

29 the general population. Emissions from fugitive dust would be localized within the site 

30 boundary, and dust control measures would be implemented to maintain compliance with 

31 national ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the review team determined the negative 

32 environmental effects from construction-related reductions in air quality would be small, 

33 localized, short-lived and would affect all populations in the same proportion. Therefore, the 

34 review team determined the negative environmental effects from construction- and 

35 preconstruction-related reductions in air quality would be minor, localized, and short-lived for 

36 any population in the vicinity. Consequently, the review team found no disproportionate and 

37 adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations because of changes in air quality. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-70 April 2010 

1 4.5.2.4 Noise 

2 In addition to the findings in Section 4.8 that noise impacts from construction and 

3 preconstruction activities are temporary in nature, the distance between the site and minority 

4 and low-income populations is large. In addition, with the interposing terrain and other 

5 characteristics of the Calvert Cliffs site, noise impacts are lessened. As discussed in 

6 Section 2.6 of this EIS, the review team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics 

7 or practices in the minority and low-income populations that may result in different noise-related 

8 impacts compared to the general population, so there would be no disproportionate or adverse 

9 impact on minority or low-income populations. 

10 4.5.2.5 Summary of Physical and Environmental Impacts 

11 Based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent review, the 

12 review team found no pathways from soil, water, air, and noise that would lead to 

13 disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

14 4.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts 

15 Socioeconomic impacts in Section 4.4 were reviewed to evaluate if there would be any 

16 construction and preconstruction-related activities that could have a disproportionate effect on 

17 minority or low-income populations. Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties have sufficient housing 

18 available and have experienced levels of growth such that in-migrating workers would not have 

19 a significant impact on housing prices or availability. The review team expects that traffic would 

20 increase significantly along MD 2/4 and transportation impacts would be MODERATE. While 

21 there likely would be adverse impacts on traffic, the review team did not identify any unique 

22 characteristics or practices in the low-income and minority populations that would cause a 

23 disproportionate impact. 

24 As discussed in Section 2.6, there are no minority and low-income block groups in the vicinity of 

25 the Calvert Cliffs site. The review team expects that all other potential adverse socioeconomic 

26 impacts from construction and preconstruction-related activities for Unit 3 would not affect the 

27 low-income and minority populations in the region disproportionately because there are no 

28 unique characteristics or practices among those communities that would be affected by 

29 socioeconomic impact pathways. Consequently, the review team found no disproportionate and 

30 adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations because of changes in socioeconomic 

31 conditions. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-71 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 4.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions 

2 NRC’s environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of populations of particular 

3 interest or unusual circumstances, such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on 

4 subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as Native American 

5 settlements. 

6 4.5.4.1 Subsistence 

7 As discussed in Section 2.6.1, access to the Calvert Cliffs site is restricted, which reduces any 

8 impact on plant gathering, hunting, and fishing activities at the site. Both UniStar and the NRC 

9 review team interviewed community leaders in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties in regard to 

10 subsistence practices and no such practices were found in the two counties. Though there is 

11 documented subsistence fishing on parts of the Chesapeake Bay, these areas are not in the 

12 vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. Also documented in the study is that minorities and low-income 

13 people are more prone to fish from the shoreline than other demographic groups. 

14 Consequently, because access is restricted to the shoreline near proposed Unit 3 where 

15 impacts would occur, the review team expects there would be no disproportionate adverse 

16 impacts on minority and low-income populations. The review team determined there were no 

17 construction- and preconstruction-related disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or 

18 low-income populations related to subsistence. 

19 4.5.4.2 High-Density Communities 

20 Based on the analysis in Section 2.6, the minority and low-income populations are sparsely 

21 scattered throughout Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. Although there are several towns near 

22 the Calvert Cliffs site, there are not any block groups with a significant minority population and 

23 no low-income block groups. St. Mary’s County has one census block group with aggregate 

24 minority populations, one African American census block group, and only one low-income block 

25 group. These settlement patterns were confirmed for the review team through a series of 

26 interviews with minority leaders and social service agency representatives in Calvert and 

27 St. Mary’s Counties. Based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s 

28 independent review, the review team found no impact pathways from subsistence practices or 

29 to high-density communities. Consequently, the review team found no disproportionate and 

30 adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations because of affects on high-density 

31 communities. 

32 4.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts 

33 The review team has evaluated the proposed construction and preconstruction activities related 

34 to building proposed Units 3 and the potential environmental justice impacts in the vicinity and 

35 region. The review team determined there are no environmental pathways by which the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-72 April 2010 

1 identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to suffer 

2 disproportionate and adverse environmental or health impacts as a result of construction and 

3 preconstruction activities; therefore, environmental justice impacts would be SMALL, and no 

4 additional mitigation would be warranted beyond which UniStar has outlined in its ER. Based 

5 on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a 

6 portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes there are no environmental pathways 

7 by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to 

8 suffer disproportionate and adverse environmental or health impacts as a result of the NRC9 authorized construction activities. Therefore, environmental justice impacts would be SMALL. 

10 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 

11 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires Federal agencies 

12 to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural environment, which 

13 includes archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places important to local 

14 populations. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), also requires 

15 Federal agencies to consider impacts to those resources if they are eligible for listing on the 

16 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (such resources are referred to as “Historic 

17 Properties” in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National 

18 Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” the NRC coordinated compliance with Section 106 of the 

19 NHPA in meeting the requirements of NEPA. 

20 Building, operation, and decommissioning of new power units can affect either known or 

21 undiscovered cultural resources. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of NHPA and 

22 NEPA, the review team must make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic 

23 properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and, if present, determine if any significant 

24 impacts are likely to occur. Identification is to occur in consultation with the State Historic 

25 Preservation Officer (SHPO), American Indian Tribes, interested parties, and the public. If 

26 significant impacts are possible, efforts should be made to mitigate them. As part of the 

27 NEPA/NHPA integration, if no historic properties (i.e., places eligible for listing on the NRHP) 

28 are present or affected, the NRC staff must notify the SHPO before proceeding. If it is 

29 determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is required to assess and resolve 

30 adverse effects of the undertaking. 

31 For specific historic and cultural resource information on the Calvert Cliffs site, see Section 2.7. 

32 As explained in Section 2.7, previous cultural resource identification efforts indicated the 

33 presence of 17 archaeological sites, one of which is eligible for listing in the NRHP under 

34 criteria D (18CV474). Five architectural resources were also identified, four of which are 

35 considered eligible for the NRHP listing under criteria A or A and C. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-73 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Having received Phase I and Phase II archaeological investigations of the proposed area to be 

2 disturbed, the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) wrote to the Corps on February 13, 2009, with its 

3 review of the Phase II cultural investigations (MHT 2009). Based on information in the Phase II 

4 cultural investigations report, the MHT concurred with the recommendation of GAI Consultants, 

5 Inc. (GAI) that sites 18CV481, 18CV482, and 18CV480 do not meet the criteria for eligibility in 

6 the National Register given their loss of integrity and inability to yield additional information. 

7 Archaeological site 18CV474 has retained much of its integrity and has the potential to yield 

8 significant information regarding domestic agricultural sites in nineteenth century southern 

9 Maryland. UniStar and GAI have recommended site 18CV474 as eligible for listing in the 

10 National Register under Criterion D, and, if possible, the site should be preserved in place. 

11 The MHT concurred with UniStar and GAI that site 18CV474 is eligible for inclusion in the 

12 National Register (MHT 2009). 

13 In its letter dated, February 13, 2009, the MHT stated “the expansion of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear 

14 Power Plant, as currently proposed, would result in the destruction of site 18CV474 and would 

15 constitute an adverse effect on this significant archaeological resource.” The MHT 

16 recommended that the Corps and UniStar continue to coordinate with the Trust on ways to 

17 avoid or mitigate the adverse effect. If site avoidance is not possible, UniStar would need to 

18 provide the Trust with documentation detailing the constraints and providing justification as to 

19 why site 18CV474 cannot be avoided during project activities. If site avoidance is not possible, 

20 the SHPO indicated that Phase III data recovery investigations would be warranted to mitigate 

21 the undertaking’s adverse effect on the archaeological property (MHT 2009). The parties 

22 (Corps, SHPO and UniStar) would then need to execute the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

23 that stipulates the agreed-upon mitigation measures, including the Phase III investigations, 

24 methods of public outreach and interpretation, and the curation of all artifacts and materials 

25 generated by the investigations conducted at site 18CV474 (USACE 2010). 

26 The MHT reviewed the recommendations in the Phase II report for the historic built 

27 environment. In its letter dated February 13, 2009, the Trust concluded that the proposed 

28 power plant would not adversely affect Parran’s Park (CT-58) or Preston’s Cliffs (CT-59). The 

29 report also finds that the proposed work would require the alteration and demolition of portions 

30 of the Drum Point Railroad Bed (CT-1295) and Camp Conoy (CT-1312). The Trust agrees that 

31 these changes would constitute an adverse effect to historical properties CT-1295 and CT-1312 

32 (MHT 2009). 

33 In a letter dated May 22, 2009, UniStar provided a draft mitigation summary for NRHP eligible 

34 historical properties, and on June 25, 2009, draft mitigation plans for Camp Conoy (CT-1312) 

35 and the Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad (CT-1295) were submitted to the Corps and the MHT. 

36 Mitigation of adverse effects in the draft mitigation summary for CT-1312 consisted of archival 

37 research, fieldwork that will contain a site plan map, measured drawings of each of Camp 

38 Conoy’s contributing buildings, and photographic and written documentation of the contributing 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-74 April 2010 

1 buildings, as well as the preparation of a separate reader-friendly report and public outreach. 

2 Mitigation of adverse effects in the draft mitigation summary for CT-1295 consisted of archival 

3 research and fieldwork that will contain topographic surveys of the rail bed within the project 

4 APE, measured drawings of the rail bed, and photographic and written documentation, as well 

5 as the preparation of a separate reader-friendly report and public outreach. 

6 On July 8, 2009, UniStar submitted the Data Recovery Plan for Site 18CV474. The data 

7 recovery study will include archival research, archaeological fieldwork that will consist of metal 

8 detector survey, site contour mapping, recordation of the house foundation, unit excavations, 

9 and mechanical and/or hand-stripping of excavation blocks, as well as preparing the Phase II 

10 data recovery technical report and a public outreach component such as public speaking and/or 

11 artifact exhibits. 

12 In September 2009, the MHT drafted a MOA among the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 

13 Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer and UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC, Pursuant 

14 to 36 CFR 800 and 33 CFR Part 325 Appendix C regarding the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

15 Plant, Calvert County, Maryland (MHT 2009). The MOA stipulates the mitigation requirements 

16 for the CCNPP Unit 3 expansion project. The Maryland SHPO specifically stated that for 

17 historic buildings/structures, mitigation measures may include use of vegetative buffers to 

18 minimize visual effects, moving, rather than demolishing, historic buildings, or study, survey, 

19 and repair of historic resources that are similar to those that must be demolished. For 

20 archaeological sites, mitigation measures stipulated in the MOA include Phase III (data 

21 recovery) investigations, methods of public outreach and interpretation, and the curation of all 

22 artifacts and materials generated by the investigation. The Corps will verify that UniStar 

23 implements the measures in order to mitigate the project’s adverse effects on archaeological 

24 site 18CV474, the Drum Point Railroad Bed (CT-1295), and Camp Conoy (CT-1312) in 

25 accordance with the time frames and stipulations established in the MOA. The MOA was 

26 signed by the Corps, UniStar and MHT on March 16, 2010 (USACE 2010). 

27 The MHT reviewed UniStar’s plans for a proposed outfall pipe related to Unit 3 and concurred 

28 that the proposed outfall pipe project is unlikely to impact any significant cultural resources. The 

29 MHT believes that the portion of the CCNPP that includes the proposed outfall pipe possesses 

30 no archaeological research potential, and further archaeological investigations are not 

31 warranted for Section 106 purposes (MHT 2009). 

32 4.6.1 Summary of Impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources 

33 For the purposes of NHPA Section 106 consultation (36 CFR Section 800), based on (1) the 

34 measures that UniStar would take to avoid adverse impacts to significant cultural resources 

35 during construction and preconstruction activities, (2) the review team’s cultural resource 

36 analysis and consultation, and (3) UniStar’s commitment to follow its procedures should ground37 disturbing activities discover cultural or historic resources, the review team concludes a finding 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-75 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 of historic properties are affected, and mitigation is required to resolve adverse effects. Unit 3 

2 building activities would adversely affect three National Register listed/eligible historic properties 

3 including two historic buildings/structures (Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad (CT-1259) and 

4 Camp Conoy (CT-1312)) and one archaeological site (18CV474). The SHPO requested a MOA 

5 be prepared between UniStar, the Corps, and the Maryland SHPO that stipulates agreed-upon 

6 mitigation measures appropriate to each property (MHT 2009) and that MOA was signed on 

7 March 16, 2010 (USACE 2010) by the Corps, Unistar, and MHT. 

8 The process of clearing and excavating the site for the proposed Unit 3 would demolish historic 

9 and archaeological resources, which would adversely affect the intrinsic attributes that 

10 contribute to their cultural significance and eligibility for the NRHP as significant historic 

11 properties, rendering them ineligible for listing. However, even though the resources would be 

12 adversely affected, the process identified in the MOA would ensure that the adverse impacts 

13 would be mitigated through data recovery investigations and documentation of artifacts and 

14 other archaeological data recovered from site 18CV474 and appropriate archival research, 

15 mapping, and photographic documentation of the significant architectural resources at Camp 

16 Conoy and the Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad. The MOA defines the appropriate mitigation 

17 for each historic property based on the unique attributes that contribute to that property’s NRHP 

18 eligibility. Preconstruction activities would have adverse impacts on Baltimore & Drum Point 

19 Railroad and Camp Conoy, and 18CV474. 

20 For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, based on the loss of three eligible NRHP 

21 properties within the APE and the Corps’ cultural resource analysis and consultation, the Corps’ 

22 concludes with a finding of historic properties adversely affected (36 CFR Section 800.5(d)(2)). 

23 For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC concludes with 

24 a finding of historic properties adversely affected based on the loss of archaeological site 

25 18CV474 within the APE from construction activites. 

26 To ensure it meets its obligation to comply with NHPA through the NEPA process as described 

27 in 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC staff has reviewed the mitigation plans identified in the MOA, 

28 particularly the Data Recovery Plan for the 18CV474 site, and determined that no additional 

29 mitigation is necessary beyond the conditions of the MOA signed by the Corps, MHT, and 

30 UniStar (USACE 2010). In the event of that an unanticipated discovery is made, site personnel 

31 would be instructed to notify NRC and consult with the Corps and MHT in conducting an 

32 assessment of the discovery to determine if additional coordination is warranted (USACE 2010). 

33 For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, based on information provided by 

34 UniStar, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

35 impacts from the construction and preconstruction activities of proposed Unit 3 to cultural 

36 resources at the Calvert Cliffs site and vicinity would be LARGE because the work associated 

37 with the proposed project would have an adverse effect on Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-76 April 2010 

1 (CT-1259) by demolition, Camp Conoy (CT-1312) by destruction of contributing buildings, and 

2 archaeological site 18CV474 by destruction. 

3 The NRC staff concludes that almost all the impact on cultural resources would be the result of 

4 preconstruction activities. Based on the this information, the NRC staff concludes that the 

5 cultural resources impacts of NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL. The impacts on 

6 historic and cultural resources will be discussed by the NRC staff in the cumulative impacts 

7 analysis in Chapter 7 of this EIS. 

8 4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts 

9 Section 2.9 describes the meteorological characteristics and air quality of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

10 The primary impacts of building a new unit on local meteorology and air quality would be from 

11 dust from land-clearing and building activities, open burning, emissions from equipment and 

12 machinery, concrete batch plant operations, and emissions from vehicles used to transport 

13 workers and materials to and from the site. 

14 UniStar includes a brief discussion of the impacts of construction of proposed Unit 3 on air 

15 quality in the ER (UniStar 2009a). A more extensive discussion of the impacts of construction 

16 on air quality was provided in its submission to the Maryland DNR in support of the application 

17 for a CPCN (UniStar 2008c), which is required before UniStar can start construction. In 

18 response to the CPCN application, the Maryland PPRP conducted an extensive review for 

19 Maryland DNR of the UniStar submittal (MDNR PPRP 2008). The review team’s review of the 

20 impacts of construction of proposed Unit 3 draws from the UniStar submittal and the PPRP draft 

21 review of that submittal, as well as from the ER. 

22 4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities 

23 The UniStar submittal to Maryland DNR (UniStar 2008c) includes a listing of activities and 

24 equipment used in building the plant by construction year. From this listing, UniStar estimates 

25 equipment emissions for the year of maximum emissions. The PPRP reviewed the UniStar 

26 activity and equipment usage estimates and performed an independent assessment of the 

27 emissions using current EPA emissions factors and models. The second year of the project is 

28 expected to result in the most emissions. 

29 Table 4-8 lists the PPRP estimates of annual emissions for criteria pollutants during the second 

30 year of the project period. The PPRP emissions estimates are consistent with the emissions 

31 estimated by UniStar. The PPRP concluded that the sum of air quality monitoring data and 

32 modeling of projected emissions did not show any exceedance of National Ambient Air Quality 

33 Standards (MDNR PPRP 2008). The review team has reviewed both the UniStar and PPRP 

34 emissions estimates and concludes that the estimates are reasonable for the purposes of the 

35 environmental review. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-77 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 4-8. Worst Year (Year Two) Annual Construction Emissions (Tons/yr) 

Source Total PM(a) PM10

(b) PM2.5(c) NOx(d) CO(e) VOC(f) SO2(g) 

Construction Vehicles 4.9 4.9 4.9 165.3 54.9 12.3 6.6 

Vehicle Travel–Unpaved and 

Paved Roads 

59.3 14.6 1.5 

Disturbed Earth Movement 10.9 5.2 1.5 

Wind Erosion 6.6 6.6 6.6 

Aggregate Movement 0.3 0.2 

Concrete Batch Plant 2.3 1.4 

Total 84.3 32.8 16.1 165.3 54.9 12.3 6.6 

(a) particulate matter 

(b) particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

(c) particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(d) oxides of nitrogen 

(e) carbon monoxide 

(f) volatile organic compounds 

(g) sulfur dioxide 

2 In making the emissions estimates, UniStar and the PPRP assumed that a number of measures 

3 would be taken to minimize emissions. These measures include: 

4 • Using gravel to stabilize construction roads, parking lots, and laydown areas 

5 • Applying water to unpaved and exposed areas daily 

6 • Using a high-efficiency baghouse or equivalent technology at the concrete batch plant 

7 • Using equipment with EPA-compliant diesel engines. 

8 Emissions associated with building Unit 3 would be similar to emissions associated with any 

9 large building project. The emissions include dust from a variety of activities, emissions from 

10 equipment, emissions from painting and similar operations, and emissions from workers’ 

11 vehicles. These emissions and any potential impact from them are generally localized and 

12 temporary. Section 4.4.1.3 of the ER (UniStar 2009a) discusses measures that UniStar intends 

13 to implement to mitigate the impacts of construction on air quality. These measures include 

14 compliance with air quality control regulations, emissions monitoring, dust control programs, and 

15 routine vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. In addition, the CPCN issued by the 

16 Maryland PSC contains general air quality requirements related to construction. 

17 Preoperational activities will also result in greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide 

18 (CO2). Assuming a 7-year construction period and typical construction practices, the review 

19 team estimates that the total construction equipment CO2 emission footprint for building one 

20 nuclear power plant at the Calvert Cliffs site would be of the order of 35,000 metric tons, as 

21 compared to a total United States annual CO2 emission rate of 6,000,000,000 metric tons (EPA 

22 2009). Appendix L provides the details of the review team estimate for a reference 1000 MW(e) 

23 nuclear power plant. Based on its assessment of the relatively small construction equipment 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-78 April 2010 

1 carbon footprint as compared to the United States annual CO2 emissions, the review team 

2 concludes that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from construction and 

3 preconstruction activities would not be noticeable, and additional mitigation would not be 

4 warranted. 

5 In general, emissions from construction and preconstruction activities (including greenhouse 

6 gases) would vary based on the level and duration of a specific activity, but the overall impact is 

7 expected to be temporary and limited in magnitude. Considering the information provided by 

8 UniStar, the analysis of potential impacts of proposed Unit 3 conducted by Maryland DNR’s 

9 PPRP, and measures that UniStar intends to implement to mitigate the impacts of construction 

10 on air quality, the review team concludes that the impacts from Unit 3 construction and 

11 preconstruction activities on air quality would not be noticeable because appropriate mitigation 

12 measures would be adopted. 

13 4.7.2 Transportation 

14 In the ER, UniStar (2009a) estimates the maximum construction workforce for proposed Unit 3 

15 would be about 3950 workers during the peak 12-month period, which would occur at the end of 

16 the fourth year and beginning of the fifth year of construction. Combined with the workers for 

17 existing Units 1 and 2 and outage workers, the total work force onsite could temporarily reach a 

18 maximum of about 5800 workers. While many of these workers would be doing shift work, there 

19 would be a significant increase in traffic during this period. 

20 The primary access roads to the Calvert Cliffs site would be likely to experience a significant 

21 increase in traffic during shift changes that could lead to periods of congestion. Stopped 

22 vehicles with idling engines would lead to increased emissions beyond what would occur from 

23 normal vehicle operation alone. However, the overall impact caused by increased traffic volume 

24 and congestion is difficult to estimate because timing of construction activities, shifts, and exact 

25 worker residence locations is largely unknown. 

26 UniStar (2009a) has proposed several measures, such as installing new site perimeter and 

27 access roads, conducting a traffic impact assessment (TIA), and developing a traffic 

28 management plan to limit the adverse impacts of increased traffic due to construction. 

29 Additional measures that are typically used to reduce traffic include encouraging car pools, 

30 establishing central parking and shuttling services to and from the construction site, and 

31 staggering shift changes for operating personnel, outage workers, and construction workers. 

32 Construction workforce transportation will also result in greenhouse gas emissions, principally 

33 carbon dioxide (CO2). Assuming a 7-year construction period and a typical workforce, the 

34 review team estimates that the total construction workforce CO2 emission footprint for building 

35 one nuclear power plant at the Calvert Cliffs site would be of the order of 150,000 metric tons; 

36 again, this is compared to a total United States annual CO2 emission rate of 6,000,000,000 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-79 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 metric tons (EPA 2009). Appendix L provides the details of the review team estimate for a 

2 reference 1000 MW(e) nuclear power plant. Based on its assessment of the relatively small 

3 construction workforce carbon footprint as compared to the United States annual CO2

4 emissions, the review team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from 

5 construction workforce transportation would not be noticeable, and additional mitigation would 

6 not be warranted.Based on UniStar’s proposed mitigation measures, including conducting a TIA 

7 and developing a traffic management plan and other measures that are available to reduce 

8 traffic; the results of the PPRP analysis of the air quality impacts of Unit 3 construction; and the 

9 review team’s evaluation, the review team concludes that the impact on the local air quality (and 

10 greenhouse gas emissions) from the increase in vehicular traffic related to construction and 

11 preconstruction activities would be temporary and would not be noticeable because appropriate 

12 mitigation measures would be adopted. 

13 4.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts 

14 The review team evaluated potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 

15 and greenhouse gas emissions during Unit 3 site development activities. The review team 

16 determined that the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the review team concludes that 

17 the impacts of Unit 3 site development on air quality from emissions of criteria pollutants and 

18 CO2 emissions would be SMALL. Because NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

19 only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impacts of 

20 NRC-authorized construction activities would also be SMALL. Notwithstanding these SMALL 

21 impacts to air quality, the NRC staff will perform a Clean Air Act Section 176 air conformity 

22 applicability analysis pursuant to 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, to determine whether additional 

23 mitigation may be warranted. 

24 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

25 Nonradiological health impacts to the public and workers from construction and preconstruction 

26 activities include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, and noise, as well 

27 as the transport of materials and personnel to and from the site. The area around the proposed 

28 Unit 3 site is predominantly rural with a large tourism base and a population of approximately 

29 41,000 people within 10 mi of the site (UniStar 2009a). The nearest accessible area is 

30 approximately 1 mi from the site preparation and development area for proposed Unit 3, and the 

31 nearest residence is approximately 1.1 mi from existing Units 1 and 2 (Constellation 2007). The 

32 land surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site is zoned residential, rural community, farm, and forest, 

33 as well as commercial and light industrial depending on the direction. The Chesapeake Bay is 

34 adjacent to the site to the east (UniStar 2009a). People who are vulnerable to nonradiological 

35 health impacts from construction and preconstruction activities include construction workers and 

36 personnel working at the proposed Unit 3 site; people working or living in the vicinity or adjacent 

37 to the site; and transient populations in the vicinity (i.e., temporary employees, recreational 

38 visitors, tourists). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-80 April 2010 

1 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health 

2 This section discusses the impacts of building proposed Unit 3 on public nonradiological health 

3 and the impacts from site preparation and development on worker nonradiological health. 

4 Section 2.10 provides background information on the affected environment and nonradiological 

5 health at and within the vicinity of the proposed Unit 3 site. 

6 4.8.1.1 Public Health 

7 UniStar stated in its ER that the physical impacts to the public from development activities at the 

8 Calvert Cliffs site would include inhalation of dust and vehicle exhaust as sources of air pollution 

9 during site preparation (UniStar 2009a). Operational controls would be imposed to mitigate 

10 fugitive dust emissions, such as stabilizing roads and spoils piles, periodically watering unpaved 

11 roads, and re-vegetating road medians and slopes (UniStar 2009a). 

12 Engine exhaust would be minimized by maintaining fuel-burning equipment in good mechanical 

13 order. UniStar (2009a) stated that applicable Federal, State, and local emission requirements 

14 would be followed to as they relate to open burning or the operation of fuel-burning equipment. 

15 The appropriate Federal, State, and local permits and operating certificates would be obtained 

16 as required. 

17 There would be no general public access to the proposed Unit 3 site, and as discussed in 

18 Section 2.10, the nearest residence is approximately 3000 ft from the site (UniStar 2008a). 

19 Given the fugitive dust suppression and vehicle exhaust emission mitigation measures 

20 discussed above and the general public’s distance away from the site, the review team expects 

21 that the impacts to nonradiological public health from construction and preconstruction activities 

22 would be negligible. 

23 4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health 

24 As discussed in Section 2.10, human health risks for construction workers and personnel 

25 working onsite to build the proposed unit and associated onsite transmission lines are expected 

26 to be dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, asphyxiation) to workers 

27 engaged in activities such as building, maintenance, and excavation. Historically, actual injury 

28 and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average U.S. industrial 

29 rates. 

30 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS 2007), injury rates drop significantly for 

31 large building projects such as nuclear power facilities. The reports take into account 

32 occupational injuries and illnesses as total recordable cases, which include those cases that 

33 result in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted work activity or job 

34 transfer, or medical treatment beyond first aid. The review team estimated the annual number of 

35 recordable cases based on U.S. recordable rates for the years 2003 to 2007, the overall injury-
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-81 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 only rate for utility construction (the number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers) 

2 ranged from 4.6 to 6.7 compared to 1.2 to 3.0 for similar projects with 1000 or more workers 

3 (USBLS 2008a, b). UniStar (2009a) reports that the average construction workforce for Unit 3 

4 would be approximately 3000 workers during a 86-month period with a peak workforce of 

5 approximately 4000. Based on this assessment, an estimated 200 occupational illnesses or 

6 injuries could occur each year. 

7 Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and OSHA safety 

8 standards, practices, and procedures. Appropriate State and local statutes also must be 

9 considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks associated with building. 

10 The review team expects that UniStar would fully adhere to NRC, OSHA, and State safety 

11 standards, practices, and procedures during any activities related to site preparation/excavation 

12 or building the proposed facility. UniStar states that a safety and medical program will be 

13 provided for workers, and all contractors and site staff must comply with site safety, fire, 

14 radiation, security policies, procedures, safe work practices, and State and Federal regulations 

15 (UniStar 2009a). These actions would help minimize or prevent injury, illness, and death. 

16 Other nonradiological impacts to workers who are clearing land or building the facility discussed 

17 in this section include noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from site 

18 preparation and development activities. Operational controls and practices discussed in the 

19 previous section are mitigation measures that also reduce impacts to worker health. Onsite 

20 impacts to workers would be mitigated through training and use of personal protective 

21 equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures. Emergency first-aid care and 

22 regular health and safety monitoring of personnel also could be undertaken. 

23 4.8.1.3 Summary of Public and Construction Worker Health Impacts 

24 Based on mitigation measures identified by UniStar in its ER, adherence to permits and 

25 authorizations required by State and local agencies, and the review team’s independent 

26 evaluation, the review team concludes that the nonradiological health impacts to the public and 

27 to workers would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

28 4.8.2 Noise Impacts 

29 Development of a nuclear power plant is similar to other large industrial projects and it involves 

30 many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing noise from activities are generally 

31 limited to worker health. Federal regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR 

32 Part 1910 and 40 CFR Part 204. The regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 address noise exposure 

33 in the construction environment, and the regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally govern the 

34 noise levels of compressors. The State of Maryland’s noise regulations govern the time periods 

35 when noises can occur and the vibration intensity beyond the site preparation and development 

36 site boundaries (COMAR 2007). Calvert County does not have specific noise regulations. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-82 April 2010 

1 The ER (UniStar 2009a) indicates that activities associated with development of proposed 

2 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would have peak noise levels in the 93- to 108-dBA range. A 

3 10-dBA decrease in noise level is generally perceived as cutting the volume in half. At a 

4 distance of 50 ft from the source, these peak noise levels would generally decrease to the 73- to 

5 102-dBA range and, at distance of 3000 ft, the noise levels would generally be in the 38- to 

6 67-dBA range. UniStar notes that the nearest resident lives about 3000 ft from the construction 

7 footprint (UniStar 2008a). For context, Tipler (1982) lists the sound intensity of a quiet office as 

8 50 dBA, normal conversation as 60 dBA, busy traffic as 70 dBA, and a noisy office with 

9 machines or an average factory as 80 dBA. Construction noise (at 10 ft) is listed as 110 dBA, 

10 and the pain threshold is 120 dBA. 

11 Site preparation and development activities would be expected to take place 24 hours per day, 

12 7 days per week during peak building periods. UniStar has stated that it will comply with 

13 Federal and State regulations. In addition, the ER (UniStar 2009a) lists a number of measures 

14 and good practices that could be taken to reduce potential adverse effects of noise. Among the 

15 measures are use of hearing protection, inspection and maintenance of equipment, noise 

16 limiting devices on vehicles and equipment, shielding high noise sources near their origin, 

17 restriction of noise-related activities to daylight hours, and restriction of delivery times to daylight 

18 hours. 

According to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) 19 , noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are 

20 considered to be of small significance. As discussed in Section 2.10, it is unlikely that noise 

21 levels would be greater than 60 dBA at the nearest residence. More recently, the impacts of 

22 noise were considered in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The criterion for assessing 

23 the level of significance was not expressed in terms of sound levels, but was based on the effect 

24 of noise on human activities and on threatened and endangered species. The criterion in 

25 NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002), is stated as follows: 

26 The noise impacts of decommissioning ... are considered detectable if sound 

27 levels are sufficiently high to disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. 

28 The noise impacts ... 

29 are considered destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected 

30 area is essentially unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or 

31 breeding of a threatened and endangered species is affected. 

32 Based on the temporary nature of peak construction activities, good noise control practices, 

33 limiting of most noise-producing activities to daylight hours, the location and characteristics 

34 (terrain and vegetation) of the Calvert Cliffs site that provide sound attenuation, and the distance 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999. 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-83 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 to the nearest residence, the review team concludes that the noise impacts from building 

2 proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

3 4.8.3 Transporting Construction Materials and Personnel to the Proposed Site 

4 This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and construction materials to and from the 

5 proposed Unit 3 site from the perspective of three areas of impact: the socioeconomic impacts, 

6 the air quality impacts of fugitive dust and particulate matter emitted by vehicle traffic, and the 

7 potential health impacts due to additional traffic-related accidents. The human health impacts 

8 are addressed in this section, while the socioeconomic impacts are addressed in Section 4.4.1, 

9 and the air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7.2. 

10 The general approach used to calculate nonradiological impacts of fuel and waste shipments is 

11 the same as that used for transportation of construction materials and construction personnel to 

12 and from the proposed Unit 3 site. The assumptions made to provide reasonable estimates of 

13 the parameters needed to calculate nonradiological impacts are discussed below. 

UniStar estimated that building a new 1300-MW unit requires up to 182,900 yd3 14 of concrete 

15 20,500 tons of structural steel and rebar; 6.5 million linear ft of cable: and 275,000 linear ft of 

16 piping (UniStar 2009a). These quantities were used to estimate the nonradiological impacts of 

17 shipping the necessary materials to the proposed Unit 3 site. Additional information needed to 

18 develop the nonradiological impact estimates are as follows: 

• The review team assumed that shipment capacities are approximately 13 yd3 19 of concrete 

20 per shipment, 11 tons of structural steel, and 3300 linear ft of piping and cable per shipment. 

21 It was assumed that these materials would be transported to the site in a levelized manner 

22 over a 6-year period based on the schedule outlined in the ER (UniStar 2009a). 

23 • The applicant estimated the number of workers to peak at 3950 (UniStar 2009a). This value 

24 represents the peak workforce for the single unit. At an average of 1.8 persons per vehicle, 

25 consistent with assumed vehicle occupancies used in a previous site evaluation (NRC 

26 2008), there would be about 2200 vehicles per day. Each person was assumed to travel to 

27 and from the proposed Unit 3 site 250 days per year. 

28 • Average shipping distances for building materials were assumed by the review team to be 

29 50 mi one way based on the region of influence. The average commute distance for 

30 construction workers was assumed by the review team to be 20 mi one way. This is based 

31 on U.S. DOT data that estimates the typical commute distance is 16 mi. (DOT 2003). 

32 • The review team assumed the average shipping distance for construction materials to be 

33 50 mi one way, and the average commuting distance for construction workers to be 20 mi 

34 one way. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-84 April 2010 

1 • Accident, injury, and fatality rates for transporting building materials were taken from Table 4 

2 in ANL/ESD/TM-150 State-level Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: A 

3 Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Rates for the State of Maryland were used 

4 for material shipments, typically conducted in heavy-combination trucks. The data provided 

5 in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) are representative of heavy-truck accident rates and do not 

6 specifically address the impacts associated with commuter traffic (i.e., workers traveling to 

7 and from the site). However, a single source that provided all three rates to estimate the 

8 impacts from worker transportation to/from the site was not available. To develop 

9 representative commuter traffic impacts, data from the U.S. Department of Transportation 

10 (DOT) (DOT 2008a) was accessed to provide a Maryland-specific fatality rate for all traffic 

11 from 2001 through 2006. This average fatality rate was used as the base for estimating 

12 Maryland-specific injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were developed using 

13 national-level traffic accident statistics in National Transportation Statistics 2007 (DOT 

14 2007). The adjustment factors are the ratio of the national injury rate to the national fatality 

15 rate and the ratio of the national accident rate to the national fatality rate. These adjustment 

16 factors were multiplied by the Maryland-specific fatality rate to approximate the injury and 

17 accident rates for commuters in Maryland. 

18 • The DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration evaluated the data underlying the 

19 Saricks and Tompkins (1999) rates, which was taken from the Motor Carrier Management 

20 Information System, and determined that the rates were under-reported. Therefore, the 

21 accident, injury, and fatality rates in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were adjusted using 

22 factors derived from data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research 

23 Institute (UMTRI) (UMTRI 2003). The UMTRI data indicate accident rates for 1994 to 1996, 

24 the same data used by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 

25 percent. Injury and fatality rates were under-reported by 16 percent and 36 percent, 

26 respectively. As a result, the accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 

27 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, respectively, to account for the apparent under-reporting. These 

28 adjustments were applied to the materials, which are transported by heavy truck shipments 

29 similar to those evaluated by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), but not to commuter traffic 

30 accidents. 

31 The estimated nonradiological impacts of transporting materials to the proposed Unit 3 site and 

32 of transporting workers to/from the site are illustrated in Table 4-9. Based on Table 4-9, the 

33 nonradiological transportation impacts are dominated by the transportation of construction 

34 workers to and from the proposed Unit 3 site. The estimated total annual fatalities related to 

35 building the facility represents about a 1 percent increase above the 21 traffic fatalities that 

36 occurred in Calvert County, Maryland, in 2006 (DOT 2008b). This increase is minor relative to 

37 the current traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site. 

38 Based on the information provided by UniStar, the review team’s independent evaluation, and 

39 considering the number of shipments of building materials and the number of workers that 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-85 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 would be transported to the site, the review team concludes that the total nonradiological health 

2 impacts from transporting building materials and personnel to the proposed Unit 3 site would be 

3 minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

4 Table 4-9. Estimated Impacts of Transporting Workers and Materials to and from the 

5 Proposed Unit 3 Site 

Accidents per Yr 

Per Unit 

Injuries per Yr 

Per Unit 

Fatalities per Yr 

Per Unit 

Workers 3.7 x 10+1 1.7 x 10+1 2.5 x 10−1

Materials 

Concrete 2.9 x 10−1

 2.4 x 10−1 7.9 x 10−3

Rebar, Structural Steel 3.9 x 10−2

 3.2 x 10−2 1.0 x 10−3

Cable 4.1 x 10−2

 3.4 x 10−2 1.1 x 10−3

Piping 1.8 x 10−3

 1.4 x 10−3 4.7 x 10−5

Total - Construction 3.8 x 10+1 1.7 x 10+1 2.6 x 10−1

6 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts 

7 As part of its evaluation on nonradiological health impacts, the review team considered the 

8 mitigation measures identified by UniStar in its ER and relevant permits and authorizations 

9 required by State and local agencies for building proposed Unit 3. The team evaluated impacts 

10 to public health and to the construction workers from fugitive dust, occupational injuries, noise, 

11 and transport of materials and personnel to and from the proposed Unit 3 site. No significant 

12 impacts related to the nonradiological health of the public or workers were identified during the 

13 course of this review. Based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s 

14 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the nonradiological health impacts of 

15 construction and preconstruction activities associated with proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL, 

16 and no further mitigation would be warranted. Based on the above analysis, and because NRC17 authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC 

18 staff concludes that the nonradiological health impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities 

19 would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no further mitigation measures, beyond 

20 the UniStar’s commitments, would be warranted. 

21 4.9 Radiological Exposure to Construction Workers 

22 The sources of radiation exposure for construction workers include direct radiation exposure, 

23 exposure from liquid radioactive effluents, and exposure from gaseous radioactive effluents 

24 from the existing Units 1 and 2 during site preparation and construction of proposed Unit 3. For 

25 the purposes of this discussion, construction workers are assumed to be members of the public 

26 rather than occupational workers; therefore, the dose estimates are compared to the dose limits 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-86 April 2010 

1 for the public, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D. UniStar (2008a) noted that all major 

2 building activities are expected to occur outside the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 protected area 

3 boundary, but inside the site boundary. 

4 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures 

5 In its ER (UniStar 2009a), UniStar identified three sources of direct radiation exposure from 

6 nuclear facilities within the Calvert Cliffs site: (1) the reactor buildings for existing Units 1 and 2, 

7 (2) the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), and (3) the interim resin storage area 

8 (IRSA). The ISFSI and the IRSA are identified as the primary sources of direct radiation 

9 exposure to proposed Unit 3 construction workers. Any direct radiation from existing Units 1 

10 and 2 would be included in the estimates from the ISFSI and IRSA, which are closer to the 

11 proposed Unit 3 construction workers. Direct radiation from the old steam generator storage 

12 facility was determined to not be a significant source of dose to the construction workers. The 

13 review team did not identify any additional sources of direct radiation during the site visit or 

14 during document reviews. 

15 UniStar used fenceline thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and environmental TLDs to 

16 measure direct radiation levels at locations in and around the Calvert Cliffs site protected area 

17 (UniStar 2009a). TLDs were placed at the protected area fences for the ISFSI and IRSA. 

18 Environmental TLDs are located in two rings around the Calvert Cliffs site, an inner ring near the 

19 site boundary, and an outer ring (3.7 to 5 mi) from the plant (Constellation 2005; 2007). These 

20 TLDs are read quarterly and measure the contribution to dose from any source, including 

21 natural background, the current reactor buildings, ISFSI, IRSA, and the old steam generator 

22 storage facility. 

23 UniStar estimated the maximum direct radiation dose a construction worker would receive. The 

24 location with the highest direct radiation dose rate a construction worker would receive is the 

25 road adjacent to the ISFSI and IRSA. The estimated dose at this location for a 2200-hour work 

26 year (2000-hour work year plus 10 percent overtime) would be 38.2 mrem. This dose rate was 

27 based on the ISFSI loading for the year 2015. This also conservatively assumes that the 

28 construction worker is at this location for the entire work year. No other area where building 

29 occurs would receive a higher direct radiation dose rate. 

30 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents 

31 Gaseous radioactive effluents from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 are released at the plant stacks 

32 (UniStar 2009a). They consist of effluents from the waste gas processing system; the 

33 containment purge and vents and the main condenser air evacuation exhaust; and discharges 

34 from the fuel pool building, the radwaste building, and the nuclear auxiliary building (UniStar 

35 2009a; Constellation 2005). UniStar estimated the dose to construction workers using 2006 

36 gaseous effluent data. The estimated maximum annual total effective dose equivalent to a 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-87 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 construction worker from gaseous effluents was 1.55 mrem/yr for a worker at the shoreline near 

2 the barge slip (shoreline/tunnel/barge/in-out-flow worker). The dose from gaseous effluents to 

3 the worker at the location for the highest direct radiation dose would be 0.53 mrem. Therefore, 

4 the estimated dose to a construction worker from gaseous effluents would be small compared to 

5 the dose from direct radiation. 

6 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents 

7 Liquid radioactive effluents discharged to the Chesapeake Bay were evaluated for their 

8 contribution to the total effective dose equivalent to construction workers (UniStar 2009a). The 

9 principal exposure pathway to a construction worker would be direct exposure to the Bay water 

10 and shoreline sediments. UniStar analyzed the maximum dose to a construction worker, 

11 assuming the liquid effluents were released at the shoreline. The estimated total effective dose 

12 equivalent for a worker spending 2200 hours at the shoreline would not exceed 0.08 mrem in 

13 that scenario. The liquid effluents are actually discharged 850 ft away from the shoreline, and 

14 the effective dilution was not considered for conservatism. Therefore, the estimated dose to 

15 construction workers from liquid effluents would be negligible compared to the dose from direct 

16 radiation exposure. 

17 4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers 

18 The maximum annual dose to a construction worker was estimated to be 38.8 mrem, which is 

19 the sum of three pathways—(1) direct radiation (38.2 mrem), (2) gaseous effluents (0.53 mrem), 

20 and (3) liquid effluents (< 0.08 mrem). This estimated maximum dose would occur at the road 

21 near the ISFSI and assumes a presence at that location of 2200 hours per year. Therefore, the 

22 dose is primarily the result of direct radiation. The annual dose limit to an individual member of 

23 the public is 100 mrem total effective dose equivalent. 

24 A power uprate of 1.38 percent was granted to CCNPP Units 1 and 2 in July 2009. This uprate 

25 will be implemented by the time site preparation and construction on Unit 3 could begin. The 

26 uprate may increase the maximum annual dose to a construction worker by as much as 

27 1.38 percent; however, the annual dose would still be well below 100 mrem total effective dose 

28 equivalent. 

29 To obtain the collective dose, UniStar calculated the dose rates for each year when building 

30 occurs prior to operation, using a matrix of job descriptions, number of full-time workers and 

31 their locations, and TLD readings. The total estimated collective dose equivalent for 

32 construction workers over the 6-year building period was 17.2 person-rem (UniStar 2009a). The 

33 average construction worker dose rate was approximately 1 mrem/yr. This average dose rate is 

34 much smaller than the approximately 311 mrem/yr each worker would receive from natural 

35 background radiation (NCRP 2009). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-88 April 2010 

1 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts 

2 The NRC staff concludes that the estimate of doses to construction workers during building of 

3 the new unit is well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem) designed to protect the 

4 public health. Based on information provided by UniStar and the NRC staff’s independent 

5 evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological health impacts to construction workers 

6 for proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. Radiation 

7 exposure from all NRC-licensed activities including operation of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 is 

8 regulated by the NRC. Therefore, NRC staff concludes the radiological health impacts for NRC9 authorized construction activities would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

10 warranted. 

11 4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts 

12 The following sections provide descriptions of the potential environmental impacts from the 

13 generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste during the building activities for 

14 proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Potential types of nonradioactive waste expected to 

15 be generated, handled, and disposed include construction debris, spoils, stormwater runoff, 

16 municipal and sanitary waste, dust and air emissions. The assessment of potential impacts 

17 resulting from these types of wastes is presented in the following subsections. 

18 4.10.1 Impacts to Land 

19 Building activities related to the proposed Unit 3 could result in solid waste materials like 

20 construction debris and spoils. The State of Maryland will require environmental compliance in 

21 the removal and disposal of these solid wastes from the site. UniStar plans to dispose of 

22 acceptable construction debris such as earthen materials (e.g. topsoil, clay, or brush) offsite at a 

23 proper disposal facility. Other solid waste generated such as office wastes would be disposed 

24 and recycled as appropriate (UniStar 2009a). 

25 Excavated materials from the proposed construction areas not suitable for offsite disposal or 

26 construction backfill would be permanently stored in an existing open field north of the proposed 

27 construction access road. This approximately 36-ac site would be graded and stabilized with 

28 vegetative cover. All spoils resulting from dredging would comply with the Department of the 

29 Army, Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. Dredge spoils from site preparation would likely be 

30 transported and deposited at an existing spoils area located at Lake Davies (UniStar 2009a). 

31 The dredged material would be characterized prior to use. 

32 All potential wastes generated while building proposed Unit 3 would be handled according to 

33 county, State, and Federal regulations. All county and State permits and regulations for 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-89 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 handling and disposal of solids and the Corps’ permit for disposal of dredged spoils would be 

2 obtained and implemented. 

3 Based on the effective practices for recycling and minimizing waste already in place for CCNPP 

4 Units 1 and 2, and the plans to manage solid and liquid wastes in accordance with all applicable 

5 State and local requirements and standards, the review team expects the impacts to land from 

6 nonradioactive waste generated during the building activities of proposed Unit 3 would be 

7 minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

8 4.10.2 Impacts to Water 

9 Surface water and groundwater have the potential to be impacted due to the building activities 

10 of proposed Unit 3. UniStar plans to minimize these potential impacts by implementing the 

11 MDE BMPs. Some of the BMPs that would be implemented include implementation of SWPPP, 

12 NPDES permit for stormwater associated with building activities, and erosion and sediment 

13 control plan. In addition, the CPCN conditions would apply (MSPC 2009). Surface and 

14 groundwater quality during the development of proposed Unit 3 are discussed further in 

15 Section 4.2.3. 

16 Onsite sanitary wastes generated during the building activities would be accommodated with the 

17 construction of temporary facilities. Waste facilities from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 would not be 

18 used. UniStar has filed a permit application with the State of Maryland to use groundwater wells 

19 to withdraw freshwater from the Aquia aquifer. Construction personnel use is included in the 

20 request. Freshwater for sanitation use would come from the groundwater wells. The 

21 groundwater wells are anticipated to be used during the first four years of construction. The 

22 desalination plant is anticipated to be operational by years five and six, thereby supplying 

23 freshwater as needed when building proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). 

24 Offsite, both the Calvert and St. Mary’s County wastewater treatment systems have the excess 

25 capacity to meet the increased generation of wastewater by the project workforce. Calvert 

26 County is expected to have the larger increase in population as more of the labor force is 

27 expected to reside in this county. 

28 Based on the regulated practices for managing liquid discharges, including wastewater, the 

29 CPCN conditions, and the BMPs that UniStar plans to implement for managing surface and 

30 groundwater, the review team expects that impacts to water from nonradioactive effluents when 

31 building proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

32 4.10.3 Impacts to Air 

33 As discussed in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.8.1, fugitive dust and other generated emissions during 

34 site development activities would be managed. UniStar plans to control these emissions 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-90 April 2010 

1 through several BMPs and applicable regulatory laws. UniStar will incorporate a dust control 

2 plan into the SWPPP to control fugitive dust emissions. Equipment and vehicles used for site 

3 preparation and the increase in vehicle traffic of construction workers involved in building 

4 proposed Unit 3 would result in increased emissions. Mitigation of increased emissions will be 

5 accomplished through applicable permits for National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the 

6 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In addition, lowering of maximum 

7 speed limits, inspection of emission control equipment for construction vehicles and a traffic 

8 management plan would be employed (UniStar 2009a). 

9 Based on the regulated practices for managing air emissions from construction equipment and 

10 temporary sources and the use of BMPs, the review team expects that impacts to air from 

11 nonradioactive emissions when building proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and no further 

12 mitigation would be warranted. 

13 4.10.4 Summary of Nonradiological Waste Impacts 

14 Solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes generated when building proposed Unit 3 would be handled 

15 according to County, State, and Federal regulations. County and State permits and regulations 

16 for handling and disposal of solid waste, and the Corps’ permit for disposal of dredged spoils, 

17 would be obtained and implemented. The State of Maryland BMPs, which include a SWPPP for 

18 surface water runoff and groundwater quality, NPDES permit for facilities releases, and the use 

19 of temporary facilities for sanitary waste systems during the construction period, would ensure 

20 compliance with the Clean Water Act and State of Maryland standards. Air emissions from 

21 fugitive dust and vehicles used when building and developing proposed Unit 3 would be 

22 managed using regulated practices, BMPs, and traffic management plans. Based on the 

23 information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

24 concludes that nonradioactive waste impacts to land, water, and air would be SMALL and that 

25 additional mitigation would not be warranted. Because NRC-authorized construction activities 

26 represented only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the 

27 nonradioactive waste impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities would also be SMALL, 

28 and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

29 Cumulative impacts to water and air from nonradioactive emissions and effluents are discussed 

30 in Sections 7.2 and 7.6, respectively. For the purposes of Chapter 9, the review team expects 

31 that there would be no substantive differences between the impacts of nonradioactive waste for 

32 proposed Unit 3 and the alternative sites and no substantive cumulative impacts that warrant 

33 further discussion beyond those discussed for the alternative sites in Section 9.3. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-91 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts 

2 During Construction and Preconstruction 

3 In its evaluation of environmental impacts when building proposed Unit 3, the review team relied 

4 on UniStar’s compliance with the following measures and controls that would limit adverse 

5 environmental impacts: 

6 • compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations 

7 intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste 

8 management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, stormwater 

9 management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management) 

10 • compliance with applicable requirements of permits or licenses required for construction of 

11 the new units (e.g., USACE Section 404 Permit, NPDES, Maryland’s CPCN) 

12 • compliance with existing CCNPP Unit 1 and 2 processes and/or procedures applicable to 

13 proposed Unit 3 construction environmental compliance activities for the Calvert Cliffs site 

14 (e.g., solid waste management, hazardous waste management, and spill prevention and 

15 response) 

16 • incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts 

17 • identification of environmental resources and potential impacts during the development of 

18 the ER and the COL process. 

19 Table 4-10 summarizes the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts when building 

20 proposed Unit 3 based on the table supplied by UniStar (2009a), as adjusted by the review 

21 team when considered to be appropriate. Some measures apply to more than one impact 

22 category. 

23 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts 

24 The impact category levels determined by the review team in the previous sections are 

25 summarized in Table 4-11. The impact category levels for NRC-authorized construction 

26 discussed in this chapter are denoted in the table as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a 

27 measure of their expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. Construction and 

28 preconstruction building activities are similarly noted. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax 

29 revenue from UniStar for the local economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the 

30 community. UniStar has received a CPCN from the State of Maryland that contains conditions 

31 that could potentially reduce the impacts discussed in this chapter. 

32 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-92 April 2010 

1 Table 4-10. Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by UniStar to Limit Adverse 

2 Impacts When Building Proposed Unit 3 

Affected Environment/ 

Resource Area Specific Measures and Control

Land-Use Impacts

The Site and Vicinity • Comply with NPDES Construction General Permit, including EPA 

effluent limitations. 

• Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to protect 

resources such as wetlands and streams in vicinity. 

• Comply with individual Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. 

• Comply with Maryland Non-Tidal Wetlands Protection Act permit. 

• Restore wetlands and wetland buffers temporarily disturbed during 

construction. 

• Construct new wetlands and enhance others. 

• Implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 

including sediment and erosion control. 

• Use site Resource Management Plan and comply with BMP 

requirements; on-site land is not used for farmland nor is it 

considered prime or unique. 

• Unmerchantable trees and slash will be chipped and spread as 

wood chips or disposed of at an offsite landfill. 

• Acreage will be restored following land-disturbing activities to the 

extent possible. 

• Construction footprint would be wholly contained on an existing 

dedicated nuclear power plant site. 

• Implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) 

Plan. 

Transmission Line Rights-ofWay and Offsite Areas 

• Use existing transmission corridor maintenance policies and 

practices to protect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

Historic Properties and Cultural 

Resources 

• Perform Phase III Cultural Resource Survey. 

• Follow Data Recovery Plan. 

• Follow Mitigation Plan. 

• Follow MOA that stipulates agreed-upon mitigation measures. 

• In consultation with the SHPO, develop plan and procedures to 

manage identified/unidentified historic/cultural resource. 

• Take appropriate actions (e.g., stop work) following discovery of 

potential historic/cultural resource. 

3 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-93 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 4-10. (contd) 

Affected Environment/ 

Resource Area Specific Measures and Control

Water-Related Impacts

Water Use • Comply with existing Groundwater Water Appropriations and Use 

Permit Withdrawal Limit. 

• Use offsite water supply. 

• Install Desalinization Plant. 

• Install bio-retention ditches to allow runoff to infiltrate. 

• Comply with COMAR 26.17.06 for dewatering activities or obtain 

Water Appropriation and Use Permit, as needed. 

• Comply with individual Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. 

• Comply with BMP requirements. 

• Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to protect 

resources such as wetlands and streams in vicinity. 

• Comply with Maryland Non-Tidal Wetlands Protection Act permit. 

• Comply with BMP requirements. 

• Restore wetlands and wetland buffers temporarily disturbed during 

construction. 

• Develop new wetlands. 

• Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to protect 

resources such as wetlands and streams in vicinity. 

Water Quality • Implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) 

Plan. 

• Implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 

including sediment and erosion control, as part of the NPDES 

Construction General Permit requirements. 

• Comply with Corps of Engineers 404 Permit requirements. 

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems • Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to protect 

resources. 

• To the extent practicable, design construction footprint to account 

for CBCA and other important habitat, including bald eagles nests. 

• Obtain permits from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow removal of any 

unoccupied bald eagle nests within the construction area and for 

approval of the required mitigating actions. 

• Minimize cooling tower lighting, as practicable and allowed by 

regulation. 

• Create new habitats (i.e., unforested uplands to ultimately generate 

a mixed deciduous forest). 

• Maintain remaining unforested upland as old field habitat. 

• Restore acreage following land-disturbing activities to the maximum 

extent possible. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-94 April 2010 

Table 4-10. (contd) 

Affected Environment/ 

Resource Area Specific Measures and Control

• Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to protect 

resources such as wetlands and streams in vicinity. 

• Comply with Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act Permit. 

• Comply with BMP requirements. 

• Comply with individual Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. 

• Preserve aesthetically outstanding tree clusters, as practical; 

harvest merchantable timber; use or recycle other woody material, 

as appropriate; develop reforestation plan. 

• Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to protect 

resources. 

Aquatic Ecosystems • Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to protect 

resources. 

• Implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) 

Plan. 

• Comply with Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act Permit. 

• Comply with individual Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. 

• Comply with BMP requirements. 

• Restore wetlands and wetland buffers temporarily disturbed during 

construction. 

• Construct new wetlands. 

• Implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 

including sediment and erosion control and the construction of new 

impoundments, as appropriate. 

• Comply with BMPs, including intercepting and retaining sediment 

before it reaches streams. 

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Setting • Comply with applicable MDE noise limits. 

• Comply with applicable OSHA noise-exposure limits. 

• Comply with applicable EPA and MDE air quality regulations. 

• Implement routine vehicle/equipment inspection and maintenance 

program. 

• Install new site perimeter and access road. 

• Conduct Phase 2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). 

• Develop Traffic Management Plan using Phase 2 TIA results. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-95 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 4-10. (contd) 

Affected Environment/ 

Resource Area Specific Measures and Control

Socioeconomics • Small aggregate socioeconomic impacts anticipated, mitigation not 

required. 

• Large beneficial impact to county property tax revenues; small 

beneficial impact for other types of tax revenues. No mitigating 

measures or controls required. 

Environmental Justice • No mitigating measures or controls required. 

Radiation Exposure to 

Construction Workers 

• Doses to construction workers would be maintained below NRC 

public dose limits (10 CFR Part 20). 

• Implement ALARA practices at construction site. 

Nonradiological Health • Implement site-wide Safety and Medical Program, including safety 

policies, safe work practices, as well as general and topic-specific 

training. 

1 Table 4-11. Summary of Impacts from Construction of Proposed Unit 3 

Category Comments 

NRC-Authorized 

Construction 

Impact Level 

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level 

Land-Use Impacts 

The Site and Vicinity Construction activities would take place 

within the existing site boundaries. 

SMALL SMALL 

Transmission Line 

Corridors and Offsite 

Areas 

No offsite corridors to be developed. SMALL SMALL 

Water-Related Impacts 

Water Use 

 Surface Water Surface water not used. SMALL SMALL 

 Groundwater Temporary use of groundwater will 

remain a localized impact. 

SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality 

 Surface Water BMPs will be used to limit construction 

stormwater impacts. 

SMALL SMALL 

 Groundwater BMPs will prevent or mitigate spills. SMALL SMALL 

 2 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-96 April 2010 

Table 4-11. (contd)

Category Comments 

NRC-Authorized 

Construction 

Impact Level 

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level 

Ecological Impacts 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystems and 

Wetlands 

Forest loss and fragmentation would 

reduce FIDS habitat. Wetlands and 

streams would be filled and graded. 

Proposed wetland and wildlife habitat 

mitigation would offset some impacts. 

SMALL MODERATE 

Aquatic Ecosystems 

Freshwater 

Impacts to freshwater systems occur 

from the elimination of stream 

headwaters and small pond, increased 

erosion from the removal of forested 

areas, and increased runoff from the 

addition of impervious surfaces. 

SMALL MODERATE 

Chesapeake Bay Estuarine aquatic resources would be 

affected by dredging and trenching of 

the bay bottom, noise from baffle wall 

installation, and habitat conversion by 

adding rock armoring to the Bay bottom. 

SMALL MODERATE 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Physical Impacts Construction would take place within 

existing site boundaries, so impact on 

the public would be minimal. Impact on 

workers would be mitigated with training 

and protective equipment. Construction 

would not affect any offsite buildings, 

and onsite buildings were constructed to 

withstand vibration from construction 

activities. Local traffic increase in 

vicinity of MD SR 2/4 would be 

MODERATE and temporary. 

SMALL SMALL 

Demography Percentage of construction workers 

relocating to the region likely would be 

SMALL relative to the existing population 

base. 

SMALL SMALL 

Economic Impacts to 

the Community 

Economic impact would be beneficial to 

local economies in Calvert County. 

SMALL SMALL to LARGE 

BENEFICIAL 

Infrastructure and 

Community Services 

Housing, public services and education 

are generally adequate for the influx of 

construction workers. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Environmental Justice 

Impacts

No environmental pathways or 

preconditions exist that could lead to and 

disproportionate adverse impacts on 

minorities or low-income populations. 

SMALL SMALL 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-97 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 4-11. (contd)

Category Comments 

NRC-Authorized 

Construction 

Impact Level 

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level 

Historic and Cultural 

Resource Impacts

DRAFT MOA and DRAFT Mitigation 

Plan – 9/09; 

NHPA Section 106 Findings - 2/13/09 

Letter from Maryland Historical Trust - 

adverse effect on historic properties 

(CT-1312, CT-1295) and archaeological 

site (18CV474); visual impacts within 1 

mi to resources within Architectural APE. 

SMALL LARGE 

Meteorological and Air 

Quality Impacts 

Construction would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable State 

requirements. Dust emissions would be 

minimized through a dust-control plan. 

SMALL SMALL 

Nonradiological Health 

Impacts

Emission controls and remote location 

would minimize nonradiological health 

impacts. Adherence to Federal and 

State Regulations assumed to protect 

occupational workers. 

SMALL SMALL 

Radiological Health 

Impacts

Doses to construction workers would be 

maintained below NRC public dose limits 

(10 CFR Part 20). 

SMALL SMALL 

Nonradioactive Waste Solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes 

generated when building proposed 

Unit 3 would be handled according to 

county, State, and Federal regulations. 

SMALL SMALL 

1 4.13 References 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 Protection Against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 

7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 

8 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

9 Safety and Health Standards.” 

10 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 

11 320, “General Regulatory Policies.” 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-98 April 2010 

1 33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters,

2 Part 325, “Processing of Department of the Army Permits.” 

3 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

4 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

5 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

6 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

7 40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93, 

8 “Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.” 

9 40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204, 

10 “Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment.” 

11 55 FR 32088. August 7, 1990. “Determination of Threatened Status for the Puritan Tiger 

12 Beetle and the Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle.” Federal Register. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

13 Service. 

14 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 

15 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

16 73 FR 19594. April 10, 2008. “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.” 

17 Federal Register. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

18 73 FR 29075. May 20, 2008. “Authorizations Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

19 for Take of Eagles.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

20 Abbe, G.R. 1987. “Thermal and Other Discharge-Related Effects on the Bay Ecosystem.” 

21 Chapter 9 in Ecological Studies in the Middle Reach of Chesapeake Bay, Calvert Cliffs. K. L. 

22 Heck Jr., ed., Springer-Verlag, New York. 

23 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq. 

24 Bartol, S.M., and J.A. Musick. 2003. "Sensory Biology of Sea Turtles." Volume II of The 

25 Biology of Sea Turtles. P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musik., ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 

26 Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel). 2008a. “Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Construction 

27 Pumping On Declining Potentiometric Levels in the Aquia Aquifer.” Document No. 25237-000-

28 30R-KO0 G-00001-000, provided in UniStar Letter UN#09-001 to NRC, January 9, 2009.

29 Accession No. ML090220482. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-99 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel). 2008b. “Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 Storm Water Management 

2 Plan Document No: 25237-209-30G-KO3G-00001 Revision A,” provided in UniStar Letter 

3 UN#08-037, to NRC, September 29, 2008. Accession No. ML090220702. 

4 Blasius, B.J. and R.W. Merritt. 2002. "Field and Laboratory Investigations on the Effects of 

5 Road Salt (NaCl) on Stream Macroinvertebrate Communities." Environmental Pollution

6 120(2):219-231. 

7 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

8 Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

9 Control Act [FWPCA]). 

10 Coastal Zone Management Act of 2006 (CZMA). 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. 

11 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2005. Letter from Mark Tonacci 

12 (Constellation) to the NRC dated July 14, 2005, “Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 

13 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318; 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report and Dose 

14 Assessment.” Accession No. ML052020232. 

15 Constellation Energy Group, LLC (Constellation). 2007. Annual Radiological Environmental 

16 Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent 

17 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, January 1 - December 31, 2006. Accession No. ML071590393. 

18 COMAR 26.02.03.00. 2007. “Control of Noise Pollution.” Code of Maryland Regulations. 

19 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA Engineering). 2008. Entrainment 

20 Characterization Data Report for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Prepared for Constellation 

21 Energy. Accession No. ML083110678. 

22 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 16 U.S.C. 1531, et. seq. 

23 Karraker, N.E., J.P. Gibbs, and J.R. Vonesh. 2008. "Impacts of Road Deicing Salt on the 

24 Demography of Vernal Pool-Breeding Amphibians." Ecological Applications 18(3):724-734. 

25 Kaushal, S.S., P.M. Groffman, G.E. Likens, K.T. Belt, W.P. Stack, V.R. Kelly, L.E. Band, and 

26 G.T. Fisher. 2005. "Increased Salinization of Fresh Water in the Northeastern United States." 

27 In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

28 102(38):13517–13520. 

29 Kentucky Native Plant Society. 2005. “2005 Wildflower of the Year, Showy Goldenrod 

30 (Solidago speciosa).” The Lady-Slipper 20:1 / Spring 2005. Available at http://www.knps.org. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-100 April 2010 

1 KLD Engineering, P.C. (KLD). 2009. Traffic Impact Study at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

2 Plant, Draft Final Report, Rev. 2. TR-427, Hauppauge, New York. Accession No. 

3 ML093570407. 

4 Knisley, C.B. 2006. Current Status of Two Federally Threatened Tiger Beetles at Calvert Cliffs 

5 Nuclear Power Plant. Letter report to Carla Logan, Constellation Generation Group, October 

6 26, 2006. Glen Allen, Virginia. Accession No. ML090690159. 

7 Knisley, C.B. 2009. Email from C. Barry Knisley (Randolph-Macon College, Professor) to 

8 Corey A. Duberstein (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Ecology Scientist), “Subject: RE: 

9 Calvert Cliffs tiger beetles.” January 13, 2009. Accession Nos. ML090920737 and 

10 ML100050568. 

11 Lewis, L.J., J. Davenport, and T.C. Kelly. 2002a. “A Study of the Impact of a Pipeline 

12 Construction on Estuarine Benthic Invertebrate Communities.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

13 Science 55(2):213-221.

14 Lewis, L.F., J. Davenport, and T.C. Kelly. 2002b. “A Study of the Impact of a Pipeline 

15 Construction on Estuarine Benthic Invertebrate Communities. Part 2. Recolonization by Benthic 

16 Invertebrates after 1 Year and Response of Estuarine Birds.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

17 Science 57(1-2):201-208.

18 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2009. Phase I Compensatory 

19 Mitigation Plan. Prepared for Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear 

20 Operating Services, LLC as Project No. 8093-07-6565, dated Feb 18, 2009, Raleigh, North 

21 Carolina. Accession No. ML093380280. 

22 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2008. Mitigation. Accessed October 2, 2008 

23 at 

24 http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Wetlands_Waterways/regulations/mitiga

25 tion.asp. 

26 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2004. Lower Patuxent River In Calvert 

27 County Watershed Characterization December 2003. Accessed February 6, 2008 at 

28 http://dnr.maryland.gov/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html. 

29 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007. Rare, Threatened, and 

30 Endangered Animals of Maryland. Annapolis, Maryland. Available at 

31 http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/download/rteanimals.pdf. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-101 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008. Guidelines for Rare, Threatened 

2 and Endangered Plant Reintroductions in Maryland. Accessed September 29, 2008 at 

3 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rteplantreintro.html. 

4 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant Research Program (MDNR 

5 PPRP). 2008. Environmental Review of Proposed Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. 

6 PSC Case No. 9127. Maryland Power Plant Research (PPRP). 

7 Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). 2008. 2007 Maryland Statistical Handbook. 

8 Accessed September 2, 2008 at http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/. . 

9 Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). 2009. Letter from J. Rodney Little (MHT) to William Seib 

10 (USACE), “Subject: MHT Review of Phase II National Register Evaluations and Assessment of 

11 Effects for Cultural Resources, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Expansion, Calvert County, 

12 Maryland.” February 13, 2009. Accession No. ML090570416. 

13 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009. In the Matter of the Application of UniStar 

14 Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of Public 

15 Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in Calvert 

16 County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Proposed Order of Hearing Examiner, April 28, 2009. 

17 Maurer, D., R. Keck, J. Tinsman, W. Leathem, C. Wethe, C. Lord, and T. Church. 1986. 

18 "Vertical Migration and Mortality of Marine Benthos in Dredged Material: A Synthesis." 

19 Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie 71(1):49-63. 

20 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

21 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

22 Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland. 

23 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

24 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. 

25 Natural Resources 5-1601-1612. 2009. “Forest Conservation.” Michie’s Annotated Code of 

26 Maryland. 

27 Noise Control Act of 1972. 42 U.S.C. 4901-4918, et seq. 

28 Popper, A.N., T.J. Carlson, A.D. Hawkins, B.L. Southall, and R.L. Gentry. 2006. Interim Criteria 

29 for Injury of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: A White Paper. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-102 April 2010 

1 Ramakrishna, D.M. and T. Viraraghavan. 2005. "Environmental Impact of Chemical Deicers - a 

2 Review." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 166(1-4):49-63. 

3 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (Rivers and Harbors Act). 33 U.S.C. 403, as 

4 amended. 

5 Saricks, C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

6 Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

7 Illinois. 

8 Secrest, T.J., D.C. Mussatti, and M.J. Scott. 2010. Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 COL Discussions 

9 Regarding Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice—Interviews with the Public. Accession 

10 No. ML100050174. 

11 Southerland, M., L. Erb, G. Rogers, R. Morgan, K. Eshleman, M. Kline, K. Kline, P. Kazyak ,J. 

12 Kilian, J. Ladell, and J. Thompson. 2005. Maryland Biological Stream Survey 2000-2004, 

13 Stressors Affecting Maryland Streams. Volume XIV, Publication # DNR-12-0305-0101, 

14 Maryland DNR, Annapolis, Maryland. 

15 Tetra Tech NUS. 2007. Final Faunal Survey Report for Proposed UniStar Nuclear Project Area 

16 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site Calvert County, Maryland. Prepared for UniStar Nuclear 

17 Development, LLC by Tetra Tech NUS, Germantown, Maryland. Accession No. ML090690128. 

18 Tipler, P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York. 

19 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC (UniStar). 2007. Technical Report in Support of Application of 

20 UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

21 Before the Maryland Public Service Commission for Authorization to Construct Unit 3 at Calvert 

22 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and Associated Transmission Lines. November 6, 2007. Accession 

23 Nos. ML100960624. 

24 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008a. Letter from G. Vanderheyden (UniStar) to U.S. 

25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated May 13, 2008, “Subject: 

26 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of Response to Requests for 

27 Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 and Request for 

28 Withholding of Documents.” June 12, 2008. Accession No. ML100040300. 

29 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008b. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

30 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letters dated May 13, 2008, June 12, 

31 2008, and August 29, 2008, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, 

32 Submittal of Response Requests for Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-103 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Plant, Unit 3 – Supplemental Aquatic RAIs.” September 29, 2008. Accession No. 

2 ML082760508. 

3 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008c. Letter from D. Lutchenkov (UniStar) to 

4 Maryland Department of the Environment, “Joint Federal/State Application to the United States 

5 Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of the Environment for the Alteration of 

6 any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

7 Plant - Unit 3 Calvert County, Maryland, USAEC Application Number NAB-2007-08123-M05.” 

8 May 16, 2008. Accession No. ML081840343. 

9 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC (UniStar). 2008d. UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC - 

10 Rebuttal Testimony of Paul C. Myers. Case No. 9127, Public Service Commission, Maryland, 

11 Annapolis. Available at 

12 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/CaseNum/submit.cfm?DirPath=C:\Casenum\9100-

13 9199\9127\Item_46\&CaseN=9127\Item_46. Accession No. ML100480729. 

14 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 

15 3, Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6, Baltimore, 

16 Maryland, September 30, 2009. Accession No. ML092880921. 

17 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009b. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

18 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: UniStar 

19 Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 

20 Environmental RAIs No. 1001 through 1011.” March 5, 2009. Accession No. ML090710146. 

21 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009c. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

22 Regulatory Commission, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert 

23 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Restrictions of Construction/Refurbishment of the Barge 

24 Slip/Unloading Facility and Associated Dredging.” April 14, 2009. Accession No. 

25 ML091060748. 

26 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009d. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

27 Regulatory Commission, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert 

28 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Follow-up Response to Environmental Report RAI No. 124, 

29 Estimated Tax Benefit.” November 19, 2009. Accession No. ML093220193. 

30 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009e. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

31 Regulatory Commission, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert 

32 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Responses to NRC Telecom Questions Regarding Combined 

33 License Application (COLA) Revision 6, Environmental Report.” December 4, 2009. Accession 

34 No. ML093421232. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-104 April 2010 

1 University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. 2008. Gastrophryne carolinensis, eastern narrow2 mouthed toad. Accessed April 29, 2008 at 

3 http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Gastrophryne_carolinensis.htm. 

4 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the 

5 Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI, Ann Arbor, 

6 Michigan. 

7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

8 Manual. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter, Subject: 

10 Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps 

11 Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the 

12 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. No. 02-2. Accessed at http://www.usace.army.mil. 

13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from K.B. Anderson (USACE) to R.J. 

14 Nelson (Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), 

15 Review of US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer 

16 regarding Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Plant (CENAB-OP-RMS) effect on historic properties and 

17 Memorandum of Agreement. March 16, 2010. Accession No. ML100810272. 

18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USACE and NRC). 

19 2008. Memorandum of Understanding: Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

20 Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants. September 12, 2008. 

21 Accession No. ML082540354. 

22 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2008a. TABLE 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

23 Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007. Accessed December 

24 30, 2009 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1917.pdf. Accession No. ML093210629. 

25 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2008b. TABLE 6. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

26 Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007 – Maryland. Accessed 

27 December 30, 2009 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/pr076md.pdf. Accession No. 

28 ML093210629. 

29 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008a. Plants Profile, Quercus prinus L., chestnut 

30 oak. Accessed February 15, 2008 at http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUPR2. 

31 Accession No. ML093210633. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 4-105 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008b. Plants Profile, Kalmia latifolia L., mountain 

2 laurel. Accessed February 19, 2008 at http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch. Accession No. 

3 ML100490942. 

4 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008c. Plants Profile, Thelypteris noveboracensis (L.) 

5 Nieuwl., New York fern. Accessed February 19, 2008 at 

6 http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch. Accession No. ML100490967. 

7 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008d. Plants Profile, Quercus shumardii Buckley 

8 Shumard’s oak. Accessed February 14, 2008 at 

9 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUSH. Accession No. ML093210634. 

10 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008e. Plants Profile, Liriodendron tulipifera L. 

11 tuliptree. Accessed February 15, 2008 at http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LITU. 

12 Accession No. ML093210632. 

13 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. “From Home to Work, the Average Commute 

14 is 26.4 Minutes,” Omnistats, Volume 3, Issue 4. October 2003. Accession No. ML100621425. 

15 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007. 

16 Accessed at http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/. 

17 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2008a. Maryland, Toll of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 

18 2006. Accessed February 19, 2010 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd19 30/ncsa/stsi/24_MD/2006/24_MD_2006.htm. Accession No. ML100500636. 

20 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2008b. Maryland - Calvert County, Toll of Motor 

21 Vehicle Crashes, 2006. Accessed at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd22 30/ncsa/stsi/24_MD/2006/Counties/Maryland_Calvert%20County_2006.htm. 

23 

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Water on Tap: What You Need to Know. 

25 Office of Water, EPA 816-K-03-007, Washington, D.C. Available at 

26 www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/watertap/ch4.htm. 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Accessed 

28 December 15, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. Accession 

29 No. ML100221499. 

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Puritan Tiger Beetle (Cicindela Puritana G. Horn 

31 Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 4-106 April 2010 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

2 Accession No. ML083260017. 

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Email from B. Zepp (FWS) to K. Anderson (US 

4 ACE) regarding Calvert Cliffs Migratory Bird Act briefly stating that there would be no time of 

5 year (TOY) construction restriction for migratory birds. January 29, 2009. Accession No. 

6 ML091671068. 

7 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. ARMI National Atlas for Amphibian Distributions. 

8 Accessed February 7, 2008 at 

9 http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/armiatlas/species.cfm?recordID=173467. Accession No. 

10 ML093210639. 

11 U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2009. Cape Wind Energy Project Final 

12 Environmental Impact Statement. OCS Publication No. 2008-040, U.S. Department of Interior, 

13 Minerals Management Service, Herndon, Virginia. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

15 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, 

16 D.C. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

18 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, Washington, 

19 D.C. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of 

22 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

24 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1982, 

25 Washington, D.C. 

26 Viada, S.T., R.M. Hammer, R. Racca, D. Hannay, M.J. Thompson, B.J. Balcom, and N.W. 

27 Phillips. 2007. "Review of Potential Impacts to Sea Turtles from Underwater Explosive 

28 Removal of Offshore Structures." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28:267–285. 
Draft NUREG-1936 5-1 April 2010 

1 5.0 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

2 This chapter examines environmental impacts associated with operation of the proposed new 

3 nuclear Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site for an initial 40-year period as described by UniStar. As 

4 part of its combined license (COL) application, UniStar submitted an Environmental Report (ER) 

5 that discussed the environmental impacts of station operation (UniStar 2009a). In its evaluation 

6 of operational impacts, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff relied on operation 

7 details supplied by UniStar in its ER and its responses to NRC Requests for Additional 

8 Information (RAIs). Also consulted were permitting correspondences between UniStar and the 

9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps), a cooperating agency for preparation of this 

10 environmental impact statement (EIS), and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) 

11 (UniStar 2009b). 

12 This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.11 respectively discuss the 

13 potential operational impacts related to land use, meteorology and air quality, water, terrestrial 

14 and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, 

15 nonradiological and radiological health effects, postulated accidents, and applicable measures 

16 and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station operation during the 40-year 

17 operating period. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, 

18 impacts have been analyzed and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, 

19 MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to each impact category. In the area of 

20 socioeconomics related to taxes, the impacts may be considered beneficial and are stated as 

21 such. The staff’s determination of significance levels is based on the assumption that the 

22 mitigation measures identified in the ER or activities planned by various state and county 

23 governments, such as infrastructure upgrades, as discussed throughout this chapter, are 

24 implemented. Failure to implement these upgrades might result in a change in significance 

25 level. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts is also presented, where appropriate. A summary 

26 of these impacts is presented in Section 5.12. The references cited in this chapter are listed in 

27 Section 5.13. 

28 5.1 Land-Use Impacts 

29 Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 contain information regarding land-use impacts associated with 

30 operation of proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Section 5.1.1 discusses land-use impacts 

31 at the site and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 discusses land-use impacts with respect 

32 to offsite transmission line corridors and other offsite areas. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-2 April 2010 

1 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 

2 Onsite land-use impacts from operation of proposed Unit 3 are expected to be minimal. 

3 Proposed Unit 3 would use one mechanical draft cooling tower with plume abatement to 

4 dissipate waste heat (UniStar 2009a). As discussed in Sections 5.3.1.1 and 5.7.1, operation of 

5 the cooling system would have minimal impacts on vegetation. In addition, a small area within 

6 the Chesapeake Bay would experience impacts from the operation of proposed Unit 3. Small 

7 portions of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled 

8 Banner National Historic Trail would overlap with the in-water exclusion area required for the 

9 operation of Unit 3. An in-water exclusion area already exists at the site for the operation of 

10 existing Units 1 and 2; therefore, the slight expansion of the already existing exclusion area 

11 would result in negligible impacts to these trails. 

12 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s own independent 

13 evaluation, the review team concludes that the land-use impacts of operation would be SMALL, 

14 and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

15 5.1.2 Transmission Line Corridors and Offsite Areas 

16 Some offsite land-use changes can be expected as a result of operational activities. Possible 

17 changes include the conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments 

18 (e.g., recreational vehicle parks, apartment buildings, single-family condominiums and homes, 

19 and manufactured home parks) and retail development to serve plant workers. Property tax 

20 revenue from the addition of a new nuclear unit could also lead to additional growth in Calvert 

21 County as a result of infrastructure improvements (e.g., new roads and utility services). 

22 Additional information on operational-related infrastructure impacts is presented in Section 5.4. 

23 No new offsite transmission line corridors are planned for proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). 

24 Consequently, no new land-use impacts resulting from operation of transmission lines serving 

25 Unit 3 are expected. Therefore, the review team concludes that the offsite land-use 

26 transmission line corridor impacts of operating Unit 3 would be SMALL, and mitigation would not 

27 be warranted. Transmission line corridor management practices are discussed in Section 5.3. 

28 5.2 Water-Related Impacts 

29 This section discusses water-use and water-quality-related impacts in the surrounding 

30 environment from operation of the proposed Unit 3. The primary water-related impacts are 

31 associated with proposed Unit 3’s cooling water system. Details of the operational modes and 

32 cooling water systems associated with operation of the plant can be found in Section 3.3.2.2 of 

33 this EIS. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Managing water resources requires understanding and balancing the tradeoffs between various, 

2 often conflicting, objectives. At the Unit 3 site, these objectives include navigation, recreation, 

3 visual aesthetics, a fishery, and a variety of beneficial consumptive uses of water. The 

4 responsibility for any work in, over, or under navigable waters of the United States is delegated 

5 to the Corps. The MDE is responsible for protecting and restoring the quality of Maryland’s 

6 water, air, and land resources, and is the Coastal Zone Management Agency in Maryland, 

7 which addresses Federal actions that are reasonably likely to affect any land or water use of 

8 natural water resources associated with the State’s coastal zone. 

9 Water-use and water-quality impacts involved with operation of a nuclear plant are similar to the 

10 impacts associated with any large thermoelectric power generation facility. Accordingly, UniStar 

11 must obtain the same water-related permits and certifications as any other large industrial 

12 facility. These include: 

13 • Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the MDE 

14 and would ensure that operation of the plant would not conflict with state water-quality 

15 management programs. 

16 • Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

17 Discharge Permit. This permit would be issued by the MDE and would regulate limits of 

18 pollutants in liquid discharges to surface water. 

19 • Clean Water Act Section 316(a). This section regulates the cooling water discharges to 

20 protect the health of the aquatic environment. The scope will be covered under the NPDES 

21 permit with the MDE. 

22 • Clean Water Act Section 316(b). This section regulates cooling water intake structures to 

23 minimize environmental impacts associated with location, design, construction, and capacity 

24 of those structures. The scope will be covered under the NPDES permit with the MDE. 

25 This section discusses the hydrological alterations and the resulting water-use and water-quality 

26 impacts from operation of Unit 3. The combined impacts of operating Unit 3 along with Calvert 

27 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Units 1 and 2, as well as other activities in the surrounding 

28 environment, are discussed in Chapter 7 (Cumulative Impacts) of this EIS. 

29 5.2.1 Hydrological Alterations 

30 This section addresses impacts that will occur during plant operation. During plant operations, 

31 all water needs would be met using Chesapeake Bay water. Most of that water would be used 

32 directly for cooling. The remainder would be treated in a desalination plant and used for power 

33 plant operations, such as freshwater makeup for the essential service water system (ESWS) 

34 cooling towers and the ultimate heat sink (UHS), potable water, and sanitary water. Unit 3 would 

35 not require groundwater for operational purposes. However, UniStar has requested that the 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-4 April 2010 

1 groundwater wells installed to obtain construction water be made available in the event the 

2 desalination plant becomes temporarily nonoperational. 

3 In summary, the hydrological alterations applicable to operations are limited to the intake of 

4 Chesapeake Bay water and discharge to the Bay of blowdown water and associated waste 

5 streams. 

6 5.2.2 Water Use Impacts 

7 A description of water-use impacts to surface water and groundwater is presented in the next 

8 sections. The water-resource usage by Unit 3 operations is limited to the Chesapeake Bay. 

9 Groundwater usage would be minimal. 

10 5.2.2.1 Surface Water Use Impacts 

11 Under average conditions, Unit 3 would withdraw 41,095 gpm from the Chesapeake Bay for 

12 cooling and other plant activities. Given the variations of salinity of the water at the intake, 

13 variations in circulating water supply system (CWS) cooling tower evaporation rates under 

14 different meteorological conditions, and plant operations modes, that withdrawal rate can be 

15 increased to a maximum of 47,383 gpm. A portion of the water withdrawn would be lost to the 

16 atmosphere via evaporation and to the adjacent land surface via drift. The remainder, along 

17 with minor amounts of treated wastewater, would be returned to the Bay. The projected 

18 average and maximum blowdown rates for plant operations are 21,019 and 24,363 gpm, 

19 respectively. 

20 Discussions between UniStar and the Maryland Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) 

21 resulted in the PPRP recommending that the Chesapeake Bay water appropriation be increased 

22 to average and maximum values of 43,750 gpm (63 MGD) and 50,000 gpm (72 MGD), 

23 respectively (MPSC 2009). The appropriation values were increased to provide a 5 percent 

24 contingency as UniStar finalizes its design. For this EIS, however, the actual values provided 

25 by UniStar (2008a) were considered unless otherwise noted. 

The Chesapeake Bay is large, occupying 4480 mi2

 and holding 1.8 × 1013 26 gal of water. The 

27 maximum annual plant consumption rate represents just 0.06 percent of the Bay volume. The 

28 comparison to just the freshwater inflow to the Bay is a nearly identical percentage. Based on 

29 the small volume of water consumed relative to the Bay’s water volume and the Bay’s 

30 freshwater inflow, the review team concludes that the impact to surface water use of operating 

31 the proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 5.2.2.2 Groundwater Use Impacts 

2 UniStar does not plan to use groundwater for operation of the proposed Unit 3. For situations 

3 when the water supply from the desalination plant is temporarily interrupted, UniStar plans to 

4 have enough stored water to continue operations for up to 12 hours. For situations when the 

5 water supply from the desalination plan would be interrupted for more than 12 hours, UniStar 

6 has requested permission from the MDE to use groundwater from the Aquia aquifer at the rate 

7 of 1,250,000 gpd for up to 15 days; the MDE is evaluating this request. The total quantity of 

8 groundwater represented by this request would be equivalent to about a half year of 

9 groundwater pumping at the rate already approved for an 8-year construction period. Because 

10 the total groundwater withdrawal proposed for this emergency use is much smaller than the total 

11 withdrawal approved for construction, the review team concludes that the impact to groundwater 

12 of operating the proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

13 5.2.3 Water Quality Impacts 

14 This section discusses the impacts to the quality of water resources from the operation of 

15 proposed Unit 3. 

16 5.2.3.1 Surface Water Quality Impacts 

17 Surface water impacts include thermal, chemical, and radiological effluents discharged by the 

18 plant. The impacts of radiological liquid effluents are discussed in Section 5.9. 

19 The Chesapeake Bay is listed as an impaired water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean 

20 Water Act because of low dissolved oxygen and the presence of nutrient pollution, such as 

21 nitrogen and phosphorus. Constellation Nuclear Energy Group, LLC (Constellation) has an 

22 NPDES permit for CCNNPP Units 1 and 2 that regulates their discharge of heated water and 

23 the concentration of several specific chemical constituents. During its license renewal 

24 evaluation of Units 1 and 2, the NRC staff concluded that the water quality impacts of these two 

units were SMALL (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 25 

26 State of Maryland regulations (COMAR 2007a, b) governing the thermal discharge from Unit 3 

27 are the following: 

28 (a) The 24-hour average of the maximum radial dimension measured from the point of 

29 discharge to the boundary of the full capacity 2°C above ambient isotherm (measured during 

30 the critical periods) may not exceed 1/2 of the average ebb tidal excursion. 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999. 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-6 April 2010 

1 (b) The 24-hour average full capacity 2°C above ambient thermal barrier (measured during 

2 the critical periods) may not exceed 50 percent of the accessible cross section of the 

3 receiving water body. Both cross sections shall be taken in the same plane. 

4 (c) The 24-hour average area of the bottom touched by waters heated 2°C or more above 

5 ambient at full capacity (measured during the critical periods) may not exceed 5 percent of 

6 the bottom beneath the average ebb tidal excursion multiplied by the width of the receiving 

7 water body. 

8 (d) The maximum temperature outside the mixing zone may not exceed 90°F (32°C) or the 

9 ambient temperature of the surface waters, whichever is greater. 

10 (e) A thermal barrier that adversely affects aquatic life may not be established. 

11 Using the CORMIX model (Doneker and Jirka 2007), UniStar calculated that the thermal 

12 discharge from Unit 3 would meet all State of Maryland requirements (UniStar 2008a). For 

example, the area of bottom touched by water 2°C above ambient was about 2.9 × 104

 ft2 13 , 

14 which is 0.02% of the permissible area per COMAR 2007a. UniStar’s analysis also showed that 

15 there is no interaction between the larger discharge plumes from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and the 

16 plume from Unit 3. The review team conducted an independent confirmatory evaluation with the 

17 CORMIX model and the maximum discharge volume proposed by UniStar and produced similar 

18 results. 

19 The sources of discharge water from Unit 3 include blowdown from the CWS tower, the ESWS 

20 cooling towers, the desalination plant, and site waste streams. Discharge from these sources 

21 would be routed to a common retention basin before being discharged to the Chesapeake Bay. 

22 The constituents that end up in this basin prior to discharge include biocides, chemicals 

23 (including chromium and zinc), organics, and dissolved solids. Water evaporates in the cooling 

24 tower, leaving the concentration of solutes dissolved in the cooling water at higher levels. The 

25 evaporation process merely concentrates the solutes already in the Chesapeake Bay waters 

26 and does not add any new solutes. However, additional chemicals, such as biocides, are added 

27 to control the chemistry of the cooling water. With the exception of the greater concentration of 

28 solutes from the Bay’s water and small quantities of cooling tower treatment chemicals, these 

29 constituents are similar to discharges from CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The discharge from Unit 3 

30 would be regulated by the NDPES permit that would be issued by MDE prior to initiation of 

31 operation. 

32 Turbidity issues associated with disturbance of sediments at both water intake and discharge 

33 from Unit 3 could affect water quality. The Unit 3 inlet area will share the southeast end of the 

34 existing intake bay with CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Siltation has occurred at this location, requiring 

35 periodic dredging that has been conducted in accordance with the Corps and Maryland State 

36 requirements. NRC (1996) considered the impacts of the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake 

37 structure, including altered current patterns and salinity gradients, scouring, and water use 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 conflicts and concluded that the impacts were small. The intake rate for Unit 3 is only 2 percent 

2 of the intake rate for CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Because the increase in overall intake is small and 

3 the intake velocity would be kept below 0.5 ft/s, sedimentation, current patterns, and salinity 

4 gradients caused by operation of all three units ought to be similar to those currently observed 

5 for CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Therefore, operation of the proposed Unit 3 intake structure would 

6 have no detectable impact on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. 

7 The discharge from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 scoured the sediment in a small area around the 

8 discharge ports. The scouring removed the sand substrate that was initially present to reveal a 

9 hard-pan clay substrate. The rate of discharge from proposed Unit 3 would be about 1 percent 

10 of that for CCNPP Units 1 and 2, so that scouring should be much less. Therefore, there should 

11 be little impact to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay from any scouring caused by 

12 discharge from Unit 3. 

13 Discharges from the cooling tower and the chemical additives that would be used to ensure 

14 proper functioning of the cooling system are regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

15 (EPA) under 40 CFR Part 423 to ensure protection of water resources. Other chemical effluents 

16 are regulated through the NPDES permit. The rapid dilution confirmed by the review team’s 

17 independent review of the CORMIX analysis establishes that a small mixing zone would restore 

18 concentrations to ambient levels within a short distance of the discharge. 

19 Given that the discharges would have relatively low projected contaminant levels, that they would 

20 be controlled through the permitting process, and that they would be similar to an already 

21 permitted discharge, and given the review team’s independent confirmation that thermal and 

22 chemical plant discharges to the Chesapeake Bay would have minimal impact, the review team 

23 concludes the impacts of the proposed Unit 3 discharges on water quality would be SMALL, and 

24 additional mitigation would not be warranted.

25 5.2.3.2 Groundwater Quality Impacts 

26 The proposed Unit 3 would not use groundwater for operation and would not discharge any 

27 liquids to groundwater during operations. Therefore, the review team concludes that the 

28 impacts to groundwater quality of proposed Unit 3 operation would be SMALL, and mitigation is 

29 not warranted. 

30 5.2.4 Water Monitoring 

31 There are no monitoring requirements imposed by the NRC for water-use or nonradiological 

32 water-quality. However, hydrological monitoring of the proposed new intake would be required 

33 by the State of Maryland. Hydrological, thermal, and chemical monitoring would likely be 

34 required by MDE as part of the NPDES permit. Monitoring would be required to ensure 

35 compliance with the State of Maryland’s regulations regarding thermal discharges (see 

36 Section 5.3.2.1). 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-8 April 2010 

1 5.3 Ecological Impacts 

2 This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from operation of the 

3 proposed Unit 3, transmission line operation, and transmission line corridor maintenance. The 

4 impacts are discussed for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

5 5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts 

6 Impacts on terrestrial communities and species related to the operation of proposed Unit 3 

7 usually result from cooling system operations and transmission line operation and maintenance. 

8 Operation of the cooling system can result in deposition of dissolved solids; increased local 

9 fogging, precipitation, or icing; increased noise levels; a greater risk of collision mortality; and 

10 shoreline alteration of the source waterbody. Impacts from the operation and maintenance of 

11 the transmission system that may affect terrestrial species include collision mortality and 

12 electrocution, electromagnetic fields (EMF), and the maintenance of vegetation within 

13 transmission line corridors. Impacts of transmission on terrestrial resources are discussed in 

14 Section 5.3.1.2. 

15 As described in Chapter 3, the proposed cooling system for proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs 

16 site is a closed-cycle system using a single plume-abated mechanical draft cooling tower. The 

17 heat would be transferred to the atmosphere in the form of water vapor and drift. Typically, 

18 vapor plumes and drift from cooling towers may affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and native 

19 plants, and water losses from cooling tower operation could affect shoreline habitat. In addition, 

20 bird collisions and noise-related impacts are possible with mechanical draft cooling towers and 

21 other tall structures. 

22 5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

23 Cooling System Impacts on Vegetation 

24 Native plants, ornamental plants, and agricultural crops may be affected by cooling tower drift, 

25 fogging, and increased humidity. There is no agriculture on the Calvert Cliffs site, and land 

26 cover on site and in the vicinity includes forests, wetlands, and openings from previous 

27 disturbance. 

28 Total dissolved solids (TDS), including salt, can stress vegetation after being deposited directly 

29 onto foliage or indirectly from the accumulation in the soils. Visible leaf damage has been 

30 observed when TDS is deposited in the range of 9 to 18 lb/ac per month on leaves during the 

31 growing season (NRC 1996). Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), a forest shrub also present 

32 in mixed deciduous understories of the Calvert Cliffs site, was identified by Tetra Tech NUS 

33 (2007) as the most sensitive to acute injury from salt deposition in Calvert County. Acute 

34 toxicity was documented for flowering dogwood at TDS deposition rates exceeding 4.6 lb/ac per 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 month (NRC 1996). Onsite TDS deposition could be as high as 1.96 lb/ac per month, and a 

2 maximum TDS deposition of 0.71 lb/ac per month would occur offsite and south of the site 

3 boundary (UniStar 2009a). All of these deposition levels are well below the level that would 

4 cause leaf damage to even the sensitive flowering dogwood (NRC 1996). Therefore, cooling 

5 tower operation impacts would be negligible on vegetation both on the Calvert Cliffs site and in 

6 the vicinity. 

7 Fauna collisions with Power Plant Structures 

8 The potential for avian mortality due to collision with proposed nuclear power plant structures 

9 does exist. Typically, the cooling tower and the meteorological tower are the structures likely to 

10 pose the greatest risk, with other tall structures like the containment building and vent stack 

11 posing less of a risk. With a cooling tower 164 ft tall and a scant plume, bird collision mortality 

12 would be unlikely at the Calvert Cliffs site. Even if collisions do occur, thriving bird populations 

13 can withstand these losses without threat to their continued existence (Brown 1993), and the 

14 NRC concluded that the threat of avian collision being a biologically significant source of 

15 mortality is very low (NRC 1996). Therefore, mortality from birds colliding with buildings, 

16 including the cooling tower, containment building, and vent stack, are expected to be 

17 undetectable at a population level. 

18 Noise 

19 Plant operations are not expected to emit noise at levels above those known to cause a startle 

20 response in wildlife (UniStar 2009a). Although noise levels would be greatest near the cooling 

21 tower, noise would be partially attenuated by surrounding forest cover. Also, noise from cooling 

22 tower operation is broadband noise, which is often indistinguishable from ambient noise. 

23 Wildlife species sensitive to noise may be displaced from suitable habitat immediately adjacent 

24 to Unit 3, but most local wildlife would likely adapt to operational noise levels. Operational 

25 noise-related impacts to wildlife are expected to be negligible. 

26 5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Line Corridors 

27 Two existing 500-kV transmission line corridors currently service CCNPP Units 1 and 2. To 

28 accommodate the proposed Unit 3, two new 500-kV circuits would be operated to connect 

29 proposed Unit 3 to the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 substation onsite in the existing 1-mi-long 

30 corridor. Construction impacts of this connection were discussed in Chapter 4, and impacts 

31 related to operation and maintenance of the new lines are discussed here. 

32 The primary transmission maintenance activity that may affect terrestrial resources is vegetation 

33 control. The annual mowing of herbaceous and low woody vegetation and cutting of large 

34 shrubs and trees every fifth year would continue (UniStar 2009a). Increased erosion and 

35 sedimentation may occur along access roads and in areas where heavy machinery is used. To 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-10 April 2010 

1 minimize this, access roadways are covered with gravel to prevent degradation, allowed to 

2 revegetate with grass, and are cut as necessary to maintain access. Herbicides are also used 

3 occasionally when needed and are only applied in accordance with the Baltimore Gas and 

4 Electric Company (BGE) Forestry Program (UniStar 2009a) that follows industry standards 

5 established by the Tree Care Industry Association. Also, the suppression of woody vegetation 

6 within the existing transmission line corridors may contribute to forest interior dwelling species 

7 (FIDS) nest parasitism, as it maintains forest edge habitat created during building of the 

8 transmission line corridors. The brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), a bird species that 

9 thrives along forest edge, parasitizes songbird nests (Cornell 2008) and could affect FIDS, such 

10 as the scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea). Therefore, maintenance of transmission corridors to 

11 support the operation of the proposed Unit 3 could adversely affect important species, such as 

12 FIDS, and their habitats. However, new maintenance specific to the operation of Unit 3 would 

13 be limited to the new 1-mi-long corridor, and this corridor is located adjacent to the project 

14 footprint, minimizing the edge effects of forest fragmentation to the extent possible. Effects 

15 would not be substantial. 

16 Impacts of Avian Mortality from Power Transmission 

17 Avian mortality may result from collision with tall, artificial human-built structures (FCC 2004). 

18 Two new circuits and associated towers would be installed for proposed Unit 3 within a new 

19 1-mi-long corridor. Although electrocution of an immature bald eagle from the existing 

20 transmission system was documented on the Calvert Cliffs site and reported (Constellation 

21 2004), this event is likely an isolated event, and the addition of the towers is not expected to 

22 noticeably affect eagle populations. The NRC (1996) concluded that bird collisions with 

23 transmission lines are of small significance at existing U.S. nuclear power plants, including 

24 transmission lines corridors with variable numbers of transmission lines. This level of mortality 

25 would not cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. Consequently, the 

26 incremental number of bird collisions posed by the operation of the two new 1-mi-long 

27 transmission lines for the proposed Unit 3 would be negligible. 

28 Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna 

29 Flora

30 The NRC determined EMFs produced by operating transmission lines for existing U.S. nuclear 

31 power plants up to 1100 kV were not linked to significant harmful effects on flora (NRC 1996). 

32 Minor damage to plant foliage and buds can occur near strong electric fields, caused by heating 

33 of the leaf tips and margins. Damage does not appear within lower levels of the plants and 

34 would not significantly affect growth (NRC 1996). Therefore, the increased EMF posed by the 

35 operation of the proposed transmission lines would have a minimal impact on flora. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Fauna

2 EMFs have been demonstrated to affect some fauna. Voltage buildup can affect overall health 

3 of honeybee hives (NRC 1996). Birds that nest within transmission line corridors experience 

4 chronic EMF exposure, but lines energized at levels less than 765 kV did not affect terrestrial 

5 biota (NRC 1996). The NRC concluded that the impacts of EMF exposure on terrestrial fauna 

6 were of small significance at operating U.S. nuclear power plants, including transmission 

7 systems with variable numbers of transmission lines (NRC 1996). Therefore, the incremental 

8 EMF impact on fauna posed by the operation of the proposed transmission lines at the Calvert 

9 Cliffs site would be minimal. 

10 5.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitat 

11 This section discusses the potential impacts of operation of the proposed Unit 3 on important 

12 species, including Federally and State-listed species, and important habitats. 

13 Federally Listed Species 

14 Two Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species exists on or near the 

15 Calvert Cliffs site: the Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela puritana) and the northeastern beach tiger 

16 beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis). The Puritan tiger beetle inhabits steep, bare bluffs of the 

17 Chesapeake Bay and the narrow beaches below. This species is found on the southern portion 

18 of the Calvert Cliffs site. The northeastern beach tiger beetle inhabits the upper intertidal 

19 beaches of the Chesapeake Bay on the Flag Ponds Natural Area immediately north of the 

20 Calvert Cliffs site. Adults are occasionally found on the northern most 300 ft of beach that 

21 adjoins Flag Ponds Natural Area. 

22 Chesapeake Bay is the cooling water source for the proposed Unit 3, and water withdrawal from 

23 the Bay has the potential to affect the two tiger beetle species. However, the impact on the 

24 shoreline of water withdrawal for cooling Unit 3 would not be measurable. As a result of 

25 withdrawal, beach habitat would not be altered, and tiger beetles as well as other fauna and 

26 flora residing along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline would be unaffected. Maintenance dredging 

27 also has the potential to affect the tiger beetles. A few adult Puritan tiger beetles have been 

28 observed on beaches adjacent to the barge dock (Knisley 2009). Activities that occur on the 

29 beach during the time of year these beetles are active could directly affect Puritan tiger beetles; 

30 also, activities that alter the beach when the beetles are not active could affect their habitat. 

31 However, it is likely that FWS and/or the Corps would require protective measures, such as 

32 time-of-year restrictions, if maintenance dredging is conducted in a manner that may affect the 

33 beetles. Consequently, the potential effects on Federally listed species from operation of the 

34 proposed Unit 3 and from maintenance dredging would be unlikely to adversely affect the 

35 Puritan tiger beetle and northeastern beach tiger beetle populations. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-12 April 2010 

1 State-Listed Species 

2 Species listed by the State of Maryland and known to occur on the Calvert Cliffs site include the 

3 bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne 

4 carolinensis), showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa), spurred butterfly pea (Centrosema 

5 virginianum), and Shumard’s oak (Quercus shumardii). Noise and human activity from the 

6 operation of the proposed Unit 3 may displace bald eagles in the immediate vicinity of Unit 3. 

7 However, known active bald eagle nests are located a sufficient distance away from the 

8 proposed cooling tower location, which minimizes effects from noise that would result in 

9 disturbance as defined by the FWS (FWS 2007). An immature bald eagle was electrocuted on 

10 a transmission line that services CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (Constellation 2004). It was determined 

11 that this incident was likely isolated, and no corrective action was recommended or taken 

12 (Constellation 2004). 

13 The eastern narrow-mouthed toad is not known to occur within the footprint of the proposed 

14 Unit 3. However, it may occur in nearby wetlands, and both TDS deposition and herbicide use 

15 could affect water chemistry within those wetlands. TDS deposition is not known to affect 

16 wetlands in temperate climates (NRC 1996), and as discussed above, cooling tower operation 

17 would result in minimal amounts of TDS deposition. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for 

18 vegetation maintenance would be used to minimize herbicide use in sensitive areas such as 

19 wetlands. Therefore, effects from the operation of the proposed Unit 3 on eastern narrow20 mouthed toads, if present in the vicinity, are not expected to be noticeable. 

21 Operational impacts to State-listed plant species would most likely result from cooling tower 

22 operation and transmission line maintenance. TDS deposition could affect plants, but 

23 deposition from the proposed Unit 3 cooling tower is expected to be far below levels that would 

24 have any effect on plants. The showy goldenrod only occurs in open habitats, and vegetation 

25 management maintains the transmission line corridors as open habitat potentially suitable for 

26 showy goldenrod. The spurred butterfly pea is a habitat generalist and could occur in the open 

27 or under a forest canopy, and Shumard’s oak could become established within transmission line 

28 corridors if maintenance ceased. However, regular vegetation management within transmission 

29 line corridors would likely preclude showy goldenrod, spurred butterfly pea and Shumard’s oak 

30 from becoming established within transmission line corridors. Since none of these species are 

31 currently known to occur within the transmission line corridors, adverse impacts to State-listed 

32 plant species from the operation of the proposed Unit 3 would be minimal. For these reasons, 

33 adverse impacts to State-listed species may result from the operation of the proposed Unit 3, 

34 but the impacts would be minor. 

35 Wetlands Impacts Related to Operations 

36 As mentioned above, both TDS deposition and herbicide use could affect water chemistry within 

37 wetlands. TDS deposition is not known to affect wetlands in temperate climates (NRC 1996), 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 and as discussed above, cooling tower operation would result in minimal amounts of TDS 

2 deposition. The new onsite transmission corridor would not traverse any wetlands or 

3 floodplains. As a result, operation of the proposed Unit 3 and maintenance of the transmission 

4 line corridors are not expected to have any adverse impact on wetlands. 

5 5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring 

6 There are no ongoing terrestrial monitoring activities related to transmission on the Calvert Cliffs 

7 site or identified for proposed Unit 3 operation. 

8 5.3.1.5 Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial Resources 

9 Maximum TDS deposition throughout the year, both on and off the Calvert Cliffs site, would be 

10 below the rate that would cause leaf damage to even the most sensitive species. Water 

11 droplets emitted from the proposed cooling tower would be minimal, so the potential for fogging, 

12 icing, or localized precipitation would be virtually eliminated. With a cooling tower only 164 ft 

13 tall, bird collision mortality would be unlikely. Plant operations would not be expected to emit 

14 noise at levels above ambient noise levels found along the Calvert Cliffs site boundary, and 

15 noise would likely be attenuated by surrounding forest cover, further limiting any impact. The 

16 amount of shoreline exposed from withdrawal from the Chesapeake Bay would not be 

17 measurable, and potential maintenance dredging of the barge slip would follow applicable 

18 permit conditions. Flora and fauna residing along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, including two 

19 Federally listed tiger beetle species, would be minimally affected by operations. 

20 To accommodate the proposed Unit 3, two new 500-kV circuits would be constructed to connect 

21 proposed Unit 3 to the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 switchyard. Impacts from operation and 

22 maintenance of the new transmission line corridor, such as vegetation removal, access road 

23 maintenance, and continued prevention of forest succession, would not be substantial. The 

24 new transmission corridor would not affect any wetlands or floodplains. 

25 Operational impacts to State-listed species would likely result from transmission line corridor 

26 maintenance. Annual maintenance activities would likely preclude showy goldenrod, spurred 

27 butterfly pea, and Shumard’s oak from becoming established within transmission line corridors. 

28 None of these species are currently known to occur within transmission corridors that would 

29 support the proposed Unit 3. Based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s 

30 independent review, the review team concludes that the impacts from the operation of proposed 

31 Unit 3 and associated transmission lines to Calvert Cliffs site terrestrial ecosystems would be 

32 SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-14 April 2010 

1 5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts 

2 This section discusses the potential impacts of the operation of the proposed Unit 3 and 

3 associated transmission lines on the freshwater resources in onsite streams and ponds and the 

4 estuarine resources in Chesapeake Bay. 

5 5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and the Vicinity 

6 Stormwater Drainage 

7 The principal impacts from the operation of proposed Unit 3 on the freshwater resources would 

8 be from the increased stormwater runoff from the 130 ac of impervious surfaces added to the 

9 site. During the period of operation, onsite streams, ponds, wetlands, and the Chesapeake Bay 

10 could be affected by stormwater drainage. UniStar prepared a conceptual stormwater 

11 management plan to control stormwater runoff that might occur during the construction and 

12 operation of proposed Unit 3 (Bechtel 2008). The plan considered applicable State of Maryland, 

13 Calvert County, and the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service regulations and design 

14 criteria. UniStar proposes to conduct a detailed stormwater management study to establish the 

15 specific design criteria necessary to maintain downstream flow rates, sediment loads, and water 

16 quality similar to those that now exist on the site. Because such design criteria would be 

17 protective of aquatic resources, the review team concludes that based on the use of a 

18 stormwater system described in the stormwater management plan, the impacts to onsite 

19 waterbodies and the Chesapeake Bay from operation of the proposed Unit 3 would be minor. 

20 Salt deposition from the cooling tower plume would occur primarily to the southern part of the 

21 Calvert Cliffs site and would deposit a maximum of 1.96 lb/ac per month on the site (UniStar 

22 2009a). Maximum deposition at the Unit 3 switchyard would be 1.2 lb/ac per month. Data on 

23 the sensitivity of aquatic organisms to salt deposition levels are not available. However, both 

24 maximum deposition values are much lower than that documented to affect sensitive terrestrial 

25 plants (see Section 5.3.1.1). Therefore, the effects of the predicted salt deposition on 

26 freshwater resources on the site would likely be minor. 

27 Chesapeake Bay 

28 In addition to the minor impacts from stormwater drainage as discussed above, the principal 

29 impacts from the operation of proposed Unit 3 on the Chesapeake Bay resources would be from 

30 operation of the proposed cooling system. This section discusses impacts on Bay resources 

31 from the proposed intakes and discharge as well as maintenance dredging. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Water Intake and Consumption 

2 The primary concerns for aquatic resources related to water intake and consumption are the 

3 relative amount of water drawn from the cooling water source, the Chesapeake Bay, and the 

4 potential for organisms to be impinged on the intake screens, entrained into the cooling water 

5 system, or entrapped within the common intake forebay. Impingement occurs when organisms 

6 are trapped against the intake screens by the force of the water passing through the CWS. Fish 

7 and invertebrates that are impinged on the intake screens can be injured or killed. Some 

8 species survive impingement better than others. The intake system design for the proposed 

9 Unit 3 CWS includes a fish-return system located at the screens in the proposed forebay versus 

10 the expanded embayment. Larger animals, such as sea turtles, could be impinged on the trash 

11 racks at the intake pipeline openings in the wedge-shaped intake pool, or entrapped within the 

12 pool or within the common forebay. Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the 

13 CWS into the plant’s cooling system. Organisms that become entrained are normally relatively 

14 small benthic, planktonic, and nektonic (water column organisms) species, including early life 

15 stages of fish and shellfish, which often serve as prey for larger organisms (66 FR 65256). As 

16 entrained organisms pass through a plant’s cooling system, they are subject to mechanical, 

17 pressure, thermal, and toxic stresses. For this analysis, the review team assumes 100 percent 

18 mortality as a result of entrainment. Entrapment would occur when entrained organisms remain 

19 within the common forebay and are not drawn into the traveling screens and associated fish20 return system. Entrapment likely would result in the development of a mostly isolated, 

21 microcosmic estuarine ecosystem in the common forebay. Some entrapped animals could be 

22 impinged on trash racks or traveling screens at the CWS and UHS intakes. 

23 An important factor affecting impingement and entrainment losses is the percentage of the flow 

24 of the source waterbody past the site that is withdrawn by the station. To minimize impact, the 

25 EPA determined that the total design intake flow over one tidal cycle of ebb and flow must be no 

26 greater than 1 percent of the water volume of the water column within the area centered about 

27 the opening of the intake with a diameter defined by the distance of one tidal excursion at the 

28 mean low water level. The intake design through-screen velocity greatly influences the rate of 

29 impingement of fish and shellfish at a facility. EPA determined that species and life stages 

30 evaluated in various studies could endure a velocity of 1.0 ft/sec and then applied a safety factor 

31 of two to derive the threshold of 0.5 ft/sec, which became established as a national standard for 

32 the maximum design through-screen velocity (66 FR 65256). 

33 UniStar plans to use a closed-cycle, recirculating, wet cooling system with a cooling tower for 

34 the proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). The intake system for proposed Unit 3 would incorporate 

35 protection measures that may reduce entrainment and impingement. The estimated maximum 

36 intake volume of 47,383 gpm for the Unit 3 would not exceed the EPA 1-percent water column 

37 criterion (UniStar 2009a). The CWS proposed for Unit 3 would have a fish-return system 

38 generally similar to that employed at existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The UHS proposed for 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-16 April 2010 

1 Unit 3 would have traveling screens but would not have a fish-return system because it would 

2 operate only occasionally or in the case of a design basis accident (DBA) (UniStar 2009c). The 

3 proposed intake and fish-return system would include several features designed to reduce the 

4 chance for injury to organisms caught within the system (Section 3.3.2.1.1). Moreover, the 

5 through-screen flow velocity would be less than 0.5 ft/sec under the worst case scenario of 

6 minimum Chesapeake Bay level with highest makeup demand flow (UniStar 2009a). The 

7 projected intake flow for Unit 3 is about 96.8 cfs, which is considerably less than the combined 

8 flow of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 of 5332 cfs. Because the projected intake flow volume for Unit 3 

9 is about 1.82 percent of that at CCNPP Units 1 and 2, and assuming that the relationship 

10 between flows is linear, the projected entrainment and impingement rates at Unit 3 are projected 

11 to be correspondingly small). 

12 Despite the generally high productivity within Chesapeake Bay, the area off the Calvert Cliffs 

13 site, where the intake pipeline for Unit 3 begins, is not particularly productive although there is 

14 some recreational fishing in the area. As discussed in Section 2.4.2, there is no substantial 

15 submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat off the site, the benthic infaunal communities are 

16 degraded, and oysters are not abundant. The PPRP determined that the area off the Calvert 

17 Cliffs site is not a significant spawning area (McLean et al. 2002). 

18 Entrainment

19 The review team used historical data collected at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 extrapolated to the 

20 proposed Unit 3 to evaluate the potential effects of entrainment within the cooling water system 

21 and the impingement on the intake traveling screens on estuarine biota. Phytoplankton data 

22 used to estimate entrainment at proposed Unit 3 were collected between 1978 through 1980 at 

23 CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Microzooplankton data were collected from 1974 through 1980, and 

24 ichthyoplankton data were collected in 1978 and 1979 (UniStar 2008a). More recently, 

25 ichthyoplankton entrainment sampling was conducted at the intake system of CCNPP Units 1 

26 and 2 from March 2006 through September 2007 (EA Engineering 2008). Additional 

27 ichthyoplankton samples were collected just outside the existing baffle wall separating the 

28 intake area from the open waters of the Bay from April to December 2006, which allowed 

29 comparison of entrained organisms with natural populations in the Bay. 

30 Several researchers used these historical data to evaluate the potential impacts of the CCNPP 

31 Units 1 and 2 intake on plankton communities near the site as part of a program to determine 

32 the overall effects of the plant on the Chesapeake Bay. Sellner and Kachur (1987) determined 

33 that entrainment within the cooling water system of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 significantly reduced 

34 phytoplankton density in the discharge stream and changed phytoplankton photosynthesis 

35 metabolism such that carbon fixation was reduced. Importantly, however, they determined that 

36 these changes had no discernable effect on the phytoplankton densities or metabolism in the 

37 Chesapeake Bay waters near the Calvert Cliffs site. Olson (1987) found that zooplankton 

38 densities were lower at the discharge point than they were at the intake point, which suggests 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 that entrainment causes some zooplankton loss. Larval copepods were most affected. Olson 

2 also indicated that survival after entrainment was typically very high, about 65 to 100 percent for 

3 the species studied, and that no important changes in the zooplankton community could be 

4 detected. The predominant zooplankton included calanoid copepod larval stages (nauplii, 

5 copepodites) and adults. The predominant nauplii were of the copepod Acartia tonsa. The 

6 copepods A. clausi and Eurytemora affinis also were commonly found in the samples. 

7 By extrapolating historical data, the review team estimated phytoplankton entrainment at 

proposed Unit 3 to range between 1.19 × 1016 and 4.25 × 1016 8 cells annually. The predominant 

9 groups included diatoms (Bacillariophyta), cryptomonads (Cryptophyta), dinoflagellates 

10 (Pyrrophyta), and blue-green algae (Cyanophyta). Similarly, the review team estimated the 

proposed Unit 3 annual entrainment for microzooplankton to range between 1.33 × 1021 11 and 

2.50 × 1022 12 organisms. 

13 EA Engineering (2008) estimated that the total ichthyoplankton entrainment from March 2006 to 

14 September 2007 at the maximum design flow for the intake systems of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, 

15 was at least 11.9 billion organisms, including fish fertilized eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults. 

16 This value is a minimum estimate of the total potential entrainment because daytime samples 

17 were not collected in March 2006, October through December 2006, and January through 

18 March 2007. Most of the entrainment during the EA Engineering study occurred from May to 

19 September. The bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), including all life stages, was the predominant 

20 taxon entrained, accounting for about 75 percent and 69 percent of the total organisms 

21 estimated as entrained during 2006 and 2007, respectively. About 5.7 million adult bay 

22 anchovies were estimated to be entrained at the maximum design flow rate. Sciaenid (croaker) 

23 eggs, Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) eggs and larvae, and naked goby (Gobiosoma 

24 bosc) larvae and juveniles accounted for about 18.5, 3.3, and 1.5 percent of the entrained 

25 organisms, respectively. Hogchoker eggs (Trinectes maculatus), sciaenid eggs, and Atlantic 

26 menhaden eggs and larvae accounted for about 14.1, 6.0, and 4.9 percent of the organisms 

27 estimated entrained in 2007, respectively. Bay anchovy (all life stages), sciaenid eggs, Atlantic 

28 menhaden eggs and larvae, and naked goby larvae and juveniles were the predominant 

29 organisms collected just outside the intake system baffle wall, although the proportional 

30 contribution of each varied somewhat (EA Engineering 2008). Comparisons of the intake and 

31 baffle-wall samples showed that most taxa were entrained at rates relative to their occurrence in 

32 the Bay waters. However, juvenile bay anchovies, American eel juveniles, Atlantic menhaden 

33 eggs and larvae, and sciaenid eggs were more abundant at the intake than they were at the 

34 baffle wall. 

35 The review team used the April through September data for each year to estimate the total 

36 potential entrainment by the proposed Unit 3 intake system because only those months had 

37 samples collected during the day and night. The April through September time period was the 

38 main period of entrainment captured by the study. Entrainment of most species and lifestages, 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-18 April 2010 

1 except Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) juveniles, was nonexistent or very reduced 

2 between October and March. The estimate also considered that the projected intake flow 

3 volume for the proposed Unit 3 would be about 1.82 percent of that at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

4 and assumed that the relationship between the two flows is linear. The review team’s projection 

5 of ichthyoplankton entrainment by the intake system for the proposed Unit 3 for April through 

6 September ranged from about 83 million to about 132 million organisms. The projected annual 

7 total entrainment for the proposed Unit 3 would not be much greater than these estimates, with 

8 the possible exception of Atlantic croaker juveniles, because entrainment from April through 

9 September is much greater than it is during the rest of the year. 

10 The review team did not compare these gross entrainment levels to total fish populations in the 

11 Bay because total fish population data are not directly comparable to them. Fish sampling 

12 techniques used to estimate population size do not capture all of the species that are entrained, 

13 and some entrained species are not caught by the surveys. It is more important to evaluate 

14 individual species that vary in entrainment susceptibility and population trends. Data on 

15 individual species, and the potential implications of entrainment on those species, are presented 

16 in the Important Species section. However, based on the percentage of water withdrawn, the 

17 planned low through-screen intake velocity, use of closed-cycle cooling, and the lack of 

18 significant spawning in the area, the review team finds that the impacts to Chesapeake Bay 

19 biota from entrainment at the proposed Unit 3 would be minor. 

20 Impingement

21 The BGE sponsored impingement sampling at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 through 1995 

22 (Ringger 2000). Annual fish and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) impingement during that time 

23 varied considerably (Table 5-1). Peak fish impingement occurred during the spring and 

24 summer. Blue crab impingement generally was greatest in spring, summer, or fall. Ringger 

25 (2000) identified two of the factors that contribute to increased impingement as low dissolved 

26 oxygen levels at night and weather-related sudden decreases in temperature (5.4 to 7.2°F in 1 

27 to 2 days). There did not to appear to be annual trends, except that impingement generally 

28 appeared to be less after 1986 than previously. The most commonly impinged fish during the 

29 21-year period were bay anchovy, hogchoker, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and Atlantic 

30 menhaden. As for fish, blue crab impingement generally was lower after the mid 1980s than 

31 before. Ringger (2000) attributed much of the variability in impingement to natural variation in 

32 environmental conditions. Ringger (2000) used the impingement data and data from survival 

33 studies to estimate the annual fish and blue crab mortality from impingement (Table 5-1). The 

34 apparent difference in impingement rates before and after the mid 1980s may be related to 

35 several operational and structural modifications to the intake and fish-return systems that were 

36 made from about 1984 to 1986, partly in response to severe impingement events that occurred 

37 in 1983 (Ringger 2000). 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 5-1. Estimated Impingement and Mortality at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (1975 to 1995) and 

2 Projected Values for Proposed Unit 3

Impingement 

Maximum 

Estimated 

Impingement

Minimum 

Estimated 

Impingement

Average 

Estimated 

Impingement

Fish Units 1 & 2 9,671,262 79,081 1,303,751 

Unit 3 175,684 1437 23,683 

 Total 9,846,946 80,518 1,327,434 

Blue Crabs Units 1 & 2 1,883,619 81,927 627,711 

Unit 3 34,217 1488 11,403 

 Total 1,917,836 83,415 639,114 

Mortality

Maximum 

Estimated 

Mortality

Minimum 

Estimated 

Mortality

Average Estimated 

Mortality

Fish Units 1 & 2 2,229,859 17,240 348,298 

Unit 3 40,507 313 6327 

 Total 2,270,366 17,553 354,625 

Blue Crabs Units 1 & 2 10,172 442 3390 

Unit 3 185 8 62 

 Total 10,357 450 3452 

Source: CCNPP Units 1 and 2 data from Ringger 2000 

3 The review team scaled the numbers of organisms impinged at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 to the 

4 proposed Unit 3 intake cooling water withdrawal flow. The average annual fish and blue crab 

5 impingement rates predicted for proposed Unit 3 are 23,683 fish and 11,403 crabs (Table 5-1). 

6 These resulted in estimated average annual impingement mortality rates at proposed Unit 3 of 

7 6327 fish and 62 crabs (Table 5-1). The very low crab mortality estimate results from the high 

8 survival rate (99.46 percent) following impingement (Ringger 2000). The impingement mortality 

9 estimates for fish and blue crabs probably are somewhat conservative because the entire 

10 21-year data set was used for the calculations regardless of apparently reduced impingement 

11 after modifications made in the mid 1980s to Units 1 and 2 (such modifications were 

12 implemented to reduce impingement) and because proposed Unit 3 intake approach velocities 

13 within the forebay would be less than 0.5 ft/sec, which would allow more fish and crabs to avoid 

14 impingement. Unit 3 would also incorporate a fish-return system in the common forebay that 

15 may help increase survival following impingement by returning fish and crabs beneath the 

16 surface of the Bay. The fish-return outfall pipe (Section 3.2.2) would extend about 40 ft into the 

17 Bay with end of the pipe emerging from the bay floor but remaining below mean lower low tide 

18 level (UniStar 2008b). This design was chosen to minimize any drop at the exit point to facilitate 

19 the returning of the fish to the Chesapeake Bay (UniStar 2008a). 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-20 April 2010 

1 The impingement of some large and/or abundant organisms occasionally may affect plant 

2 operations. Special Condition N of the NPDES permit for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 requires 

3 notification of any impingement on the water intake apparatus of aquatic organisms substantial 

4 enough to cause modification to plant operations within 24 hours (UniStar 2009a). CCNPP staff 

5 reported seven impingement incidents (from operation of Units 1 and 2) to the NRC in 2005 and 

6 2006. In July and September 2006, there were five reported incidents of significant jellyfish 

7 impingement at the intakes of Units 1 and 2 that required one or more circulating water pumps 

8 to be secured temporarily (NRC 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006e). The jellyfish species was not 

9 identified. The plant remained at 100 percent power during four of these occurrences. 

10 Significant fish kills involving cownose rays (Rhinoptera bonasus) were reported in the summer 

11 2005 (80 to 100 rays) and 2006 (50 to 200 rays) (NRC 2005, 2006d). The rays were impinged 

12 on the trash racks of both units. Such impingement events could occur on the trash racks for 

13 proposed CWS intake pipes. 

14 The proposed UHS intake system would not have an associated fish-return system. Any 

15 organisms that were caught on the traveling screens for the UHS pumps would be discarded 

16 and lost. However, because the UHS pumps would only operate periodically or in the case of a 

17 DBA (UniStar 2009c), the overall impingement losses at the UHS intake screens would likely be 

18 minor. 

19 Water from the wedge-shaped pool would enter the common forebay that would supply water to 

20 the CWS and UHS intakes (Section 4.2). Organisms, such as cownose rays, impinged on the 

21 trash bars at the intake pipe openings would likely die because there is no rake or return system 

22 at that interface with the Bay. Such organisms would likely be larger than 3.5-in., which is the 

23 spacing between the trash bars. In addition, once in the wedge-shaped pool, organisms could 

24 grow and later be impinged at the trash bars or traveling screens in front of the CWS and UHS 

25 intakes. 

26 The Unit 3 estimated impingement mortality values are extremely low compared to Bay 

27 populations. For example, the average annual fish mortality of 6327 is considerably less than 

28 the estimated population size of the bay anchovy alone (about 11.2 billion individuals between 

29 1.2 and 10 in. long) (Table 5-2), one of the most commonly impinged species. The 2007 

30 commercial blue crab catch in Maryland was about 22 million pounds (MDNR 2008). Assuming 

31 a conservative estimate of one pound per crab (the average weight is likely less than one 

32 pound), the 2007 catch would have been about 22 million individuals, much greater than the 

33 estimated Unit 3 annual impingement mortality of 62 crabs. Because of the planned low 

34 through-screen intake velocity, the use of closed-cycle cooling, the design of the fish-return 

35 system, and the historically low impingement mortality rates for the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 

36 2, the review team concludes that impacts from impingement of fish and blue crabs for the 

37 proposed Unit 3 would be minor. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Entrapment

2 Organisms that enter the common CWS/UHS forebay could become entrapped there because 

3 there would be no mechanism to remove them from the common forebay other than the fish4 return system associated with the CWS pumps (UniStar 2009c). The CWS and UHS intakes 

5 would have slow through-screen velocities, and it would be possible for some organisms to 

6 remain within the large common forebay without being drawn toward the intake structures. The 

7 review team did not have specific information about entrapment that would be necessary to 

8 confidently estimate the numbers of the individuals that would be entrapped. However, the 

9 species most likely to become entrapped would be those that were impinged by the traveling 

10 screens at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and those whose early life stages were among the more 

11 commonly entrained organisms during the studies conducted at Units 1 and 2. Some species 

12 may thrive in the common forebay although others may not; regardless, all organisms entrapped 

13 in the forebay would be effectively removed from the Bay ecosystem. Because the review team 

14 concluded that the overall effects of entrainment and impingement were minor, the incremental 

15 effects of entrapment on aquatic resources in the Bay would likely also be minor. 

16 Water Discharge 

17 The effluent from proposed Unit 3 would be discharged directly into the Chesapeake Bay. 

18 Section 3.2.2 discusses the location and design of the discharge piping. The potential impacts 

19 to the Chesapeake Bay aquatic resources from the discharge of cooling water from the 

20 proposed Unit 3 include the impacts of heated effluents on aquatic resources, chemical impacts, 

21 and physical impacts.

22 Thermal Impacts

23 The review team used Abbe’s (1987) evaluation of the potential effects of the thermal discharge 

24 from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and the staff’s CORMIX modeling (see Section 5.2.3.1) to estimate 

25 the potential impacts from the expected discharge for proposed Unit 3. 

26 Abbe (1987) concluded that the thermal discharge from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 had no important 

27 adverse impacts on fish, eastern oysters, blue crabs, and soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria). In its 

28 latest review of issues concerning the operation of power plants in the State, the Maryland 

29 PPRP concluded that the effects of thermal discharges from power plants into Chesapeake Bay 

30 habitats were localized and not significant (MDNR PPRP 2008b). CORMIX modeling results 

31 indicate that the thermal discharge plume from proposed Unit 3 discharge would be small, and 

32 therefore, waste heat would dissipate quickly because of the small size of the thermal plume 

33 (see Section 5.2.3.1) and would not contribute to heat-shock stress to fish or crabs. The 

34 thermal plume’s predicted small size suggests that it would have little, if any, effect on fish 

35 passage or the migration of other important aquatic organisms. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-22 April 2010 

1 Cold shock occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as 

2 fish in a power plant’s discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease, which 

3 sometimes occurs when power plants shut down suddenly in winter. Cold shock mortalities at 

4 U.S. nuclear power plants are “relatively rare” and typically involve few fish (NRC 1996). Abbe 

5 (1987) concluded that the potential for cold shock associated with the discharge plume from 

6 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 probably was not significant because the relatively small area of warmer 

7 water did not attract many fish during the winter. Cold shock is also unlikely to be a factor at the 

8 proposed Unit 3 site because the discharge is into a large bay where the volume of the 

9 discharge is very small in comparison to the volume of the Bay (UniStar 2008c). 

10 Based on the foregoing, the review team concludes that the thermal impacts on the fish 

11 populations from proposed Unit 3 would be minor. 

12 Chemical Impacts

13 The ER indicates that chemicals, such as anti-scaling compounds, corrosion inhibitors, and 

14 biocides, would be added to the cooling water system and the ESWS (UniStar 2009a). 

15 Biofouling normally would be controlled by injecting chlorine into the Chesapeake Bay influent 

16 water during the spring through fall (UniStar 2009a). The CWS would provide about 90 percent 

17 of the effluent discharged to the Chesapeake Bay, with the desalinization plant contributing 

18 another 9 percent (UniStar 2008a). UniStar provided estimated concentrations of various 

19 constituents in the waste stream based on design data. To illustrate the expected low 

20 concentrations of these constituents, UniStar compared expected concentrations of five metal 

21 contaminants (arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc) to aquatic life chronic salt water limits 

22 specified by the State of Maryland (COMAR 2008a). Predicted concentrations within the 

23 discharge from proposed Unit 3 would be substantially less than the State aquatic life limits 

24 (UniStar 2008a). UniStar would calculate more precise estimates of constituent concentrations 

25 in the effluent as part of the NPDES permitting process for Unit 3.

26 UniStar expects that the NPDES permit for Unit 3 would require bioassay testing as does the 

27 permit for Units 1 and 2 to assess the potential toxicity of the discharge and provide for 

28 corrective action if necessary. To date, the bioassay testing performed for CCNPP Units 1 and 

29 2 has not indicated any toxicity to test organisms (UniStar 2009a). Based on the foregoing, the 

30 review team concludes that the chemical impacts on the aquatic resources from proposed 

31 Unit 3 would be minor. 

32 Physical Impacts from Discharge

33 The primary physical and ecological impacts from the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 cooling water 

34 discharge are sediment scour near the high-velocity discharge. The bottom scour by the 

35 discharge from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 is about 42 ac (UniStar 2008a). The sand substrate 

36 present prior to the operation of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 was scoured by the discharge, leaving a 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 hard clay substrate. The benthic community changed from one characterized by burrowing soft2 bottom organisms to one dominated by fouling organisms (UniStar 2009a). The bottom 

3 scouring near the discharge from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 caused the habitat to change from 

4 sandy sediment to hard clay and also caused a change from a sand-inhabiting infaunal 

5 community to an epifaunal community comprised of oysters, mussels, barnacles, and sea 

6 anemones (Abbe 1987). 

7 It is expected that the physical impacts associated with proposed Unit 3 cooling water discharge 

8 would be limited to sediment scour of a small area. The area of Bay bottom that may be 

9 scoured would be minimized by the placement of riprap for about 10 ft on either side of the 

10 diffuser (UniStar 2008b). The potential scour area was estimated by comparing the sediment 

11 type to expected discharge flow velocities. Sediments in the area are primarily sandy 

12 (Section 2.4.2), and UniStar calculated that a water velocity of about one ft/sec would be 

13 required to move sand particles of a size between 0.210 mm and 0.177 mm (0.008 and 

14 0.007 in.) (UniStar 2008a). The distance beyond which water velocities are expected to drop 

15 below the one ft/sec threshold was estimated to be about 92 ft, which resulted in an estimated 

potential scour area of 13,256 ft2 16 , which is about 0.3 ac. 

17 The infaunal community inhabiting the area near the discharge point, which was characterized 

18 during 2006 and 2007 (EA Engineering 2007), was moderately degraded to degraded 

19 (Section 2.4.2). The community had low organism abundance and few species. The 

20 predominant taxa were polychaete worms (Streblospio benedicti, Glycinde solitaria) and a small 

21 clam species (Gemma gemma). A historical study of benthic fish feeding at a location north of 

22 the Calvert Cliffs site (Kenwood Beach) found that nematode worms and polychaetes were 

23 among the predominant prey (UniStar 2008a). 

24 A habitat change, similar to the scouring at the Unit 1 and 2 discharges, but much less 

25 extensive, is likely if the sediment becomes scoured near the discharge for Unit 3. The small 

26 predicted size of the potential scour area and relative impoverishment of the infaunal community 

27 that would be replaced would likely have a minor effect on the regional infaunal populations or 

28 their predators. 

29 Based on this analysis of the potential for physical impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from the 

30 discharge of cooling water to the Chesapeake Bay and the review team’s independent 

31 evaluation, the review team concludes that the physical impacts from discharges from the 

32 proposed Unit 3 would be minor. 

33 Maintenance Dredging

34 During construction, an area adjacent to the existing barge dock that is about 1500-ft-long by 

130-ft-wide (average width), covering 195,000 ft2 35 , would be dredged to a bottom elevation of 

36 −16 ft mean low water (UniStar 2008b). UniStar has requested permission from the Corps to 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-24 April 2010 

1 conduct maintenance dredging of the barge dock area for 10 years (USACE 2008). Assuming 

2 that the dredging methods would be the same as those used during construction, the effects on 

3 the aquatic resources of Chesapeake Bay would be the same as those described in Section 

4 4.3.2.1. These include disturbance of bottom habitats, which would limit any possible 

5 recolonization of the substrate, and increased water column turbidity. 

6 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Line Corridor 

7 The proposed transmission system includes a new 19-ac substation and two 1-mi-long 

8 connecting circuit lines with associated towers, all within the Calvert Cliffs site (UniStar 2009a). 

9 These facilities would connect to existing offsite Baltimore Gas and Electric transmission system 

10 via the existing onsite CCNPP Units 1 and 2 substation. The proposed new transmission lines 

11 would not cross any onsite waterbodies, but the transmission corridor approaches Johns Creek 

12 at one point (UniStar 2009a). 

13 The operation and maintenance of transmission line corridors for the existing CCNPP Units 1 

14 and 2 follow standard industry practices, and such procedures would be followed for the 

15 additional lines that service proposed Unit 3. Overgrown or diseased trees, and other 

16 vegetation, are pruned or removed according to relevant American National Standards Institute 

17 (ANSI) standards to reduce the likelihood that they may cause power outages or injury to the 

18 public and company employees (UniStar 2009a) 

19 The transmission system and corridors are checked twice a year, with comprehensive 

20 inspections performed on a rotating five-year schedule. The inspections guide the maintenance 

21 performed on the corridors. Maintenance routinely involves cutting herbaceous and low, woody 

22 growth once a year, and cutting saplings, larger shrubs, and small trees every 5 years (UniStar 

23 2009a). Herbicides and defoliants are used infrequently, if at all. 

24 No direct impacts to the aquatic ecosystem in the Chesapeake Bay from transmission system 

25 operations are anticipated because the transmission facilities are not near the Bay (UniStar 

26 2009a). Indirect impacts, such as the potential runoff of herbicides and defoliants, into tributary 

27 streams may occur, but the effects would be mitigated by stormwater retention facilities. 

28 The review team concludes that transmission line corridor maintenance activities would not 

29 adversely affect aquatic resources or ecosystems and that additional mitigation beyond that 

30 described above would not be warranted. 

31 5.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species 

32 The principal impacts from the operation of proposed Unit 3 on the important freshwater species 

33 listed in Section 2.4.2 would be from the increased stormwater runoff from the 130 ac of 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 impervious surfaces added to the site. Runoff from these surfaces could carry sediment and 

2 contaminants into the freshwater resources onsite and into the Chesapeake Bay. 

3 State and Federally-list Species 

4 Important estuarine species would be affected primarily by the operation of the cooling water 

5 intake and discharge systems. Two State-listed estuarine species may occur on the site 

6 (Section 2.4.2). Sea purslane (Sesuvium maritimum) and the spotted killifish (Fundulus luciae) 

7 are listed as State endangered and State “Rare?”, respectively. Neither has been found on the 

8 site (Section 2.4.2) and neither is likely to be adversely affected by the operation of Unit 3. The 

9 shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle 

10 (Chelonia mydas), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley turtle

11 (Lepidochelys kempii) are the Federally listed species known to potentially occur near the 

12 Calvert Cliffs site. The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is a Federal candidate species 

13 that may occur near the Calvert Cliffs site. The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback 

14 herring (Alosa aestivalis) are Federally listed species of concern. In accordance with Section 7 

15 of the ESA, the NRC and the Corps are jointly consulting with National Marine Fisheries Service 

16 (NMFS) regarding Federally listed estuarine species. The biological assessment is provided in 

17 Appendix F. There are no areas designated as critical habitat for threatened and endangered 

18 aquatic species near the Calvert Cliffs site. 

19 The shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon spawn in fresh waters, and the migration of 

20 young downstream does not occur until the late larval stage. Therefore, the eggs and young 

21 larvae of these two species are unlikely to be affected by entrainment in the cooling water intake 

22 of proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2008c). Neither species was found in the entrainment samples 

23 collected at the intake system for Units 1 and 2 during 2006 and 2007 or in the samples 

24 collected outside the baffle wall in 2006 (EA Engineering 2008). Neither sturgeon species 

25 occurred in the impingement samples collected at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 

26 (Ringger 2000). Only one shortnose sturgeon has been caught in trawls during the many years 

27 of sampling off the Calvert Cliffs site area, and none has been impinged (UniStar 2008c). For 

28 those reasons, the shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon populations in the Chesapeake 

29 Bay are not expected to be adversely affected by operation of Unit 3. 

30 Only two protected sea turtle species, the loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley, are likely to venture 

31 near the Calvert Cliffs site area (Section 2.4.2), although both are common in the lower Bay 

32 (Mansfield 2006). There are a few records of Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead turtles in waters off 

33 Calvert County (Section 2.4.2). A search of the event logs maintained by the NRC revealed the 

34 occurrence of fatal sea turtle impingement at the trash racks of the existing CCNPP facility 

35 (NRC 2001b). The impinged species was not identified. Leatherback and green turtles do not 

36 typically swim into the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. Operation of the proposed Unit 3 is not 

37 expected to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, green, or 

38 leatherback populations. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-26 April 2010 

1 Two of the operational factors most likely to affect other important fish species are entrainment 

2 and impingement. The review team used the March 2006 through September 2007 entrainment 

3 data collected by EA Engineering to estimate the entrainment by the intake system for proposed 

4 Unit 3 that might have occurred during that 19-month time period (Table 5-2). Those 

5 entrainment data suggest that American eel, Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), 

6 Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), 

7 white perch (Morone americana), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blueback herring 

8 (A. aestivalis) likely would be entrained by the proposed Unit 3 intake system. No life stages of 

9 American shad (A. sapidissima), cownose ray, striped bass (Morone saxatilis), species having 

10 essential fish habitat (EFH) designated within Chesapeake Bay (see Section 2.4.2), blue crab, 

11 or eastern oyster occurred in the entrainment samples collected in 2006 and 2007 (EA 

12 Engineering 2008). 

13 Table 5-2. Estimated Entrainment at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (under maximum design flow) for 

14 March 2006 through September 2007 and Projected Values for Proposed Unit 3 

Units 1&2 

Proposed 

Unit 3 Units 1&2+3 

Bay 

Population 

Estimate(c)

Important Species Total Total Total # × 106

American eel – juveniles 1,633,760 29,678 1,663,438 no data 

Atlantic croaker – juveniles 18,853,347 342,482 19,195,829 59.5 

Atlantic menhaden –juveniles 17,647,318 320,573 17,967,891 11.4 

Atlantic menhaden – 

eggs/larvae 504,700,991 9,168,178 513,869,169 

no data 

Bay anchovy – Adults 5,685,244 103,276 5,788,520 no data 

Bay anchovy – juveniles 976,021,709 17,729,984 993,751,693 no data 

Bay anchovy – eggs/larvae 8,192,501,876 148,821,408 8,341,323,284 no data 

Bay anchovy – Sum of adults 

+ juveniles 981,706,953 17,833,260 999,540,213 11,164.0 

River herring(a) – pysl(b) 2,554,646 46,407 2,601,053 131.4 (d)

Spot – juveniles 13,095,732 237,891 13,333,623 21.6 

Weakfish – juveniles 365,103 6,632 371,735 35.5 

Weakfish – pysl 2,847,261 51,722 2,898,983 no data 

White Perch – eggs 11,461,571 208,206 11,669,777 111.2 

Source for Units 1&2 data: EA Engineering 2008. 

Source for fish population estimates: Jung and Houde 2003. 

(a) could include alewife, American shad, and/or blueback herring 

(b) pysl = post yolk sac larvae 

(c) population estimates based on fish 1.2 in. < TL < 10 in. long 

(d) population total includes blueback herring and alewife 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Jung and Houde (2003) used 1995 to 2000 trawl data to estimate the abundances of pelagic 

2 fish in the Bay that provide some context for the entrainment values listed in Table 5-2. The 

3 trawl size restricted the catch to fish larger than 1.2 in. and smaller than 10 in. long, which limits 

4 the abundance comparisons to the entrainment values for juveniles and adults. All of the 

5 species listed in Table 5-2, except American eel and river herring, were among the seven most 

6 abundant species caught during the surveys. The bay anchovy was the most abundant fish with 

7 an estimated abundance of 11.15 billion fish. Abundance estimates for the other species 

8 ranged from about 22 million spot to 60 million Atlantic croaker. White perch, for which only 

9 eggs were entrained, abundance was estimated to be about 111 million fish. The predicted Unit 

10 3 entrainment values for these species are substantially less than these Bay abundance values, 

11 and the overall effects on the species would likely be minor. The cumulative effects of 

12 entrainment by all three units are discussed in Chapter 7. 

13 Many of the important species listed in Section 2.4.2 occurred in the impingement samples 

14 collected at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). The fish species most 

15 frequently impinged during those 21 years were Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, bay 

16 anchovy, blueback herring, butterfish, spot, summer flounder, weakfish, white perch, and winter 

17 flounder (Table 5-3). Blue crabs were abundant in the impingement samples collected from the 

18 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000). The total numbers 

19 impinged ranged from about 82,000 crabs to about 1.66 million crabs. More than 99 percent of 

20 impinged blue crabs survive. Eastern oysters, because they are attached to Bay substrate, are 

21 not impinged. No sea turtles were reported in the 1975 to 1995 impingement samples (Ringger 

22 2000). The review team could not estimate impingement numbers for individual important 

23 species, other than blue crabs, because data for the species were not reported. However, the 

24 review team concludes that the overall effects of impingement to most important species would 

25 likely be minor because several species have high impingement survival rates (Table 5-3), 

26 several species have not been impinged by CCNPP Units 1 and 2, and most species with low 

27 impingement survival rates had lower impingement rates after improvements were made to the 

28 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 intake system. The intake design at the proposed Unit 3 is expected to 

29 comply with regulations requiring the use of best technology available and, therefore, 

30 impingement rates at the proposed Unit 3 are expected to be even lower than impingement 

31 rates at the modified Units 1 and 2 intakes. 

32 The discharge plume projected for proposed Unit 3, because of its small size, is unlikely to 

33 adversely affect any important species. Similarly, maintenance dredging is not likely to have 

34 long-lasting effects on important species. Any of the important species that could become 

35 entrained or impinged by operation of the cooling water system could be entrapped in the 

36 wedge-shaped pool or common forebay. The potential for entrapment and the specific effects 

37 on each important species cannot be estimated with certainty. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-28 April 2010 

1 Table 5-3. Occurrence of Important Fish Species in Impingement Samples Collected at 

2 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from 1975 to 1995 (Ringger 2000) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Number of 

years 

Years in Top 5 

Impinged 

Impingement 

Survival Rate (%)(a) 

alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 12 0 – 

American shad Alosa sapidissima 0 – – 

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus 21 5 19 

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 21 14 52 

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus 0 – – 

bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 21 21 68 

black sea bass Centropristis striata 6 0 

blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 20 5 47 

bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 9 0 

butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 15 0 – 

clearnose skate Raja eglanteria 0 – – 

cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus (b) 0 – – 

little skate Leucoraja erinacea 0 – – 

red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 1 0 

shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 0 – – 

spot Leiostomus xanthurus 21 16 84 

spotfin killifish Fundulus luciae 0 – – 

striped bass Morone saxatilis 10 0 – 

summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus 18 1 90 

weakfish Cynoscion regalis 16 1 38 

white perch Morone americana 19 0 – 

windowpane flounder Scophthalmus aquosus 5 0 – 

winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus 

15 3 93 

winter skate Leucoraja ocellata 0 – – 

(a) Calculated only for species occurring in the top five most impinged. 

(b) Large numbers of cownose rays were impinged in 2005 and 2006 (NRC 2005, 2006d). 

3 Invasive or Nuisance Organisms

4 None of the estuarine non-native species of concern listed by the State of Maryland has been 

5 documented to occur near the Calvert Cliffs site (Section 2.4.2). Two taxa often considered 

6 nuisance aquatic organisms that occur near the site are the alga Pfiesteria (Pfiesteria piscicida) 

7 and sea nettles (Chrysaora quinquecirrha). Population booms of Pfiesteria are more likely to be 

8 associated with high nutrient content in the water rather than relatively small increases in 

9 temperature (Magnien 2001). The discharge from the proposed Unit 3 is not expected to create 

10 a plume with a high nutrient content. Sea nettles and other jellyfish are known to clog the intake 

11 screens of power plants, including the Calvert Cliffs and Chalk Point (Delano 2006). Sea nettles 

12 may increase in abundance with increasing water temperatures, but the response is not dictated 

13 by temperature alone (Purcell 2007). Low freshwater input, high salinity, and high insolation all 

14 contribute to potentially high sea nettle abundances. Large numbers of sea nettles in July and 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 September 2006 clogged the intake screens at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2006a, 2006b, 

2 2006c, 2006e). The large numbers of sea nettles observed at Calvert Cliffs in 2006 probably 

3 resulted from favorable Bay-wide conditions rather than from localized increases in temperature 

4 at the thermal plume operated by CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Therefore, no large growth of invasive 

5 or nuisance organisms is anticipated from the discharge plume for the proposed Unit 3. 

6 5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring 

7 UniStar does not plan to monitor the aquatic ecosystems during operations other than that 

8 required as a condition of a new NPDES permit (UniStar 2009a). The permit probably would 

9 require flow and temperature monitoring and monitoring of certain chemical constituents in the 

10 discharge. The NPDES permit is required for the entire duration of plant operation and must be 

11 renewed every five years with provisions for updating monitoring programs and parameters, as 

12 necessary. 

13 5.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts to Aquatic Resources 

14 The review team has reviewed the proposed operation activities for proposed Unit 3 and 

15 associated transmission lines and the potential impacts to aquatic biota in the onsite freshwater 

16 habitats and the Chesapeake Bay. The addition of proposed Unit 3 would increase potential 

17 entrainment, impingement, entrapment, and thermal loading to the Chesapeake Bay, but 

18 operation of the additional unit would not increase them such that they would noticeably alter 

19 the aquatic resources of the Bay. Other impacts from operational activities, such as cooling 

20 tower drift, maintenance dredging, and transmission corridor maintenance, would be minor if not 

21 negligible. Based on the review of operational activities described in the preceding sections and 

22 species’ biological information, the review team concludes that the impacts to the freshwater 

23 and Chesapeake Bay aquatic biota resulting from the proposed Unit 3 and associated 

24 transmission line operation activities would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be 

25 warranted. 

26 5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 

27 Operations activities of nuclear power plants can affect individual communities, the surrounding 

28 region, and minority and low-income populations. This evaluation assesses the impacts of 

29 operations-related activities of the proposed Unit 3 and of the Unit 3 operations workforce on the 

30 region. The text in this section relies on information gathered from State and county agencies, 

31 local officials, and on the ER (UniStar 2009a). 

32 Regional social and economic impacts occur within the entire 50-mi radius, but primarily include 

33 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties in Maryland, which constitutes the primary impact area, as 

34 described in Section 2.5 and below in Section 5.4.2. Approximately 91 percent of the current 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-30 April 2010 

1 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 workforce lives in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, and the review team 

2 expects the Unit 3 workforce residential distribution to be similar. Based on commuter patterns 

3 and the distribution of residential communities in the area, the review team found minimal 

4 impacts on other counties within the 50-mi radius in Maryland and the adjacent States. 

5 5.4.1 Physical Impacts 

6 Potential physical impacts include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual 

7 intrusions. The review team believes these impacts will be mitigated through operations of the 

8 facility in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations and, 

9 therefore, will not significantly affect the region surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site. The following 

10 sections assess the potential operations-related physical impacts of proposed Unit 3 on specific 

11 segments of the population, the plant, and nearby communities. 

12 5.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public 

13 There are no residential areas located within the site boundary. The distribution of population is 

14 approximately 30 people within 1 mi of the site, less than 2500 within 2 mi, and approximately 

15 41,000 people within 10 mi of the site. The land surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site is zoned for a 

16 combination of light industrial, farm, forest, and residential uses, and is bounded by the 

17 Chesapeake Bay to the east and forested land to the north and south. No significant industrial 

18 or commercial facilities other than the Calvert Cliffs site exist or are planned in the vicinity. The 

19 recreational areas closest to the plant include the Flag Ponds Nature Park to the north and the 

20 Calvert Cliffs State Park to the south, both of which are adjacent to the plant site (Figure 2-4). 

21 Once the new unit begins operation, it would not produce air pollutants in significant quantities. 

22 The primary sources of pollutants would be (1) the periodic testing and operation of Calvert 

23 Cliffs’ standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems, (2) vehicle dust and exhaust, and 

24 (3) odors from operations. Because the permit to operate the diesel generators would require 

25 the applicant to comply with all applicable air emissions regulations, the review team expects 

26 the impact of diesel generator operation on air quality would be minimal. Access road 

27 maintenance and speed-limit enforcement will reduce the amount of dust generated by 

28 deliveries and the commuting workforce. UniStar would use a staggered shift schedule for its 

29 operations workforce, which would also help mitigate the effects of vehicle exhaust (UniStar 

30 2009a). UniStar plans to use BMPs to control the odors emitted by chemicals and other 

31 sources during operations and routine outages. Therefore, the review team believes the 

32 addition of one new reactor to the site will have only a minimal impact on air quality and will not 

33 require mitigation. Air quality impacts of plant operation are discussed in more detail in Section 

34 5.7 of this document. 

35 Unit 3 would produce noise from the operation of pumps, transformers, turbines, generators, 

36 and switch yard equipment. The noise levels would be controlled in accordance with State and 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Federal regulations and outside the site boundary would be below a level of 65 dBA during the 

2 day and 55 dBA at night. Most equipment would be located inside structures, reducing the 

3 outdoor noise level. UniStar plans to use one CWS cooling tower with plume abatement to 

4 remove excess heat. Mechanical draft cooling towers emit broadband noise, but UniStar does 

5 not expect the noise level to be greater than 10 dBA above background levels (UniStar 2009a). 

6 Noise levels below 60 dBA to 65 dBA are not considered to be significant because these levels 

7 are not sufficient to cause hearing loss (NRC 1996). Ambient noise heard by recreational users 

8 at Flag Ponds State Park to the north and Calvert Cliffs State Park to the south under normal 

9 conditions includes some noise from the operation of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. As stated above, 

10 the maximum sound level generated by the operation of proposed Unit 3 at the site boundary 

11 would be below the 55 dBA to 65 dBA range, would not affect the usage of nearby recreational 

12 areas, and would not require mitigation. Therefore, the review team determined the noise13 related effect on workers, residents, and recreational users of nearby areas would be minimal, 

14 and mitigation would not be warranted. 

15 5.4.1.2 Buildings 

16 Operations activities would not affect offsite buildings (UniStar 2009a). Onsite buildings have 

17 been constructed to safely withstand any possible impact, including shock and vibration, from 

18 operations activities associated with the generation of electricity at a nuclear power plant 

19 (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A). Except for Calvert Cliffs site structures, no other industrial, 

20 commercial, or residential structures will be affected. Consequently, the review team 

21 determined the operations impacts to onsite and offsite buildings would be minimal. 

22 5.4.1.3 Roads 

23 Roads within the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site would experience an increase in traffic at the 

24 beginning and the end of each operations shift and the beginning and end of each outage 

25 support shift. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed limits. The access roads to the 

26 Calvert Cliffs site would be paved. Maintaining good road conditions and enforcing appropriate 

27 speed limits would reduce the noise level and particulate matter generated by deliveries and the 

28 workforce commuting to and from the Calvert Cliffs site. Because the construction workforce 

29 would be about ten times larger than the operations workforce, any upgrades (e.g., 

30 signalization) implemented to mitigate site development activities (see Section 4.4.1.3) would be 

31 adequate to meet the increase in traffic due to operation activities. Therefore, the review team 

32 determined the road-related impacts from noise and dust to workers, residents, and other users 

33 of the roads within the vicinity of the site would be minimal. 

34 5.4.1.4 Aesthetics 

35 Approximately 30 people live within 1 mi of the site as well as other ground locations to the 

36 north, west, and south, and are screened by vegetation and site topography. As such, the 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-32 April 2010 

1 proposed unit and the associated cooling tower would not be clearly visible (see Section 3.1). 

2 From the east on Chesapeake Bay most of Unit 3 structures would be not be visible because of 

3 its elevation and the critical zone setback from the shoreline. The intake and discharge 

4 structures would be visible from Chesapeake Bay, along the shoreline and near structures for 

5 CCNPP Units 1 and 2. 

6 The visual impacts from the new cooling tower would be from the tower itself. The cooling tower 

7 plume abatement equipment is expected to reduce any vapor plume to insignificance. Given 

8 that the site has already been affected by the presence of two reactors and that the new 

9 structures are shorter than the tallest of the existing Units 1 and 2 structures, the review team 

10 concludes that the aesthetic impact of the new reactor and cooling tower would be minimal. 

11 Once the new unit is operational, electricity would be transmitted via the existing 500-kV 

12 transmission lines, and no additional transmission corridors or other offsite land use would be 

13 required. Thus, no aesthetic impacts are expected from power transmission. 

14 5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts 

15 Based on the information provided by UniStar, review team interviews with local public officials, 

16 and NRC’s own independent review, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of 

17 operation of the proposed new unit would be SMALL. Thus, additional mitigation measures 

18 beyond those identified by UniStar would not be warranted. 

19 5.4.2 Demography 

20 UniStar anticipates employing 363 operations workers at the new unit (UniStar 2009a). As 

21 shown in Table 2-11, the review team determined the number of available operations workers in 

22 the 50-mi region is small, relative to the large work force within that same area. Given that the 

23 operation of a nuclear facility requires a highly specialized workforce, which is generally not 

24 available within the region, UniStar would have to recruit such labor from beyond a reasonable 

25 commuting distance, which results in a relatively high proportion of in-migrating operations 

26 workers. Therefore, the review team considers a 50 percent in-migration scenario to be more 

27 reasonable and accurate than the estimates made by UniStar in its ER, and incorporates that 

28 assumption in the discussions below. 

29 Using the U.S. Census Bureau average household size in the U.S. of 2.61, the expected 

30 increase in population in the 50-mi region from the 182 operations workers and their families 

31 would be approximately 474 people. 

32 The review team assumed the residential distribution of new operations workers and their 

33 families would resemble the residential distribution of employees operating CCNPP Units 1 

34 and 2. Therefore, approximately 91 percent would likely reside in Calvert County (320 people) 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 and St. Mary’s County (113 people) while the other 9 percent (41 people) would live in the 

2 remainder of the 50-mi radius. This compares to 2015 population projections of 99,000, 

3 119,000, and 3.4 million for Calvert County, St. Mary’s County, and the 50-mi radius, 

4 respectively. 

5 Table 5-4. Potential Increase in Resident Population Resulting from Operating Proposed Unit 3 

County

Percent of Current 

Calvert Cliffs Site 

Workforce

Unit 3 Related 

Increase in 

Population

Projected

Population, 

2015

Percentage Increase 

in Resident 

Population

Calvert 67.5 320 98,650 0.03 

St. Mary’s 23.8 113 119,450 0.001 

Remainder of 50-mi Region 8.7 41 3,435,350 <0.00001 

Total 100.0 474 

6 Given that the Unit 3-related population increase is less than half a percent for Calvert and 

7 St. Mary’s Counties and the 50-mi region, the review team concludes that the demographic 

8 impacts of operation of the new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site would be SMALL, and mitigation 

9 would not be warranted. 

10 5.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community 

11 The impacts of station operation on the local and regional economy are dependent on the 

12 region’s current and projected economy and population. Although future impacts cannot be 

13 predicted with certainty, some insight can be obtained for the projected economy and population 

14 by consulting with county planners and population data. The economic impacts over a 40-year 

15 period of station operation are discussed quantitatively where possible. Because 91 percent of 

16 in-migrating workers are expected to live in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, these two counties 

17 represent the economic impact area. The primary economic impacts from employing 363 new 

18 workers to operate the proposed Unit 3 would be related to taxes, housing, and increased 

19 demand for goods and services, with the largest impact associated with plant property tax 

20 revenues (discussed in 5.4.3.2). 

21 5.4.3.1 Economy 

22 The primary economic impacts of nuclear power plant operation result from jobs created, wages 

23 paid, regional purchases, and tax payments made in the course of operating the power plant. 

24 The impacts of plant operation on the local and regional economy depend on the region’s 

25 economy and population at that time and will be influenced by how the affected communities 

26 have responded to the impacts of the construction phase. Although future impacts cannot be 

27 predicted with certainty, consideration of historical patterns, projected economic and 

28 demographic trends, and consultation with local planners can provide some insight into the 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-34 April 2010 

1 qualitative nature of these impacts. The review team estimated the potential economic impacts 

2 on the surrounding region as a result of operating the proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site, 

3 assuming a 40-year operating license. 

4 The review team assumes half of the 363 new direct jobs associated with operations of Unit 3 

5 would in-migrate from outside the 50-mi radius. As discussed in 4.4.3.1, new indirect jobs are 

6 created through a process called the “multiplier effect,” whereby a new (direct) job in a given 

7 area stimulates spending on goods and services, which results in the economic need for a 

8 fraction of a new (indirect) job, typically in retail and service related industries. The cumulative 

9 effect of a new direct job workforce being added to an economy induces the creation of a number 

10 of new indirect jobs. The ratio of new indirect jobs to the number of new direct jobs is called the 

11 “employment multiplier.” The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis 

12 (BEA), Economics and Statistics Division, provides regional multipliers for industry employment 

13 and earnings (UniStar 2009a). The BEA employment multiplier is applied to only in-migrating 

14 workers because the BEA model assumes the income effect from construction workers that 

15 already live in the area will have no additional impact on the economy. Through the multiplier 

16 effect, these 182 new jobs would induce the creation of 363 indirect jobs (multiplier of 2.0), which 

17 would likely be filled by unemployed individuals already living in the 50-mi region. Therefore, the 

18 review team estimated the increase in operations related total employment in the 50-mi region to 

19 be 545 jobs, of which 497 would be in the economic impact area, the remainder of which would 

20 be outside the two counties. Within the economic impact area, this translates into an increase in 

21 employment of 0.01 percent for Calvert County and 0.003 percent for St. Mary’s County. 

22 Outside of the two-county economic impact area, the employment impacts become even more 

23 diluted in the larger economic base of the surrounding counties and Washington, D.C. 

24 The operation of the new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site would also increase the workforce needed 

25 for scheduled outages by an additional 1000 workers for a 15-day period every 18 months. This 

26 outage workforce would be composed of contract employees to perform equipment 

27 maintenance, refueling, and special outage projects at the Calvert Cliffs site. Most of the outage 

28 workers would stay in local hotels, rent rooms in local homes, or bring travel trailers so they can 

29 stay as close as possible to the Calvert Cliffs site. Outside of the two-county economic impact 

30 area, the impacts become more diffuse because of each area’s larger economic base with more 

31 available hotel rooms and temporary housing. 

32 The overall impact on the economy of the region from operating the new unit at the Calvert Cliffs 

33 site would be minimal and beneficial. Imperceptible minimal, beneficial economic impacts may 

34 occur in other nearby counties within commuting distance of the plant. 

35 5.4.3.2 Taxes 

36 The tax structure of the region is discussed in Section 2.5. Several types of taxes would be 

37 generated during the operational life of proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Employees 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-35 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 would pay sales, use, personal property, and income taxes; and vendors selling materials and 

2 services to the facility would pay a variety of State, Federal, and local taxes. The Calvert Cliffs 

3 site would be subject to property taxes paid to Calvert County. 

4 Sales, Use, and Income Taxes 

5 To the extent that new operations employees move into the area from outside the State to work 

6 at the plant, the states, counties, and communities within the region would experience an 

7 increase in sales and use taxes and income tax revenues. This increase in revenue would 

8 come from both the taxes paid by Unit 3 employees on their personal incomes, sales taxes on 

9 goods they purchase, and from owners of Unit 3 for property taxes on Unit 3. Maryland 

10 counties do not receive sales tax. Instead, the tax payments go to the State. Given the large 

11 dollar amount in sales tax revenue the State receives, the sales tax revenue for the 182 in12 migrating workers would have a minimal and beneficial impact. The 182 in-migrating permanent 

13 operations employees will pay income taxes on their earnings to the counties. Given the large 

14 economic and tax base in the economic impact area and surrounding areas, the increased 

15 income tax revenue would not be noticeable at a regional level. 

16 Property Taxes 

17 Property taxes on the plant accrue only to Maryland and Calvert County. For Maryland, the tax 

18 revenues are less than 1 percent of total tax revenues. For Calvert County, the primary source 

19 of economic impact related to the operation of new unit would be property taxes assessed on 

20 the facility. Property taxes that would be paid by the owners for the new unit during operations 

21 depend on many factors such as future millage rates and the assessed value of the plant. 

22 UniStar made simplifying assumptions to develop an estimate of tax payments based on the 

23 estimated value of the reactor. Unit 3 qualifies for a 50 percent reduction in assessed property 

24 value. For the first year of operation, it is estimated that the owners of Unit 3 will pay 

25 approximately $57.1 million in property taxes. This would represent about a 25.81 percent 

26 increase over Calvert County 2009 revenues of $221.3 million. Property taxes related to Unit 3 

27 will decline each year for the first 15 years of operations due to depreciation eventually reaching 

28 $42.8 million. After the first 15 years Unit 3 property taxes will increase to $82.1 million as the 

29 county taxes the full assessed value of the unit and then again will depreciate yearly reaching 

30 $32.2 million at the end of the 40 year license of the plant. Given that Unit 3 is expected to 

31 represent such a large percentage of Calvert County revenues during operations, the review 

32 team expects Unit 3 operations to have a significant and beneficial impact on Calvert County. 

33 In addition to the property taxes paid on the value of the plant itself, all of the counties within the 

34 50-mi region, particularly Calvert County, where the review team assumes the largest portion of 

35 operations workers will establish residence, could experience an increase in property tax 

36 revenues on new homes, if the influx of workers results in any new residential construction 

37 and/or increases in existing home prices. However, this overall impact would likely be minimal 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-36 April 2010 

1 and beneficial, since the operations workforce and their families would only make up a small 

2 percentage of the existing population in the region. 

3 5.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts to the Community 

4 Based on the information provided by UniStar, review team interviews with local public officials, 

5 and NRC’s own independent review of data on the regional economy and taxes, the review 

6 team concludes that the tax-related impacts on the regional economy from operating proposed 

7 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be SMALL and beneficial for all counties except Calvert 

8 County, which would experience a LARGE beneficial increase in tax revenue. 

9 5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services 

10 Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public 

11 services, and education. The operation of the new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site would impact 

12 the transportation network as additional workforce use the local roads to commute to and from 

13 work and possibly additional truck deliveries are made to support operation of the new unit. 

14 These same commuters could also potentially impact recreation in the area. As the workforce 

15 in-migrates and settles in the region, there may be impacts on housing, education, and public 

16 sector services. 

17 5.4.4.1 Transportation 

18 Similar to the building impacts discussed in Section 4.4.4, the greatest impact of operation on 

19 transportation and traffic would be greatest on Maryland (MD) State Route 2/4, the north-south 

20 highway that provides the main access to the Calvert Cliffs site. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) 

21 was conducted by UniStar’s contractor, KDL Enginerring, P.C., to evaluate the need to install a 

22 new access road and to upgrade intersections and turn lanes near the Calvert Cliffs site without 

23 and with the decision to build the proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. The TIA 

24 recommended that three intersections retain upgrades implemented during development of 

25 Unit 3. The TIA recommendations for the other three intersections studied ranged from convert 

26 to the original configuration or downgrade to a flashing signal or stop sign to operate properly 

27 (KLD 2009). 

28 A critical area not addressed by the TIA is access from the south over the Thomas Johnson 

29 Memorial Bridge that connects Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, where the four-lane MD State 

30 Route 2/4 narrows to two lanes across the bridge. As reported in Section 2.5.2.3, the Maryland 

31 State Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration expect to complete the 

32 planning process in 2010 and construction by 2020. The construction date for the bridge is after 

33 the Unit 3 project is projected to have been completed. This limits access to the counties that 

34 lie to the west (principally St. Mary’s and Charles) and would have the effect of channeling the 

35 traffic flow to the north and south in Calvert County, which increases the need to implement the 

36 mitigation measures discussed in the TIA. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-37 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 To reduce traffic congestion while building Unit 3, two intersections may be signalized to 

2 minimize bottlenecks. If the two intersections have not been signalized by commencement of 

3 operations, then again both should be reevaluated for signalization. However, given the 

4 relatively small number of employees on staggered shifts, the estimated workforce of 363 

5 persons is expected to have a minimal impact on the transportation network in Calvert and 

6 St. Mary’s Counties. 

7 5.4.4.2 Recreation 

8 A detailed description of local tourism and recreation is provided in Section 2.5. Major park 

9 facilities located within Calvert County include Calvert Cliffs State Park located south of the 

10 Calvert Cliffs site and the Flag Ponds Nature Park to the north. Recreational activities include 

11 bird watching, fishing, fossil hunting, hiking, picnicking, swimming and a playground (MDNR 

12 2007). The review team expects impacts on area recreation resources to be minimal during 

13 operations because the operations would not affect recreational opportunities. The aesthetic 

14 impacts of the plant operations from the vantage point of local recreational areas would be 

15 minimal. 

16 5.4.4.3 Housing 

17 Section 2.5.2 states there were 1830 and 3814 vacant housing units (owner occupied and 

18 rental) in Calvert County and St. Mary’s County in 2006. The estimated 182 housing units 

19 needed in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties to house the operations workforce represent 

20 3 percent of the vacant housing. In addition, there are more than 30 apartment complexes in 

21 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties (excluding any housing supply that would have been 

22 constructed to meet the needs of the construction workforce) and several housing 

23 developments are planned or underway. 

24 Based on the information provided by UniStar, interviews with local real estate agents and city 

25 and county planners, and NRC’s own independent review, the review team expects the 

26 housing-related impacts of operation of proposed Unit 3 would be minimal. 

27 Unit 3 would need as many as 1000 additional outage workers for a period of approximately 

28 15 days during each outage to refuel and maintain the new reactor. The outages for the new 

29 unit would be staggered with the other two units. The temporary outage workers for the existing 

30 two Calvert Cliffs reactors typically stay in area apartments, hotels or recreational vehicles 

31 dispersed throughout the region. The analysis of housing availability for the construction 

32 workforce in Section 4.5.4 indicates that the supply of hotel/motel/bed and breakfast rooms may 

33 need to be expanded to accommodate the influx of temporary workers. Overall, this influx of 

34 temporary workers would be expected to have a minimal impact on the permanent housing 

35 stock or housing market in the region. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-38 April 2010 

1 5.4.4.4 Public Services 

2 Water Supply Facilities 

3 The proposed Unit 3 would use water from Chesapeake Bay for operation and would not require 

4 water from county sources (UniStar 2009a). 

5 The Calvert County Planning Department believes that the aquifers are adequate to meet the 

6 needs of the expected growth in population through 2030 (Calvert County 2008). The 

7 St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission water supply facilities also operate at about 43 

8 percent of average capacity (UniStar 2009a). The increase in the number of households in the 

9 two-counties would raise the average operating capacity to 46 percent in Calvert County and 

10 slightly more than 43 percent in St. Mary’s, which would leave sufficient unused capacity to 

11 meet base growth and the increase in population created by operation of Unit 3. The average 

12 per capita water usage in the United States is 90 gpd for personal use, bathing, laundry, and 

13 other household uses (EPA 2003). Therefore, the new operations workforce and their families 

14 would require an additional 28,800 gpd in Calvert County and 10,170 gpd in St. Mary’s County. 

15 This increase is well within the excess capacity of 2.4 MGD in the Calvert County water systems 

16 and 4.8 MGD in the St. Mary’s County water systems. Given this increase is well within the 

17 excess capacity of the water supply facilities and there would be unused capacity to meet base 

18 growth, the review team expects impacts to water supply facilities to be minimal. 

19 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 

20 The Calvert Cliffs site has a wastewater treatment facility for the existing units. As part of the 

21 new unit’s construction project, the facility would be expanded to also support the wastewater 

22 treatment needs of proposed Unit 3. Therefore, plant operations would not directly impact the 

23 local offsite wastewater treatment capacity. 

24 The public wastewater treatment systems in Calvert County and St. Mary’s County operated at 

25 an average capacity of 54 percent and 58 percent, respectively in 2005. Assuming 100 percent 

26 of the water consumed would be disposed of through these wastewater treatment facilities, 

27 Unit 3 plant operations would require an additional 28,800 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity 

28 in Calvert County and 10,170 gpd in St. Mary’s County. Currently, Calvert County has 

29 approximately 700,000 gpd of excess wastewater treatment capacity while St. Mary’s County 

30 has 2.9 million gpd of excess capacity. Residents not serviced by a public sewer district/system 

31 rely upon septic tanks for wastewater treatment. The review team concludes that the impacts of 

32 operations on wastewater treatment facilities would be minimal, and additional mitigation would 

33 not be warranted. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-39 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Police and Fire Services 

2 Given that the review team expects the increase in population for either of the two counties to 

3 be less than 1 percent (see Section 5.4.2), and the increased demand for police and fire 

4 services is also projected to be less than 1 percent, the impact of new operations workers and 

5 their families on police and fire services would fall well within the expected population growth 

6 planned by their local governments. Therefore, the in-migration of operations workers would 

7 have a minimal impact, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

8 Medical, Health and Human Services 

9 Section 2.5.2.6 describes the level of medical and human services within Calvert and St. Mary’s 

10 Counties and Section 4.4.4.4 describes the ability of these services to accommodate the 

11 construction workforce, which the review team determined is sufficient to absorb the operations12 related influx of workers. New jobs created to operate and maintain Unit 3 would benefit the 

13 disadvantaged population served by the state health and human resource offices by adding 

14 some additional jobs to the region, which may go to people who are currently under-employed 

15 or unemployed, mitigating their involvement on some social services’ client lists (food banks, 

16 housing assistance, etc.). While the influx of new workers and their families may also create 

17 additional pressure on some social services, the review team concludes that the impact of the 

18 new permanent operations workforce on local and State welfare and social services would be 

19 minimal. 

20 5.4.4.5 Education 

21 Section 5.4.2 discusses the review team’s underlying assumptions about the distribution of 

22 workers’ families within the 50-mi radius area around the site. These assumptions indicate the 

23 expected increase in population and associated student enrollment for Calvert and St. Mary’s 

24 school districts would be less than 1 percent. This rate is well within the planned growth rate for 

25 each county government and would, therefore, have a minimal impact; mitigation would not be 

26 warranted. 

27 5.4.4.6 Summary of Impacts to Infrastructure and Community Services 

28 Based on information supplied by the applicant, review team interviews conducted with and 

29 information solicited from public officials in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, and the review 

30 team evaluation of data concerning the current availability of services and current State and 

31 community planning efforts, the review team concludes that the operation impacts on the 

32 regional infrastructure and community services would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be 

33 warranted. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-40 April 2010 

1 5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts 

2 Based on information supplied by UniStar, review team interviews conducted with public officials 

3 in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties concerning the current availability of services, and additional 

4 taxes that would likely compensate the need for additional services, the review team concludes 

5 that the impacts on the local economy would be beneficial and SMALL with the exception of 

6 Calvert County, which will likely see LARGE beneficial impacts. The estimated workforce of 

7 363 people (182 in-migrating) would have a SMALL impact on the regional infrastructure and 

8 community services including the local transportation network throughout the region and in 

9 Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties. The site is relatively isolated, light industrial in nature, and well 

10 masked by vegetation in most directions so the impacts on aesthetics would be SMALL, as 

11 would the impacts on recreation. The impacts on public services and infrastructure would be 

12 SMALL. 

13 5.5 Environmental Justice 

14 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and 

15 addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

16 programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. On August 24, 2004, 

17 the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in 

18 licensing actions (69 FR 52040). Section 2.6 discusses the locations of minority and low19 income populations around the Calvert Cliffs site and within the 50-mi radius. 

20 The scope of the review as defined in NRC guidance (NRC 2001a, 2004; 69 FR 52040) should 

21 include an analysis of the impacts on minority and low-income populations, the location and 

22 significance of any environmental impacts during operations on populations that are particularly 

23 sensitive, and any additional information pertaining to mitigation. The descriptions to be 

24 provided by this review should state whether the impacts are likely to be disproportionately high 

25 and adverse. The review should also evaluate the significance of such impacts. 

26 The review team evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority and low-income 

27 populations at those census blocks identified in Section 2.6 of this EIS could be 

28 disproportionately affected by the potential impacts of operating a new reactor at the site. To 

29 perform this assessment, the review team used the same process employed in Section 4.5. 

30 5.5.1 Health Impacts 

31 For all three health-related considerations described in Section 2.6.1, the review team 

32 determined through literature searches and consultations with NRC staff health experts that the 

33 expected operations-related level of environmental emissions is well below the protection levels 

34 established by NRC and EPA regulations and cannot impose a disproportionately high and 

35 adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. The results of the normal operation dose 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-41 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 assessments presented in Section 5.9 indicate that the maximum individual dose for these 

2 pathways would be insignificant, well below the regulatory guidelines in Appendix I of 10 CFR 

3 Part 50 and the regulatory standards of 10 CFR Part 20. As discussed in Section 4.5.1 of this 

4 EIS in the context of construction and preconstruction activities, there is no evidence that 

5 radiological or nonradiological effects from operations affect any demographic subgroup 

6 differently from any other subgroup. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 2.6 of this EIS, the 

7 review team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics or practices in the minority 

8 and low-income populations that may result in different health pathway impacts compared to the 

9 general population. Therefore, the review team concluded that there would be no 

10 disproportionate and adverse health impacts on minority and low-income members of the public 

11 from the release of radiological material from operations or from DBAs. The environmental 

12 justice impacts on health derived from operating the proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL. 

13 5.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts 

14 For the three environmental and physical considerations identified in Section 2.6.1, the review 

15 team determined that the physical impacts from operations activities at the proposed Unit 3 

16 would attenuate rapidly with distance. However, the review team did not find any evidence of 

17 unique characteristics or practices among any populations of interest and expects there would 

18 be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income community. 

19 The following four subsections discuss each of the four primary physical pathways in greater 

20 detail. 

21 5.5.2.1 Soil 

22 No new transmission line corridors are planned for Unit 3. As discussed in Section 5.9, the 

23 review team does not believe there would be any operations-related environmental effects to 

24 soils at the Calvert Cliffs site that would impact nearby residents. Therefore, the review team 

25 believes there can be no disproportionate impact on any minority or low-income population. No 

26 other environmental pathways related to soil were identified. In addition, as discussed in 

27 Section 2.6 of this EIS, the review team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics 

28 or practices in the minority or low-income populations that may result in different soil-related 

29 impacts compared to the general population. Consequently, the review team determined the 

30 marginal impact to soils from the proposed new unit would not cause any disproportionate and 

31 adverse impacts on the minority of low-income communities. 

32 5.5.2.2 Water 

33 As discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3.2, the review team determined the proposed Unit 3 at the 

34 Calvert Cliffs site would operate with a small thermal plume in the Chesapeake Bay, and that 

35 solutes in the effluent discharged would be diluted by the volume in the Chesapeake Bay. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-42 April 2010 

1 Consequently, the concentration of these chemicals in the Bay should quickly return to 

2 negligible levels and the impact to aquatic biota would be negligible. 

3 Under normal plant operation, consumptive losses of the proposed Unit 3 would be 

4 undetectable. Unit 3 would not use groundwater and, therefore, would not affect any offsite 

5 wells (see Section 5.2.2). As discussed in Section 2.6 of this EIS, the review team did not 

6 identify any evidence of unique characteristics or practices in the minority or low-income 

7 populations that may result in different water-related impacts compared to the general 

8 population. Therefore, the review team believes there would be no water-related 

9 disproportionate and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations from operations of 

10 Unit 3. 

11 5.5.2.3 Air 

12 The total liquid and gaseous effluent doses from all three units (the two existing units plus the 

13 proposed new unit) would be well within the regulatory limits of the NRC and EPA, implying that 

14 impacts on any population are likely to be minimal from this source. As described in 

15 Section 5.7.2, the review team concludes that the potential impacts from all potential air medium 

16 sources would be SMALL. Furthermore, the review team believes because of the distance 

17 between the Calvert Cliffs site and minority or low-income populations, any airborne pollutants 

18 emanating from the new Unit 3 would rapidly disperse to near background levels. As discussed 

19 in Section 2.6 of this EIS, the review team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics 

20 or practices in the minority or low-income populations that may result in different air-related 

21 impacts compared to the general population. Therefore, the review team determined there 

22 would be no disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations within 

23 the analytical area. 

24 5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts 

25 The review team determined that once the proposed new unit is operational at the Calvert Cliffs 

26 site, any adverse construction- and preconstruction-related socioeconomic impacts on any 

27 group within the 50-mi area would either stop or significantly diminish. Socioeconomic impacts 

28 were concluded to be SMALL in Section 5.4. While the addition of new operations employees 

29 might exert a small pressure on local infrastructures (schools, hospitals, etc.), as discussed in 

30 Section 2.6 of this EIS, the review team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics 

31 or practices in the minority or low-income populations that may result in greater impacts than 

32 those experienced by the general population. The review team believes any adverse impact the 

33 in-migration might create would be overwhelmed by the positive contributions of that workforce 

34 to their new local communities through income and taxes. Furthermore, the review team’s 

35 interviews of surrounding communities revealed a high level of preparedness with regard to any 

36 potential influx of temporary site development or permanent operations workers. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-43 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions 

2 NRC’s environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of populations of particular 

3 interest or unusual circumstances, such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on 

4 subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as Native American 

5 settlements. 

6 Fish advisories from the State of Maryland focus on heavy metals and other non-radiological 

7 pollutants and do not indicate the level of radioactive contamination in fish and shellfish that 

8 could be harmful if ingested. The potential radiological releases from Unit 3 would be a fraction 

9 of those from the existing for CCNPP Units 1 and 2, and the combined releases from all three 

10 units will be well below regulatory limits. In addition, while subsistence consumption of fish 

11 species from the Chesapeake Bay may be a health problem for minority and low-income 

12 populations due to the levels of mercury and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), it is not 

13 attributable to the existing reactors and cannot be reasonably projected to be exacerbated by an 

14 additional reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site. Thus, based on the levels of anticipated releases, 

15 there is no indication that proposed Unit 3 would add significantly to the total radiological 

16 releases or ingestion from subsistence harvest of fish and/or shellfish, and therefore there can 

17 be no disproportionate and adverse impact to minorities or low-income populations form 

18 subsistence activities in the Chesapeake Bay. 

19 No other unique characteristics or practices were identified for the low-income and minority 

20 populations that would indicate that they are dependent on subsistence resources that would be 

21 impacted by operation of the proposed Unit 3. 

22 5.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts 

23 Based on information provided by UniStar and review team interviews conducted with public 

24 officials in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties concerning the potential for environmental pathways 

25 and unique characteristics or practices, the review team determined there would be no 

26 disproportionately high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income populations. 

27 Therefore, the review team determined the operations-related environmental justice impacts of 

28 the proposed Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs would be SMALL. 

29 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts from Operation 

30 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires Federal agencies 

31 to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural environment, which 

32 includes archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places important to local 

33 populations. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, also requires 

34 Federal agencies to consider impacts to those resources if they are eligible for listing on the 

35 National Register of Historic Places (such resources are referred to as “Historic Properties” in 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-44 April 2010 

1 NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act 

2 of 1969,” the NRC coordinated compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in meeting the 

3 requirements of NEPA. For specific historic and cultural information regarding the Calvert Cliffs 

4 site, see Section 2.7. 

5 Building, operating, and decommissioning power units can affect either known or undiscovered 

6 cultural resources. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the 

7 review team is required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties 

8 in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and, if present, determine if any significant impacts are 

9 likely to occur. Identification is to occur in consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

10 Officer (SHPO), American Indian Tribes, interested parties, and the public. If significant impacts 

11 are possible, efforts should be made to mitigate them. As part of the NEPA/NHPA integration, if 

12 no historic properties (i.e., places listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

13 Places) are present or affected, the review team is required to notify the SHPO before 

14 proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC staff is required to 

15 assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking. 

16 For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation (36 CFR Part 800), based on (1) the measures that 

17 UniStar would take to avoid adverse impacts to significant cultural resources during operational 

18 activities, (2) the review team’s cultural resource analysis and consultation, and (3) UniStar’s 

19 commitment to follow its procedures should ground-disturbing activities discover cultural or 

20 historic resources, the review team concludes a finding of no historic properties affected. 

21 Section 4.6 has a finding for historic properties affected by construction and preconstruction 

22 activities. 

23 For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, the review team does not expect any 

24 significant impacts on cultural and historic resources during operation of proposed Unit 3. Any 

25 new ground-disturbing activities that might occur during operation would follow UniStar 

26 procedures currently in development, which would require further evaluation to determine if 

27 additional cultural resources review is necessary (UniStar 2009a). In addition, training of site 

28 staff in the Section 106 process would ensure that informed decisions are made when 

29 considering the effects of projects on historic and archaeological resources. Lands not 

30 previously surveyed for cultural resources would require investigation by a professional 

31 archaeologist and/or an architectural historian prior to any ground disturbing activities in the 

32 future. Any changes to these procedures or project plans would be developed in consultation 

33 with the NRC, Corps, and the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). With procedures in place, 

34 impacts to historic and cultural resources from operations would be SMALL. As discussed 

35 above the review team does not expect any significant impacts on cultural and historic 

36 resources during operation of proposed Unit 3, but if an unanticipated discovery is made during 

37 operation, a similar procedure to that of the unanticipated discovery plan that is contained in the 

38 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (USACE 2010) for construction would be sufficient for 

39 operation. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-45 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 5.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

2 The primary impacts of operation of proposed Unit 3 on local meteorology and air quality would 

3 be from releases to the environment of heat and moisture from the primary cooling system 

4 (cooling tower), operation of auxiliary equipment, and emissions from workers’ vehicles. The 

5 potential impacts of releases from operation of the cooling system are discussed in Section 

6 5.7.1. Section 5.7.2 covers potential air quality impacts from nonradioactive effluent releases at 

7 the Calvert Cliffs site. 

8 5.7.1 Cooling Tower Impacts

9 The CWS for proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would use a mechanical draft cooling 

10 tower with plume abatement. In a cooling tower of this design, the primary heat transfer to the 

11 atmosphere is through evaporation of cooling water as in a normal wet cooling tower. Though 

12 technically not referred to as a hybrid wet-dry tower, this tower has a dry section above the wet 

13 section. The dry section warms the rising moist air, thereby evaporating water droplets that 

14 have condensed with the purpose of eliminating the visible cooling tower plume. Because 

15 proposed Unit 3 would use plume abatement for the CWS, there would be little or no visible 

16 plume during plant operation, and there would be no significant aesthetic impact or shadowing. 

17 Some water leaves wet cooling towers as drift. Drift is composed of small droplets formed in the 

18 tower directly from the cooling water; they are not formed by condensation of evaporated water. 

19 Consequently, drift contains solids and chemicals found in the cooling water. Cooling towers 

20 include drift eliminators to minimize the amount of water lost through drift. Drift eliminators, in 

21 combination with the dry section of the cooling tower proposed for Unit 3, result in a very low 

22 drift rate of 0.0005 percent for the proposed Unit 3 CWS. The maximum salt deposition rate for 

23 drift from the CWS tower at the proposed unit switchyard is estimated by EPA’s AERMOD 

24 computer code (EPA 2004) to be about 1.2 (lb/ac) per month. The literature review in the 

25 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS) (NUREG-1437) (NRC 

26 1996) suggests that a deposition rate of about 8.9 (lb/ac) per month is the lower threshold for 

27 the onset of damage to vegetation. Impacts of drift on air quality are addressed in the next 

28 section. Ecological impacts of drift are discussed in the EIS sections on ecology. 

29 Four smaller mechanical draft cooling towers are planned for the ESWS. In normal operation, 

30 only two of ESWS towers operate at a time and the ESWS heat load is about 3 percent of the 

31 CWS cooling tower heat load (UniStar 2009a). UniStar included the small additional amount of 

32 salt deposition contributed by the ESWS in the AERMOD calculation described above. On this 

33 basis, the review team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of the ESWS cooling towers 

34 would be minimal. 

35 Diesel generators and boilers currently operate at Calvert Cliffs site for limited periods; 

36 generators and boilers that would be associated with the Calvert Cliffs site proposed Unit 3 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-46 April 2010 

1 would similarly operate for limited periods. Interaction between pollutants emitted from these 

2 sources and the cooling tower plumes would be a function of wind direction and would, 

3 therefore, be intermittent. The interaction would have a minimal impact on air quality. 

4 5.7.2 Air Quality 

5 UniStar includes a brief discussion of the impacts of proposed Unit 3 operation on air quality in 

6 the ER (UniStar 2009a). There is a much more extensive discussion of the impacts of 

7 construction on air quality in UniStar’s submission to the Maryland DNR’s PPRP in support of 

8 the application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) (UniStar 2007). In 

9 response to the CPCN application, the Maryland PPRP conducted an extensive review of the 

10 UniStar submittal (MDNR PPRP 2008b). The NRC staff review of the air quality impacts of 

11 Unit 3 draws from the UniStar submittal and the PPRP review of that submittal, as well as from 

12 the ER. 

13 As indicated in Section 2.9, Calvert County, Maryland, is an attainment area for all criteria 

14 pollutants except ozone. Consequently, the material submitted by UniStar in support of the 

15 CPCN application (UniStar 2007) has been evaluated by Maryland PPRP in accordance with 

16 the requirements of both the nonattainment New Source Review (NA-NSR) program and the 

17 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (MDNR PPRP 2008b). Major sources of 

18 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) are required by NA-NSR to limit 

19 emissions of pollutants through the implementation of Lowest Achievable Emission Rate. In 

20 addition pollutant “offsets” must be obtained for regulated pollutants emitted. In attainment 

21 areas, major pollutant sources are required by the PSD program to use best available control 

22 technology (BACT) and perform additional impact assessments. 

23 Regulated emissions sources associated with the proposed Unit 3 include (MDNR PPRP 

24 2008b): 

25 • The CWS cooling tower with a maximum water circulation rate of 777,560 gpm 

26 • Four ESWS cooling towers with a maximum water circulation rate of 19,075 gpm 

27 • Four emergency diesel generators (EDG) rated at 10,130 kW(e) 

28 • Two station blackout (SBO) generators rated at 5000 kW(e) 

29 • Six diesel fuel storage tanks (design specifications not completed). 

30 Based in part on input from UniStar, PPRP (MDNR PPRP 2008b) contains the estimates of the 

31 annual release rates of criteria pollutants for proposed Unit 3 operations presented in Table 5-5. 

32 These estimates are consistent with estimates made by UniStar. 

33 Calvert Cliffs is classified by Maryland as an existing major stationary source for air permitting 

34 purposes. Consequently, the basis for determining PSD applicability is based on determining if 

35 there is a significant increase in emission of regulated pollutants. The increases in particulate 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-47 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 releases shown in Table 5-5 exceed the threshold establishing significance. As a result, 

2 UniStar had to meet the following requirements for the cooling towers and diesel generators: 

3 • demonstrate the use of BACT 

4 • use dispersion modeling to assess the impacts of the emissions 

5 • conduct additional impact assessments. 

6 Table 5-5. Regulated Sources Emissions (Tons/yr) 

Source Total PM(a) PM10

(b) PM2.5(c) NOx(d) CO(e) VOC(f) SO2(g) 

Circulating Water Supply 

System (CWS) Cooling Tower 

306.5 238.5 39.7 

Essential Service Water 

System Cooling Towers 

3.1 3.1 1.6 

Four EDGs(h) 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.7 23.4 2.6 1.3 

Two SBOs(i) 0.6 0.6 0.6 12.1 5.5 1.2 0.0 

Total 311.1 243.0 42.8 22.8 28.9 3.8 1.3 

(a) particulate matter 

(b) particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

(c) particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(d) oxides of nitrogen 

(e) carbon monoxide 

(f) volatile organic compounds 

(g) sulfur dioxide 

(h) 600 hr/year operation total, displacement > 30 liters, low-sulfur fuel 

(i) 200 hr/year operation total, displacement between 10 and 30 liters, low-sulfur fuel 

7 The UniStar submittal to Maryland DNR (UniStar 2007) addressed each of these requirements, 

8 and PPRP (MDNR PPRP 2008b) reviewed the UniStar analyses. PPRP concluded (1) that the 

9 UniStar cooling tower designs represent use of BACT, and (2) that limitations on the hours of 

10 operation and fuel represent BACT for the diesel generators. Dispersion modeling results 

11 presented by PPRP do not indicate that the impacts of emissions associated with proposed 

12 Unit 3 would exceed applicable standards. PPRP also concluded that there are no uncertainties 

13 “that would significantly alter the findings of the air quality modeling analysis.” Finally, the PPRP 

14 review of the additional impact assessment performed by UniStar concluded: 

15 • “emissions from the Calvert Cliffs project during operation will have minimal effects on soils, 

16 vegetation, wildlife, and local visibility.” 

17 • “predicted values due to the cooling tower are lower than threshold deposition rates needed 

18 to have an adverse impact on the nearby flora and fauna.” 

19 • “it can be reasonably concluded that the Calvert Cliffs facilities impacts on visibility in the 

20 surrounding Class I areas are likely to be minimal.” 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-48 April 2010 

1 In addition to evaluating emissions of criteria pollutants, PPRP (MDNR PPRP 2008b) evaluated 

2 releases of toxic air pollutants (TAPs) as defined in Maryland regulations (COMAR 2008b) and 

3 releases of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 7401 et seq.). The TAPs of concern are those associated with emissions of chemical additives 

5 used in the cooling tower water. Table 5-6 lists the projected emissions from the proposed 

6 Unit 3 CWS tower and the corresponding Code of Maryland emission rate limits (MDNR 

7 PPRP 2008b). In each case, the projected emission rate is an insignificant fraction of the limit. 

8 Emissions from the ESWS would be smaller still and, therefore, have not been evaluated 

9 further. Diesel generators are exempt from Maryland TAP regulations (MDNR PPRP 2008b). 

10 Table 5-6. Circulating Water Supply System Cooling Tower Toxic Air Pollutant Emission 

11 Rates (lb/hr) 

Source NaOCl(a) NaOH(b) HEDP(c) Petroleum Distillate

Circulating Water Supply System 

(CWS) Cooling Tower 0.00064 0.00016 0.00022 0.00008 

COMAR Limit 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.04 

(a) sodium hypochlorite 

(b) sodium hydroxide 

(c) hydroxyethylidine diphosphonic acid 

12 Fuel oil for the diesel generators is the source of HAP emissions associated with proposed 

13 Unit 3. To be considered a major source of HAP, a facility must have the potential to emit 

14 10 tons/yr of an individual HAP or 25 tons/yr or more total for all HAPs. None of the proposed 

15 Unit 3 diesel generators would be expected to emit as much as 0.03 ton/yr of any HAP, and the 

16 sum of all HAP releases is less expected to be less than 0.05 ton/yr (MDNR PPRP 2008b). 

17 Finally, the operation of a nuclear power plant involves the emission of some greenhouse 

18 gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). The review team has estimated in Appendix L that the 

19 total carbon footprint for actual plant operations for 40 years is of the order of 330,000 metric 

20 tons of CO2 equivalent, as compared to a total United States annual CO2 emissions rate of 

21 6,000,000,000 metric tons (EPA 2009). Periodic testing of diesel generators accounts for about 

22 60 percent of the total. Workforce transportation accounts for most of the rest. Based on its 

23 assessment of the relatively small plant operations carbon footprint as compared to the United 

24 States annual CO2 emissions, the review team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of 

25 greenhouse gases from plant operations would not be noticeable, and additional mitigation 

26 would not be warranted. 

27 Based on its evaluation of the extensive review of the air quality impacts of operation of the 

28 proposed Unit 3 conducted for the Maryland DNR, the review team concludes that the 

29 environmental impacts from operation of proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and additional 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-49 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 mitigation would not be warranted. Based on its assessment of the carbon footprint of plant 

2 operations, the review team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from 

3 plant operations would not be noticeable, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

4 5.7.3 Transmission Line Impacts 

5 Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality are addressed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

6 Small amounts of ozone and even smaller amounts of NOx are produced by transmission lines. 

7 The production of these gases was found to be insignificant for 745-kV transmission lines (the 

8 largest lines in operation) and for a prototype 1200-kV transmission line. In addition, it was 

9 determined that potential mitigation measures, such as burying transmission lines, would be 

10 very costly and would not be warranted. 

11 UniStar (2009a) stated that no new offsite transmission facilities would be required to connect 

12 proposed Unit 3 to the transmission grid. Further, UniStar stated that approximately 1 mi of new 

13 500-kV transmission line, all on site, would be required to connect the Unit 3 substation with the 

14 existing substation for Units 1 and 2. The size of this line would be well within the range of 

15 transmission lines provided in NUREG-1437, and the review team therefore concludes that air 

16 quality impacts from transmission lines would not be noticeable. 

17 5.7.4 Summary of Impacts to Air Quality 

18 The review team evaluated potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 

19 and greenhouse gas emissions from operating Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs. The review team also 

20 evaluated potential impacts of cooling system emissions and transmission lines. In each case, 

21 the review team determined that the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the review team 

22 concludes that the impacts of operation of Unit 3 on air quality from emissions of criteria 

23 pollutants, CO2 emissions, and cooling system emissions would be SMALL, and no further 

24 mitigation is warranted. 

25 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

26 This section addresses the nonradiological health impacts to the public and workers from 

27 operating proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Nonradiological public health impacts are 

28 considered from operation of the cooling system, from noise generated by operations, from 

29 EMF, and from transporting material and personnel to the site. Nonradiological health impacts 

30 from the same sources are also evaluated for workers at the site during the operation of 

31 proposed Unit 3. Section 2.10 provides background information on the affected environment 

32 and nonradiological health at and within the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. Health impacts 

33 from radiological sources during operations are discussed in Section 5.9. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-50 April 2010 

1 5.8.1 Etiological Agents 

2 Operation of the proposed Unit 3 would result in a thermal discharge to Chesapeake Bay 

3 (UniStar 2009a). As described in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000a), nuclear power plants that 

discharge into receiving waters that have high flow (>100,000 ft3 4 /sec) would not have a 

5 detrimental impact from the thermal discharges on the concentration levels of deleterious 

6 thermophilic microorganisms. The average flow rate of the tidal exchanges that occur in 

Chesapeake Bay at the CCNPP is estimated to be 800,000 ft3 7 /sec, which far exceeds this 

8 threshold. 

9 The proposed offshore discharge structure, located approximately 1200 ft south of the proposed 

10 Unit 3 intake structure, is designed to extend approximately 550 ft into Chesapeake Bay and 

11 would include a multiport diffuser for enhanced mixing of the thermal effluent with the receiving 

12 waters (UniStar 2009a). Review team conducted an independent analysis of the thermal 

13 discharge (see Section 5.2.3.1), and results showed all State of Maryland requirements for 

14 thermal discharge would be met. 

15 Limited recreational activity occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed discharge structure. 

16 Two state parks flank the Calvert Cliffs site; to the north is Flag Ponds Park and to the south is 

17 Calvert Cliffs State Park. In addition, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail 

18 and the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail include water trails in the Chesapeake Bay 

19 at the location of the Calvert Cliffs site. The thermal plume from Unit 3 would not extend to or 

20 influence the waters in the vicinity of the parks, but the portion of the thermal plume that extends 

21 beyond the Unit 3 exclusion zone would influence the waters of the National Historic Trails. 

22 Just offshore from Unit 3 and in the vicinity of the thermal plume is Natural Oyster Bar (NOB) 

23 19-2, as designated by the Maryland DNR (MDNR PPRP 2008a). The heated water returned to 

24 the Bay would be discharged directly over the oyster bar, and the thermal plume may enhance 

25 native populations of Vibrio spp., human pathogens that commonly occur with oysters. Most 

26 cases of disease associated with Vibrio spp. occur following consumption of raw oysters (Wright 

27 et al. 1996; Louis et al. 2003). The occurrence of Vibrio spp. in Chesapeake Bay is more 

28 frequent in the summer months when water temperatures are higher. Although these bacteria 

29 are ubiquitous in the marine environment and their optimal temperature and salinity ranges are 

30 within those parameters in Chesapeake Bay, the small temperature differential associated with 

31 the thermal discharge would not likely have an effect on the concentration of Vibrio spp. in the 

32 vicinity of the CCNPP site (Louis et al. 2003, Wright et al. 1996, UniStar 2009a). 

33 UniStar has procedures for workers to wear personal protective equipment (including respiratory 

34 protection) and have stated that Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

35 standards will be adhered to for onsite exposure to vapors, dusts and other air contaminants for 

36 workers (UniStar 2009a). These practices would likely minimize exposure to Legionella

37 pneumophila in water vapors while personnel are working with the cooling towers. The 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-51 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 protective equipment meets OSHA requirements, and meets OSHA recommendations for 

2 respiratory protection of work where a person may breathe water aerosol (UniStar 2009a). 

3 Based on the relatively low incidence of diseases from thermophilic microorganisms in 

4 Maryland, the small temperature increase expected as a result of operating proposed Unit 3, the 

5 high tidal flows around the proposed discharge structure, the distance from shore of the 

6 discharge structure, and the relative absence of swimming or activities resulting in water 

7 immersion in the vicinity of the proposed discharge structures, the review team concludes that 

8 potential impacts from etiological agents on human health would be minor, and mitigation would 

9 not be warranted. 

10 5.8.2 Noise

11 In NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the NRC staff discusses the environmental impacts of noise from 

12 operations at existing nuclear power plants. Common sources of noise from plant operation 

13 include cooling towers, transformers, turbines, and the operation of pumps along with 

14 intermittent contributions from loud speakers and auxiliary equipment, such as diesel 

15 generators. In addition, while there may be corona discharge noise associated with high16 voltage transmission lines, the occurrences are infrequent and often weather related when the 

17 public is likely to be indoors. These common sources of noise are discussed in this section. 

18 UniStar addresses noise from proposed Unit 3 operation in both its ER (UniStar 2009a) and its 

19 submission to the Maryland DNR for a CPCN (UniStar 2007). The noise sources at the Calvert 

20 Cliffs site are sufficiently distant from the plant boundaries that the noise generated by the plant 

21 is attenuated to near-ambient levels before reaching critical receptors outside the plant 

22 boundary. According to the ER, noise associated with the proposed Unit 3 cooling tower is 

23 estimated to increase noise levels to 50 to 55 dBA at three locations near the southern 

24 boundary of the site from existing levels that are less than 50 dBA (UniStar 2009a). Estimated 

25 noise levels at offsite locations are not expected to increase significantly due to cooling tower 

26 noise. Noise associated with traffic is addressed in the ER, but quantitative estimates of the 

27 noise level are not addressed. However, the ER does discuss measures such as staggered 

28 shift hours, as mitigation for increased traffic noise. 

29 After reviewing the UniStar CPCN submission, the Maryland PPRP (MDNR PPRP 2008b) 

30 concluded that the cooling tower noise levels would comply with applicable noise limits. The 

31 PPRP then recommends that the State include a license condition that requires UniStar to 

32 conduct noise monitoring after the plant becomes operational to ensure that the noise impacts 

33 of the cooling tower are acceptable. 

34 According to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are considered to be 

35 of small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in the Generic 

36 Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586, 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-52 April 2010 

1 Supplement 1) (NRC 2002). The criterion for assessing the level of significance was not 

2 expressed in terms of sound levels, but was based on the effect of noise on human activities 

3 and on threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is 

4 stated as follows: 

5 The noise impacts...are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high to 

6 disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts...are considered 

7 destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area is essentially 

8 unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding of a threatened and 

9 endangered species is affected. 

10 Based on the relatively low levels of noise associated with the operation of proposed Unit 3 and 

11 the significant attenuation of that noise, the review team concludes that potential noise impacts 

12 associated with the operation of the new unit on the public would be minor and would not 

13 require mitigation. 

14 5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

15 Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 

16 metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMF associated with transmission lines 

17 (NRC 1996). Such acute effects are controlled and minimized by conformance with National 

18 Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria and adherence to the standards for transmission 

19 systems. 

20 The potential impacts from EMF of the existing transmission lines for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

21 were evaluated as part of the environmental review for renewal of the CCNPP Unit 1 and 2 

22 operating license (NRC 1996). In that review, the review team concluded that the potential 

23 impact for electrical shock was small. In the ER, UniStar states that new transmission facilities 

24 would be required to connect proposed Unit 3 to the existing transmission system. UniStar also 

25 stated that all new transmission lines would be contained within the Calvert Cliffs site property 

26 lines. Finally, UniStar stated that the design and construction of the proposed Unit 3 substation 

27 and transmission circuits would comply with NESC provisions that limit the induced current due 

28 to electrostatic effects to 5 milliamperes (mA) (UniStar 2009a). 

29 With UniStar’s commitment to design and construct new transmission lines to ensure that the 

30 present NESC criteria are met, the review team concludes that the impact potential to the public 

31 from acute effects of EMF would be minor, and further mitigation would not be warranted. 

32 5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 

33 Operating power transmission lines in the United States produce EMF of nonionizing radiation 

34 at 60 Hz, which is considered to be an extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF. Research on the 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-53 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 potential for chronic effects of EMF from energized transmission lines was reviewed and 

2 addressed by the NRC in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). At that time, research results were not 

3 conclusive. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 

4 research through the U.S. Department of Energy. An NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999) contains the 

5 following conclusion: 

6 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely 

7 safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia 

8 hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory 

9 concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses 

10 electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory 

11 action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public 

12 and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The 

13 NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes 

14 provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern. 

15 The review team reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects to human health from 

16 ELF-EMF published since the NIEHS report and found that several other organizations reached 

17 the same conclusions (AGNIR 2006; WHO 2007a). Additional work under the auspices of the 

18 World Health Organization (WHO) updated the assessments of a number of scientific groups 

19 reflecting the potential for transmission line EMF to cause adverse health impacts in humans. 

20 The monograph summarized the potential for ELF-EMF to cause disease such as cancers in 

21 children and adults, depression, suicide, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, 

22 immunological modifications, and neurological disease. The results of the review by WHO 

23 (2007b) found that the extent of scientific evidence linking these diseases to EMF exposure is 

24 not conclusive. 

25 The review team reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects of EMF on human 

26 health and found that the scientific evidence regarding the chronic effects of ELF-EMF on 

27 human health does not conclusively link ELF-EMF to adverse health impacts. 

28 5.8.5 Occupational Health 

29 As discussed in Section 2.10, human health risks for personnel engaged in activities such as 

30 maintenance, testing, and plant modifications for proposed Unit 3 are expected to be dominated 

31 by occupational accidents (e.g., falls, electric shock, burns) or occupational illnesses from noise 

32 exposure, exposure to toxic or oxygen-replacing gases, and other hazards. Historically, actual 

33 injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average U.S. 

34 industrial rates. Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC 

35 and OSHA safety standards (29 CFR Part 1910), practices, and procedures. Appropriate State 

36 and local statutes must also be considered when assessing the occupational hazards and 

37 health risks for new nuclear unit operation. The review team expects that UniStar will fully 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-54 April 2010 

1 adhere to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards, practices, and procedures during 

2 operations of the new unit. 

3 Additional occupational health impacts may result from exposure to hazards, such as noise, toxic 

4 or oxygen-replacing gases, thermophilic microorganisms in the condenser bays, and caustic 

5 agents. UniStar (2009a) reports that it maintains a health and safety program to protect workers 

6 from industrial safety risks at the operating units and would implement the program for the 

7 proposed new units. 

8 Based on mitigation measures identified by UniStar in its ER, adherence to NRC and OSHA 

9 safety standards, practices, and procedures, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

10 review team concludes that occupational health impacts to proposed Unit 3 onsite personnel 

11 would be minimal and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

12 5.8.6 Transporting Operations Personnel to the Proposed Site 

13 This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers to and from the Calvert Cliffs site from the 

14 perspective of three areas of impact: The socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of 

15 fugitive dust and particulate matter emitted by vehicle traffic, and the potential health impacts 

16 due to additional traffic-related accidents. Human health impacts are addressed in this section 

17 while the socioeconomic impacts are addressed in Section 5.4.1 and air quality impacts are 

18 addressed in Section 5.7.2. 

19 The general approach used to calculate non-radiological impacts of fuel and waste shipments is 

20 the same as that used to calculate the impacts of transporting operations and outage personnel 

21 to and from the Calvert Cliffs site. However, preliminary estimates are the only data available to 

22 estimate these impacts. The assumptions made to provide reasonable estimates of the 

23 parameters needed to calculate non-radiological impacts are discussed below. 

24 • The number of workers needed for operations was given in UniStar’s ER as 363 workers per 

25 unit. An additional 1000 temporary workers are estimated to be needed for refueling 

26 outages every 18 months (UniStar 2009a). 

27 • The average commute distance for operations and outage workers was assumed by the 

28 NRC staff to be 20 mi one way. This is based on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

29 data that estimates the typical commute distance is 16 mi (DOT 2003). 

30 • To develop representative commuter traffic impacts, data from the U.S. DOT (2008a) 

31 provide a Maryland-specific fatality rate for all traffic from 2001 through 2006. The average 

32 fatality rate for the 2001 to 2006 period in Maryland was used as the basis for estimating 

33 Maryland-specific injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were developed using 

34 national-level traffic accident statistics in the U.S. DOT publication National Transportation 

35 Statistics 2007 (DOT 2007). The adjustment factors are the ratio of the national injury rate 

36 to the national fatality rate and the ratio of the national accident rate to the national fatality 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-55 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 rate. These adjustment factors were multiplied by the Maryland-specific fatality rate to 

2 approximate the injury and accident rates for commuters in the State of Maryland. 

3 The estimated impacts of transporting operations and outage workers to and from the proposed 

4 Unit 3 site are shown in Table 5-7. The total annual traffic fatalities during operations, including 

5 both operations and outage personnel, represents less than 0.2 percent increase above the 

6 21 traffic fatalities that occurred in Calvert County, Maryland, in 2006 (DOT 2008b). This 

7 represents a small increase relative to the current traffic fatality risk in the area surrounding the 

8 Calvert Cliffs site. 

9 Based on the information provided by UniStar, the review team’s independent evaluation, and 

10 considering that this increase would be small relative to the current traffic fatalities in Calvert 

11 County, the review team concludes that the nonradiological impacts of transporting personnel to 

12 the Calvert Cliffs site would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

13 Table 5-7. Estimated Impacts of Transporting Workers to and from the Proposed Unit 3 Site

 

Accidents per Yr 

Per Unit

Injuries per Yr 

Per Unit

Fatalities per Yr 

Per Unit

Permanent Workers 3.4 × 100 1.6 × 100 2.3 × 10−2

Outage Workers 5.6 × 10-1 2.6 × 10-1 3.9 × 10−3

14 5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts 

15 The review team evaluated health impacts to the public and the workers from the cooling 

16 systems, noise generated by unit operations, acute and chronic impacts of EMFs, and 

17 transporting operations and outage workers to and from the proposed Unit 3 site. Health risks 

18 to workers are expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the average 

19 U.S. industrial rates. Health impacts to the public and workers from etiological agents, noise 

20 generated by plant operations, and acute impacts of EMF would be minimal. The review team 

21 reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects of EMF on human health and found that 

22 the scientific evidence regarding the chronic effects of ELF-EMF on human health does not 

23 conclusively link ELF-EMF to adverse health impacts. Based on the information provided by 

24 UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

25 potential impacts to nonradiological health resulting from the operation of proposed Unit 3 would 

26 be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

27 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

28 This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of the proposed Unit 3, 

29 including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public and to the biota 

30 inhabiting the area around the Calvert Cliffs site. Estimated doses to workers at the proposed 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-56 April 2010 

1 unit are also discussed. Radiological impacts were determined using the AREVA NP Inc. 

2 (AREVA) U.S. EPR reactor design with expected direct radiation and liquid and gaseous 

3 radiological effluent rates in the evaluation (see discussion in Section 3.4). 

4 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways 

5 The public and biota would be exposed to increased ambient background radiation from a 

6 nuclear unit via the liquid effluent, gaseous effluent, and direct radiation pathways. UniStar 

7 estimated the potential exposures to the public and biota by evaluating exposure pathways 

8 typical of those surrounding a nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site. UniStar considered 

9 pathways that could cause the highest calculated radiological dose based on the use of the 

10 environment by the residents located around the site (UniStar 2009a). For example, factors 

11 such as the location of homes in the area, consumption of meat, fish and shellfish from the area, 

12 and consumption of vegetables grown in area gardens were considered. 

13 For the liquid effluent release pathway, the ER considered the following exposure pathways in 

14 evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI): ingestion of aquatic food 

15 (i.e., fish and invertebrates), ingestion of desalinated drinking water, and direct radiation 

16 exposure from shoreline activities (Figure 5-1). The analysis for population dose considered the 

17 following exposure pathways: ingestion of aquatic food and direct radiation exposure from 

18 shoreline, swimming, and boating activities. Drinking water was not evaluated in the population 

19 exposure because the Chesapeake Bay is not used as an offsite source of drinking water. Liquid 

20 effluents were assumed to be released into Chesapeake Bay at the offshore discharge line. 

21 For the gaseous effluent release pathway, UniStar (2009a) considered the following exposure 

22 pathways in evaluating the dose to the individual: immersion in the radioactive plume, direct 

23 radiation exposure from deposited radioactivity, inhalation, ingestion of garden fruit and 

24 vegetables, and ingestion of beef. UniStar (2009a) did not calculate a MEI dose from milk 

25 ingestion because the most recent land-use census indicated that no milk cows existed within 

26 5 mi of the site. 

27 For population doses from the gaseous effluents, UniStar (2009a) used the same exposure 

28 pathways as used for the individual dose assessment, with the addition of the cow milk 

29 ingestion pathway (Figure 5-1). All agricultural products grown within 50 mi of the proposed 

30 Unit 3 were assumed to be consumed by the population within 50 mi of the proposed Unit 3. 

31 UniStar (2009a) states that direct radiation from the reactor buildings and the Independent 

32 Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) would be the primary sources of direct radiation 

33 exposure to the public from the proposed Unit 3. However, UniStar asserts that contained 

34 sources of radiation at the proposed Unit 3 would be shielded and would not contribute to the 

35 external dose of the MEI or the population. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-57 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 5-1. Exposure Pathways to Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974) 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-58 April 2010 

1 Exposure pathways (UniStar 2009a, Table 5.4-16) considered in evaluating dose to the biota 

2 are shown in Figure 5-2 and include: 

3 • ingestion of aquatic foods 

4 • external exposure from water immersion or surface effect 

5 • inhalation of airborne radionuclides 

6 • external exposure to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes 

7 • surface exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents 

8 (NRC 1977). 

9 The staff reviewed the exposure pathways for the public and non-human biota identified by 

10 UniStar (2009a) and found them to be appropriate based on a documentation review, a tour of 

11 environs, and interviews with UniStar staff and contractors during the site visit in March 2008. 

12 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public 

13 UniStar calculated the dose to the MEI individual and the population living within a 50-mi radius 

14 of the site from both the liquid and gaseous effluent release pathways (UniStar 2009a). As 

15 discussed in the previous sections, direct radiation exposure to the MEI individual from sources 

16 of radiation at the proposed Unit 3 would be negligible. 

17 5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway 

18 Liquid pathway doses to the MEI were calculated by UniStar using the LADTAP II computer 

19 program (Strenge et al. 1986). The following activities were considered in the dose calculations: 

20 (1) consumption of desalinated drinking water contaminated by liquid effluents, (2) consumption 

21 of fish, shellfish or other aquatic organisms from water sources contaminated by liquid effluents, 

22 and (3) direct radiation from swimming boating and shoreline usage on waterbodies 

23 contaminated by liquid effluents. UniStar (2009a) states that because of the brackish nature of 

24 the Chesapeake Bay water, it is not used for irrigation or to water livestock. 

25 The liquid effluent releases used in the estimates of dose are found in Table 3.5-7 of the ER 

26 (UniStar 2009a). Other parameters used as inputs to the LADTAP II program include effluent 

27 discharge rate, dilution factor for discharge, transit time to receptor, and liquid pathway 

28 consumption and usage factors (i.e., shoreline usage, fish consumption, and drinking water 

29 consumption) and are found in Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 of the ER (UniStar 2009a). 

30 UniStar calculated liquid pathway doses to the MEI and population as shown in Table 5-8. The 

31 MEI was an adult with the majority of the dose from ingestion of fish and other organisms from 

32 Chesapeake Bay. The maximally exposed organ was the adult lower intestine (GI-LLI) and as 

33 with the total body dose, the majority of the dose was received from consumption of 

34 Chesapeake Bay fish and other organisms. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-59 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 5-2. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974) 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-60 April 2010 

1 Table 5-8. Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases 

2 from Calvert Cliffs Proposed Unit 3 

Pathway Age Group 

Total Body 

(mrem/yr) 

Maximum Organ 

(GI-LLI) (mrem/yr) 

Thyroid 

(mrem/yr) 

Adult 0.0056 0.0056 NR 

Teen 0.004 0.004 NR 

Child 0.0076 NR 0.0085 

Drinking Water 

Infant 0.0074 NR 0.0089 

Adult 0.0074 0.083 0.071 

Teen 0.0058 0.066 0.065 

Fish and Other 

Organisms 

 Child 0.0049 0.0294 0.069 

Direct Radiation All 0.00097 0.00097 0.00097 

Source: UniStar 2009a. Tables 5.4-7 and 5.4-8. No infant doses were calculated for ingestion of fish and other 

organisms pathway because the doses that infants receive would be bounded by the dose calculated for the child. 

NR – Not reported by UniStar. 

3 The staff recognizes the LADTAP II computer program as an appropriate method for calculating 

4 dose to the MEI for liquid effluent releases. The staff also performed an independent evaluation 

5 of liquid pathway doses using input parameters from the ER and found similar results. All input 

6 parameters used in UniStar’s calculations were judged by the staff to be appropriate. Results of 

7 the staff's independent evaluation are found in Appendix G. 

8 5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway 

9 Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI were calculated by UniStar using the GASPAR II computer 

10 program (Strenge et al. 1987) at the nearest residence, garden, and meat animal and the 

11 exclusion area boundary. The GASPAR II computer program was also used to calculate annual 

12 population doses. The following activities were considered in the dose calculations: (1) direct 

13 radiation from immersion in the gaseous effluent cloud and from particulates deposited on the 

14 ground, (2) inhalation of gases and particulates, (3) ingestion of meat from animals eating 

15 contaminated grass, and (4) ingestion of garden vegetables contaminated by gases and 

16 particulates. Although UniStar (2009a) states that no milk cows or milk goats are located within 

17 5 mi of the proposed site, UniStar did include the milk pathway in the calculation of population 

18 dose based on milk production within a 50-mi radius of proposed Unit 3. The gaseous effluent 

19 releases used in the estimate of dose to the MEI and population are found in Table 3.5-8 of the 

20 ER (UniStar 2009a). Other parameters used as inputs to the GASPAR II program, including 

21 population data, atmospheric dispersion factors, ground deposition factors, receptor locations, 

22 and consumption factors, are found in Tables 5.4-3, 5.4-4, 5.4-5 and 5.4-6 of the ER (UniStar 

23 2009a). Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI calculated by UniStar are found in Table 5-9. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-61 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 5-9. Doses to the MEI from Gaseous Effluent Pathway for Unit 3

Location Age Group 

Total Body Dose 

(mrem/yr) 

Max Organ (Bone) 

(mrem/yr) 

Skin Dose 

(mrem/yr) 

Plume 

(0.88 mi SE) 

All 2.14 × 10-1 2.14 × 10-1 2.05 × 10+0

Ground 

(0.88 mi SE)

All 1.49 × 10-3 1.49 × 10-3 1.74 × 10−3

Inhalation 

(0.88 mi SE)

Adult 

Teen 

Child 

Infant 

4.13 × 10−3

4.36 × 10−3

3.85 × 10−3

2.22 × 10−3

7.36 × 10−5

8.98 × 10−5

1.10 × 10−4

5.76 × 10−5

4.30 × 10−3

4.34 × 10−3

3.83 × 10−3

2.20 × 10−3

Vegetable 

(1.3 mi SSE) 

Adult 

Teen 

Child 

2.34 × 10−2

3.71 × 10−2

8.63 × 10−2

1.07 × 10-1 

1.76 × 10-1

4.22 × 10-1

2.29 × 10-2 

3.62 × 10-2

8.53 × 10-2

Meat 

(0.88 mi SSE) 

Adult 

Teen 

Child 

1.74 × 10−2

1.44 × 10−2

2.67 × 10−2

8.18 × 10−2

6.91 × 10−2

1.30 × 10-1

1.72 × 10−2

1.44 × 10−2

2.67 × 10-2

Source: UniStar 2009a, Table 5.4-11. No infant doses were calculated for the vegetable or meat pathway because 

the doses that infants receive from this diet would be bounded by the dose calculated for the child. 

2 The staff recognizes the GASPAR II computer program as an appropriate tool for calculating 

3 dose to the MEI and population from gaseous effluent releases. The staff reviewed the input 

4 parameters and values used by UniStar (2009a) for appropriateness, including references made 

5 to the U.S. EPR Design Control Document submitted by AREVA (AREVA 2007a). The staff 

6 concluded that the assumed input parameters and values used by UniStar were appropriate. 

7 The staff performed an independent evaluation of gaseous pathway doses and obtained similar 

8 results for the MEI (See Appendix G for details). 

9 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public 

10 This section describes the staff’s evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological releases 

11 and direct radiation from proposed Unit 3. The evaluation addresses dose from operations to 

12 the MEI located at the proposed Unit 3 site boundary and the population dose (collective dose 

13 to the population within 50 mi) around the proposed Unit 3 site. 

14 5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual 

15 UniStar (2009a) states that total body and organ dose estimates to the MEI from liquid and 

16 gaseous effluents for the proposed Unit 3 would be within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 

17 50, Appendix I. Doses to total body and maximum organ at the Chesapeake Bay from liquid 

18 effluents were well within the respective 3-mrem/yr and10-mrem/yr Appendix I design 

19 objectives. Doses at the exclusion area boundary from gaseous effluents were well within the 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-62 April 2010 

1 Appendix I design objectives of 10 mrad/yr air dose from gamma radiation, 20 mrad/yr air dose 

2 from beta radiation, 5 mrem/yr to the total body, and 15 mrem/yr to the skin. In addition, dose to 

3 the thyroid was within the 15 mrem/yr Appendix I design objective. A comparison of dose 

4 estimates for the proposed new unit to the Appendix I design objectives is found in Table 5-10. 

5 The staff completed an independent evaluation of compliance with Appendix I design objectives 

6 and found similar results as shown in Appendix G. 

7 Table 5-10. Comparisons of MEI Annual Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Design Objectives 8 

Radionuclide 

Releases/Dose 

UniStar 

Assessment 

Appendix I 

Design Objectives 

Gaseous effluents(noble gases only) 

Beta air dose (mrad/yr) 2.79 20 

Gamma air dose (mrad/yr) 0.341 10 

Total body dose (mrem/yr) 0.215 5 

Skin dose (mrem/yr) 2.05 15 

Gaseous effluents (radioiodines and particulates) 

Organ dose (mrem/yr) 0.554 15 

Liquid effluents 

Total body dose (mrem/yr) 0.014 3 

Maximum organ dose (mrem/yr) 0.0902 10 

Source: UniStar 2009a 

9 UniStar (2009a) compared the combined dose estimates from direct radiation and gaseous and 

10 liquid effluents from the existing Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Unit 3 against the 40 CFR Part 

11 190 standards (Table 5-11). UniStar states that the total body and organ dose estimates to the 

12 MEI from liquid and gaseous effluents for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 would be less than the 

13 estimates from Unit 3 which is well within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. 

14 Section 4.9.1 of this EIS states that the direct radiation doses from the existing Calvert Cliffs 

15 Units 1 and 2 at the site boundary do not vary significantly from background radiation levels. As 

16 stated in Section 5.9.1, exposure at the site boundary from direct radiation sources at the 

17 proposed new Unit 3 would not contribute significantly to the MEI dose. Table 5-11 shows 

18 UniStar’s assessment that the total doses to the MEI from liquid and gaseous effluent as well as 

19 direct radiation at the Calvert Cliffs site are well below the 40 CFR Part 190 standards. The 

20 staff completed an independent evaluation of the site total dose (cumulative dose) for 

21 comparison with 40 CFR Part 190 standards and found similar results, as shown in Appendix G. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-63 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 5-11. Comparison of Doses to 40 CFR Part 190(a) 1 

Units 1 & 2 Unit 3 

Combined 

liquid and 

gaseous 

(mrem/yr) 

Liquid 

(mrem/yr) 

Gaseous 

(mrem/yr) 

Combined 

(mrem/yr)

Site Total 

(mrem/yr) 

40 CFR Part 

190 Dose 

Standards 

(mrem/yr) 

Whole body dose 0.018 0.014 0.33 0.35 0.364 25 

Thyroid 0.018 0.079 0.52 0.60 0.616 75 

Other organ 0.35 0.09 

 (adult GI-LLI)

0.76 

(child bone)

0.86 1.21 25 

Source: UniStar (2009a Table 5.4-15) 

2 A power uprate of 1.38 percent was granted to CCNPP Units 1 and 2 in July, 2009. This uprate 

3 will be implemented by the time Unit 3 operation begins. The uprate may increase the 

4 maximum annual dose to a member of the public from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 by as much as 

5 1.38 percent; even with this addition, the site total dose the annual dose would still be well 

6 below 40 CFR Part 190 standards. 

7 5.9.3.2 Population Dose 

8 UniStar estimates the collective total body dose within a 50-mi radius of the proposed Unit 3 site 

9 to be 5.52 person-rem/yr (UniStar 2009a). The estimated collective dose to the same 

10 population from natural background radiation is estimated to be 192,000 person-rem/yr. The 

11 dose from natural background radiation was calculated by multiplying the 50-mi population 

12 estimate for 2060 of approximately 6,162,511 people by the annual background dose rate of 

13 311 mrem/yr (NCRP 2009). 

14 Collective dose was estimated for the gaseous and liquid effluent pathways using the GASPAR 

15 II and LAPTAP II computer codes, respectively. The staff performed an independent evaluation 

16 of population doses and obtained similar results (see Appendix G). 

17 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 

18 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect, and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 

19 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 

20 relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A report by the 

21 National Research Council (2006), the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report, 

22 uses the linear, no-threshold model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This 

23 approach is accepted by NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks from 

24 radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this 

25 method, the NRC staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-64 April 2010 

1 nominal probability coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal 

2 cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem 

3 (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 0.00057 effects per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from 

4 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 103 (ICRP 2007). 

5 Both National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and ICRP suggest 

6 that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the reciprocal of the relevant risk 

7 detriment (i.e., less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 1754 person-rem), the risk assessment 

8 should note that the most likely number of excess health effects is zero (NCRP 1995; ICRP 

9 2007). The estimated collective whole body dose to the population living within 50 mi of the 

10 proposed Unit 3 site is 5.52 person-rem/yr (UniStar 2009a), which is less than the 1754 person11 rem value that ICRP and NCRP suggest would most likely result in zero excess health effects 

12 (NCRP 1995, ICRP 2007). 

13 In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a 

14 study and published, “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities,” in 1990 (NCI 1990). 

15 This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants as well as 

16 several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities in operation in the United States in 1981 and found “no 

17 evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear facilities” 

18 (NCI 1990). 

19 5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public 

20 The staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent 

21 releases from the proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Based on the information provided 

22 by UniStar and NRC’s own independent evaluation, the staff concludes there would be no 

23 observable health impacts to the public from normal operation of the new unit, the health 

24 impacts would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

25 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers 

26 At Calvert Cliffs, the annual occupational dose for 2006 was 204 person-rem for existing 

27 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2007a). The estimated occupational doses for advanced reactor 

28 designs, including the AREVA U.S. EPR at the proposed Unit 3 site, were 50 person-rem, less 

29 than the annual occupational doses for current light-water reactors (LWRs) (AREVA 2007a). 

30 This collective dose was based on an 18-month fuel cycle and would be bounding for a 24-

31 month fuel cycle. 

32 The licensee of a new plant would need to maintain individual doses to workers within 0.05 Sv 

33 (5 rem) annually as specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 and incorporate provisions to maintain doses 

34 as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-65 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The staff concludes that the health impacts from occupational radiation exposure would be 

2 SMALL based on individual worker doses being maintained within 10 CFR 20.1201 limits and 

3 collective occupational doses being typical of doses found in current operating LWR reactors. 

4 Additional mitigation would not be warranted because the operating plant would be required to 

5 maintain doses ALARA. 

6 5.9.5 Doses to Biota Other than Humans 

7 UniStar estimated doses to biota species in the CCNPP site environs, in many cases using 

8 surrogate species. Surrogate species, as used in the ER, are well-defined and provide an 

9 acceptable method for evaluating doses to the biota. Surrogate species analyses were 

10 performed for aquatic species such as fish, invertebrates, and algae, and for terrestrial species 

11 such as muskrats, raccoons, herons and ducks. For aquatic species on the CCNPP site, 

12 various mussel and mollusk species and crayfish are represented by invertebrates as a 

13 surrogate species; darter, shiner, catfish, sunfish, perch, eels, largemouth bass, and striped 

14 bass are represented by fish as a surrogate species; and aquatic plants are represented by an 

15 algae as a surrogate species. For terrestrial species, white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray squirrel, 

16 Eastern cottontail rabbit, coyotes, gray fox, and pocket gopher are represented by raccoon and 

17 muskrat as surrogate species; wood duck is represented by duck as a surrogate species; and 

18 bald eagle and scarlet tanager are represented by the heron as a surrogate species. Exposure 

19 pathways considered in evaluating dose to the biota were discussed in Section 5.9.1 and shown 

20 in Figure 5-1. The NRC staff reviewed UniStar’s calculations (UniStar 2009a) and performed an 

21 independent evaluation (Appendix G) of the fish invertebrates, algae, muskrat, raccoon, duck, 

22 and heron, but they used more conservative gaseous effluent exposure assumptions and found 

23 higher results than those reported by UniStar but still below national and international guidelines 

24 (Appendix G). 

25 5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway 

26 UniStar (2009a) used the LADTAP II computer code to calculate doses to the biota from the 

27 liquid effluent pathway. In estimating the concentration of radioactive effluents in Chesapeake 

28 Bay, UniStar (2009a) used a transit dilution model. Liquid pathway doses were higher for biota 

29 compared to man because of considerations for bioaccumulation of radionuclides, ingestion of 

30 aquatic plants, ingestion of invertebrates, and increased time spent in water and shoreline 

31 compared to man. The liquid effluent releases used in estimating biota dose are found in 

32 Table 3.5-7 of the ER (UniStar 2009a). Table 5-12 presents UniStar’s estimates of the doses to 

33 biota from the liquid and gaseous pathways from the Calvert Cliffs proposed new unit 3. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-66 April 2010 

1 Table 5-12. Biota Doses for Proposed Unit 3 

UniStar Biota Dose Estimates 

Biota Liquid Pathway 

(mrad/yr) 

Gaseous Pathway 

(mrad/yr) 

Total Body Biota 

Dose All Pathways 

(mrad/yr) 

Fish 3.26 × 10−1 0 3.3 × 10−1

Invertebrate 2.62 × 10+0 0 2.6 × 10+0

Algae 5.13 × 10+0 0 5.1 × 10+0

Muskrat 1.28 × 10+0 2.24 × 10−1 1.5 × 10+0

Raccoon 4.71 × 10−2 2.24 × 10−1 2.7 × 10−1

Heron 1.74 × 10−1 2.24 × 10−1 3.9 × 10−1

Duck 1.3 × 10+0 2.24 × 10−1 1.5 × 10+0

Source: UniStar (2009a) 

2 5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway 

3 Gaseous effluents would contribute to the total body dose of the terrestrial surrogate species 

4 (i.e., muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck). The exposure pathways include inhalation of airborne 

5 radionuclides, external exposure because of immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and surface 

6 exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents. The dose 

7 calculated to the MEI from gaseous effluent releases in Table 5-9 would also be applicable to 

8 terrestrial surrogate species with a doubling of the ground deposition factor because terrestrial 

9 species are closer to the ground than humans. The gaseous effluent releases used in 

10 estimating dose are found in Table 3.5-8 of the ER (UniStar 2009a). The ER used doses at the 

11 exclusion area boundary 0.88 mi SE of the proposed Unit 3 site in estimating terrestrial species 

12 doses. Total body dose estimates to the surrogate species from the gaseous pathway are 

13 shown in Table 5-10. As discussed in Appendix G, the staff examined the potential for higher 

14 doses closer to the plant, and found that the reported dose is still significantly below the biota 

15 guidelines. 

16 5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Non-Human Biota Doses 

17 Radiological doses to non-human biota are expressed in units of absorbed dose (rad) because 

18 dose equivalent (rem) only applies to human radiological doses. The ICRP (ICRP 1977, 1991, 

19 2007) states that if humans are adequately protected, other living things are also likely to be 

20 sufficiently protected. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992) and the NCRP 

21 (1991) reported that a chronic dose rate of no greater than 10 mGy/d (1000 mrad/d) to the MEI 

22 in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure protection of the population. IAEA (1992) 

23 also concluded that chronic dose rates of 1 mGy/d (100 mrad/d) or less do not appear to cause 

24 observable changes in terrestrial animal populations. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-67 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 5-13 compares estimated total body dose rates to surrogate biota species that would be 

2 produced by releases from Unit 3 to the IAEA/NCRP biota dose guidelines (IAEA 1992; NCRP 

3 1991). The staff dose estimates from the gaseous pathway are higher because the staff used a 

4 bounding calculation that assumed an organism could be inside the site boundary at 0.25 mi for 

5 an entire year. Daily dose rates for no surrogate species exceeded the IAEA guidelines. The 

6 biota dose estimates for the proposed units are also conservative because they do not consider 

7 decay of liquid effluents during transit. Actual doses to the biota are likely to be much less. 

8 Table 5-13. Comparison of Biota Doses from the Proposed Unit 3 to Relevant Guidelines for 

Biota Protection(a) 9 

Biota 

Total Body Dose – 

UniStar (mrad/d)(b)

IAEA/NCRP Guidelines for 

Protection of Biota 

Populations (mrad/d)(b)

Fish 8.9 × 10−4 1000 

Invertebrate 0.0072 1000 

Algae 0.014 1000 

Muskrat 0.0042 100 

Raccoon 7.4 × 10−3

 100 

Heron 0.0011 100 

Duck 0.0041 100 

(a) Total dose from liquid and gaseous effluents in Table 5-10. 

(b) For comparison purposes, UniStar’s reported dose in mrad/yr was converted to mrad/d by 

dividing by 365 d/yr. Published guidelines reported mGy/d (1 mGy equals 100 mrad).

10 The maximum total dose from both liquid and gaseous pathways from the bounding calculation 

11 is about 5.1 mrad/yr, or about 0.014 mrad/d. Thus, doses to biota calculated by both UniStar 

12 and the staff are far below the 100-mrad/d (0.1- rads/d) IAEA guidelines (IAEA 1992) for 

13 terrestrial biota and the 1-rad/d IAEA guideline (IAEA 1992) for aquatic biota. 

14 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the NRC’s independent evaluation, the staff 

15 concludes that the radiological impact on biota from the routine operation of the proposed Unit 3 

16 would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

17 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring 

18 A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been in place for the Calvert Cliffs 

19 site since operations began in 1974, with preoperational sample collection activities beginning in 

20 1970 (UniStar 2009a). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure pathway, direct 

21 exposure pathway, water exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from the Chesapeake 

22 Bay, and the ingestion exposure pathway in a 5-mi radius of the station, with indicator locations 

23 near the plant perimeter and control locations at distances greater than 10 mi. Milk is not 

24 currently sampled because there is no known production within 5 mi of the site. An annual 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-68 April 2010 

1 survey is conducted for the area surrounding the site to verify the accuracy of assumptions used 

2 in the analyses, including the occurrence of milk production. The pre-operational REMP 

3 sampled various media in the environment to determine a baseline from which to observe the 

4 magnitude and fluctuation of radioactivity in the environment once the units began operation. 

5 The pre-operational program included collection and analysis of samples of air particulates, 

6 precipitation, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt as well as measurement of 

7 ambient gamma radiation. After operation of CCNPP Unit 1 began in 1974, the monitoring 

8 program continued to assess the radiological impacts on workers, the public, and the 

9 environment. Radiological releases are summarized in the two annual reports: the Annual 

10 Radiological Environmental Operating Report (Constellation 2007a) and Annual Radioactive 

11 Effluent Release Report (Constellation 2007b). The limits for all radiological releases are 

12 specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual For Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

13 (Constellation 2005). No additional monitoring program has yet been established for the new 

14 unit. To the greatest extent practical, the REMP for the proposed Unit 3 would use the 

15 procedures and sampling locations used by the existing Calvert Cliffs site. The staff reviewed 

16 the documentation for the existing REMP, the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and recent 

17 monitoring reports from the Calvert Cliffs site, and determined that the current operational 

18 monitoring program is adequate to establish the radiological baseline for comparison with the 

19 expected impacts on the environment related to the construction and operation of the proposed 

20 new units at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

21 5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts 

22 This section describes the potential impacts to the environment that could result from the 

23 generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste and mixed waste during the 

24 operation of the proposed Unit 3. Section 3.4.4 of this EIS describes the nonradioactive waste 

25 systems. Types of nonradioactive waste that could be generated, handled, and disposed of 

26 during operational activities include solid wastes, liquid effluents, and air emissions. Solid 

27 wastes include municipal waste, dredge spoils, sewage treatment sludge, and industrial wastes. 

28 Liquid waste includes NPDES-permitted discharges such as effluents containing chemicals or 

29 biocides, wastewater effluents, site stormwater runoff, and other liquid wastes such as used oils, 

30 paints, and solvents that require offsite disposal. Air emissions would primarily be generated by 

31 vehicles, diesel generators, and combustion generators. In addition, small quantities of 

32 hazardous waste, and mixed waste, which is waste that has both hazardous and radioactive 

33 characteristics, may be generated during plant operations. The assessment of potential impacts 

34 resulting from these types of wastes is presented in the following sections. 

35 5.10.1 Impacts to Land 

36 Operation of the proposed Unit 3 would generate solid and liquid wastes similar to those already 

37 generated by current operations at CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Solid wastes such as office waste 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-69 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 would be collected and disposed or recycled at offsite facilities (UniStar 2009a). Process 

2 wastes such as oil, solvents, and hydraulic fluids would be reused or recycled if possible or 

3 transported offsite by approved and licensed contractors. Solid waste that cannot be reused or 

4 recycled would be transported to an offsite landfill. The total volume of solid and liquid waste 

5 would increase during operation of proposed Unit 3; however, management practices would be 

6 the same or similar to CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (UniStar 2009a). Currently, CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

7 operations do not release solid waste effluents. Therefore, based on this experience UniStar 

8 expects to have nearly zero solid waste effluent during operation of proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 

9 2009a). 

10 Debris from trash racks and screens on the water intake structure would be routinely collected 

11 and disposed of at an offsite landfill according to the NPDES permit regulation. Spoils from 

12 maintenance dredging of the intake bay will comply with the Department of the Army, Clean 

13 Water Act Section 404 permit. UniStar indicated the spoils would be disposed onsite within the 

14 Lake Davies spoils disposal area (UniStar 2009a). These practices would follow or be very 

15 similar to current disposal management practices for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (UniStar 2009a). 

16 A wastewater treatment plant would be built and used to treat sanitary wastes during operation 

17 of proposed Unit 3. The wastewater treatment plant would not treat wastes from the existing 

18 CCNPP Units 1 and 2. UniStar would use a private contractor to manage sanitary waste 

19 handling. Waste sludge from the sanitary system would be removed and transported to a waste 

20 processing plant. 

21 Based on the effective practices for reusing, recycling, and minimizing waste already in place for 

22 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and UniStar’s plans to manage solid and liquid wastes in a similar 

23 manner in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and standards, 

24 the review team expects that impacts to land from nonradioactive waste generated during the 

25 operation of proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

26 5.10.2 Impacts to Water 

27 Water withdrawn from the Chesapeake Bay for cooling and other operational purposes for 

28 proposed Unit 3 would be discharged back to the Chesapeake Bay. These discharges would 

29 contain both chemicals and biocides. UniStar states that water entering the cooling system 

30 from the Chesapeake Bay would be treated in a manner similar to water treatment for Units 1 

31 and 2 (UniStar 2009a). Discharges of liquid effluents to the Chesapeake Bay would be 

32 controlled by MDE via the NPDES permit. Other potential releases of nonradioactive liquid 

33 effluents to the Chesapeake Bay that would also require NPDES permits are: discharges from 

34 the Potable and Sanitary Water Distribution Systems via the seal well, and stormwater 

35 discharge. In all cases, the NPDES permit would limit the volume and constituent 

36 concentrations. Section 5.2.3 of this EIS discusses impacts to surface and groundwater quality 

37 from operation of proposed Unit 3. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-70 April 2010 

1 Based on the regulated practices for managing liquid discharges, the review team expects that 

2 impacts to water from nonradioactive effluents during the operation of proposed Unit 3 would be 

3 minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

4 5.10.3 Impacts to Air 

5 Operation of the proposed Unit 3 would result in gaseous emissions from operation of diesel 

6 generators. In addition, vehicular traffic associated with personnel necessary to operate Unit 3 

7 would increase vehicle emissions in the area. Impacts to air quality are discussed in 

8 Section 5.7 of this EIS. Increases in air emissions from the operation of Unit 3 would require an 

9 amended or new MDE permit to comply with the Federal, State, and local air quality control laws 

10 and regulations. 

11 Based on the regulated practices for managing air emissions from stationary sources, the 

12 review team expects that impacts to air from nonradioactive emissions during operation of 

13 proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

14 5.10.4 Mixed Waste Impacts 

15 Mixed waste contains both low-level radioactive waste and hazardous waste. The generation, 

16 storage, treatment, or disposal of mixed waste is regulated by the Atomic Energy Act, the Solid 

17 Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act 

18 (RCRA) in 1976, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (which amended RCRA in 

19 1984). No mixed waste has been generated and disposed at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 since 2004. 

20 Currently, mixed waste for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 is managed in accordance with a 

21 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the MDE. The MOU is patterned after the EPA 

22 1991 Mixed Waste Enforcement Policy (UniStar 2009a). UniStar expects the quantities of 

23 mixed waste generated from the proposed Unit 3 to be minimal and plans to manage, handle, 

24 and dispose of the waste in a similar method to that currently employed at CCNPP Units 1 

25 and 2. 

26 Based on the effective practices for minimizing waste already in place for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 

27 and the plans to manage mixed wastes in a similar manner in accordance with all applicable 

28 Federal, State, and local requirements and standards, the review team expects that impacts 

29 from the generation of mixed waste at proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and no further 

30 mitigation would be warranted. 

31 5.10.5 Summary of Nonradiological Impacts 

32 Solid, liquid, gaseous, and mixed wastes generated during operation of proposed Unit 3 would 

33 be handled according to county, State and Federal regulations. County and State permits and 

34 regulations for handling and disposal of solid waste, and Department of the Army permits for 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-71 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 disposal of dredged spoils, would be obtained and implemented. Discharges to the 

2 Chesapeake Bay of liquid effluents used for operations, including wastewater and stormwater, 

3 would be controlled by MDE via an NPDES permit. Air emissions from Unit 3 operations would 

4 be compliant with local, State, and Federal air quality standards and regulations. Mixed waste 

5 generation, storage, and disposal during operation of proposed Unit 3 would comply with 

6 applicable requirements and standards. 

7 Based on the information provided by UniStar, the effective practices for recycling, minimizing, 

8 managing, and disposing of wastes already in use at the Calvert Cliffs site, the review team’s 

9 expectation that regulatory approvals would be obtained to regulate the additional waste that 

10 would be generated from proposed Unit 3, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

11 review team concludes that the potential impacts from nonradioactive waste resulting from the 

12 operation of the proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be SMALL, and no further 

13 mitigation would be warranted. 

14 Cumulative impacts to water and air from nonradioactive emissions and effluents are discussed 

15 in Section 7.2 and 7.6, respectively. For the purposes of Chapter 9, the review team expects 

16 that there would be no substantive differences between the impacts of nonradioactive waste for 

17 proposed Unit 3 and the alternative sites and no substantive cumulative impacts that warrant 

18 further discussion beyond those discussed for alternative sites in Section 9.3. 

19 5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

20 The staff considered the radiological consequences on the environment of potential accidents at 

21 the proposed Unit 3. UniStar based its COL application on the proposed installation of the 

22 AREVA U.S. EPR standard design, which is being evaluated for design certification by the NRC 

23 staff. The term “accident,” as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed 

24 in Section 5.9 that results in release of radioactive materials into the environment. The focus of 

25 this review is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits 

26 for normal operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, 

27 Table 2. 

28 Numerous features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power 

29 plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the plants, which compose 

30 the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive materials from the 

31 plant. The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in 

32 effluents to unrestricted areas ALARA are specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Additional 

33 measures are designed to mitigate the consequences of failures in the first line of defense. 

34 These measures include the NRC’s reactor site criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, which require the 

35 site to have certain characteristics that reduce the risk to the public and the potential impacts of 

36 an accident, and emergency preparedness plans and protective action measures for the site 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-72 April 2010 

1 and environs, as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, and 

2 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NRC 1980). All of these safety features, measures, and plans 

3 make up the defense-in-depth philosophy to protect the health and safety of the public and the 

4 environment. 

5 This section discusses (1) the types of radioactive materials that may be released; (2) the 

6 potential paths to their release to the environment; (3) the relationship between radiation dose 

7 and health effects; and (4) the environmental impacts of reactor accidents, both DBA and 

8 severe accidents. The environmental impacts of accidents during transportation of spent fuel 

9 are discussed in Chapter 6. 

10 The potential for dispersion of radioactive materials in the environment depends on the 

11 mechanical forces that physically transport the materials and on the physical and chemical 

12 forms of the material. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms. 

13 The majority of the material in the fuel is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, there is a 

14 significant amount of material that is in the form of volatile solids or gases. The gaseous 

15 radioactive materials include the chemically inert noble gases (e.g., krypton and xenon), which 

16 have a high potential for release. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are created in substantial 

17 quantities in the fuel by fission, are volatile. Other radioactive materials formed during the 

18 operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities and, therefore, have lower tendencies 

19 to escape from the fuel than the noble gases and isotopes of iodine. 

20 Radiation exposure to individuals is determined by their proximity to radioactive material, the 

21 duration of their exposure, and the extent to which they are shielded from the radiation. 

22 Pathways that lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material 

23 in the air, on the ground, and in the water; (2) inhalation of radioactive material; and 

24 (3) ingestion of food or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water. 

25 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 

26 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 

27 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 

28 relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A report by the 

29 National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose 

30 response model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is accepted 

31 by the NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, 

32 recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this method, the staff 

33 estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal probability coefficient 

34 for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and 

35 severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 0.00057 

36 effects per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from Publication 103 of the International 

37 Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 2007). Physiological effects are clinically 

38 detectable if individuals receive radiation exposure resulting in a dose greater than about 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-73 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 25 rem over a short period of time (hours). Untreated doses of about 250 to 500 rem received 

2 over a relatively short period (hours to a few days) can be expected to cause some fatalities.

3 5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents 

4 UniStar evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that a 

5 U.S. EPR could be constructed and operated at the Calvert Cliffs site without undue risk to the 

6 health and safety of the public (UniStar 2009a). These evaluations used a set of DBAs that are 

7 representative for the design being considered for the Calvert Cliffs site and site-specific 

8 meteorological data. The set of accidents covers events that range from relatively high 

9 probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low probability with high 

10 consequences. 

11 The bases for analyses of postulated accidents for this design are well established because the 

12 reactor is a pressurized water type reactor that is being reviewed in the NRC’s advanced reactor 

13 design certification process. Potential consequences of DBAs are evaluated following 

14 procedures outlined in regulatory guides and standard review plans. The potential 

15 consequences of accidental releases depend on the specific radionuclides released, the amount 

16 of each radionuclide released, and the meteorological conditions. The source terms for the U.S. 

17 EPR reactor and methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on guidance in 

18 Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000b). 

19 For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological 

20 conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an 

atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as χ/Q and has units of s/m3 21 . 

22 Acceptable methods of calculating χ/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in 

23 Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1983). Smaller χ/Q values are associated with greater 

24 atmospheric dilution. 

25 Table 5-14 lists χ/Q values pertinent to the environmental review of DBAs for the Calvert Cliffs 

26 site (UniStar 2009a). The first column lists the time periods and boundaries for which χ/Q and 

27 dose estimates are needed. For the exclusion area boundary, the postulated DBA dose and its 

28 atmospheric dispersion factor are calculated for a short-term (i.e., 2 hours) and for the low 

29 population zone they are calculated for the course of the accident (i.e., 30 days) composed of 

30 five time periods. The second column lists the χ/Q values presented in UniStar’s ER (UniStar 

31 2009a) response using the site meteorological information discussed in ER Sections 2.7.4.4 and 

32 the exclusion area boundary and low population zone distances. No credit was taken for 

33 building wake. UniStar calculated the χ/Q values listed in Table 5-14 using 7 years of onsite 

34 meteorological data (2000 to 2006) for the Calvert Cliffs site, assuming that the release point 

35 was located at ground level. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-74 April 2010 

1 Table 5-14. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Calvert Cliffs Site DBA Calculations 

Time Period and Boundary χ/Q (s/m3

) 

Worst 2-hr period, Exclusion Area Boundary 8.08 × 10-5 

Worst 2-hr period, Low Population Zone 1.53 × 10-5

0 to 8 hr, Low Population Zone 1.18 × 10-5 

8 to 24 hr, Low Population Zone 9.39 × 10-6 

1 to 4 d, Low Population Zone 6.61 × 10-6

4 to 30 d, Low Population Zone 3.99 × 10-6

2 The NRC staff reviewed the meteorological data used by UniStar and the UniStar atmospheric 

3 dispersion factors. Based on these reviews, the staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion 

4 factors for the Calvert Cliffs site provided are reasonable for use in evaluating potential 

5 environmental consequences of postulated DBAs for the U.S. EPR reactor design at the Calvert 

6 Cliffs site. 

7 Table 5-15 lists the set of DBAs considered by UniStar and presents the UniStar estimates of 

8 the environmental consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent 

9 (TEDE). In these analyses, TEDE is the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from 

10 inhalation and the effective dose equivalent from external exposure. Dose conversion factors 

11 from Federal Guidance Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988) were used to calculate the committed 

12 effective dose equivalent. Similarly, dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 

13 (Eckerman and Ryman 1993) were used to calculate the effective dose equivalent. 

14 The staff reviewed UniStar selection of DBAs by comparing the accidents listed in the COL 

15 application with the DBAs considered in the U.S. EPR Design Control Document (AREVA 

16 2007a), which is being reviewed in the design certification process. The DBAs in the ER are the 

17 same as those considered in the design certification; therefore, the staff concludes that the set 

18 of DBAs is appropriate. In addition, the staff reviewed the calculation of the site-specific 

19 consequences of the DBAs and found the results of the calculations to be reasonable for use in 

20 its evaluation of environmental consequences of DBAs. 

21 There are no environmental criteria related to the potential consequences of DBAs. 

22 Consequently, the review criteria used in the NRC staff’s safety review of DBA doses are 

23 included in Table 5-15 to illustrate the magnitude of the calculated environmental consequences 

24 (TEDE doses). In all cases, the calculated TEDE values are considerably smaller than the 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-75 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 TEDE doses used as safety review criteria. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that, with 

2 respect to DBAs, the Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 site is environmentally suitable for operation of a 

3 U.S. EPR reactor. 

4 Table 5-15. DBA Doses for a U.S. EPR Reactor 

TEDE in rem(a)

Accident 

Standard 

Review 

Plan 

Section(b) EAB(c) LPZ(d)

Review 

Criterion

Main Steam Line Break 15.1.5 

 Pre-existing iodine spike 1.96 × 10-2 5.38 × 10-3 2.5 × 10+1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 2.17 × 10-2 1.81 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Steam Generator Rupture 15.6.3 

 Pre-existing iodine spike 8.93 × 10-2 2.88 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 5.90 × 10-2 6.96 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Loss-of-Coolant Accident 15.6.5 1.01 × 100

 1.14 × 100 2.5 × 10+1(e)

Rod Ejection 15.4.8 4.57 × 10-1 3.05 × 10-1 6.25 × 10+0(f)

Reactor Coolant Pump Rotor Seizure (locked rotor) 15.3.3 1.82 × 10-1 7.56 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary Coolant 

Outside Containment 

15.6.2 1.45 × 10-1 2.75 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Fuel Handling 15.7.4 4.54 × 10-1 9.04 × 10-2 6.25 × 10+0(f)

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007b). 

(c) EAB=Exclusion area boundary. 

(d) LPZ=Low population zone. 

(e) 10 CFR 52.79 and 10 CFR 100.21 criteria. 

(f) Standard Review Plan criterion. 

5 5.11.1.1 Summary of DBA Impacts 

6 The NRC staff reviewed the UniStar DBA analysis in the ER, which is based on analyses 

7 performed for design certification of the U.S. EPR design with adjustment for Calvert Cliffs site8 specific characteristics. The results of the UniStar analyses and NRC staff review indicate that 

9 the environmental consequences associated with DBAs, if a U.S. EPR reactor were to be 

10 located at the Calvert Cliffs site, would be within NRC siting criteria. On this basis, the staff 

11 concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs at the Calvert Cliffs site would be 

12 SMALL for a U.S. EPR reactor. 

13 5.11.2 Severe Accidents 

14 In its ER (UniStar 2009a), UniStar considers the potential consequences of severe accidents for 

15 a U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site. Three pathways are considered: (1) the atmospheric 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-76 April 2010 

1 pathway, in which radioactive material is released to the air; (2) the surface-water pathway, in 

2 which airborne radioactive material falls out on open bodies of water; and (3) the groundwater 

3 pathway, in which groundwater is contaminated by a basemat melt-through with subsequent 

4 contamination of surface water by the groundwater. 

5 The UniStar evaluation of the potential environmental consequences for the atmospheric and 

6 surface water ingestion pathways incorporates the results of the MELCOR Accident 

7 Consequence Code System (MACCS2) computer code (Chanin et al. 1990; Chanin and Young 

8 1998; Jow et al. 1990) run using U.S. EPR reactor source term information and site-specific 

9 meteorological, population, and land-use data. UniStar provided the NRC staff with copies of 

10 the input and output files for the MACCS2 code runs (UniStar 2008a). The NRC staff reviewed 

11 the files, made confirmatory calculations, and determined that UniStar’s results were 

12 reasonable. Environmental consequences of some potential surface-water pathways (e.g., 

13 swimming and fishing) are not evaluated by MACCS2. UniStar relied on generic analyses in 

14 NUREG 1437 (NRC 1996) for these pathways. Similarly, the MACCS2 code does not address 

15 the potential environmental consequences of the groundwater pathway. UniStar relied on 

16 generic analyses in NUREG-1437 and earlier analyses to evaluate the potential consequences 

17 of releases to groundwater. 

18 The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of 

19 severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). The MACCS2 code 

20 evaluates the consequences of atmospheric releases of material following a severe accident. 

21 The pathways modeled include exposure to the passing plume, exposure to material deposited 

22 on the ground and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and resuspended from the 

23 ground, and ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. 

24 Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed in the MACCS2 analysis: 

25 (1) human health, (2) economic costs, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human 

26 health effects are expressed in terms of the number of cancers that might be expected if a 

27 severe accident were to occur. These effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation 

28 dose received by the general population. MACCS2 estimates both early cancer fatalities and 

29 latent fatalities. Early fatalities are related to high doses or dose rates and can be expected to 

30 occur within a year of exposure (Jow et al. 1990). 

31 Latent fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of people to low doses and dose rates 

32 and can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years. Population health33 risk estimates are based on the population distribution within a 50-mi radius of the site. 

34 Economic costs of a severe accident include the costs associated with short-term relocation of 

35 people; decontamination of property and equipment; interdiction of food supplies, land, and 

36 equipment use; and condemnation of property. The affected land area is a measure of the areal 

37 extent of the residual contamination following a severe accident. Farm land decontamination is 

38 an estimate of the area that has an average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-77 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 following the release that would be greater than 0.5 rem/yr if not reduced by decontamination 

2 and that would have a dose rate following decontamination of less than 0.5 rem/yr. 

3 Decontaminated land is not necessarily suitable for farming. 

4 Risk is the product of the frequency and the consequences of an accident. For example, the 

5 probability of a severe accident without loss of containment for a U.S. EPR reactor at the 

Calvert Cliffs site is estimated to be 3.4 × 10-7 6 per reactor year (Ryr) (UniStar 2008a). The 

7 cumulative population dose associated with a severe accident without loss of containment at the 

8 Calvert Cliffs site is calculated to be 47,200 person-rem (UniStar 2008a). The population dose 

risk for this release class is the product of 3.4 × 10-7 Ryr-1 9 and 47,200 person-rem, which equals 

1.6 × 10-2 person-rem Ryr-1 10 (UniStar 2009a). The following sections discuss the estimated risks 

11 associated with each pathway. The risks presented in the following tables are risks per year of 

12 reactor operation. 

13 5.11.2.1 Air Pathway 

14 The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to the air 

15 pathway. The results of the MACCS2 runs (UniStar 2008a) are presented in Table 5-16. The 

16 core damage frequencies (CDFs) given in these tables are for internally initiated accident 

17 sequences, internal fires, and internal floods, while the plant is at power. Internally initiated 

18 accident sequences include sequences that are initiated by human error, equipment failures, 

19 loss of offsite power, etc. The CDFs used by UniStar are those from the Final Safety Analysis 

20 Report (FSAR) submitted as part of the application for certification of the U.S. EPR reactor 

21 design (AREVA 2007b). 

22 Core damage frequencies for other at power events (external events), including tornadoes and 

23 hurricanes, are discussed in the U.S. EPR FSAR (AREVA 2007b) and the FSAR for proposed 

24 Unit 3 (UniStar 2009d). Sections 19.1.5 of the FSAR discuss external initiating events. 

25 Section 19.1.5.1 discusses a seismic margins analysis in which probabilistic risk assessment 

26 (PRA) methods are used to identify potential vulnerabilities in the design so corrective measures 

27 can be taken to reduce risk. Similarly, Section 19.1.5.4 addresses risks associated with high 

28 winds, tornado missiles, external flooding, and external fires. Risks associated with these 

29 events are considered to be insignificant by AREVA NP. The total CDF for events occurring 

30 while the reactor is at low power or shutdown is estimated to be about an order of magnitude 

31 less than the total at-power CDF (AREVA 2007b). 

32 Table 5-16 shows that the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) of severe accidents 

33 for a U.S. EPR located on the Calvert Cliffs site are small for all risk categories considered. For 

34 perspective, Table 5-17 and Table 5-18 compare the health risks from severe accidents for a 

35 U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site with the risks for current-generation reactors at various sites. 
Draft NUREG-1936 5-78 April 2010 

Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site Table 5-16. Environmental Risks from an U.S. EPR Reactor Severe Accident at the Calvert Cliffs Site 1 Environmental Risk(a) Fatalities (Ryr-1) Release Category Description(b) (Accident Class) Core Damage Frequency (Ryr-1)(a) Population Dose (person- rem Ryr-1)(c) Early(d) Latent(e) Cost(f) ($ Ryr-1) Farm Land Decontamination(g) (ha Ryr-1) Population Dose from Water Ingestion (person rem Ryr-1)(c) RC101 No containment failure 3.4 × 10-7 1.6 × 10-2 0 8.3 × 10-6 $5 3.1 × 10-5 6.8 × 10-5 RC201 Containment isolation failure before breach, melt remains in vessel 5.0 × 10-10 2.1 × 10-3 <1.0 × 10-11 1.1 × 10-6 $4 1.6 × 10-5 1.1 × 10-4 RC206 Containment failure due to failure to isolate 2” or smaller lines 1.6 × 10-8 5.2 × 10+0 1.3 × 10-8 3.0 × 10-5 $55 3.4 × 10-4 1.0 × 10-3 RC303 Containment fails before breach due to containment failure, without MCCIg, flooded, sprays 2.3 × 10-9 1.1 × 10-2 <1.0 × 10-11 5.3 × 10-6 $11 6.7 × 10-5 1.4 × 10-3 RC304 Containment fails before breach due to containment failure, without MCCI, flooded, no sprays 1.8 × 10-8 1.1 × 10-1 1.7 × 10-10 5.5 × 10-5 $115 6.5 × 10-4 1.4 × 10-3

RC404 Containment fails after breach 

and before quench due to rupture, without MCCI, flooded, no sprays 

1.4 × 10-8 5.0 × 10-2 0 2.4 × 10-5 $57 3.6 × 10-4 6.8 × 10-4

RC504 Containment fails after quench 

due to rupture, without MCCI, flooded, no sprays 

1.2 × 10-7 5.7 × 10-2 0 2.6 × 10-5 $8 3.6 × 10-5 2.4 × 10-4

RC701 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 

with fission product scrubbing 

1.0 × 10-8 2.4 × 10-2 0 1.4 × 10-5 $19 1.4 × 10-4 2.3 × 10-4

RC702 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 

without fission product scrubbing 

5.4 × 10-9 8.5 × 10-2 2.7 × 10-8 7.8 × 10-5 $89 3.8 × 10-4 2.4 × 10-3

Total 5.3 × 10-7 4.1 × 10-1 4.1 × 10-8 2.5 × 10-4 $369 2.1 × 10-3 6.4 × 10-3

(a) All values in the table are based on data supplied by UniStar (2008a). (b) Release categories contributing less than 1 percent of the risk in all categories are not shown. Totals include all release categories. In all cases, the risks shown exceed 98 percent 

of the total risk. 

(c) To convert person-rem to person-SV, divide by 100. (d) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a yr of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990). 

(e) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) yr. (f) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health effects 

(Jow et al. 1990). 

(g) Land risk is area where the average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the accident exceeds 0.5 rem/yr but can be reduced to less than 0.5 rem/yr by 

decontamination. 

(h) MCCI – molten corium-to-concrete interaction
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-79 Draft NUREG-1936 Table 5-17. Comparison of Environmental Risks for an U.S. EPR Reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Site with Risks for 1 Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) 2 Fatalities Ryr-1 Average Individual Fatality Risk Ryr-1 Core Damage Frequency (Ryr-1) 50-mi Population Dose Risk (person- rem Ryr-1)(a) Early Latent Early Latent Cancer Grand Gulf(b) 4.0 × 10-6 5 × 10+1 8 × 10-9 9 × 10-4 3 × 10-11 3 × 10-10 Peach Bottom(b) 4.5 × 10-6 7 × 10+2 2 × 10-8 5 × 10-3 5 × 10-11 4 × 10-10 Sequoyah(b) 5.7 × 10-5 1 × 10+3 3 × 10-5 1 × 10-2 1 × 10-8 1 × 10-8 Surry(b) 4.0 × 10-5 5 × 10+2 2 × 10-6 5 × 10-3 2 × 10-8 2 × 10-9 Zion(b) 3.4 × 10-4 5 × 10+3 4 × 10-5 2 × 10-2 9 × 10-9 1 × 10-8 U.S. EPR(c) at the Calvert Cliffs site 5.3 × 10-7 4.1×10-1 4 × 10-8 2 × 10-4 1 × 10-11 3 × 10-10 (a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100. (b) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and are presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). (c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using Calvert Cliffs site-specific input for internal and external at power initiating events (UniStar 2008a). 
Draft NUREG-1936 5-80 April 2010 

Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site Table 5-18. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents for an U.S. EPR Reactor at the Calvert Cliffs 1 Site with Risks for Current Plants from Operating License Renewal Reviews, including CCNPP Units 1 2 and 2 3 Core Damage Frequency (yr-1) 50-mi Population Dose Risk (person-rem Ryr-1)(a) Current Reactor Maximum(b) 2.4 × 10-4 6.9 × 10+1 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 or 2(c)(d) 2.4 × 10-4 6.9 × 10+1 Current Reactor Mean(b) 2.7 × 10-5 1.6 × 10+1 Current Reactor Median(b) 1.6 × 10-5 1.3 × 10+1 Current Reactor Minimum(b) 1.9 × 10-6 3.4 × 10-1 U.S. EPR(d)(e) at Calvert Cliffs 5.3 × 10-7 4.1 × 10-1 

(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100. (b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for 76 current plants at 44 sites. (c) NUREG-1437, Supplement 1 (NRC 1996). (d) Population dose risk includes risk associated with internal and externally initiated events with the reactor at power. (e) Calculated with MACCS2 code using Calvert Cliffs site-specific input (UniStar 2008a). 

4 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-81 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 In Table 5-17, the health risks estimated for a U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site are compared 

2 to health-risk estimates for the five reactors considered in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). Although 

3 risks associated with both internally and externally initiated events were considered for the 

4 Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in NUREG-1150, only risks associated with internally initiated 

5 events are presented in Table 5-17. The health risks shown for a U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs 

6 site include risks for the most significant external events. Even with the addition of the 

7 externally initiated events for a U.S. EPR reactor, the health risks are significantly lower than the 

8 risks associated with current-generation reactors presented in NUREG-1150. 

9 The last two columns of Table 5-17 provide average individual fatality risk estimates. To put 

10 these estimates into context for the environmental analysis, the staff compares these estimates 

11 to the safety goals. The Commission has set safety goals for average individual early fatality 

12 and latent cancer fatality risks from reactor accidents in the Safety Goal Policy Statement 

13 (51 FR 30028). These goals are presented here solely to provide a point of reference for the 

14 environmental analysis and do not serve the purpose of a safety analysis. The Policy 

15 Statement expressed the Commission’s policy regarding the acceptance level of radiological 

16 risk from nuclear power plant operation as follows: 

17 • Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the 

18 consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no significant 

19 additional risk to life and health. 

20 • Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant operation should be comparable to 

21 or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should 

22 not be a significant addition to other societal risks. 

23 The following quantitative health objectives are used in determining achievement of the safety 

24 goals: 

25 • The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities 

26 that might result from reactor accidents should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent 

27 (0.1 percent) of the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to which 

28 members of the U.S. population are generally exposed. 

29 • The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear power plant of cancer fatalities that 

30 might result from nuclear power plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent 

31 (0.1 percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes. 

32 These quantitative health objectives are translated into two numerical objectives as follows: 

33 • The individual risk of a prompt fatality from all “other accidents to which members of the 

U.S. population are generally exposed,” is about 4.0 x 10-4 per year, including a 1.6 x 10-4 34 

35 per year risk associated with transportation accidents (NSC 2009). One-tenth of 1 percent 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-82 April 2010 

1 of these figures implies that the individual risk of prompt fatality from a reactor accident 

should be less than 4 x 10-7 2 per Ryr. 

3 • “The sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes” for an individual is taken to 

be the cancer fatality rate in the United States which is about 1 in 500 or 2 x 10-3 4 per year 

5 (Reed 2007). One-tenth of 1 percent of this implies that the risk of cancer to the population 

in the area near a nuclear power plant because of its operation should be limited to 2 x 10-6 6 

7 per Ryr. 

8 MACCS2 calculates average individual early and latent cancer fatality risks. The average 

9 individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 1 mi of the plant 

10 boundary. The average individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the population 

11 distribution within 10 mi of the plant. For the plants considered in NUREG-1150, these risks 

12 were well below the Commission’s safety goals. Risks calculated for the U.S. EPR reactor 

13 design at the Calvert Cliffs site are comparable to or lower than the risks associated with the 

14 current-generation reactors considered in NUREG-1150 and are well below the Commission’s 

15 safety goals. 

16 The staff compared the CDF and population dose risk estimate for a U.S. EPR at the Calvert 

17 Cliffs site with statistics summarizing the results of contemporary severe accident analyses 

18 performed for 76 reactors at 44 sites. The results of these analyses are included in the final 

19 site-specific Supplements 1 through 37 to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and in the ERs included 

20 with license renewal applications for those plants for which supplements have not been 

21 published. All of the analyses were completed after publication of NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990); 

22 the analyses for 72 of the reactors used MACCS2, which was released in 1997. Table 5-18 

23 shows that the CDF estimated for the U.S. EPR is significantly lower than those of current24 generation reactors. Similarly, the population doses estimated for an U.S. EPR at the Calvert 

25 Cliffs site are well below the mean and median values for current-generation reactors that have 

26 undergone or are undergoing license renewal. 

27 Finally, the population dose risk from a severe accident for a new U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs

site (4.1 × 10-1 28 person-rem/Ryr) may be compared to the dose risk for normal operation of a 

U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site of 5.5 × 10+0 29 person-rem/yr (see Section 5.9.3.2). 

30 5.11.2.2 Surface Water Pathways 

31 Surface-water pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These pathways cover the 

32 effects of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water. The surface water 

33 pathways of interest include external radiation from submersion in water and activities near the 

34 water, ingestion of water, and ingestion of fish and other aquatic creatures. Of these 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-83 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 pathways, the MACCS2 code evaluates only the ingestion of contaminated water. The risks 

2 associated with this surface water pathway calculated for the Calvert Cliffs site are included in 

3 the last column of Table 5-18.

4 Doses from other surface water pathways are not modeled in MACCS or MACCS2. However, 

5 NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) contains an estimate of the risk associated with uninterdicted 

6 consumption of aquatic foods for the current units at the Calvert Cliffs site. This risk is 

7 5500-person rem/Ryr. Assuming that the ratio of the uninterdicted aquatic food pathway dose 

8 to the air pathway dose would be the same for the U.S. EPR as the ratio of doses shown in the 

9 NUREG-1437 Supplement 1 for CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 1996), the uninterdicted aquatic 

food risk for a U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site would be about 7.5 × 10-1 10 person-rem/Ryr. 

11 This dose risk assumes that the aquatic food harvest for the region has remained constant over 

12 the year. This is not the case. The regional aquatic food harvest has decreased since 1976 

13 (NMFS 2007), the year of the data used to estimate the aquatic food path dose risk in 

14 NUREG-1437. Further, should a severe accident occur at a U.S. EPR reactor located at the 

15 Calvert Cliffs site, it is likely that Federal, State, and local officials would restrict access to the 

16 Chesapeake Bay near the site. These actions would further reduce aquatic food ingestion 

17 pathway risk. At sites such as the Calvert Cliffs site, interdiction could reduce the risk by a 

18 factor of 2 to 10 (NRC 1996). Thus, the dose risk for the aquatic food path is not likely to be 

19 significantly greater the air pathway dose risk and may be substantially less than the air 

20 pathway dose risk. 

21 Analysis of water-related exposure pathways are discussed in the GEIS (NUREG-1437), based 

22 on a study at the Fermi reactor (NRC 1981), which suggests that population exposures from 

23 swimming are significantly lower than exposures from the aquatic ingestion pathway. 

24 5.11.2.3 Groundwater Pathway 

25 The groundwater pathway involves a reactor core melt, reactor vessel failure, and penetration of 

26 the floor (basemat) below the reactor vessel. Ultimately, core debris reaches the groundwater 

27 where soluble radionuclides are transported with the groundwater. In the GEIS (NUREG-1437), 

the staff assumes a 1 × 10-4 Ryr-1 28 probability of occurrence of a severe accident with a basemat 

29 melt-through leading to potential groundwater contamination and concluded that groundwater 

30 contribution to risk is generally a small fraction of the risk attributable to the atmospheric 

31 pathway. 

The staff has re-evaluated its assumption of a 1 × 10-4 Ryr-1 32 probability of a basemat 

melt-through. The staff believes that the 1 × 10-4 33 probability is too large for new power plants. 

34 Elements have been included in the U.S. EPR reactor design to minimize the potential for 

35 reactor core debris to reach groundwater. These elements include a spreading room beneath 

36 the reactor vessel, external reactor vessel cooling, and external-vessel core debris cooling. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-84 April 2010 

1 Furthermore, the probability of core melt with basemat melt-through should be no larger than 

2 the total CDF estimate for the reactor. 

Table 5-16 gives a total CDF estimate of 5.3 ×10-7 3 for the U.S. EPR reactor. NUREG-1150 

4 indicates that the conditional probability of a basemat melt-through ranges from 0.05 to 0.25 for 

5 current-generation reactors. On this basis, the staff believes that a basemat melt-through 

probability of 5 × 10-8 Ryr-1 6 is reasonable and still conservative. According to the AREVA 

7 probabilistic risk assessment for the U.S. EPR reactor (AREVA 2007b), the CDF for basemat 

melt-through with a large release is about 4 × 10-10 Ryr-1 8 . 

9 The groundwater pathway is more tortuous than the atmospheric release pathway; affords more 

10 time for implementing protective and remedial actions; and, therefore, results in a lower risk to 

11 the public. As a result, the NRC staff concludes that the risks associated with releases to 

12 groundwater are sufficiently small that they would not have a significant effect on overall risk of 

13 a severe accident for a U.S. EPR reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

14 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts 

15 The NRC staff reviewed the severe accident analysis in the ER and conducted its independent 

16 evaluation. The results of the UniStar analysis and the NRC staff evaluation indicate that the 

17 environmental risks associated with severe accidents if a U.S. EPR reactor were to be located 

18 at Calvert Cliffs site would be small compared to risks associated with operation of the current19 generation reactors at the Calvert Cliffs site and other sites. These risks are well within the 

20 NRC safety criteria. On these bases, the NRC staff concludes that the probability-weighted 

21 consequences of severe accidents at the Calvert Cliffs site would be SMALL for a U.S. EPR 

22 reactor. 

23 5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

24 UniStar references a U.S. EPR reactor design that incorporates many features intended to 

25 reduce severe accident CDFs and risks associated with severe accidents. The expected 

26 effectiveness of the U.S. EPR reactor design features in reducing risk is evident in Table 5-17

27 and Table 5-18, which compare CDFs and severe accident risks for the design with CDFs and 

28 risks for current-generation reactors including CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Core damage frequencies 

29 and risks have generally been reduced by a factor of 100 or more when compared to the 

30 existing units. 

31 The purpose of the evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) is to 

32 determine whether there are severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) or 

33 procedural modifications or training activities that can be justified to further reduce the risks of 

34 severe accidents (NRC 2000a). Consistent with direction from the Commission to consider the 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-85 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 SAMDAs at the time of certification, the AREVA U.S. EPR vendor (AREVA 2007b, c) has 

2 considered 167 design alternatives for a U.S. EPR at a generic site. 

3 The U.S. EPR design already has numerous plant features intended to reduce CDF and risk; as 

4 a result, the benefits and risk reduction potential of any additional plant improvements are 

5 significantly reduced from those of existing reactors. This reduction is true for both internally 

6 and externally initiated events. The NRC staff does not expect that either improvements in 

7 modeling or data would change its conclusions. 

8 In its ER (UniStar 2009a), UniStar assesses 167 SAMDAs that were considered in the 

9 U.S. EPR DCD (AREVA 2007a) using the Calvert Cliffs site-specific information. UniStar 

10 determined that the maximum averted cost risk for a single U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site is 

11 so low that none of the SAMDAs is cost beneficial. A more realistic assessment would show 

12 that the potential reductions in cost risk are substantially less than the maximum averted cost 

13 risk because no SAMDA can reduce the remaining risk to zero. The NRC staff has updated the 

14 UniStar analysis based on Revision 1 of the AREVA SAMDA analysis (AREVA 2009). 

15 SAMDAs are a subset of the SAMA review. The other attributes of the SAMA review, 

16 procedural modifications and training activities, have not been addressed by UniStar or AREVA 

17 for design certification (AREVA 2007c). However, UniStar (2009a) has stated that risk insights 

18 would be considered in development of procedures and training. 

19 Appendix I contains a detailed review of the AREVA and UniStar SAMA analyses and presents 

20 the NRC staff conclusions related to the UniStar Calvert Cliffs site-specific analysis. After 

21 reviewing the UniStar analysis, the NRC staff concludes that there are no U.S. EPR SAMDAs 

22 that would be cost beneficial at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

23 As discussed in Appendix I, because the maximum attainable benefit is so low, a SAMA based 

24 on procedures or training for an U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site would have to reduce the 

25 CDF or risk to near zero to become cost beneficial. Based on its evaluation, the staff concludes 

26 that it is unlikely that any of the SAMAs based on procedures or training would reduce the CDF 

27 or risk that much. Therefore, the staff further concludes it is unlikely that these SAMAs would 

28 be cost effective. In addition, based on statements by UniStar in the ER (UniStar 2009a), the 

29 staff expects that UniStar will consider risk insights in the development of procedures and 

30 training. However, this expectation is not crucial to the staff’s conclusions because the staff 

31 already concluded procedural and training SAMAs would be unlikely to be cost effective. 

32 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that SAMAs have been appropriately considered. 

33 5.11.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

34 The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts from DBAs and severe accidents for a U.S. 

35 EPR reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site. Based on the information provided by AREVA, UniStar, 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-86 April 2010 

1 and NRC’s own independent review, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental 

2 impacts (risks) from a postulated accident from the operation of the proposed Unit 3 would be 

3 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

4 5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

5 Operation 

6 In its evaluation of environmental impacts during operation of the proposed Unit 3, the staff 

7 relied on UniStar’s compliance with the following measures and controls that would limit adverse 

8 environmental impacts: 

9 • compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations 

10 intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste 

11 management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, stormwater 

12 management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management) 

13 • compliance with applicable requirements of permits or licenses required for operation of the 

14 new unit (e.g., Corps’ Section 404 Permit, NPDES) 

15 • compliance with existing CCNPP Unit 1 and 2 processes and/or procedures applicable to 

16 proposed Unit 3 environmental compliance activities for the Calvert Cliffs site (e.g., solid 

17 waste management, hazardous waste management, and spill prevention and response) 

18 • incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts 

19 • implementation of BMPs. 

20 The review team considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of the impacts of 

21 plant operation. Table 5-19, which is the staff’s adaptation from sections of UniStar’s 

22 Table 5.10-1 of the ER (UniStar 2009a), lists a summary of measures and controls to limit 

23 adverse impacts during operation proposed by UniStar. 

24 Table 5-19. Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by UniStar to Limit Adverse 

25 Impacts During Operation (adapted from UniStar 2009a) 

Resource Category Specific Measures and Controls

Land Use 

The Site and Vicinity • Proposed Unit 3 footprint would be wholly contained on an 

existing nuclear power plant site; onsite land is not used 

for farmland nor is it considered prime or unique. 

• Solids deposition (assumed as salt) rates below 

NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000a) significance level, with drift 

eliminator in place. 

26 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-87 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 5-19. (contd) 

Resource Category Specific Measures and Controls

Transmission Line Corridors • Use existing transmission corridor maintenance policies 

and practices to protect terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems. 

• Develop onsite transmission maintenance policies and 

practices (BMPs) and use UniStar’s site Resource 

Management Plan to protect site resources such as 

wetlands and streams in vicinity. 

Water

Water-Use • Comply with MDE Water Appropriations and Use Permit. 

• Implement Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. 

• Develop new stormwater impoundments and/or modify 

existing impoundments as part of plant. 

• Install desalination plant. 

Water-Quality • Comply with Unit 3 NPDES permit. 

• Implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP), which includes sediment and erosion control. 

• Comply with the Corps’ 404 Permit requirements. 

• Implement SPCC Plan. 

Cooling System Intake • Small incremental water withdrawal compared to CCNPP 

Units 1 and 2, which was considered by the NRC to have 

a small impact in NUREG-1437 S1 (NRC 1996). 

• Low intake velocity design. 

• Perform periodic dredging, as needed. 

Discharge System Effluents • Use closed-cycle system, incorporating a subsurface, 

multi-port diffuser. 

Heat Dissipation to the Atmosphere • Solids deposition (assumed as salt) rates below 

NUREG-1555 significance level, with a drift eliminator in 

place. 

• Operation of drift eliminators. 

Terrestrial • Operation of drift eliminators would limit deposition of TDS 

below NUREG-1555 significance level. 

• Low profile tower design and minimal cooling tower 

lighting, as practicable and allowed by regulation. 

• Existing offsite transmission lines and corridors would be 

used for the new unit; mitigation of potential impacts to 

offsite terrestrial ecosystems would be unchanged. 

• Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to 

protect resources. Transplant rare plant species to open 

field areas. 

• Implement onsite routine transmission system 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-88 April 2010 

Table 5-19. (contd) 

Resource Category Specific Measures and Controls

maintenance policy and procedures, including vegetation 

control, erosion control, and important species protection. 

Aquatic • Use BAT (Best Available Technology) intake design. 

Design of cooling water system includes a fish-return 

system to reduce entrainment/impingement issues. 

• Use closed-cycle cooling, minimizing effluent 

temperatures and flow rates. 

• Existing offsite transmission lines and corridors would be 

used for the new unit; mitigation of potential impacts to 

offsite aquatic ecosystems would be unchanged. 

• Use site Resource Management Plan and BMPs to 

protect resources (e.g., wetlands and streams). 

• Implement onsite routine transmission system 

maintenance policy and procedures, including vegetation 

control, erosion control, and important species protection. 

Socioeconomic 

Physical Impacts • Traffic noise limited to normal weekday, business hours 

when possible. 

• Install new site perimeter and access roads; develop 

traffic management plan. 

• Compliance with applicable EPA and MDE air quality 

regulations and permits. 

• Siting limits visibility from local residences and road traffic 

due to heavily wooded area and from shoreline because 

of offset from cliff. Plume abatement equipment to 

minimize plume. 

Social and Economic Impacts • There are no mitigating measures identified by the 

applicant with regard to adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

Increases in demand for road capacity, housing, public 

services, and schools in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties 

likely would be larger during building activities and, if 

necessary, would be mitigated then. 

Environmental Justice • None necessary because there are no disproportionate 

adverse impacts expected on minority or low income 

populations in the 50-mi region. 

Historic Properties and Cultural 

Resources

• Perform Phase III Cultural Resource Survey. 

• Follow Data Recovery Plan. 

• Implement Mitigation Plan. 

• Implement MOA that stipulates agreed-upon mitigation 

measures. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-89 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 5-19. (contd) 

Resource Category Specific Measures and Controls

Nonradiological Health • Makeup of freshwater for the Essential Service Water 

System and mechanical draft cooling towers would be 

treated with a biocide. 

• Comply with Federal and State air quality requirements or 

permits. 

• Procedures and personal protective equipment (including 

respiratory protection) to minimize exposure onsite to 

vapors, dusts, and other air contaminants for workers. 

• Implement site-wide Safety and Medical Program, 

including safety policies, safe work practices, as well as 

general and topic-specific training. 

• Install new site perimeter and access roads; develop 

traffic management plan. Existing offsite transmission 

lines and corridors would be used for the new unit; 

mitigation of potential impacts from noise, electric shock, 

and electric field gradients would be unchanged. 

• Onsite exposure expected to be similar or less than 

existing transmission system due to smaller onsite 

footprint and distance to public areas. 

Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

Radiation Doses to Members of the 

Public 

• Calculated radiation doses to members of the public 

within NRC and EPA standards (10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50, and 40 CFR Part 190). 

Radiological effluent and environmental monitoring 

programs will be implemented. 

Occupational Radiation Doses • Estimated occupational doses would be within NRC 

standards (10 CFR Part 20). Program would be 

implemented to maintain occupational doses ALARA (10 

CFR Part 20). 

Impacts to Biota Other than Humans • Calculated doses for biota would be well within NCRP and 

IAEA guidelines. Radiological environmental monitoring 

program would be implemented. 

Waste from Operations

Nonradioactive Waste • Reuse, recycle, and reclaim solid waste and liquids as 

appropriate; otherwise use approved transporters and 

offsite disposal facilities. 

• Comply with applicable State and Federal hazardous 

waste and air quality regulations. 

• Comply with NPDES permit, including implementing a 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-90 April 2010 

Table 5-19. (contd) 

Resource Category Specific Measures and Controls

Mixed Waste • Proposed Unit 3 mixed waste quantities expected to be 

comparable to the mixed wastes for CCNPP Units 1 and 

2, which are minimal. 

• Implement storage, shipment, and emergency response 

procedures. 

Uranium Fuel Cycle • Possible use of centrifuge uranium enrichment process in 

lieu of gaseous diffusion process, which significantly 

reduces energy use and resultant environmental effects. 

Postulated Accidents

Design Basis Accidents • Calculated dose consequences of design basis accidents 

for the U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site were found to be 

within regulatory limits. 

Severe Accidents • Calculated probability-weighted consequences of severe 

accidents for the U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site were 

found to be lower than the Commission’s safety goals and 

the probability-weighted consequences for current 

operating reactors. 

• Severe accident mitigation design alternatives analysis 

identified no cost-beneficial alternatives for the U.S. EPR 

design using Calvert Cliffs site-specific meteorology and 

population distribution. 

Source: adapted from UniStar 2009a

1 5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts 

2 The review team’s evaluation of the environmental impacts of operations is summarized in 

3 Table 5-20. Impact level categories are denoted in the table as SMALL, MODERATE, or 

4 LARGE as a measure of their expected adverse impacts, if any. With the socioeconomic issues 

5 for which the impacts are likely to be beneficially MODERATE or LARGE, this is noted in the 

6 Comments column. The Impact Level column designates beneficial impacts as SMALL. 

7 Table 5-20. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Proposed Unit 3 Site 

Category Comments Impact Level

Land-Use Impacts

The Site and Vicinity Operation of one new onsite unit. Possible new 

housing and retail space in the vicinity. 

SMALL 

Transmission Line Corridors 

and Offsite Areas 

No new offsite corridors needed. SMALL 

8 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-91 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 5-20. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Water-Related Impacts

Water Use The Chesapeake Bay provides a vast water source. 

Using desalination system will eliminate need for 

using groundwater. 

SMALL 

Water Quality Closed-cycle cooling provides a relative small 

amount of discharge to the Chesapeake Bay, and 

the rapid dilution and large assimilative capacity of 

the Bay will make the thermal discharge and other 

effluents undetectable away from the discharge 

outlet. 

SMALL 

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

and Wetlands 

Flora and fauna would be minimally affected. New 

transmission corridor would not affect any wetlands 

or floodplains. 

SMALL 

Aquatic Ecosystems 

Freshwater Impacts to freshwater systems from increased runoff 

would be ameliorated by implementation of a 

stormwater management program. 

SMALL 

Chesapeake Bay Estuarine aquatic resources would not be adversely 

affected because of the small volume of water 

required for the proposed Unit 3 cooling system. 

SMALL 

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts Impact from Unit 3 operations on the public would be 

minimal. Impact on workers would be mitigated with 

training and protective equipment. Operation would 

not affect any offsite buildings. Outage workers 

would put temporary pressure on local access 

roads, but traffic control and management measures 

would protect any local roads during outages. 

Operations activities would result in SMALL 

aesthetic impacts from the steam plume from the 

cooling towers. Since Calvert Cliffs has two existing 

operating units, the change to the aesthetics of the 

plant would be SMALL to offsite receptors. 

SMALL 

Demography The population of the socioeconomic impact area 

and the 50-mi region will continue to grow 

independent of Unit 3. 

SMALL 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-92 April 2010 

Table 5-20. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Economic Impacts to the 

Community 

Employment would be higher in the region with Unit 

3. Much of this activity could occur in Calvert and 

St. Mary’s County. Increase in property tax base 

would be LARGE for Calvert County and SMALL 

elsewhere within the 50-mi region. 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

(BENEFICIAL)

Infrastructure and Community 

Services 

Roads in Calvert County have the capacity to handle 

expected traffic levels in the vicinity of the site. 

Small impacts on use of recreation facilities; no 

adverse impact on tourism. Calvert County, which 

would likely receive the highest percentage of 

in-migrating workers relative to the available housing 

stock, would experience a SMALL increase in 

housing demand. No noticeable changes 

elsewhere. The population of Calvert County is 

expected to grow about 2.5 percent over the next 

few years, which would not greatly affect any 

services. There should be spare capacity in most 

services as a result of having gone through the site 

development period. The distribution of school 

capacity and growth in both capacity and school-age 

population by district from other sources, impacts on 

Calvert County school districts would be SMALL. 

There should be no noticeable impact elsewhere. 

SMALL 

Environmental Justice No environmental pathways or unique 

characteristics or practices of the minority and lowincome population were found that would lead to 

adverse and disproportionate impacts. 

SMALL 

Historic and Cultural Resources No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated 

during operations. However, there is a low potential 

that unidentified cultural resources could be 

encountered during operations. Procedures for 

addressing impacts to unanticipated cultural 

resources would be provided in an unanticipated 

discoveries plan to be prepared in coordination with 

the MD SHPO. 

SMALL 

Meteorological and Air Quality 

Impacts 

Emissions would be regulated by MDE. SMALL 

Nonradiological Health Impacts Nonradiological impacts of transporting construction 

materials, personnel, fuel, and waste to and from the 

Unit 3 site and alternative sites shown to be a small 

fraction of the traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities 

in their respective counties. 

SMALL 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-93 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 5-20. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Radiological Health Impacts

 

Members of the Public Doses to members of the public would be below 

NRC and EPA standards and there would be no 

observable health impacts (10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 40 CFR Part 190). 

SMALL 

Plant Workers Occupational doses to plant workers would be below 

NRC standards and program to maintain doses 

ALARA would be implemented. 

SMALL 

Biota other than Humans Doses to biota other than humans would be well 

below NCRP and IAEA guidelines. 

SMALL 

Nonradioactive Waste Solid, liquid, gaseous, and mixed wastes generated 

during operation of proposed Unit 3 would be 

handled according to county, State and Federal 

regulations. 

SMALL 

Postulated Accidents 

Design Basis Accidents Impacts of design basis accidents would be well 

below regulatory criteria. 

SMALL 

Severe Accidents Probability-weighted consequences of severe 

accidents would be lower than the Commission’s 

safety goals and probability-weighted consequences 

for currently operating reactors. 

SMALL 

1 5.14 References 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 Protection Against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

8 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Licenses, 

9 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

11 Criteria.” 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-94 April 2010 

1 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

2 Safety and Health Standards.” 

3 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

4 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

5 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

6 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

7 40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, 

8 “Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.” 

9 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

10 Policy Statement; Correction and Republication.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

11 Commission. 

12 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

13 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register. 

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

15 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

16 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

17 Commission. 

18 Abbe, G.R. 1987. “Thermal and Other Discharge-Related Effects on the Bay Ecosystem.” 

19 Chapter 9 in Ecological Studies in the Middle Reach of Chesapeake Bay, Calvert Cliffs. 

20 K.L. Heck Jr., ed., Springer-Verlag, New York. 

21 Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR). 2006. Power Frequency Electromagnetic 

22 Fields, Melatonin and the Risk of Breast Cancer. RCE-1, Health Protection Agency, Oxford, 

23 UK. Accessed on November 1, 2009 at 

24 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1204286180274. 

25 AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA). 2007a. AREVA Design Control Document, Rev 0 – Tier 2 Chapter 

26 12 Radiation Protection – Section 12.3 Radiation Protection Design Features. Accession No. 

27 ML073531699. 

28 AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA). 2007b. U.S. EPR Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 0, 

29 December 2007. Accession No. ML073531265. 

30 AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA). 2007c. AREVA NP Environmental Report, Standard Design 

31 Certification. ANP-10290, Revision 0. Accession No. ML073530589. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-95 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA). 2009. AREVA NP Environmental Report, Standard Design 

2 Certification. ANP-10290, Revision 1. Accession No. ML092650775. 

3 Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel). 2008. “Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 Storm Water Management 

4 Plan Document No: 25237-209-30G-KO3G-00001 Revision A,” provided in UniStar Letter 

5 UN#08-037 to NRC, September 29, 2008. Accession No. ML090220702. 

6 Brown, W.M. 1993. “Avian Collisions with Utility Structures: Biological Perspectives.” In 

7 Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, International Workshop, pp. 12-1 – 3. 

8 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California. 

9 Calvert County. 2008. Calvert County Comprehensive Water & Sewerage Plan 2008. 

10 Accessed on October 26, 2009 at 

11 http://www.co.cal.md.us/business/planning/documents/2008watersewerplan/. 

12 Chanin, D.I. and M.L. Young. 1998. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User’s Guide. 

13 SAND97-0594, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

14 Chanin, D.I., J.L. Sprung, L.T. Ritchie, and H.N. Jow. 1990. MELCOR Accident Consequence 

15 Code System (MACCS), User’s Guide. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol. 1, Sandia National Laboratories, 

16 Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

17 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

18 Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

19 Control Act [FWPCA]). 

20 COMAR 26.08.03.03. 2007a. “Water Quality Impact Assessment for Thermal Discharges.” 

21 Code of Maryland Regulations. 

22 COMAR 26.08.02.03-3. 2007b. “Water Quality Criteria Specific to Designated Uses.” Code of 

23 Maryland Regulations. 

24 COMAR 26.08.02.03-2. 2008a. “Numerical Criteria for Toxic Substances in Surface Waters.” 

25 Code of Maryland Regulations. 

26 COMAR 26.11.16.06. 2008b. “Class I Toxic Air Pollutants.” Code of Maryland Regulations. 

27 Constellation Energy Group (Constellation). 2004. Letter from Kevin J. Nietmann (Constellation 

28 Energy Group, Plant General Manager) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 28, 

29 2004, “Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318, 

30 Special Report: Mortality of a Species Protected by the Act of 1973.” Accession No. 

31 ML042150154. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-96 April 2010 

1 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2005. Letter from Mark Tonacci 

2 (Constellation) to the NRC dated July 14, 2005, “Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 

3 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318; 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report and Dose 

4 Assessment.” Accession No. ML052020232. 

5 Constellation Energy Group, LLC (Constellation). 2007a. Annual Radiological Environmental 

6 Operating Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 and the Independent 

7 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, January 1 - December 31, 2006. Accession No. ML071590393. 

8 Constellation Generation Group, LLC (Constellation). 2007b. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

9 Plant Effluent and Waste Disposal 2006 Annual Report. Accession No. ML072050478. 

10 Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Cornell). 2008. All About Birds, Brown-headed Cowbird. Accessed 

11 October 7, 2008 at http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Brown12 headed_Cowbird_dtl.html. 

13 Delano, F. 2006. A Nettle-some Problem on Potomac. Accessed January 6, 2008 at 

14 http://a4nr.org/library/failures/07.15.2006-fredricksburg. 

15 Doneker, R.L. and G.H. Jirka. 2007. CORMIX User Manual: A Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone 

16 Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters. EPA-823-K17 07-001, December 2007. 

18 EA Engineering Science and Technology (EA Engineering). 2007. Aquatic Field Studies for 

19 UniStar Calvert Cliffs Expansion Project May 2007. Prepared for UniStar Nuclear Development, 

20 LLC by EA Engineering Science and Technology, Sparks, Maryland. Accession No. 

21 ML090690170. 

22 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA Engineering). 2008. Entrainment 

23 Characterization Data Report for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Prepared for Constellation 

24 Energy and provided as Enclosure – UN#08-060, Attachment 2 to UniStar’s RAI response letter 

25 to NRC dated October 31, 2008. Accession No. ML083110678. 

26 Eckerman, K.F., A.B. Wobarst, and A.C.B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide 

27 Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and 

28 Ingestion. Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA-520/1-88-020, U.S. Environmental Protection 

29 Agency, Washington D.C. 

30 Eckerman, K.F and J.C. Ryman. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and 

31 Soil. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93-81, U.S. Environmental Protection 

32 Agency, Washington D.C. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-97 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2004. Notice of Inquiry Comment Review, 

2 Avian/Communication Tower Collisions. Prepared for the FCC by Avatar Environmental, LLC, 

3 West Chester Pennsylvania, EDM International, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, and Pandion 

4 Systems, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. 

5 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and 

6 Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series 

7 No. 332, Vienna, Austria. 

8 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the 

9 International Commission on Radiological Protection: Adopted January 17, 1977. Pergamon 

10 Press, New York. 

11 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

12 the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon 

13 Press, New York. 

14 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007. “2007 Recommendations 

15 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.” ICRP Publication 103, Annals of 

16 the ICRP 37(2-4):1-332. 

17 Jow, H.N., J.L. Sprung, J.A. Rollstin, L.T. Ritchie, and D.I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident 

18 Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol. 2, U.S. 

19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

20 Jung, S. and E.D. Houde. 2003. “Spatial and temporal variabilities of pelagic fish community 

21 structure and distribution in Chesapeake Bay, USA.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

22 58:335–351. 

23 KLD Engineering, P.C. (KLD). 2009. Traffic Impact Study at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

24 Plant, Draft Final Report, Rev. 2. TR-427, Hauppauge, New York. Accession No. 

25 ML093570407. 

26 Knisley, C.B. 2009. Email from C. Barry Knisley (Randolph-Macon College, Professor) to 

27 Corey A. Duberstein (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Ecology Scientist), “Subject: RE: 

28 Calvert Cliffs Tiger Beetles.” January 13, 2009. Accession Nos. ML090920737 and 

29 ML100050568. 

30 Louis, V.R., E. Russek-Cohen, N. Choopun, I.N.G. Rivera, B. Gangle, S.C. Jiang, A. Rubin, J.A. 

31 Patz, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 2003. “Predictability of Vibrio cholerae in Chesapeake Bay.” 

32 Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69(5):2773-2785. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-98 April 2010 

1 Magnien, R.E. 2001. “The Dynamics of Science, Perception, and Policy during the Outbreak of 

2 Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay.” BioScience 51(10):843-852. 

3 Mansfield, K.L. 2006. Sources of Mortality, Movements and Behavior of Sea Turtles in Virginia4 A Dissertation Presented To: The Faculty of the School of Marine Science, the College of 

5 William and Mary. PhD Dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

6 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007. Calvert Cliffs State Park. 

7 Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

8 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/southern/calvertcliffs.html. 

9 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008. DNR Announces Estimated 2007 

10 Blue Crab Harvest Numbers. Accessed February 4, 2008 at 

11 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2008/020408.html. 

12 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant Research Program (MDNR 

13 PPRP). 2008a. Environmental Review of Proposed Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

14 Plant. PSC Case No. 9127. Maryland Power Plant Research. 

15 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant Research Program (MDNR 

16 PPRP). 2008b. Maryland Power Plants and the Environment. A Review of the Impacts of 

17 Power Plants and Transmission Lines on Maryland’s Natural Resources. Maryland Cumulative 

Environmental Impact Report – 14th 18 Edition. MDNR Publication No. 12-1142008-271, PPRP19 CEIR-14. 

20 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009. In the Matter of the Application of UniStar 

21 Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of Public 

22 Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in Calvert 

23 County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Proposed Order of Hearing Examiner, April 28, 2009. 

24 McLean, R., W.A. Rickhus, S.P. Schreiner, and D. Fluke. 2002. Maryland Power Plant Cooling 

25 Water intake Regulations and Their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental Impact. 

26 PPRP-127, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

27 National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Facilities. National 

28 Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C. 

29 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing 

30 Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-99 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1995. Principles and 

2 Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, NCRP 

3 Publications, Bethesda, Maryland. 

4 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

5 Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland. 

6 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

7 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. 

8 National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS). 1999. NIESH Report on Health 

9 Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication No. 99-4493, 

10 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Accession No. ML093240277. 

11 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Fisheries of the United States, 2006. 

12 National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

13 National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks for Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

14 Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

15 National Safety Council (NSC). 2009. “Odds of Dying From....” In Injury Facts. Itasca, Illinois. 

16 Olson, M.M. 1987. “Entrainment Studies, Zooplankton Entrainment.” Chapter 7 in Ecological 

17 Studies in the Middle Reach of Chesapeake Bay, Calvert Cliffs. K.L. Heck Jr., ed., Springer18 Verlag, New York. 

19 Purcell, J.E., S. Uye, and W.T. Lo. 2007. “Anthropogenic Causes of Jellyfish Blooms and Their 

20 Direct Consequences for Humans: A Review.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 350:153–174. 

21 Reed, E. 2007. Preventing and Controlling Cancer the Nation’s Second Leading Cause of 

22 Death. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

23 Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at www.toiholliday.com/files/cancer.pdf. 

24 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 

25 Ringger, T.G. 2000. “Investigations of Impingement of Aquatic Organisms at the Calvert Cliffs 

26 Nuclear Power Plant, 1975-1995.” Environmental Science and Policy 3:S261-S273. 

27 Sellner, K.G. and M.E. Kachur. 1987. “Entrainment Studies, Phytoplankton Entrainment.” 

28 Chapter 7 in Ecological Studies in the Middle Reach of Chesapeake Bay, Calvert Cliffs. K.L. 

29 Heck Jr., ed., Springer-Verlag, New York. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-100 April 2010 

1 Soldat, J.K., N.M. Robinson, and D.A. Baker. 1974. Models and Computer Codes for 

2 Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses. BNWL-1754, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 

3 Richland, Washington. 

4 Strenge, D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II: Technical Reference and User 

5 Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 

6 Strenge, D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. Gaspar II: Technical Reference and User 

7 Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 

8 Solid Waste Disposal Act. 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

9 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007. Final Flora Survey Report for Proposed UniStar Nuclear Project 

10 Area, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Site, Calvert County, Maryland. Prepared for UniStar, 

11 Baltimore, Maryland. Accession No. ML090690128. 

12 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2007. Technical Report in Support of Application 

13 of UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for Certificate of 

14 Public Convenience and Necessity Before the Maryland Public Service Commission for 

15 Authorization to Construct Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and Associated 

16 Transmission Lines. Baltimore, Maryland. Accession No. ML090680053. 

17 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008a. Letter from G. Vanderheyden (UniStar) to U.S. 

18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated May 13, 2008, “Subject: 

19 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of Response to Requests for 

20 Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 and Request for 

21 Withholding of Documents.” June 12, 2008. Accession No. ML100040300. 

22 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008b. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

23 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letters dated May 13, 2008, June 12, 2008, and 

24 August 29, 2008, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of 

25 Response Requests for Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 

26 – Supplemental Aquatic RAIs.” September 29, 2008. Accession No. ML090420560. 

27 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008c. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

28 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated October 14, 2008, “Subject: UniStar 

29 Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Submittal 

30 of Response to Requests for Additional Information, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

31 Issues.” October 31, 2008. Accession Nos. ML083110676. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-101 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

2 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6. Baltimore, Maryland, 

3 September 30, 2009. Accession No. ML092880921. 

4 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009b. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. 

5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: 

6 UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 

7 Environmental RAIs No. 1001 through 1011.” March 5, 2009. Accession No. ML090710146. 

8 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009c. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to U.S. Nuclear 

9 Regulatory Commission in response to NRC letter dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: UniStar 

10 Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Follow-up 

11 Responses to Environmental Report RAI NO.1 003-2, Aquatic Ecology and RAI NO.1 008-4, 

12 Ecological Impacts (Fish Return System).” July 24, 2009. Accession No. ML092150728. 

13 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009d. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Combined 

14 License Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 6, September 30, 2009, 

15 Baltimore, Maryland. Accession No. ML092880897. 

16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Public Notice. Application Number CENAB17 OP-RMS (NAB-2007-08l23-M05 (Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/Unistar Nuclear 

18 Operating Services, LLC). PN-08-60. September 3, 2008. Accession No. ML082550288. 

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from K.B. Anderson (USACE) to R.J. 

20 Nelson (Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), Review 

21 of US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer regarding 

22 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Plant (CENAB-OP-RMS) effect on historic properties and Memorandum 

23 of Agreement. March 16, 2010. Accession No. ML100810272. 

24 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. “From Home to Work, the Average Commute 

25 is 26.4 Minutes,” Omnistats, Volume 3, Issue 4. October 2003. Accession No. ML100621425. 

26 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007. 

27 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Available at 

28 http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2007/index.html. 

29 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2008a. Maryland, Toll of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 

30 2006. Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd31 30/ncsa/stsi/24_MD/2006/24_MD_2006.htm. 

32 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2008b. Maryland – Calvert County, Toll of Motor 

33 Vehicle Crashes, 2006. Accessed August 1, 2008 at http://www-
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-102 April 2010 

1 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30...006/Counties/Maryland_Calvert%20County_2006.HTM. 

2 Accession No. ML100500636. 

3 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Water on Tap: What You Need to Know. 

5 Office of Water, EPA 816-K-03-007, Washington, D.C. Available at 

6 www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/watertap/ch4.htm. Accession No. ML100820227. 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. AERMOD: Description of Model 

8 Formulation. EPA-454/R-03-004, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Accessed 

10 December 15, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. Accession 

11 No. ML100221499. 

12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

13 Annapolis, Massachusetts. Available at 

14 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Eagle/guidelines/guidelines.html. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.109 – Calculation of 

16 Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating 

17 Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Washington, D.C. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 

19 Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 

20 Plants. NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

22 Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. NUREG-0769, Addendum No. 1, 

23 Washington, D.C. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Regulatory Guide 1.145 - Atmospheric 

25 Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. 

26 Revision 1, Washington, D.C. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment 

28 for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

30 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, 

31 D.C. 
 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

April 2010 5-103 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, Washington, 

3 D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Environmental Standard Review Plan— 

5 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

6 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Regulatory Guide 1.183 - Alternative 

8 Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. 

9 Washington, D.C. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001a. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 

11 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Appendix D in NRR Office 

12 Instruction LIC-203, Washington, D.C. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001b. Event Notification Report for June 5, 

14 2001. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 38049. 

15 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event16 status/event/2001/20010605en.html. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

18 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of 

19 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 

21 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. LIC-203, Revision 1, 

22 Washington, D.C. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Event Notification Report for July 18, 

24 2005. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 41845. 

25 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event26 status/event/2005/20050718en.html. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Event Notification Report for July 12, 

28 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Numbers: 42699 and 

29 42700. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event30 status/event/2006/20060712en.html. 

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Event Notification Report for July 13, 

32 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42702. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site 

Draft NUREG-1936 5-104 April 2010 

1 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event2 status/event/2006/20060713en.html. 

3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Event Notification Report for July 14, 

4 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42704. 

5 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event6 status/event/2006/20060714en.html. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Event Notification Report for August 16, 

8 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42776. 

9 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event10 status/event/2006/20060816en.html. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006e. Event Notification Report for September 

12 6, 2006. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Impingement Incidents Event Number: 42827. 

13 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event14 status/event/2006/20060906en.html. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Occupational Radiation Exposure at 

16 Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2006. NUREG-0713, Vol. 28, 

17 Washington, D.C. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

19 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C. 

20 Wright, A.C., R.T. Hill, J.A. Johnson, M.C. Roghman, R.R. Colwell, and J.G. Morris Jr. 1996. 

21 “Distribution of Vibrio vulnificus in the Chesapeake Bay.” Applied and Environmental 

22 Microbiology 62(2):717-724. 

23 World Health Organization (WHO). 2007a. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health. 

24 Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Fact sheet No. 322. Available at 

25 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en. 

26 World Health Organization (WHO). 2007b. Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Environmental 

27 Health Criteria Monograph No. 238, Geneva, Switzerland. 
April 2010 6-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

2 This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid 

3 waste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning 

4 of a new nuclear unit, proposed Unit 3, at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site. 

5 In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts from the Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site, UniStar 

6 used the AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA) U.S. EPR advanced light-water reactor (LWR) design, 

7 assuming a capacity factor of 95 percent as reported by AREVA (UniStar 2009a) for the U.S. 

8 EPR reactor design. 

9 This chapter presents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) assessment of the 

10 environmental impacts from fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning activities in relation 

11 to the U.S. EPR design that UniStar is proposing for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3. 

12 6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management 

13 This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 

14 management for the U.S. EPR reactor design. The environmental impacts of this design are 

15 evaluated against specific criteria for LWR designs at Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

16 Regulations (CFR) Part 51. 

17 The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) states that 

18 Under §51.50, every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage or 

19 early site permit stage or combined license stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear power 

20 reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take Table S–3, Table of 

21 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the contribution of the 

22 environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, 

23 isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of 

24 radioactive materials and management of low-level wastes (LLW) and high-level wastes 

25 related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear 

26 power reactor. Table S–3 shall be included in the environmental report and may be 

27 supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data set forth in the 

28 table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility. 

29 The U.S. EPR proposed for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would use uranium dioxide fuel. 

30 Therefore, Table S–3 (10 CFR 51.51(b)) can be used to assess environmental impacts of the 

31 uranium fuel cycle. Table S–3 values are normalized for a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR at an 

32 80-percent capacity factor. The 10 CFR 51.51(a) Table S–3 values are reproduced in 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-2 April 2010 

1 Table 6-1. The power rating for the proposed Unit 3 is 4590 MW(t) (UniStar 2009a). With a 

2 capacity factor of 95 percent, this corresponds to 1625 MW(e). 

Table 6-1. Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data(a) 3 

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Natural Resource Use 

Land (acres): 

 Temporarily committed(b)............................ 100

 Undisturbed area.................................... 79

 Disturbed area........................................... 22 Equivalent to a 100-MW(e) coal-fired power plant. 

 Permanently committed............................. 13 

 Overburden moved (millions of MT) .......... 2.8 Equivalent to a 95-MW(e) coal-fired power plant. 

 

Water (millions of gallons): 

 Discharged to air ....................................... 160 = 2 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR with cooling 

tower. 

 Discharged to water bodies....................... 11,090 

 Discharged to ground................................ 127 

 

 Total 11,377 <4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) with once-through 

cooling. 

Fossil fuel: 

 Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hour). 323 <5 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR output. 

 Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) ............ 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45-MW(e) coal-fired 

power plant. 

Natural gas (millions of standard cubic feet)...... 135 <0.4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) energy output. 

Effluents--Chemical (MT) 

Gases (including entrainment):(c) 

 SOx

-1 4400 

 NOx

-1(d) 1190 Equivalent to emissions from 45 MW(e) coal-fired plant 

for a year. 

 Hydrocarbons ............................................. 14 

 CO 29.6 

 Particulates................................................. 1154 

Other gases: 

 F 0.67 Principally from uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production, 

enrichment, and reprocessing. The concentration is 

within the range of state standards–below level that has 

effects on human health. 

 HCI 0.014 

4 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Liquids: 

 SO4

-

 9.9

 NO3

-

 25.8

 Fluoride 12.9

 Ca++ 5.4

 Cl− 8.5

 Na+ 12.1

 NH3 10

 Fe 0.4

From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing 

steps. Components that constitute a potential for 

adverse environmental effect are present in dilute 

concentrations and receive additional dilution by 

receiving bodies of water to levels below permissible 

standards. The constituents that require dilution and the 

flow of dilution water are: NH3—600 cfs, NO3—20 cfs, 

Fluoride—70 cfs. 

 Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) .......... 240 From mills only–no significant effluents to environment. 

 Solids 91,000 Principally from mills–no significant effluents to 

environment. 

Effluents–Radiological (curies) 

Gases (including entrainment): 

 Rn-222 Presently under reconsideration by the Commission 

 Ra-226 0.02 

 Th-230 0.02 

 Uranium 0.034 

 Tritium (thousands)..................................... 18.1 

 C-14 24 

 Kr-85 (thousands)....................................... 400 

 Ru-106 0.14 Principally from fuel reprocessing plants. 

 I-129 1.3 

 I-131 0.83 

 Tc-99 Presently under consideration by the Commission. 

 Fission products and transuranics .............. 0.203 

Liquids: 

 Uranium and daughters .............................. 2.1 Principally from milling–included tailings liquor and 

returned to ground–no effluents; therefore, no effect on 

environment. 

 Ra-226 0.0034 From UF6 production. 

 Th-230 0.0015 

 Th-234 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants–concentration 10 percent of 

10 CFR Part 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel 

requirements for model LWR. 

 Fission and activation products ..................5.9 × 10−6

Solids (buried onsite): 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-4 April 2010 

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

 Other than high level (shallow) ................... 11,300 9100 Ci comes from low-level reactor wastes and 

1500 Ci comes from reactor decontamination and 

decommissioning—buried at land burial facilities. 600 Ci 

comes from mills—included in tailings returned to ground. 

Approximately 60 Ci comes from conversion and spent 

fuel storage. No significant effluent to the environment. 

 TRU and HLW (deep)................................. 1.1 × 107 Buried at Federal Repository. 

Effluents—thermal (billions of British 

thermal units)..................................................... 4063 <5 percent of model1000-MW(e) LWR. 

Transportation (person-rem): 

 Exposure of workers and general public..... 2.5 

Occupational exposure (person-rem) ................ 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management. 

(a) In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in 

effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However, there are other areas that are not 

addressed at all in the table. Table S–3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the table, or estimates 

of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or 

reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings. 

Data supporting this table are given in the “Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” WASH-1248 (AEC 1974); the 

“Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” NUREG-0116 (Supp.1 

to WASH-1248) (NRC 1976); the “Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the 

Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248) 

(NRC 1977a); and in the record of the final rulemaking pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel 

Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, Docket RM-50-3. The contributions from reprocessing, waste 

management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). 

The contribution from transportation excludes transportation of cold fuel to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive 

wastes from a reactor, which are considered in Table S–4 of Sec. 51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel 

cycle are given in columns A-E of Table S–3A of WASH-1248. 

(b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, because the complete 

temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years. 

(c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. 

(d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process. 

1 Specific categories of environmental considerations are included in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). 

2 These categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive 

3 releases, burial of transuranic and high-level and low-level wastes, and radiation doses from 

4 transportation and occupational exposures. In developing Table S–3, the staff considered two 

5 fuel cycle options that differed in the treatment of spent fuel removed from a reactor. The 

6 “no-recycle” option treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a Federal waste repository, 

7 whereas the “uranium only recycle” option involves reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused 

8 uranium and return it to the system. Neither cycle involves the recovery of plutonium. The 

9 contributions in Table S–3 resulting from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation 

10 of wastes are maximized for both of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no-recycle); that is, 

11 the identified environmental impacts are based on the cycle that results in the greater impact. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The uranium fuel cycle is defined as the total of those operations and processes associated with 

2 provision, use, and ultimate disposition of fuel for nuclear power reactors. 

3 The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (22 U.S.C. 3201, et seq.) was enacted in 1978. This law 

4 significantly impacted the disposition of spent nuclear fuel by deferring indefinitely the 

5 commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear 

6 power program. While the ban on reprocessing spent fuel was lifted during the Reagan 

7 administration, economic circumstances changed, reserves of uranium ore increased, and the 

8 stagnation of the nuclear power industry in the United States provided little incentive for industry 

to resume reprocessing. During the 109th 9 Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 

10 109-58) was enacted. It authorized the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct an 

11 advanced fuel recycling technology research and development program to evaluate 

12 proliferation-resistant fuel recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize environmental 

13 or public health and safety impacts. Consequently, while Federal policy does not prohibit 

14 reprocessing, additional DOE efforts would be required before commercial reprocessing and 

15 recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power plants could commence. 

16 The no-recycle option is presented schematically in Figure 6-1. Natural uranium is mined in 

17 either open-pit or underground mines or by an in situ leach solution mining process. In situ 

18 leach mining, presently the primary form of mining in the United States, involves injecting a 

19 lixiviant solution into the uranium ore body to dissolve uranium and then pumping the solution to 

20 the surface for further processing. The ore or in situ leach solution is transferred to mills where 

21 it is processed to produce “yellowcake” (U3O8). A conversion facility prepares the uranium oxide 

22 by converting it to uranium hexafluoride, which is then processed by an enrichment facility to 

23 increase the percentage of the more fissile isotope uranium-235 and decrease the percentage 

24 of the non-fissile isotope uranium-238. At a fuel fabrication facility, the enriched uranium, which 

25 is approximately 5 percent uranium-235, is then converted to UO2. The UO2 is pelletized, 

26 sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies, which are placed in a reactor to 

27 produce power. When the content of the uranium-235 reaches a point where the nuclear 

28 reactor has become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel assemblies are 

29 withdrawn from the reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short-lived fission 

30 product decay and to reduce the heat generation rate, the fuel assemblies would be transferred 

31 to a waste repository for internment. Disposal of spent fuel elements in a repository constitutes 

32 the final step in the no-recycle option. 

33 The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the 

34 operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S–3 (Table 6-1) and the 

35 staff’s analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99. In NUREG-1437, 

36 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-6 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 6-1. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option (derived from NRC 1996) 

(NRC 1996, 1999),(a) 3 the staff provides a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts from 

4 the uranium fuel cycle. Although NUREG-1437 is specific to the impacts related to license 

5 renewal for operating reactors, the information is relevant to this review because the advanced 

6 LWR design considered here uses the same type of fuel. The staff’s analyses in Section 6.2.3 

7 of NUREG-1437 are summarized and set forth here. 

8 The fuel cycle impacts in Table S–3 are based on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an 

9 annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output of 800 MW(e). In the following 

10 review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered the 

11 capacity factor of 95 percent with a total net electric output of 1625 MW(e) for the proposed new 

12 unit at the Calvert Cliffs site (UniStar 2009a); this is about 2 times (i.e., 1625 MW(e) divided by 

13 800 MW(e) yields 2.03) the impact values in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). Throughout this 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999. 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 chapter, this will be referred to as the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, reflecting 1625 MW(e) 

2 for the site and, for simplicity, the Table S–3 results are scaled by a factor of 2 rather than 2.03. 

3 Recent changes in the fuel cycle may have some bearing on environmental impacts; however, 

4 as discussed below, the staff is confident that the contemporary fuel cycle impacts are bounded 

5 by those identified in Table S–3. This is especially true in light of the following recent fuel cycle 

6 tends in the United States: 

7 • Increasing use of in-situ leach uranium mining, which does not produce mine tailings. 

8 • Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion (GD) to gas 

9 centrifuge (GC). The latter centrifuge process uses only a small fraction of the electrical 

10 energy per separation unit compared to that used in gaseous diffusion. (U.S. gaseous 

11 diffusion plants relied on electricity derived mainly from the burning of coal.) 

12 • Current LWRs use nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher fuel burnup. Therefore, less 

13 uranium fuel per reactor-year of reactor operation is required than in the past to generate 

14 the same amount of electricity. 

15 • Fewer spent fuel assemblies per reactor-year are discharged, hence the waste 

16 storage/repository impact is lessened. 

17 The values in Table S–3 were calculated from industry averages for the performance of each 

18 type of facility or operation within the fuel cycle. Recognizing that this approach meant that 

19 there would be a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the staff followed the policy of 

20 choosing the assumptions or factors to be applied so that the calculated values would not be 

21 underestimated. This approach was intended to confirm that the actual environmental impacts 

22 would be less than the quantities shown in Table S–3 for all LWR nuclear power plants within 

23 the widest range of operating conditions. Many subtle fuel cycle parameters and interactions 

24 were recognized by the staff as being less precise than the estimates and were not considered 

25 or were considered but had no effect on the Table S–3 calculations. For example, to determine 

26 the quantity of fuel required for a year’s operation of a nuclear power plant in Table S–3, the 

27 staff defined the model reactor as a 1000-MW(e) LWR reactor operating at 80-percent capacity 

28 with a 12-month fuel reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. This is a 

29 “reactor reference year” or “reference reactor year” depending on the source (either Table S–3 

30 or the NUREG-1437), but it has the same meaning. If approved, the combined license (COL) 

31 for the proposed Unit 3 would allow 40 years of operation. In NUREG-1437, the sum of the 

32 initial fuel loading plus all of the reloads for the lifetime of the reactor was divided by a 60-year 

33 lifetime (40-year initial license term and 20-year license renewal term) to obtain an average 

34 annual fuel requirement. This was the approach followed by the NRC staff in NUREG-1437 for 

35 both boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors; the higher annual requirement, 35 

36 metric tonnes of uranium made into fuel for a boiling water reactor, was chosen in NUREG-1437 

37 as the basis for the reference reactor year (NRC 1996). The average annual fuel requirement 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-8 April 2010 

1 presented in NUREG-1437 would only be increased by 2 percent if a 40-year lifetime were 

2 evaluated. However, a number of fuel management improvements have been adopted by 

3 owner/operators of nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and 

4 separative work (enrichment) requirements. Since the time when Table S–3 was promulgated, 

5 these improvements have reduced the annual fuel requirement, which means the Table S–3 

6 assumptions remain bounding as applied to the proposed Unit 3. 

7 Another change supporting the bounding nature of the S–3 assumptions with respect to Unit 3 

8 impacts is the elimination of the U.S. restrictions on the importation of foreign uranium. Until 

9 recently, the economic conditions of the uranium market favored utilization of foreign uranium at 

10 the expense of the domestic uranium industry. From the mid-1980s to 2004, the price of U3O8

11 remained below $20 per pound. These market conditions forced the closing of most U.S. 

12 uranium mines and mills, substantially reducing the environmental impacts in the United States 

13 from these activities. However, the spot price of uranium increased dramatically from $24 per 

14 pound in April 2005 to $135 per pound in July 2007 and remained near $60 per pound 

15 throughout most of 2008 (Seccombe 2008), but as of March 2010 is about $42 per pound (Ux 

16 Consulting Company 2010). As a result, there is a renewed interest in uranium mining and 

17 milling in the United States and the NRC anticipates receiving multiple license applications for 

18 uranium mining and milling in the next several years. The majority of these applications are 

19 expected to be for in situ leach solution mining that does not produce tailings. Factoring in 

20 changes to the fuel cycle suggests that the environmental impacts of mining and tail millings 

21 could drop to levels below those given in Table S–3; however, Table S–3 estimates have not 

22 been reduced for these analyses. 

23 In sum, these reasons highlight why Table S–3 is likely to overestimate impacts from the 

24 proposed Unit 3 and therefore remains a bounding approach for this analysis. 

25 Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 discusses the sensitivity to recent changes in the fuel cycle on the 

26 environmental impacts in greater detail. 

27 6.1.1 Land Use 

28 The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled 

29 model is about 226 ac. Approximately 26 ac are permanently committed land, and 200 ac are 

30 temporarily committed. A “temporary” land commitment is a commitment for the life of the 

31 specific fuel cycle plant (e.g., a mill, enrichment plant, or succeeding plants). Following 

32 completion of decommissioning, such land can be released for unrestricted use. “Permanent” 

33 commitments represent land that may not be released for use after plant shutdown and 

34 decommissioning because decommissioning activities do not result in removal of sufficient 

35 radioactive material to meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, for release of that area for 

36 unrestricted use. Of the 200 ac of temporarily committed land, 158 ac are undisturbed and 

37 44 ac are disturbed. In comparison, a coal-fired power plant using the same MW(e) output as 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 the LWR-scaled model and strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 370 ac per year 

2 for fuel alone. The staff concludes that the impacts on land use to support the 1000-MW(e) 

3 LWR-scaled model would be SMALL. 

4 6.1.2 Water Use 

5 The principal water use for the fuel cycle supporting a 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model is that 

6 required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the 

7 enrichment step of this cycle. Scaling from Table S–3, of the total annual water use of 

2.3 × 1010 gal, about 2.25× 1010 8 gal are required for the removal of waste heat, assuming that a 

9 new unit uses once-through cooling. Also, scaling from Table S–3 other water uses involve the 

discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling) of about 3.2 × 108 10 gal/yr and water 

discharged to the ground (e.g., mine drainage) of about 2.6 × 108

 m3 11 /yr (UniStar 2009a). 

12 On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4 percent 

13 of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use 

14 is about 2 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using cooling towers. The maximum 

15 consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying electrical energy to the nuclear fuel 

16 cycle use cooling towers) would be about 6 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model 

17 using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal effluents would be negligible. The staff 

18 concludes that the impacts on water use for these combinations of thermal loadings and water 

19 consumption would be SMALL. 

20 6.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts 

21 Electric energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel cycle process. 

22 Electric energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power 

23 plants. Electric energy associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5 percent of the annual 

24 electric power production of the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. Process heat is primarily 

25 generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate 

26 electricity, would be less than 0.4 percent of the electrical output from the model plant. 

27 The largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with nuclear power is from 

28 the fuel cycle, not the operation of the plant, as indicated in the previous paragraph and in 

29 Table S–3. The CO2 emissions from the fuel cycle are about 5 percent of the CO2 emissions 

30 from an equivalent fossil fuel-fired plant. 

31 The largest use of electricity in the fuel cycle comes from the enrichment process. It appears 

32 that GC technology is likely to eventually replace GD technology for uranium enrichment in the 

33 United States. The same amount of enrichment from a GC facility uses less electricity and 

34 therefore results in lower amounts of air emissions such as CO2 than a GD facility. Therefore, 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-10 April 2010 

1 the NRC staff concludes that the values for electricity use and air emissions in Table S–3 

2 continue to be appropriately bounding values. 

3 In Appendix L, the staff estimates that the carbon footprint of the fuel cycle to support a 

reference 1000 MW(e) LWR for a 40-year plant life is on the order of 1.8 × 107 4 metric tons of 

5 CO2 including a very small contribution from other greenhouse gases. Scaling this footprint to 

6 the 1625 MW(e) power level of the U.S. EPR reactor, the staff estimates the carbon footprint for 

40 years of fuel cycle emissions to be 3.5 × 107 7 metric tons of CO2. 

8 On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the fossil fuel impacts including greenhouse gas 

9 emissions from the direct and indirect consumption of electric energy for fuel cycle operations 

10 would be SMALL. 

11 6.1.4 Chemical Effluents 

12 The quantities of gaseous and particulate chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes 

13 are given in Table S–3 (Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR and, according to 

14 WASH-1248 (AEC 1974), result from the generation of electricity for fuel cycle operations. The 

15 principal effluents are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Table S–3 states that the 

16 fuel cycle for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR requires 323,000 MWh of electricity. The fuel 

17 cycle for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would therefore require 646,000 MWh of 

18 electricity, or 0.016 percent of the 4.1 billion MWh of electricity generated in the United States in 

19 2008 (DOE/EIA 2009). Therefore, the gaseous and particulate chemical emissions would add 

20 about 0.016 percent to the national gaseous and particulate chemical effluents for electricity 

21 generation. 

22 Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment and 

23 fabrication and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in 

24 dilute concentrations such that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels 

25 of concentration that are within established standards. Table S–3 (Table 6-1) specifies the 

26 amount of dilution water required for specific constituents. In addition, all liquid discharges into 

27 the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with the fuel cycle operations 

28 would be subject to requirements and limitations set by an appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, 

29 and local agencies. 

30 Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process, but as Table S–3 

31 indicates, effluents are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the 

32 environment. 

33 Based on the discussions above, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of these gaseous, 

34 particulate, and liquid chemical effluents would be SMALL. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 6.1.5 Radiological Effluents 

2 Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from waste management 

3 activities and certain other phases of the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table S–3 

4 (Table 6-1). Using these effluents in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff calculated the 

5 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle of 1 year of 

6 operation of the model 1000-MW(e) LWR. The total overall whole body gaseous dose 

7 commitment and whole body liquid dose commitment from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor 

8 releases and dose commitments because of exposure to radon-222 and technetium-99) were 

9 calculated to be approximately 400 person-rem and 200 person-rem, respectively. Scaling 

10 these dose commitments by a factor of about 2 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model results 

11 in whole body dose commitment estimates of 800 person-rem for gaseous releases and 

12 400 person-rem for liquid releases. Therefore, for both pathways, the estimated 100-year 

13 environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population would be approximately 1200 person14 rem for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. 

15 Currently, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are 

16 not addressed in Table S–3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling 

17 operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur 

18 from gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities. UniStar provided an assessment of radon-222 and 

19 technetium-99 in its environmental report (ER) (UniStar 2009a). UniStar’s evaluation relied on 

20 the information discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

21 In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff estimated the radon-222 releases from 

22 mining and milling operations and from mill tailings for each year of operations of the reference 

23 1000-MW(e) LWR. The estimated releases of radon-222 for the reference reactor year for the 

24 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, or for the total electric power rating for the proposed Unit 3 for 

25 a year, are approximately 10,400 curies (Ci). Of this total, about 78 percent would be from 

26 mining, 15 percent from milling operations, and 7 percent from inactive tails before stabilization. 

27 For radon releases from stabilized tailings, the staff assumed that the LWR-scaled model would 

28 result in an emission of 2 Ci per site year, (i.e., about 2 times the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) 

29 estimate for the reference reactor year). The major risks from radon-222 are from exposure to 

30 the bone and the lung, although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole body. The 

31 organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 were applied to the bone and lung 

32 doses to estimate the 100-year dose commitment from radon-222 to the whole body. The 

33 estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment from mining, milling, and tailings before 

34 stabilization for each site year (assuming the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model) would be 

35 approximately 2100 person-rem to the whole body. From stabilized tailings piles, the estimated 

36 100-year environmental dose commitment would be approximately 39 person-rem to the whole 

37 body. Additional insights regarding Federal policy/resource perspectives concerning 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-12 April 2010 

1 institutional controls comparisons with routine radon-222 exposure and risk and long-term 

2 releases from stabilized tailing piles are discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

3 Also as discussed in NUREG-1437, the staff considered the potential doses associated with the 

4 releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference reactor 

5 year for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model are 14 mCi from chemical processing of recycled 

6 uranium hexafluoride before it enters the isotope enrichment cascade and 10 mCi into the 

7 groundwater from a repository. The major risks from technetium-99 are from exposure of the 

8 gastrointestinal tract and kidney, although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole body. 

9 Applying the organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 to the gastrointestinal 

10 tract and kidney doses, the total-body 100-year dose commitment from technetium-99 to the 

11 whole body was estimated to be 203 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. 

12 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 

13 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 

14 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 

15 relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report 

16 by the National Research Council (2006), the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII 

17 report, uses the linear, no-threshold model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. 

18 This approach is accepted by the NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks 

19 from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on 

20 this method, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal 

21 probability coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, 

22 nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), 

23 equal to 0.00057 effects per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from Publication 103 of the 

24 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (ICRP 2007). 

25 The nominal probability coefficient was multiplied by the sum of the estimated whole body 

26 population doses from gaseous effluents, liquid effluents, radon-222, and technetium-99 

27 discussed above (approximately 3500 person-rem/yr) to calculate that the U.S. population 

28 would incur a total of approximately 2.0 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary 

29 effects annually. 

30 Radon-222 releases from tailings are indistinguishable from background radiation levels at a 

31 few miles from the tailings pile (at less than 0.6 mi in some cases) (NRC 1996). The public 

32 dose limit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR Part 190), is 

33 25 mrem/yr to the whole body from the entire fuel cycle, but most NRC licensees have airborne 

34 effluents resulting in doses of less than 1 mrem/yr (61 FR 65120). 

35 In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a 

36 study and published Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities in 1990 (Jablon et al. 

37 1990). This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 well as several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the United States in 1981 and 

2 found “no evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear 

3 facilities.” The contribution to the annual average dose received by an individual from fuel4 cycle-related radiation and other sources as reported in a report published by the National 

5 Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (NCRP 2009) is listed in Table 6-2. 

6 The nuclear fuel cycle contribution to an individual’s annual average radiation dose is extremely 

7 small (less than 0.1 mrem/yr) compared to the annual average background radiation dose 

8 (about 311 mrem/yr). 

9 Table 6-2. Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources 

Source Dose (mrem/yr)(a) Percent of Total 

Ubiquitous 

background 

Radon & Thoron 

Space 

Terrestrial 

Internal (body) 

Total background sources 

228 

33 

21 

29 

311 

37 

5 

3 

5 

50 

Medical Computed Tomography 

Medical x-ray 

Nuclear medicine 

Total medical sources 

147 

76 

77 

300 

24 

12 

12 

48 

Consumer Construction materials, smoking, 

air travel, mining, agriculture, 

fossil fuel combustion 13 2 

Other Occupational 

Nuclear fuel cycle 

0.5(b)

0.05(c) 

0.1 

0.01 

Total 624 100 

Source: (NCRP 2009) 

(a) NCRP Report 160 table expressed doses in mSv/yr (1 mSv/yr equals 100 mrem/yr). 

(b) Occupational dose is regulated separately from public dose and is provided here for informational purposes. 

(c) Calculated using 153 person-Sv/yr from Table 6-1 of NCRP 160 and a 2006 U.S. population of 300 million. 

10 Based on the analyses presented above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of 

11 radioactive effluents from the fuel cycle are SMALL. 

12 6.1.6 Radiological Wastes 

13 The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic 

14 wastes) are specified in Table S–3 (Table 6-1). For LLW disposal at land burial facilities, the 

15 Commission notes in Table S–3 that there would be no significant radioactive releases to the 

16 environment. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-14 April 2010 

1 UniStar indicated in its letter dated December 9, 2009 (UniStar 2009b), that the ER will be 

2 revised to indicate that the Barnwell LLW disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, no longer 

3 accepts Class B and C wastes from sources in states outside of the Atlantic Compact. By the 

4 time Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 would begin operation, UniStar expects to enter into an agreement with 

5 an NRC-licensed facility that would accept LLW from Calvert Cliffs. If that expectation is not 

6 met, UniStar could implement measures to reduce or eliminate the generation of Class B and C 

7 wastes, extending the capacity of the onsite Solid Waste Storage System to store such wastes 

8 to over 10 years. UniStar could also construct additional storage facilities onsite and has 

9 indicated that such facilities would be designed and operated to meet the guidance standards in 

10 Appendix 11.4-A of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) (NRC 1987). Finally, UniStar 

11 indicated that it could enter into an agreement with a third-party contractor to process, store, 

12 own, and ultimately dispose of LLW from Calvert Cliffs (UniStar 2009b). Because UniStar will 

13 have to choose one or a combination of these three options, the staff considered the 

14 environmental impacts of each of these three options. 

15 Table S–3 addresses the environmental impacts if UniStar enters into an agreement with an 

16 NRC-licensed facility for disposal of LLW, and Table S–4 addresses the environmental impacts 

17 from transportation of LLW as discussed in Section 6.2. The use of third-party contractors was 

18 not explicitly addressed in Tables S–3 and S–4; however, such third-party contractors are 

19 already licensed by the NRC and currently operate in the United States. Experience from the 

20 operation of these facilities shows that the additional environmental impacts are not significant 

21 compared to the impacts described in Tables S–3 and S–4. 

22 The measures to reduce the generation of Class B and C wastes described by UniStar, such 

23 reducing the service run length of resin beds, could increase the volume of LLW, but would not 

24 increase the total curies of radioactive material in the waste. The volume of waste would still be 

25 bounded by or very similar to the estimates in Table S–3, and the environmental impacts would 

26 not be significantly different. 

27 In most circumstances, the NRC’s regulations (10 CFR 50.59) allow licensees operating nuclear 

28 power plants to construct and operate additional onsite LLW storage facilities without seeking 

29 approval from the NRC. Licensees are required to evaluate the safety and environmental 

30 impacts before constructing the facility and make those evaluations available to NRC 

31 inspectors. A number of nuclear power plant licensees have constructed and operate such 

32 facilities in the United States. Typically, these additional facilities are constructed near the 

33 power block inside the security fence on land that has already been disturbed during initial plant 

34 construction. Therefore, the impacts on environmental resources (e.g., land use and aquatic 

35 and terrestrial biota) would be very small. All of the NRC (10 CFR Part 20) and EPA (40 CFR 

36 Part 190) dose limitations would apply both for public and occupational radiation exposure. The 

37 radiological environmental monitoring programs around nuclear power plants that operate such 

38 facilities show that the increase in radiation dose at the site boundary is not significant; the 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 radiation doses continue to be below 25 mrem/yr, the dose limit of 40 CFR Part 190. The NRC 

2 staff concludes that doses to members of the public within the NRC and EPA regulations are a 

3 small impact. Therefore, the impacts from radiation would be SMALL. 

4 In addition, NUREG-1437 assessed the impacts of LLW storage onsite at currently operating 

5 nuclear power plants and concluded that the radiation doses to offsite individuals from interim 

6 LLW storage are insignificant (NRC 1996). The types and amounts of LLW generated by the 

7 proposed reactor at Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 would be very similar to those generated by currently 

8 operating nuclear power plants and the construction and operation of these interim LLW storage 

9 facilities would be very similar to the construction and operation of the currently operating 

10 facilities. 

11 The Commission notes that high-level and transuranic wastes are to be buried at a repository, 

12 such as the geologic high-level waste (HLW) repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and that no 

13 release to the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal because it has been 

14 assumed that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the spent fuel are 

15 released to the atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. In NUREG-0116 (NRC 1976), 

16 which provides background and context for the Table S–3 values established by the 

17 Commission, the staff indicates that these high-level and transuranic wastes will be buried and 

18 will not be released to the environment. 

19 As part of the Table S–3 rulemaking, the staff evaluated, along with more conservative 

20 assumptions, this zero release assumption associated with waste burial in a repository, and the 

21 NRC reached an overall generic determination that fuel cycle impacts would not be significant. 

22 In 1983 the Supreme Court affirmed the NRC’s position that the zero release assumption was 

23 reasonable in the context of the Table S–3 rulemaking to address generically the impacts of the 

24 uranium fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings (Baltimore Gas & Electric v. 

25 National Defense Resources Council 1983). 

26 Furthermore, in the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, the Commission 

27 has made the generic determination that “if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can 

28 be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the 

29 licensed life for operation ... of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or 

30 offsite independent spent fuel storage installations.” That regulation also states that “the 

31 Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository 

32 will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository 

33 capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to 

34 dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating in such a reactor and 

35 generated up to that time.” The regulation provides that, accordingly, no discussion of any 

36 environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the period following the term of the reactor 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-16 April 2010 

1 combined license is required in any environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared in 

2 connection with the issuance of that combined license. 

3 In October 2008, the Commission proposed a rulemaking to update and revise the Waste 

4 Confidence Decision (73 FR 59551). Public comments were received on the rulemaking, and 

5 the public comment period for the rule was extended through February 2009 (73 FR 72370). At 

6 this time, however, the Commission has not approved the publication of a final rule. If a revised 

7 rule concerning the waste confidence determination is ultimately issued by the Commission, the 

8 staff will be required to follow that determination. Absent further developments with respect to 

9 the Waste Confidence rulemaking, Table S–3 and the existing Waste Confidence Decision 

10 indicate that any environmental impacts associated with the high-level waste that would be 

11 generated by Unit 3 would be SMALL. 

12 In the context of operating license renewal, Sections 6.2 and 6.4 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) 

13 provide additional description of the generation, storage, and ultimate disposal of LLW, mixed 

14 waste, and spent fuel from power reactors, concluding that environmental impacts from these 

15 activities are SMALL. For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental 

16 impacts of radioactive waste storage and disposal associated with Unit 3 would be SMALL. 

17 6.1.7 Occupational Dose 

18 The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the 1000-MW(e) 

19 LWR-scaled model is about 1220 person-rem. This is based on a 600 person-rem occupational 

20 dose estimate attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 1000 MW(e) LWR 

21 (NRC 1996). The NRC staff concludes that the environmental impact from this occupational 

22 dose is considered SMALL because the dose to any individual worker would be maintained 

23 within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, which is 5 rem/yr. 

24 6.1.8 Transportation 

25 The transportation dose to workers and the public related to the uranium fuel cycle totals about 

26 2.5 person-rem annually for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR per Table S–3 (Table 6-1). This 

27 corresponds to a dose of 5.1 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. For purposes 

28 of comparison, the estimated collective dose from natural background radiation to the 

29 population of the United States is 9,000,000 person-rem/yr (UniStar 2009a). On the basis of 

30 this comparison, the staff concludes that environmental impacts of transportation would be 

31 SMALL. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 6.1.9 Conclusions 

2 The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, as given in 

3 Table S–3 (Table 6-1), considered the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99, and 

4 appropriately scaled the impacts for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. The NRC staff also 

5 evaluated the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the uranium fuel cycle 

6 and appropriately scaled the impacts for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. Based on the 

7 evaluation above, the staff concludes that the impacts would be SMALL. 

8 6.2 Transportation Impacts 

9 This section addresses both the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from 

10 normal operating and accident conditions resulting from (1) shipment of unirradiated fuel to the 

11 Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites, (2) shipment of irradiated (spent) fuel to a monitored 

12 retrievable storage facility or a permanent repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive 

13 waste and mixed waste to offsite disposal facilities. Alternative sites evaluated in this EIS are 

14 the existing Calvert Cliffs site (proposed site), Bainbridge, Eastalco, and the former Thiokol site 

15 (see Section 9.3). 

16 The NRC performed a generic analysis of the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and 

17 waste to and from LWRs in the Environmental Survey of the Transportation of Radioactive 

18 Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and in a supplement to 

19 WASH-1238, NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975) and found the impact to be minimal. These 

20 documents provided the basis for Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52 that summarizes the 

21 environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one LWR of 3000 to 

22 5000 MW(t) (1000 to 1500 MW(e)). Impacts are provided for normal conditions of transport and 

accidents in transport for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR.(a) 23 Dose to transportation workers 

24 during normal transportation operations was estimated to result in a collective dose of 4 person25 rem per reference reactor year. The combined dose to the public along the route and dose to 

26 onlookers were estimated to result in a collective dose of 3 person-rem per reference 

27 reactor year. 

28 Environmental risks (radiological) during accident conditions were determined to be small. 

29 Nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents were estimated as one fatal injury in 

 

(a) The transportation impacts associated with the Calvert Cliffs site were normalized for a reference 

1100-MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor for comparisons to Table S–4. Note that the basis 

for Table S–4 is an 1100 MW(e) LWR at an 80 percent capacity factor (AEC 1972, NRC 1975). The 

basis for Table S–3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b) that was discussed in Section 6.1 of this EIS is an 

1000 MW(e) LWR with an 80 percent capacity factor (NRC 1976). However, because fuel cycle and 

transportation impacts are evaluated separately, this difference does not affect the results and 

conclusions in this EIS. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-18 April 2010 

1 100 reactor years and one nonfatal injury in 10 reference reactor years. Subsequent reviews of 

2 transportation impacts in NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977b) and Sprung et al. (2000) concluded that 

3 impacts were bounded by Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52. 

4 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), a full description and detailed analysis of transportation 

5 impacts is not required when licensing an LWR (i.e., impacts are assumed bounded by 

6 Table S–4) if the reactor meets the following criteria: 

7 • The reactor has a core thermal power level not exceeding 3800 MW(t). 

8 • Fuel is in the form of sintered uranium oxide pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not 

9 exceeding 4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zircaloy-clad fuel rods. 

10 • Average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed 33,000 MWd/MTU, 

11 and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it is discharged from 

12 the reactor. 

13 • With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is 

14 packaged and in solid form. 

15 • Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated (spent) fuel is shipped from the 

16 reactor by truck, rail, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped 

17 from the reactor by truck or rail. 

18 The environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from 

19 nuclear power facilities were resolved generically in 10 CFR 51.52, provided that the specific 

20 conditions in the rule (see above) are met; if not, then a full description and detailed analysis is 

21 required for initial licensing. 

22 In its application, UniStar requested a COL for an additional reactor at its Calvert Cliffs site in 

23 Calvert County, Maryland. The proposed new reactor would be an U.S EPR advanced LWR. 

24 The U.S. EPR reactor has a thermal power rating of 4590 MW(t), with a design net electrical 

25 output of 1562 MW(e). The thermal power rating exceeds the 3800 MW(t) condition given in 

26 10 CFR 51.52(a). The U.S. EPR reactors are expected to operate with a 95 percent capacity 

27 factor, so the net electrical output (annualized) is about 1484 MW(e) (UniStar 2009a). Fuel for 

28 the plants would be enriched up to about 4.62 weight percent uranium-235, which exceeds the 

29 10 CFR 51.52(a) condition. In addition, the expected irradiation level of about 52,000 

30 MWd/MTU (UniStar 2009a) exceeds the 10 CFR 51.52(a) condition. Therefore, a full 

31 description and detailed analysis of transportation impacts is required. 

32 In its ER (UniStar 2009a), UniStar provided a full description and detailed analyses of the 

33 impacts of transporting fuel to and from the Calvert Cliffs site. In these analyses, radiological 

34 transportation impacts were calculated using the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 

35 2008). RADTRAN 5.6 was used in this EIS and is the most commonly used transportation 

36 impact analysis software used in the nuclear industry. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

2 The NRC staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting 

3 unirradiated (i.e., fresh) fuel to the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. Radiological impacts 

4 of normal operating conditions and transportation accidents, as well as nonradiological impacts, 

5 are discussed in this section. Radiological impacts to populations and maximally exposed 

6 individuals (MEIs) are presented. Because the specific fuel fabrication plant for Calvert Cliffs 

7 Unit 3 unirradiated fuel is not known at this time, the staff’s analysis assumes a “representative” 

8 route between the fuel fabrication facility and Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. This 

9 means that the route characteristics (distance and population distribution) are the same, and 

10 there are no differences between the impacts calculated for transporting unirradiated fuel to the 

11 Calvert Cliffs site and the three alternative sites. However, site-specific differences would be 

12 small because the radiation doses from unirradiated fuel transport and the differences in 

13 shipping distances between potential fuel fabrication plants and the Calvert Cliffs site and 

14 alternative sites are small. 

15 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions 

16 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation 

17 activities in which shipments reach their destination without releasing any radioactive material to 

18 the environment. Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that 

19 penetrate the unirradiated fuel shipping containers. Radiation exposures at some level would 

20 occur to the following individuals: (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors 

21 between the fuel fabrication facility and the Calvert Cliffs site; (2) persons in vehicles traveling 

22 on the same route as a unirradiated fuel shipment; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, 

23 rest, and vehicle inspections; and (4) transportation crew workers. 

24 Truck Shipments 

25 Table 6-3 provides an estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel for the U.S. 

26 EPR design compared to those of the reference 1100-MW(e) reactor specified in WASH-1238 

27 (AEC 1972) operating at 80-percent capacity (880 MW(e)). After normalization to electric 

28 generation capacity, the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel to the proposed Calvert 

29 Cliffs site is fewer than the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel estimated for the 

30 reference LWR in WASH-1238. 

31 Shipping Mode and Weight Limits 

32 In 10 CFR 51.52(a)(5), a condition is identified that states all unirradiated fuel is shipped to the 

33 reactor by truck. UniStar specifies that unirradiated fuel would be shipped to the reactor site by 

34 truck (UniStar 2009a). Table S–4 at 10 CFR 51.52 includes a condition that the truck shipments 

35 not exceed 73,000 lbs as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle weight restrictions. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-20 April 2010 

1 UniStar states in its ER that the unirradiated fuel shipments to the proposed Calvert Cliffs site 

2 would comply with applicable weight restrictions (UniStar 2009a). 

3 Table 6-3. Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and the 

4 U.S. EPR 

Number of Shipments 

per Reactor 

Reactor Type Total(a)

Unit Electric 

Generation, 

MW(e)(b)

Capacity 

Factor(b)

Normalized, 

Shipments 

per 1100 

MW(e)(c)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 252 1100 0.8 252 

CCNPP U.S. EPR 298 1562 0.95 177 

(a) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of average 

annual reload quantities). 

(b) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from WASH-1238 (ACE 1972) for the reference LWR and the 

ER (UniStar 2009a) for the U.S. EPR reactor. 

(c) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100-MW(e) plant at 80 percent or net 

electrical output of 880 MW(e)). 

5 Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and the Public 

6 Table S–4, includes conditions related to radiological dose to transport workers and members of 

7 the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of many variables, including the 

8 radiation dose rate emitted from the unirradiated fuel shipments, the number of exposed 

9 individuals and their locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit (including travel and 

10 stop times), and number of shipments to which the individuals are exposed. For this EIS, the 

11 NRC staff calculated the radiological dose impacts of the transportation of unirradiated fuel for 

12 the worker and the public using the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 2008). 

13 One of the key assumptions in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) for the reference LWR unirradiated fuel 

14 shipments is that the radiation dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the transport vehicle is about 

15 0.1 mrem/hr. This assumption was also used in the NRC staff’s analysis of the U.S. EPR 

16 reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. This assumption is reasonable because the U.S. EPR 

17 reactor fuel materials would be low-dose-rate uranium radionuclides and would be packaged 

18 similarly to that described in WASH-1238 (i.e., inside a metal container that provides little 

19 radiation shielding). The numbers of shipments per year were obtained by dividing the 

20 normalized shipments in Table 6-3 by 40 years of reactor operation. Other key input 

21 parameters (listed in metric units) used in the radiation dose analysis for unirradiated fuel are 

22 shown in Table 6-4. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 6-4. RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments 

Parameter

RADTRAN 

5.6 Input 

Value Source

Shipping distance, km 3200 AEC (1972)(a)

Travel Fraction – Rural 0.90 NRC (1977b) 

Travel Fraction – Suburban 0.05 NRC (1977b) 

Travel Fraction – Urban 0.05 NRC (1977b) 

Population Density – Rural, persons/km2

 10 DOE (2002a) 

Population Density – Suburban, persons/km2

 349 DOE (2002a) 

Population Density – Urban, persons/km2

 2260 DOE (2002a) 

Vehicle speed – km/hr 88.5 Conservative in transit speed of 

88.5 km/hr (55 mph) assumed; 

predominantly interstate highways used.

Traffic count – Rural, vehicles/hr 530 DOE (2002a) 

Traffic count – Suburban, vehicles/hr 760 DOE (2002a) 

Traffic count – Urban, vehicles/hr 2400 DOE (2002a) 

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 0.1 AEC (1972) 

Packaging length, m 9.1 Approximate length of two U.S. EPR fuel 

assemblies placed on end (AREVA 

2009) 

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977b), and DOE 

(2002a) 

Stop time, hr/trip 4 Based on one 30-minute stop per 4 hr 

driving time (Johnson and Michelhaugh 

2003) 

Population density at stops, persons/km2

 See Table 6-8 for truck stop parameters 

(a) AEC (1972) provides a range of shipping distances between 40 km (25 mi) and 4800 km (3000 mi) for 

unirradiated fuel shipments. A 3200-km (2000-mi) “representative” shipping distance was assumed in the 

staff’s analysis. 

2 UniStar’s ER (UniStar 2009a) assumed unirradiated fuel would be transported to the Calvert 

3 Cliffs site from the fuel fabrication plant near Richland, Washington, versus the “representative” 

4 truck shipment route assumed by the NRC staff for this analysis. A confirmatory analysis was 

5 conducted by the staff to independently verify the results of the ER calculations. The staff 

6 evaluated the ER analysis, including adjusting the results of UniStar’s analysis to address 

7 differences in shipping distances and population densities, and determined they were consistent 

8 with the results presented in this EIS. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that UniStar prepared 

9 a reasonable and comprehensive analysis of the impacts of transporting unirradiated fuel to the 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-22 April 2010 

1 Calvert Cliffs site. The generic route information was used in this analysis for consistency with 

2 the assumptions used in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). 

3 The RADTRAN 5.6 results for this “generic” unirradiated fuel shipment are as follows: 

• Worker dose: 1.71 × 10-3 4 person-rem/shipment 

5 • General public dose (onlookers/persons at stops and sharing the highway): 

3.62 × 10-3 6 person-rem/shipment) 

• General public dose (along route/persons living near a highway or truck stop): 5.12 × 10-5 7 

8 person-rem/shipment. 

9 These values were combined with the average annual shipments of unirradiated fuel for the 

10 U.S. EPR reactor to calculate annual doses to the public and workers. Table 6-5 presents the 

11 annual radiological impacts to workers, public onlookers (persons at stops and sharing the 

12 road), and members of the public along the route (i.e., residents within 0.5 mi of the highway) for 

13 transporting unirradiated fuel to the Calvert Cliffs site. The cumulative annual dose estimates in 

14 Table 6-5 were normalized to 1100 MW(e) (880 MW(e) net electrical output). The NRC staff 

15 performed an independent review and determined that all dose estimates are bounded by the 

16 Table S–4 conditions of 4 person-rem/yr to transportation workers, 3 person-rem/yr to 

17 onlookers, and 3 person-rem/yr to members of the public along the route. 

18 Table 6-5. Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to 

19 the Calvert Cliffs Site and Alternative Sites

Cumulative Annual Dose; person-rem/yr per 

1100 MW(e)(a) (880 MW(e) net) 

Plant Type 

Normalized 

Average 

Annual 

Shipments Workers 

Public–

Onlookers 

Public–Along 

Route 

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 0.011 0.023 0.00032 

CCNPP and Alternative Sites U.S. EPR 4.4 0.0076 0.016 0.00023 

10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4 Condition <1 per day 4 3 3 

(a) Multiply person-rem/yr times 0.01 to obtain doses in person-Sv/yr. 

20 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 

21 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 

22 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 

23 relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report 

24 by the National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold 

25 dose response model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is 

26 accepted by the NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks from radiation 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this method, the 

2 NRC staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal probability 

3 coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal 

4 cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 

5 0.00057 effect per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from ICRP Publication 103 

6 (ICRP 2007). 

7 Both NCRP and ICRP suggest that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the 

8 reciprocal of the relevant risk detriment (i.e., less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 1754 

9 person-rem), the risk assessment should note that the most likely number of excess health 

10 effects is zero (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). The largest annual collective dose estimate for 

transporting unirradiated fuel to the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites was 1.6 × 10-2 11 

12 person-rem, which is less than the 1754 person-rem value that ICRP and NCRP suggest would 

13 most likely result in zero excess health effects. To place these impacts in perspective, the 

14 average United States resident receives about 311 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent from 

15 natural background radiation (i.e., exposures from cosmic radiation, naturally occurring 

16 radioactive materials such as radon, and global fallout from testing of nuclear explosive devices 

17 (NCRP 2009). Using this average effective dose, the collective population dose from natural 

18 background radiation to the population along this representative route would be about 

2.2 x 105 19 person-rem. Therefore, the radiation doses from transporting unirradiated fuel to the 

20 Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites are small compared to the collective population dose to 

21 the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. 

22 Maximally Exposed Individuals Under Normal Transport Conditions 

23 A scenario-based analysis was conducted by the NRC staff to develop estimates of incident24 free radiation doses to maximally exposed individuals (MEIs) for fuel and waste shipments to 

25 and from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. The following discussion applies to 

26 unirradiated fuel shipments and spent fuel and radioactive waste shipments to and from any of 

27 the alternative sites. The analysis is based on data in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS (DOE 

28 2002b) and incorporates data about exposure times, dose rates, and the number of times an 

29 individual may be exposed to an offsite shipment. Adjustments were made where necessary to 

30 reflect the normalized fuel and waste shipments addressed in this EIS. In all cases, the NRC 

31 staff assumed that the dose rate emitted from the shipping containers is 10 mrem/hr at 6.6 ft 

32 from the side of the transport vehicle. This assumption is conservative in that the assumed 

33 dose rate is the maximum dose rate allowed by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

34 regulations (49 CFR 173.441). Most unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste shipments would 

35 have much lower dose rates than the regulations allow (AEC 1972; DOE 2002a). An MEI is a 

36 person who may receive the highest radiation dose from a shipment to and/or from the Calvert 

37 Cliffs site and alternative sites. The analysis is described below. Population dose impacts for 

38 spent fuel transportation are presented in Section 6.2.2. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-24 April 2010 

1 Truck crew member. Truck crew members would receive the highest radiation doses during 

2 incident-free transport because of their proximity to the loaded shipping container for an 

3 extended period of time. The analysis assumed that crew member doses are limited to 2 rem 

4 per year, which is the DOE administrative control level presented in DOE-STD-1098-99, DOE 

5 Standard, Radiological Control, Chapter 2, Article 211 (DOE 2005). This limit is anticipated to 

6 apply to spent nuclear fuel shipments to a disposal facility because DOE would take title to the 

7 spent fuel at the reactor site. There would be more shipments of spent nuclear fuel from the 

8 Calvert Cliffs site (or alternative sites) than there would be shipments of unirradiated fuel to, and 

9 radioactive waste other than spent fuel from, these sites. This is because the capacities of 

10 spent fuel shipping casks are limited due to their substantial radiation shielding and accident 

11 resistance requirements. Spent fuel shipments also have significantly higher radiation dose 

12 rates than unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste (DOE 2002a). As a result, crew doses from 

13 shipments of unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste would be lower than the doses from 

14 shipments of spent nuclear fuel. The DOE administrative limit of 2 rem/yr (see DOE 2005) is 

15 less than the NRC limit for occupational exposures of 5 rem/yr (see 10 CFR Part 20). 

16 The DOT does not regulate annual occupational exposures. It does recognize that air crews are 

17 exposed to cosmic radiation levels and recommends dose limits to air-crew members from 

18 cosmic radiation (DOT 2003). Air passengers are less of a concern because they do not fly as 

19 frequently as air crews. The recommended limits to air crew members are a 5-year effective 

20 dose of 2 rem/yr with no more than 5 rem in a single year (DOT 2003). As a result, a 2 rem/yr 

21 MEI dose to truck crews is a reasonable estimate to apply to shipments of fuel and waste from 

22 the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. 

23 Inspectors. Radioactive shipments are inspected by Federal or State vehicle inspectors, for 

24 example, at State ports of entry. The Yucca Mountain Final EIS (DOE 2002a) assumed that 

25 inspectors would be exposed for 1 hour at a distance of 3.3 ft from the shipping containers. The 

26 dose rate at 3.3 ft is about 14 mrem/hr; therefore, the dose per shipment is about 14 mrem. 

27 This is independent of the location of the reactor site. Based on this conservative value and the 

28 assumption that the same person inspects all shipments of fuel and waste to and from the 

29 Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites, the annual doses to vehicle inspectors were calculated 

30 by the staff to be about 0.8 rem/yr, based on a combined total of 60 shipments of unirradiated 

31 fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste per year. This value is less than one-half of the 2 rem/yr 

32 DOE administrative control level (DOE 2005) on individual doses and one-fifth of the 5 rem/yr 

33 NRC occupational dose limit. 

34 Resident. The analysis assumed that a resident lives adjacent to a highway where a shipment 

35 would pass and would be exposed to all shipments along a particular route. Exposures to 

36 residents on a per-shipment basis were obtained from the NRC staff’s RADTRAN 5.6 output 

37 files. These dose estimates are based on an individual located 100 ft from the shipments that 

38 are traveling 15 mph. The potential radiation dose to the maximally exposed resident is about 

39 0.036 mrem/yr for shipments of fuel and waste to and from the site. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Individual stuck in traffic. This scenario addresses potential traffic interruptions that could lead 

2 to a person being exposed to a loaded shipment for 1 hour at a distance of 4 ft. The NRC staff’s 

3 analysis assumed this exposure scenario would occur only one time to any individual, and the 

4 dose rate was at the regulatory limit of 10 mrem/hr at 6.6 ft from the shipment. The dose to the 

5 MEI was calculated to be 16 mrem in DOE’s Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE 2002b). 

6 Person at a truck service station. This scenario estimates doses to an employee at a service 

7 station where all truck shipments to and from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites are 

8 assumed to stop. The NRC staff’s analysis assumed that the person is exposed for 49 minutes 

9 at a distance of 52 ft from the loaded shipping container (DOE 2002b). The exposure time and 

10 distance were based on observations discussed in Griego, Smith, and Neuhauser (1996). This 

11 results in a dose of about 0.34 mrem/shipment and an annual dose of about 20 mrem/yr for the 

12 Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites, assuming that a single individual services all unirradiated 

13 fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste shipments to and from the Calvert Cliffs site and 

14 alternative sites. 

15 6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents 

16 Accident risks are a combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies 

17 for transportation of unirradiated fuel to the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites are expected 

18 to be lower than those used in the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which forms the basis 

19 for Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52, because of improvements in highway safety and security, and 

20 an overall reduction in traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates since WASH-1238 was 

21 published. There is no significant difference between the U.S. EPR and current-generation 

22 LWRs in consequences of transportation accidents severe enough to result in a release of 

23 unirradiated fuel articles to the environment because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging are 

24 similar to those analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, consistent with the conclusions of 

25 WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), the impacts of accidents during transport of unirradiated fuel for the 

26 U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites are expected to be negligible. 

27 6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents 

28 Nonradiological impacts are the human health impacts projected to result from traffic accidents 

29 involving shipments of unirradiated fuel to the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites; that is, the 

30 analysis does not consider radiological or hazardous characteristics of the cargo. 

31 Nonradiological impacts include the projected number of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities 

32 that could result from shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site and return shipments of empty 

33 containers from the site. 

34 Nonradiological impacts are calculated using accident, injury, and fatality rates from published 

35 sources. The rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km traveled) are then multiplied by estimated 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-26 April 2010 

1 travel distances for workers and materials. The general formula for calculating nonradiological 

2 impacts is: 

3 Impacts = (unit rate) × (round-trip shipping distance) × (annual number of shipments) 

4 In this formula, impacts are presented in units of the number of accidents, number of injuries, 

5 and number of fatalities per year. Corresponding unit rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km 

6 traveled) are used in the calculations. 

7 Accident, injury, and fatality rates were taken from Table 4 in ANL/ESD/TM-150 State-Level 

8 Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: A Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 

9 1999). Nationwide median rates were used for shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site. The 

10 data are representative of traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates for heavy truck shipments 

11 similar to those to be used to transport unirradiated fuel to the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative 

12 sites. In addition, the DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration evaluated the data 

13 underlying the Saricks and Tompkins (1999) rates, which was taken from the Motor Carrier 

14 Management Information System, and determined that the rates were under-reported. 

15 Therefore, the accident, injury, and fatality rates in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were adjusted 

16 using factors derived from data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research 

17 Institute (UMTRI) (UMTRI 2003). The UMTRI data indicates that accident rates for 1994 to 

18 1996, the same data used by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 

19 percent. Injury and fatality rates were under-reported by 16 and 36 percent, respectively. As a 

20 result, the accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, 

21 respectively, to account for the under-reporting (UMTRI 2003). 

22 The nonradiological accident impacts for transporting unirradiated fuel to (and empty shipping 

23 containers from) the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites are shown in Table 6-6. The 

24 nonradiological impacts associated with the WASH-1238 reference LWR are also shown for 

25 comparison purposes. Note that there are only small differences between the impacts 

26 calculated for an U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites and the reference LWR 

27 in WASH-1238 due entirely to the smaller number of shipments. 

28 Table 6-6. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the Calvert Cliffs Site 

29 and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference LWR 

Annual Impacts 

Plant Type 

Annual 

Shipments 

Normalized to 

Reference LWR

One-Way 

Shipping 

Distance, 

km 

Round-trip 

Distance, 

km per 

Year 

Accidents 

per Year 

Injuries 

per Year 

Fatalities 

per Year 

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238) 

6.3 3200 4.0x104 1.9 x10-2 9.3 x10-4 5.8 x10-4

CCNPP and Alternative 

Sites U.S. EPR 

4.4 3200 2.8x104 1.3 x10-2 6.6 x10-3 4.1 x10-4
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

2 The staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting spent 

3 fuel from the proposed Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites to a spent fuel disposal repository. 

4 For the purposes of these analyses, the staff considered the geologic HLW repository at the 

5 Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as a surrogate destination. Currently, NRC has not made a 

6 decision on the DOE application for the geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain. However, 

7 the NRC staff considers that an estimate of the impacts of the transportation of spent fuel to a 

8 possible repository in Nevada to be a reasonable bounding estimate of the transportation 

9 impacts to a storage or disposal facility because of the distances involved and the 

10 representativeness of the distribution of members of the public in urban, suburban, and rural 

11 areas (i.e., population distributions) along the shipping routes. Radiological impacts of normal 

12 operating conditions and transportation accidents, as well as nonradiological impacts, are 

13 discussed in this section. 

14 This analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in shipping casks with 

15 characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical 

16 metal pressure vessels). Due to the large size and weight of spent fuel shipping casks, each 

17 shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded on a modified trailer. These 

18 assumptions are consistent with those made in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of 

19 transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). Because the 

20 alternative transportation methods involve rail transportation or heavy-haul trucks, which would 

21 reduce the overall number of spent fuel shipments (NRC 1996), thereby reducing impacts, these 

22 assumptions are conservative. Also, use of current shipping cask designs results in 

23 conservative impact estimates because the current shipping cask designs are based on 

24 transporting short-cooled spent fuel (approximately 120 days out of reactor). Future shipping 

25 casks would be designed to transport longer-cooled fuel (greater than five years out of reactor) 

26 and would require much less shielding to meet external dose limitations. Therefore, future 

27 shipping casks are expected to have higher cargo capacities, thereby reducing the numbers of 

28 shipments and associated impacts. 

29 Radiological impacts of transportation of spent fuel were calculated by the NRC staff using the 

30 RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 2008). Routing and population data used in 

31 RADTRAN 5.6 for truck shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and 

32 Michelhaugh 2003). The population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 census. 

33 Nonradiological impacts were calculated using published traffic accident, injury, and fatality data 

34 (Saricks and Tompkins 1999) in addition to route information from TRAGIS (Johnson and 

35 Michelhaugh 2003). Traffic accident rates used the RADTRAN 5.6 and nonradiological impact 

36 calculations were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as discussed in Section 4.8.3. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-28 April 2010 

1 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions 

2 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” conditions, are transportation 

3 activities in which shipments reach their destination without an accident occurring en route. 

4 Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the 

5 heavily shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Radiation exposures would occur to the following 

6 individuals: (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors between the Calvert Cliffs site 

7 and alternative sites and the repository location; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the same 

8 route as a spent fuel shipment; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle 

9 inspections; and (4) transportation crew workers (drivers). For the purposes of this analysis, it 

10 was assumed that the destination for the spent fuel shipments is the geologic HLW repository at 

11 the Yucca Mountain disposal facility in Nevada. This assumption is conservative because it 

12 tends to maximize the shipping distance from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. 

13 Shipping casks have not been designed for the spent fuel from advanced reactor designs such 

14 as the U.S. EPR. Information in Early Site Permit Environmental Report Sections and 

15 Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003) indicated that advanced LWR fuel designs would not 

16 be significantly different from existing LWR designs; therefore, current shipping cask designs 

17 were used for the analysis of U.S. EPR reactor spent fuel shipments. The NRC staff assumed 

18 the capacity of a truck shipment of U.S. EPR reactor spent fuel was 0.5 MTU/shipment, the 

19 same capacity used in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). In its ER, UniStar assumed a shipping cask 

20 capacity of 1.8 MTU/shipment, representative of future shipping cask designs. 

21 Input to RADTRAN 5.6 includes the total shipping distance between the origin and destination 

22 sites and the population distributions along the routes. This information was obtained by the 

23 NRC staff by running the TRAGIS computer code (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003) for highway 

24 routes from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites to the geologic HLW repository at Yucca 

25 Mountain. The resulting route characteristics information is shown in Table 6-7. Note that for 

26 truck shipments, all the spent fuel is assumed to be shipped to the geologic HLW repository at 

27 the Yucca Mountain site over designated highway-route controlled quantity routes. In addition, 

28 TRAGIS data was loaded into RADTRAN 5.6 on a state-by-state basis. This increases 

29 precision and allows the results to be presented for each state along the route between the 

30 Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites and the geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain, if 

31 desired. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 6-7. Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the Calvert Cliffs Site and 

2 Alternative Sites to the Geologic HLW Repository at Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel 

3 Disposal Facility 

One-way Shipping Distance, km Population Density, persons/km2

Advance 

Reactor Site Total Rural Suburban Urban Rural Suburban Urban 

Stop time 

per trip, 

hr 

CCNPP Site 4569 3502 962 106 10 317 2273 5 

Bainbridge 4638 3515 1013 110 10 316 2260 5 

Eastalco 4497 3477 933 86 10 305 2213 5 

Thiokol 4560 3517 935 108 10 318 2277 5 

Note: This table presents aggregated route characteristics provided by TRAGIS (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003), 

including estimated distances from the alternative sites to the nearest TRAGIS highway node. Input to the 

RADTRAN 5.6 computer code was disaggregated to a state-by-state level. 

4 Radiation doses are a function of many parameters, including vehicle speed, traffic count, dose 

5 rate, packaging dimensions, number in the truck crew, stop time, and population density at 

6 stops. A listing of the values for these and other parameters and the sources of the information 

7 is provided in Table 6-8. 

8 For purposes of this analysis, the transportation crew for spent fuel shipments delivered by truck 

9 is assumed to consist of two drivers. Escort vehicles and drivers were considered, but they 

10 were not included in the analysis because their distance from the shipping cask would reduce 

11 the dose rates to levels well below the dose rates experienced by the drivers and would be 

12 negligible. Stop times for refueling and rest were assumed to accrue at the rate of 30 minutes 

13 per 4 hours driving time. TRAGIS outputs were used to estimate the number of stops. For this 

14 analysis, doses to the public at refueling and rest stops (“stop doses”) are the sum of the doses 

15 to individuals located in two annular rings centered at the stopped vehicle, as illustrated in 

16 Figure 6-2. The inner ring represents persons who may be at the truck stop at the same time as 

17 a spent fuel shipment and extends 1 to 10 m from the edge of the vehicle. The outer ring 

18 represents persons who reside near a truck stop and extends from 10 to 800 m from the 

19 vehicle. This scheme is similar to that used in Sprung et al. (2000). Population densities and 

20 shielding factors were also taken from Sprung et al. (2000), which were based on the 

21 observations of Griego et al. (1996). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-30 April 2010 

1 Table 6-8. RADTRAN 5.6 Normal (Incident-free) Exposure Parameters 

Parameter 

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source 

Vehicle speed, km/hr 88.5 Based on average speed in rural areas given 

in DOE (2002a). Conservative in-transit speed 

of 88.5 km/hr (55 mph) assumed; 

predominantly interstate highways used. 

Traffic count – Rural, vehicles/hr 

Traffic count – Suburban, vehicles/hr 

Traffic count – Urban, vehicles/hr 

State-specific State-specific rural, suburban, and urban traffic 

counts are taken from Weiner et al. (2008), 

Appendix B 

Vehicle occupancy, persons/vehicle 1.5 DOE (2002a) 

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 14 DOE (2002a, b) – approximate dose rate at 

1 m that is equivalent to maximum dose rate 

allowed by Federal regulations 

(i.e., 10 mrem/hr at 2 m from the side of a 

transport vehicle). 

Packaging dimensions, m Length – 5.2 

Diameter – 1.0

DOE (2002b) 

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977b), and 

DOE (2002a, b) 

Stop time, hr/trip Route-specific See Table 6-7 

Population Density at Stops, 

persons/km2

30,000 Sprung et al. (2000). Equivalent to nine 

persons within 10 m of vehicle. See 

Figure 6-2. 

Min/Max Radii of Annular Area Around 

Vehicle at Stops, m 

1 to 10 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Dimensionless Shielding Factor Applied 

to Annular Area Surrounding Vehicle at 

Stops 

1 

(no shielding) 

Sprung et al. (2000) 

Population Density Surrounding Truck 

Stops, persons/km2

340 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Min/Max Radius of Annular Area 

Surrounding Truck Stop, m 

10 to 800 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Dimensionless Shielding Factor Applied 

to Annular Area Surrounding Truck 

Stop 

0.2 Sprung et al. (2000) 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

Not to Scale

1 m

10 m

800 m

Truck Stop

Region 1

Truck Stop

Region 2

Population Density = 340 persons/km2

Population Density = 

30,000 persons/km2

Shielding Factor = 0.2

(Dose rate reduced by 80% to account

for intervening structures, buildings, terrain)

Shielding Factor = 1

(No intervening shielding)

Not to Scale

1 m

10 m

800 m

Truck Stop

Region 1

Truck Stop

Region 2

Population Density = 340 persons/km2

Population Density = 

30,000 persons/km2

Shielding Factor = 0.2

(Dose rate reduced by 80% to account

for intervening structures, buildings, terrain)

Shielding Factor = 1

(No intervening shielding)

1 

2 Figure 6-2. Illustration of Truck Stop Model 

3 The results of these normal (incident-free) exposure calculations are shown in Table 6-9 for the 

4 proposed Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. Population dose estimates are given for 

5 workers (i.e., truck crew members), onlookers (doses to persons at stops and persons on 

6 highways exposed to the spent fuel shipment), and along the route (persons living near the 

7 highway). Shipping schedules for spent fuel generated by the proposed new unit have not been 

8 determined. The NRC staff concludes that it is reasonable to calculate annual doses assuming 

9 that the annual number of spent fuel shipments is equivalent to the annual refueling 

10 requirements. Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR in WASH-1238 

11 (880 net MW(e)). This corresponds to an 1100-MW(e) LWR operating at 80-percent capacity. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-32 April 2010 

1 Table 6-9. Normal (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from 

2 Shipping Spent Fuel from the Calvert Cliffs Site and Alternative Sites to the 

3 Geologic HLW Repository at Yucca Mountain 

Worker (Crew) Along Route Onlookers

Reference LWR (WASH-1238), person-rem/yra 12 0.71 25 

CCNPP COL Normalized Impacts, person-rem/yr 9.4 0.53 19 

Bainbridge, person-rem/yr 9.5 0.55 19 

Eastalco, person-rem/yr 9.2 0.50 18 

Thiokol, person-rem/yr 9.4 0.52 19 

Table S–4 Condition, person-rem/yr 4 3 3 

(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100. 

4 There are only small differences in transportation impacts among the Calvert Cliffs site and the 

5 three alternative sites evaluated. The differences are due to the route characteristics (distance; 

6 population density) for shipments from the Calvert Cliffs and alternative sites to the geologic 

7 HLW repository at Yucca Mountain. 

8 The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S–4 are: 

9 • 4 person-rem/reactor-year to transport workers. 

10 • 3 person-rem/reactor-year to general public (onlookers) and members of the public along 

11 the route. 

12 The calculated population doses to the crew and onlookers for the reference LWR and the 

13 Calvert Cliffs and alternative site shipments exceed Table S–4 values. A key reason for the 

14 higher population doses relative to Table S–4 is the longer shipping distances assumed for this 

15 analysis (i.e., to a repository in Nevada) than the distances used in WASH-1238. WASH-1238 

16 assumed that each spent fuel shipment would travel a distance of 1000 mi one way. The 

17 shipping distances used in this assessment were more than 2800 mi one way. If the shorter 

18 distance was used to calculate the impacts of the Calvert Cliffs spent fuel shipments, the doses 

19 in Table 6-9 could be reduced by half or more. Other important differences are the model 

20 related to vehicle stops described above and the additional precision that results from 

21 incorporating state-specific route characteristics and vehicle densities (vehicles per hour). 

22 Where necessary, the NRC staff made conservative assumptions to calculate impacts 

23 associated with the transportation of spent fuel. Some of the key conservative assumptions are: 

24 • Use of the regulatory maximum dose rate (10 mrem/hr at 2 m) in the RADTRAN 5.6

25 calculations. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS prepared by DOE in support of the 

26 application for the geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE 2002b) were designed 

27 to transport spent fuel that has cooled a minimum of 5 years (see 10 CFR 962, Subpart B). 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Most spent fuel would have cooled for much longer than 5 years before being shipped to a 

2 possible geologic repository.For this reason, shipments from the Calvert Cliffs site and 

3 alternative sites are also expected to be cooled for longer than 5 years. Consequently, the 

4 estimated population doses in Table 6-9 could be further reduced if more realistic dose rate 

5 projections and shipping cask capacities are used. 

6 • Use of 30 minutes as the average time at a truck stop in the calculations. Many stops made 

7 for actual spent fuel shipments are of short duration (i.e., 10 minutes) for brief visual 

8 inspections of the cargo (e.g., checking the cask tie-downs). These stops typically occur in 

9 minimally populated areas, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an unpopulated area. 

10 Furthermore, empirical data provided in Griego et al. (1996) indicate that a 30-minute 

11 duration is toward the high end of the stop time distribution. Average stop times observed 

12 by Griego et al. (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes. 

13 A sensitivity study was performed to demonstrate the effects of using more realistic dose rates 

14 and stop times on the incident-free population dose calculations. For this sensitivity study, the 

15 dose rate was reduced to 5 mrem/hr, the approximate 50 percent confidence interval of the 

16 dose rate distribution estimated by Sprung et al. (2000) for future spent fuel shipments. The 

17 stop time was reduced to 18 minutes per stop. All other RADTRAN 5.6 input values were 

18 unchanged. The result is that the annual crew doses were reduced to about 3.3 person-rem/yr 

19 or about 36 percent of the annual dose shown in Table 6-9. The annual onlooker doses were 

20 reduced to 5 person-rem/yr (27 percent), and the annual doses to persons along the route were 

21 reduced to 0.19 person-rem/yr (37 percent). The NRC staff concluded that using more realistic 

22 parameters for shipment capacities, stop times, and dose rates would reduce the annual doses 

23 in Table 6-9 to below the Table S–4 values. 

24 UniStar described in the ER the results of a RADTRAN 5.6 analysis of the impacts of incident25 free transport of spent fuel to the geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain. Although the 

26 overall approaches are the same (e.g., use of TRAGIS and RADTRAN 5.6), there are also 

27 some differences in the modeling details. For example, the NRC staff’s analysis used state-by28 state route characteristics and a shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU, whereas UniStar selected to 

29 use aggregated route information and a shipment capacity of 1.8 MTU. After adjusting 

30 UniStar’s results for these key differences, the results are similar to those calculated by the 

31 NRC staff in this EIS. 

32 Using the linear, no-threshold dose response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

33 annual public dose impacts for transporting spent fuel from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative 

34 sites to the geologic HLW repository Yucca Mountain are about 29 person-rem/yr, which is less 

35 than the 1754 person-rem value that ICRP and NCRP suggest would most likely result in zero 

excess health effects. This dose is very small compared to the estimated 2.9 × 105 36 person-rem 

37 that the population along the spent fuel shipping route would incur annually from exposure to 

38 natural sources of radiation. Note that the estimated doses to persons along the Calvert-Cliffs-
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-34 April 2010 

1 to-Yucca-Mountain route from natural background radiation is different than the natural 

2 background dose calculated by the NRC staff for unirradiated fuel shipments in Section 6.2.1.1 

3 of this EIS because the route characteristics are different. A generic route was used in 

4 Section 6.2.1.1 for unirradiated fuel shipments and actual highway routes were used in this 

5 section for spent fuel shipments. 

6 Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and wastes under 

7 normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. 

8 6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents 

9 As discussed previously, the NRC staff used the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code to estimate 

10 impacts of transportation accidents involving spent fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5.6 considers a 

11 spectrum of postulated transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and 

12 low consequences (e.g., “fender benders”) to those with low frequencies and high 

13 consequences (i.e., accidents in which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical 

14 and thermal conditions). 

15 Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The 

16 radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were taken from UniStar’s ER (UniStar 2009a). 

17 Spent fuel inventories used in the NRC staff analysis are presented in Table 6-10. The list of 

18 radionuclides set forth in the table includes all of the radionuclides that were included in the 

19 analysis conducted by Sprung et al. (2000). The staff’s analysis also included the estimated 

20 inventory of crud, or radioactive material deposited on the external surfaces of LWR spent fuel 

21 rods. Because crud is deposited from corrosion products generated elsewhere in the reactor 

22 cooling system and the complete reactor design and operating parameters are uncertain, the 

23 quantities and characteristics of crud deposited on U.S. EPR reactor spent fuel are not available 

24 at this time. The Calvert Cliffs site U.S. EPR spent fuel transportation accident impacts were 

25 calculated in this EIS and in the UniStar’s ER (UniStar 2008 and 2009a) assuming the cobalt-60 

26 inventory in the form of crud is 76 Ci/MTU based on information in Sprung et al. (2000). 

27 Robust shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the radiation shielding and 

28 accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must be certified 

29 Type B packaging systems, meaning they must be designed to withstand a series of severe 

30 postulated hypothetical accident conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding 

31 capability. These casks are also designed with fissile material controls to verify the spent fuel 

32 remains subcritical under normal and accident conditions. According to Sprung et al. (2000), 

33 the probability of encountering accident conditions during transport that would lead to shipping 

34 cask failure is less than 0.01 percent (i.e., more than 99.99 percent of all accidents would result 

35 in no release of radioactive material from the shipping cask). The NRC staff assumed that 

36 shipping casks approved for transportation of spent fuel from an U.S. EPR reactor would 

37 provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the spent fuel cargo. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-35 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 6-10. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for the 

U.S. EPR(a)(b) 2 

Radionuclide Ci/MTU Bq/MTU 

Physical-Chemical 

Group 

Am-241 1.25 x 103 4.6 x 1013 Particulate 

Am-242m 2.38 x 101 8.8 x 1011 Particulate 

Am-243 3.22 x 101

 1.2 x 1012 Particulate 

Ce-144 1.52 x 104 5.6 x 1014 Particulate 

Cm-242 4.35 x 101

 1.6 x 1012 Particulate 

Cm-243 3.19 x 101

 1.2 x 1012 Particulate 

Cm-244 4.84 x 103

 1.8 x 1014 Particulate 

Cm-245 6.19 x 10-1 2.3 x 1010 Particulate 

Co-60 7.59 x 101

 2.8 x 1012 Crud 

Cs-134 5.84 x 104

 2.2 x 1015 Cesium 

Cs-137 1.42 x 105 5.3 x 1015 Cesium 

Eu-154 1.16 x 104

 4.3 x 1014 Particulate 

Eu-155 5.73 x 103

 2.1 x 1014 Particulate 

I-129 4.65 x 10-2 1.7 x 109

 Gas 

Kr-85 1.05 x 104

 3.9 x 1014 Gas 

Pm-147 3.54 x 104

 1.3 x 1015 Particulate 

Pu-238 6.95 x 103

 2.6 x 1014 Particulate 

Pu-239 4.24 x 102

 1.6 x 1013 Particulate 

Pu-240 7.24 x 102

 2.7 x 1013 Particulate 

Pu-241 1.17 x 105

 4.3 x 1015 Particulate 

Pu-242 2.28 x 100

 8.4 x 1010 Particulate 

Ru-106 2.05 x 104

 7.6 x 1014 Ruthenium 

Sb-125 5.35 x 103

 2.0 x 1014 Particulate 

Sr-90 1.03 x 105

 3.8 x 1015 Particulate 

Y-90 1.03 x 105

 3.8 x 1015 Particulate 

(a) Divide Becquerel per Metric Ton Uranium (Bq/MTU) by 3.7x1010 to 

obtain curies per MTU (Ci/MTU). 

(b) The source of the spent fuel inventories is UniStar (2009a).

3 Accident frequencies are calculated in RADTRAN 5.6 using user-specified accident rates and 

4 conditional shipping cask failure probabilities. State-specific accident rates were taken from 

5 Saricks and Tompkins (1999) and used in the RADTRAN 5.6 calculations. The state-specific 

6 accident rates were then adjusted to account for under-reporting, as described in 

7 Section 6.2.1.3. Conditional shipping cask failure probabilities (i.e., the probability of cask 

8 failure as a function of the mechanical and thermal conditions applied in an accident) were 

9 taken from Sprung et al. (2000). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-36 April 2010 

1 The RADTRAN 5.6 accident risk calculations were performed using the radionuclide inventories 

2 given in Table 6-10. The resulting risk estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent 

3 fuel shipments to derive estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel 

4 shipments from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites to the geologic HLW repository at 

5 Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As was done for normal transport exposures, the NRC staff 

6 assumed that the numbers of shipments of spent fuel per year are equivalent to the annual 

7 discharge quantities. 

8 For this assessment, release fractions for current-generation LWR fuel designs (Sprung et al. 

9 2000) were used to approximate the impacts from the U.S. EPR reactor spent fuel shipments. 

10 This assumes that the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding; fuel coatings) 

11 behave similarly to current LWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal conditions. 

12 The staff used RADTRAN 5.6 to calculate the population dose from the released radioactive 

material from four of five possible exposure pathways.(a) 13 These pathways are: 

14 • External dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material (cloudshine). 

15 • External dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume 

16 (groundshine). The NRC staff’s analysis included the radiation exposure from this pathway 

17 even though the area surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated and 

18 decontaminated, preventing long-term exposures from this pathway. 

19 • Internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants (inhalation). 

20 • Internal dose from resuspension of radioactive materials that were deposited on the ground 

21 (resuspension). The NRC staff’s analysis included the radiation exposures from this 

22 pathway even though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a potential 

23 accidental release would prevent long-term exposures. 

24 Table 6-11 presents the environmental consequences of transportation accidents when shipping 

25 spent fuel from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites to the geologic HLW Yucca Mountain 

26 repository. The shipping distances and population distribution information for the routes were 

27 the same as those used for the normal “incident-free” conditions (see Section 6.2.2.1). The 

28 results are normalized to the WASH-1238 reference reactor (880-MW(e) net electrical 

29 generation, 1100-MW(e) reactor operating at 80-percent capacity) to provide a common basis 

30 for comparison to the impacts listed in Table S–4. Note that the impacts for all site alternatives 

31 are less than the reference LWR impacts. Also, although there are slight differences in impacts 

32 among the alternative sites, none of the alternative sites would be clearly favored. 

 

(a) Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered because the staff assumed 

evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a postulated transportation accident. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-37 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 6-11. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for an U.S. EPR Reactor at the 

2 Calvert Cliffs Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference 1100-MW(e) 

3 LWR Net Electrical Generation 

Normalized Population Impacts, 

Person-rem/yr(a)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 1.1 x10-4

CCNPP Site Normalized Impacts 8.4 x10-5

Bainbridge 1.0 x10-4

Eastalco 6.0 x10-5

Thiokol 8.5 x10-5

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain person-rem/yr. 

4 Using the linear, no-threshold dose response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

5 annual risk to the public from accidents during transportation of spent fuel from the Calvert Cliffs 

6 site and alternative sites to the geologic HLW Yucca Mountain repository is lower than the value 

7 of 1754 person-rem value that ICRP (2007) and NCRP (1995) suggest would most likely result 

in zero excess health effects. This risk is quite small compared to the estimated 2.8 × 105 8 

9 person-rem that the same population along the route from Calvert Cliffs to the geologic HLW 

10 repository at Yucca Mountain would incur annually from exposure to natural sources of 

11 radiation. Note that the estimated population dose to persons along the Calvert-Cliffs-to-Yucca12 Mountain route is different than the population dose calculated by the NRC staff for unirradiated 

13 fuel shipments in Section 6.2.1.1 of this EIS because the route characteristics are different. 

14 The NRC staff performed a confirmatory evaluation of UniStar’s spent fuel transportation 

15 accident risk analysis. It was noted that UniStar used a different, though valid, methodology for 

16 the ER calculations. The primary difference was that UniStar assumed aggregated route 

17 parameters, whereas in this EIS, the NRC staff used state-by-state shipping distances and 

18 population densities. The staff concluded that UniStar’s analysis was reasonable and 

19 comprehensive and meets the intent of 10 CFR 51.52(b). 

20 6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent Fuel Shipments 

21 The general approach used to calculate nonradiological impacts of spent fuel shipments is the 

22 same as that used for unirradiated fuel shipments. The main difference is that the spent fuel 

23 shipping route characteristics are better-defined so the state-level accident statistics in Saricks 

24 and Tompkins (1999) may be used. State-by-state shipping distances were obtained from the 

25 TRAGIS output file and combined with the annual number of shipments and accident, injury, 

26 and fatality rates by state from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) to calculate nonradiological 

27 impacts. In addition, the accident, injury, and fatality rates from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) 

28 were adjusted to account for under-reporting (see Section 6.2.1.3). The results are shown in 

29 Table 6-12. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-38 April 2010 

1 Table 6-12. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the Calvert Cliffs Site 

2 and Alternative Sites to the Geologic HLW Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

3 Normalized to Reference LWR 

Nonradiological Impacts, per year 

Site 

One-way Shipping 

Distance, km Accidents/yr Injuries/yr Fatalities/yr 

Calvert Cliffs (preferred site) 4568 0.16 0.099 0.0076 

Bainbridge 4638 0.16 0.10 0.0072 

Eastalco 4496 0.15 0.093 0.0070 

Thiokol 4559 0.15 0.097 0.0072 

Note: The number of shipments of spent fuel assumed in the calculations is 46 shipments/yr after normalizing to the 

reference LWR. 

4 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste 

5 This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting radioactive waste other than 

6 spent fuel from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. The environmental conditions listed 

7 in 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to shipments of radioactive waste are as follows: 

8 • Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be packaged and in solid form. 

9 • Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be shipped from the reactor by truck or rail. 

10 • The weight limitation of 73,000 lb per truck and 100 tons per cask per railcar would be met. 

11 • Traffic density would be less than the one truck shipment per day or three railcars per month 

12 condition. 

13 Radioactive waste other than spent fuel from the U.S. EPR reactor is expected to be capable of 

14 being shipped in compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions. Table 6-13 presents 

15 estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste shipment numbers for an U.S. EPR 

16 reactor normalized to the reference 1100-MW(e) LWR defined in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). The 

17 expected annual radioactive waste volumes for the U.S. EPR reactor are estimated at 

7340 ft3 18 /yr, and the annual number of waste shipments was estimated at 15 shipments per year 

19 (UniStar 2009a). The expected annual waste volume exceeds that for the 1100-MW(e) 

20 reference reactor that was the basis for Table S–4. However, the number of radioactive waste 

21 shipments for the U.S. EPR is smaller than the reference LWR because UniStar assumed 

22 higher-capacity shipments than were assumed in WASH-1238. The staff reviewed the shipment 

23 capacities assumed by UniStar (2009a) and concluded that these are reasonable assumptions 

24 based on current LWR operating experience. Therefore, even though the estimated annual 

25 waste volumes for the U.S. EPR may exceed those for the reference LWR, the number of 

26 shipments of radioactive waste other than spent fuel to disposal facilities is expected to be 

27 smaller than the reference LWR in WASH-1238. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-39 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 6-13. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the Calvert Cliffs Site and 

2 Alternative Sites

Reactor Type 

Waste Generation 

Information 

Annual 

Waste 

Volume, 

m3

/yr per 

Unit 

Electrical 

Output, 

MW(e) per 

Unit 

Normalized 

Rate, m3

/1100 

MW(e) Unit (880 

MW(e) Net)(a)

Shipments/ 

1100 MW(e) 

(880 MW(e) Net) 

Electrical 

Output(b)

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238) 

3800 ft3/yr per unit 108 1100 108 46(b)

CCNPP U.S. 

EPR 

7340 ft3/yr per unit(c) 208 1562(c) 123 9(d)

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3). 

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output are 

80 percent for the reference LWR (AEC 1972) and 95 percent for the U.S. EPR (UniStar 2009a). Waste 

generation for the U.S. EPR is normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical output (1100-MW(e) unit with an 

80-percent capacity factor). 

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste shipment 

capacity of 2.34 m3

 (82.6 ft3) per shipment. 

(c) These values were taken from the ER (UniStar 2009a). 

(d) This value was obtained by normalizing the UniStar (2009a) estimate (15 shipments/yr) to the reference LWR 

electrical generation output. If the WASH-1238 shipment capacity is used (2.34 m3

 per shipment) in lieu of the 

UniStar (2009a) annual shipment estimate, the normalized shipments from the U.S. EPR would be about 

53 shipments per year. 

3 The sum of the daily shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste for an 

4 U.S. EPR located at the Calvert Cliffs site or alternative sites is less than the one-truck5 shipment-per-day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4. 

6 Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste under 

7 normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. 

8 Nonradiological impacts of radioactive waste shipments were calculated using the same general 

9 approach as unirradiated and spent fuel shipments. For this EIS, the shipping distance was 

10 assumed to be 500 mi) one way (AEC 1972). Because the actual destination is uncertain, 

11 national median accident, injury, and fatality rates were used in the calculations (Saricks and 

12 Tompkins 1999). These rates were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as described in 

13 Section 6.2.1.3. The results are presented in Table 6-14. As shown, the calculated non14 radiological impacts for transportation of radioactive waste other than spent fuel from the Calvert 

15 Cliffs site and alternative sites to waste disposal facilities are less than the impacts calculated 

16 for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-40 April 2010 

1 Table 6-14. Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the Calvert Cliffs Site

Normalized 

Shipments 

per Year 

One-Way 

Distance, km

Accidents 

per Year 

Injuries 

per Year 

Fatalities 

per Year 

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 46 800 3.4 x10-2 1.7 x10-2 1.1 x10-3

CCNPP U.S. EPR 9 800 6.7 x10-3 3.3 x10-3 2.1 x10-4

Note: The shipments and impacts have been normalized to the reference LWR; the expected waste volumes and 

shipments from the U.S. EPR (UniStar 2009a) were used. 

2 6.2.4 Conclusions 

3 The NRC staff conducted an independent confirmatory analysis of potential impacts under 

4 normal operating and accident conditions of transporting fuel and wastes to and from an U.S. 

5 EPR reactor to be located at the Calvert Cliffs site and three alternative sites. To make 

6 comparisons to Table S–4, the environmental impacts were adjusted (that is, normalized) to the 

7 environmental impacts associated with the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) by 

8 multiplying the U.S. EPR impact estimates by the ratio of the total electric output for the 

9 reference reactor to the electric output of the proposed reactor. 

10 Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate impacts, actual 

11 environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated in this EIS. Thus, the NRC staff 

12 concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and 

13 from the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites site would be consistent with the environmental 

14 impacts associated with transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes from current-generation 

15 reactors presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. 

16 The NRC staff notes that on March 3, 2010, (DOE 2010) DOE submitted a motion to the Atomic 

17 Safety and Licensing Board to withdraw with prejudice its application for a permanent geologic 

18 repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the NRC staff 

19 concludes that transportation impacts are roughly proportional to the distance from the reactor 

20 site to the repository site, in this case Maryland to Nevada. The distance from the Calvert Cliffs 

21 site or any of the alternate sites to any new planned repository in the contiguous United States 

22 would be no more than double the distance from the Calvert Cliffs site to Yucca Mountain. 

23 Doubling the environmental impact estimates from the transportation of spent reactor fuel, as 

24 presented in this Section, would provide a reasonable bounding estimate of the impacts for 

25 NEPA purposes. The NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of these doubled 

26 estimates would still be SMALL. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-41 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts 

2 At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, NRC regulations require that the facility 

3 undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the safe removal of a facility from service and 

4 the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The 

5 regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.75. 

6 An applicant for a COL is required to certify that sufficient funds will be available to provide for 

7 radiological decommissioning at the end of power operations. As part of its COL application for 

8 the proposed Unit 3 on the Calvert Cliffs site, UniStar included a Decommissioning Funding 

9 Assurance Report (UniStar 2009a). UniStar will establish an external sinking funds account to 

10 accumulate funds for decommissioning. 

11 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor 

12 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental 

13 Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the 

14 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002) 

15 (referred to as the GEIS-DECOM). Environmental impacts of the DECON, SAFSTOR, and 

16 ENTOMB decommissioning methods are evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. A COL applicant is 

17 not required to identify a decommissioning method at the time of the COL application. The 

18 staff’s evaluation of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in the GEIS19 DECOM, identifies a range of impacts for each environmental issue for a range of different 

20 reactor designs. The NRC staff concludes that the construction methods that would be used for 

21 the U.S. EPR are not sufficiently different from the construction methods used for the current 

22 plants to significantly affect the impact evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. Therefore, the NRC 

23 staff concludes that the impacts discussed in the GEIS-DECOM remain bounding for reactors 

24 deployed after 2002, including the U.S. EPR. 

25 The GEIS-DECOM does not specifically address the carbon footprint of decommissioning 

26 activities. However, it does list the decommissioning activities and states that the 

27 decommissioning workforce would be expected to be smaller than the operational workforce 

28 and that the decontamination and demolition activities could take up to 10 years to complete. 

29 Finally, it discusses SAFSTOR, in which decontamination and dismantlement are delayed for a 

30 number of years. Given this information, the NRC staff estimated the CO2 footprint of 

decommissioning to be of the order of 3.5 × 104 31 metric tons without SAFSTOR. This footprint is 

32 about equally split between decommissioning workforce transportation and equipment usage. 

33 The details of the estimate are presented in Appendix L. A 40-year SAFSTOR period would 

34 increase the footprint of decommissioning by about 40 percent. These CO2 footprints are 

35 roughly three orders of magnitude lower than the CO2 footprint presented in Section 6.1.3 for 

36 the uranium fuel cycle. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-42 April 2010 

1 Therefore, the NRC staff relies upon the bases established in the GEIS-DECOM and concludes 

2 the following with respect to the decommissioning of proposed Unit 3: 

3 1. Doses to the public would be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which 

4 decommissioning method considered in the GEIS-DECOM, is used. 

5 2. Occupational doses would be well below applicable regulatory standards during the license 

6 term. 

7 3. The quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes generated would be comparable 

8 or less than the amounts of solid waste generated by reactors licensed before 2002. 

9 4. Air quality impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, of decommissioning are expected 

10 to be negligible at the end of the operating term. 

11 5. Measures are readily available to avoid potential significant water quality impacts from 

12 erosion or spills. The liquid radioactive waste system design includes features to limit 

13 release of radioactive material to the environment, such as pipe chases and tank collection 

14 basins. These features will minimize the amount of radioactive material in spills and leakage 

15 that would have to be addressed at decommissioning. 

16 6. Ecological impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible. 

17 7. Socioeconomic impacts would be short-term and could be offset by decreases in population 

18 and economic diversification. 

19 On the basis of the GEIS-DECOM, and the evaluation of air quality impacts from greenhouse 

20 gas emissions above, the NRC staff concludes that, as long as the regulatory requirements on 

21 decommissioning activities to limit the impacts of decommissioning are met, the 

22 decommissioning activities would result in a SMALL impact. 

23 6.4 References 

24 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

25 Protection Against Radiation.” 

26 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

27 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

28 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

29 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

30 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

31 Transportation of Radioactive Material.” 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-43 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10 CFR 962. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 962, “Byproduct Material.”

2 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

3 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

4 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers – 

5 General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings.”

6 61 FR 65120. December 10, 1996. "Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of 

7 Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

8 73 FR 59551. October 9, 2008. “Waste Confidence Decision Update” Federal Register. U.S. 

9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

10 73 FR 72370. November 28, 2008. “Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary 

11 Storage of Spent Fuel after Cessation of Reactor Operation and Waste Confidence Decision 

12 Update: Extension of Comment Period.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

13 Commission. 

14 AREVA NP, Inc. (AREVA). 2009. AREVA NP Environmental Report, Standard Design 

15 Certification. ANP-10290, Rev. 1. Accession No. ML092650775. 

16 Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1983. United States 

17 Reports, Vol. 460, p. 1034. 

18 Energy Policy Act of 2005. Public Law 109–58. 

19 Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model 

20 Input Parameters for Truck Stops. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

21 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit 

22 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File 

23 Number 3747, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

24 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007. “2007 Recommendations 

25 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.” ICRP Publication 103, Annals of 

26 the ICRP 37(2-4):1-332. 

27 Jablon S., Z. Hrubec, J. D. Boice, Jr., and B. J. Stone. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living 

28 Near Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874, National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C. 

29 Johnson, P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2003. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic 

30 Information System (TRAGIS) User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-2000/86. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-44 April 2010 

1 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1995. Principles and 

2 Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, NCRP 

3 Publications, Bethesda, Maryland. 

4 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

5 Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, NCRP Publications, 

6 Bethesda, Maryland. 

7 National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks for Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

8 Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. National Research Council of the National Academies, National 

9 Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

10 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. 22 U.S.C. 3201, et seq. 

11 Saricks, C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

12 Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

13 Illinois. 

14 Seccombe, A. 2008. “Uranium Prices Softer in Short Term.” Miningmx, May 15, 2008. 

15 Accessed November 23, 2008 at http://www.miningmx.com/energy/148893.htm. 

16 Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills, 

17 K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of 

18 Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672. Washington, D.C. 

19 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the 

20 Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI 2003-6. Ann 

21 Arbor, Michigan. 

22 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008. Letter from George Vanderheyden (UniStar) in 

23 response to NRC request for additional information dated May 13, 2008, “Subject: UniStar 

24 Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of Response to Requests for Additional 

25 Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 and Request for Withholding of 

26 Documents.” June 12, 2008. Accession No. ML100040300. 

27 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

28 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6. UniStar, Baltimore, 

29 Maryland. Accession No. ML092880921. 
 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-45 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009b. Letter from G. Gibson to NRC, “Subject: UniStar 

2 Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Response 

3 to RNC Telecom Question Regarding CCNPP Unit 3 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

4 Plans.” UN#09-510. December 9, 2009. Accession No. ML093480069. 

5 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

6 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel 

8 Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C. 

9 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk 

10 Assessment. DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Washington, D.C. 

11 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a 

12 Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

13 at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Washington, D.C. 

14 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. DOE Standard Radiation Control. DOE-STD-1098-

15 99, Washington, D.C. 

16 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. March 03, 2010. U.S. Department of Energy’s 

17 2 Motion to Withdraw. Docket No. 63-001. Accession No. ML100621397. 

18 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009. Electric 

19 Power Monthly. DOE/EIA-0226 (2009/08). Washington, D.C. Accessed on August 24, 2009 at 

20 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html. Accession No. ML100490684. 

21 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. What Aircrews Should Know About Their 

22 Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. DOT/FAA/AM-3/16, Federal Aviation 

23 Administration, Washington, D.C. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

25 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG-75/038, 

26 WASH-1238, Washington, D.C. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

28 and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to 

29 WASH-1248), Washington, D.C. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1936 6-46 April 2010 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Public Comments and Task Force 

2 Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management 

3 Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), Washington, 

4 D.C. 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Final Environmental Statement on 

6 Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1, 

7 Washington, D.C. 

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

9 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR edition. NUREG-0800, Washington, 

10 D.C. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

12 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, 

13 D.C. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

15 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, 

16 Washington, D.C. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

18 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

19 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

20 Ux Consulting Company. 2010. UxC Nuclear Fuel Price Indicators. Accessed March 1, 2010 

21 at http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx. 

22 Weiner, R.F., D.M. Osborn, G.S. Mills, D. Hinojosa, T.L. Heames, and D.J. Orcutt. 2008. 

23 RadCat 2.3 User Guide. SAND2006-6315, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 

24 New Mexico. 
April 2010 7-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 7.0 Cumulative Impacts 

2 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the 

3 cumulative impacts of proposals under its review. Cumulative impacts may result when the 

4 environmental effects associated with the proposed action are overlaid or added to temporary or 

5 permanent impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

6 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking 

7 place over a period of time. In its proposal for a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site, 

8 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC, on behalf of Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, and 

9 UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively known as UniStar) submitted a combined 

10 license (COL) application including the Environmental Report (ER) to the U.S. Nuclear 

11 Regulatory Commission (NRC). When evaluating the potential of building and operating a new 

12 unit, the NRC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) review team 

13 considered potential cumulative impacts to resources that could be affected by the construction, 

14 preconstruction, and operation of one AREVA NP, Inc. (AREVA) U.S. EPR at the Calvert Cliffs 

15 site. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other 

16 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future effects on the same resources. For purposes 

17 of this analysis, past actions are those prior to the receipt of the COL application. Present 

18 actions are those related to resources from the time of the COL application until the start of 

19 NRC-authorized construction of the proposed new unit. Future actions are those that are 

20 reasonably foreseeable through building and operating the proposed Unit 3, including 

21 decommissioning. The geographical area over which the past, present, and future actions could 

22 contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of resource considered and is 

23 described below for each resource area. The review team considered, among other actions, the 

24 cumulative effects of proposed Unit 3 with current operations at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

25 Plant (CCNPP) Unit 1 and Unit 2. 

26 The approach for this environmental impact statement (EIS) is outlined in the following 

27 discussion. To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a proposed action or 

28 alternative actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on 

29 guidance developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.27). The 

30 three significance levels established by the NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – are 

31 defined as follows: 

32 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

33 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

34 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

35 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-2 April 2010 

1 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

2 important attributes of the resource. 

3 The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined in this 

4 chapter with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the general area 

5 surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site that would affect the same resources affected by the 

6 proposed Unit 3, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

7 such actions. These combined impacts are defined by CEQ as “cumulative” in Title 40 of the 

8 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively 

9 potentially significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible an impact that 

10 may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in 

11 combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource 

12 is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it 

13 contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline. 

14 The description of the affected environment in Chapter 2 serves as the baseline for the 

15 cumulative impacts analysis, including the effects of past actions. The incremental impacts 

16 related to the construction activities requiring NRC authorization (10 CFR 50.10(a)) are 

17 described and characterized in Chapter 4, and those related to operations are described and 

18 characterized in Chapter 5. These impacts are summarized for each resource area in the 

19 sections that follow. The level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for 

20 each resource area. 

21 The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the 

22 proposed action and other actions in the same geographical area were assessed. This 

23 assessment includes the impacts of construction and operations for the proposed new unit as 

24 described in Chapters 4 and 5; impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; 

25 impacts of fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning as described in Chapter 6; and 

26 impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

27 actions that could affect the same resources affected by the proposed actions. 

28 The review team visited the Calvert Cliffs site on March 17 through 19, 2008. The team then 

29 used the information provided in the ER, UniStar’s responses to the request for addition 

30 information (RAIs) issued by the NRC and Corps staff, information from other Federal and State 

31 agencies, and information gathered during visits to the Calvert Cliffs site to evaluate the 

32 cumulative impacts on resources affected by building and operating a new nuclear power plant 

33 at the site. To inform the cumulative analysis, the review team researched U.S. Environmental 

34 Protection Agency (EPA) databases for recent EISs within the region, used an EPA database of 

35 permits for water discharges (NEPAssist) in the geographic area, and used the 

36 www.recovery.gov website to identify projects in the area funded by the American Recovery and 

37 Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). Other actions and projects that were identified 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 during this review and considered in the review team’s independent analysis of the potential 

2 cumulative effects are described in Table 7-1. 

3 Table 7-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Considered 

4 in the Cumulative Analysis 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

Operation and 

decommissioning of 

CCNPP Units 1 

and 2 

CCNPP consists of two 

existing nuclear generating 

units, Units 1 and 2, with 

combined net electric 

generating capacity of 1700-

1780 MW(e). 

Approximately 0.5 

mi northwest from 

proposed Unit 3. 

Operational. In 2000, 

the NRC extended the 

license of Unit 1 to July 

31, 2034 and the 

license of Unit 2 to 

August 31, 2036.(a)

Uprate at CCNPP 

Units 1 and 2 

Uprate the maximum power 

level at which the nuclear 

power plant may operate by 

1.38%. 

Approximately 

0.5 mi northwest 

from proposed 

Unit 3. 

The uprate was 

approved in December 

2009 for Unit 2 and a 

decision is expected by 

the end of summer 

2010 for Unit 1.(b)

Dominion Cove Point 

Liquefied Natural 

Gas (LNG) Facility 

LNG is unloaded at an offshore dock, then stored and 

transported onshore through a 

pipeline. 

Approximately 4 

mi south from 

proposed Unit 3. 

Operational. An 

expansion project, 

completed in 2009, 

increased storage and 

capacity by 

approximately 80%.(c)

Dominion Cove Point 

Pier Reinforcement 

Project 

Upgrades and modifications to 

existing off-shore pier to allow 

docking of larger-sized LNG 

vessels. 

Approximately 4 

mi south from 

proposed Unit 3. 

Planned.(d)(e) Original 

schedule called for 

project to be completed 

in spring 2011. 

Operation of Chalk 

Point Generating 

Station 

Chalk Point consists of 11 

fossil fuel-based powergenerating units with a listed 

capacity of 2413 MW. 

Approximately 15 

mi northwest 

from proposed 

Unit 3. 

Operational.(f) 

Operation of H.A. 

Wagner Power Plant 

H.A. Wagner consists of 4 

fossil fuel-based powergenerating units with a listed 

capacity of 1020 MW. 

Approximately 50 

mi north from 

proposed Unit 3. 

Operational.(g)

5 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-4 April 2010 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Mid-Atlantic Power 

Pathway (MAPP) 

Transmission Line 

Project 

Proposed new 500-kV and 

640-kV transmission lines. 

500-kV line from 

Possum Point 

Substation in 

Virginia to the 

Calvert Cliffs 

Substation, with 

subsequent 

640-kV line 

constructed 

under 

Chesapeake Bay 

via the Vienna 

Substation in MD 

and terminating 

at the Indian 

River Substation 

in Delaware. 

Proposed. The 

proposed line from 

Possum Point 

Substation to Calvert 

Cliffs Substation is 

estimated to be 

completed by 2012 and 

the proposed line from 

Calvert Cliffs Substation 

to Indian River 

Substation is estimated 

to be completed by 

2014.(i) Under 

consideration by the MD 

Public Service 

Commission as Case 

9179. 

Transportation Projects 

MD 2/4, Solomons 

Island Road, 

Maryland SHA 

Upgrade of sections of MD 2, 

4, 231 and 235, Solomons 

Island Road, Calvert County, 

MD. 

Approximately 5 

to 10 mi 

southwest from 

proposed Unit 3. 

Parts of this project are 

currently under 

construction while 

others are still in the 

planning stages.(h) 

Parks and National Trails 

Star-Spangled 

Banner National 

Historic Trail

The trail traces four major 

events from the Chesapeake 

Campaign of the War of 1812. 

The trail, which includes 

forested and open water areas, 

provides opportunities for 

recreation, interpretation, and 

learning.

A portion of the 

trail is adjacent to 

the Calvert Cliffs 

site.

In development. A 

management plan and 

environmental 

assessment (MP/EA) 

for the Star-Spangled 

Banner National Trail 

will be published in 

2010.(n)

Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail

The trail provides opportunities 

for recreation, interpretation, 

and learning.

A portion of the 

trail is adjacent to 

the Calvert Cliffs 

site.

A comprehensive 

management plan will 

be published in 2010.(o)

Calvert Cliffs State 

Park

Primarily forested area used for 

recreation and conservation 

purposes. Approximately 1079 

ac are designated as a 

Adjacent to the 

Calvert Cliffs site.

Established park and 

therefore development 

is unlikely in the 

designated area.
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

wildlands area, and hunting of 

upland game, turkey, and deer 

is allowed within approximately 

550 ac. (m)

Flags Ponds Nature 

Park

Primarily forested area used for 

recreation and conservation 

purposes.

Adjacent to the 

Calvert Cliffs site.

Established park and 

therefore development 

is unlikely in the 

designated area.

Other Actions/Projects 

Patuxent River Naval 

Air Station Complex 

Large facility for the U.S. 

Navy’s research, development 

testing, training and evaluation 

of aircraft and related 

components and operations. 

Approximately 9 

mi south from 

proposed Unit 3. 

Operational.(l)

Chemical 

Manufacturing 

(including organic 

chemical, inorganic 

chemical, and other 

miscellaneous 

chemical product and 

preparation 

manufacturing) 

Various facilities throughout 

the region of Calvert Cliffs 

Unit 3. 

Throughout 

region. 

Facilities are in 

operation, but more 

could be developed as 

demand increases.

Petroleum Bulk 

Stations and 

Terminals 

Various facilities throughout 

the region of Calvert Cliffs 

Unit 3. 

Throughout 

region. 

Facilities are in 

operation, but more 

could be developed as 

demand increases. 

Poultry Farms and 

Food Processing 

Facilities 

Various poultry farms and 

processing facilities; fresh and 

frozen seafood processing 

facilities; dry, condensed, and 

evaporated dairy product 

manufacturing; spice and 

extract manufacturing; bottled 

and canned soft drink facilities; 

fruit and vegetable canning; 

frozen fruit, juice, and 

vegetable manufacturing; and 

other animal food 

manufacturing. 

Throughout 

region. 

These facilities are 

already in operation. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-6 April 2010 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Commercial and 

Recreational Fishing 

Commercial and recreational 

fishing of the eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica), blue 

crab (Callinectes sapidus), 

striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis), weakfish (Cynoscion 

regalis), summer flounder 

(Paralichthys dentatus), 

Atlantic croaker 

(Micropogonias undulates), 

and several species of forage 

fish.(j)

Throughout 

Chesapeake Bay 

and its tributaries. 

Current. 

Various hospitals and 

industrial facilities 

that use radioactive 

materials 

Medical or other isotopes. Within 50 mi. Operational. 

Waterfront 

Development 

A variety of residential and 

commercial waterfront property 

development, including 

potential pier facilities, 

dredging and shoreline erosion 

control structures, and 

controlled commercial and 

residential development both 

outside and within the limits of 

the town center designated 

areas of the various County 

master plans. 

Throughout 

region. 

Construction would 

occur in the future, as 

described in State and 

local land-use planning 

documents.(k)

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, bridges, and 

rail; and water and/or 

wastewater treatment and 

distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines as 

described in local land-use 

planning documents. 

Throughout 

region. 

Construction would 

occur in the future, as 

described in State and 

local land-use planning 

documents.(k) 

(a) Source: NRC 2000 

(b) Source: NRC 2009 

(c) Source: Dominion 2009 

(d) Source: FERC 2009a 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

(e) Source: FERC 2009b 

(f) Source: Mirant 2009 

(g) Source: Constellation Energy 2009 

(h) Source: MD SHA 2009 

(i) Source: PHI 2009c, Entrix 2009 

(j) Source: CBP 2007, McBride 2006 

(k) Source: SMCBCC 2003, CCCP 2004, CCBCC 2006 

(l) Source: DOD 2010 

(m) Source: MDNR 2010 

(n) Source: NPS 2010a 

(o) Source: NPS 2010b 

1 7.1 Land Use 

2 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 serves as a baseline for the 

3 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.1, the impacts 

4 of NRC-authorized construction on land use would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

5 be warranted. As described in Section 5.1, the review team concludes that the effects of 

6 operations on land-use impacts would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

7 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in Section 4.1 and 

8 determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

9 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

10 foreseeable projects that could affect land use. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic 

11 area of interest is the area within 15 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site. This geographic area of 

12 interest includes the primary communities, such as Prince Frederick, that would be affected by 

13 proposed Unit 3. 

14 Historically, the Calvert Cliffs site and vicinity were a combination of wetlands and forests. 

15 Residential development in Calvert County began in the early 1900s and was accelerated when 

16 the building of Units 1 and 2 commenced about 1970. Much of the Calvert Cliffs site was 

17 cleared to build Units 1 and 2. Some of the cleared land not used by the completed site 

18 buildings and associated infrastructure was farmed until the mid-2000s. Over the past few 

19 decades, the general trend in the 15-mi geographic area of interest has been an increase in 

20 residential areas, roads, utilities, businesses, and other facilities (see Table 7-1) and a decrease 

21 in wetlands, forests, and agricultural lands. Of note are the Dominion Cove Point liquefied 

22 natural gas (LNG) import facility (a little over 100 ac of industrial land use) in Calvert County and 

23 the Patuxent River Naval Air Station Complex (approximately 6500 ac) in St. Mary’s County 

24 (Dominion 2009, DOD 2010). 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-8 April 2010 

1 The Calvert Cliffs site abuts land and water portions of the Star-Spangled Banner National 

2 Historic Trail and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (NPS 2010a, 

3 2010b). The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) is still developing portions of the Star-Spangled 

4 Banner National Historic Trail and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. 

5 These NPS projects would contribute small additions to recreational and conservation land uses 

6 in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

7 As described in Sections 4.1 and 4.3, there would be a conversion of open and forested land to 

8 an industrial/utility land-use type at the site from building proposed Unit 3 and the proposed 

9 project would result in some offsite land conversions to residential areas, roads, and businesses 

10 to accommodate growth, new workers, and services related to the proposed nuclear facility. 

11 Other reasonably foreseeable projects in the geographic area of interest, such as waterfront 

12 development, would also contribute to decreases in open, forested, and wetland areas and 

13 increases in residential areas, roads, and business; however, these projects would be 

14 consistent with Calvert County’s land-use plans and control. Cumulative land-use impacts 

15 within the 15-mi geographic area of interest would be consistent with existing land-use plans 

16 and zoning and would be minimal. 

17 No new offsite transmission corridors are planned for proposed Unit 3 (UniStar 2009a). 

18 Consequently, no new land-use impacts resulting from operation of transmission lines serving 

19 Unit 3 are expected. The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) transmission line project would 

20 result in a second 500 kV circuit in the existing Chalk Point-to-Calvert Cliffs transmission line 

21 corridor from Possum Point, Virginia, to the Pepco Burches Hill and Chalk Point substations and 

22 continuing to a substation at the Calvert Cliffs site. Within the geographic area of interest, the 

23 new transmission line would be constructed in an existing corridor in Calvert County (PHI 

24 2009a). Although the MAPP project work within Calvert County would occur within existing 

25 rights-of-way (ROWs), the project area is not currently being maintained as a transmission line 

26 corridor. Therefore, habitat conversion would occur because the maintained portion of the 

27 ROW would be expanded to accommodate new lines. Most notably, the MAPP project would 

28 include a permanent wetland conversion, from forested to emerging scrub-shrub (Entrix 2009). 

29 Global climate change (GCC) could increase precipitation, sea level, and storm surges in the 

30 geographic area of interest (GCRP 2009), thus changing land use through inundation of low31 lying areas that are not buffered by the high cliffs. However, the cliffs could experience 

32 increased rates of erosion as a result of frequent storm surges, flooding events, and sea-level 

33 rise (GCRP 2009). Forest growth may increase as a result of more carbon dioxide in the 

34 atmosphere (GCRP 2009). Existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve 

35 wetlands and forested areas to the extent that they are not affected by the same factors. In 

36 addition, GCC could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), which might 

37 change portions of agricultural land uses in the geographic area of interest. Direct changes 

38 resulting from GCC could cause a shift in land use in the geographic area of interest. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Building and operating Unit 3 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

2 discussed above would result in minimal land use changes. Therefore, the review team 

3 concludes that the cumulative land use impacts, including impacts associated with transmission 

4 line development would be SMALL. 

5 7.2 Water Use and Quality 

6 This section analyzes the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed new unit in addition to 

7 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on water use and water quality. 

8 7.2.1 Surface Water Use Impacts 

9 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as the baseline for the 

10 cumulative impact assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the NRC staff 

11 concludes that impacts of NRC-authorized construction on surface water use would be SMALL, 

12 and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.2, the review team 

13 concludes that the impacts of operations on surface water use would also be SMALL, and no 

14 further mitigation would be warranted. 

15 The combined surface water use impacts from construction and preconstruction were described 

16 in Section 4.2.2 and determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, pre17 construction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and 

18 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect surface water quality. For this analysis, 

19 the geographic area of interest is strongly influenced by the site’s nearness to the Atlantic 

20 Ocean. To examine cumulative surface water-use impacts, this analysis extends 20 mi from of 

21 the intake and discharge structures, which would be expected to encompass the area affected 

22 by proposed Unit 3 on this portion of the Chesapeake Bay resource. 

23 As described in Section 5.2.2.1, the review team determined that the consumptive use of 

24 surface water from the operation of Unit 3 (none is planned for construction and preconstruction 

25 activities) would remain insignificant relative to the volume of water in the Chesapeake Bay 

26 (maximum annual plant consumption rate is 0.06 percent of the Bay volume) and the impacts 

27 would be minor within the 20-mi geographic area of interest. The predominant surface water 

28 user within a 20-mi radius of the Calvert Cliffs site is CCNPP Units 1 and 2, and its withdrawals 

29 have an insignificant effect on surface water availability. Unit 3 would use less water than 

30 CCNPP units 1 and 2, and the total withdrawals from Units 1, 2, and 3 would have an 

31 insignificant effect on surface water availability. In addition, the Chalk Point Generating Station, 

32 currently the largest power plant in Maryland, is a fossil fuel facility located about 15 mi 

33 northwest of the Calvert Cliffs site that draws its cooling water from the Patuxent River, a water 

34 source to the Chesapeake Bay. Again, given the volume of water in the Chesapeake Bay, this 

35 withdrawal has an insignificant volumetric impact on the Chesapeake Bay. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-10 April 2010 

1 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect the water 

2 resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on the water resources for 

3 other users. A recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (GCRP 2009) has 

4 been considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region 

5 during the life of Unit 3 include an increase in average temperature of 3 to 4oF and a slight 

6 increase in precipitation in the winter, spring, summer, and fall (GCRP 2009). Changes in 

7 climate during the life of proposed Unit 3 could result in a slight increase in the amount of runoff 

8 (GCRP 2009). In other words, the source of fresh water into the Chesapeake Bay is predicted 

9 to increase slightly. While the changes that are attributed to climate change in these studies are 

10 not insignificant, the review team did not identify anything that suggests the cumulative impacts 

11 would noticeably alter this resource. 

12 The review team determined the consumptive use of surface water from the operation of 

13 CCNPP Units 1 and 2, the Unit 3, and other consumptive uses (existing or likely future uses) 

14 could not alter the volume of water in the Chesapeake Bay. Based on its evaluation, the review 

15 team concludes that the cumulative impacts to surface water use would be SMALL, and no 

16 mitigation would be warranted. 

17 7.2.2 Groundwater Use Impacts 

18 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as the baseline for the 

19 cumulative impact assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the NRC staff 

20 concludes that impacts of NRC-authorized construction on groundwater use would be SMALL, 

21 and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.2, the review team 

22 concludes that the impacts of operations on groundwater use would also be SMALL, and no 

23 further mitigation would be warranted. 

24 The combined groundwater use impacts from construction and preconstruction were described 

25 in Section 4.2.2 and determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, 

26 preconstruction, and operation, the cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and 

27 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact groundwater use. For this analysis, the 

28 geographic area of interest is considered to be the local Surficial aquifer and the regional Piney 

29 Point-Nanjemoy aquifer and the Aquia aquifer because these are the three aquifers that could 

30 potentially be impacted by proposed Unit 3. 

31 The Surficial aquifer is not a reliable regional aquifer because of its low yield and spatial 

32 discontinuity. CCNPP Units 1 and 2 do not use this aquifer nor would Unit 3. Regionally, the 

33 Piney-Point-Nanjemoy aquifer is primarily tapped for domestic water supply. A well monitored 

34 2.5 mi southeast of the Calvert Cliffs site showed a 0.6 ft/yr decline in the potentiometric surface 

35 since 1979. Seven CCNPP Units 1 and 2 wells draw from the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer; 

36 however, Unit 3 would not use water from this aquifer. The Aquia aquifer is a major source of 

37 water in southern Maryland and would be the primary source of water used during the building 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 of Unit 3. In a study that encompassed the area of Calvert County, Soeder et al. (2007) 

2 reported groundwater withdrawals increasing 55 percent from the early 1980s through 2005, 

3 with the result that potentiometric surfaces have declined. In the Aquia aquifer beneath the 

4 Calvert Cliffs site, the drop was 60 ft. The maximum regional drop in the Aquia aquifer 

5 potentiometric surface was 100 ft. This drop occurred beneath the Patuxent River Naval Air 

6 Station, which is the largest groundwater user in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site. 

7 Withdrawals from the Aquia aquifer by Patuxent River Naval Air Station and two nearby 

8 municipalities totaled 3 MGD in 2005. Regional use of groundwater is expected to continue, 

9 with the result that the potentiometric surface of the Aquia would continue to drop. The 

10 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) regulates withdrawals that exceed 10,000 gpd 

11 to prevent the regional potentiometric surface from declining more than 80 percent below the 

12 aquifer’s available drawdown. This constraint ensures that the potentiometric surface does not 

13 drop below the top of the aquifer. 

14 In Calvert County, the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 permitted withdrawal rate of 450,000 gpd from the 

15 Aquia aquifer represents 8 percent of the total permitted withdrawals. Unit 3 would require an 

16 average withdrawal of 100,000 gpd of water from new wells in the Aquia aquifer for construction 

17 and preconstruction activities. No groundwater would be withdrawn for Unit 3 operations. The 

18 desalination plant would have capacity in excess of the operating needs of Unit 3. This excess 

19 capacity of the desalination plant would eliminate the need to withdraw groundwater from the 

20 Aquia aquifer for operation of Units 1 and 2 and thereby free up the existing capacity used by 

21 Units 1 and 2 for future groundwater users. Although the Unit 3 desalination plant would be 

22 beneficial to the groundwater resource, it would not offset the many other existing and future 

23 demands on the regional groundwater resources. 

24 Given that the proposed Unit 3 would not use groundwater for operations, the quantity of 

25 groundwater used for construction and preconstruction of Unit 3 would be small relative to other 

26 withdrawals within Calvert County, and the temporary use of groundwater for construction would 

27 not affect the overall productivity of the Aquia aquifer, the review team determines that the 

28 groundwater-use impacts resulting from the construction of Unit 3 would be minor. Moreover, 

29 given the declining trend in groundwater availability due to regional use (i.e., declining 

30 potentiometric surfaces), the review team concludes that the cumulative groundwater use 

31 impacts would be MODERATE. Once the proposed desalination plant comes on line and 

32 CCNPP groundwater use is terminated, the addition of Unit 3 would be beneficial for this 

33 resource, and no further mitigation beyond that described in Chapter 4 would be warranted. 

34 Therefore, the incremental impacts from NRC authorized activities would be SMALL. 

35 7.2.3 Surface Water Quality Impacts 

36 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as the baseline for the 

37 cumulative impact assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the NRC staff 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-12 April 2010 

1 concludes that impacts of NRC-authorized construction on surface water quality would be 

2 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.2, the review 

3 team concludes that the impacts of operations on surface water quality would also be SMALL, 

4 and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

5 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.2.3 

6 and determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

7 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

8 future actions that could impact surface-water quality. To examine cumulative surface water9 quality impacts, this analysis extends 20 mi from the intake and discharge structures, which 

10 would be expected to encompass the area affected by proposed Unit 3 on this portion of the 

11 Chesapeake Bay resource. 

12 Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the Susquehanna River and 

13 Chesapeake Bay. These include pesticides and herbicides sources associated with agriculture 

14 (see Section 2.4.2), and more recent sources of pharmaceuticals, hormones, detergents, 

15 disinfectants, and fire retardants. The productivity of the Chesapeake Bay has been 

16 significantly and adversely affected by these sources, as well as an increase in nutrients. 

17 Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is the focus of considerable Federal, State, and local efforts 

18 currently and into the future. 

19 Key actions, in addition to CCNPP Unit 3, influencing the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay 

20 within this 20-mi area include the operation of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, the building, operation, 

21 and expansion of the Cove Point LNG facility, and the Chalk Point Generating Station, located 

22 about 15 mi northwest of the Calvert Cliffs site on the Patuxent River. The chemicals released 

23 into the Chesapeake Bay via the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 cooling water discharge would include 

24 biocides and some other metal and organic compounds (see Section 5.3.2.1), but the discharge 

25 would not include agricultural pesticides, herbicides, or the more recent slurry of compounds 

26 that affect the Bay. The areal extent of the influence of other facilities on water quality is very 

27 small, and the influence of these facilities would be insignificant at the 20-mi radius. 

28 Although nutrient loads have impaired the Chesapeake Bay’s ability to support biota (addressed 

29 in Section 7.3.2), they have not impaired the water quality in a manner that limits the ability of 

30 the Bay to support other functions, including serving as a supply of cooling water. Based on its 

31 evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative surface water quality impacts would 

32 be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in Chapters 4 and 5 would be 

33 warranted. 

34 7.2.4 Groundwater Quality Impacts 

35 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as the baseline for the 

36 cumulative impact assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the NRC staff 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 concludes that impacts of NRC-authorized construction on groundwater quality would be 

2 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.2, the review 

3 team concludes that the impacts of operations on groundwater quality would also be SMALL, 

4 and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

5 The combined impacts to groundwater quality from construction and preconstruction were 

6 described in Section 4.2.3 and determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

7 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other 

8 reasonably foreseeable projects that could impact groundwater resources. For this analysis, the 

9 geographic area of interest is considered to be the local Surficial aquifer and the regional Piney 

10 Point-Nanjemoy and Aquia aquifers because these are the three aquifers that could be 

11 impacted by the building of proposed Unit 3. As mentioned in Section 7.2.2, groundwater would 

12 not be used for operation of Unit 3. 

13 The Surficial aquifer is not used at the Calvert Cliffs site or immediately surrounding the site 

14 because of its low yield and spatial discontinuity. Any impacts to the quality of this aquifer at the 

15 site from activities associated with construction and preconstruction of the proposed Unit 3 

16 would not affect this resource regionally; conversely, any impacts to this aquifer outside the 

17 boundary of the Calvert Cliffs site would not affect the resource at the site. 

18 There are no known water quality issues in the regional Piney-Point-Nanjemoy aquifer. Seven 

19 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 wells currently draw from the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer; none 

20 discharge water to the aquifer. Unit 3 would not use water from this aquifer. There are no 

21 known contaminant plumes in the Piney-Point-Nanjemoy aquifer in the vicinity of the Calvert 

22 Cliffs site that might be affected by groundwater withdrawals at the site. 

23 There are no known water quality issues in the regional Aquia aquifer. Five CCNPP Units 1 and 

24 2 wells currently draw from the Aquia aquifer; none discharge water to the aquifer. Two 

25 proposed Unit 3 wells would withdraw water from this aquifer for construction and 

26 preconstruction activities; neither would discharge liquid to the aquifer. There are no known 

27 contaminant plumes in the Aquia aquifer in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site that might be 

28 affected by groundwater withdrawals at the site. 

29 Saltwater intrusion into groundwater aquifers is a potential water quality issue along the 

30 Maryland coastline. As discussed in Section 2.3.3.2, there is no evidence that saltwater 

31 intrusion is occurring in the aquifers beneath Calvert County. However, the continued decline in 

32 the potentiometric surface of the aquifers could create conditions for saltwater intrusion 

33 sometime in the future. Because the MDE regulates groundwater withdrawal rates in each 

34 aquifer, the incidence of saltwater intrusion would be managed and mitigated. 

35 Given that potential impacts from building and operating Unit 3 would be minimal, there is no 

36 evidence of a decrease in groundwater quality as a result of the regional use of groundwater, 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-14 April 2010 

1 there are no known contaminant plumes, and there would be no discharges to groundwater by 

2 Unit 3, the review team concludes that the cumulative groundwater quality impacts would be 

3 SMALL, and no mitigation beyond that described in Chapters 4 and 5 would be warranted. 

4 7.3 Ecology 

5 This section addresses the cumulative impacts on terrestrial, wetlands and aquatic ecological 

6 resources as a result of activities associated with the proposed new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site 

7 and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the geographic area of 

8 interest of each resource. 

9 7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands 

10 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.1 serves as a baseline for the 

11 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.3.1, the NRC 

12 staff concludes the impacts of NRC-authorized construction on terrestrial ecology and wetlands 

13 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.3.1, 

14 the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on terrestrial ecology and wetlands 

15 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

16 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.3.1 

17 and determined to be MODERATE for terrestrial resources. In addition to the impacts from 

18 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, 

19 present and reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect terrestrial resources and 

20 wetlands. For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the Calvert 

21 County. Calvert County is expected to encompass the resource area expected to be affected 

22 by proposed Unit 3 because of the nature of the potential impacts to terrestrial resources and 

23 the characteristics of the resources, including important species such as home range size, 

24 distribution, abundance, and habitat preferences. Calvert County is peninsular, thus limiting 

25 effects of terrestrial impacts, and the county’s northern border is so far away from the Calvert 

26 Cliffs site that impacts on terrestrial resources from the proposed project would not be 

27 detectable beyond the county line to the north. GCC effects near the Calvert Cliffs site would 

28 result in regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, in annual precipitation, and in 

29 average temperature (GCRP 2009). 

30 7.3.1.1 Wildlife Habitat 

31 Calvert County was predominantly forest with some agriculture and little urban development 

32 prior to the building of Units 1 and 2. Development was limited by isolation of Calvert County by 

33 the Chesapeake Bay and the Patuxent River until the mid to late 1900s. Since the building of 

34 roads and bridges improved travel access in the 1960s, Calvert County has experienced 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 remarkable urbanization and development (Calvert County 2009). Development within the 

2 county was particularly intense from 1995 to 2002 with respect to other counties in Maryland. 

3 During this period, 2661 ac of forest were cleared in Calvert County (332 ac/year average), 

4 which was more than 9 percent of the forest cleared in the State of Maryland (MDNR 2004a). 

5 Cutting of forest not only reduces the amount of forest habitat, it increases the degree of 

6 fragmentation in the landscape. Forest fragmentation reduces interior forest, a critical resource 

7 for forest interior dwelling species (FIDS) such as the scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea). 

8 Fragmentation also may allow the establishment and spread of invasive species. Prior to the 

9 building of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, some forest had already been cleared on the site for 

10 agricultural use and for the establishment of Camp Conoy (BGE 1970). About 100 additional ac 

11 of forest on the Calvert Cliffs site were harvested causing fragmentation in the early 1970s 

12 during construction of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and during construction of local utility corridors 

13 (BGE 1970, AEC 1973). Additional small amounts of forests were cleared in the area during 

14 construction of the Dominion Cove Point LNG facility and its associated pipelines. 

15 Some of the onsite cleared areas, including Camp Conoy, have been maintained with 

16 landscaping and not allowed to revert back to forest cover, prolonging the effects of habitat 

17 fragmentation. Lack of maintenance in other areas has resulted in succession to old field or 

18 mixed deciduous regeneration forest. In addition to past actions and the proposed building and 

19 operation of proposed Unit 3, other projects, such as the recently expanded Dominion Cove 

20 Point LNG facility, have also decreased forested habitat and increased habitat fragmentation. 

21 Existing pipeline corridors were widened, permanently reducing forest cover by 423 ac and 

22 further reducing interior forest (FERC 2006). Vegetation maintenance activities within pipeline 

23 corridors prolong habitat fragmentation by limiting the establishment of woody vegetation. Also, 

24 proposed projects such as the MAPP transmission project would increase transmission 

25 capability from Chalk Point, Maryland to the Calvert Cliffs substation. Although the MAPP 

26 project work within Calvert County would occur within existing ROWs, the project area is not 

27 currently being maintained as a transmission line corridor. Therefore, habitat conversion would 

28 occur because the maintained portion of the ROW would be expanded to accommodate new 

29 lines. Most notably, the MAPP project would include a moderate amount of permanent wetland 

30 conversion, from forested to emerging scrub-shrub (Entrix 2009). 

31 Upgrades to roads, including MD 2/4 and MD 4 may also contribute to forest loss. The 

32 magnitude of forest loss from this project is unknown, but if upgrades take place within or along 

33 existing roadways, increased fragmentation would be somewhat limited. Continued 

34 urbanization and development is the greatest threat to county forest cover (CCCP 2004). 

35 Forest would be lost and fragmented from future development, but the Calvert County 

36 Commission has adopted a strategy to plan such development around town centers and has 

37 actions within its plan to map and track forest loss, maintain large forest tracks including interior 

38 forest, preserve and restore riparian forest, and replace lost forest and connectivity (CCCP 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-16 April 2010 

1 2004). Also, Calvert County has adopted mandatory subdivision cluster regulations to reduce 

2 impacts of residential development on wildlife habitat (CCCP 2004). 

3 Nearby parks would provide habitat for the present and reasonably foreseeable future. For 

4 example, there are two parks totaling 3357 ac adjoining the Calvert Cliffs site; Flag Ponds 

5 Nature Park is to the north and Calvert Cliffs State Park is to the south. In addition, there are 

6 three more parks totaling 1188 ac within 8 mi of the site. Most of these parks are forested, and 

7 the primary land uses of these parcels include recreation and conservation. The presence of 

8 the parks may limit the degree of forest loss and fragmentation in the immediate vicinity of the 

9 Calvert Cliffs site. These parks could also serve as a source for repopulation of forest flora and 

10 fauna. 

11 Changes in climate could alter and fragment key terrestrial habitats in the geographic area of 

12 interest for the Calvert Cliffs site (GCRP 2009). For example, increased precipitation and sea13 level rise could inundate low-lying areas that are not buffered by the high cliffs. Forest growth 

14 may increase as a result of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (GCRP 2009). 

15 Habitat within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) would also be affected from building 

16 and operating of the proposed Unit 3 (Table 4-1). More than 23 ac of various habitat types 

17 within the CBCA, including forest and herbaceous marsh, would be disturbed. Impervious 

18 surfaces within the Intensely Developed Area (IDA) would increase by 2.8 ac. Impervious 

19 surfaces would also be removed at the Eagle’s Den site. Mitigation actions for the building of 

20 proposed Unit 3, as discussed in Chapter 4, would also be conducted in the CBCA, including 

21 the planting of 19.6 ac of mixed deciduous forested wetland with expectations that it would 

22 provide forest interior dwelling species (FIDS) habitat in 20 to 30 years. Cove Point LNG 

23 expansion activities occurred at three locations within the CBCA (FERC 2006). To minimize 

24 impacts, Dominion used horizontal directional drilling from outside the CBCA to access area 

25 under the CBCA (FERC 2006). 

26 7.3.1.2 Wetlands 

27 Similar to forest loss, Calvert County wetlands were lost to agriculture and development. 

28 County-level impacts to wetlands are unknown, but it is estimated one-half of all wetlands have 

29 been lost statewide (CCCP 2004). Wetland losses from the building of Units 1 and 2 

30 undoubtedly occurred, as a deep ravine became a dredge spoil deposition area, but were not 

31 quantified (AEC 1973). During the Cove Point LNG expansion, no wetlands were affected at 

32 the terminal, but more than 32 wetland ac were temporarily affected and 9 ac permanently 

33 affected within the pipeline corridor (71 FR 26491). Temporary impacts to wetlands within the 

34 maintained transmission line corridors included habitat conversion from forest to emergent or 

35 scrub/shrub wetlands, which could increase windthrow in adjacent forested wetlands (71 FR 

36 26491). Mitigation actions were implemented to offset wetland loss. Additionally, about 1.4 ac 

37 of wetlands near the Calvert Cliffs site were affected by road construction when upgrades were 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 built on MD 2/4 (Table 7-1). Approximately 11.7 ac of non-tidal wetlands within the Calvert Cliffs 

2 site, including herbaceous marsh and both well and poorly-drained bottomland deciduous forest, 

3 would be filled and graded for the proposed Unit 3. These amounts represent approximately 

4 20 percent of all non-tidal wetlands within the Calvert Cliffs site (described in Wetlands 

5 discussion in Section 4.3.1.3). 

6 Wetlands would continue to be threatened by development, GCC, and other activities in 

7 Maryland and within Calvert County. Frequency of storm surge, coastal flooding, and erosion 

8 resulting from GCC could contribute to wetland losses (GCRP 2009). For example, as 

9 mentioned above, the MAPP project would include a moderate amount of permanent wetland 

10 conversion, from forested to emerging scrub-shrub. To address this, the State of Maryland has 

11 set a goal of “no net loss” of wetlands, and Calvert County planners have pledged to restrict 

12 impacts on wetlands, restore or create them where possible, develop penalties for unauthorized 

13 destruction, and study the effectiveness of wetland buffers in management of wetlands (CCCP 

14 2004). 

15 7.3.1.3 Important Species 

16 The impacts of GCC on plants and wildlife in the geographic area of interest are not precisely 

17 known. Changes in climate could result in substantial northward shifts in species ranges, 

18 diversity, and abundance (GCRP 2009). 

19 Populations of two Federally threatened species reside along the Chesapeake Bay shore in 

20 Calvert County, the Puritan tiger beetle (Cicendela puritana) and the northeastern beach tiger 

21 beetle (C. dorsalis dorsalis). The major threat to the Puritan tiger beetle is alteration of the 

22 bluffs and beaches along the Chesapeake Bay (FWS 1993). Most of the sites known to contain 

23 Puritan tiger beetle habitat in Calvert County have been subdivided and developed, and bluff 

24 habitat has been lost to beach stabilization from commercial development near Randle Cliffs 

25 and on the Calvert Cliffs site (FWS 1993). The proposed Unit 3 could also affect the Puritan 

26 tiger beetle. However, Puritan tiger beetle habitat would not be noticeably affected as most 

27 work activities are proposed in unsuitable habitat, and time-of-year agreements between 

28 UniStar and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would limit work in areas that may be 

29 suitable habitat. The establishment of Flag Ponds Nature Park, the Calvert Cliffs site, and 

30 Calvert Cliffs State Park has limited residential development along substantial portions of the 

31 Chesapeake Bay shore in Calvert County, benefitting the Puritan tiger beetle. Continued 

32 existence of these facilities could preserve suitable habitat as development continues in other 

33 areas. GCC is expected to increase storm intensity, increasing erosion rates (GCRP 2009). 

34 The bare bluffs that are used by this species are maintained through erosion, so the effects of 

35 increased erosion on this species are unclear. No other projects, facilities, or activities listed in 

36 Table 7-1 are expected to result in cumulative impacts on this species. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-18 April 2010 

1 The major threat to the northeastern beach tiger beetle species is beach alteration and 

2 recreational use. Oil spills and natural phenomena, such as winter beach erosion and flood 

3 tides, may also affect this species (FWS 1994). Historically, more than 90 percent of the 

4 Maryland population of this species was in Calvert County. Although there is no known 

5 established population of northeastern tiger beetles on the Calvert Cliffs site, oil spills resulting 

6 from dredging and increased barge traffic related to proposed Unit 3 activities could be carried 

7 to beaches where larvae are present. The creation and existence of Flag Ponds Nature Park 

8 and Calvert Cliffs State Park allows beach access to be managed, but public ownership of these 

9 parcels may ultimately result in increased recreational use of beaches where northeastern tiger 

10 beetle reside, which could increase impacts to the species. Increased winter storm intensity 

11 from GCC and subsequent increased beach erosion (GCRP 2009) may have adverse effects on 

12 this species. No other projects, facilities, or activities listed in Table 7-1 are expected to result in 

13 cumulative impacts to northeastern tiger beetles. 

14 The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), formerly a Federally listed species, is still listed by 

15 the State of Maryland. Regional bald eagle populations have increased because of reductions 

16 of pesticides in the environment (72 FR 37346). Three active nests are known on the Calvert 

17 Cliffs site. A tree containing an eagle nest within an active territory was removed in preparation 

18 for the proposed Unit 3 in 2009 following the issuance of an incidental take permit by the 

19 Maryland DNR and a Federal fish and wildlife permit by the FWS (UniStar 2009b). A study was 

20 undertaken to evaluate potential alternate nest locations on the site. Ten candidate nest trees 

21 were identified and the immediate surroundings were improved with prescribed tree trimming. It 

22 is not yet known if any of these alternate nest locations would be used by bald eagles. Other 

23 activities listed in Table 7-1, such as the MAPP transmission line project, waterfront 

24 development, and future urbanization, could also affect the bald eagle. However, the 

25 Chesapeake Bay bald eagle population has experienced significant growth over the last 30 

26 years. Many nests are located on publicly owned and protected lands, and many more nests 

27 and habitats are afforded protection within the CBCA. The regional bald eagle population has 

28 continued to grow during periods of accelerated development and is expected to do so despite 

29 continued habitat loss (72 FR 37346). 

30 The scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) thrives in contiguous and riparian forest and represents 

31 other FIDS in this review. All projects that reduce or fragment forest cover, including building 

32 Units 1 and 2 and land clearing previous to the establishment of the Calvert Cliffs site, affect the 

33 scarlet tanager (see forest discussion under Wildlife Habitat section above). If land clearing 

34 takes place during the spring/summer time period, scarlet tanager and other FIDS nests would 

35 be destroyed. Approximately 21 ac of FIDS habitat would be lost from the proposed Unit 3, and 

36 UniStar has proposed mitigation (Section 4.3.1.3). Projects that cut corridors through 

37 unfragmented forest, such as MAPP transmission line installation, the Cove Point LNG pipeline, 

38 and new road construction, can be especially effective at eliminating FIDS from previously 

39 suitable habitat. To address interior and riparian forest loss within Calvert County, the Calvert 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 County government plans to map forest resources and track its loss, replace lost forest, 

2 preserve and restore riparian forest, maintain forest interior and corridors between large forest 

3 tracts, and include forest interior to guide the Planning Commission (CCCP 2004). 

4 Local populations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), identified as important on the 

5 Calvert Cliffs site, may be temporarily affected by regional development activities. This species 

6 is a habitat generalist and common in most habitats. All activities in the county that would 

7 cause habitat alteration have the potential to affect the white-tailed deer. During land clearing 

8 for Unit 3, habitat would be lost. Also, some deer may be displaced by work activity, resulting in 

9 increased road and hunting mortality. Increased development and urbanization would also 

10 decrease habitat available. However, this species is highly adaptable and can thrive in highly 

11 fragmented landscapes. Deer would also benefit from lands protected from development, 

12 including conservation areas on the site, the Flag Ponds Nature Park and Calvert Cliffs State 

13 Park. Any impacts are not expected to destabilize populations. Also, the State of Maryland 

14 manages the white-tailed deer as a game species, so destabilization resulting from 

15 overpopulation could be managed through harvest. 

16 Seven plant species were identified as important on the Calvert Cliffs site (Table 2-1). Four of 

17 these species, the chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), New York 

18 fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), and the tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) are common 

19 throughout the site, county, and region. Although building of Unit 3 and most actions listed in 

20 Table 7-1 would affect individuals of these species, cumulative effects would not be expected to 

21 destabilize county-level populations. 

22 The showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa), a Maryland State-threatened plant that grows in 

23 open areas, could benefit from activities that fragment the forested landscape. It is not known if 

24 this plant was affected by the building of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. However, activities related to 

25 proposed Unit 3 would affect patches of this plant found near Camp Conoy, and mitigation has 

26 been proposed. Projects such as the Cove Point LNG facility expansion may have also affected 

27 this species if it occurred within the existing pipeline corridor. However, widening of the pipeline 

28 may result in a net increase in suitable, open habitat for showy goldenrod. The MAPP 

29 transmission line may also create habitat for this species by expanding and maintaining open 

30 habitats that would normally reforest through succession. Subsequent vegetation management 

31 would preclude establishment in the newly maintained portion of the ROW. Continued 

32 urbanization and development could also result in additional old field habitat that would allow 

33 this species to spread. Other projects and activities listed in Table 7-1 are not expected to 

34 affect the showy goldenrod. 

35 In Maryland, Shumard’s oak (Q. shumardii) is found within various hardwood forest types. 

36 Activities that reduce forest cover, such as the building of CCNPP Unit 1 and 2, Cove Point 

37 expansion, roadway widening, and urban development could affect the occurrence of this 

38 species. No individuals are known to occur within the proposed Unit 3 footprint. It is a Maryland 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-20 April 2010 

1 State-threatened species and is known to occur in upland sites. It is not known to what extent 

2 cumulative impacts would affect this species, but the predominance of forest in the Calvert 

3 County landscape and the plan to manage future development to maintain forest cover would 

4 indicate this species would continue to occur within the county. 

5 Spurred butterfly pea (Centrosema virginianum) is rare in Maryland but has a wide tolerance of 

6 habitat conditions (Section 2.4.1.3). Although this plant was reported on the Calvert Cliffs site 

7 outside the proposed Unit 3 footprint, its distribution throughout Calvert County is unknown. All 

8 projects that alter existing ground cover and reduce habitat available to plants would affect this 

9 species. The spurred butterfly pea is not listed as threatened or endangered in Maryland, and it 

10 is unknown whether cumulative impacts would affect this status. 

11 During review of the Calvert Cliffs ER, the projects and activities listed in Table 7-1, the list of 

12 Federally and State-listed species that occur in Calvert County and their life history information, 

13 no other past, present, or future development actions within the region were identified that 

14 would contribute to cumulative impacts to important terrestrial wildlife habitats or species. 

15 7.3.1.4 Summary of Terrestrial Ecology and Wetland Impacts 

16 Loss of forest cover, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat from continued development is 

17 unavoidable, and would continue to occur within Calvert County and across the State of 

18 Maryland. Habitat loss occurred before the Calvert Cliffs site existed, and has accelerated since 

19 the building of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Forest loss and fragmentation is disproportionately high 

20 in Calvert County. Forest loss from the proposed Unit 3 equates to approximately 2/3 of the 

21 average annual forest lost in Calvert County during a time period of intense urbanization within 

22 the county. In addition to impacts from the proposed Unit 3, forest, wetlands, and other habitat 

23 have been or would be converted during expansion and upgrades from the energy industry 

24 (Dominion Cove LNG facility and the MAPP transmission line project), upgrades to area roads 

25 and highways, and continued development and urbanization. The State of Maryland, Calvert 

26 County, and the CBCA Commission recognize forest conversion and wetland loss as 

27 conservation threats, and have instituted policy to manage and mitigate the effects of 

28 development on these resources. 

29 Important species have also been affected by past actions and would likely be affected by future 

30 actions. Calvert County contains two Federally listed tiger beetle species that are threatened by 

31 development within the coastal zone of the Chesapeake Bay. The Puritan tiger beetle has lost 

32 habitat to residential and commercial development including that which occurred on the Calvert 

33 Cliff site. Bluff and beach stabilization also threatens this species. The northeastern tiger 

34 beetle is also threatened by beach stabilization as well as recreational use and chemical 

35 pollution of beaches. Incremental impact from the proposed Unit 3 is not expected to reduce 

36 the likelihood that these beetle species would continue to occupy suitable habitat within Calvert 

37 County. Bald eagles nest on the site and elsewhere in the county. Although eagle habitat has 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 been affected by 30 years of development and a nest within an active eagle territory was 

2 removed in preparation of the proposed Unit 3, bald eagle populations continue to increase and 

3 are expected to continue to do so in the region. The high rate of forest fragmentation in the 

4 county has reduced and degraded scarlet tanager and FIDS habitat. Further development, 

5 including the building of the proposed Unit 3, would contribute to a continued decreasing trend 

6 in FIDS habitat quantity and quality. 

7 Populations of common and abundant important species, including the white-tailed deer, 

8 chestnut oak, mountain laurel, New York fern, and the tulip poplar, are not expected to be 

9 noticeably affected by cumulative impacts throughout the county. The showy goldenrod would 

10 be affected by the proposed Unit 3, but may benefit by other projects that convert forest cover 

11 into old field habitat. Distribution and abundance of Shumard’s oak and the spurred butterfly 

12 pea are not known well enough to estimate cumulative impacts at the county level. 

13 Cumulative loss of Calvert County wildlife and wildlife habitat resulting from past, present, and 

14 future land management actions is unavoidable. Unavoidable loss would also result from 

15 construction, preconstruction, and operation of the proposed Unit 3. Terrestrial resources would 

16 be affected to varying degrees for reasons described above. Cumulative impacts from past 

17 actions on terrestrial resources and wetlands have noticeably changed ecosystems within 

18 Calvert County. Forest clearing, habitat fragmentation, and wetland loss are detectable and 

19 noticeably alter ecological functions and values. Proposed actions, including clearing and 

20 grading of site forests and the filling of wetlands and streams during preconstruction, exacerbate 

21 this loss. 

22 Based on this evaluation, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts from past, 

23 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions to Calvert County terrestrial resources, 

24 including forests and wetlands, would be MODERATE. The review team concludes that the 

25 incremental contribution from building and operating the proposed Unit 3 to cumulative impacts 

26 on county flora and fauna, including Federally and State-listed species, would be MODERATE. 

27 Further, the NRC staff concludes that the incremental contribution of the NRC-authorized 

28 activities related to the proposed Unit 3 would be less substantial and, therefore, SMALL. 

29 7.3.2 Aquatic Ecology 

30 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.2 serves as a baseline for the 

31 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.3.2, the NRC 

32 staff concludes that impacts of NRC-authorized construction on freshwater and estuarine 

33 resources would be SMALL. As described in Section 5.3.2, the review team concludes that the 

34 impacts of operations on freshwater and estuarine resources would be SMALL, and no further 

35 mitigation would be warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-22 April 2010 

1 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.3.2 

2 and determined to be MODERATE for freshwater and estuarine resources. In addition to the 

3 impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operation, the cumulative analysis also 

4 considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect freshwater 

5 and estuarine resources. 

6 For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the Calvert Cliffs site, the St. Leonard Creek 

7 subwatershed, the Lower Western Shore watershed, and the mesohaline (salinity ranges from 

8 about 5 to 19 parts per thousand) western portion of the Chesapeake Bay. The St. Leonard 

9 Creek subwatershed is the largest component of the Lower Patuxent River watershed and 

10 includes all creeks that drain into St. Leonard Creek. The major creeks on the Calvert Cliffs site 

11 flow into St. Leonard Creek. The Lower Western Shore watershed extends along the western 

12 shore of Chesapeake Bay from the Magothy River south to Drum Point. The extent of the 

13 mesohaline zone in the Chesapeake Bay varies seasonally, but at its maximum, includes the 

14 western Bay shore from about the mouth of the Rappahannock River to Baltimore, which 

15 includes the Patuxent River as far upriver as the Chalk Point area (MDNR PPRP 2008, CBP 

16 2009). These geographic areas of interest for cumulative impacts include the aquatic resources 

17 that are most likely to be affected by cumulative natural and anthropogenic events and activities. 

18 Factors contributing to the potential cumulative impacts affecting the freshwater and estuarine 

19 resources within the geographic area of interest include building and operating of the proposed 

20 Unit 3, operation of the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, increased urban development, 

21 recreational activities, eutrophication and runoff, commercial and recreational fisheries, the 

22 expansion and operation of other power plants and the Cove Point LNG facility, and short- or 

23 long-term changes in sea level, precipitation, or temperature. The review team considered 

24 these potential sources of impacts in its evaluation of the cumulative aquatic ecology impacts. 

25 7.3.2.1 Freshwater Habitats and Fauna 

26 The primary effect of the development of proposed Unit 3 on the St. Leonard Creek 

27 subwatershed would be the removal of several small headwater tributaries of Johns Creek, 

28 which is the primary tributary flowing from the east into St. Leonard Creek. The removal of the 

29 headwater tributaries, which are ecologically important, would be accompanied by an increase 

30 in the amount of impervious or nearly impervious surface acreage in the subwatershed. The 

31 acreage of impervious surfaces that would be added directly by the proposed Unit 3 would 

32 increase the impervious surface percentage in the St. Leonard Creek subwatershed to at least 

33 1.5 percent, which approaches the threshold (2 percent) at which stream degradation begins to 

34 become noticeable (MDNR 2004b). Additional impervious surface area would be added to the 

35 watershed should the increased workforce require that new residences or additional 

36 hotels/motels be built. Building the new unit would directly affect some of the aquatic resources 

37 within the Lower Western Shore watershed. The loss of a small, artificial pond (Camp Conoy 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Pond), impacts to small streams, and an increase in impervious surface cover would be the 

2 primary impacts within this watershed. 

3 Anthropogenic (derived from human activities) stressors, such as habitat loss and nonpoint 

4 pollution related to agriculture and increased urbanization along the shores of streams in the 

5 watersheds, not directly associated with the Calvert Cliffs site activities already exist in the area 

6 and contribute to cumulative impacts to the St. Leonard Creek subwatershed and Lower 

7 Western Shore watershed. Future development within Calvert County is likely to increase 

8 impervious surface acreage in addition to that added by the proposed Unit 3, which may affect 

9 both watersheds near the Calvert Cliffs site. The expansion of the LNG facility at Cove Point 

10 occurred within the Lower Western Shore watershed, but was not expected to adversely affect 

11 Grays Creek and the few small ponds near that site (FERC 2006). As part of the MAPP 

12 transmission line project, Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) plans to build a second 

13 500-kV transmission line from Possum Point, Virginia to Calvert Cliffs, Maryland (Entrix 2009). 

14 The line would intersect the region of interest upon crossing the Patuxent River at Chalk Point. 

15 Pepco would install four lattice steel transmission structures within the Patuxent River to convey 

16 transmission lines across the river. The single-line structures would be similar to existing 

17 structures and would be placed parallel to them. Pepco proposes that each tower would be 

18 supported by six to eight piles driven into the river bottom. Pepco does not expect the project to 

19 have significant effects on aquatic resources in the Patuxent River (Entrix 2009). The 

20 transmission line path from Chalk Point to Calvert Cliffs would share the corridor for the existing 

21 500-kV transmission lines between the locations. The path leading to Calvert Cliffs would cross 

22 five named streams, including Perrin Branch and Woodland Branch (and an unnamed tributary 

23 of Woodland Branch), both of which flow into St. Leonard Creek (Entrix 2009). Impacts to 

24 streams would be from the placement of mats to facilitate truck crossings, disturbance of 

25 streambeds, and possible spills of fuel, engine coolants, and herbicides. The impacts are 

26 expected to be temporary. The Chalk Point-to-Calvert Cliffs portion of the MAPP transmission 

27 line project would not affect aquatic resources that also would be affected by the building and 

28 operation of Unit 3. However, the two primary northern tributaries of St. Leonard Creek would 

29 be at least temporarily affected, which coupled with the impacts to Johns Creek could have 

30 synergistic effects on St. Leonard Creek. 

31 The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in 

32 precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts to the 

33 St. Leonard Creek subwatershed and Lower Western Shore watershed. Under certain 

34 conditions, the Calvert Cliffs site operations, other anthropogenic stressors, and climatic events 

35 could combine to adversely affect the aquatic populations of both watersheds. Changes in 

36 precipitation would affect streamflow, which then would affect runoff of nutrients and sediment, 

37 and could affect resident biota populations (GCRP 2009). However, because precipitation 

38 depends on several factors, changes in precipitation are difficult to predict, and model results 

39 often disagree. Most models predict, although with considerable variability, that precipitation in 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-24 April 2010 

1 winter and spring in the latter part of the 21st century could increase an average of 3 percent 

2 over current levels (Najjar et al. 2009). Some of the model variability includes the possibility that 

3 precipitation could decrease. 

4 American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is a commercially important species that occurs in Johns Creek 

5 and other waters on the Calvert Cliffs site. Habitat for this species could be adversely affected 

6 by proposed Unit 3. The State of Maryland has specified that UniStar should implement stream 

7 restoration activities that meet the habitat and physiological needs of the eel, other migratory 

8 and resident fish, and benthic invertebrates (MPSC 2009). 

9 7.3.2.2 Estuarine Habitats and Fauna 

10 Most activities related to building and operating the intake and discharge systems, installing and 

11 operating the fish return system, and the refurbishing and maintaining the barge dock area to 

12 support the proposed Unit 3 would have moderate, but very localized, impacts on the 

13 Chesapeake Bay aquatic ecosystem that most likely would be temporary, but cannot generally 

14 be reduced (see Section 4.3.2). About 5 ac of estuarine habitat conversion resulting from the 

15 armoring or dredging of certain underwater areas for Unit 3 would be permanent (Section 4.3.2). 

16 The expansion of the LNG facility at Cove Point was not expected to include any construction 

17 activity that would affect the Chesapeake Bay bottom habitats (FERC 2006). Dominion 

18 proposes to reinforce the pier at the LNG facility to allow for the docking larger tankers (USCG 

19 and USACE 2009). This project would primarily involve dredging of an area of Bay bottom near 

20 the present pier, the installation of mooring and breasting dolphins, and the disposal of the 

21 dredged material. One option for the dredged material disposal would be to use the material as 

22 fill to restore the shoreline at Cove Point marsh to its 1978 location. This would convert about 

23 17 ac of Bay bottom from soft bottom habitat to tidal marsh. The second part of the MAPP 

24 project would involve building an underwater crossing of the Chesapeake Bay that would extend 

25 from Calvert Cliffs to the Maryland eastern shore. The route could include broadband fiber optic 

26 cables (PHI 2009b). Details of this part of the project are not yet available but the installation of 

27 underwater cables would most likely involve horizontal directional drilling from the shore into the 

28 Bay and some type of trenching to install the cable within the Bay. Until more details about the 

29 project are released, specific impacts cannot be evaluated. The current schedule suggests that 

30 the crossing under the Bay should be completed in 2014 (PHI 2009c). 

31 Entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms represent important effects that contribute 

32 to the cumulative impacts on declining populations in the Bay. One contributor to potential 

33 entrainment and impingement losses in the area is the once-through cooling water system at 

34 CCNPP units 1 and 2. However, historical studies concluded that the entrainment and 

35 impingement of organisms by the intake system of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 have not significantly 

36 affected the aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay (Sellner and Kachur 1987; Olson 1987; 

37 Ringger 2000; McLean et al. 2002). The expected intake system flow for proposed Unit 3 is 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 less than 2 percent of the flow for CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Assuming that the relationship 

2 between flows is linear, the projected incremental entrainment and impingement by Unit 3 alone 

3 would be minor. Other potential sources of entrainment within the region of interest that would 

4 affect some of the same species that would be entrained by the proposed Unit 3 include the 

5 withdrawal of water from the Bay for ballast by ships that unload at the LNG facility at Cove 

6 Point and cooling water withdrawals at power plants, especially the non-nuclear plant at Chalk 

7 Point on the Patuxent River, which is a large plant that uses once-through cooling. Entrainment 

8 losses because of reballasting by ships at the LNG facility would likely be relatively unimportant 

9 because of the comparatively small volumes withdrawn. McLean et al. (2002) described 

10 historical entrainment effects at several power plants, including the Chalk Point and H. A. 

11 Wagner plants, within the geographic area of interest. Although species-specific entrainment 

12 numbers for both plants were not identified, McLean et al. (2002) described the entrainment at 

13 Chalk Point and H. A. Wagner as potentially having significant adverse effects on the bay 

14 anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), which is an important prey species and was the predominant taxon 

15 entrained at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 in 2006 and 2007 (EA Engineering 2008). Entrainment by 

16 the Chalk Point plant could capture as much as 51 percent of the bay anchovy population in the 

17 Patuxent River estuary (McLean et al. 2002). The entrainment effects at the H. A. Wagner plant 

18 on Baltimore Harbor were considered potentially large (McLean et al. 2002) with as much as 49 

19 percent of the local bay anchovy population lost because of entrainment. EA Engineering 

20 (2008) estimated bay anchovy entrainment by CCNPP Units 1 and 2 from March 2006 through 

21 September 2007 to total about 9.17 billion fish, including all life stages (see Table 5-2). The 

22 review team used the 2006 to 2007 data from CCNPP Units 1 and 2 to estimate that proposed 

23 Unit 3 would have entrained an additional 167 million bay anchovies (all life stages) had it been 

24 operating during that period, which would have yielded a total of 9.34 billion entrained by all 

25 three units. There is concern that entrainment may be adversely affecting bay anchovy 

26 populations in the Bay (McBride 2006), and the incremental bay anchovy entrainment by 

27 proposed Unit 3, albeit estimated to be relatively small, would add to the total bay anchovy 

28 entrainment losses from the Chalk Point, Wagner, and existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. 

29 The projected April through September ichthyoplankton entrainment by the intake system for the 

30 proposed Unit 3 would range from about 83 million to about 132 million organisms. The 

31 projected combined April through September ichthyoplankton entrainment for all three units 

32 during those months would range from about 4.6 billion to 7.4 billion organisms. Total 

33 entrainment values for the other power plants in the geographic area of interest were not 

34 available. The State also evaluated the combined effects of impingement by all power plants on 

35 key Bay species and concluded that impingement would not significantly affect Bay resources 

36 (McLean et al. 2002). 

37 The review team also considered the potential cumulative impacts related to thermal 

38 discharges. The assessments performed by the review team and described in Section 5.3.2 

39 explicitly considered the combined impacts of concurrent operation of the existing CCNPP 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-26 April 2010 

1 Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Unit 3. CORMIX modeling using average conditions of the 

2 cooling water discharge plume from proposed Unit 3 predicted that the 3.6°F above ambient 

3 isotherm would extend about 149 ft beyond the discharge multi-port diffusers on the maximum 

4 ebb and flood tides. This plume would be much smaller than, and south of, that from CCNPP 

5 Units 1 and 2. The review team CORMIX modeling predicted that the two plumes probably 

6 would not intersect. However, at flood tide, measurements taken in 1978 showed that a 1.8 to 

7 3.6°F above ambient remnant of the Units 1 and 2 thermal plume from the previous tidal cycle 

8 extended from the existing intake embayment toward the barge dock and the area proposed for 

9 the Unit 3 discharge (Schreiner et al. 1999). Any intersection between the thermal remnant and 

10 the Unit 3 plume would be short-lived, occurring only during flood tide. The two thermal plumes 

11 should not add to the cumulative thermal impacts on key Bay resources because of their small 

12 sizes relative to the size of the Bay and the distances to other thermal discharges. 

13 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts from chemical releases into the 

14 Bay. The primary contaminants historically entering the Bay have been pesticides and 

15 herbicides associated with agriculture (see Section 2.4.2). More recent contaminants emerging 

16 as potential issues include pharmaceuticals, hormones, detergents, disinfectants, and fire 

17 retardants. The chemicals released into Chesapeake Bay via the cooling water discharge 

18 would include biocides and some other metal and organic compounds (see Section 5.3.2), but 

19 the discharge would not include agricultural pesticides, herbicides, or the more recent slurry of 

20 compounds that affect the Bay. Chemicals discharges would be similar to those used at 

21 CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The additional releases by proposed Unit 3 are not expected to add 

22 significantly to the chemical discharges in the geographic area of interest. 

23 Anthropogenic stressors related to the substantial growth of human populations in the Bay’s 

24 watershed have caused degraded water quality, habitat loss, and adversely affected flora and 

25 fauna populations (Phillips 2007). Agriculture and increased urbanization along the shores of 

26 the Chesapeake Bay have caused eutrophication from increased nutrient discharges into the 

27 Bay, habitat loss, and nonpoint pollution (Kemp et al. 2005; Phillips 2007). Other activities 

28 associated with increased human populations, such as recreational boating, may contribute to 

29 the overall condition of the Bay, but that contribution is comparatively minor. The building and 

30 operation of the proposed Unit 3 would not be expected to produce impacts similar to those 

31 caused by eutrophication, habitat loss, and pollution. Heavy fishing pressure, in conjunction 

32 with habitat loss and pollution, has caused serious reductions in the populations of many 

33 species inhabiting the Bay. Notable among these are the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), 

34 blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and several species of forage 

35 fish (CBP 2007). Other species, including weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), summer flounder 

36 (Paralichthys dentatus), and Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), have been affected 

37 primarily by overfishing (McBride 2006). Steps to reduce fishing pressure, such as catch limits 

38 and moratoria, have contributed to population increases of some of these species (McBride 

39 2006). Entrainment, impingement, and entrapment by power plants’ cooling water systems, 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 including proposed Unit 3, which essentially function as non-specific environmental fish and 

2 invertebrate samplers that remove some organisms from the Bay, would contribute to reduced 

3 fish populations, particularly those of forage taxa such as the bay anchovy. Although the 

4 incremental effect of the operation of proposed Unit 3 would be relatively minor, the combined 

5 effects of continued fishing pressure and entrainment and impingement by several facilities, as 

6 mentioned above, would hinder the recovery of fish and invertebrate populations in the Bay. 

7 The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in 

8 precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts to the 

9 Chesapeake Bay. The Calvert Cliffs site operations, other anthropogenic stressors, and climatic 

10 events could combine to adversely affect the aquatic populations of the Chesapeake Bay. A 

11 significant issue facing the Chesapeake Bay is global climate change. The buildup of 

12 greenhouse gas emissions that occurred in the 20th century has assured that some climate 

13 change will occur within the 21st century, even without increasing the current rates of emissions 

14 (Teng et al. 2006). The projected climate changes are predicted to affect the Chesapeake Bay 

15 primarily through increasing sea level, air and water temperatures, and changes in precipitation 

16 (Jasinski and Claggett 2009; GCRP 2009). Increased water acidity, which is a looming issue in 

17 some ocean habitats (Doney et al. 2009), is considered a less important factor for the 

18 Chesapeake Bay at present (Jasinski and Claggett 2009). Wu et al. (2009) projected that the 

19 sea level at Solomons Island, about 7.5 mi south of the Calvert Cliffs site, is expected to rise by 

20 about 22 to 24 in. by the end of the 21st century. However, the estimate did not consider that 

21 the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could cause regional differences in sea level rise, 

22 which implies that the projection may have underestimated the rise in sea level in the 

23 Chesapeake Bay area by as much as one-third (Mitrovica et al. 2009). Najjar et al. (2009) 

24 projected that air temperatures in the Chesapeake Bay region could rise by about 5 to 12°F by 

25 the year 2100. Because surface-water temperature is roughly related to air temperature, a 

26 similar increase in water temperature could be expected (Wood et al. 2002). Changes in rainfall 

27 are difficult to predict, and model results often disagree. Most models predict, with considerable 

28 variability, that precipitation in winter and spring in the latter part of the 21st century could 

29 change an average of 3 percent over current levels (Najjar et al. 2009). One of the effects of 

30 increased precipitation is a reduction in salinity, particularly in the winter and spring (Jasinski 

31 and Claggett 2009). Therefore, such changes related to climate change could alter aquatic 

32 habitats and result in substantial northward shifts in species ranges, diversity, and abundance in 

33 the geographic area of interest for the Calvert Cliffs site (GCRP 2009). 

34 The interaction of the operation of the proposed Unit 3 and the predicted rise in Chesapeake 

35 Bay water level is difficult to assess, but it is not likely that the plant’s operations would add 

36 significantly to the potential impacts of sea-level rise (e.g., increased shoreline erosion). 

37 Similarly, the small sizes of the discharge plumes from Units 1 and 2 and proposed Unit 3 

38 compared to the volume of water in the Chesapeake Bay suggests that the thermal discharges 

39 from all three units would not add importantly to the thermal regime in the Bay. Salinity in the 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-28 April 2010 

1 Bay is predominantly related to discharge from the Susquehanna River (Gibson and Najjar 

2 2000), and the comparatively small discharges from all three units would not contribute to 

3 significant salinity changes in the Bay. 

4 Among the important estuarine species considered in Section 2.4.2, there are five Federally 

5 threatened or endangered species: shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), loggerhead 

6 turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys 

7 kempii), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). These species have a relatively low 

8 likelihood of interaction with the proposed Unit 3, which would not add to the stresses 

9 (e.g., vessel strikes, entrapment in pound nets) encountered by these species in the region. 

10 7.3.2.3 Summary of Aquatic Ecology Impacts 

11 As discussed above, site development for Unit 3 would remove some habitat for many 

12 freshwater species, including that of the 11 important species or taxa described in Section 2.4.2. 

13 Although the combined impacts from construction and preconstruction on freshwater resources 

14 on the Calvert Cliffs site would be MODERATE, the geographic area of interest for this 

15 cumulative analysis is slightly broader including more of the St. Leonard Creek subwatershed. 

16 Beyond the site, there are other major headwater systems feeding into St. Leonard Creek; 

17 therefore, the direct impacts of the project would be detectable but would not be as likely to 

18 noticeably alter habitat for resident biota and the water quality, of St. Leonard Creek on the 

19 larger subwatershed scale. For this reason and because habitats for freshwater species on the 

20 site are not unique, and the species are broadly distributed, and the review team concludes that 

21 building and operating the proposed Unit 3 and maintaining associated transmission lines would 

22 not be expected to contribute significantly to the cumulative stresses on the freshwater fauna 

23 and habitats of the geographic area of interest. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

24 impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, including building and 

25 operating proposed Unit 3 and maintaining associated transmission lines, on freshwater aquatic 

26 resources in the geographic area of interest would be SMALL. 

27 The cumulative impacts of natural and anthropogenic stressors on the Chesapeake Bay 

28 ecosystem, as described briefly above, are well documented to have substantially degraded the 

29 system. Building and operating the proposed Unit 3 on the Calvert Cliffs site would have 

30 localized effects on the Bay. In particular, there would be permanent habitat conversion by the 

31 addition of armoring to the Chesapeake Bay bottom to protect various parts of the cooling water 

32 system. None of these localized impacts would add significantly to the primary factors that 

33 affect the Bay. The main impacts from the operation of Unit 3 would be from entrainment, which 

34 non-specifically removes some early life stages of key forage species from the Bay, and 

35 impingement and entrapment, which adversely affect some later life stages of important Bay 

36 species. One of the most heavily entrained species by the plants in the region, the bay 

37 anchovy, is an important forage fish, and the effects of reduced anchovy populations could 

38 affect other important species through food web interactions. However, the small water 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 withdrawal proposed for Unit 3 indicates that entrainment and impingement would be 

2 considerably less than that occurring from Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 and at other plants in the 

3 geographical area of interest. Overall, the Bay is large and the incremental contribution of 

4 building and operating proposed Unit 3 on aquatic resources in the geographic area of interest 

5 and would not adversely change conditions within the Bay. Therefore, the review team 

6 concludes that the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future 

7 activities, including building and operating proposed Unit 3, on the aquatic resources of the 

8 Chesapeake Bay would be MODERATE. However, the NRC staff concludes that the 

9 incremental contribution of the NRC-authorized activities related to the proposed Unit 3 would 

10 be less substantial and, therefore, SMALL. 

11 7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

12 The evaluation of cumulative impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice is described 

13 in the following section. 

14 7.4.1 Socioeconomics 

15 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5 serves as the baseline for the 

16 cumulative impact assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.4, the NRC staff 

17 concludes that any negative impacts of the NRC-authorized construction on socioeconomics 

18 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted with two exceptions. NRC19 authorized construction would result in LARGE and beneficial tax revenue impacts to Calvert 

20 County and SMALL beneficial economic and tax revenue impacts elsewhere in the region. 

21 NRC-authorized construction would result in MODERATE and adverse transportation impacts 

22 on MD Route 2/4 near the site. As described in Section 5.4, the review team concludes that the 

23 impacts of operations on socioeconomics, would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

24 warranted. 

25 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.4 and 

26 determined to be SMALL and adverse with two exceptions. The review team determined that 

27 traffic impacts in the vicinity of the site would be MODERATE and adverse and property tax 

28 revenues to Calvert County would be LARGE and beneficial. In addition to the impacts from 

29 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, 

30 present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that could impact socioeconomics. For this 

31 analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to be Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties 

32 because these counties are the principle areas where socioeconomics impacts would occur. 

33 However, the geographic area of interest was modified as appropriate for specific impact 

34 analyses; for example, taxation jurisdictions were used when appropriate. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-30 April 2010 

1 Both Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties have experienced steady population growth for the last 

2 three and half decades (1970-2005) (UniStar 2009a). The foundation of the counties’ economy 

3 was in tobacco farming and later fishing, but during the Second World War (WWII), Calvert 

4 County really started to evolve and progress to its current state. The Navy and Marines 

5 established a training site in Calvert County during WWII, which brought an influx of personnel 

6 and dollars to the county. Calvert County has since continued to grow with the construction of 

7 new roads, the Thomas Johnson Bridge and with suburbanization from Washington, D.C. 

8 (Calvert County 2009). The Patuxent River Naval Air Station built in the 1940s has had long 

9 lasting effects on the economy in St. Mary’s County and it continues to build defense industry 

10 jobs. 

11 The impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 are cumulative by nature. Economic impacts 

12 associated with ongoing activities listed in Table 7-1 have been considered as part of the 

13 socioeconomic baseline presented in Section 2.5, or in the analyses for Sections 4.4 and 5.4. 

14 For example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical 

15 utilities, etc., are part of the base used for establishing the Regional Input-Output Multiplier 

16 System (RIMS) II multipliers. Regional planning efforts and associated demographic projections 

17 formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

18 State and county plans along with modeled demographic projections like those used in Sections 

19 2.5, 4.4 and 5.4 include forecasts of future development and population increases. Thus, 

20 cumulative impacts associated with construction, preconstruction, and operation of proposed 

21 Unit 3 are evaluated in Chapters 4 and 5. 

22 Regarding reasonably foreseeable future projects that may not be a part of general growth in 

23 the region, the MAPP transmission line project is expected to be under construction during the 

24 building of Unit 3. However, unless the number of workers for this project is large and highly 

25 specialized, cumulative impacts to public services, education and housing would be minimal. 

26 Seventy percent of the new transmission lines are expected to follow existing right-of-ways and 

27 therefore, cumulative aesthetic impacts are expected to be minimal. Since transmission line 

28 construction is not at a centralized location but rather scattered over miles, cumulative 

29 transportation impacts would be minimal. However, if transmission line construction near the 

30 Calvert Cliffs site coincides with building Unit 3 then traffic impacts would be noticeable. 

31 Based on the above considerations, UniStar’s COL ER, and the review team's independent 

32 evaluation, the review team concludes that under some circumstances, building proposed Unit 3 

33 could make a temporary detectable adverse contribution to the cumulative effects associated 

34 with some socioeconomic issues. Those impacts would include: physical impacts (workers and 

35 the local public, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics), demography, local 

36 infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; housing; water and 

37 wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and schools). The 

38 cumulative effects on regional economies and tax revenues would be beneficial and SMALL 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 with the exception of Calvert County, which would see a LARGE and beneficial cumulative 

2 effect on taxes and a MODERATE and adverse cumulative effect on transportation on MD State 

3 Route 2/4 near the Calvert Cliffs Site. The incremental impact from NRC authorized activities 

4 would be LARGE and beneficial on taxes in Calvert County and MODERATE and adverse on 

5 transportation on MD State Route 2/4. The review team concludes that building Unit 3 in 

6 addition to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects would have SMALL and 

7 adverse cumulative impacts on all other socioeconomic impact categories. 

8 7.4.2 Environmental Justice 

9 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.6 serves as a baseline for the 

10 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.5, the NRC 

11 staff concludes that the NRC-authorized construction would impose no disproportionate and 

12 adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations and, therefore, the environmental justice 

13 impacts would be SMALL. As described in Section 5.5, the review team concludes that the 

14 impacts of operations on environmental justice would be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

15 would be warranted. 

16 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.5 and 

17 determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

18 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

19 foreseeable projects that could cause environmental justice impacts on minority and low-income 

20 populations. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to be 

21 the 50-mi region described in Section 2.5.1. 

22 From an environmental justice perspective, there is a potential for minority and low-income 

23 populations to be disproportionately affected by environmental impacts. The review team found 

24 low-income, Black, and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria 

25 established in Section 2.6.1 for environmental justice analyses in greater detail. However, most 

26 of these populations were on the outer edge of the 50-mi region radius. The nearest minority 

27 and low-income populations were in St. Mary’s County. The review team found no unique 

28 characteristics or practices in the analyses in Sections 2.6, 4.5, and 5.5 through which minority 

29 or low-income populations would be disproportionately and adversely affected 

30 The impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 are cumulative by nature. Environmental justice 

31 impacts associated with activities listed in Table 7-1 already have been considered as part of 

32 the environmental justice baseline presented in Sections 2.6 and 7.4.1. Based on the above 

33 considerations, information provided by UniStar, and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

34 the review team concludes that building and operating Unit 3 would not contribute additional 

35 environmental justice cumulative impacts beyond impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5. 

36 Those impacts areas would include: physical impacts (workers and the local public, noise, air 

37 quality, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics), and local infrastructures and community 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-32 April 2010 

1 services (transportation; recreation; housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and 

2 medical services; social services; and schools). 

3 The review team concludes there would be no disproportionate and adverse cumulative impacts 

4 to minority and low income populations from the above areas, and the environmental justice 

5 impacts would be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in Chapters 4 and 5 

6 would be warranted. 

7 7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources 

8 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.7 serves as a baseline for this 

9 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.6, the staff 

10 concluded that the impacts to cultural resources from NRC authorized construction would be 

11 SMALL. As described in Section 5.6, the review team concluded that the impacts to cultural 

12 resources from operations are SMALL. Mitigative actions may be warranted only in the event of 

13 an unanticipated discovery during any ground-disturbing activities associated with construction 

14 or maintenance of the operations facility; these actions would be determined by UniStar in 

15 consultation with the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). UniStar has agreed 

16 to follow procedures if historic or cultural resources are discovered. UniStar also committed to 

17 develop an “Unanticipated Discoveries Plan” for cultural resources during construction. This 

18 plan was developed in consultation with the Maryland SHPO and was incorporated into a 

19 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the treatment of National Register eligible historic 

20 properties adversely impacted by the proposed project that was signed on March 16, 2010 

21 (USACE 2010). The NRC staff does not believe that it is likely that unanticipated discoveries 

22 will be made during operation of the plant, however, the NRC staff expects that UniStar will 

23 follow an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan during operation similar to the plan used during 

24 construction, and will appropriately notify the Maryland SHPO of any discoveries during 

25 operation. 

26 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.6 and 

27 determined to be LARGE. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

28 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

29 projects that could impact historic and cultural resources. For this cumulative analysis, the 

30 geographic area of interest is considered to be the Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) defined in 

31 Section 2.7. The APEs were developed in consultation with the Maryland SHPO. 

32 The Section 106 process and coordination with the SHPO provides information on cultural 

33 resources and potential impacts to cultural resources with respect to other past, present and 

34 reasonably foreseeable future actions in Maryland. Historical activities affecting historic and 

35 cultural resources were discussed in Sections 2.7, 4.6, and 5.6 of this EIS. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Projects identified in Table 7-1 that may impact historic and cultural resources include operation 

2 of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, uprate at CCNPP Units 1 and 2, MD Route 2/4, the MAPP 

3 transmission line project, waterfront development, and future urbanization. Building and 

4 operating one additional unit at the Calvert Cliffs site, in addition to the other projects that could 

5 impact historic and cultural resources identified above, would likely add to cumulative cultural 

6 resource impacts in the APEs. Only Federal undertakings would require a Section 106 review. 

7 Cultural resources are non-renewable; therefore, the impacts to historic and cultural resources 

8 within the APEs are cumulative. Section 4.6 described how the proposed NRC and Corps 

9 actions would destroy three properties that are eligible for listing on the National Register of 

10 Historic Places within the associated APEs, which would result in an aggregated LARGE 

11 impact. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources from building and 

12 operating Unit 3 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are bounded by 

13 the potential impacts from building the proposed project. The review team concludes that the 

14 cumulative historical and cultural resources impacts would be LARGE. The incremental impact 

15 from NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL, and no mitigative actions would be warranted 

16 beyond those discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5.6. 

17 7.6 Air Quality 

18 The description of the affected environment in Chapter 2.9 serves as the baseline for the 

19 cumulative impact assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.7, the NRC staff 

20 concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction on air quality would be SMALL, but 

21 some mitigation may be warranted, depending on the outcome of a conformity applicability 

22 analysis being performed by NRC pursuant to the Clean Air Act Section 176 (42 U.S.C section 

23 7506) and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B. As described in Section 5.7, the review team concludes 

24 that the impacts on air quality from operations would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

25 be warranted. 

26 7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants 

27 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.7 and 

28 determined to be SMALL. In addition to impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

29 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

30 future actions that impact the same environmental resources. For this analysis, the geographic 

31 area of interest is considered to be the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

32 (AQCR) as defined in 40 CFR 81.156. Air quality attainment status for Calvert County as set 

33 forth in 40 CFR 81.321 reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant 

34 sources in the region. Calvert County is in attainment of all criteria pollutants, except for the 

35 8-hour ozone standard. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-34 April 2010 

1 Impact to air quality impact from site development would be local and temporary. The distance 

2 from building activities to the site boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid significant 

3 cumulative air quality impacts. The notable exception to this conclusion is in the area of impacts 

4 of the transportation of construction workers to and from the site. UniStar has proposed several 

5 mitigation measures to limit these impacts. 

6 Calvert Cliffs is located in a non-attainment area for ozone. Operation of the proposed Unit 3 

7 Cooling Water Supply System would be a large source of airborne particulate material, and 

8 Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 are classified as an existing major stationary source for air9 permitting purposes. In part because of these three factors, UniStar was required to conduct 

10 extensive modeling efforts and impact assessments beyond those normally done for nuclear 

11 power plants. These modeling efforts and impact assessments, which are described in some 

12 detail in the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (MDNR) Power Plant Research 

13 Program report (MDNR PPRP 2008), consider other emission sources, including air and major 

14 point sources. The conclusions of the PPRP set forth in Section 5.7 were that, with mitigation 

15 measures recommended by the PPRP, the cumulative air quality impacts of operation for the 

16 proposed Unit 3 would be minimal. On the basis of review of the PPRP analysis, the review 

17 team concludes that the cumulative air quality impacts of operation of the proposed Unit 3 would 

18 be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

19 Most of the effects on air quality from other projects in Table 7-1 would be to maintain the status 

20 quo. Any new industrial projects would either have de minimis impacts or would be subject to 

21 regulation by the Maryland DNR. Given these institutional controls, it is unlikely that the air 

22 quality in the region would degrade significantly (i.e., degrade to the extent that the region is in 

23 nonattainment of the national standard). 

24 7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

25 As discussed in the state of the science report issued by the U. S. Global Change Research 

26 Program (GCRP), it is the “... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global 

27 warming, and in turn, climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy. 

28 The vast majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, about 87 percent, come from energy 

29 production and use...” Approximately one third of the greenhouse gas emissions are the result 

30 of generating electricity and heat (GCRP 2009). This assessment is focused on greenhouse 

31 gas emissions. Other elements of climate change are discussed in the EIS sections on land 

32 use, hydrology, ecology, and nonradiological health. 

33 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with building, operating, and decommissioning a nuclear 

34 power plant are addressed in Sections 4.7, 5.7.2, 6.1.3, and 6.3. The review team has 

35 concluded that the atmospheric impacts of the emissions associated of each aspect of building, 

36 operating and decommissioning a single plant are minimal. The review team also concludes 

37 that the impacts of the combined emissions for the full plant life cycle are minimal. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-35 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 It is difficult to evaluate cumulative impacts of a single or combination of greenhouse gas 

2 sources because: 

3 • The impact is global rather than local or regional 

4 • The impact is not particularly sensitive to location of the release point 

5 • The magnitude of individual greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no matter 

6 how large compared to other sources, are small when compared to the total mass of 

7 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

8 • The total number and variety of greenhouse gas sources is extremely large and they are 

9 located everywhere. 

10 These points are illustrated by the following comparison of annual carbon dioxide emission rates 

11 (Table 7-2). 

12 Table 7-2. Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates 

Source 

Metric Tons per 

Year 

Global Emissions 28,000,000,000(a) 

United States 6,000,000,000(a) 

1000 MW Nuclear Power Plant (including fuel cycle, 90 percent capacity factor) 400,000(b)

1000 MW Nuclear Power Plant (operations only, 90 percent capacity factor) 5,000(b) 

Average U. S. Passenger Vehicle 5(c)

(a) EPA 2009 

(b) Appendix I of this EIS 

(c) FHWA 2006 

13 Evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of a global 

14 climate model. The GCRP report referenced above provides a synthesis of the results of 

15 numerous climate modeling studies. The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of 

16 greenhouse emissions around the world as presented in the report are the appropriate basis for 

17 its evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts set forth in the GCRP report, the 

18 review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas 

19 emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team further concludes that the 

20 cumulative impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the greenhouse 

21 gas emission of the proposed project. 

22 Consequently, the review team has determined a meaningful approach to address the 

23 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases emissions, including carbon dioxide, is to recognize 

24 that such emissions contribute to climate change and that the carbon footprint is a relevant 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-36 April 2010 

1 factor in evaluating energy alternatives. Section 9.2.5 contains a comparison of carbon 

2 footprints of the viable energy alternatives. 

3 7.6.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts 

4 Cumulative impacts to air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

5 UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

6 foreseeable activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants and 

7 global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The cumulative 

8 impacts on criteria pollutants from emissions of effluents from the Calvert Cliffs site and other 

9 projects would be minimal. The national and worldwide cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas 

10 emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

11 impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the greenhouse gas emissions 

12 from the Calvert Cliffs site. The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, 

13 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality resources in the geographic 

14 areas of interest would be SMALL to MODERATE. The incremental contribution of impacts on 

15 air quality resources from building and operating proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL. The 

16 incremental contribution of impacts on air quality resources from the NRC-authorized activities 

17 would also be SMALL. 

18 7.7 Nonradiological Health 

19 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.10 serves as a baseline for the 

20 cumulative analysis for nonradiological health. As described in Section 4.8, the impacts from 

21 NRC-authorized construction on nonradiological health would be SMALL, and no further 

22 mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.8, the review team concludes that the 

23 impacts of operations on nonradiological health would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

24 would be warranted. 

25 As described in Section 4.8, the combined nonradiological health impacts from construction and 

26 preconstruction would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted other than what 

27 is described in UniStar’s ER. In addition to impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

28 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

29 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts to nonradiological health 

30 (see Table 7-1). Based on the localized nature of nonradiological health impacts, the 

31 geographic area of interest for this cumulative impacts analysis includes projects within the 5-mi 

32 radius of the Calvert Cliffs site. This area is expected to encompass areas where public and 

33 worker health could be influenced by the proposed project, in combination with any past, 

34 present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Other than the continued operation of 

35 CCNPP Units 1 and 2, the operation of the Cove Point LNG Facility, and the Cove Point Pier 

36 Reinforcement Project, there are no major current projects in the geographic area of interest 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-37 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 that would contribute to the cumulative impacts for nonradiological health. Future projects that 

2 would be expected to occur within the geographic area of interest include improvements to MD 

3 Route 2/4, transmission-line development, and urbanization. 

4 There are no existing or future projects that could contribute to cumulative occupational injuries 

5 for workers at proposed Unit 3. Existing and potential development of new transmission lines 

6 would increase nonradiological health impacts from exposure to acute electric magnetic fields 

7 (EMFs); however, as stated in Section 5.8.3, adherence to Federal criteria and State utility 

8 codes would create minimal cumulative nonradiological health impacts. With regard to chronic 

9 effects of EMFs, the scientific evidence on human health does not conclusively link extremely 

10 low frequency EMFs to adverse health impacts. Noise and vehicle emissions associated with 

11 current urbanization, current operations of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, the Cove Point LNG Facility, 

12 the Cove Point Pier Reinforcement Project, and improvements to MD 2/4 could contribute to 

13 public nonradiological health impacts. However, as discussed in Sections 4.8 and 5.8, the 

14 proposed Unit 3 contribution to these impacts would be temporary and minimal, and existing 

15 facilities would likely comply with local, State, and Federal regulations governing noise and 

16 emissions. Section 7.9.2 discusses cumulative nonradiological health impacts related to 

17 additional traffic on the regional and local highway networks leading to and from the Calvert 

18 Cliffs site, and these impacts would be minimal. 

19 The health impacts of operating the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 and proposed new Unit 3 at 

20 the Calvert Cliffs site were evaluated relative to the Chesapeake Bay and the potential 

21 propagation of thermophilic or other etiological microorganisms. As discussed in Section 5.8, 

22 the operation of the Unit 3 would not have a detrimental impact from the thermal discharges on 

23 concentration levels of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms. Limited recreational activity 

24 occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed discharge structure for Unit 3 to have any 

25 bearing on potential nonradiological health impacts. 

26 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

27 a recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (GCRP 2009) has been 

28 considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region during 

29 the life of proposed Unit 3 include an increase in average temperature, and less winter 

30 precipitation falling as snow and more as rain. This may result in an increase in water 

31 temperature and frequency of downpours, which may alter the presence of microorganisms and 

32 parasites. While the changes that are attributed to climate change in these studies are not 

33 insignificant, the review team did not identify anything that would alter its conclusion regarding 

34 the presence of etiological agents or change in the incidence of water-borne diseases. 

35 Cumulative impacts to nonradiological health are based on information provided by UniStar and 

36 the review team’s independent evaluation of impacts resulting from the proposed Unit 3, along 

37 with a review of potential impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

38 and urbanization located in the geographic areas of interest. The review team concludes that 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-38 April 2010 

1 cumulative impacts on public and worker nonradiological health would be SMALL, and that 

2 mitigation beyond what is discussed in Sections 4.8 and 5.8 would not be warranted. The 

3 review team does acknowledge that there is no conclusive link between chronic EMF exposure 

4 and human health impacts. 

5 7.8 Radiological Health Impacts of Normal Operation 

6 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.11 serves as the baseline for the 

7 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.9, the NRC 

8 staff concludes that the radiological impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be 

9 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.9, the NRC 

10 staff concludes that the radiological impacts from operations would be SMALL, and no further 

11 mitigation would be warranted. 

12 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.9 and 

13 determined to be SMALL. In addition to impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

14 operations, this cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

15 future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. For this analysis, the 

16 geographic area of interest is considered to be the area within a 50-mi radius of the proposed 

17 Unit 3. Historically, the NRC has used the 50-mi radius as a standard bounding geographical 

18 area to evaluate population doses from routine releases from nuclear power plants. Within the 

19 50-mi radius, there are the existing Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, as well as hospitals using and 

20 industrial facilities that could use radioactive materials. Currently, there are no other nuclear 

21 facilities planned within 50 mi of the proposed Unit 3. 

22 As stated in Section 2.11, UniStar has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring 

23 program around the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 since 1974. The Radiological Environmental 

24 Monitoring Program (REMP) measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, 

25 including existing Units 1 and 2, area hospitals, and industrial facilities. Based on the results of 

26 the REMP, the levels of radiation and radioactive material in the environment around CCNPP 

27 Units 1 and 2 generally show little or no increase above natural background. In 2004 and 2005, 

28 concentrations of tritium, up to twice the minimum detectable level, were found in a few onsite 

29 groundwater well samples. No groundwater sample concentrations above the minimum 

30 detectable level have been reported in subsequent years. 

31 As described in Section 4.9, the estimate of dose to construction workers during the building of 

32 the proposed Unit 3 are well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem) designed to 

33 protect the public health. This estimate includes exposure from Units 1 and 2, including the 

34 power uprate of 1.38 percent. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses 

35 predicted from the proposed operation of the new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site are well below 

36 regulatory limits and standards. In addition, the site-boundary dose to the maximally exposed 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-39 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 individual (MEI) from the existing Units 1 and 2 (including a power uprate of 1.38 percent) and 

2 the proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be well within the regulatory standard of 

3 40 CFR Part 190. 

4 Based on results of the REMP, any potential increased impact from the 1.38 percent power 

5 uprate, and the estimates of doses to biota given in Chapter 5.9, the NRC staff concludes that 

6 the cumulative radiological impact on biota would not be significant. The results of the REMP 

7 indicate that effluents and direct radiation from area hospitals and industrial facilities that use 

8 radioactive materials do not contribute measurably to the cumulative dose. 

9 Currently, there are no other nuclear facilities planned within 50 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site. The 

10 NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the State of Maryland would regulate or 

11 control any reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region that could contribute to 

12 cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative 

13 radiological impacts of operation of the proposed Unit 3 and existing Units 1 and 2 would be 

14 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

15 7.9 Postulated Accidents 

16 As described in Section 5.11.4, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental 

17 impacts (risk) from a postulated accident from the operation of proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 

18 would be SMALL. Section 5.11 considers both design basis accidents and severe accidents. 

19 The COL application references a steam electric system of the U.S. EPR design. As described 

20 in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences of design 

21 basis accidents (DBAs) at the Calvert Cliffs site would be SMALL for an U.S. EPR reactor. 

22 DBAs are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet 

23 NRC safety criteria. The consequences of DBAs are bounded by the consequences of severe 

24 accidents. 

25 As described in Section 5.11.2, the NRC staff concludes that the severe-accident probability26 weighted consequences (i.e., risks) of an U.S. EPR reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site are SMALL 

27 compared to risks to which the population is generally exposed, and no further mitigation would 

28 be warranted. The cumulative analysis considers risk from potential severe accidents at all 

29 other existing and proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase risks at any 

30 location within 50 mi of the proposed Unit 3. Existing reactors within the geographic area of 

31 interest include the Calvert Cliffs (Units 1 and 2), North Anna (Units 1 and 2), Salem (Units 1 

32 and 2), Hope Creek (Unit 1), Surry (Units 1 and 2), and Peach Bottom (Unit 3). Also, within the 

33 geographic area of interest, new reactors have been proposed at the North Anna Site. In 

34 addition, interest has been expressed in an early site permit for new reactors in southern New 

35 Jersey. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-40 April 2010 

1 Tables 5-16 and 5-17 in Section 5.11.2 provide comparisons of estimated risk for the proposed 

2 Unit 3 U.S. EPR reactor and current-generation reactors. The estimated population dose risk 

3 for the Unit 3 U.S. EPR reactor is well below the median value for current-generation reactors. 

4 In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are well 

5 below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing plants within the geographic 

6 area of interest, namely Calvert Cliffs (Units 1 and 2), North Anna (Units 1 and 2), Salem (Units 

7 1 and 2), Hope Creek (Unit 1), Surry (Units 1 and 2), and Peach Bottom (Unit 3) nuclear 

8 generating stations, the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted 

9 consequences of severe accidents are small (10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, 

10 review of the North Anna Power Station Unit 3 EIS (NRC 2010) shows that risks for the 

11 proposed unit at the North Anna site would also be well below risks for current-generation 

12 reactors and meet the Commission’s safety goals. It is expected that risks for any new reactors 

13 at the southern New Jersey site would be well below risks for current-generation reactors and 

14 meet the Commission’s safety goals. The severe accident risk due to any particular nuclear 

15 power plant gets smaller as the distance from that plant increases. However, the combined risk 

16 at any location within 50 mi of the VCSNS site would be bounded by the sum of risks for all 

17 these operating and proposed nuclear power plants. Even though there would be potentially 

18 several plants included in the combination, this combined risk would still be low. On this basis, 

19 the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks of severe accidents at any location within 

20 50 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site likely would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

21 warranted. 

22 7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

23 The cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials (fuel and 

24 waste), and facility decommissioning for the proposed site are described below. 

25 7.10.1 Fuel Cycle 

26 As described in Section 6.1, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of the fuel cycle due to 

27 operation of proposed Unit 3 would be SMALL. Fuel-cycle impacts would occur not only at the 

28 site of proposed Unit 3 but would also be scattered through other locations in the United States 

29 or, in the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in other countries as described in Section 6.1. 

30 In addition to fuel-cycle impacts from proposed Unit 3, this cumulative analysis also considers 

31 fuel-cycle impacts from existing Units 1 and 2. There are no other nuclear power plants within 

32 50 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site. The fuel-cycle impact of Units 1 and 2 would be similar to that of 

33 proposed Unit 3. Per 10 CFR 51.51(a), the NRC staff concludes the impacts would be 

34 acceptable for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. The impacts of producing and disposing of 

35 nuclear fuel include mining the uranium ore, milling of the ore, conversion of the uranium oxide 

36 to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride, fuel fabrication (where the 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-41 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 uranium hexafluoride is converted into uranium oxide fuel pellets), and disposition of the spent 

2 fuel in a proposed Federal waste repository. As discussed in Section 6.1, advances in reactors 

3 since the development of Table S–3 will have the effect of reducing environmental impacts 

4 relative to the operating reference reactor. For example, a number of fuel management 

5 improvements have been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and 

6 to reduce fuel and separative work (enrichment) requirements. In Section 6.1 of this EIS, the 

7 NRC staff multiplied the values in Table S-3 by a factor of two, to scale the impacts up from the 

8 1000-MW(e) LWR model to address the fuel cycle impacts of proposed Unit 3. Adding the fuel 

9 cycle impacts from Units 1 and 2 would increase the scaling to no more than a factor of four. 

10 Therefore, the staff considers the cumulative fuel-cycle impacts of operating the Calvert Cliffs 

11 site to be SMALL. 

12 7.10.2 Transportation 

13 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5.2 serves as a baseline for the 

14 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Sections 4.8.3 and 5.8.6, 

15 the review team concludes that impacts of transporting personnel and nonradiological materials 

16 to and from the Calvert Cliffs site would be SMALL. In addition to impacts from construction, 

17 preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and 

18 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. 

19 For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the Calvert 

20 Cliffs site. 

21 Non-radiological transportation impacts are directly related to the additional traffic on the 

22 regional and local highway networks leading to and from the Calvert Cliffs site. Additional traffic 

23 would result from shipments of construction materials and movements of construction personnel 

24 to and from the site. Mitigation measures designed to improve traffic flow have been proposed 

25 by UniStar (2009a). However, the additional traffic increases the risk of traffic accidents, 

26 injuries, and fatalities. A review of the projects listed in Table 7-1 indicate that other projects in 

27 the region could potentially increase non-radiological impacts if traffic to and from the Calvert 

28 Cliffs site interact with traffic traveling to and from operating facilities in the region. Cumulative 

29 nonradiological impacts could result from major construction projects, such as the Dominion 

30 Cove Point Pier Reinforcement Project, the MAPP transmission line project, and the MD 2/4 

31 Solomons Island Road project. However, it is unlikely that the construction schedules for all of 

32 these projects would overlap resulting in a significant cumulative impact. 

33 Transportation of construction materials and personnel to and from these new facilities would 

34 tend to increase the cumulative impacts in the regions surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site and 

35 alternative sites. Table 7-1 also lists a number of highway improvement projects. These 

36 projects would tend to enhance traffic flow, and thus reduce the risks of traffic accidents, 

37 injuries, and fatalities in the regions surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-42 April 2010 

1 Finally, a number of recreation projects such as park improvements in the area are generally of 

2 much smaller scope and have much lower resource and personnel requirements than 

3 constructing a new nuclear power plant, LNG facility, or highway, and are therefore less likely to 

4 result in a measurable cumulative impact. In this EIS, it was shown that the impacts of 

5 transporting construction material and personnel to and from the CCNPP site and alternative 

6 sites is a small fraction of the existing non-radiological accidents injuries, and fatalities in the 

7 counties in which the alternative sites are located. Based on this conclusion and magnitude of 

8 building a nuclear power plant relative to the other industrial construction activities listed above, 

9 the review team considers the cumulative non-radiological transportation impacts of 

10 constructing and operating proposed Unit 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would 

11 be warranted. 

12 As described in Section 6.2, the NRC staff concludes that impacts of transporting unirradiated 

13 fuel to the Calvert Cliffs site and irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from the Calvert Cliffs site 

14 would be SMALL. In addition to impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the 

15 cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

16 actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. For this analysis, the 

17 geographic area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site. 

18 Historically, the radiological impacts to the public and environment associated with 

19 transportation of radioactive materials in the 50-mi region surrounding the Calvert Cliffs site are 

20 dominated by shipments of fuel and waste to and from the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. 

21 Additional cumulative impacts to the Calvert Cliffs site would result from the additional fuel and 

22 waste shipments from the operation of the new unit and from the power uprate at CCNPP Units 

23 1 and 2. Radiological impacts of transporting radioactive materials would occur along the routes 

24 leading to and from the Calvert Cliffs site and would also be scattered throughout the United 

25 States. Radiological transportation impacts have been shown to be a small fraction of the 

26 impacts from natural background radiation. The impacts of transporting this fuel and radioactive 

27 waste to and from the Calvert Cliffs site would be consistent with the environmental impacts 

28 associated with transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors 

29 presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. Based on 10 CFR 51.52, the NRC staff concludes the 

30 impacts to be acceptable for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. Advances in reactors since the 

31 development of Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52 will have the effect of reducing environmental 

32 impacts relative to the operating reference reactor. For example, fuel management 

33 improvements have been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and 

34 to reduce fuel requirements. This leads to fewer unirradiated and spent fuel shipments than 

35 estimated for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor in 10 CFR 51.52. In addition, advances in 

36 shipping cask designs to increase their capacities will result in fewer shipments of spent fuel to 

37 offsite storage or disposal facilities. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-43 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the cumulative non-radiological and radiological 

2 transportation impacts of operating the proposed new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site would be 

3 SMALL. 

4 7.10.3 Decommissioning 

5 As discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIS, NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of 

6 decommissioning proposed Unit 3 are expected to be SMALL because the licensee would have 

7 to comply with decommissioning regulatory requirements. 

8 In this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is within a 50-mi radius of the Calvert 

9 Cliffs site. In addition to Unit 3, the only other nuclear power plants within this area are the 

10 existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. The impacts of decommissioning nuclear power plants are 

11 bounded by the assessment in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact 

12 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. In that document, the NRC found the 

13 impacts on radiation dose to workers and the public, waste management, water quality, air 

14 quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomics to be small (NRC 2002). In addition, in 

15 Section 6.3 the review team concluded that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on air 

16 quality during decommissioning would be small. Therefore, the cumulative impacts from 

17 decommissioning would be SMALL. 

18 7.11 Conclusions 

19 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction, 

20 preconstruction, and operation of one additional nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site together 

21 with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The specific resources that could 

22 be affected by the effects of the proposed action and other past, present, and reasonably 

23 foreseeable actions, in the same geographical area, were assessed. This assessment included 

24 the impacts of construction and operations for the proposed new unit as described in Chapters 4 

25 and 5; impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; impacts of fuel cycle, 

26 transportation, and decommissioning impacts described in Chapter 6; and impacts of past, 

27 present and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could affect 

28 the same resources affected by the proposed action, as described in Table 7-1. 

29 Table 7-3 summarizes the cumulative impacts by resource area. The cumulative impacts for 

30 the majority of resource areas would be SMALL, although there could be MODERATE or 

31 LARGE impacts for some resources, as discussed below. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-44 April 2010 

1 Table 7-3. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

2 Proposed Unit 3 

Resource Category Impact level 

Land-Use SMALL 

Water-Related 

 Surface-Water Use SMALL 

 Groundwater Use MODERATE 

 Surface-Water Quality SMALL 

 Groundwater Quality SMALL 

Ecology 

 Terrestrial Ecosystems and Wetlands MODERATE 

 Aquatic Ecosystems MODERATE 

Socioeconomic 

 Physical Impacts SMALL 

 Demography SMALL 

 Taxes and Economy SMALL to LARGE Beneficial 

 Housing and Transportation SMALL to MODERATE 

 Public Services and Education SMALL 

 Aesthetics and Recreation SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL 

Historic and Cultural Resources LARGE 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE 

Nonradiological Health SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL 

Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning SMALL 

3 The review team concludes that the cumulative groundwater use impacts would be 

4 MODERATE, primarily from the declining trend in groundwater availability due to regional use 

5 (i.e., declining potentiometric surfaces). The incremental impacts from NRC-authorized 

6 activities would be SMALL, and once the proposed desalination plant comes on line and 

7 CCNPP groundwater use is terminated, the addition of Unit 3 would be beneficial for this 

8 resource. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-45 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Cumulative terrestrial ecology impacts would be MODERATE, primarily from the proposed 

2 project and from the past, current, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would result in 

3 forest clearing, habitat fragmentation, and wetland loss. These actions have noticeably altered 

4 ecological functions and values and have affected county flora and fauna, including Federally 

5 and State-listed species, but have not destabilized terrestrial resources or populations. The 

6 incremental contribution from NRC-authorized activities would be less substantial and, 

7 therefore, SMALL. 

8 The cumulative aquatic impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE, primarily because of the 

9 natural and anthropogenic stressors on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem that have degraded the 

10 system. Overall, the Bay is large in size and the incremental contribution of NRC-authorized 

11 activities associated with proposed Unit 3 on aquatic resources would be SMALL and would not 

12 adversely change conditions noticeably within the geographic area of interest in the Bay. 

13 For socioeconomics, most categories would have SMALL impacts. However, there would be a 

14 LARGE and beneficial cumulative impact associated with tax revenues in Calvert County. The 

15 incremental impact from NRC authorized activities would be LARGE and beneficial. The review 

16 team also identified a MODERATE and temporary impact on transportation due to increased 

17 traffic on MD State Route 2/4 near the Calvert Cliffs site. The incremental impact from NRC 

18 authorized activities would be MODERATE near the Calvert Cliffs site. Cumulative impacts to 

19 other socioeconomic impact categories would be SMALL. 

20 The cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be LARGE because three properties that 

21 are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted during 

22 building activities. The incremental contribution from NRC-authorized activities would be 

23 SMALL. 

24 For air quality, the cumulative impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE primarily due to 

25 national and world-wide impacts of greenhouse gases emissions. The incremental impacts 

26 from NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL because such impacts would be minimal. 

27 7.12 References 

28 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

29 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

30 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

31 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

32 40 CFR 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 31, 

33 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-46 April 2010 

1 40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93, 

2 “Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.” 

3 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

4 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

5 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

6 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

7 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants; 

8 Policy Statement; Republication.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 

9 71 FR 26491. May 5, 2006. “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District; Dominion Cove 

10 Point LNG, LP; Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental 

11 Impact Statement for the Cove Point Expansion Project.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of 

12 Energy. 

13 72 FR 37346. July 9, 2007. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the 

14 Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.” 

15 Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

16 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Public Law 111-5. 

17 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). 1970. Environmental Report: Calvert Cliffs 

18 Nuclear Power Plant. Baltimore, Maryland. 

19 Calvert County. 2009. Welcome to Calvert County. Accessed on January 5, 2010 at 

20 http://www.co.cal.md.us/visitors/profile/history. 

21 Calvert County Board of County Commissioners (CCBCC). 2006. Calvert County Land 

22 Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan. Accessed June 19, 2008 at 

23 http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/Planning_Zoning/PDF_Files/AdoptedOpenSpacePlan.pdf. 

24 Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (CCCP). 2004. 2004 Comprehensive Plan; Calvert 

25 County, Maryland. Available at 

26 http://www.co.cal.md.us/government/departments/planning/comprehensiveplan/. 

27 Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2007. Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health & Restoration 

28 Assessment Part One: Ecosystem Health. Accessed May 29, 2007 at 

29 http://www.chesapeakebay.net. 

30 Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2009. Chesapeake Bay Program: Water Quality – Maps. 

31 Accessed September 1, 2009 at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.aspx?menuitem=15165. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-47 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

2 Constellation Energy. 2009. Power Generation – H.A. Wagner Power Plant. Accessed at 

3 http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.75e42773621571908d84ff10025

4 166a0. 

5 Dominion. 2009. Dominion Cove Point LNG. Accessed December 16, 2009 at 

6 http://www.dom.com/business/gas-transmission/cove-point/index.jsp. 

7 Doney, S.C., V.J. Fabry, R.A. Feely, and J.A. Kleypas. 2009. “Ocean Acidification: The Other 

8 CO2 Problem.” Annual Review of Marine Science 1:169–192. 

9 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA Engineering). 2008. Entrainment 

10 Characterization Data Report for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Prepared for Constellation 

11 Energy. Accession No. ML083110678. 

12 Entrix. 2009. Environmental Review Document Chalk Point to Calvert Cliffs. Prepared for 

13 Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) Washington, DC by Entrix, Inc., New Castle, 

14 Delaware. 

15 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2006. Cove Point Expansion Project Final 

16 EIS. Docket Nos. CP05-130-000, CP05-132-000. Accessed December 12, 2008 at 

17 http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/enviro/eis/2006/04-28-06-eis-cove.asp. Accession No. 

18 ML093220672. 

19 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009a. Application for Pipeline Certificate of 

20 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP in CP09-60. Docket numbers CP09-60-000, CP09-60-001. 

21 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009b. Request for Rehearing of 

22 Washington Gas Light Company under CP09-60, et al. Docket numbers CP09-60-002. 

23 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Statistics 2005 (Table VM-1). Office 

24 of Highway Policy Information. Washington, D.C. 

25 Gibson, J.R. and R.G. Najjar 2000. “The Response of Chesapeake Bay Salinity to Climate26 induced Changes in Streamflow.” Limnology and Oceanography 45:1764–1772. 

27 Jasinski, P and P. Claggett. 2009. Responding to Climate Change in the Chesapeake Bay 

28 Watershed: A draft report fulfilling Section 202(d) of Executive Order 13508. 

29 Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, 

30 T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, 

31 R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. “Eutrophication of 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-48 April 2010 

1 Chesapeake Bay: Historical Trends and Ecological Interactions.” Marine Ecology Progress 

2 Series 303:1-29. 

3 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2004a. The Maryland Forest 

4 Conservation Act: A Ten-Year Review. Accessed November 16, 2008 at 

5 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/download/FCA_10_year_review.pdf. 

6 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2004b. Lower Patuxent River In Calvert 

7 County Watershed Characterization December 2003. Accessed February 6, 2008 at 

8 http://dnr.maryland.gov/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html. Accession No. ML093210684. 

9 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010. Calvert Cliffs State Park. 

10 Accessed January 29, 2010 at 

11 http://www.dnr/state/md/us/publiclands/southern/calvertcliffs.html. 

12 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Public Power Research Program (MDNR 

13 PPRP). 2008. Maryland Power Plants and the Environment. A Review of the Impacts of 

14 Power Plants and Transmission Lines on Maryland’s Natural Resources. Maryland Cumulative 

Environmental Impact Report — 14th 15 Edition. MDNR Publication No. 12-1142008-271, PPRP16 CEIR-14. 

17 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009. In the Matter of the Application of UniStar 

18 Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of Public 

19 Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in Calvert 

20 County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Proposed Order of Hearing Examiner, April 28, 2009. 

21 Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA). 2009. Calvert County – Pre-Construction - 

22 Construction. Accessed February 19, 2010 at 

23 http://www.sha.state.md.us/WebProjectLifeCycle/countyProjects.asp?county=4. 

24 McBride, M. 2006. Managed Fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay. In Chesapeake Bay Fisheries 

25 Ecosystem Advisory Panel (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay 

26 Office), pages 13-79. Fisheries ecosystem planning for Chesapeake Bay. American Fisheries 

27 Society, Trends in Fisheries Management 3, Bethesda, Maryland. 

28 McLean, R., W.A. Rickhus, S.P. Schreiner, and D. Fluke. 2002. Maryland Power Plant Cooling 

29 Water intake Regulations and Their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental Impact. 

30 PPRP-127, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

31 Mirant. 2009. Chalk Point Generating Plant. Accessed December 16, 2009 at 

32 http://www.mirant.com/our_business/where_we_work/chalkpoint.htm. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-49 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Mitrovica, J.X., N. Gomez, and P.U. Clark. 2009. “The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West 

2 AntarcticCollapse.” Science 323:753. 

3 Najjar, R., L. Patterson, and S. Graham. 2009. “Climate simulations of major estuarine 

4 watersheds in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US.” Climatic Change 95:139-168. 

5 National Park Service (NPS). 2010a. Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Accessed 

6 on January 29, 2010, at http://www.nps.gov/stsp/index.htm. Accession No. ML100750370. 

7 National Park Service (NPS). 2010b. Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. 

8 Accessed on January 29, 2010 at http://www.nps.gov/cajo/index.htm. Accession No. 

9 ML100750366. 

10 Olson, M.M. 1987. “Entrainment Studies, Zooplankton Entrainment.” Chapter 7 in Ecological 

11 Studies in the Middle Reach of Chesapeake Bay, Calvert Cliffs. K. L. Heck Jr., ed. Springer12 Verlag, New York. 

13 Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI). 2009a. “Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Locating Map.” Accessed 

14 December 2, 2009 at http://www.powerpathway.com/mapping.html. 

15 Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI). 2009b. Pepco Holdings, Inc. & Maryland Broadband Cooperative 

16 Plan Single Chesapeake Bay Utility Crossing. News Release March 24, 2009. 

17 Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI). 2009c. Project Schedule. Accessed November 4, 2009 at 

18 http://www.powerpathway.com/schedule.html. 

19 Phillips, S.W. 2007. “Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of Findings.” In Synthesis of U.S. 

20 Geological Survey Science for the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem and Implications for 

21 Environmental Management. S.W. Phillips, ed. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1316, USGS, 

22 Reston, Virginia. 

23 Ringger, T.G. 2000. “Investigations of Impingement of Aquatic Organisms at the Calvert Cliffs 

24 Nuclear Power Plant, 1975-1995.” Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000) S261-S273. 

25 Schreiner, S.P., T.A. Krebs, D.E. Strebel, A. Brindley, and C.G. McCall. 1999. Validation of the 

26 CORMIX Model Using Thermal Plume Data from Four Maryland Power Plants. Report 

27 prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program. 

28 PPRP-114. Report prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, Maryland. 

29 Sellner, K.G. and M.E. Kachur. 1987. “Entrainment Studies, Phytoplankton Entrainment.” 

30 Chapter 7 in Ecological Studies in the Middle Reach of Chesapeake Bay, Calvert Cliffs. K. L. 

31 Heck Jr., ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1936 7-50 April 2010 

1 Soeder, D.J., J.P. Raffensperger, and M.R. Nardi. 2007. Effects of Withdrawals on Ground2 water Levels in Southern Maryland and the Adjacent Eastern Shore, 1980–2005. U.S. 

3 Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5249. Available at 

4 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5249/. 

5 St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners (SMCBCC). 2003. Quality of Life in St 

6 Mary’s County – A Strategy for the 21st Century. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

7 http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/planzone/docs/CompPlanamendedMarch03.pdf. 

8 Teng, H. L.E. Buja, and G.A. Meehl. 2006. “Twenty-first-century Climate Change Commitment 

9 from a Multi-model Ensemble.” Geophysical Research Letters 33: L07706, 

10 doi:10.1029/2005GL024766. 

11 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

12 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6, Baltimore, Maryland. 

13 Accession No. ML092880921. 

14 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009b. Application for Wildlife Permit/License 

15 Renewal Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, December 2009. Enclosure to Letter from G. 

16 Gibson (UniStar) to Maryland DNR, dated December 8, 2009. “Subject: Renewal/Extension of 

17 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Endangered Species 

18 Permit Number 45135." Accession No. ML093520693. 

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from K.B. Anderson (USACE) to R.J. 

20 Nelson (Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), 

21 Review of US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer 

22 regarding Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Plant (CENAB-OP-RMS) effect on historic properties and 

23 Memorandum of Agreement. March 16, 2010. Accession No. ML100810272. 

24 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Environmental Statement Related to Operation 

25 of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 

26 Dockets Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, (April 1973). Washington, D.C. 

27 U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCG and USACE). 2009. Cove Point 

28 Pier Reinforcement Project Environmental Assessment. Federal Energy Regulatory 

29 Commission, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP Docket No. CP09-60-000. 

30 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 2010. CNIC--Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Accessed 

31 January 29, 2010 at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/Patuxent/AboutCNIC/index.htm. 

32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

33 1990-2005 (Table 3-7). Washington, D.C. 
 Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-51 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Puritan Tiger Beetle (Cicindela puritana G. Horn), 

2 Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts. 

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cincindela 

4 dorsalis dorsalis Say), Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 

5 Accession No. ML071970332. 

6 U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

7 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press, 

8 New York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts9 report.pdf. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

11 and 2 – Renewal of Operating License. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc12 collections/commission/secys/2000/secy2000-0010/2000-0010scy.html. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

14 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

15 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C. 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Calvert Cliffs, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

17 Amendment Regarding Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate. Accession No. 

18 ML091820366. 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Supplemental Environmental Impact 

20 Statement for the Combined License (COL) for North Anna Power Station Unit 3 – Final Report. 

21 NUREG-1917. Washington D.C. 

22 Wood, R.J., D.F. Boesch, and V.S. Kennedy. 2002. “Future Consequences of Climate Change 

23 for the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem and its Fisheries.” American Fisheries Society Symposium

24 32:171-184. 

25 Wu, S-Y., R. Najjar, and J. Siewert. 2009. “Potential Impacts of Sea-level Rise on the Mid- and 

26 Upper-Atlantic Region of the United States.” Climatic Change 95:121–138. 

April 2010 8-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 8.0 Need for Power 

2 The purpose and need for the proposed NRC action, as stated in Section 1.3.1 of this 

3 environmental impact statement (EIS), is to provide for additional large baseload electrical 

4 generating capacity within the State of Maryland. As stated in Section 3.2.1 of this EIS, 

5 proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would provide a net output of 1562 MW(e). UniStar 

6 (the applicant) projects that Unit 3 would begin commercial operation in December 2015 

7 (UniStar 2009). 

8 The Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) analyzed the need for power from a new 

9 baseload generating unit in a 2007 report (MPSC 2007) and in its 2009 Order granting a 

10 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to UniStar for proposed Unit 3 

11 (MPSC 2009a). The NRC staff relied on the MPSC’s determinations to reach its conclusion that 

12 there is a need for power from proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site by December 2015. The 

13 MPSC determined in its 2007 report and in its CPCN decision that there is a need for at least 

14 that amount of baseload power in Maryland. Because the demand for baseload power is at 

15 least as much as the supply from the proposed new unit, the NRC staff concluded there is a 

16 need for the power. The staff concluded in Section 9.2.3 of this EIS that renewable energy 

17 alternatives, such as wind and solar, would not be a reasonable alternative to a new nuclear 

18 generating unit operated as a baseload power plant. 

19 Chapter 8 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) NUREG-1555, Environmental 

20 Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000), guided the staff’s review and analysis of the need 

21 for power from the proposed nuclear power plant. The staff was also guided by the 

22 Commission’s 2003 denial of a petition that NRC amend its regulations to remove requirements 

23 that applicants analyze the need for power from a proposed new nuclear power plant (68 FR 

24 55905). In its reasons for denial of that petition, the Commission stated that: 

25 1. NRC does not supplant the States, which have traditionally been responsible for assessing 

26 the need for power generating facilities, their economic feasibility and for regulating rates 

27 and services. As the petitioner noted, the NRC has acknowledged the primacy of State 

28 regulatory decisions regarding future energy options (68 FR 55905). 

29 2. The need for power must be addressed in connection with new power plant construction so 

30 that the NRC may weigh the likely benefits (e.g., electrical power) against the environmental 

31 impacts of constructing and operating a nuclear power reactor. The Commission 

32 emphasizes, however, that such an assessment should not involve burdensome attempts to 

33 precisely identify future conditions. Rather, it should be sufficient to reasonably characterize 

34 the costs and benefits associated with proposed licensing actions (68 FR 55905). 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1936 8-2 April 2010 

1 In June 2009, the MPSC granted UniStar a CPCN for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site (MPSC 

2 2009a). In affirming the Hearing Examiner’s Order, the MPSC concluded that Unit 3 would have 

3 a beneficial effect on the stability and reliability of the electrical system in Maryland (MPSC 

4 2009b). 

5 The following sections discuss the need for new baseload generating capacity in Maryland. 

6 Section 8.1 describes the power system in Maryland and the surrounding region. Section 8.2 

7 discusses power demand. Section 8.3 discusses power supply. Section 8.4 provides the staff’s 

8 assessment of the need for new baseload generating capacity in Maryland. Section 8.5 

9 contains the staff’s conclusions. Section 8.6 includes the references cited in this chapter. 

10 8.1 Description of Power System 

11 Thirteen electric utilities serve Maryland customers. Four of the largest are investor-owned 

12 utilities (Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Delmarva Power & Light Co., Allegheny Power Co., and 

13 Potomac Electric Power Co.), four are electric cooperatives (two of which serve only small 

14 areas), and five are municipal utilities (MPSC 2009c). 

15 Maryland is in a regional electric grid operated by PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). PJM is the 

16 largest power grid in North America and also operates the world’s largest competitive wholesale 

17 electricity market (MPSC 2009c). PJM coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all 

18 or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North 

19 Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia 

20 (PJM 2009). PJM operates but does not own the transmission systems in its territory (MPSC 

21 2009c). Regional transmission organizations were created as a result of Order No. 2000 issued 

22 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In the Order, FERC encouraged the 

23 voluntary formation of such organizations to administer the transmission grid on a regional basis 

24 throughout North America (FERC 2009). 

25 Maryland is also part of the geographic territory of the Reliability First Corporation (RFC). RFC 

26 is one of the eight approved regional entities in North America under the North American 

27 Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). NERC’s mission is to verify the reliability of the bulk 

28 power system in North America. NERC develops and enforces reliability standards, monitors 

29 the bulk power system, assesses and reports on future transmission and generation adequacy, 

30 and offers education and certification programs to industry personnel (NERC 2009). RFC’s 

31 primary responsibilities include developing reliability standards and monitoring compliance to 

32 those reliability standards for all owners, operators, and users of the bulk electric system and 

33 providing seasonal and long-term assessments of bulk electric system reliability within the RFC 

34 geographic area (RFC 2008). RFC members serve the electrical requirements of more than 

35 72 million people in a 238,000-sq-mi area covering all of the states of Delaware, Indiana, 

36 Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, as well 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 as portions of Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin (NERC 2009). 

2 RFC does not have officially designated subregions; however, the RFC geographic territory 

3 overlaps with the geographic coverage of two regional transmission organizations—PJM and 

4 the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) (NERC 2009). 

5 Approximately one-third of the RFC load is within the MISO territory, and nearly the entire 

6 remaining load is within PJM (NERC 2009). 

7 8.2 Power Demand 

8 In 2007, Maryland’s electricity users consumed approximately 65.9 million MWh of electricity 

9 (MDNR PPRP 2010). In 2005, 42 percent of electricity was consumed by Maryland residential 

10 users, 31 percent by industry, and 26 percent by commercial users (DOE 2008). As of 

11 December 2007, Maryland’s total peak load requirement was approximately 17,500 MW 

12 (16,100 MW demand plus a reserve margin of 1400 MW, for a total requirement of 17,500 MW). 

13 Between 1997 and 2007, the annual growth rate in electricity consumption in Maryland was 

14 1.51 percent compared to the U.S. growth rate of 1.81 percent (MDNR PPRP 2010). Peak 

15 electricity demand and usage are expected to grow over the next 10 years in Maryland and the 

16 surrounding region due primarily to expected increases in population and economic activity 

17 (MPSC 2009c). 

18 RFC expects to be summer peaking in its region through 2018 (NERC 2009). RFC projects a 

19 1.4 percent/yr summer peak load growth through 2018 (NERC 2009; RFC 2009). RFC’s 

20 forecast takes account of demand forecasts made by PJM, MISO, and the Ohio Valley Electric 

21 Corporation (NERC 2009; RFC 2009). RFC estimates that aggregate net internal demand in its 

22 region for the summer peak will increase from 169,900 MW in 2009 to approximately 

23 193,100 MW in 2018 (NERC 2009; RFC 2009). Net internal demand represents the system 

24 demand that is planned for by the reliability authority and is equal to internal demand less direct 

25 control load management and interruptible demand (DOE/EIA 2007). 

26 PJM projects the summer peak load growth rate between 2010 and 2020 in the areas served by 

27 Maryland investor-owned utilities as follows: Baltimore Gas & Electric 1.8 percent, Delmarva 

28 Power & Light 1.4 percent, Allegheny Power Co. 1.4 percent, and Potomac Electric Power Co. 

29 1.2 percent (PJM 2010). 

30 8.3 Power Supply 

31 The generation and supply of electricity are not regulated in Maryland, and prices are set by the 

32 competitive wholesale and retail electricity markets. The distribution of electricity continues to 

33 be a regulated monopoly function of the local utility, and hence continues to be subject to price 

34 regulation by the MPSC (MDNR PPRP 2009). 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1936 8-4 April 2010 

1 As stated in Section 8.2, Maryland’s electricity users consumed approximately 65.9 million MWh 

2 of electricity in 2007 (MDNR PPRP 2010). In contrast, generation plants in Maryland produced 

3 approximately 50.0 million MWh of electricity in 2007 (MPSC 2009c). Also as stated in 

4 Section 8.2, Maryland’s total peak load requirement was approximately 17,500 MW in 2007. As 

5 of December 2007, Maryland’s net summer generating capacity was 12,675 MW (MPSC 

6 2009c). Therefore, nearly 4800 MW of capacity in the transmission system served to meet 

7 Maryland’s peak load requirements in 2007 (MPSC 2009c). 

8 As of 2009, 38 power plants in Maryland with generation capacities greater than 2 MW were 

9 connected to the grid (MDNR PPRP 2010). Only 700 MW of new generation capacity has been 

10 added in Maryland since 2000 (MPSC 2008). 

11 As of January 2009, the generation capacity profile in Maryland was approximately as follows: 

12 coal (39 percent), dual-fueled (petroleum and natural gas) (26 percent), nuclear (14 percent), 

13 natural gas and other gases (9 percent), petroleum (7 percent), hydroelectric (4 percent), and 

14 other renewable sources (1 percent) (MPSC 2009c). Coal and nuclear power plants typically 

15 operate continuously in a baseload manner. Consequently, in 2007, coal-fired power plants 

16 were the source of 59.4 percent of the electricity generated in Maryland and nuclear plants 

17 28.7 percent (MPSC 2009c). Although Maryland produces a small amount of coal in the 

18 western portion of the State, most of its coal-fired power plants burn coal shipped from West 

19 Virginia and Pennsylvania. Maryland’s only nuclear plant, the dual-unit Calvert Cliffs facility, 

20 supplies all of Maryland’s nuclear power. The Conowingo hydroelectric plant on the 

21 Susquehanna River provides almost all of Maryland’s hydroelectricity. More than one-third of 

22 Maryland households use electricity as their main source of energy for home heating (DOE/EIA 

23 2009). 

24 In the RFC territory, the fuel mix of generating units as of 2009 was approximately 15 percent 

25 nuclear, 3 percent hydroelectric and pumped storage hydroelectric, 47 percent coal, 6 percent 

26 oil, 28 percent natural gas, and 1 percent other (RFC 2009). 

27 Maryland’s generation fleet is aging, as 67.1 percent of the State’s total generating capacity is 

28 more than 30 years old and another 10.7 percent is over 20 years old (MPSC 2009c). In the 

29 RFC region, the amount of capacity that is more than 40 years old is projected to grow from 

30 approximately 23 percent in 2009 to about 44 percent in 2018 (RFC 2009). As capacity ages, 

31 the likelihood that it will be retired increases. 

32 Using data from PJM and MISO, RFC estimates that the amount of capacity in its region for the 

33 summer of 2009 is 215,600 MW (NERC 2009; RFC 2009). For the period through 2018, RFC 

34 expects a total capacity increase in its region, net of plant retirements, of approximately 

35 12,500 MW (NERC 2009; RFC 2009). The 12,500 MW represents both planned capacity and a 

36 portion of conceptual capacity. RFC uses an 18.4 percent “confidence” factor to estimate the 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 portion of the conceptual capacity to include in the expected reserve margins (NERC 2009). 

2 Proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 is identified by RFC (2009) as a conceptual resource. 

3 8.4 Assessment of Need for Power 

4 In conjunction with its assessment of the need for power from UniStar’s proposed Unit 3 at the 

5 Calvert Cliffs site, the staff reviewed the 2009 Order by the MPSC to issue UniStar a CPCN for 

6 Unit 3 and several reports prepared by State and regional entities. Key findings from the 

7 MPSC’s Order and the reports are summarized below. 

8 8.4.1 Grant of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Unit 3 

9 For any person to build a new power plant in Maryland, a CPCN must be obtained from the 

10 MPSC. As part of this licensing process, applicants must address a full range of environmental, 

11 engineering, socioeconomic, planning, and cost issues (MDNR PPRP 2007). The MPSC is 

12 required by statute, Maryland Annotated Code Section 7-207(e)(2)(i) of the Maryland Public 

13 Utilities Companies Article, to issue a CPCN only after taking due consideration of the effect of a 

14 proposed generating station on the stability and reliability of the electrical system (Annotated 

15 Code of Maryland). 

16 In the CPCN proceeding, Mr. Craig Taborsky, an Electric Generation and Transmission 

17 Engineer with MPSC’s Engineering Division, testified that proposed Unit 3 would have a positive 

18 effect on the reliability and stability of the electric system in Maryland if it complies with all PJM 

19 requirements as the additional power supplied by the plant would be a beneficial source for 

20 Maryland and the grid in general. Mr. Taborsky noted that the plant would provide power with 

21 an alternate source, nuclear power, which would lessen Maryland's dependence on fossil fuels 

22 such as coal, oil, and natural gas. He also stated that the plant would be beneficial in reducing 

23 the State's dependence on imported electricity, as Maryland imported approximately 30 percent 

24 of its electric power in 2006. Mr. Taborsky further noted that Maryland may face a shortage of 

25 electricity in coming years, perhaps by the year 2011 or 2012, and wholesale prices continue to 

26 increase due to congestion, especially in central Maryland. Therefore, he testified that the new 

27 nuclear unit at Calvert Cliffs would be a welcome source of baseload power designed to run 

28 continuously, which is expected to reduce peak period congestion on transmission lines within 

29 Maryland and reduce the need for imported power (MPSC 2009b). 

30 In its 2009 Order granting a CPCN to UniStar for Unit 3 (MPSC 2009a), the MPSC affirmed the 

31 following findings made by the Hearing Examiner relating to the need for Unit 3 (MPSC 2009b): 

32 • Unit 3 would constitute a new large source of power that would be of benefit to the citizens 

33 and State of Maryland. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1936 8-6 April 2010 

1 • The beneficial effect of Unit 3 on the stability and reliability of the electric system is 

2 supported by the evidence on the MPSC’s record. 

3 • The additional power provided by Unit 3 would lessen Maryland’s dependence on fossil 

4 fuels and would reduce the State’s dependence on imported electricity. 

5 • Unit 3 would be a welcome source of baseload power designed to run continuously, which 

6 would help peak period congestion on transmission lines within Maryland to the benefit of 

7 the public. 

8 • Unit 3 would have a positive effect on the reliability and stability of the electric system and 

9 would be a beneficial power source for Maryland and the electric grid in general. 

10 In the CPCN proceeding, opponents of the proposed project argued, in part, that (1) the CPCN 

11 should not be granted and that alternative forms of generation and additional conservation be 

12 used instead, and (2) that if a CPCN is granted it should be conditioned on UniStar making 

13 additional investment in energy conservation, solar power, and wind power. In reaching its 

14 decision, the MPSC rejected these arguments. 

15 8.4.2 Maryland Public Service Commission Electric Supply Adequacy Report 

16 In 2007, the MPSC issued its Electric Supply Adequacy Report of 2007 (MPSC 2007). Among 

17 other things, the MPSC report takes account of PJM’s generation profile and potential 

18 generation additions; new generating resources planned for construction in Maryland; trends in 

19 Maryland electric power generation by fuel source; trends in Maryland electricity consumption 

20 by class of consumer; forecasts of future electricity sales made by PJM and electric utilities 

21 serving Maryland; transmission congestion in Maryland and surrounding states; demand side 

22 management, demand response, and distributed generation; and electric reliability assessments 

23 prepared by NERC. 

24 In Chapter V, “Conclusions and Recommendations,” the MPSC makes the following points 

25 (MPSC 2007): 

26 • The outlook for the adequacy of Maryland’s electricity supply can perhaps be best described 

27 as fragile. 

28 • Maryland is the fifth largest electricity importing state in the United States. Maryland cannot 

29 meet its own electricity needs from internal resources and has not done so for more than 

30 15 years 

31 • If Maryland was a stand-alone system, it would need to install at least another 4000 MW to 

32 meet both peak load and have a satisfactory generating capacity reserve. 

33 • Other states in or bordering the Mid-Atlantic and Southern regions of PJM are in a situation 

34 similar to Maryland. Consequently, these states will not be a near-term supply of electricity 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 for Maryland. Instead, they have been competing and will continue to compete with 

2 Maryland for access to electricity sources in the PJM western region. 

3 • Maryland’s dependence on out-of-state generation will likely increase over the next 5 to 

4 10 years due to both growth in electricity demand and the possible derating or retirement of 

5 existing generating units. Much of the generation capacity in Maryland is relatively old, with 

6 several fossil units more than 40 years old. 

7 • Maryland utilities and PJM are forecasting electricity demand in Maryland to grow between 1 

8 and 2 percent/yr. 

9 • As of the date of the MPSC report, the only significant new baseload generation plants in 

10 the PJM generation project queues were two nuclear units at the Calvert Cliffs site 

11 (UniStar’s COL application is for one new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site). 

12 • If new generating capacity is not built and/or upgrades to the transmission system are not 

13 made, the likelihood of a reliability crisis in Maryland, and eastern PJM generally, will 

14 increase and may become unavoidable. 

15 • The MPSC recognizes that a balanced approach is required to provide for adequate 

16 electricity supplies, including new generation, upgrading the transmission system, 

17 preserving existing generation resources, and encouraging cost-effective conservation and 

18 demand response actions on the part of energy consumers. 

19 8.4.3 Reliability First Corporation Reserve Margin Projections 

20 RFC predicts adequate reserves in its territory through 2018 (RFC 2009). The reserve margin 

21 for 2009 is 26.9 percent based on net internal demand and net capacity resources. The 

22 predicted reserve margin decreases to 18.2 percent in 2018, provided a total capacity increase 

23 in its region, net of plant retirements, of approximately 12,500 MW occurs (see Section 8.3) 

24 (RFC 2009). NERC’s target reserve margin level for predominately thermal systems is 

25 15 percent (NERC 2009). 

26 8.4.4 Maryland Energy Administration 

27 The principal conclusion in the Maryland Strategic Electricity Plan prepared by the Maryland 

28 Energy Administration (MEA 2008) is: 

29 Maryland is facing significant energy challenges and is not equipped to properly 

30 address them. The state is facing record high electricity prices and the possibility 

31 of rolling blackouts as soon as 2011. Maryland needs a long-term vision and 

32 plan to provide its citizens with affordable, reliable, clean energy. 

33 The Plan also states that “to keep the lights on, Maryland needs to invest in new generation.” 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1936 8-8 April 2010 

1 8.5 NRC Staff Conclusions 

2 NRC guidance provides that additional independent review by the NRC is not needed when 

3 need for power analyses prepared by an affected State, NERC reliability council, and/or regional 

4 transmission organization are sufficiently (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

5 confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty (NRC 2000). Taken in aggregate, 

6 the NRC staff determined that the studies and reports summarized in Section 8.4 and the 

7 decision by the MPSC to grant a CPCN to UniStar for Unit 3 satisfy the four preceding tests. 

8 • Systematic: RFC has a systematic and iterative process for load forecasting and reliability 

9 assessment that is updated annually and based on input from PJM and MISO. RFC, PJM, 

10 and MISO use industry best practices and methodological approaches to determine future 

11 system reliability and the need for new generating capacity. 

12 • Comprehensive: The staff finds, in aggregate, that the studies and reports discussed in 

13 Section 8.4 and the MPSC’s decision to grant UniStar a CPCN for Unit 3 are 

14 comprehensive. MPSC (2007) takes account of PJM’s generation profile and potential 

15 generation additions; new generating resources planned for construction in Maryland; trends 

16 in Maryland electric power generation by fuel source; trends in Maryland electricity 

17 consumption by class of consumer; forecasts of future electricity sales made by PJM and 

18 electric utilities serving Maryland; transmission congestion in Maryland and surrounding 

19 States; demand side management, demand response, and distributed generation; and 

20 electric reliability assessments prepared by NERC (MPSC 2007). RFC, PJM, and MISO use 

21 industry best practices and methodological approaches to determine system reliability and 

22 the need for new generating capacity. 

23 • Subject to Confirmation: The staff finds, in aggregate, the studies and reports discussed in 

24 Section 8.4 and the MPSC’s decision to grant UniStar a CPCN for Unit 3 are subject to 

25 confirmation. PJM’s and MISO’s reliability forecasts are independently prepared. These 

26 forecasts are then independently reviewed, confirmed, and consolidated by RFC. The 

27 MPSC independently reviewed PJM and NERC information in preparing its electric supply 

28 adequacy report for Maryland (MPSC 2007). 

29 • Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty: In preparing their load forecasts and reliability 

30 assessments, PJM and RFC take account of demand forecasting uncertainty and generator 

31 outage schedules. They also take account of the facts that not all proposed new generating 

32 units will be built and some existing generating units may be taken offline for various 

33 reasons. 

34 Based on its review of the documents discussed in Section 8.4 and the MPSC’s decision to 

35 grant UniStar a CPCN for Unit 3, the NRC staff determined that, in aggregate, the documents 

36 and the MPSC decision are sufficiently (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

37 confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty to serve the needs of the NRC in 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 complying with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act. In keeping with the 

2 Chapter 8 ESRPs (NRC 2000) and the Commission’s statements at 68 FR 55905, the staff gave 

3 particular credence to the (1) MPSC’s decision to grant UniStar a CPCN for Unit 3 (MPSC 

4 2009a), (2) MPSC’s Electric Supply Adequacy Report of 2007 (MPSC 2007), and (3) reliability 

5 assessment prepared by RFC (NERC 2009; RFC 2009). 

6 The NRC staff concludes (1) there is a shortage of power in the Maryland region that could be 

7 at least partially addressed by construction of proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site; 

8 (2) construction of Unit 3 would reduce the likelihood of an electricity supply reliability crisis in 

9 Maryland; and (3) construction of Unit 3 would contribute to the new generation needed in the 

10 RFC region by 2018 to meet reserve targets. Based on its analysis, the staff concludes there is 

11 a justified need for new baseload generating capacity in Maryland in excess of the planned 

12 output of proposed Unit 3. 

13 8.6 References 

14 68 FR 55905. September 29, 2003. “Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for 

15 Rulemaking.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

16 Annotated Code of Maryland. Public Utility Companies. Title 7. Gas, Electric, and Water 

17 Companies. 

18 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009. Regional Transmission Organizations 

19 (RTO)/Independent System Operators (ISO). Accessed October 30, 2009 at 

20 http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto.asp. Accession No. ML093280296. 

21 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Public Power Research Program (MDNR 

22 PPRP). 2007. “Power Plant Licensing in Maryland.” Accessed December 23, 2009 at 

23 http://esm.versar.com/pprp/licensing/licensing.html. 

24 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Public Power Research Program (MDNR 

25 PPRP). 2009. Electricity in Maryland - Fact Book 2008. Accessed December 22, 2009 at 

26 http://esm.versar.com/pprp/factbook/factbook.htm. 

27 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program (MDNR PPRP). 

28 2010. Maryland Power Plants and the Environment: A Review of the Impacts of Power Plants 

29 and Transmission Lines on Maryland’s Natural Resources (CEIR–15). Available at 

30 http://esm.versar.com/pprp/ceir15/toc.htm. 

31 Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). 2008. Maryland Strategic Electricity Plan. Accessed 

32 October 7, 2009 at http://www.energy.state.md.us/about/reports/index.asp. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1936 8-10 April 2010 

1 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2007. Electric Supply Adequacy Report of 

2 2007. Accessed October 7, 2009 at 

3 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/psc/Reports_new.cfm. 

4 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2008. Final Report of the Public Service 

5 Commission of Maryland to the Maryland General Assembly: Options for Re-Regulation and 

6 New Generation. Accessed December 17, 2008 at 

7 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/psc/Reports_new.cfm. 

8 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009a. In the Matter of the Application of 

9 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of 

10 Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in 

11 Calvert County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Order Number 82741, June 26, 2009. 

12 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009b. In the Matter of the Application of 

13 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of 

14 Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in 

15 Calvert County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Proposed Order of Hearing Examiner, April 28, 

16 2009. 

17 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009c. Ten-Year Plan (2008-2017) of Electric 

18 Companies in Maryland. Accessed October 8, 2009 at 

19 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/psc/Reports_new.cfm. 

20 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

21 North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2009. 2009 Long-Term Reliability 

22 Assessment 2009-2018. Accessed October 30, 2009 at http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=4 

23 61. 

24 PJM Interconnection (PJM). 2009. Who We Are. Accessed October 30, 2009 at 

25 http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are.aspx. 

26 PJM Interconnection (PJM). 2010. PJM Load Forecast Report January 2010. Accessed 

27 January 21, 2010 at: http://www.pjm.com/documents/reports.aspx. 

28 ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC). 2008. About ReliabilityFirst. Accessed October 8, 2009 at 

29 http://www.rfirst.org/MiscForms/AboutUs.aspx. 

30 ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC). 2009. Long Term Resource Assessment 2009-2018. 

31 Accessed October 8, 2009 at http://www.rfirst.org/MiscForms/AboutUs.aspx. 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

2 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6. Accession No. 

3 ML092880921. 

4 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. “Electric Power and Renewable Energy in Maryland.” 

5 Accessed December 28, 2009 at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=MD. 

6 Accession No. ML093280377. 

7 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007. “Net Internal 

8 Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability 

9 Council Region.” Accessed October 30, 2009 at 

10 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat3p2.html. Accession No. ML093280285. 

11 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009. Maryland 

12 Quick Facts. Accessed October 30, 2009 at 

13 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=MD. Accession No. ML093280288. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan—

15 Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

16 Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 updates. 

April 2010 9-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

2 This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed NRC’s action for a combined license (COL) 

3 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE or Corps) action for a Department of Army (DA) 

4 Individual Permit application and discusses the environmental impacts of those alternatives. 

5 Section 9.1 discusses the no-action alternative. Section 9.2 addresses alternative energy 

6 sources. Section 9.3 reviews UniStar’s (the applicant’s) region of interest (ROI) as discussed in 

7 its Environmental Report (ER) (UniStar 2009a), its site selection process, and summarizes and 

8 compares the environmental impacts for the proposed and alternative sites. UniStar selected 

9 the State of Maryland as its ROI (UniStar 2009a). Section 9.4 examines plant design 

10 alternatives, and Section 9.5 lists the references cited in this chapter. 

11 The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirement in 

12 Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

13 (42 U.S.C. 4321) that environmental impact statements (EIS) include an analysis of alternatives 

14 to the proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements this 

15 comparison through its regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 

16 and its Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000a). The environmental impacts 

17 of the alternatives are evaluated using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, 

18 MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines 

19 (40 CFR 1508.27) and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of Title 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

20 Appendix B. The issues evaluated in this chapter are the same as those addressed in the 

21 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) 22 with the additional issue of environmental justice. The 

23 NRC issues a site-specific supplemental EIS, adding to determinations already made in the 

24 NUREG-1437, for each proposed action of license renewal for a nuclear plant. Although 

25 NUREG-1437 was developed for license renewal, it provides useful information for this review 

26 and is referenced throughout this chapter. 

27 As part of the evaluation of the permit application submitted to the Corps that is subject to 

28 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps must define the overall project purpose in 

29 addition to the basic project purpose. The overall project purpose establishes the scope of the 

30 alternatives analysis and is used for evaluating practicable alternatives under the Environmental 

31 Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230). In 

32 accordance with the Guidelines and USACE Headquarters guidance (HQUSACE 1989), the 

33 overall project purpose must be specific enough to define the applicant’s needs, but not so 

34 narrow and restrictive as to preclude a proper evaluation of alternatives. The Corps is 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999 

(NRC 1999). Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-2 April 2010 

1 responsible for controlling every aspect of the Guidelines analysis. In this regard, defining the 

2 overall project purpose is the sole responsibility of the Corps. While generally focusing on the 

3 applicant’s statement, the Corps will, in all cases, exercise independent judgment in defining the 

4 purpose and need for the project from both the applicant’s alternatives and the public’s 

5 perspective (33 CFR Part 325 Appendix B (9)(c)(4); see also 53 FR 3120, February 3, 1988). 

6 Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines requires that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall 

7 be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have 

8 less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other 

9 significant adverse environmental consequences.” Section 230.10(a)(2) of the Guidelines 

10 states that “an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking 

11 into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purposes. 

12 If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant that 

13 could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic 

14 purpose of the proposed activity may be considered.” Thus, this analysis is necessary to 

15 determine which alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

16 (LEDPA) that meets the project purpose and need. The UniStar onsite and offsite LEDPA 

17 Analysis is included in Appendix J. 

18 Where the activity associated with a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site (as defined 

19 in 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart E), and does not require access or proximity to or siting within 

20 these types of areas to fulfill its basic project purpose (i.e., the project is not “water dependent”), 

21 practicable alternatives that avoid special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless 

22 clearly demonstrated otherwise (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). 

23 The NRC’s determination as to whether an alternative site is environmentally preferable to the 

24 proposed site for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 is independent of the Corps’ determination of a LEDPA 

25 pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230. The Corps 

26 will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its Record of Decision. 

27 9.1 No-Action Alternative 

28 For purposes of an application for a COL, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which 

29 the NRC would deny the COL requested by UniStar. Likewise, the Corps could also take no 

30 action as a result of the applicant electing to modify the proposal to eliminate work under the 

31 jurisdiction of the Corps or by the denial of the permit. Upon such a denial by the NRC, the 

32 construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site in accordance with 

33 10 CFR Part 52 would not occur and the predicted environmental impacts associated with the 

34 project would not occur. Preconstruction impacts associated with activities not within the 

35 definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a) and 51.4 may occur. The no-action alternative 

36 would result in the proposed facility not being built. If no other power plant were built or 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 electrical power supply strategy implemented to take its place, the benefits of the additional 

2 electrical capacity and electricity generation to be provided by the project would not occur. If no 

3 additional measures (e.g., conservation, importing power, restarting retired power plants, and/or 

4 extending the life of existing power plants) were enacted to realize the amount of electrical 

5 capacity that would otherwise be required for power in the ROI, then the need for baseload 

6 power, discussed in Chapter 8 of this EIS, would not be met. Therefore, the purpose and need 

7 of this proposed project would not be satisfied if the no-action alternative was chosen, and the 

8 need for power was not met by other means. 

9 If other generating sources were built either at another site or using a different energy source, 

10 the environmental impacts associated with these other sources would eventually occur. As 

11 discussed in Chapter 8, there is a demonstrated need for power. It is reasonable to assume 

12 that the Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) would confirm that the need for power 

13 would be met. This needed power may be provided and supported through a number of 

14 alternatives that are discussed in Section 9.2 and 9.3. Therefore, this section does not include 

15 a discussion of other energy alternatives (discussed in Section 9.2) and alternative sites 

16 (discussed in Section 9.3) that could meet the need for power. 

17 9.2 Energy Alternatives 

18 The purpose and need for the proposed project identified in Section 1.3.1 of this EIS is to 

19 generate baseload power for use by the applicant and for possible future sale on the wholesale 

20 market. This section examines the potential environmental impacts associated with alternatives 

21 to construction of a new baseload nuclear generating facility. Section 9.2.1 discusses energy 

22 alternatives not requiring new generating capacity. Section 9.2.2 discusses energy alternatives 

23 requiring new generating capacity. Other alternatives are discussed in Section 9.2.3. A 

24 combination of alternatives is discussed in Section 9.2.4. Section 9.2.5 compares the 

25 environmental impacts from new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural gas-fired generating units at the 

26 Calvert Cliffs site. For analysis of energy alternatives, UniStar assumed a target installed 

27 capacity of 1600 MW(e) electrical output (UniStar 2009a). The review team also used this level 

28 of output in analyzing energy alternatives. 

29 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 

30 Four alternatives to the proposed action that do not require UniStar to construct new generating 

31 capacity are to: 

32 • purchase the needed electric power from other suppliers 

33 • reactivate retired power plants 

34 • extend the operating life of existing power plants 

35 • implement conservation or demand-side management programs. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-4 April 2010 

1 As discussed in Chapter 8, Maryland already is a large importer of electricity and faces 

2 constraints to further electricity imports. The MPSC concluded that a balanced approach is 

3 required to provide adequate electricity supplies for Maryland, including adding new generation, 

4 upgrading the transmission system, preserving existing generating resources, and encouraging 

5 cost-effective conservation and demand response actions on the part of energy consumers 

6 (MPSC 2007). 

7 If power to replace the capacity of the proposed new nuclear unit was to be purchased from 

8 sources within the United States or from a foreign country, the generating technology likely 

9 would be one that could provide baseload power (e.g., coal, natural gas, or nuclear, as 

10 discussed later in this section), as previously described by the NRC in its Generic 

11 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) 

12 (NRC 1996). NUREG-1437’s description of the environmental impacts of other technologies is 

13 representative of the impacts associated with the construction and operation of a new 

14 generating unit at the Calvert Cliffs site. Under the purchased power alternative, the 

15 environmental impacts of power production would still occur but would be located elsewhere 

16 within the region, nation, or in another country. The environmental impacts of coal-fired and 

17 natural gas-fired plants are discussed in Section 9.2.2. 

18 If the purchased power alternative were to be implemented, the most significant environmental 

19 unknown would be whether new transmission line corridors would be required. The 

20 construction of new transmission lines could have environmental consequences, particularly if 

21 new transmission line corridors were needed. The review team concludes that the local 

22 environmental impacts from purchased power would be SMALL when existing transmission line 

23 corridors are used and could range from SMALL to LARGE if acquisition of new corridors is 

24 required. The environmental impacts of power generation would depend on the generation 

25 technology and location of the generation site and, therefore, are unknown. However, as 

26 discussed in Section 9.2.5, the review team concluded that from an environmental perspective, 

27 none of the viable energy alternatives would be clearly preferable to construction of a new 

28 baseload nuclear power generation plant located within UniStar’s ROI. 

29 Retired generating plants, predominately coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants that potentially 

30 could be reactivated, would ordinarily require extensive refurbishment prior to reactivation. 

31 Such vintage plants would typically require costly refurbishment to meet current environmental 

32 requirements. The environmental impacts of any reactivation scenario would be bounded by 

33 the impacts associated with coal-fired and natural gas-fired alternatives (see Section 9.2.2), 

34 which the staff concludes are not environmentally preferable to the proposed actions (see 

35 Section 9.2.5). Given both these refurbishment costs and the environmental impacts of 

36 operating such facilities, the review team concludes that reactivating retired generating plants 

37 would not be a reasonable alternative to the proposed action. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Nuclear power facilities are initially licensed by the NRC for a period of 40 years. The operating 

2 license can be renewed for up to 20 years, and NRC regulations provide for the possibility of 

3 additional license renewal. The owner of proposed Unit 3 would be UniStar (2009a). 

4 Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC (Constellation) owns the two existing nuclear units at 

5 the Calvert Cliffs site, a nuclear generation unit at the R.E. Ginna site in New York State, and 

6 two nuclear generating units at the Nine Mile Point (NMP) site in New York State. Constellation 

7 has received renewed operating licenses for all of its nuclear units from the NRC. The 

8 environmental impacts of continued operation of a nuclear power plant are significantly less 

9 than construction of a new plant. However, continued operation of the existing nuclear plants 

10 has already been accounted for in energy planning. 

11 Older existing fossil-fueled plants, predominately coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants, are 

12 likely to need refurbishing to extend plant life for an extended period (the proposed action 

13 assumes a minimum operating period of 40 years), and meeting current environmental 

14 requirements would also be costly. UniStar identified four older power plants scheduled for 

15 retirement in New Jersey, but none in Maryland (UniStar 2009a). The MPSC stated that no 

16 generating facilities in Maryland were scheduled for retirement as of early 2009 (MPSC 2009b). 

17 The Reliability First Corporation (RFC) expects retirement of approximately 1700 MW of existing 

18 generation capacity in its region through 2018 (RFC 2009). RFC is one of the eight approved 

19 regional entities in North America under the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. 

20 Maryland is included in the RFC region. Given both the costs of refurbishment and the 

21 environmental impacts of operating such facilities (see Section 9.2.2 and 9.2.5), the review team 

22 concludes that extending the life of existing generating plants would not be a reasonable 

23 alternative to the proposed action. 

24 Improved energy efficiency can cost less than construction of new generation and provide a 

25 hedge against market, fuel, and environmental risks. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 

26 (BGE), the regulated electric distribution affiliate of Constellation Generation Group, has 

27 residential, commercial, and industrial programs designed to reduce both peak demands and 

28 daily energy consumption. Program components include the following elements (UniStar 

29 2009a): 

30 • Peak clipping program – Including energy saver switches for air conditioners, heat pumps, 

31 and water heaters, allowing interruption of electrical service to reduce load during periods of 

32 peak demand; dispersed generation, giving dispatch control over customer backup 

33 generation resources; and curtailable service, allowing customers’ load to be reduced during 

34 periods of peak demand. 

35 • Load shifting programs – Using time-of-use rates and cool storage rebate programs to 

36 encourage shifting loads from peak to off-peak periods. 

37 • Conservation programs – Promoting high-efficiency heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; 

38 encouraging construction of energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings; improving 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-6 April 2010 

1 energy efficiency in existing homes; providing incentives for use of energy-efficient lighting, 

2 motors, and compressors. 

3 UniStar estimates the BGE program results in an annual peak demand generation reduction of 

4 about 700 MW(e) and believes that generation savings can continue to be increased under the 

5 programs. Based on existing programs, the load growth projection anticipates a savings of 

6 approximately 1000 MW(e) in 2016 (UniStar 2009a). 

7 In 2007, the MPSC approved the following BGE “fast track” Energy Star conservation and 

8 energy efficiency programs: compact fluorescent light bulbs, window air conditioner 

9 replacement, and rebates for certain large appliances (MPSC 2008a). 

10 In 2008, BGE started implementation of its voluntary demand response initiative for residential 

11 customers. Under the program, BGE will cycle off customers’ air conditioning units during 

12 specified periods. Overall, BGE estimates a benefit of 600 MW of demand reduction from 

13 implementing the demand response initiative (MPSC 2008a). 

14 The Maryland General Assembly enacted the EmPower Maryland Energy Efficiency Act in April 

15 2008. Under the Act, each Maryland utility is required to develop and implement cost-effective 

16 programs and services that encourage and promote the efficient use and conservation of 

17 energy by consumers and utilities alike. The Act also establishes long-term target reduction 

18 goals for electric consumption and demand based on a per capita basis and a 2007 energy 

19 consumption baseline (MPSC 2009b). 

20 The MPSC issued an Order on December 31, 2008, approving for implementation a series of 

21 energy efficiency and demand response programs proposed by BGE (MPSC 2008c). The 

22 proposed programs include new proposals, as well as its already-approved demand response 

23 programs. The programs are designed to achieve an estimated reduction in peak demand of 

24 approximately 1190 MW for 2011. The programs cover six residential, two small commercial, 

25 and three large commercial programs. 

26 As discussed in Chapter 8, the MPSC took account of demand side management, demand 

27 response, and distributed generation in preparing its Electric Supply Adequacy Report of 2007

28 (MPSC 2007). In the report, the MPSC determined there was a need for power in Maryland, 

29 even taking into account conservation and demand side management programs. The role of 

30 conservation was also addressed in MPSC’s Order granting a Certificate of Public Convenience 

31 and Necessity to UniStar for proposed Unit 3 (MPSC 2009a). 

32 Based on the preceding discussion, the review team concludes that the options of purchasing 

33 electric power from other suppliers, reactivating retired power plants, extending the operating 

34 life of existing power plants, and conservation and demand-side programs are not reasonable 

35 alternatives to providing new baseload power generation capacity. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity 

2 Consistent with the NRC’s evaluation of alternatives to operating license renewal for nuclear 

3 power plants, a reasonable set of energy alternatives to the construction and operation of one or 

4 more new nuclear units at the Calvert Cliffs site should be limited to analysis of discrete power 

5 generation sources, a combination of sources, and those power generation technologies that are 

6 technically reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 1996). The current mix of baseload power 

7 generation options in Maryland is one indicator of the feasible choices for power generation 

8 technology within the State. As of January 2009, the generation capacity profile in Maryland was 

9 approximately as follows: coal (39 percent), dual-fueled (petroleum and natural gas) 

10 (26 percent), nuclear (14 percent), natural gas and other gases (9 percent), petroleum 

11 (7 percent), hydroelectric (4 percent), and other renewable sources (1 percent) (MPSC 2009b). 

12 Coal and nuclear power plants typically operate in a baseload manner. Consequently, in 2007 

13 coal-fired power plants were the source of 59.4 percent of the electricity generated in Maryland 

14 and nuclear plants 28.7 percent (MPSC 2009b). 

15 This section discusses the environmental impacts of energy alternatives to the proposed action 

16 that would require UniStar to construct new generating capacity. The three primary energy 

17 sources for generating electric power in the United States are coal, natural gas, and nuclear 

18 energy (DOE/EIA 2007). Coal-fired plants are the primary source of baseload generation in the 

19 United States (DOE/EIA 2007). Natural gas combined-cycle generation plants are often used 

20 as intermediate generation sources (DOE/EIA 2007), but are also used as baseload generation 

21 sources. 

22 Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of 

23 Energy (DOE), issues an annual energy outlook. In its updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009

24 (DOE/EIA 2009), EIA’s reference case projects that total electric generating capacity additions 

25 between 2007 and 2030 will use the following fuel types in the approximate percentages: 

26 natural gas plants (55 percents), renewables (27 percent), coal-fired plants (14 percent), and 

27 nuclear plants (5 percent) (DOE/EIA 2009). The EIA projection includes baseload, intermittent, 

28 and peaking units and is based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity 

29 would seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable environmental requirements. 

30 The discussion in Section 9.2.2 is limited to the individual alternatives that appear to the review 

31 team to be viable baseload generation sources: coal-fired and natural gas combined cycle-fired 

32 generation. The impacts discussed in Section 9.2.2 are estimates based on present 

33 technology. Section 9.2.3 addresses alternative generation technologies that have 

34 demonstrated commercial acceptance but may be limited in application, total capacity, or 

35 technical feasibility when based on the need to supply reliable, baseload capacity. 

36 The review team assumed that (1) new generation capacity would be located at the Calvert 

37 Cliffs site for the coal- and natural gas-fired alternatives; (2) a combination dry and wet (hybrid) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-8 April 2010 

1 cooling tower, as proposed by UniStar for Unit 3, would be used for plant cooling; and (3) no 

2 new offsite transmission corridors would be needed, which is consistent with UniStar’s COL 

3 application for Unit 3. 

4 9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation 

5 For the coal-fired generation alternative, the review team assumed construction of supercritical 

6 pulverized coal-fired units at the Calvert Cliffs site. Supercritical pulverized coal-fired plants are 

7 similar to conventional pulverized coal-fired plants except they operate at slightly higher 

8 temperatures and higher pressures, which allows for greater thermal efficiency. Supercritical 

9 coal-fired plants are commercially proven and represent an increasing proportion of new coal10 fired power plants. 

11 The review team also considered an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal-fired 

12 plant. IGCC is an emerging technology for generating electricity with coal that combines 

13 modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam turbine power generation. 

14 The technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized coal plants because major pollutants 

15 can be removed from the gas stream before combustion. The IGCC alternative also generates 

16 less solid waste than the pulverized coal-fired alternative. The largest solid waste stream 

17 produced by IGCC installations is slag, a black, glassy, sand-like material that is potentially a 

18 marketable byproduct. The other large-volume byproduct produced by IGCC plants is sulfur, 

19 which is extracted during the gasification process and can be marketed rather than placed in a 

20 landfill. IGCC units do not produce ash or scrubber wastes. In spite of the preceding 

21 advantages, the review team concludes that, at present, a new IGCC plant is not a reasonable 

22 alternative to a 1600-MW(e) nuclear power generation facility for the following reasons: 

23 (1) IGCC plants are more expensive than comparable pulverized coal plants (NETL 2007), 

24 (2) existing IGCC plants have considerably smaller capacity than that of the proposed 

25 1600-MW(e) nuclear plant, (3) system reliability of existing IGCC plants has been lower than 

26 pulverized coal plants, (4) the existing IGCC plants have had an extended (though ultimately 

27 successful) operational testing period (NPCC 2005), and (5) a lack of overall plant performance 

28 warranties for IGCC plants has hindered commercial financing (NPCC 2005). For these 

29 reasons, IGCC plants are not considered further in this EIS. 

30 A 1600-MW(e) coal-fired plant sited at Calvert Cliffs would consume approximately 4.5 million 

31 tons of coal per year (NETL 2007). It is assumed that coal and lime (calcium oxide or calcium 

32 hydroxide) or limestone (calcium carbonate) for a coal-fired plant would likely be delivered to the 

33 Calvert Cliffs site by barge. There is no direct rail access in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties 

34 within an 8-mi vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs site (UniStar 2008b). UniStar assumed that the plant 

35 would burn bituminous coal (UniStar 2009a). Lime or limestone, used in the scrubbing process 

36 for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, is injected as a slurry into the hot effluent 

37 combustion gases to remove entrained SO2. The lime-based scrubbing solution reacts with SO2

38 to form calcium sulfite, which precipitates and is removed from the process as sludge. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Approximately 450,000 tons/yr of limestone would be needed for flue gas desulfurization (NETL 

2 2007). 

3 Air Quality 

4 The impacts on air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of 

5 nuclear generation because of emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon 

6 monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and hazardous air pollutants (such as mercury). 

7 Particulate matter would consist of total suspended particulates (TSP) and PM10 (particulates 

8 with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less). In its COL application, UniStar assumed a coal-fired 

9 plant design that would minimize air emissions through a combination of boiler technology and 

10 post-combustion pollutant removal. The review team estimates that the coal-fired alternative 

11 emissions would be approximately as follows (UniStar 2009a): 

12 • SOx – 8800 tons/yr 

13 • NOx – 1240 tons/yr 

14 • TSP – 320 tons/yr 

15 • PM10 – 73 tons/yr 

16 • CO – 1240 tons/yr. 

17 The preceding estimates are scaled from emissions estimated for an alternative coal-fired 

18 power plant in Table 8-2 of the final supplemental EIS for the Beaver Valley Power Station 

19 (NRC 2009k). The estimates reflect EPA emission factors. The Beaver Valley EIS was 

20 selected because of (1) its geographic proximity (Pennsylvania), (2) it represented a recent staff 

21 evaluation, and (3) the coal plant evaluated in the EIS is of comparable size (1842 MW(e)) to 

22 proposed Unit 3. The alternative coal plant would emit small amounts of mercury and other 

23 hazardous air pollutants, and some naturally occurring radioactive materials. UniStar estimates 

24 that the plant would also emit approximately 12.4 million tons/yr of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

25 (UniStar 2009a). 

26 The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act capped the nation’s SO2 emissions from power 

27 plants. UniStar would need to obtain sufficient pollution credits either from a set-aside pool or 

28 purchases on the open market to cover annual emissions from the plant. 

29 A new coal-fired generation plant at the Calvert Cliffs site would likely need a prevention of 

30 significant deterioration (PSD) permit and an operating permit from the Maryland Department of 

31 the Environment (MDE). The plant would need to comply with the new source performance 

32 standards for such plants in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish emission 

33 limits for PM and opacity (40 CFR 60.42Da), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43Da), NOx (40 CFR 60.44Da), 

34 and mercury (40 CFR 60.45Da). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-10 April 2010 

1 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, 

2 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an 

3 area designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act 

4 (40 CFR 51.307(a)). Criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are lead, ozone, particulates, 

5 CO, NO2, and SO2. Ambient air-quality standards for criteria pollutants are in 40 CFR Part 50. 

6 As discussed in Section 2.9.2, with the exception of the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality 

7 Standard for ozone, the Calvert Cliffs site is in an area designated as in attainment or 

8 unclassified for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.344). 

9 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing 

10 future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when 

11 impairment occurs because of air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, EPA 

12 regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the 

13 State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural 

14 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility 

15 for those days on which visibility is most impaired over the period of the implementation plan 

16 and confirm no degradation in visibility for the least visibility-impaired days over the same period 

17 (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new coal-fired power generation station were located close to a 

18 mandatory Class I area, additional air pollution control requirements could be imposed. There 

19 are no mandatory Class I Federal areas within 50 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site. The fugitive dust 

20 emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using best management practices 

21 (BMPs). Such emissions would be temporary. 

22 The generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) for license renewal mentions global 

23 warming from unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOx and NOx emissions 

24 as a potential impact (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects, such as cancer and 

25 emphysema, have been associated with byproducts of coal; combustion. Overall, the review 

26 team concludes that air quality impacts from new coal-fired power generation at the Calvert 

27 Cliffs site would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable but would not 

28 destabilize air quality. 

29 Waste Management 

30 As the NRC has described in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and verified during its preparation of 

31 operating license renewal supplemental EIS analyses since the publication of that document, 

32 coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution 

33 generates additional ash, spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst, and scrubber 

34 sludge. UniStar estimates that landfill disposal of the ash and scrubber sludge generated by a 

35 1600-MW(e) coal-fired plant over a 40-year plant life would require approximately 600 ac 

36 (UniStar 2009a). Approximately 89,000 tons/yr of scrubber sludge and 356,000 tons/yr of ash 

37 would be generated by the plant (NETL 2007). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 In May 2000, EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

2 Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (65 FR 32214). The EPA concluded that some form of national 

3 regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because of health concerns. 

4 Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal-combustion 

5 waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

6 (RCRA). As of November 2009, EPA is continuing to study the appropriate form of regulation 

7 for coal combustion waste products. 

8 Waste impacts on groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the 

9 plant if leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could 

10 noticeably affect land use (because of the acreage needed for waste) and groundwater quality, 

11 but, with appropriate management and monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After 

12 closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for other uses. 

13 Construction-related debris would be generated during plant construction activities, and would 

14 be disposed of in approved landfills. 

15 For the reasons stated above, the review team concludes that the impacts from waste 

16 generated at a coal-fired plant would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable 

17 but would not destabilize any important resource. 

18 Human Health 

19 Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker and 

20 public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of 

21 coal-combustion waste, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. In addition, the 

22 discharges of uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological 

23 doses in excess of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993). 

24 Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air emission standards and 

25 requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific emission 

26 limits as needed to protect human health. Given the regulatory oversight exercised by the EPA 

27 and State agencies, the review team concludes that the human health impacts from radiological 

28 doses and inhaled toxins and particulates generated from coal-fired generation would be 

29 SMALL. 

30 Other Impacts 

31 Approximately 300 ac would need to be converted to industrial use for the powerblock, 

32 infrastructure and support facilities, coal and limestone storage, and handling sludge 

33 (UniStar 2009a). Land-use changes would also occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining 

34 area to supply coal for the plant and for landfill disposal of ash and scrubber sludge. In 

35 NUREG-1437, the NRC staff estimated that approximately 22,000 ac would be needed for coal 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-12 April 2010 

1 mining and waste disposal to supply a 1000-MW(e) coal-fired power plant over its operating life 

2 (NRC 1996), which would scale up to over 35,000 ac for a 1600-MW(e) facility. Based on the 

3 amount of land affected for both the site and mining, the review team concludes that land-use 

4 impacts would be MODERATE. 

5 The amounts of water used, and the impacts on water use and quality from constructing and 

6 operating a coal-fired plant at the Calvert Cliffs site would be comparable to those associated 

7 with a new nuclear plant. All discharges would be regulated by the MDE through a National 

8 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Indirectly, water quality could be 

9 affected by acids and mercury from air emissions. However, these emissions are regulated to 

10 minimize impacts. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that some erosion and 

11 sedimentation would likely occur during construction of new facilities (NRC 1996). These 

12 impacts would be similar to those for a new nuclear plant. Overall, the review team concludes 

13 that the water-use and water-quality impacts would be SMALL. 

14 The coal-fired generation alternative would introduce ecological impacts from construction and 

15 new incremental impacts from operations. The impacts would be similar to those of the 

16 proposed action at the Calvert Cliffs site. The noticeable impacts would include loss of wetland 

17 area and function, elimination of onsite streams and ponds, forest fragmentation, habitat loss for 

18 important species, and disruption and conversion of benthic habitats in the Bay. Some of the 

19 impact at the Calvert Cliffs site would occur in areas that were previously disturbed during the 

20 construction of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Units 1 and 2, thereby limiting 

21 potential ecological effects. Disposal of waste products ash could affect aquatic and terrestrial 

22 resources. Impacts on threatened and endangered species would likely be similar to the 

23 impacts from a new nuclear facility located at the Calvert Cliffs site. Although the expected 

24 impact footprint for a coal-fired plant would be somewhat smaller than that for a nuclear facility 

25 (assuming waste disposal at another location), the review team concludes that the ecological 

26 impacts would be MODERATE. 

27 Socioeconomic impacts would result from the workers needed to construct and operate the 

28 plant, demands on housing and public services during construction, and the loss of jobs after 

29 construction. Construction and operation of a coal plant is smaller in scale than a nuclear plant 

30 of comparable size due to the shorter construction timeline and smaller construction and 

31 operations workforce needed. Overall, because the scale of activity for coal-fired power 

32 generation would be smaller than that for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3, but still significant in Calvert 

33 County, the review team concludes that these impacts would be similar to those for a new 

34 nuclear plant: SMALL to MODERATE. UniStar would pay significant property taxes for the 

35 plant to Calvert County. Considering the population and economic condition of the County, the 

36 review team concludes that the taxes would have a LARGE beneficial impact to Calvert County 

37 with SMALL beneficial impacts elsewhere in the region. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The coal-fired powerblock units and cooling tower may be visible from Chesapeake Bay. The 

2 hybrid cooling tower would not produce any visible plume (UniStar 2009a). The exhaust stacks 

3 would be as much as 600 ft high and would be visible from Chesapeake Bay. The stacks and 

4 associated emissions would likely be visible in daylight hours for distances greater than 10 mi. 

5 The powerblock units and associated stacks would also be visible at night because of outside 

6 lighting. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally requires that all structures 

7 exceeding an overall height of 200 ft above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not 

8 to impair aviation safety (FAA 2007). The visual impacts of a new coal-fired plant could be 

9 mitigated by landscaping and color selection for buildings that is consistent with the 

10 environment. Visual impacts at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting, enhanced 

11 use of downfacing lighting (provided the lighting meets FAA requirements), and appropriate use 

12 of shielding. Overall, the review team concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated with new 

13 coal-fired power generation at the Calvert Cliffs site would be MODERATE. 

14 Coal-fired power generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible 

15 offsite. Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant operation are classified as 

16 continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated 

17 with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related to coal 

18 handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and limestone delivery, use of 

19 outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. Noise impacts associated with 

20 barge delivery of coal and lime/limestone would be minimal. The review team concludes that 

21 the impacts of noise on residents in the vicinity of the facility would be SMALL. Noise and light 

22 from the plant would be detectable offsite. 

23 Historic and cultural resource impacts for a new coal-fired plant located at the Calvert Cliffs site 

24 would be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant, as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5.6 of 

25 this EIS. A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property that has 

26 not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, acquired to support the plant would also 

27 likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording of existing 

28 historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect from 

29 ground-disturbing actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential 

30 disturbance at the plant site; any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste-disposal 

31 sites; and along associated corridors where new construction would occur, such as roads. 

32 Because adverse effects are likely to affect three National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-

33 eligible resources, the review team concludes the historic and cultural resource impacts would 

34 be LARGE. 

35 As discussed in Section 2.6 of this EIS, there are minority and low-income persons in the 

36 population near the Calvert Cliffs site. However, environmental impacts on minority and low37 income populations associated with a new coal-fired plant located at the Calvert Cliffs site would 

38 be similar to those for a new nuclear plant, which the review team has concluded are SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-14 April 2010 

1 The review team’s characterizations of the construction and operation impacts of coal-fired 

2 power generation at the Calvert Cliffs site are summarized in Table 9-1. 

3 9.2.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation 

4 For the natural gas alternative, the review team assumed construction and operation of a 

5 natural gas-fired plant located at the Calvert Cliffs site. The review team assumed that the plant 

6 would use combined-cycle combustion turbines. 

7 Air Quality 

8 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. When compared to a coal-fired plant, a natural 

9 gas-fired plant would release similar types of emissions, but in lower quantities. 

10 A new natural gas-fired power generation plant would likely need a PSD permit and an 

11 operating permit from the MDE. A new natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant would also be 

12 subject to the new source performance standards in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Da and GG. 

13 These regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and NOX. 

14 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, 

15 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in 

16 areas designated as in attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. As discussed in 

17 Section 2.9.2, with the exception of the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone, 

18 the Calvert Cliffs site is in an area designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria 

19 pollutants (40 CFR 81.32). 

20 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing 

21 future impairment of visibility and remedying existing impairment in mandatory Class I Federal 

22 areas when impairment is from air pollution caused by human activities. In addition, EPA 

23 regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the 

24 State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural 

25 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility 

26 for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and verify no degradation 

27 in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new 

28 natural gas-fired power plant were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air 

29 pollution control requirements could be imposed. There are no mandatory Class I Federal 

30 areas within 50 mi of the Calvert Cliffs site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation 

Impact Category Impact Comment 

Land use MODERATE Uses approximately 900 ac for the powerblock, infrastructure 

and support facilities, coal and limestone storage and handling, 

and landfill disposal of ash and scrubber sludge. Mining 

activities would have additional impacts offsite. 

Air quality MODERATE Estimated emissions: 

SOx – 8800 tons/yr 

NOx – 1240 tons/yr 

PM– 320 tons/yr of TSP 

 73 tons/yr of PM10

CO – 1240 tons/yr 

CO2–12.4 million tons/yr 

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants. 

Water use and quality SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear 

power plant located at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

Ecology MODERATE The impacts on and around the site would be similar to those of 

the proposed action. The noticeable impacts would include loss 

of wetland area and function, elimination of onsite streams and 

ponds, forest fragmentation and habitat loss for important 

species, and disruption and conversion of benthic habitats in 

the Bay. Impacts on threatened and endangered species would 

be similar to the impacts from a new nuclear facility at the 

Calvert Cliffs site. 

Waste management MODERATE Approximately 89,000 tons/yr of scrubber sludge and 

356,000 tons/yr of ash would be generated. 

Socioeconomics 

(except Taxes and 

Economy) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Impacts related to building the facilities would be noticeable. 

Depending on where the workforce lives, the building-related 

impacts would be noticeable or minor. Impacts of coal 

transportation during operation would be noticeable. The plant 

would have aesthetic impacts. Some offsite noise impacts 

would occur. 

Socioeconomics 

(Taxes and 

Economy) 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Beneficial 

Local property tax base would benefit mainly during operations. 

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight are assumed to be protective 

of human health. 

Historic and cultural 

resources 

LARGE Adverse effects are likely to three NRHP-eligible resources. 

Environmental justice SMALL There are minority and low-income persons in the local 

population; however, impacts to such persons would likely be 

minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-16 April 2010 

1 The review team estimates that a natural gas-fired plant equipped with pollution control 

2 technology to meet emission limits would have approximately the following emissions 

3 (UniStar 2009a): 

4 • SOx – 112 tons/yr 

5 • NOx – 370 tons/yr 

6 • PM10 – 65 tons/yr 

7 • CO – 77 tons/yr. 

8 The preceding estimates are scaled from emissions estimated for an alternative natural gas 

9 fired power plant in Table 8-3 of the final supplemental EIS for the Beaver Valley Power Station 

10 (NRC 2009k). The estimates reflect EPA emission factors. The Beaver Valley EIS was 

11 selected because of (1) its geographic proximity (Pennsylvania), (2) it represented a recent staff 

12 evaluation, and (3) the natural gas plant evaluated in the EIS is of comparable size 

13 (2000 MW(e)) to proposed Unit 3. The alternative natural gas plant would emit small amounts 

14 of hazardous air pollutants. UniStar estimates that the plant would also emit approximately 

15 5.6 million tons/yr of CO2 (UniStar 2009a). 

16 The combustion turbine portion of the combined-cycle plant would be subject to EPA’s National 

17 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines 

18 (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY) if the site is a major source of hazardous air pollutants. Major 

19 sources have the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of any single hazardous air pollutant or 

20 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR 63.6085(b)). The 

21 fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using BMPs; such 

22 emissions would be temporary. 

23 The impacts of emissions from a natural gas-fired power generation plant would be clearly 

24 noticeable, but would not be sufficient to destabilize air resources. Overall, the review team 

25 concludes that air quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of new natural gas26 fired power generation at the Calvert Cliffs site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

27 Waste Management 

28 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff concluded that waste generation from natural gas-fired 

29 technology would be minimal (NRC 1996). The only significant waste generated at a natural 

30 gas-fired power plant would be spent SCR catalyst, which is used to control NOx emissions. 

31 The spent catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. Other than spent SCR catalyst, 

32 waste generation at an operating natural gas-fired plant would be largely limited to typical 

33 operations and maintenance waste. Construction-related debris would be generated during 

34 construction activities. Overall, the review team concludes that waste impacts from natural gas35 fired power generation would be SMALL. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Human Health 

2 Natural gas-fired power generation introduces public risk from inhalation of gaseous emissions. 

3 The risk may be attributable to NOx emissions that contribute to ozone formation, which, in turn, 

4 contribute to health risk. Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air 

5 emission standards and requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose 

6 site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. Given the regulatory oversight 

7 exercised by the EPA and State agencies, the review team concludes that the human health 

8 impacts from natural gas-fired power generation would be SMALL. 

9 Other Impacts 

10 A natural gas-fired generating plant would require approximately 60 ac for the power-block and 

11 support facilities (UniStar 2009a). Construction of a natural gas pipeline from the Calvert Cliffs 

12 site to the closest natural gas distribution line would require approximately 10 ac (UniStar 

13 2009a). The Cove Point Liquid Natural Gas pipeline runs parallel to Maryland State Route 2/4 

14 and would be the closest natural gas pipeline to the Calvert Cliffs site. Thus, the total land 

15 commitment locally would be approximately 70 ac. A small amount of additional land would 

16 also be required for natural gas wells and collection stations. Overall, the review team 

17 concludes that the land-use impacts from new natural gas-fired power generation at the Calvert 

18 Cliffs site would be SMALL. 

19 The amount of water used and the impacts on water use and quality from constructing and 

20 operating a natural gas-fired plant at the Calvert Cliffs site would be somewhat less than the 

21 impacts associated with constructing and operating a new nuclear facility. The impacts on 

22 water quality from sedimentation during construction of a natural gas-fired plant were 

23 characterized in NUREG-1437 as SMALL (NRC 1996). The NRC also noted in this document 

24 that the impacts on water quality from operations would be similar to, or less than, the impacts 

25 from other generating technologies (NRC 1996). Overall, the review team concludes that 

26 impacts on water use and quality would be SMALL. 

27 A natural gas-fired plant at the Calvert Cliffs site would have less extensive ecological impacts 

28 than a new nuclear facility. Most of the impacts could be limited to areas that were previously 

29 disturbed during the construction of Units 1 and 2. Although constructing a new underground 

30 gas pipeline to the site would result in conversion and fragmentation of about 10 ac of terrestrial 

31 habitat, no important ecological attributes would be noticeably altered. Impacts on threatened 

32 and endangered species would likely be similar to the impacts from a new nuclear facility located 

33 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Overall, the review team concludes that ecological impacts would be 

34 SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-18 April 2010 

1 Socioeconomic impacts would result from the workers needed to construct and operate the 

2 plant, demands on housing and public services during construction, and the loss of jobs after 

3 construction. Overall, the review team concludes that these impacts would be SMALL because 

4 of the mitigating influence of the site’s proximity to the surrounding population area and the 

5 relatively small number of workers needed to construct and operate the plant in comparison to 

6 nuclear and coal-fired generation alternatives. UniStar would pay property taxes for the plant to 

7 Calvert County. Considering the population and economic condition of the County, the review 

8 team concludes that the taxes would have a MODERATE beneficial impact on Calvert County 

9 with SMALL beneficial impacts elsewhere in the region. 

10 The turbine buildings, four exhaust stacks (approximately 200 ft tall) and associated emissions, 

11 cooling towers, condensation plumes from the cooling towers, and the gas pipeline compressors 

12 would be visible during daylight hours from offsite. Noise and light from the plant would be 

13 detectable offsite. An ameliorating factor is that the Calvert Cliffs site is currently an industrial 

14 site located in a rural, forested area. Overall, the review team concludes that the aesthetic 

15 impacts associated with new natural gas-fired power generation at the Calvert Cliffs site would 

16 be similar to those for a nuclear plant and, therefore, SMALL. 

17 Historic and cultural resource impacts for a new natural gas-fired plant located at the Calvert 

18 Cliffs site would be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant as discussed in Sections 4.6 

19 and 5.6 of this EIS. A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite 

20 property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, acquired to support the 

21 plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification, and recording 

22 of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect 

23 from ground-disturbing actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential 

24 disturbance at the plant site; any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste disposal 

25 sites; and along associated corridors where new construction would occur, such as roads. 

26 Because adverse effects are likely to three NRHP-eligible resources, the review team concludes 

27 that the historic and cultural resource impacts would be LARGE. 

28 As described in Section 2.6, there are minority and low-income persons in the population 

29 around the Calvert Cliffs site. The impacts of a natural gas-fired plant at the Calvert Cliffs site 

30 on minority or low-income populations would be similar to the impacts for a nuclear plant and, 

31 therefore, SMALL. 

32 The construction and operational impacts of natural gas-fired power generation at the Calvert 

33 Cliffs site are summarized in Table 9-2. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 9-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Power Generation 

Impact Category Impact Comment 

Land use SMALL Approximately 70 ac would be needed for the power-block 

and support systems and connection to a natural gas 

pipeline. 

Air quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Estimated emissions: 

SOx – 112 tons/yr 

NOx – 370 tons/yr 

PM10 – 65 tons/yr 

CO – 77 tons/yr 

CO2 – 5.6 million tons/yr 

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants. 

Water use and quality SMALL Impacts would be somewhat less than the impacts for a new 

nuclear power plant located at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

Ecology SMALL Most of the impacts would be limited to areas that were 

previously disturbed during the construction of Units 1 and 2. 

Although constructing a new underground gas pipeline to 

the site would result in permanent loss of some terrestrial 

and aquatic function and conversion and fragmentation of 

about 10 ac of terrestrial habitat, no important ecological 

attributes would be noticeably altered. Impacts on 

threatened and endangered species would be less than or 

similar to the impacts from a new nuclear facility at the 

Calvert Cliffs site. 

Waste management SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst 

used for control of NOx emissions. 

Socioeconomics 

(except Taxes and 

Economy) 

SMALL Construction and operations workforces would be relatively 

small. Impacts during operation would be minor because of 

the small workforce involved. The plant would have 

aesthetic impacts. 

Socioeconomics 

(Taxes and Economy) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Beneficial 

Additions to the property tax base, while smaller than for a 

nuclear or coal-fired plant, would still be noticeable. 

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight are assumed to be 

protective of human health. 

Historic and cultural 

resources 

LARGE Adverse effects are likely to three NRHP-eligible resources. 

Environmental justice SMALL There are minority and low-income persons in the local 

population; however, impacts to such persons would likely 

be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-20 April 2010 

1 9.2.3 Other Alternatives 

2 This section discusses other energy alternatives, the review team’s conclusions about the 

3 feasibility of each alternative, and the review team’s bases for those conclusions. A new 

4 nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site would be a baseload generation plant. Any feasible 

5 alternative to the new unit would need to generate baseload power. In performing its initial 

6 evaluation in the ER, UniStar used the findings documented in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996; 

7 UniStar 2009a). The review team also reviewed the information submitted by UniStar, 

8 conducted an independent review, and determined the other energy alternatives are not 

9 reasonable alternatives to a new nuclear unit that would provide baseload power. 

10 The review team has not assigned significance levels to the environmental impacts associated 

11 with the alternatives discussed in this section because, in general, the generation alternatives 

12 would have to be installed at a location other than the Calvert Cliffs site. Any attempt to assign 

13 significance levels would require the review team’s speculation about the unknown site. 

14 9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Generation 

15 In its updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009, EIA’s reference case projects that oil-fired power 

16 plants will not account for any new electric power generation capacity in the United States 

17 through the year 2030 (DOE/EIA 2009). Oil-fired generation is more expensive than nuclear, 

18 natural gas-fired, or coal-fired generation options. In addition, future increases in oil prices are 

19 expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive. The high cost of oil has 

20 resulted in a decline in its use for electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of NUREG-1437, the 

21 NRC staff estimated that construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 

22 120 ac of land (NRC 1996). Operation of an oil-fired power plant would have environmental 

23 impacts that would be similar to those of a comparably sized coal-fired plant (NRC 1996). 

24 For the preceding economic and environmental reasons, the review team concludes that an oil25 fired power plant would not be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 1600-MW(e) nuclear 

26 power generation facility that would be operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

27 9.2.3.2 Wind Power 

28 The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Power Plant Research Program has 

29 estimated Maryland’s wind energy potential as between 627 and 1078 MW (MDNR PPRP 

30 2008). The MPSC considered the potential for wind power in Maryland in a 2008 report (MPSC 

31 2008b) and concluded the economic benefits from renewables remain uncertain and 

32 challenging. Onshore wind yields net economic benefits, albeit on a small scale. Offshore 

33 wind, as modeled in the report, does not yield economic benefits. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Newer wind turbines typically operate at approximately a 36 percent capacity factor (DOE 

2 2008a). In comparison, the average capacity factor for a nuclear generation plant in 2008 in the 

3 United States was approximately 91.5 percent (NEI 2009). Wind turbines generally can serve 

4 as an intermittent baseload power supply (NPCC 2005). Wind power, in conjunction with 

5 energy storage mechanisms such as pumped hydroelectric or compressed air energy storage 

6 (CAES), or another readily dispatchable power source, such as hydropower, might serve as a 

7 means of providing baseload power. 

8 EIA is not projecting any growth in pumped storage capacity through 2030 (DOE/EIA 2009). In 

9 addition, the review team concludes in Section 9.2.3.4 that the potential for new hydroelectric 

10 development in Maryland is limited. Therefore, the review team concludes that the use of 

11 pumped storage in combination with wind turbines to generate 1600 MW(e) is unlikely in 

12 Maryland. 

13 A CAES plant consists of motor-driven air compressors that use low-cost, off-peak electricity to 

14 compress air into an underground storage medium. During high electricity demand periods, the 

15 stored energy is recovered by releasing the compressed air through a combustion turbine to 

16 generate electricity (NPCC 2009). Only two CAES plants are currently in operation. A 290 MW 

17 plant near Bremen, Germany began operating in 1978. A 110-MW plant located in McIntosh, 

18 Alabama has been operating since 1991. Both facilities use mined salt caverns (Succar and 

19 Williams 2008). A CAES plant requires suitable geology such as an underground cavern for 

20 energy storage. A 268-MW CAES plant coupled to a wind farm, the Iowa Stored Energy Park, 

21 has been proposed for construction near Des Moines, Iowa. The facility would use a porous 

22 rock storage reservoir for the compressed air (Succar and Williams 2008). To date, nothing 

23 approaching the scale of a 1600 MW(e) facility has been contemplated. Therefore, the review 

24 team concludes that the use of CAES in combination with wind turbines to generate 

25 1600 MW(e) in Maryland is unlikely. 

26 Southern Company and the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) studied the viability of 

27 offshore wind turbines in the southeast (Southern and GIT 2007). Among the conclusions of the 

28 study authors were the following: (1) the available wind data indicates that a wind farm located 

29 offshore of Georgia would likely have an adequate wind speed to support a project, although 

30 offshore project costs run approximately 50 to 100 percent higher than land-based systems; 

31 (2) based on today’s prices for wind turbines, the 20-year levelized cost of electricity produced 

32 from an offshore wind farm would be above the current production costs from existing power 

33 generation facilities; (3) the current commercially available offshore wind turbines are not built to 

34 withstand major hurricanes above a Category 3 or a 1-minute sustained wind speed of 

35 124 mph; and (4) the U.S. Department of Interior Minerals Management Service (MMS) has 

36 jurisdiction, as authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, over alternative energy-related 

37 projects on the outer continental shelf, including wind power developments. MMS issued final 

38 regulations in April 2009 (74 FR 19638) to establish a program to grant leases, easements, and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-22 April 2010 

1 rights-of-way for renewable energy project activities on the outer continental shelf. The review 

2 team believes that the preceding conclusions would generally apply to a wind farm located 

3 offshore of Maryland based on similarities in the physical and regulatory environments. 

4 For the preceding reasons, the review team concludes that a wind energy facility would not 

5 currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 1600-MW(e) nuclear power generation 

6 facility that would be operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

7 9.2.3.3 Solar Power 

8 Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light, hot 

9 water, and electricity for consumers. Solar energy can be converted to electricity using solar 

10 thermal technologies or photovoltaics. Solar thermal technologies employ concentrating 

11 devices to create temperatures suitable for power production. Concentrating thermal 

12 technologies are currently less costly than photovoltaics for bulk power production. They can 

13 also be provided with energy storage or auxiliary boilers to allow operation during periods when 

14 the sun is not shining (NPCC 2006). The largest operational solar thermal plant is the 310-MW 

15 Solar Energy Generating System located in the Mojave Desert in Southern California (NextEra 

16 Energy 2009). 

17 Solar radiation has a low energy density relative to other common energy sources. 

18 Consequently, a large total acreage is needed to gather an appreciable amount of energy. 

19 Typical solar-to-electric power plants require 5 to 10 ac for every MW of generating capacity 

20 (TSECO 2008). Thus, approximately 8000–16,000 ac would be needed for a hypothetical 

21 1600-MW(e) solar power plant. For a large solar plant to be practical, a means to store large 

22 quantities of energy (those discussed in Section 9.2.3.2) for distribution when the plant is 

23 producing less that 1600 MW(e) would be needed. However, the use of these storage 

24 mechanisms on this scale in Maryland is unlikely, as discussed in Section 9.2.3.2. 

25 Looking at the specific technologies, for flat-plate photovoltaic collectors, DOE states that 

26 Maryland has a good, useful solar resource throughout most of the State. For concentrating 

27 collectors, Maryland has a marginal solar resource. Although certain technologies may work in 

28 specific applications, most concentrating collectors are not effective with Maryland’s solar 

29 resource (DOE 2008b). 

30 The MPSC considered the potential for solar power in Maryland in a 2008 report (MPSC 2008b) 

31 and concluded the economic benefits from renewables remain uncertain and challenging. For 

32 solar energy, the MPSC concluded that the overall economics of solar remain negative, but 

33 could improve if technology progresses much faster than contemplated in the report and various 

34 financial incentives continue over the long term. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 For the preceding reasons, the review team concludes that solar energy facilities would not 

2 currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 1600-MW(e) nuclear power generation 

3 facility that would be operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

4 9.2.3.4 Hydropower 

5 Maryland has a relatively low hydropower resource as a percentage of the State’s electricity 

6 generation (DOE 2008b). The Conowingo Hydroelectric Plant on the Susquehanna River, one 

7 of Maryland’s largest generation facilities, provides almost all of the State’s hydroelectricity 

8 (DOE/EIA 2008). A 1997 study by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

9 Laboratory (INEEL) identified an approximate additional 29 MW of undeveloped hydro resource 

10 in Maryland (Conner and Francfort 1997). 

11 EIA’s reference case in its updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 projects that U.S. electricity 

12 production from hydropower plants will remain essentially stable through the year 2030 

13 (DOE/EIA 2009). 

14 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff estimated that land requirements for hydroelectric power are 

15 approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MW(e) (NRC 1996). Because of the relatively low amount 

16 of undeveloped hydropower resource in Maryland and the large land-use and related 

17 environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities 

18 large enough to produce 1600 MW(e), the review team concludes that hydropower is not a 

19 feasible alternative to construction of a new 1600 MW(e) nuclear power generation facility 

20 operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

21 9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy 

22 Hydrothermal resources – reservoirs of steam or hot water – are available primarily in the 

23 western states, Alaska, and Hawaii. However, Earth’s energy can be tapped almost anywhere 

24 with geothermal heat pumps and direct-use applications. Sources of other geothermal 

25 resources (e.g., hot dry rock or magma) require further technology development (DOE 2006). 

26 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 

27 power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload power 

28 generation because of the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status 

29 of the technology (NRC 1996). Geothermal systems have a relatively small footprint and 

30 minimal emissions (MIT 2006). A recent study led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

31 (MIT) concluded that a $300 to $400 million investment over 15 years would be needed to make 

32 early-generation enhanced geothermal system power plant installations competitive in the 

33 evolving U.S. electricity supply markets (MIT 2006). Maryland has vast low-temperature 

34 resources suitable for geothermal heat pumps. However, Maryland does not have sufficient 

35 resources to use other geothermal technologies (DOE 2008b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-24 April 2010 

1 For the preceding reasons, the review team concludes that one or more geothermal energy 

2 facilities would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 1600-MW(e) 

3 nuclear power generation facility operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

4 9.2.3.6 Wood Waste 

5 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that a wood-burning facility can provide baseload 

6 power and operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 

7 20 to 25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A 

8 significant impediment to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high cost of fuel 

9 delivery and high construction cost per megawatt of generating capacity. The larger wood10 waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in NUREG-1437 suggest that 

11 the overall level of construction impacts per megawatt of installed capacity would be 

12 approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for 

13 fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996). Similar to coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants 

14 require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of combustion 

15 equipment. 

16 Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a 

17 baseload power plant, the ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (for example, soil 

18 erosion and loss of wildlife habitat), and high inefficiency, the review team concludes that wood 

19 waste-based generation would not be a reasonable alternative to a 1600-MW(e) nuclear power 

20 generation facility operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

21 9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste 

22 Municipal solid-waste combustors incinerate the waste and use the resultant heat to produce 

23 steam, hot water, or electricity. The combustion process reduces the volume of waste and the 

24 need for new solid waste landfills (EPA 2009a). Municipal waste combustors use three basic 

25 types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel (DOE/EIA 2001). Mass 

26 burning technologies are most commonly used in the United States. This group of technologies 

27 processes raw municipal solid waste “as is,” with little or no sizing, shredding, or separation 

28 before combustion. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that the initial capital cost for 

29 municipal solid-waste plants is greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood30 waste facilities because of the need for specialized waste-separation and waste-handling 

31 equipment for municipal solid waste (NRC 1996). 

32 Municipal solid-waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash 

33 residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers to that portion of the 

34 unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash represents the small 

35 particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash is generally 

36 removed from flue gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (DOE/EIA 2001). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Currently, approximately 87 waste-to-energy plants are operating in the United States (EPA 

2 2009a). These plants collectively generate approximately 2500 MW(e), or an average of 

3 approximately 29 MW(e) per plant (EPA 2009a). Given the small size of existing plants, the 

4 review team concludes that generating electricity from municipal solid waste would not be a 

5 reasonable alternative to a 1600-MW(e) nuclear power generation facility operated as a 

6 baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

7 9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels 

8 In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuel, several other biomass-derived fuels are 

9 available for fueling electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel 

10 (such as ethanol), and gasifying crops (including wood waste). EIA estimates that wind and 

11 biomass will be the largest source of renewable electricity generation among the 

12 nonhydropower renewable fuels through the year 2030 (DOE/EIA 2009). However, in 

13 NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that none of these technologies has progressed to the 

14 point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a large 

15 baseload generating plant (NRC 1996). 

16 Co-firing biomass with coal is possible when low-cost biomass resources are available. 

17 Co-firing is the most economic option for the near future to introduce new biomass power 

18 generation. These projects require small capital investments per unit of power generation 

19 capacity. Co-firing systems range in size from 1 to 30 MW(e) of biopower capacity (DOE 2008c). 

20 The review team concludes that given the relatively small size of biomass generation facilities, 

21 biomass-derived fuels do not offer a reasonable alternative to a 1600-MW(e) nuclear power 

22 generation facility operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

23 9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells 

24 Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is 

25 produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode, 

26 and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts are heat, water, and carbon 

27 dioxide. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to 

28 steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen. 

29 Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. Higher30 temperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal 

31 efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the second32 generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle 

33 operations. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-26 April 2010 

1 During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical 

2 and affordable fuel cell designs for stationary power applications, but progress has been slow. 

3 The cost of fuel cell power systems must be reduced before they can be competitive with 

4 conventional technologies (DOE 2008d). 

5 The review team concludes that, at the present time, fuel cells are not economically or 

6 technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Future 

7 gains in cost competitiveness for fuel cells compared to other fuels are speculative. 

8 For the preceding reasons, the review team concludes that a fuel cell energy facility would not 

9 currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 1600-MW(e) nuclear power generation 

10 facility operated as a baseload plant within UniStar’s ROI. 

11 9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives 

12 Individual alternatives to the construction of a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site might not 

13 be sufficient on their own to generate UniStar’s target value of 1600 MW(e) because of the 

14 small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities. Nevertheless, it is conceivable 

15 that a combination of alternatives might be cost effective. There are many possible 

16 combinations of alternatives. It would not be reasonable to examine every possible combination 

17 of energy alternatives in an EIS. Doing so would be counter to CEQ’s direction that an EIS 

18 should be analytic rather than encyclopedic, shall be kept concise, and shall be no longer than 

19 absolutely necessary to comply with NEPA and CEQ’s regulations (40 CFR Part 1502.2(a), (b)). 

20 Given that UniStar’s objective is for a new baseload generation facility, a fossil energy source, 

21 most likely coal or natural gas, would need to be a significant contributor to any reasonable 

22 alternative energy combination. 

23 Section 9.2.2.2 assumes the construction of natural gas combined-cycle generating units at the 

24 Calvert Cliffs site using the cooling technology proposed by UniStar for Unit 3. For a combined 

25 alternatives option, the review team assessed the environmental impacts of an assumed 

26 combination of 1200 MW(e) of natural gas combined-cycle generating units at the Calvert Cliffs 

27 site and the following contributions from within UniStar’s ROI: 25 MW(e) of hydropower; 

28 75 MW(e) from solar power; 100 MW(e) from biomass sources, including municipal solid waste; 

29 100 MW(e) from conservation and demand-side management programs; and 100 MW(e) from 

30 wind power. The conservation and demand side programs are assumed to be implemented by 

31 BGE. The wind power would need to be coupled with a storage mechanism such as CAES to 

32 provide baseload power. Based on the information presented in the preceding sections of this 

33 chapter, the review team believes that these contributions are reasonable and representative. A 

34 summary of the review team’s characterization of the environmental impacts associated with the 

35 construction and operation of the preceding combination of energy alternatives is shown in 

36 Table 9-3. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 9-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources 

Impact Category Impact Comment 

Land use MODERATE A natural gas-fired plant would have land-use impacts for the 

powerblock, cooling towers and support systems, and connection to 

a natural gas pipeline. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and biomass 

facilities and associated transmission lines would have land-use 

impacts in addition to the land-use impacts of the natural gas-fired 

plant. Both offshore wind development and hydropower plants 

would potentially impede navigation. 

Air quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Emissions from the natural gas-fired plant would be approximately: 

SOx – 84 tons/yr 

NOx – 277 tons/yr 

PM10 – 49 tons/yr 

CO – 58 tons/yr 

CO2 – 4.2 million tons/yr. 

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants would be emitted. 

Municipal solid waste and biomass facilities would also have 

emissions. 

Water use and 

quality 

SMALL Impacts would be somewhat less than the impacts for a new 

nuclear power plant located at the Calvert Cliffs site. 

Ecology MODERATE Wind energy facilities could result in some avian mortality and also 

affect aquatic resources if placed in Chesapeake Bay or offshore. 

Hydropower facilities would permanently convert substantial 

amounts of terrestrial and aquatic habitat (by inundation or 

completely changed flow regime) and species. 

Waste 

management 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst used 

for control of NOx emissions and ash from biomass and municipal 

solid waste sources. 

Socioeconomics 

(except Taxes and 

Economy) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively small. 

Construction-related impacts would be noticeable. Impacts during 

operation would be minor because of the small workforce involved. 

The plants would have aesthetic impacts. 

Socioeconomics 

(Taxes and 

Economy) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Beneficial 

Addition to property tax base, while smaller than for a nuclear or 

coal-fired plant, might still be quite noticeable. 

Human health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human 

health. 

Historic and 

cultural resources 

LARGE Adverse effects are likely to three NRHP-eligible resources. 

Environmental 

justice 

SMALL Some impacts on housing availability and prices during construction 

may occur, as might beneficial impacts from property tax revenues.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-28 April 2010 

1 9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Energy Alternatives 

2 Table 9-4 contains a summary of the review team’s environmental impact characterizations for 

3 constructing and operating new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural gas-fired combined-cycle 

4 generating units at the Calvert Cliffs site. The combination of alternatives shown in Table 9-4 

5 assumes siting of natural gas combined-cycle generating units at the Calvert Cliffs site and 

6 siting of other generating units within UniStar’s ROI. 

7 Table 9-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New Nuclear, 

8 Coal-Fired, and Natural Gas-Fired Generating Units and a Combination of 

9 Alternatives 

Impact Category Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 

Combination of 

Alternatives 

Land use SMALL MODERATE SMALL MODERATE 

Air quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Water use and quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology MODERATE MODERATE SMALL MODERATE 

Waste management SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Socioeconomics 

(except Taxes and Economy) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

SMALL 

Adverse 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Socioeconomics 

(Taxes and Economy) 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Beneficial 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Beneficial 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Beneficial 

Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Historic and cultural resources LARGE LARGE LARGE LARGE 

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

10 The review team reviewed the available information on the environmental impacts of power 

11 generation alternatives compared to the construction of a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs 

12 site. Looking at the alternatives to a nuclear power plant, use of a natural gas plant has the 

13 least impacts. Comparing nuclear and natural gas, the gas plant would have less impacts to 

14 ecology while having greater impacts on air quality. And, while some socioeconomic impacts 

15 are reduced because of the smaller workforce, at the same time, the County and the local 

16 economy would accrue fewer benefits from the project. On balance, the review team concludes 

17 that the environmental impacts of these two options would be similar. Based on this review, the 

18 review team concludes, from an environmental perspective, none of the viable energy 

19 alternatives are clearly preferable to construction of a new baseload nuclear power generating 

20 plant located within UniStar’s ROI. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Because of current concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions, the review team believes 

2 that it is appropriate to specifically discuss the differences among the alternative energy sources 

3 regarding carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions for the proposed action and 

4 energy generation alternatives are discussed in Sections 5.7.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, and 9.2.4. 

5 Table 9-5 summarizes the CO2 emission estimates for a 40-year period for the alternatives 

6 considered by the review team to be viable for baseload power generation. These estimates 

7 are limited to the emissions from power generation and do not include CO2 emissions for 

8 workforce transportation, construction fuel-cycle, or decommissioning. Among the viable energy 

9 generation alternatives, the CO2 emissions for nuclear power are a small fraction of the 

10 emissions of the other viable energy generation alternatives. Adding the transportation 

11 emissions for the nuclear plant workforce and fuel cycle emissions, would increase the 

12 emissions for plant operation over a 40-year period to about 35,000,000 metric tons. This 

13 number is still significantly lower than the emissions for any of the other alternatives. 

14 Table 9-5. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives 

Generation Type Years 

CO2 Emission 

(metric tons) 

Nuclear Power(a) 40 191,000 

Coal-Fired Generation(b) 40 451,000,000 

Natural Gas-Fired Generation(c) 40 204,000,000 

Combination of Alternatives(d) 40 153,000,000 

(a) From Appendix L 

(b) From Section 9.2.2.1 

(c) From Section 9.2.2.2 

(d) From Section 9.2.4 (assuming only natural gas generation has significant CO2 emissions) 

15 Carbon dioxide emissions associated with generation alternatives, such as wind power, solar 

16 power and hydropower would be associated with workforce transportation, construction, and 

17 decommissioning of the facilities. Because these generation alternatives do not involve 

18 combustion, the review team considers the emissions to be minor and concludes the emissions 

19 would have a minimal cumulative impact. Other energy generation alternatives involving 

20 combustion of oil, wood waste, municipal solid waste, or biomass-derived fuels would have CO2

21 emissions from combustion, as well as from workforce transportation, plant construction, and 

22 plant decommissioning. It is likely that the CO2 emissions from the combustion process for 

23 these alternatives would dominate the other CO2 emissions associated with the generation 

24 alternative. It is also likely that the CO2 emissions from these alternatives would be the same 

25 order of magnitude as the emissions for the fossil-fuel alternatives considered in 

26 Sections 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, and 9.2.4. However, because these alternatives were determined by 

27 the review team not to meet the need for baseload power generation, the review team has not 

28 evaluated the CO2 emissions quantitatively. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-30 April 2010 

1 As discussed in Chapter 8, the review team has concluded that the need for the additional 

2 baseload power generation has been demonstrated. Also, as discussed earlier in this chapter, 

3 the review team concludes the viable alternatives to the proposed action all would involve the 

4 use of fossil fuels (coal or natural gas). The review team concludes the proposed action results 

5 in the lowest level of emissions of greenhouse gases among the viable alternatives. 

6 9.3 Alternative Sites 

7 NRC EISs prepared in conjunction with a COL application are to analyze alternatives to the 

8 proposed action (10 CFR 51.71(d)). The review team uses NRC guidance (NRC 2000a) to 

9 evaluate the alternative sites and determine if any obviously superior alternative exists to the 

10 site proposed. This section discusses UniStar’s process for selecting its proposed and 

11 alternative sites, and the review team’s evaluation of the process. UniStar’s site selection 

12 process was based on guidance in the following documents (UniStar 2009a): NRC’s ESRP 

13 (NRC 2000a), Regulatory Guide 4.2 (NRC 1976), Regulatory Guide 4.7 (NRC 1998), 10 CFR 

14 Part 100, and the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) Siting Guide (EPRI 2002). 

15 This section describes UniStar’s site selection process, the review team’s evaluation process, 

16 descriptions of the alternative sites selected by UniStar, and discussions of the environmental 

17 impacts of locating a new nuclear generating unit at each alternative site. For the purposes of 

18 this alternative sites evaluation, impacts evaluated include NRC-authorized construction, 

19 operation, and other cumulative impacts including preconstruction activities. Sections 9.3.3 

20 through 9.3.5 provide a site-specific description of the environmental impacts at each alternative 

21 site based on issues such as land use, air quality, water resources, terrestrial and aquatic 

22 ecology, socioeconomics and environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, and 

23 transmission corridors. Section 9.3.6 contains tables of the review team’s characterization of 

24 the impacts at the alternative sites and comparison with the proposed site to determine if there 

25 are any alternative sites that are environmentally preferable to the proposed site. 

26 9.3.1 Alternative Site Selection Process 

27 NRC’s site selection process guidance calls for identification of a region of interest (ROI), the 

28 geographic area considered by an applicant in searching for candidate areas and potential sites 

29 for possible siting of a new nuclear power plant (NRC 2000a). Within that ROI, screening 

30 criteria are applied to sequentially evaluate candidate areas, potential sites, and candidate sites. 

31 This systematic process leads to the selection of a proposed site and alternative sites unless 

32 the applicant proposes a site based on the special case identified in ESRP 9.3 for proposing to 

33 locate a new nuclear facility on the site of an existing nuclear power plant previously found 

34 acceptable on the basis of a NEPA review. UniStar used the ESRP 9.3 special case to select 

35 the Calvert Cliffs site as its proposed site for a third unit. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The review team raised a number of concerns related to UniStar’s site selection process and 

2 associated results submitted by UniStar in the COL application (through Revision 5 of the 

3 application) (UniStar 2009d). The most significant questions were documented in requests for 

4 additional information from the NRC dated May 13, 2008 (NRC 2008a), February 3, 2009 (NRC 

5 2009a), and September 18, 2009 (NRC 2009b). As a result of these information requests, 

6 UniStar developed a major revision to its site selection process and documented it in Revision 6 

7 to the ER (UniStar 2009a and in a separate Siting Report (UniStar 2009e). The process UniStar 

8 used to select its alternative sites is documented in ER Revision 6 (UniStar 2009a) and 

9 described in the following sections. 

10 9.3.1.1 Selection of Region of Interest 

11 UniStar selected the State of Maryland for its ROI (UniStar 2009a). The State of Maryland’s 

12 shortfall in net generating capacity was documented by the MPSC (MPSC 2007) and verified in 

13 its granting of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (MPSC 2009a) to UniStar for 

14 the proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 (see the discussion in Chapter 8 of the EIS). 

15 As described in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000a), an ROI is typically selected based on geographic 

16 boundaries (e.g., the state in which the proposed site is located) or the relevant service area for 

17 the proposed plant. By selecting the State of Maryland, UniStar’s designated ROI is consistent 

18 with expectations for an ROI. The review team concludes that the ROI used in UniStar’s COL 

19 application is reasonable for consideration and analysis of potential sites. The review team also 

20 finds that UniStar’s basis for defining its ROI did not arbitrarily exclude desirable candidate 

21 locations. 

22 9.3.1.2 UniStar’s Site Selection Process 

23 In its COL application, UniStar proposed the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant site for a new 

24 U.S. EPR nuclear unit. The decision to select the Calvert Cliffs site was based on a special 

25 case exception from the systematic site-selection process (NRC 2000a). This exception allows 

26 the applicant to select an existing nuclear facility as the proposed site for a new unit or units. 

27 UniStar embarked on a systematic review of candidate areas, potential sites, and candidate 

28 sites within the State of Maryland to identify alternative sites for comparison with the Calvert 

29 Cliffs proposed site. UniStar’s selection process to identify candidate areas and potential, 

30 candidate, and alternative sites is described in the following sections. 

31 Selection of Candidate Areas 

32 In describing the basis for its systematic selection of candidate areas, UniStar refers to the use 

33 of ESRP guidance (NRC 2000a) and the EPRI siting guide (EPRI 2002). UniStar applied the 

34 following screening criteria for candidate areas within Maryland: population density, distance to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-32 April 2010 

1 transmission lines, access to a suitable cooling water source, and if the site was available 

2 (UniStar 2009a). More specifically, areas were removed from further consideration if they 

3 exceeded the following characteristics: 

4 • exhibited a population density of more than 300 persons per square mile 

5 • were located more than 30 mi from 345-kV or higher transmission lines 

6 • were located more than 15 mi from an adequate source of cooling water 

7 • contained land that was dedicated to other uses, such as national and state parks and tribal 

8 lands. 

9 UniStar developed a map representing each exclusionary criterion, and these were combined 

10 into a summary map of designated candidate areas (Figure 9-1) that were not eliminated by 

11 these criteria. These candidate areas are shown as darkened areas near the Chesapeake Bay 

12 and the Potomac, Susquehanna, and Patuxent Rivers. 

13 Selection of Potential and Candidate Sites 

14 In its selection process of potential sites within its candidate areas, UniStar made use of two 

15 databases: the Maryland Department of the Environment’s Brownfield, Voluntary Cleanup 

16 Programs and State Remediation Site database and the U.S. DOE Energy Information 

17 Administration’s (EIA) State Energy Profile database. The two databases provided a pool of 

18 1036 possible sites in the ROI, including brownfield sites, remediation sites, and power facilities. 

19 These sites were plotted on the State map. Of those 1036 possible sites, 206 sites were 

20 located within the candidate areas and retained for further consideration. 

21 UniStar applied a “de-select” criterion to narrow the list of 206 sites by removing all sites that did 

22 not meet a minimum of 420 ac needed to site a U.S. EPR unit, its ancillary structures, 

23 construction laydown areas, and parking. This reduced the total to eight potential sites, which 

24 were evaluated for viability and potential licensability. These were identified as: 

25 • Bainbridge Naval Training Center 

26 • BWI Airport (located near the airport) 

27 • Beiler Property 

28 • Conowingo 

29 • Eastalco 

30 • Thiokol Site (formerly owned by Thiokol) 

31 • Morgantown 

32 • Sparrows Point. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 9-1. Locations of UniStar’s Candidate Areas in Maryland (UniStar 2009a) 

3 UniStar looked more closely at the eight potential sites and, for various reasons, eliminated four 

4 of them. One site was eliminated because of its proximity to a major airport (BWI airport), and a 

5 second site that met the previous density criteria was too near Baltimore for serious 

6 consideration (Sparrows Point). A third site contained an operating baseload fossil fuel facility, 

7 which is needed to meet current Maryland energy production and would be displaced by a new 

8 nuclear unit (Morgantown). A fourth site, although passing the candidate area screening for a 

9 water source, upon further reconnaissance-level evaluation, was unlikely to meet the volume 

10 requirement for water and depth for an intake structure (Beiler). After removing these four 

11 potential sites from further consideration, the remaining four potential sites were selected as 

12 what UniStar considered candidate sites: 

13 • Bainbridge Naval Training Center 

14 • Conowingo 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-34 April 2010 

1 • Eastalco 

2 • Thiokol. 

3 ESRP 9.3 considers candidate sites to include only the proposed and alternative sites. UniStar 

4 uses the term to include sites being considered for screening down to alternative sites, a 

5 difference that is not critical to the evaluation. UniStar then scored the candidate sites to select 

6 the alternative sites. 

7 A generic greenfield site was also characterized in a separate evaluation by UniStar (2009a). A 

8 greenfield site implies that the site has not been used previously for industrial purposes, but 

9 may have been disturbed for activities such as agriculture. No specific geographic location was 

10 identified by UniStar for the greenfield site location. However, UniStar assumed this 

11 hypothetical site would be located near the Chesapeake Bay or the lower reaches of the main 

12 rivers within the ROI to have an adequate water supply. UniStar also assumed it would not be 

13 “detrimentally challenged with grid interconnection issues.” Citing particularly (1) the likely need 

14 for land for switchyard and transmission lines in addition to the need to acquire, rezone, and 

15 disturb land for a plant site; (2) the likely need to integrate a plant into the socioeconomic and 

16 aesthetic environment; and (3) the likely need to improve roadways to a relatively remote, 

17 nonurban setting and associated transportation impacts, UniStar concluded that a greenfield 

18 site would offer no environmental advantages over the Calvert Cliffs site and would increase the 

19 severity of impacts (UniStar 2009a). 

20 Selection of Alternative Sites 

21 The next step of UniStar’s process was to select alternative sites from its list of four candidate 

22 sites using 16 major criteria categories and 42 sub-criteria and ranking each candidate site 

23 against these criteria. Commercial criteria, such as cost-related criteria, were not included in 

24 this evaluation. UniStar organized a nine-member Delphi panel consisting of personnel from 

25 UniStar, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA), and CH2M Hill to evaluate the four sites against the criteria. 

26 The panel represented a wide range of interests and expertise and had access to subject matter 

27 experts from CH2M HILL and AREVA for additional input (UniStar 2009e). In its analysis, the 

28 panel used publicly available data, information available through UniStar and Constellation 

29 Energy sources, and Google Earth images to evaluate the four sites (UniStar 2009e). Site 

30 investigations supplemented the evaluation as needed. For consistency in the analysis, the 

31 panel assumed that building and operation practices described for the proposed Calvert Cliffs 

32 Unit 3 in Chapters 4 and 5 would generally apply at each site. 

33 Weighting factors were applied to each criteria with water resources weighted the highest 

34 followed by population density, wetlands, resources related to transmission corridors, and 

35 terrestrial and aquatic resources (weighted toward threatened and endangered species, 

36 floodplains, and water resource temperature at the discharge). These weighting factors were 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-35 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 followed by geology/seismology, human health, socioeconomics, transportation access, historic 

2 resources, environmental justice, postulated accidents, air quality, and fuel cycle impacts. 

3 Although the review team would have preferred more emphasis on terrestrial and aquatic 

4 species (in addition to threatened and endangered species) and habitats, such factors were 

5 unlikely to have discriminated across the four sites. The review team found that the criteria and 

6 weighting factors were not unreasonable. 

7 The Delphi panel developed a rating system (1 = least suitable; 5 = most suitable) for each 

8 criterion and scored the four sites using this system. The nine scores for each major criterion 

9 were averaged, and the composite ratings computed to rank the four sites from highest to 

10 lowest (UniStar 2009e). The results for the four sites were closely clustered with no obviously 

11 better or worse candidates. The site receiving the highest ranking was Eastalco, followed by 

12 Thiokol, Bainbridge, and Conowingo. The review team considered the ranking system to be a 

13 relatively qualitative screening despite the numerical scores, but found that it was not 

14 unreasonable. 

15 UniStar selected the three sites with the highest scores as its alternative sites. These are: 

16 • Bainbridge, the former Naval Training Center 

17 • Eastalco, on property across from an inactive aluminum smelter 

18 • Thiokol, a former manufacturing site of certain munitions components, since remediated. 

19 Their locations along with the Calvert Cliffs proposed site are shown in Figure 9-2. 

20 UniStar and its site selection contractor described these sites at a reconnaissance level in 

21 UniStar’s ER (UniStar 2009a). Reconnaissance information is data that is readily available from 

22 agencies and other public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the 

23 site area. A formal environmental assessment has not been conducted at any of the alternative 

24 sites. UniStar compared the sites with the proposed Calvert Cliffs site for siting a new nuclear 

25 unit and determined that no alternatives were environmentally preferable to the Calvert Cliffs 

26 site. 

27 9.3.2 NRC/Corps Alternative Site Evaluation 

28 The review team reviewed the siting methodology used by UniStar to select its ROI, candidate 

29 areas, potential sites, candidate sites, and alternative sites. Based on UniStar’s description of 

30 its process and the review team’s evaluation of the criteria used (as addressed in the 

31 commentary in the previous section), the review team determined the process used to identify 

32 alternative sites was a logical approach consistent with NRC guidance (NRC 2000a) and, 

33 therefore, was adequate. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-36 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 9-2. Locations of Alternative Sites and Proposed Site (UniStar 2009a) 

3 In accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000a), the review team performed an independent 

4 comparison of the proposed and alternative sites. The review team visited each of the 

5 alternative sites between October 2008 and August 2009. Following the guidance in ESRP 9.3, 

6 the review team collected and analyzed reconnaissance-level information for each of the 

7 alternative sites. The team then used the information provided in the ER, request for additional 

8 information (RAI) responses, information from other Federal and State agencies, and 

9 information gathered at the visits to each alternative site to evaluate the cumulative impacts of 

10 building and operating a new nuclear power plant at those sites. Therefore, the analysis 

11 includes the impacts of NRC-authorized construction and operation, as well as impacts from 

12 other actions affecting the same resources. Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of an 

13 action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time. 

14 As a result, the cumulative impact assessment entails a more extensive and broader review of 

15 possible effects of the action beyond the site boundary. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-37 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The cumulative analysis for the impacts at the alternative sites was performed in the same 

2 manner as discussed in Chapter 7 for the proposed site except, as specified in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 

3 2000a). The analysis was conducted at the reconnaissance level for the alternative sites. To 

4 inform the cumulative analysis, the review team researched EPA databases for recent EISs 

5 within the State, used an EPA database for permits for water discharges in the geographic area 

6 to identify water-use projects, and used www.recovery.gov to identify projects in the geographic 

7 area funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). The 

8 review team developed tables of the major projects near each alternative site that were 

9 considered relevant in the cumulative analysis. The review team used the information to 

10 perform an independent evaluation of the direct and cumulative impacts of the proposed action 

11 at the alternative sites to determine if one or more of the alternative sites were environmentally 

12 preferable to the proposed site. 

13 Included are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

14 actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts with the proposed action. For purposes 

15 of this analysis, the past is defined as the time period prior to receipt of the COL application. 

16 The present is defined as the time period from the receipt of the COL application until the start 

17 of building proposed Unit 3. The future is defined as the start of building Unit 3 through 

18 operation and eventual decommissioning. 

19 Using Chapter 7 as a guide, the specific resources and components that could be affected by 

20 the incremental effects of the proposed action and other actions in the same geographical area 

21 were identified. The affected environment that serves as the baseline for the cumulative 

22 impacts analysis is described for each alternative site and includes a qualitative discussion of 

23 the general effects of past actions. For each resource area, the geographical area over which 

24 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could reasonably contribute to 

25 cumulative impacts is defined and described in later sections. The analysis for each resource 

26 area at each alternative site concludes with a cumulative impact finding (SMALL, MODERATE, 

27 or LARGE). For those cases in which the impact level to a resource was greater than SMALL, 

28 the review team also discussed whether building and operating a nuclear unit would be a 

29 “significant” contributor to the cumulative impact. In the context of this evaluation, “significant” is 

30 defined as a contribution that is important in reaching that impact level determination. 

31 The cumulative impacts are summarized for each resource area in the sections that follow. The 

32 level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for each resource area. The 

33 findings for each resource area at each alternative site then are compared in a table at the end 

34 of Section 9.3 to the cumulative impacts at the proposed site (brought forward from Chapter 7). 

35 The results of this comparison are used to determine if any of the alternative sites are 

36 environmentally preferable to the proposed site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-38 April 2010 

1 The impacts described in Chapter 6 (e.g., nuclear fuel cycle, decommissioning) would not vary 

2 significantly from one site to another. This is true because all of the alternative sites and the 

3 proposed site are in low-population areas and the review team assumes the same reactor 

4 design (therefore, the same fuel cycle technology, transportation methods, and 

5 decommissioning methods) for all of the sites. As such, these impacts would not differentiate 

6 between the sites and would not be useful in the determination of whether an alternative site is 

7 environmentally preferable to the proposed site. For this reason, these impacts are not 

8 discussed in the evaluation of the alternative sites. 

9 9.3.3 Bainbridge Naval Training Center 

10 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

11 a new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge Naval Training Center (Bainbridge) site in northeast 

12 Maryland near the Susquehanna River just above its discharge into Chesapeake Bay. The 

13 Bainbridge site is located within the upland section of the Piedmont Plateau physiographic 

14 province in Cecil County, Maryland (MDNR 2001). This province is described as rolling hills and 

15 stream valleys covered with hardwood forests (FWS 2001). 

16 Part of the Bainbridge site was home to the Tome School for Boys beginning in the early 1900s, 

17 and many of the school buildings are still standing. The Bainbridge Naval Training Center was 

18 constructed in 1942 for training Navy recruits during World War II (EPA 2000). The training 

19 center was deactivated in 1976. Although some office buildings and personnel quarters remain, 

20 most of the training center structures have been demolished and removed, and biota 

21 succession has reclaimed areas formerly maintained as open space. 

22 The following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

23 resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

24 incremental effects of the proposed action if it were sited at the Bainbridge site and other 

25 actions in the same geographical area were assessed. This assessment includes the impacts 

26 from building activities and operations. Also included are past, present, and reasonably 

27 foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative 

28 impacts with the proposed action. Other actions and projects considered in this cumulative 

29 analysis are described in Table 9-6. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-39 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 9-6. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Bainbridge Site Cumulative Analysis

Project Name or 

Other Action Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Station 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Station is a 

hydroelectric facility (548 MW(e)). 

Approximately 

10 mi northwest 

of Bainbridge 

site 

Operational. License 

expires in 2014. On March 

12, 2009, Pre-Application 

Document was filed with 

FERC to renew the 

license.(a)

Rock Springs 

Generation Facility 

Rock Springs Generation Facility is a 

gas-fired peaking facility 

(670 MW(e)). 

Approximately 

7 mi northeast of 

Bainbridge site 

Operational.(b)

Operation of Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power 

Station Units 2 and 3 

Peach Bottom consists of two 

existing power stations, Unit 2 and 3 

(1140 MW(e) each). 

Approximately 

15 mi northwest 

of Bainbridge 

site 

Operational. Licenses 

expire in 2033 and 2034.(c)

Operation of Hope 

Creek Generating 

Station, Unit 1 

Hope Creek consists of one existing 

nuclear generating unit 

(1061 MW(e)). 

Approximately 

33 mi east of 

Bainbridge site 

Operational. License 

expires April 11, 2026.(d)

Operation of Salem 

Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2 

Salem consists of two existing 

nuclear generating units, Unit 1 

(1174 MW(e)) and Unit 2 

(1130 MW(e)). 

Approximately 

33 mi east of 

Bainbridge site 

Operational. Unit 1 license 

expires August 13, 2016.(e) 

Unit 2 license expires 

April 18, 2020.(f) 

PSEG proposed 

additional unit(s) at the 

existing Salem-Hope 

Creek Site 

One or two new units may be 

proposed adjacent to the existing 

Salem and Hope Creek units. 

Approximately 

33 mi east of 

Bainbridge site 

NRC is expecting an Early 

Site Permit (ESP) 

application in 2010.(g)

Operation of Three Mile 

Island Nuclear Station, 

Unit 1 

Three Mile Island consists of one 

existing nuclear generating unit 

(786 MW(e)). 

Approximately 

50 mi northwest 

of Bainbridge 

site 

Operational. License 

expires April 19, 2034.(h)

Operation of Limerick 

Generating Station, 

Units 1 and 2 

Limerick consists of two existing 

nuclear generating units, Unit 1 

(1134 MW(e)) and Unit 2 

(1134 MW(e)). 

Approximately 

50 mi northeast 

of Bainbridge 

site 

Operational. Unit 1 license 

expires October 26, 

2024.(i) Unit 2 license 

expires June 22, 2029.(j)

PPL Holtwood Electric 

Plant 

PPL Holtwood consists of one 

hydroelectric facility (108 MW(e)). 

Approximately 

20 mi northwest 

of Bainbridge 

site 

Operational. FERC license 

expires in 2014. 

Application for expansion 

in process.(k) 

3 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-40 April 2010 

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name or 

Other Action Summary of Project Location Status 

Other Actions/Projects 

Great Lakes Dredge 

and Dock Company 

LLC 

Perform maintenance dredging at 

various locations along the Inland 

Waterway Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal and Upper 

Chesapeake Bay areas. 

Chesapeake Bay, 

Chesapeake City, 

MD; approximately 

8 to 20 mi southeast 

of site 

Planned. Over $8M 

contract awarded by 

USACE on Sept. 28, 

2009.(l)

Aberdeen Proving 

Ground (APG) Base 

Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) 

Under the base realignment and 

closure action. DoD changing, and in 

some cases expanding, the site’s 

mission such as investing over 

$1.1 billion in construction at 

Aberdeen Proving Ground for the 

new Army Team Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) center. 

Approximately 

15 mi south of 

Bainbridge site 

Ongoing site 

development 

projects.(m) 

Dominion/Antero 

Keystone Pipeline 

250-mi natural-gas pipeline running 

from Green County to Chester 

County, PA. 

A portion would 

pass approximately 

10 mi northwest of 

the Bainbridge site 

Proposed.(n)

Wastewater Treatment 

Plants 

Six wastewater treatment plants. Six WWTPs in 

10-mi radius of 

Bainbridge site 

Operational. 

Various hospitals and 

industrial facilities that 

use radioactive 

materials 

Medical and other isotopes. Within 50 mi Operational. 

Susquehanna State 

Park 

Primarily forested and open water 

areas used for recreation, fishing, 

hunting, conservation, and historic 

learning purposes. 

Approximately 1 mi 

west of Bainbridge 

site 

Development is 

unlikely. 

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units and 

associated commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and rail; construction 

of water- and/or wastewatertreatment and distribution facilities 

and associated pipelines, as 

described in local land use planning 

documents. 

Throughout region Construction would 

occur in the future, as 

described in State and 

local land use planning 

documents 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-41 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name or 

Other Action Summary of Project Location Status 

(a) Source: Exelon 2009. 

(b) Source: ConEdison Development 2009. 

(c) Source: NRC 2003. 

(d) Source: NRC 2009d. 

(e) Source: NRC 2009e, 2009f. 

(f) Source: NRC 2009g. 

(g) Source: NRC 2009h. 

(h) Source: NRC 2009i. 

(i) Source: NRC 2009j. 

(j) Source: NRC 2009k. 

(k) Source: FERC 2008. 

(l) Source: Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board 2009. 

(m) Source: BRACD 2005. 

(n) Source: Dominion 2009. 

1 9.3.3.1 Land Use 

2 The following impact analysis includes impacts to land use from building activities and 

3 operations at the Bainbridge site and within the geographic area of interest, which is the 15-mi 

4 region surrounding the Bainbridge site. The analysis also considers past, present, and 

5 reasonably foreseeable future actions that impact land use, including other Federal and non6 Federal projects and those projects listed in Table 9-6 within the geographic area of interest. 

7 The Bainbridge site is an approximately 1185-ac tract of land located in Port Deposit, Cecil 

8 County, Maryland. The site is approximately 3 mi west of Interstate 95 (I-95) and is bounded by 

9 State Highway 276 to the north and northwest, to the east by residential properties beyond 

10 which is State Highway 275, and by State Highway 222 to the south. The site is situated atop 

11 the Piedmont Plateau and overlooks the Susquehanna River and the Port Deposit town center 

12 (MDE 2008). The southwestern edge of the site is parallel to and less than 0.1 mi from the 

13 Susquehanna River (UniStar 2009a). Figure 9-3 shows the property boundary in relation to the 

14 lower reach of the Susquehanna River. A 420-ac site footprint is contained within the property 

15 boundary. Figure 9-4 shows an overhead view of the property. 

16 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-42 Draft NUREG-1936 1 Figure 9-3. Site Location of the Bainbridge Naval Training Center (UniStar 2009a) 2 
Draft NUREG-1936 9-43 April 2010 

 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Figure 9-4. Bainbridge Naval Training Center Site and Surrounding Area (UniStar 2009a) 2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-44 April 2010 

1 A portion of the site was used as a private school in the early 1900s. The U.S. Navy operated a 

2 training center on the site from 1942 to 1976. From 1978 to 1990, the U.S. Department of Labor 

3 sponsored a Job Corps Center at the site. The Navy conducted a variety of cleanup operations 

4 at the site from 1988 to 1999. The property was transferred from the Navy to the Bainbridge 

5 Development Corporation in 2000. Approximately 60 structures remain on the site in varying 

6 stages of decay (MDE 2008). The site is currently used as a truck driving school and for 

7 archery deer hunting during the regulated hunting season as a Maryland Cooperative Wildlife 

8 Management Area (CWMA). 

9 The site is zoned Bainbridge Special Use. Industrial uses are permitted (Town of Port Deposit 

10 2008). There are use restrictions covering the landfill cap for the landfill used by the Navy and 

11 use of groundwater where some contamination may remain (UniStar 2009a). 

12 The majority of the elevation change on the site occurs near or along the bluff adjacent to the 

13 Susquehanna River. Within the interior of the site, the land is relatively level and could 

14 accommodate a new nuclear generating unit. 

15 The nearest dedicated land (Federal, State, or Tribal) is Susquehanna State Park located 

16 approximately 3 mi northwest of Havre de Grace off Route 155 in Harford County. 

17 If a new nuclear generating unit were constructed on the Bainbridge site, the 420-ac tract would 

18 be disturbed and much of the mixed deciduous forest on the tract would be lost. In addition, 

19 some offsite land would be affected to build a pipeline to bring water for cooling to the site from 

20 the Susquehanna River. A pipeline from the river would need to cross railroad tracks and a 

21 local road (UniStar 2009a). 

22 In addition, one or more new transmission corridors would be needed to connect the Bainbridge 

23 site to the grid. Four existing 500-kV transmission lines would be available for possible 

24 interconnection. One line is 5 mi north of the site, and the other three are between 10 and 20 mi 

25 from the site. There are five existing 230-kV transmission lines within 5 mi of the site, and there 

26 are six 230-kV transmission lines between 10 and 20 mi from the site (UniStar 2009a). 

27 Because of the short distances to the transmission interconnections, the review team concludes 

28 that the land-use impacts of building and operating transmission lines for a new nuclear plant at 

29 the Bainbridge site would be minor. 

30 Cumulative Impacts 

31 For this cumulative land use analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 15-mi region 

32 surrounding the Bainbridge site. This geographic area of interest includes the primary 

33 communities (Aberdeen, Havre de Grace, North East, and Perryville) that would be affected by 

34 the proposed project if it were located at the Bainbridge site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-45 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The projects identified in Table 9-6 with the greatest likelihood of affecting land use in the 

2 geographic area of interest would be the Aberdeen Proving Ground Base Realignment and 

3 Closure (BRAC) and the Dominion/Antero pipeline. The Aberdeen Proving Ground BRAC 

4 would involve realignments through a combination of new construction, renovation, and reuse to 

5 accommodate incoming missions (U.S. Army 2007a). Activities would be conducted on the 

6 existing Aberdeen Proving Ground site located about 15 mi southeast of the Bainbridge site. 

7 Some indirect offsite land-use impacts may occur as a result of economic activity on the 

8 Aberdeen site. The Dominion/Antero pipeline route would pass approximately 10 mi northwest 

9 of the Bainbridge site. It would affect a relatively narrow band of land within the geographic 

10 area of interest. The Aberdeen BRAC and Dominion pipeline projects, along with other projects 

11 identified in Table 9-6, have contributed or would contribute to some decreases in open lands, 

12 wetlands, and forested areas and generally result in increased urbanization and industrialization. 

13 However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve open lands, 

14 wetlands, and forested areas. Because the projects within the geographic area of interest 

15 identified in Table 9-6 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, 

16 the review team considers the cumulative land-use impacts from the projects to be manageable. 

17 Because of the short distances to the transmission interconnections, the review team concludes 

18 that the cumulative transmission line land-use impacts of building and operating a new nuclear 

19 generating unit and associated transmission lines at the Bainbridge site would be minimal. 

20 Similar to the area of interest for the Calvert Cliffs site, global climate change (GCC) could 

21 increase precipitation, sea level, and storm surges in the area of interest (GCRP 2009), thus 

22 changing land use through inundation of low-lying areas that are not buffered by the bluffs along 

23 the Susquehanna River. However, the cliffs could experience increased rates of erosion as a 

24 result of frequent storm surges, flooding events, and sea-level rise (GCRP 2009). Forest growth 

25 may increase as a result of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (GCRP 2009). Existing 

26 parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas to the 

27 extent that they are not affected by the same factors. In addition, GCC could reduce crop yields 

28 and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), which might change portions of agricultural land uses 

29 in the area of interest. Direct changes resulting from GCC could cause a shift in land use in the 

30 geographic area of interest. 

31 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

32 the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating a new 

33 nuclear generating unit, including associated transmission lines, at the Bainbridge site would be 

34 SMALL. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site would be a significant 

35 contributor to this impact. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-46 April 2010 

1 9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality 

2 Water for the Bainbridge site would be obtained primarily from the Susquehanna River. 

3 According to UniStar (2009a), the plant would require the withdrawal of about 50 MGD for 

4 cooling and other uses. Of that total, about 27 MGD (42 cfs) would be consumed, and the 

5 remainder would be discharged back to the Susquehanna River. UniStar (2008b) states that 

6 the plant would use closed-cycle cooling with a cooling tower. The plant would have separate 

7 intake and discharge structures in the Susquehanna River. Discharge water would include 

8 cooling tower blowdown, treated process wastewater, treated sanitary wastewater, and some 

9 radioactive water. The discharge would be at a slightly elevated temperature relative to the 

10 temperature of the Susquehanna River. 

11 During a site visit on August 19, 2009, review team observed that the proposed location for the 

12 reactor would be the upper portion of the Bainbridge site, which is somewhat flat to undulating 

13 terrain. Moving westward toward the Susquehanna River, the terrain drops off more steeply 

14 until it reaches cliffs that abut the town of Port Deposit, which is on the river shoreline. There 

15 are several landfills on the Bainbridge site; landfill caps, deed restrictions, and groundwater use 

16 restrictions apply. There are some minor surface water drainages on site, but no flow was 

17 observed. An approximately 3-ac pond was observed somewhat in the center of the site. 

18 The Bainbridge site would require normal alterations, including grading, construction of roads, 

19 piers, jetties, and water intake and discharge structures in the Susquehanna River. 

20 Development of the intake and discharge pipes would affect the pipe corridor from the site to the 

21 river and would affect the river bed in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. 

22 Although the site is close to the river, UniStar (2009a) identified the potential need to build an 

23 onsite impoundment to provide an ultimate heat sink. UniStar estimates that the area and depth 

24 of such an impoundment would be approximately 4.7 ac and 25 ft, respectively (UniStar 2009a). 

25 The average flow of the Susquehanna River at Conowingo Dam between October 1967 and 

26 August 2009 was 26,570 MGD (41,110 cfs) (USGS 2009). The Bainbridge site is about 9 mi 

27 downstream of Conowingo Dam. In the vicinity of the site, the river is considered to be a tidal 

28 fresh water estuary. Water withdrawal for the plant would represent less than 0.2 percent of 

29 average flow conditions at Conowingo Dam; consumptive use would be less than 0.1 percent of 

30 the average flow. Although there appears to be sufficient water during average flow conditions, 

31 low-flow conditions could have the potential to impact plant operations. Such conditions are 

32 characterized using at a metric known as the 7Q10, which is the lowest 7-day average flow with 

33 a 10-year recurrence interval. UniStar (2009e) reported a 7Q10 value for the Conowingo Dam 

34 of 2452 MGD (3793 cfs). Total water withdrawal would represent only 2 percent of the 

35 7Q10 value. Consumptive use would be less, approximately 1 percent of the 7Q10 value. 

36 Withdrawals of water from the Susquehanna River require approval by the MDE Water 

37 Management Administration and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. Given that the 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-47 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Susquehanna River near the Bainbridge site is tidally influenced, the water consumed by the 

2 plant would likely be quite small with respect to the existing resource. 

3 The Bainbridge site has a shallow unconfined aquifer that overlies crystalline rock aquifers. The 

4 shallow aquifer is contaminated in some locations and deed restrictions limit its use. There are 

5 no known public or private wells that would be affected by the onsite contaminants. The 

6 crystalline rock aquifers could be used for potable water; median production rates in the region 

7 are 30 gpm. UniStar (2009a) states that groundwater would not be used for operations, but 

8 may be needed temporarily for building activities. UniStar has not determined the combination 

9 of sources and related quantities of water (i.e., ground and surface water) needed for 

10 development of this site. 

11 Building activities, including surface alterations and dewatering, have the potential to affect the 

12 local hydrology, but because the site has already been heavily developed, any additional 

13 impacts from building a nuclear power plant would be temporary and localized. The 

14 groundwater resource in the deeper aquifers may be temporarily affected by withdrawals for 

15 building purposes but would not be affected during operations because this resource would not 

16 be used for that purpose. 

17 Water quality alterations to both the surface water and groundwater would be regulated by 

18 NPDES discharge and stormwater permits. BMPs would prevent or mitigate spills from altering 

19 surface or groundwater resource quality. The nutrient load from the plant’s sanitary effluent 

20 system would be a minor contribution to the Susquehanna River’s cumulative nutrient load. 

21 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

22 the review team concludes that although the local hydrology would be impacted, the impacts on 

23 regional surface and groundwater resources from building and operating a new nuclear 

24 generating unit at the Bainbridge site would be minor. 

25 Cumulative Impacts 

26 For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the 

27 Bainbridge site is the drainage basin of the Susquehanna River upstream and downstream of 

28 the site because this is the area that would be impacted by the proposed project. Key actions 

29 that have current and reasonably foreseeable potential impacts to water supply and water 

30 quality in the geographic area of interest include the operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic 

31 Power Station Units 2 and 3 and other municipal and industrial activities in the Susquehanna 

32 River basin. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on groundwater, the geographic area of 

33 interest is the extent within Cecil County of the groundwater aquifers beneath the site. 

34 Water Use. The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating a nuclear power plant at 

35 this site would be dominated by the demands that would occur under normal operation. As 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-48 April 2010 

1 noted above, the impacts would be small relative to existing measures of water availability in the 

2 Susquehanna River; those measures reflect cumulative consumptive uses of current users 

3 upstream of the site. 

4 The review team determined the consumptive use of water by the operation of a nuclear reactor 

5 at the Bainbridge site and all other consumptive uses (existing or likely future uses) could not 

6 plausibly alter the volume of water in the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Bainbridge 

7 site. 

8 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect the water 

9 resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water resources for 

10 other users. The impact of climate change on the water available at the Bainbridge site would 

11 be small because of the availability of water from the tidally influenced portion of the 

12 Susquehanna River. 

13 Increases in consumptive use of water in the Susquehanna River drainage is anticipated in the 

14 future. The impacts of the other operational projects listed in Table 9-6 are considered in the 

15 analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface water use. 

16 Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts to surface water 

17 would be SMALL. 

18 The regional crystalline rock aquifer is not as productive as the coastal plain aquifers, which 

19 explains why there are no significant groundwater users near the Bainbridge site. The nearest 

20 town, Port Deposit, derives its water supply from the Susquehanna River. Therefore, it is 

21 unlikely that the crystalline rock aquifer would be a significant source of water for the site and 

22 the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts to the regional groundwater resource 

23 would be SMALL. 

24 Water Quality. An MDE-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate a nuclear plant at 

25 this site and would ensure that the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Point and 

26 non-point pollution sources have impacted the water quality of the Susquehanna River 

27 upstream and downstream of the site. For example, elevated levels of nutrients, turbidity, and 

28 temperature have been observed upstream at the Conowingo Dam in 2007 and 2008. The 

29 impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-6 are either considered in the analysis included above 

30 or would have little or no impact on surface water quality. Therefore, based on the existing 

31 conditions in the river, the review team concludes the cumulative impact on surface water 

32 quality would be MODERATE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site 

33 would not be a significant contributor to this impact. 

34 With the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from building and 

35 operating a new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site would be minimal. Regionally, the shallow 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-49 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 and deep aquifers do not appear to be major groundwater resources. The impacts of other 

2 projects listed in Table 9-6 are either considered in the analysis included above or would have 

3 little or no impact on groundwater quality. Therefore, the review team concludes the cumulative 

4 impact on groundwater quality would be SMALL. 

5 9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

6 The Bainbridge site is heavily vegetated and contains mixed deciduous forest stands in various 

7 stages of succession, scrub-shrub, and a small area dominated by grasses. Stands of mixed 

8 deciduous forest likely represent species known to occur in the region. More mature forest 

9 stands are present where forest was retained during the operation of the training facility. 

10 Young, regenerating forest and scrub-shrub occupy areas around former facilities and other 

11 areas formerly maintained as open space. A capped landfill covered with grass lies within the 

12 western site boundary. 

13 Review of the National Wetlands Inventory data indicated there are a few small wetlands on the 

14 site (FWS 2008a). These wetlands total 4.6 ac (UniStar 2009f). Although the site does not 

15 contain or border a waterbody suitable for supplying water to the cooling system, the site is 

16 0.1-mi away from the Susquehanna River. However, access to the Susquehanna River would 

17 require construction of a pipeline, part of which would occur outside the existing site boundary. 

18 Within Cecil County there are three Federally listed animal species and one Federally listed 

19 plant (Table 9-7). None of these species have been observed or are known to occur on the site, 

20 and critical habitat has not been designated for any of these species. Each of these four 

21 species has specific habitat requirements that would likely preclude any of them from occurring 

22 on the Bainbridge site. The Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela puritana) lives only on bare bluffs 

23 with narrow beaches below, neither of which are on the Bainbridge site (FWS 1993). The bog 

24 turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) prefers small (<2 ac), open canopy sedge or grass-dominated 

25 meadows among forests, which also is not present on the site (FWS 2001). The Delmarva fox 

26 squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus) occurs in mature deciduous and mixed deciduous forests with a 

27 closed canopy and an open understory, and it generally occurs in forest stands associated with 

28 farmlands (FWS 2008b). Although both deciduous and mixed deciduous forest habitats are 

29 present on the Bainbridge site, these habitats are not mature and are not characterized by 

30 closed canopies with open understories. Since the specific habitat the Delmarva fox squirrel 

31 prefers is not present, it is highly unlikely this species is present on the Bainbridge site. Swamp 

32 pink (Helonias bullata) is an obligate wetland plant that occurs along streams and seeps in 

33 freshwater swamps and other similar wetland habitats and is strongly associated with coniferous 

34 trees (FWS 1991). Although limited wetland habitat exists on the Bainbridge site, freshwater 

35 swamps are not present; this likely precludes the swamp pink from being found on the site. 

36 The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle 

37 Protection Act and is also listed as threatened by the State of Maryland. There is no open water 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-50 April 2010 

1 suitable for eagle foraging on the site. However, the section of the Susquehanna River where 

2 the Bainbridge site is located is a known bald eagle wintering area in Maryland (MDNR 2009b). 

3 Forest cover present on the bluff overlooking the Susquehanna River may be used by eagles for 

4 roosting or perching. 

5 Table 9-7. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species that Occur in Cecil County and May 

6 Occur on the Bainbridge Site or in the Immediate Vicinity

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Cicindela puritana Puritan Tiger Beetle Threatened Endangered 

Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Threatened Threatened 

Sciurus niger cinereus Delmarva Fox Squirrel Endangered Endangered 

Helonias bullata Swamp Pink Threatened Endangered 

Agalinis obtusifolia Blunt-leaved Gerardia Endangered 

Agalinis setacea Thread-leaved Gerardia Endangered 

Agrimonia striata Woodland Agrimony Endangered 

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed Pussytoes Threatened 

Arnica acaulis Leopard’s-bane Endangered 

Asplenium piddatifidum Lobed Spleenwort Endangered 

Bromus latiglumis Broad-glumed Brome Endangered 

Cardamine longii Long’s Bittercress Endangered 

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s Sedge Threatened 

Carex hitchcockiana Hitchcock’s Sedge Endangered 

Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge Endangered 

Carex vestita Velvety Sedge Threatened 

Castilleja coccinea Indian Paintbrush Endangered 

Chenopodium standleyanum Standley’s Goosefoot Endangered 

Cicuta bulbifera Bulb-bearing Water Hemlock Endangered 

Clematis occidentalis Purple Clematis Endangered 

Corrallorhiza wisteriana Wister’s Coralroot Endangered 

Coreopsis tripteris Tall Tickseed Endangered 

Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hairgrass Endangered 

Desmodium pauciflorum Few-flowered Tick-trefoil Endangered 

Desmodium rigidum Rigid Tick-trefoil Endangered 

Dirca palustris Leatherwood Threatened 

Elatine minima Small Waterwort Endangered 

7 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-51 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Eleocharis compressa Flattened Spikerush Endangered 

Eleocharis halaphila Salt-marsh Spikerush Endangered 

Epilobium ciliatum Northern Willowherb Endangered 

Epilobium strictum Downy Willowherb Endangered 

Equisetum fluviatile Water Horsetail Endangered 

Equisetum sylvaticum Wood Horsetail Endangered 

Eriocaulon aquaticum Seven-angled Pipewort Endangered 

Eriocaulon parkeri Parker’s Pipewort Threatened 

Erythroniumalbidum White Trout Lily Threatened 

Euphorbia purpurea Darlington’s Spurge Endangered 

Eurybia radula Rough-leaved Aster Endangered 

Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw Endangered 

Gentiana andrewsii Fringe-tip Closed Gentian Threatened 

Gentiana villosa Striped Gentian Endangered 

Gentianopsis crinita Fringed Gentian Endangered 

Haseola suaveolens Sweet-scented Indian-plantain Endangered 

Helianthemum bicknellii Hoary Frostweed Endangered 

Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal Threatened 

Iris prismatica Slender Blue Flag Endangered 

Lathyrus palustris Vetchling Endangered 

Limnobium spongia American Frog’s-bit Endangered 

Limosella australis Mudwort Endangered 

Linum intercursum Sandplain Flax Threatened 

Lithospermum latifolium American Gromwell Endangered 

Lygodium palmatum Climbing Fern Threatened 

Lysimachia hibrida Lowland Loosestrife Threatened 

Matelea carolinensis Anglepod Endangered 

Melanthium latifolium Broad-leaved Bunchflower Endangered 

Minuartia michauxii Rock Sandwort Threatened 

Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp Lousewort Endangered 

Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid Threatened 

Pluchea camphorata Marsh Fleabane Endangered 

Polygala senega Seneca Snakeroot Threatened 

Potamogeton zosteriformis Flatstem Pondweed Endangered 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-52 April 2010 

Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

Purnus alleghaniensis Alleghany Plum Threatened 

Pycnanthemum torrei Torrey’s Mountain-mint Endangered 

Pycnanthemum verticillatum Whorled Mountain-mint Endangered 

Rhynchospora golbularis Grass-like Beakrush Endangered 

Ruellia strepens Rustling Wild-petunia Endangered 

Rumex altissimus Tall Dock Endangered 

Salix exigua Sandbar Willow Endangered 

Sanguisorba canadensis Canada Burnet Threatened 

Scutellaria leonardii Leonard’s Skullcap Threatened 

Scutellaria nervosa Veined Skullcap Endangered 

Sida hermaphrodita Virginia Mallow Endangered 

Smilax pseudochina Halberd-leaved Greenbrier Threatened 

Solidago speciosa Showy Goldenrod Threatened 

Sphenopholis pensylvanica Swamp-oats Threatened 

Spiranthes lucida Wide-leaved Lady’s Tresses Endangered 

Sporobolus clandestinus Rough Rushgrass Threatened 

Sporobolus heterolepis Northern Dropseed Endangered 

Stachys aspera Rough Hedge-nettle Endangered 

Stellaria alsine Trailing Stitchwort Endangered 

Stenanthium gramineum Featherbells Threatened 

Symphyotrichum depauperatum Serpentine Aster Endangered 

Talinum teretifolium Fameflower Threatened 

Thaspium trifoliatum Purple Meadow-parsnip Endangered 

Triosteum angustifolium Narrow-leaved Horse-gentian Endangered 

Triphora trianthophora Nodding Pogonia Endangered 

Valeriana pauciflora Valerian Endangered 

Source: MDNR 2007c 

1 Ecologically important species that likely occur on the Bainbridge site include tulip poplar 

2 (Liriodendron tulipifera), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). 

3 These three species are considered ecologically important because they are widespread, 

4 abundant, and contribute resources to many upland habitats. 

5 Recreationally important species found on the Bainbridge site include white-tailed deer 

6 (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-53 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 colchicus), and the northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus). The white-tailed deer and wild 

2 turkey can thrive in a habitat mosaic. The ring-necked pheasant and bobwhite quail prefer open 

3 habitats and would not likely be present in the local landscape without disturbance brought 

4 about by various land use practices, including agriculture. 

5 Building and Operational Impacts 

6 UniStar identified a representative 420-ac area within the Bainbridge site for the purposes of 

7 evaluating potential impacts of building a U.S. EPR nuclear power plant (see Figure 9-4). If a 

8 plant were built within this footprint, mixed deciduous forest in various stages of succession, 

9 scrub-shrub, and recently disturbed grass-dominated habitats would be permanently lost. No 

10 onsite wetlands would be affected (UniStar 2009a). The water supply pipeline and intake 

11 structure would disturb approximately 1.32 ac of wetlands offsite. Also, approximately 5.2 ac of 

12 wetlands would be affected by transmission line development. 

13 The Bainbridge site is a Maryland CWMA that is open to deer hunting from September through 

14 January. A new reactor built on the Bainbridge site would necessitate closure of the CWMA on 

15 the site. 

16 The Bainbridge site, although heavily vegetated, is mostly at an early to intermediate (seral) 

17 stage (in succession). The site does not provide suitable habitat for the Federally listed Puritan 

18 tiger beetle, bog turtle, and swamp pink, so effects to these species would be limited. The 

19 forests are not mature enough at this time to provide habitat for the Delmarva fox squirrel. 

20 However, these forests may become suitable if no disturbances occurr on this site, and 

21 therefore this species could lose potential future habitat if a nuclear plant is developed at this 

22 site. Installation of a cooling system pipeline to the Susquehanna River and transmission 

23 systems would affect terrestrial resources, including wetlands and streams. Wintering bald 

24 eagles could be displaced during building of these facilities. However, this displacement would 

25 be limited both spatially and temporally, and alternate roost and perch sites are likely along the 

26 lower Susquehanna River. Any disturbance of eagles is not expected to result in a decrease in 

27 eagle productivity. An extensive number of Maryland State-listed plants are found in Cecil 

28 County. Their distribution and abundance is unknown within the site and vicinity, and it is 

29 unknown to what extent any of these species would be affected. Some are wetland specific, 

30 and as wetland impacts could be avoided at this site, these species would be expected to be 

31 affected less than upland species and habitat generalists. Because the site has experienced 

32 considerable disturbance in the past, State-listed species that occur in disturbed habitats such 

33 as the showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa), could be noticeably affected. Populations of the 

34 three ecologically important species (tulip poplar, chestnut oak, mountain laurel), by their nature 

35 of being important due to abundance and distribution, would not be noticeably affected on the 

36 site and within the county. Recreationally important white-tailed deer, wild turkey, ring-necked 

37 pheasant, and bobwhite quail could lose some habitat from conversion to facilities, but could 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-54 April 2010 

1 also benefit from the temporary effects of disturbance to more mature habitats. However, these 

2 effects are not expected to be noticeable or destabilize even local populations of these animals. 

3 Operational activities within the transmission corridors might include visual inspection and 

4 appropriate maintence of transmission line corridors. Maintenance activities might include 

5 clearing vegetation and tree trimming or removal. For maintenance purposes, wooded sections 

6 of the corridors would be cleared to the full width through mechanical clearing, hand cutting, or 

7 herbicide application. 

8 Terrestrial ecological impacts that may result from operation of a new nuclear unit at the 

9 Bainbridge alternative site include those associated with the cooling system and maintenance of 

10 transmission line corridors. For impacts related to cooling system operations, the review team 

11 assumed that the one cooling tower proposed for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be used 

12 at each of the alternative sites. In NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the NRC staff evaluated 

13 terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from operation of existing nuclear power plants and 

14 transmission line operation and maintenance. The types of terrestrial ecological impacts 

15 resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit would be similar to those of existing nuclear 

16 power plants. Conclusions in the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) were used to assess terrestrial 

17 impacts resulting from the operation of the cooling tower and impacts from transmission line 

18 corridor maintenance and operation where more specific information was not available. 

19 Likewise, the effects of cooling tower drift, avian collisions, noise, and transmission lines would 

20 be similar to those described in Section 5.3.1.1 in which the operational impacts were 

21 determined to be undetectable at the population level. 

22 Cooling Towers 

23 The operation of a cooling tower results in the loss of water through evaporation and drift. Drift 

24 is described as small, unevaporated water droplets that are exhausted out the top of the tower. 

25 These droplets may carry minerals and chemicals that may impact crops, ornamental 

26 vegetation, and native plants. Adverse impacts from cooling tower drift cannot be evaluated in 

27 detail without knowing the specific location of the cooling tower. However, general guidelines 

28 for predicting effects of drift deposition on plants suggest that many species have thresholds for 

29 visible leaf damage in the range of 9 to 18 lb/ac/mo of salt deposition on leaves during the 

30 growing season (NRC 1996). The Susquehanna River would supply tidal freshwater to the 

31 Bainbridge site; therefore, the salt content in cooling water would be less at the Bainbridge site 

32 than at the proposed Calvert Cliffs site. Because the maximum salt deposition for the proposed 

33 Unit 3 is far below the level that could cause leaf damage in many common species, the impacts 

34 would be negligible both on the Calvert Cliffs site and in the vicinity. One could expect even 

35 less impact at the Bainbridge site because the salt content in the cooling water source would be 

36 lower. In general, the impacts of drift on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants were 

37 evaluated for existing nuclear power plants and were found to be of minor significance 

38 (NRC 1996). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-55 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Similarly, predicting mortality from bird collisions with cooling towers depends on factors such as 

2 the height, location, lighting, and the number of cooling towers. In this case, a single, large 

3 mechanical draft cooling tower with plume abatement would be used. The impacts of bird 

4 collisions for existing power plants were evaluated and found to be of minor significance for all 

5 operating nuclear plants, including those with various numbers and types of cooling towers 

6 (NRC 1996). On this basis, the review team concludes, for the purpose of comparing the 

7 alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling tower drift and bird collisions with the cooling tower 

8 resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit at Bainbridge would be minor. 

9 Typical noise levels that can be expected at a distance of 1300 ft from the cooling tower are 

10 65 dBA (UniStar 2009a). Noise from plant operation would also be quickly attenuated by 

11 surrounding forest cover, further limiting any impact. Local wildlife would likely adapt to noise 

12 levels, while cooling tower noise may also serve to limit the potential for avian collision. 

13 Consequently, the review team concludes the impacts of cooling tower noise on wildlife would 

14 be minimal at Bainbridge. 

15 Transmission Lines 

16 The impacts associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with 

17 transmission lines and electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on flora and fauna. The impacts 

18 associated with building transmission lines and corridor maintenance activities are alteration 

19 and/or conversion of habitat due to tree cutting and herbicide application and similar related 

20 impacts such as use of temporary matting where corridors cross floodplains, wetlands, and 

21 other important habitats. 

22 Direct mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed (Avatar 

23 2004). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and 

24 related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory flight by flocking birds 

25 during darkness has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower height, location, 

26 configuration, and lighting also appear to play roles in avian mortality. Weather, such as low 

27 cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Waterfowl may be 

28 particularly vulnerable due to low, fast flight and flocking behavior (Brown 1993). However, in 

29 NUREG-1437, the NRC staff concluded that the threat of avian collision as a biologically 

30 significant source of mortality is very low as only a small fraction of total bird mortality could be 

31 attributed to collision with nuclear power plant structures, including transmission corridors with 

32 multiple transmission lines (NRC 1996). Although collision may contribute to local losses, 

33 thriving bird populations can withstand these losses without threat to their existence (Brown 

34 1993). Although additional transmission lines would be required for a new nuclear unit at 

35 Bainbridge, increases in bird collisions would be minor and these would not likely be expected 

36 to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. Consequently, the incremental 

37 mortality posed by the addition of new transmission lines for a new nuclear unit would be 

38 negligible at Bainbridge. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-56 April 2010 

1 EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

2 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

3 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

4 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). The 

5 impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at operating nuclear 

6 power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power lines and lines 

7 energized at levels less than 765 kV (NRC 1996). Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have 

8 been published that looked at cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of 

9 their lives (Moulder 2003). These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific 

10 types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed 

11 by operation of existing transmission lines and the addition of new lines for a new nuclear unit 

12 would be negligible at the Bainbridge alternative site. 

13 Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission line corridors at Bainbridge would 

14 likely be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be required 

15 during the development of new transmission line corridors. Transmission line corridor 

16 management activities (cutting and herbicide application) and related impacts to floodplains and 

17 wetlands in transmission line corridors are of minor significance at operating nuclear power 

18 plants, including those with transmission line corridors of variable widths (NRC 1996). 

19 Consequently, the incremental effects of transmission line corridor maintenance and associated 

20 impacts to floodplains and wetlands for a new nuclear unit would be negligible at Bainbridge. 

21 For reasons discussed above, detectable impacts to important terrestrial species and habitat 

22 would be minimal, if any, at the Bainbridge site. Therefore, impacts to terrestrial resources, 

23 including wetlands, from building and operation of a nuclear power plant at the Bainbridge site 

24 would be minimal. 

25 Cumulative Impacts 

26 The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

27 building and operating a new reactor at the Bainbridge site and other past, present, and 

28 reasonably foreseeable actions on terrestrial resources and wetlands is defined as Cecil 

29 County, Maryland, because of the extent of terrestrial impacts is mostly localized and the site is 

30 several miles from neighboring counties. One exception is Harford County, which is close to the 

31 Bainbridge site but on the other side of the Susquehanna River, which is a natural barrier 

32 isolating most terrestrial impacts. The nearest managed area is the Susquehanna State Park, 

33 which is on the western shore of the Susquehanna River about 1 mi northwest of the Bainbridge 

34 site. The park is primarily a recreational area but also contains several historical sites. The 

35 primary impacts to the Susquehanna State Park would likely be exposure of wildlife to noise 

36 from building a new nuclear plant. No major development activities are proposed that would 

37 significantly contribute to the loss or degradation of terrestrial resources or wetlands within the 

38 reasonably foreseeable future in Cecil County. Construction of the Rock Springs Generation 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-57 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Facility in the early 1990s did not significantly affect county terrestrial resources or wetlands. 

2 Since much of the impact resulting from building a power plant at Bainbridge would occur in 

3 recently disturbed habitats that are not occupied and likely would not be occupied by Federally 

4 listed species in the near future, the incremental impacts would not be noticeable and would not 

5 be expected to destabilize flora and fauna populations in the geographic area of interest. 

6 Continued urbanization and GCC have the potential to alter and reduce the amount of terrestrial 

7 habitat and wetlands available to flora and fauna. GCC effects near the Bainbridge site could 

8 result in regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, in annual precipitation, and in 

9 average temperature (GCRP 2009). Such factors would affect the terrestrial resources in the 

10 geographic area of interest through reduced open lands and wetlands as a result of inundation 

11 of low-lying areas that are not buffered by the bluffs along the Susquehanna River. Forest 

12 growth may increase as a result of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (GCRP 2009). The 

13 impacts of GCC on plants and wildlife in the geographic area of interest are not precisely 

14 known. Changes in climate could alter and fragment key terrestrial habitats and result in 

15 substantial northward shifts in species’ ranges, diversity, and abundance in the geographic area 

16 of interest for the Bainbridge site (GCRP 2009). 

17 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

18 the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts to terrestrial and wetland resources of 

19 building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge alternative site, including impacts 

20 attributable to permanent conversion of habitat for the facility footprint as well as operation of 

21 the cooling tower, transmission lines, and transmission line corridors would be SMALL. 

22 9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources 

23 The Susquehanna River, which is about 0.1 mi from the site, would provide the cooling water for 

24 a new nuclear plant at Bainbridge (UniStar 2009a). The lower Susquehanna River is classified 

25 as tidal freshwater from the river mouth to the Conowingo Dam with little salt wedge intrusion 

26 from the Chesapeake Bay (MDE 2008). This part of the river and its tributaries located in 

27 Harford and Cecil Counties comprise the Lower Susquehanna River watershed. A new reactor 

28 on the Bainbridge site would require a new cooling water intake and discharge system. 

29 The Susquehanna River is the largest and most important aquatic resource near the Bainbridge 

30 site. The river is well known as a pathway for several species of migratory anadromous and 

31 catadromous fish, including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white perch (M. americana), yellow 

32 perch (Perca flavescens), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), 

33 hickory shad (A. mediocris), American shad (A. sapidissima), and American eel (Anguilla 

34 americana) (NMFS 2009). The area near Port Deposit is valued because it is good spawning 

35 habitat for species with eggs that are deposited on the bottom and historically has had dense 

36 beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) that may reach 100 ft toward the river channel 

37 (NMFS 2009). According to the most recent surveys, the SAV beds along the shore from 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-58 April 2010 

1 Port Deposit downstream to an area beyond the probable location of the Bainbridge intake on 

2 the river are very dense with 70-100 percent cover (VIMS 2010). 

3 Other aquatic communities within the site include at least two small, temporary streams and a 

4 small reservoir that was built as a drinking water source for previous tenants on the property. 

5 The onsite resources have not been characterized, but the few small stream courses amount to 

6 8654 linear ft (UniStar 2009f). However, during a site visit on August 19, 2009, it was observed 

7 that flow in the streams was minimal or non-existent. The reservoir has not been studied but 

8 probably is inhabited by species typical for such small freshwater impoundments. 

9 The potential for impacts from building and operating of the proposed new reactor at Bainbridge 

10 to aquatic biota would be primarily to organisms inhabiting the streams and pond on the site and 

11 the Susquehanna River. 

12 Commercially or Recreationally Important Species 

13 The stretch of the Susquehanna River between the Conowingo Dam and Havre de Grace is a 

14 popular recreational fishing area. The primary species sought are shad, herring, and striped 

15 bass (locally called rockfish). However, the Port Deposit area of the Susquehanna River is 

16 upstream of designated essential fish habitat (EFH) for Federally managed species under the 

17 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq). 

18 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima). The American shad, which is discussed in detail in 

19 Section 2.4.2, is an important part of the history of the Susquehanna River. The shad is an 

20 anadromous fish that enters the Susquehanna River to spawn. Shad fishing around Port 

21 Deposit, which is considered a “hot spot” for shad, begins in late spring (HPD 2009). Shad also 

22 contribute ecologically by linking estuarine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems. 

23 River Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus and A. aestivalis). The alewife and blueback herring are 

24 closely related and are both referred to river herring. Both are discussed in detail in 

25 Section 2.4.2. Although river herring population levels have declined substantially during the last 

26 30 years, there is still some recreational fishing for the species. River herring occur nearshore 

27 in the Port Deposit area where they comprise a recreational dip-net fishery (HPD 2009). Both 

28 species were recorded during entrainment and impingement studies conducted at Calvert Cliffs 

29 Units 1 and 2 (discussed in Section 5.3.2) and would be expected to be susceptible to both 

30 impacts by a cooling water system for a new reactor built at the Bainbridge site. 

31 Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis). Striped bass, which is discussed in detail in Section 2.4.2, is a 

32 popular commercial and recreational species throughout the Chesapeake Bay region. Both 

33 fisheries are tightly regulated as the result of substantial population declines that occurred in the 

34 latter 1900s. Catch-and-release recreational fishing begins in mid-spring in the Port Deposit 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-59 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 area (HPD 2009). The Port Deposit Chamber of Commerce co-sponsors a rockfish tournament 

2 in the early summer (PDCC 2009b). Striped bass spawn at the Susquehanna flats near Port 

3 Deposit (HPD 2009). 

4 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

5 The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), and the rusty 

6 crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) are three introduced nuisance species that have been recorded 

7 in sections of the Susquehanna River, although not specifically near Port Deposit. The zebra 

8 mussel has been found at the Conowingo Dam (Vanesky 2009). The zebra mussel colonizes 

9 hard substrates and is capable of clogging intake water pipes. The Asian clam inhabits soft 

10 sediments and has been recorded from the Susquehanna River below the Conowingo Dam and 

11 at the river mouth near Havre de Grace (Foster et al. 2009). Large aggregations of Asian clams 

12 can foul power plant water systems. The rusty crayfish is native to the Ohio River basin but has 

13 been found in the stretch of the Susquehanna River at the mouth of Conowingo Creek, about 

14 4 mi upriver from Port Deposit (MDNR 2007l). Maryland banned the possession of any crayfish 

15 species in the Susquehanna River basin in 2008 (MDNR 2009e). 

16 Federally and State-Listed Species 

17 One Federally listed endangered aquatic species, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

18 brevirostrum) is reported for Cecil County (MDNR 2007c), but no critical habitat has been 

19 designated for that species. River herring are considered species of concern by the National 

20 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (NMFS 2007). State-listed aquatic vertebrates reported from 

21 Cecil County are the northern map turtle (Graptemys geographica), the hellbender (a 

22 salamander, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), and the logperch (Percina caprodes) (MDNR 

23 2007c). State-listed freshwater mussel species reported from Cecil County are the eastern 

24 lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), the tidewater mucket (Leptodea ochracea), and the creeper 

25 (Strophitus undulatus) (MDNR 2007c).

26 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). The shortnose sturgeon is discussed in detail in 

27 Section 2.4.2 and in the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for this project (Appendix F). 

28 Shortnose sturgeons that might occur in the Susquehanna River near the Bainbridge site would 

29 most likely be part of the small population that remains in the Chesapeake Bay. NMFS 

30 considers the reach of the Susquehanna River downriver from the Conowingo dam as important 

31 shortnose sturgeon feeding habitat (NMFS 2009). Although recent shortnose sturgeon 

32 spawning has not been documented in the Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries (FWS 2009), the 

33 area near Port Deposit may be suitable for spawning. 

34 Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica). The northern map turtle ranges predominantly 

35 from the central Midwest along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to southern Ontario, with 

36 scattered, disjunct populations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-60 April 2010 

1 (Richards and Seigel 2009). In Maryland, the northern map turtle population, which is listed as 

2 State endangered, is restricted to the Susquehanna River. Map turtles are sexually dimorphic 

3 with females reaching carapace lengths of about 10 in., which is almost twice as long as males 

4 (Roche 2002). The map turtle lives in rivers and lakes, where there is relatively low water flow, 

5 muddy substrates, and places to bask (Roche 2002). Map turtles only leave the water for 

6 basking or egg laying (Roche 2002). Adult turtles tend to inhabit the deeper parts of rivers away 

7 from shore, whereas turtles smaller than 2.5 in. stay in shallow waters near shore. Female map 

8 turtles eat mainly large snails and clams, whereas males eat small mollusks, crayfish, and 

9 insects. Nesting in the lower Susquehanna River occurred in June and July (Richards and 

10 Seigel 2009). Map turtles typically do not migrate long distances. 

11 Richards and Seigel (2009) found that turtles occurred throughout the small part of the 

12 Susquehanna River in Maryland, but the most tracked were within an area next to several 

13 islands off the Susquehanna State Park, about 1.2 mi northwest of Port Deposit. These islands 

14 served as nesting habitat. The study tracked one individual from the islands in the eastern 

15 shore of the river to an area about 1 mi past the marina at Port Deposit, which indicates the 

16 area near the proposed intake at the Bainbridge site provides suitable habitat for a larger portion 

17 of the Maryland population of the northern map turtle. Six nesting sites were observed at 

18 unspecified locations along the eastern shore of the river near Port Deposit. Richards and 

19 Seigel (2009) reported that juvenile and hatchling map turtles frequently use the marina at Port 

20 Deposit. 

21 Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis). The eastern hellbender is a fully aquatic 

22 salamander listed as endangered by the State. The hellbender can reach a length of about 

23 29 in., and may live as long as 30 years (Mayasich et al. 2003). Although the historical range of 

24 the hellbender includes the Susquehanna River, it apparently no longer resides in portions of 

25 the river within Maryland (Mayasich et al. 2003, MDNR 2006). 

26 Logperch (Percina caprodes). Maryland lists the logperch as State-threatened species 

27 (MDNR 2007c). Logperches can reach a length of about 5 in. and live on muddy to rocky 

28 bottoms in large rivers, or in tributaries that flow into large rivers, generally occurring in water 

29 deeper than about 4 ft (Steiner 2000). Spawning occurs in shallow water during late spring to 

30 early summer. A study of streams in the lower Susquehanna River basin recorded logperches 

31 from only two sites, both small tributaries of the Susquehanna River at least 10 mi upriver from 

32 Port Deposit (Millard et al. 1999). Neely and George (2006) made anecdotal reference to the 

33 occurrence of the species in Conowingo Creek, which joins the Susquehanna River about 4 mi 

34 upriver from Port Deposit. Near (2008) presented evidence that the species inhabiting the lower 

35 Susquehanna River basin should be called the Chesapeake logperch (P. bimaculata), which 

36 has been considered a subspecies of logperch (P. caprodes). The removal of the Chesapeake 

37 logperch from synonymy with the logperch has important meaning for conservation of the 

38 species because the distribution of the Chesapeake logperch is much more restricted, and its 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-61 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 populations are much smaller than those of the logperch. Near (2008) argued that the 

2 Chesapeake logperch should be considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act 

3 (ESA). The possible occurrence of the Chesapeake logperch within the mainstem 

4 Susquehanna River near the Bainbridge site is not known but cannot be discounted. 

5 Eastern Lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata). The eastern lampmussel, which occurs in coastal 

6 freshwaters from South Carolina to Nova Scotia, is a moderately large freshwater mussel that 

7 can reach a length of about 4 in. (PANHP 2009a). It typically occurs in streams and rivers with 

8 sand or gravel bottoms. Maryland ranks the eastern lampmussel as State Uncertain 

9 (MDNR 2007c). Within Cecil County, the mussel is generally shown as occurring in piedmont 

10 streams, coastal plain streams, and piedmont rivers that are tributaries of the Susquehanna 

11 River (MDNR 2005). The eastern lampmussel’s possible occurrence in the Susquehanna River 

12 near the Bainbridge site is not known. 

13 Tidewater Mucket (Leptodea ochracea). The tidewater mucket occurs in coastal freshwaters 

14 from Georgia to Nova Scotia (ME DIFW 2003). This mussel can reach a length of about 3 in., 

15 and inhabits several types of substrates in low-flow stretches of rivers, lakes, and ponds. 

16 Maryland ranks the eastern lampmussel as Highly State Rare/State Rare (MDNR 2007c). 

17 Within Cecil County, the mussel is generally shown as occurring in coastal plain streams and 

18 piedmont rivers that are tributaries of the Susquehanna River (MDNR 2005). Its possible 

19 occurrence in the Susquehanna River near the Bainbridge site is not known. 

20 Creeper (Strophitus undulatus). The creeper is a freshwater mussel that occurs in the shallow 

21 waters of rivers and streams in the eastern half of the United States and Canada (Nedeau 

22 2007). The species usually occurs on gravel and sand river bottoms where currents are low to 

23 moderate and many fish species are present (Nedeau 2007). Maryland ranks the species as 

24 State Imperiled (MDNR 2007c), although elsewhere populations may be stable (Grabarkiewicz 

25 and Davis 2008). 

26 Building and Operation Impacts 

27 Building a new reactor on the Bainbridge site would directly affect the two small streams. About 

28 1557 linear ft of stream channels would be affected by building a new plant on the site 

29 (UniStar 2009a). Assuming that the plant design would be similar to that proposed for Calvert 

30 Cliffs Unit 3, a new plant would permanently add about 130 ac of impervious surface to the 

31 Bainbridge site, which would increase runoff during storms potentially increasing erosion and 

32 adding pollutants to aquatic resources. The potential impacts of the proposed activities on the 

33 upland aquatic resources primarily would be loss of stream habitat, but building and operating it 

34 would not adversely affect the overall upland aquatic resources in the region. 

35 New cooling water intake and discharge structures would be required at the Bainbridge site. 

36 The intake and discharge structures are assumed to be designed like those at the proposed 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-62 April 2010 

1 site, having no screens or return system at the intake pipe openings, which lead to a common 

2 forebay (see Chapter 3.) Although the Bainbridge site is about 0.1 mi from the Susquehanna 

3 River, a pipeline for the cooling water system would be considerably longer because of the 

4 142-ft-high bluffs that border the western part of the site. An exact pipeline route has not been 

5 determined, but the pipeline would most likely cross one or more small streams en route to the 

6 river. UniStar (2009f) estimated that the area of the river below ordinary high water that would 

7 be affected by the installation of the intake pipelines would be 0.23 ac. Building a new intake 

8 could convert the river bottom to habitat that cannot support SAV. Historically, the river bottom 

9 in the Port Deposit area is hard bottom that supports SAV (NMFS 2009), affecting reproductive 

10 habitat for anadromous species. Adverse effects on the reproductive potential of anadromous 

11 species would have indirect effects on Federally managed species (under MSA) that prey on 

12 such anadromous species (NMFS 2009). Installation of the intake and discharge structures on 

13 hard-bottom substrates could involve the use of cofferdams and dewatering, which would 

14 introduce pile-driving noise, discussed in Section 4.3.2.1, as a potential impact. Some silt runoff 

15 could occur as the intake is built and could affect local fish and benthic populations. However, 

16 the impacts on aquatic organisms would be temporary and largely be mitigated through the use 

17 of BMPs with the exception of the permanent habitat conversion from very dense SAV beds to 

18 riprap supporting and stabilizing the pipes. Such habitat conversion would remove some highly 

19 valuable nursery habitat for migratory species that spawn in the immediate vicinity. 

20 The eastern shore of the Susquehanna River south of Port Deposit, where the intake and 

21 discharge system might be placed, is frequented by the State-endangered northern map turtle, 

22 including hatchlings and juveniles, during the summer months. Building activities during those 

23 months could adversely affect the Maryland population. Based on distributional records and 

24 life-history information, available to date, the review team concludes that building a new unit at 

25 the Bainbridge site could affect the State-listed northern map turtles that may be near the 

26 intake/discharge system location. The use of the nearshore habitat by smaller map turtles 

27 would make potential impingement and entrapment within the common forebay during the 

28 operation of a plant at the site a primary concern. 

29 The most likely effects on aquatic populations from operation of a new nuclear unit at the 

30 Bainbridge site would be the impingement, entrainment, and entrapment of organisms from the 

31 Susquehanna River. Assuming that a new reactor at the Bainbridge site would use a closed32 cycle cooling system that meets the EPA’s Phase I regulations for new facilities (66 FR 65256), 

33 has a maximum through-screen velocity of 0.5 ft/s (0.15 m/s) at the cooling water intake 

34 structure on the Susquehanna River, and meets the appropriate EPA intake flow-to-source 

35 water volume criterion, adverse impacts at the population level of many Susquehanna River 

36 aquatic species from impingement, entrainment, and entrapment would not be anticipated. 

37 However, some migratory species, such as river herring and American shad, which have 

38 valuable reproductive and nursery habitat near the likely intake area for the Bainbridge site and 

39 have been entrained or impinged at some nuclear power plants, could be directly affected by 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-63 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 losses at the intake structure in the tidal freshwater portion of the Susquehanna River. Given 

2 the location of the proposed intake in the same area used by anadromous species for spawning 

3 and nursery grounds, entrainment and entrapment could remove enough organisms to 

4 noticeably alter important attributes of the populations despite compliance with EPA’s Phase I 

5 regulations. The potential entrainment and entrapment of anadromous fish eggs and larvae is 

6 of particular concern because of direct effects on the species, which already have declining 

7 populations, and indirect effects on their Federally managed predators (NMFS 2009). 

8 In addition, hatchling and juvenile northern map turtles are smaller than the spacing between 

9 the trash bars proposed for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 and would be susceptible to impingement and 

10 entrapment in the common forebay, which would not provide suitable habitat for the northern 

11 map turtle. To avoid adverse effects to the map turtle, the intake structure would likely have to 

12 be redesigned or sited elsewhere. As for the proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site (see 

13 Chapter 4), the review team recognizes that potential mitigation measures could be 

14 implemented at the intake pipeline openings at the Bainbridge site to reduce entrainment, 

15 impingement, and entrapment effects on aquatic species in the Susquehanna River. Most 

16 notably, creation of a recessed intake and installation of small-mesh traveling screens or 

17 wedgewire screens and a fish/turtle-return system at the intake pipeline openings in the river 

18 would significantly reduce adverse effects on aquatic organisms. 

19 Although a discharge plume has not been modeled for the Bainbridge site, the Susquehanna 

20 River is a large and deep waterbody at that location, and the review team assumes the plume 

21 would be similar in areal extent and depth to that modeled for the Calvert Cliffs site. Therefore, 

22 the plume would likely be relatively small compared to the river size in the area, and there would 

23 not likely be a thermal barrier to fish passage. In addition, the potential for adverse impacts 

24 from cold shock or heat shock because of exposure to the thermal plume would be minor. 

25 Chemical concentrations in the effluents from the Bainbridge site, which eventually could 

26 include a molluskicide to control zebra mussels, would be required to follow permitted 

27 guidelines. 

28 New transmission lines would be needed to connect a new reactor on the Bainbridge site to 

29 existing lines that are about 5 to 20 mi from the site (UniStar 2009a). A specific route for the 

30 new right-of-way has not been specified, but approximately 3517 linear ft of streams would be 

31 affected by development of new transmission line corridors (UniStar 2009a). The severity of 

32 impacts would depend on the characteristics of the aquatic resources within the corridor, but the 

33 use of BMPs during building and operation would lessen the potential impacts. 

34 Overall, the impacts of building and operation of a new reactor on the Bainbridge site to most 

35 aquatic resources, including those in the Susquehanna River, would be substantial because of 

36 noticeable alterations to important reproductive habitat and reproductive success for migratory 

37 fish. In addition, the potential impact to the State-Endangered northern map turtle, primarily 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-64 April 2010 

1 from the potential for impingement and entrapment of hatchlings and juveniles during plant 

2 operations, would be noticeable and potentially destabilizing to the disjunct Maryland 

3 population. 

4 Cumulative Impacts 

5 The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative aquatic ecology 

6 impacts of building and operating a new reactor at the Bainbridge site and other past, present 

7 and reasonably foreseeable projects on aquatic resources is defined as the stretch of the 

8 Susquehanna River from the Conowingo Dam to the Chesapeake Bay, the tributaries that flow 

9 into the river below the dam, and the tidal freshwater part of the Bay where salinity ranges from 

10 0 to 0.5 parts per thousand. The bayward extent of tidal freshwater varies seasonally, 

11 extending to near the mouth of the Sassafras River (CBP 2009). Within this defined area, a 

12 new reactor on the Bainbridge site would add to the effects resulting from the operation of the 

13 Conowingo Hydroelectric Plant, which is about 10 mi upriver. The Conowingo Dam affects 

14 aquatic resources in the Susquehanna River primarily by introducing variation in river water 

15 levels and flow, changing water quality, and directly affecting aquatic biota, especially fish (Patty 

16 et al. 1999). The major impact to fish has been the interruption of the migration of anadromous 

17 fish, although that has been somewhat ameliorated by the installation of fish lifts and ladders, 

18 which has increased the number of fish passing the dam (NRC 2003). Low dissolved oxygen 

19 levels are the main water quality impact from the dam, which have been corrected by the 

20 implementation of turbine venting that mixes air with water passing through a turbine (Patty 

21 et al. 1999). Low water flow over the dam adversely affects benthic communities downstream 

22 and the operators of the dam are required to release water to maintain minimum flow rates, 

23 which can vary seasonally (SRBC 2006). The Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project would build 

24 an 88-mi-long liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline from Baltimore to Eagle, Pennsylvania. The 

25 pipeline would use horizontal directional drilling to cross the Susquehanna River upriver of the 

26 Conowingo Dam (AES no date) and would not interact with a new reactor on the Bainbridge 

27 site. Port Deposit has a small-boat marina located just upriver from the potential location of the 

28 intake and discharge system. Activities associated with operating boats in the marina and 

29 nearby waters could affect species that might be affected by the intake and discharge system. 

30 One such activity is the hydroplane race series on the Susquehanna River held on Labor Day 

31 weekend. The race course is located just offshore along the river south of Port Deposit (PDCC 

32 2009a) and would be near potential locations for intake/discharge structures. Urbanization in 

33 the Susquehanna River drainage could adversely affect water quality and, therefore, aquatic 

34 habitat, through increases in both point and nonpoint source pollution. 

35 In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, GCC would impose additional stressors on aquatic 

36 communities. The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term 

37 changes in precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental 

38 impacts to the Susquehanna River. GCC could lead to increased precipitation, increased sea 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-65 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 levels, varying freshwater inflow, increased pollution from nonpoint source runoff, increased 

2 temperatures, increased storm surges, and greater intensity of coastal storms in the geographic 

3 area of interest (GCRP 2009). Such changes could alter salinity, change freshwater inflow, and 

4 reduce dissolved oxygen, which directly affect aquatic habitat. Rising sea water due to GCC 

5 could affect water levels in the Susquehanna River and subsequently change the water quality 

6 associated with the mixing of freshwater and estuarine waters of the Chesapeake Bay (GCRP 

7 2009). These stressors would result in shifts in species’ ranges, habitats, and migratory 

8 behaviors and also alter ecosystem processes (GCRP 2009). 

9 Summary 

10 Based on the information provided by UniStar and by NMFS, and the review team’s 

11 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and 

12 operating a new reactor on the Bainbridge site combined with other past, present, and 

13 reasonably foreseeable future activities on most aquatic resources, including migratory fish in 

14 the geographic area of interest, would be MODERATE to LARGE. The most notable of the 

15 impacts involves potential losses of hatchling and juvenile northern map turtles, a State16 endangered species that occurs near the proposed intake structure. Building and operating a 

17 new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

18 9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics 

19 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Bainbridge site, the geographic area of 

20 interest is the 50-mi region centered on the Bainbridge site with special consideration of Cecil 

21 County, as that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In 

22 evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of site development and operation at the Bainbridge site 

23 in Port Deposit, Maryland, within Cecil County, the review team undertook a review of the site 

24 using data sources discussed in Section 9.3.2. Impacts from both building and station operation 

25 are discussed. 

26 Physical Impacts 

27 Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

28 Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

29 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

30 roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport building materials and 

31 equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (for example, borrow pits, 

32 quarries, and disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

33 Impacts on those facilities from building a new unit would be minimal. 

34 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, emissions, and visual 

35 intrusions (aesthetics). A new unit would produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-66 April 2010 

1 towers, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also 

2 would be a source of noise. Any noise coming from the site would be controlled in accordance 

3 with standard noise protection and abatement procedures. By inference, this practice also 

4 would be expected to apply to all alternative sites. Commuter traffic would be controlled by 

5 speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level 

6 generated by the workforce commuting to the Bainbridge site. 

7 Any new unit at an alternative site would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power 

8 systems. Permits obtained for these generators would confirm that air emissions comply with 

9 applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term 

10 basis. During normal plant operation, a new unit would not use a significant quantity of 

11 chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads 

12 and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

13 In summary, building activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the 

14 boundaries of the Bainbridge alternative site. Offsite impacts would represent minimal changes 

15 to offsite services supporting the building activities. During facility operations, noise levels 

16 would be managed by State and local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the 

17 diesel generators, and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Based on the 

18 information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

19 concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating a nuclear unit at the Bainbridge 

20 site would be minimal. 

21 Demography 

22 The Bainbridge site is located in the town of Port Deposit (2008 population 701), in Cecil County 

23 in northeastern Maryland. The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) indicates that Cecil County had a 

24 2008 population of 99,926 which was a 14 percent increase from 2000 (USCB 2009a). By 

25 2030, the population is expected to increase by an additional 60,000 people (Sage Policy 

26 Group, Inc. 2007). Baltimore is approximately 42 mi southwest and Wilmington, Delaware is 37 

27 mi northeast. The population in the 50 mile region is 5.2 million people (UniStar 2009a). 

28 At the peak of the site development period, UniStar expects an onsite workforce of 

29 3950 construction workers (UniStar 2009a). Based on the analysis of impacts presented in 

30 Section 4.4.2, the maximum number of construction workers migrating into the region (within 

31 50 mi of the site) from outside of the region would be between 790-1383 workers (20 to 

32 35 percent of the total workforce) at the peak of the building period. Using an average 

33 household size of 2.61, the total in-migrating population would be between 2062 and 

34 3608 people. The majority of impacts would be expected to occur in Cecil County because it 

35 contains the site. The impacts are more dispersed farther away from the site due to the large 

36 populations of the other counties within commuting distance of the Bainbridge site such as 

37 neighboring Harford County. Considering that the maximum estimation of in-migrating 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-67 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 population would be less than four percent of the total population for Cecil County, the 

2 demographic impacts of building a new nuclear plant at the Bainbridge site are expected to be 

3 minimal. 

4 If the facility were built at the Bainbridge site and operations commenced, the operational 

5 workforce would number at least 363 workers, half (182 workers) of whom may migrate into the 

6 region. At the Bainbridge site, a larger number of security and administrative workers would 

7 need to be hired, but because this is not specialized labor, they would likely already reside in 

8 the 50-mi region. Given the small number of in-migrating workers and the large population in 

9 the 50-mi region, the review team concludes that the demographic impact during operation 

10 would be minimal. 

11 Economy and Taxes 

12 According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2005-2007 American Community Survey, the labor force 

13 in Cecil County was 53,339 persons and, of these, 49,709 were employed. The four industries 

14 in Cecil County that accounted for more than 50 percent of employment were educational 

15 services, health care, and social assistance (18 percent); manufacturing (12 percent); retail 

16 trade (12 percent); and construction (11 percent) (USCB 2009c). The 2005–2007 estimated 

17 unemployment rate for Cecil County was 6.7 percent, compared to 5.6 percent for the State of 

18 Maryland (USCB 2009b). 

19 Economic impacts would be spread across the 50-mi region but would likely be the greatest in 

20 Cecil County. Impacts are generally considered minimal if plant-related employment is less 

21 than 5 percent of the study area’s total employment (NRC 1996). During the development of 

22 the new unit, up to 3950 construction workers would be required to build the plant (at the peak 

23 period). While some of these workers may need to in-migrate to the region, many would be 

24 drawn from the approximate 140,000–150,000 construction workers in the workforce of more 

25 than 2.5 million in the greater Maryland and Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Statistical Area 

26 (MSA) (USBLS 2007a, b). The peak construction workforce would represent less than 5 

27 percent of the current workforce in the region. Therefore, the review team concludes that the 

28 impacts of building a nuclear plant on the economy of the region minimal and beneficial, but 

29 temporary. 

30 The wages and salaries of the building and operating workforce would have a multiplier effect 

31 that could result in increases in business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. 

32 This would have a positive impact on the business community and could provide opportunities 

33 for new businesses to get started and increase job opportunities for local residents. During 

34 operations, approximately 182 new operations jobs would be added to the local economy. 

35 Based on the analysis in Section 5.4.3.1 for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site, the review team 

36 concludes that the impact of these new jobs would constitute a small percentage of the total 

37 number of jobs in Cecil County and would have a minimal and beneficial economic impact. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-68 April 2010 

1 As with the new proposed unit at the Calvert Cliffs site, there would be some positive sales, use, 

2 income, and property tax revenue benefits that would be generated as a result of the building 

3 and operating a new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site (Sections 4.4.2.2 and 5.4.3.2). Tax 

4 revenues would accrue to the State primarily from income and sales taxes and to local 

5 governments from taxes on property and income taxes (see Section 2.5.2.2). The primary tax 

6 impacts would occur once the new unit becomes valued as property and property tax revenues 

7 are collected by Cecil County according to the millage rate and the negotiated value of the plant. 

8 In fiscal year 2007, Cecil County tax revenues totaled $148.5 million. The tax revenues from a 

9 unit in Cecil County are unknown, but likely to be similar to the revenues estimated for the 

10 Calvert Cliffs site. Estimated tax revenue for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be up to 

11 $71 million during building and approximately $57 million once operations commenced. The 

12 review team concludes that the impact on tax revenues from building and operating a nuclear 

13 unit would be greatest in Cecil County, with a substantial and beneficial impact. The revenue 

14 impacts from building and operating a nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site for the remainder of the 

15 50-mi region would be minimal and beneficial. 

16 Transportation and Housing 

17 Road access to the Bainbridge site is provided by MD State Highway 276, which runs north of 

18 the site and U.S. Highway 222 to the south. Interstate 95 is 3 mi from the site, as are other 

19 state and local roads (see Figure 9-3). The site has barge access on the Susquehanna River, 

20 and a rail line runs along the western border (UniStar 2009a). The review team expects traffic 

21 impacts from building activities, including both construction workers and deliveries, would be 

22 minimal for the region, but could be noticeable but not destabilizing on the local roads near the 

23 site during shift change when the construction workforce is at its peak. During operations, 

24 impacts would be minimal, except during outages when an additional 800 to 1000 workers 

25 would be employed onsite and impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing. 

26 Based on the analysis in Sections 4.4.2 and 5.4.2, up to 1383 construction workers and 

27 363 operations workers and their families would in-migrate to the 50-mi region during the 

28 building of a unit at the Bainbridge site and the subsequent operation. According to the 

29 2005-2007 American Community Survey data, there are 3703 vacant housing units in Cecil 

30 County, which is adequate to accommodate the expected influx of construction workers. 

31 Workers could also find housing in other parts of the 50-mi region, which has approximately 

32 243,587 vacant housing units (UniStar 2009a). The review team expects that the in-migrating 

33 building and operations workforce would have a minimal impact on housing demand in Cecil 

34 County and the larger 50-mi region. 

35 Public Services and Education 

36 The influx of construction workers and plant operations staff in-migrating into the region could 

37 impact local municipal water and water treatment plants and other public services (police, fire 

38 and medical) in the region. These impacts would likely be in proportion with the demographic 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-69 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 impacts, unless these resources have excess capacity or are particularly strained during 

2 building, which would decrease or increase the impact, respectively. There are approximately 

3 three hospitals, six police stations, and 17 fire stations located in Cecil County (UniStar 2009a). 

4 Cecil County has four public water systems and five wastewater treatment facilities. The 

5 average daily wastewater flow is 5.4 MGD with 3.1 MGD of additional capacity. Excess 

6 capacity exists within the current systems to support the expected increase of 186,000 gpd to 

7 325,000 gpd increase in water supply needs and wastewater treatment. Therefore, the review 

8 team concludes that the impacts from building of a nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site would be 

9 minimal. The much smaller operations workforce is expected to also have a minimal impact on 

10 public services. However, according to county plans, the 2030 wastewater flows are expected 

11 to be approximately 10.5 MGD. Several system upgrades and expansions are planned to meet 

12 this 2-MGD deficit in capacity in 2030. Therefore, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

13 operating a nuclear unit on public services in Cecil County and the larger 50-mi region would be 

14 minimal. 

15 Cecil County has one school district, which includes 29 schools and a 2006–2007 student body 

16 population of 16,421 students. The average student/teacher ratio was 14.4 (NCES 2009). As 

17 stated in Section 4.4.4.5, approximately 361 to 632 students are expected to in-migrate into the 

18 50-mi region during building activities. Though they could in-migrate anywhere within the 50-mi 

19 region, if they were to all go into Cecil County schools, it would only raise their student 

20 population less than 4 percent. Given the number of schools in Cecil County and the large 

21 student body populations, it is likely that new students from building and operating a nuclear unit 

22 at the Bainbridge site would be absorbed easily, and education impacts would be minimal for 

23 Cecil County and the larger 50-mi region. 

24 Recreation and Aesthetics 

25 In Cecil County there are 40 town parks that provide opportunities for hiking, biking, camping, 

26 horseback riding, hunting and fishing (CCT 2009). The Bainbridge site is currently used as a 

27 CWMA for hunters from September 15 through January 31 (MDNR 2009c). The Port Deposit 

28 Chamber of Commerce co-sponsors a hydroplane race series on the Susquehanna River during 

29 Labor Day weekend. The race course is located just offshore along the river south of Port 

30 Deposit (PDCC 2009a) and would be near potential locations for intake/discharge structures. 

31 Recreational users in the vicinity of the site may be impacted by traffic near the plant during shift 

32 change. Otherwise, impacts on recreation in the region would be minimal. 

33 UniStar’s plume abatement technology and the wooded area at the site would provide some 

34 viewshed protection. An undetermined number of miles of transmission lines would need to be 

35 built. Impacts on aesthetics of a nuclear unit on the Bainbridge site would be minimal. 

36 Cumulative Impacts 

37 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Bainbridge site, the geographic area of 

38 interest is the 50-mi region centered on the Bainbridge site with special consideration for Cecil 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-70 April 2010 

1 County as that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts would be the greatest. 

2 Historically, Cecil County has been known as a generally rural area, but in recent years has 

3 become more suburban as it lies on the edge of both the Philadelphia and Baltimore 

metropolitan areas. Cecil County’s population was 50,000 (150 mi2 4 ) in 1990 but by 2005 the 

population was near 100,000 (270 mi2 5 ) (Sage Policy Group 2007). 

6 In addition to socioeconomic impacts from building and operating a nuclear unit at the 

7 Bainbridge site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

8 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. The 

9 projects identified in Table 9-6 have or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, 

10 and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and 

11 industrialization. However, many impacts such as those on housing or public services are able 

12 to adjust over time, particularly with increased tax revenues. Furthermore, State and county 

13 plans along with modeled demographic projections include forecasts of future development and 

14 population increases. Because the projects within the geographic area of interest identified in 

15 Table 9-6 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, the review 

16 team considers the cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be manageable. 

17 Physical impacts include impacts on workers and the general public, existing buildings, 

18 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

19 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

20 on the basis of information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

21 the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operation of a nuclear 

22 unit at the Bainbridge site on socioeconomics would be SMALL in terms of physical impacts, 

23 demography, housing, public service, educational, aesthetics and recreational impacts. 

24 MODERATE impacts are expected for transportation during building and operation. The 

25 impacts on the Cecil County economy and tax base with regard to building and operating a 

26 nuclear unit would be beneficial and LARGE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the 

27 Bainbridge site would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

28 9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice 

29 The 2000 Census block groups were used for ascertaining minority and low-income populations 

30 in the region. There were a total of 3714 census blocks groups within the 50-mi region (which 

31 included portions of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). Approximately 

32 789 of these census block groups were classified as aggregate minority populations with 752 of 

33 them African American, mostly in the Baltimore area. Cecil County did not have any block 

34 groups classified as minority populations. There are 333 census block groups classified as low 

35 income in the 50-mi region, none of which are in Cecil County. Figure 9-5 shows the 

36 geographic locations of the minority populations of significance within the 50-mi radius of the 

37 Bainbridge site, and Figure 9-6 shows the geographic locations of the low-income populations of 

38 significance within the 50-mi radius of the Bainbridge site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-71 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 9-5. Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

3 Bainbridge Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-72 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 9-6. Distribution of Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

3 Bainbridge Site 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-73 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Building and operations activities (e.g., noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic) would not 

2 impose a disproportionate and adverse affect on minority populations because of their distance 

3 from the Bainbridge site. See Sections 4.5 and 5.5 for more information about environmental 

4 justice criteria and impacts. 

5 The projects identified in Table 9-6 likely did not or would not contribute to environmental justice 

6 impacts of the region, with the possible exception of housing rental rates, which could be an 

7 area of concern for low-income populations. If projects bring so many new workers into an area 

8 that the cost of renting increases, there may be a disproportionate and adverse impact on low9 income populations. However, such impacts would be temporary, with rental prices returning to 

10 their original levels once the project was completed. Therefore, based on information provided 

11 by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that there 

12 would not be any long-term disproportionate and adverse environmental justice cumulative 

13 impacts from building and operating a new generating unit at the Bainbridge site in addition to 

14 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on minority or low-income populations, 

15 and the cumulative environmental justice impacts at the Bainbridge site would be SMALL. 

16 9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

17 The Bainbridge Naval Training Center served the United States during war and peace time from 

18 1942 until 1976 and was then deactivated in 1976. Much of the Center has been demolished, 

19 but several buildings remain today that were built in the early 1940s. The Tome School for Boys 

20 is located on the Bainbridge site property. It was built around the turn of the 20th century. The 

21 remains of the school on the Bainbridge site were added to the National Registry of Historic 

22 Places as a historic district in 1984 (NRHP 2006). The School continues to operate in the town 

23 of North East, Maryland and is one of the oldest schools in the State of Maryland (USNTCB 

24 2009). However, no archaeological and/or architectural surveys have been conducted to 

25 determine the significance of the resources. 

26 The area surrounding the Bainbridge site is rich in history. UniStar conducted a literature review 

27 at the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) and found 12 properties listed on the National Register of 

28 Historic Places within 5 mi of the site, with two of the properties located within 1 mi of the site 

29 (UniStar 2009a). The project has the potential to affect some of these resources. 

30 Consultation with the MHT would be necessary regarding the need for systematic 

31 archaeological and architectural surveys to identify historic and archaeological resources prior 

32 to any ground disturbing activities to address impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological 

33 resources at this particular site. UniStar would be expected to put protective measures in place 

34 to protect discoveries in the event that historic or archaeological materials are found during 

35 building or operating of a new plant. In the event that an unanticipated discovery is made, site 

36 personnel should notify the MHT and consult with them in conducting an assessment of the 

37 discovery to determine if additional work is needed. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-74 April 2010 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating a nuclear generating 

3 unit at the Bainbridge site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

4 foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other Federal and non5 Federal projects and those projects listed in Table 9-6 within the geographical area of interest. 

6 For the analysis of cultural impacts at the Bainbridge site, the geographic area of interest is the 

7 area of potential effect (APE) that would be defined for this considered undertaking. This 

8 includes the physical APE, defined as the area that would be directly affected by the site 

9 development and operation activities at the site and transmission lines, and the visual APE. 

10 The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi radius around the physical APE consistent with 

11 the discussion in Section 2.7 and about the maximum distance from which the structures can be 

12 seen. 

13 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, for 

14 example, it includes preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

15 cultural resources. In developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level 

16 information to perform its evaluations of alternative sites. Reconnaissance-level information is 

17 data readily available from agencies and other public sources. It can also include information 

18 obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and cultural resources at the 

19 Bainbridge site, the following information was used: 

20 • UniStar ER (UniStar 2009a). 

21 • NRC-Alternative Site Visit August 2009 (NRC 2010a). 

22 Cultural resources are non-renewable. Therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural 

23 resources is cumulative. 

24 No projects were identified in Table 9-6 that would contribute to cumulative impacts to historic 

25 and cultural resources within the geographic area of interest. 

26 Based on reconnaissance level information, specifically the significant built environment and 

27 history associated with the Bainbridge site, the review team concludes that the cumulative 

28 impacts on historic properties of constructing and operating a new generating unit at the 

29 Bainbridge site would be MODERATE to LARGE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at 

30 the Bainbridge site would be a significant contributor to these impacts. Archaeological and/or 

31 architectural surveys would be necessary to determine the significance of the resources. 

32 9.3.3.8 Air Quality 

33 The emissions related to building and operation of a nuclear power plant at the Bainbridge site 

34 in Cecil County would be similar to those at the Calvert Cliffs site as described in Chapters 4 

35 and 5. Cecil County is in the East Shore Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.154). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-75 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 However, Harford County, which is across the Susquehanna River from the Bainbridge site, is in 

2 the Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.28). The air quality 

3 attainment status for Cecil and Harford Counties as set forth in 40 CFR 81.321 reflects the 

4 effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant sources in the region. Cecil County is in 

5 non-attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, and Harford County is in non-attainment of both 

6 the 8-hour ozone standard and the PM 2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of less than 

7 2.5 microns) standard. 

8 Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-6, most of the effects on air quality would be to 

9 maintain the status quo. Any new industrial projects would either have de minimis effects or 

10 would be subject to regulation by the Maryland DNR. Given these institutional controls, it is 

11 unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade significantly (i.e., degrade to the extent 

12 that the region is in nonattainment of national standards). 

13 The cooling tower for the power plant would be a significant source of small particles. As a 

14 result, although the air quality impacts of building and operation of a nuclear power plant at the 

15 Bainbridge site would probably be minimal, it is possible that the cumulative impacts of the 

16 cooling tower particulate emissions could be MODERATE. Building and operating a new 

17 nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

18 Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 for 

19 building and operating a nuclear power plant and for the fuel cycle, respectively. As described 

20 in Chapter 7, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are not sensitive to location of the 

21 source. Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are 

22 applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the Bainbridge site. The impacts of greenhouse 

23 gas emissions considered in isolation would be minimal, but the cumulative impact of 

24 greenhouse gas emissions would be MODERATE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at 

25 the Bainbridge site would not be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

26 9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

27 The following impact analysis includes nonradiological health impacts from building activities 

28 and operations to the public and workers from a nuclear unit at the Bainbridge alternative site. 

29 The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

30 impact nonradiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those 

31 projects listed in Table 9-6 within the geographic area of interest. The building-related activities 

32 that have the potential to impact the health of members of the public and workers include 

33 exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, noise, and the transport of 

34 construction materials and personnel to and from the site. The operation-related activities that 

35 have the potential to impact the health of members of the public and workers includes exposure 

36 to etiological agents, noise, EMFs, and impacts from the transport of workers to and from the 

37 site. For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts at the Bainbridge alternative site, the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-76 April 2010 

1 geographic area of interest is considered to include projects within a 5-mi radius from the site’s 

2 center based on the localized nature of the impacts. For impacts associated with transmission 

3 lines, the geographic area of interest is the transmission line corridor. 

4 Building Impacts

5 Nonradiological health impacts to construction workers and members of the public from building 

6 a new nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for 

7 the Calvert Cliffs site. The impacts include noise, vehicle exhaust, dust, occupational injuries, 

8 and transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Applicable Federal and State regulations 

9 on air quality and noise would be complied with during the site preparation and building phase. 

10 The incidence of construction worker accidents would not be expected to be different from the 

11 incidence of accidents estimated for the Calvert Cliffs site. The Bainbridge site is located in a 

12 rural area and building impacts would likely be minimal on the surrounding populations. Access 

13 routes to the site for construction workers would include I-95, which is approximately 3 mi south 

14 of the site. Local 2-lane roads provide access from I-95 to the site and from the north and east. 

15 The ER (UniStar 2009a) states that the local 2-lane roads may become congested as a result of 

16 the additional building-related traffic. Mitigation may be necessary to ease congestion, thereby 

17 improving traffic flow and reducing nonradiological health impacts (i.e., traffic accidents, injuries, 

18 and fatalities) during the building period. 

19 No past or current actions in the geographic areas of interest were identified that would impact 

20 the public or workers. Proposed future actions would include transmission line development 

21 and/or upgrading, and future urbanization, which would both occur throughout the designated 

22 geographical areas of interest. These actions would likely result in nonradiological health 

23 impacts similar to those discussed above for the building of a nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site. 

24 Operational Impacts 

25 Nonradiological health impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit on occupational health and 

26 members of the public at the Bainbridge site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 5.8 

27 for the Calvert Cliffs site. Occupational health impacts to workers (e.g., falls, electric shock or 

28 exposure to other hazards) at the Bainbridge site would likely be the same as those evaluated 

29 for workers at the new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site. Based on the configuration of the proposed 

30 new unit at the Bainbridge site (closed-cycle, wet cooling system with mechanical draft cooling 

31 towers), etiological agents would not likely increase the incidence of water-borne diseases in the 

32 vicinity of the site. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled in accordance 

33 with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (OSHA). Effects of 

34 EMF on human health would be controlled and minimized by conformance with National 

35 Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria. Nonradiological impacts of traffic associated with the 

36 operations workforce would be less than the impacts during building. Mitigation measures 

37 taken during building to improve traffic flow would also minimize impacts during operation of a 

38 new unit. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-77 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Past and present actions in the geographic area of interest associated with existing 

2 transmission lines are the only nonradiological health impacts from operations to the public and 

3 workers. Proposed future actions that would impact nonradiological health in a similar way to 

4 operation activities at the Bainbridge site would include transmission line systems and future 

5 urbanization, which would both occur within the geographical areas of interest. 

6 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health. 

7 A recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (GCRP 2009) has been 

8 considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region 

9 include an increase in average temperature and an increase in precipitation, which may alter the 

10 presence of microorganisms and parasites. In view of the water source characteristics, the 

11 review team did not identify anything that would alter its conclusion regarding the presence of 

12 etiological agents or change in the incidence of water-borne diseases. 

13 Summary 

14 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

15 the review team expects that the impacts to nonradiological health from building and operation 

16 of a new unit at the Bainbridge site would be similar to the impacts evaluated for the Calvert 

17 Cliffs site. While there are past, present, and future activities in the geographic area of interest 

18 that could affect nonradiological health in ways similar to the building and operation of a new 

19 unit at the Bainbridge site, those impacts would be localized and managed through adherence 

20 to existing regulatory requirements. The review team concludes, therefore, that the cumulative 

21 impacts of building and operation of a nuclear unit at Bainbridge on nonradiological health would 

22 be SMALL. 

23 9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

24 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts to the public and workers from 

25 building activities and operations for one nuclear unit at the Bainbridge alternative site. The 

26 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

27 impact radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects 

28 listed in Table 9-6 within the geographic area of interest. As described in Section 9.3.3, the 

29 Bainbridge site is a deactivated naval training site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on the 

30 site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius of the Bainbridge site. 

31 Existing facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this area are Peach Bottom Units 

32 2 and 3, Three Mile Island Unit 1, Limerick Units 1 and 2, Salem Units 1 and 2, and Hope Creek 

33 Unit 1. In addition, the NRC anticipates an application for an early site permit for new nuclear 

34 power plants at the Salem/Hope Creek site in the near future. Finally, there are likely to be 

35 hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the Bainbridge site that use radioactive 

36 materials. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-78 April 2010 

1 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed U.S. EPR unit at the Bainbridge 

2 site include doses from direct radiation, and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

3 pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

4 regulatory limits. These impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the Calvert 

5 Cliffs Unit 3 site. 

6 The radiological impacts of the other operating nuclear power plants listed above also include 

7 doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result 

8 in low doses to people and biota offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by 

9 the ongoing radiological environmental monitoring programs (REMP) conducted around these 

10 plants. The proposed plants at the Salem/Hope Creek site would also result in radiological 

11 impacts from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The NRC staff 

12 expects that these pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be 

13 well below regulatory limits. The NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and 

14 effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive materials would be an 

15 insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the Bainbridge site. This conclusion is 

16 based on data from REMPs conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

17 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the 

18 NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the 

19 proposed U.S. EPR unit and other existing and planned projects and actions in the geographic 

20 area of interest around the Bainbridge site would be SMALL. 

21 9.3.3.11 Postulated Accidents 

22 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

23 operations for one nuclear unit at the Bainbridge alternative site. The analysis also considers 

24 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that impact radiological health 

25 from postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects 

26 listed in Table 9-6 within the geographic area of interest. As described in Section 9.3.3, 

27 Bainbridge is a deactivated naval training site. There are currently no nuclear facilities on the 

28 site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power plants 

29 that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a 

30 severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Bainbridge site. Existing facilities potentially 

31 affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are existing Calvert 

32 Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, Three Mile Island Unit 1, Limerick Units 1 and 

33 2, Salem Units 1 and 2, and Hope Creek Unit 1. No other reactors have been proposed within 

34 the geographic area of interest, but the NRC anticipates an application for an early site permit 

35 for new nuclear power plants at the Salem/Hope Creek site in the near future. 

36 As described in Section 5.10.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences of 

37 design basis accidents (DBAs) at the Calvert Cliffs site would be minimal for U.S. EPR. DBAs 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-79 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC 

2 safety criteria. The U.S. EPR design is independent of site conditions and the meteorology of 

3 the Bainbridge and Calvert Cliffs sites are similar. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

4 environmental consequences of DBAs at the Bainbridge site would be minimal. Because the 

5 meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Bainbridge alternative site are 

6 expected to be similar to the proposed Calvert Cliffs site, risks from a severe accident for a 

7 U.S. EPR reactor located at the Bainbridge alternative site are expected to be similar to those 

8 analyzed for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site. These risks for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site are 

9 presented in Table 5-16 and Table 5-17 and are well below the median value for current10 generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 

11 fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing nuclear 

12 power plants within the geographic area of interest, which are Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Salem 

13 Units 1 and 2, Hope Creek Unit 1, Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, Three Mile Island Unit 1, and 

14 Limerick Units 1 and 2, the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted 

15 consequences of severe accidents are small (10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Because of 

16 the NRC’s safety review criteria, it is expected that risks for any new reactors at the Salem/Hope 

17 Creek site would be well below risks for current-generation reactors and meet the Commission’s 

18 safety goals. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks of severe 

19 accidents at any location within 50 mi of the Bainbridge alternative site would be SMALL. 

20 9.3.4 Eastalco Site 

21 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

22 a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco Aluminum Smelter (Eastalco) site in central Maryland. The 

23 Eastalco site is located within the Lowland Section of the Piedmont Plateau physiographic 

24 province in Frederick County, Maryland (Figure 9-7) (MDNR 2001). This province is described 

25 as rolling hills and stream valleys covered with hardwood forests (FWS 2001). 

26 The Eastalco site is approximately 2200 ac and contains an inactive aluminum production 

27 facility that was shut down in 2005. The facility is being maintained for possible future 

28 production. The site is industrial with agricultural fields (Figure 9-8). 

29 The following sections describe the cumulative impact assessment conducted for each resource 

30 area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects 

31 of the proposed action if it were sited at the Eastalco site and other actions in the same 

32 geographical area were assessed. This assessment includes the impacts of construction and 

33 operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also included are past, present, and 

34 reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could have meaningful 

35 cumulative impacts with the proposed action. Other actions and projects considered in this 

36 cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-8. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-80 Draft NUREG-1936 1 Figure 9-7. Eastalco Site Location (UniStar 2009a) 2 
Draft NUREG-1936 9-81 April 2010 

 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Figure 9-8. Eastalco Site and Surrounding Area (UniStar 2009a) 2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-82 April 2010 

1 Table 9-8. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Eastalco Site Cumulative Analysis 

Project Name or 

Other Action Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

Dickerson Generating 

Plant 

Dickerson Generating Plant is a 

fossil-fuel power plant (849 MW). 

Approximately 

7 mi south of 

Eastalco site 

Operational. Currently 

upgrading air pollution 

control equipment; project 

expected to be completed 

by end of 2009.(a) 

Montgomery County 

Resource Facility 

Montgomery County Resource 

Facility burns solid waste to 

generate up to 55 MW. 

Approximately 

7 mi south of 

Eastalco site 

Operational.(b) 

R. Paul Smith 

Generating Station 

R. Paul Smith Generating Station 

consists of two coal-fired units 

(116 MW total capacity). 

Approximately 

26 mi northwest of 

Eastalco site 

Operational.(c) 

Potomac-Appalachian 

Transmission Highline 

(PATH) Project 

PATH Project is a 765-kV 

transmission line proposed as a 

joint venture of American Electric 

Power and Allegheny Energy. 

Southwestern 

West Virginia to 

central Maryland 

(~275 mi), runs 

through Frederick 

County, MD, 

approximately 

2 mi south of 

Eastalco site 

Proposed. Expected to be 

operational by 2014.(d) 

National Institute of 

Standards and 

Technology (NIST) 

Reactor 

NIST Reactor is a heavy water 

research reactor and has a 

maximum power level of 20 MW(t). 

Approximately 

22 mi southeast of 

Eastalco site 

Operational. Currently 

licensed for operations 

through 2029.(e) 

Fort Detrick BRAC expansion recommendations 

and construction of National 

Interagency Biodefense Campus 

facilities. 

Approximately 

10 mi northeast of 

Eastalco site 

Ongoing. Schedule calls 

for construction completion 

in 2012.(f) 

Fort Ritchie Potential business and residential 

development. 

Approximately 

27 mi north of 

Eastalco site 

Ongoing development. 

Based on BRAC 

recommendations, the 

military installation was 

essentially closed in 1998. 

In 2006, 500 ac were 

transferred to the PenMar 

Development Corp.(g)
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-83 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 9-8. (contd) 

Project Name or 

Other Action Summary of Project Location Status 

Transportation Projects

Upgrades to US 15, 

MD 85, I-70, I-270 

Changes to improve access and 

traffic flow in the area. 

Frederick, MD; 

depending on 

location, could be 

within 2 mi of site 

Planned. Changes to 

US 15 to improve access 

to Fort Detrick are City and 

County top transportation 

priority.(h)

Upgrades to I-270, US 

15 corridor 

This is a multi-modal corridor study 

to consider highway and transit 

improvements in the I-270/US 15 

corridor in Montgomery and 

Frederick counties from Shady 

Grove Metro Station to north of 

Biggs Ford Road (27.90 mi). 

Montgomery and 

Frederick 

Counties, MD 

Planned. Project is in the 

planning stage – 

developing a preferred 

alternative based on public 

comments.(i)

Other Actions/Projects

Brunswick Wastewater 

Treatment Plant 

Plant expansion and addition of 

enhanced nitrogen removal 

technology. 

Approximately 

6 mi west of 

Eastalco site 

Completed in 2008.(j)

Various hospitals and 

industrial facilities that 

use radioactive 

materials 

Medical and other isotopes. Within 50 mi Operational. 

(a) Source: Mirant 2009a. 

(b) Source: Montgomery County 2009. 

(c) Source: Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2009. 

(d) Source: Path 2009b. 

(e) Source: NRC 2009c. 

(f) Source: Fort Detrick 2009. 

(g) Source: EPA 2009b. 

(h) Source: MD SHA 2009a. 

(i) Source: MD SHA 2009b. 

(j) Source: City of Brunswick 2009. 

2 9.3.4.1 Land Use 

3 The following impact analysis includes impacts to land-use from building and operations at the 

4 Eastalco site and geographic area of interest, which is the 15-mi region surrounding the 

5 Eastalco site. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

6 actions that affect land-use, including other Federal and non-Federal projects (Table 9-8) within 

7 the geographic area of interest. The Eastalco site is an approximately 2200 ac tract of land 

8 located in an unincorporated area of Frederick County, Maryland, approximately 10 mi 

9 southwest of the City of Frederick (UniStar 2009a). The site was used for aluminum production 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-84 April 2010 

1 from 1970–2005. The structures associated with aluminum production are still on the site. The 

2 current owner of the site is Alcoa, Inc. 

3 Of the 2200 ac, approximately 1320 ac are currently zoned industrial (Gazzette.Net 2009). 

4 Land in proximity to the site is used for agricultural, light industrial, and residential purposes. 

5 Corn and soybeans are the predominant crops in the region. The site is relatively level with an 

6 elevation change of approximately 33 ft. 

7 If a new nuclear generating unit is developed on the site, some agricultural and forested land 

8 would be lost. In addition, offsite land would be impacted to build an approximately 5.8 mi 

9 pipeline to bring water for cooling to the site from the Potomac River. The pipeline would need 

10 to cross railroad tracks, local roads, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal towpath. The 

11 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal is a National Historical Park (see Section 9.3.4.8). Until the mid12 1990s, water was withdrawn from the Potomac River and piped to the site for use by the 

13 aluminum plant. 

14 The Eastalco site includes a railroad spur, natural gas service, and an electrical substation. 

15 When operating, the aluminum plant was the largest industrial user of electricity in Maryland. 

16 The nearest dedicated land (Federal, State, or Tribal) is the State-owned Monocacy Natural 

17 Resources Management Area located approximately 3.5 mi from the Eastalco site (UniStar 

18 2009a). The Monocacy National Battlefield, administered by the U.S. National Park Service, is 

19 located approximately 4 mi from the site. 

20 There is a large transmission corridor leading to the Eastalco site. It is likely this corridor would 

21 be adequate to construct the necessary transmission lines associated with a new nuclear 

22 generating unit located at Eastalco (UniStar 2009a). In addition, there are seven existing 

23 500-kV transmission lines within 5 mi of the site and a 345-kV transmission line about 12.7 mi 

24 northwest of the site. There are also nine 230-kV transmission lines available for 

25 interconnection. One line is about 0.5 mi from the site, another line is 1.8 mi, two lines are 

26 2.2 mi, and another five lines are more than 4 mi from the site (UniStar 2009a). Because 

27 transmission lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team expects that 

28 the impact of connecting a new plant at the Eastalco site to current transmission lines would be 

29 consistent with the land-use plans and zoning regulations of the affected counties. 

30 Cumulative Impacts 

31 For this cumulative land-use analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 15-mi region 

32 surrounding the Eastalco site. This area of interest includes the primary communities 

33 (Adamstown, Buckeystown, and Frederick) that would be affected by the proposed project if it 

34 were located at the Eastalco site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-85 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The project identified in Table 9-8 with the greatest likelihood of affecting land use in the 

2 geographic area of interest would be the Fort Detrick BRAC. The Fort Detrick BRAC would 

3 involve the construction and operation of new U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of 

4 Infectious Diseases facilities and the decommissioning and partial demolition of existing facilities 

5 (U.S. Army 2007b). Activities would take place on Fort Detrick. Some indirect offsite land-use 

6 impacts may occur as a result of economic activity on the Fort Detrick site. 

7 In addition, the transmission corridor for the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline 

8 (PATH) project (see Table 9-8) would pass approximately 2 mi south of the Eastalco site (PATH 

9 2009a). The PATH project would contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts from the 

10 additional amount of noticeably altered land use through the conversion to utility corridor use. If 

11 additional transmission lines are built from other energy projects, they would also contribute to a 

12 cumulative land-use impact from the additional amount of land converted to utility corridor use 

13 for transmission lines. 

14 The projects identified in Table 9-8 within the geographic area of interest, have or would 

15 contribute to decreases in open lands, wetlands, and forested areas and generally result in 

16 increased urbanization and industrialization consistent with applicable land-use plans and 

17 control policies. In addition, GCC could increase precipitation, flooding, and wetland losses in 

18 the area of interest (GCRP 2009), thus changing land use through inundation of low-lying areas 

19 and river shoreline. Forest growth may increase as a result of more carbon dioxide in the 

20 atmosphere (GCRP 2009). Existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve 

21 open lands, wetlands, and forested areas to the extent that they are not affected by the same 

22 factors. In addition, GCC could reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), 

23 which might change agricultural land uses, which are predominant in the area of interest. Direct 

24 changes resulting from GCC could cause a shift in land use in the geographic area of interest. 

25 Based on the information from UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

26 review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating a new 

27 nuclear generating unit and associated transmission lines at the Eastalco site would be SMALL 

28 to MODERATE. This conclusion reflects that the direct transmission line land-use impacts 

29 associated with siting the proposed project at the Eastalco site would be SMALL, but that 

30 cumulative impacts would be greater than SMALL because of the close proximity of the PATH 

31 transmission corridor. Therefore, building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site 

32 would not be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

33 9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality 

34 Water for the Eastalco site would be obtained primarily from the Potomac River. The Eastalco 

35 site is about 5.5 mi northeast of the Potomac River, where it passes Point of Rocks, Maryland. 

36 According to UniStar (2009a), the proposed plant would require the withdrawal of about 

37 50 MGD for cooling and other uses. Of that total, about 27 MGD would be consumed, and the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-86 April 2010 

1 remainder would be discharged back to the Potomac River. UniStar (2008b) states the plant 

2 would use closed-cycle cooling with a cooling tower. The plant would have separate intake and 

3 discharge structures in the Potomac River. Discharge water would include cooling tower 

4 blowdown, treated process wastewater, treated sanitary wastewater, and some radioactive 

5 water. The discharge would be at an elevated temperature relative to the temperature of the 

6 Potomac River. 

7 There are no major surface waterbodies on the Eastalco site. There are two minor drainages 

8 along the edges of the alternative site footprint. One drainage is unnamed, and the other feeds 

9 Tuscarora Creek. 

10 The Eastalco site would require normal alterations, including grading, building of roads, piers, 

11 jetties, and water intake and discharge structures in the Potomac River. Building of the intake 

12 and discharge pipes would affect the pipeline corridor from the site to the river, and it would 

13 affect the river bed in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. UniStar (2009a) 

14 identified the potential need to build an onsite impoundment to provide an ultimate heat sink 

15 (UHS). UniStar estimates the area and depth of such an impoundment would be approximately 

16 4.7 ac and 25 ft, respectively (UniStar 2009a). 

17 The average flow of the Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Maryland, between 1895 and 2009 is 

18 6149 MGD (USGS 2009). Water withdrawal for the alternative plant site would represent less 

19 than 1.0 percent of average flow conditions at Point of Rocks. Although there appears to be 

20 sufficient water during average flow conditions, low-flow conditions could have the potential to 

21 impact plant operations. UniStar (2009a) reported a 7Q10 value for the Potomac River of 

22 approximately 372 MGD for the gauge at Point of Rocks, Maryland. Total water withdrawal 

23 would represent almost 14 percent of the 7Q10 value. Consumptive use would be about half 

24 that value. 

25 Withdrawals of water from the Potomac River require approval by the MDE Water Management 

26 Administration and compliance with the Low Flow Allocation Agreement (LFAA) signed by the 

27 Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. The LFAA allows for water withdrawal 

28 restrictions during droughts to maintain sufficient flow to sustain aquatic resources. Maryland 

29 requires large consumptive water users, such as the proposed plant if it were to be located at 

30 the Eastalco site, to maintain storage for low-flow augmentation to meet the requirements of the 

31 LFAA. The amount of storage required is based on the amount of consumptive use and would 

32 be determined at the time of application. UniStar (2008b) believes that this may be a significant 

33 consideration for development of the Eastalco site. Because the amount of water consumed 

34 relative to the existing resource in the Potomac River is limited and because low-flow conditions 

35 would be monitored, controlled, and offset by flow augmentation (UniStar 2009a), the review 

36 team concludes the hydrological alterations of impacts to the Potomac River from plant 

37 operations would be minor. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-87 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 UniStar (2009a) states that groundwater would not be used for operations, but may be needed 

2 temporarily for building activities. UniStar has not yet determined the quantities of water needed 

3 for development of this site. The geohydrology of the area is characterized as a regolith4 fractured bedrock aquifer system. The regolith consists of soil, alluvium, and saprolite; 

5 thickness varies from 0 to more than 150 ft. Underlying the regolith is the Piedmont bedrock, 

6 which can be either crystalline or carbonate. 

7 Building activities, including surface alterations and dewatering, have the potential to affect the 

8 local hydrology, but because the site has already been heavily developed, any impacts from 

9 building a nuclear power plant would be temporary and localized. Groundwater from deeper 

10 aquifers would be much less affected because this resource would not be used during 

11 operations. The review team determined that, although the local hydrology would be impacted, 

12 the impacts of building and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site on the regional 

13 groundwater resources would be minor. 

14 Activities with the potential to alter either surface water or groundwater quality would be 

15 regulated by NPDES discharge and stormwater permits. BMPs would prevent or mitigate spills 

16 from altering the quality of the surface water or groundwater resources. The nutrient load from 

17 the plant’s sanitary effluent system would be a minor contribution to the Potomac River’s 

18 cumulative nutrient load. 

19 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

20 the review team concludes that although the local hydrology would be altered, the cumulative 

21 impacts on regional surface and groundwater resources of constructing and operating a new 

22 nuclear generating unit at the Eastalco site would be minor. 

23 Cumulative Impacts 

24 For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the 

25 Eastalco site is the drainage basin of the Potomac River upstream and downstream of the site 

26 because this is the resource that would be impacted if the proposed project were located at the 

27 Eastalco site. Key actions that have past, present, and future potential impacts to water supply 

28 and water quality in the Potomac River basin include the operation the Dickerson Generating 

29 Station located 7 mi downstream, the R. Paul Smith Power Station located 26 mi upstream, and 

30 other municipal and industrial activities in the Potomac River basin. For the cumulative analysis 

31 of impacts on groundwater, the geographic area of interest is the extent within Frederick County 

32 of the groundwater aquifers beneath the site. 

33 Water Use. The surface water-use impacts of building and operating a nuclear power plant at 

34 this site are dominated by the higher demands that would occur under normal operation. The 

35 projected consumptive water use of a nuclear unit onsite is expected to be about 42 cfs or less 

36 than one percent of the average river discharge of 6149 cfs near the site. During extremely low-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-88 April 2010 

1 flow conditions, the water use is expected to be less than 8 percent of the river flow. These 

2 average river flow and extreme low flow values reflect cumulative consumptive uses of current 

3 users upstream of the site. 

4 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect the water 

5 resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water resources for 

6 other users. The impact of climate change would be similar for all the alternative sites. 

7 Increases in consumptive use of water in the Potomac River drainage is anticipated in the 

8 future. The impacts of the other operational projects listed in Table 9-8 are considered in the 

9 analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface water use. 

10 As indicated, groundwater would be used as a potable water source during building and 

11 operation. Due to the high yields for the aquifers in this region and demonstrated by past use at 

12 the Eastalco site, no significant impact is anticipated to other nearby users of groundwater. 

13 The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts to surface water from building and 

14 operation of the proposed plant at the Eastalco site would be SMALL in normal years and 

15 MODERATE in drought years. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site 

16 would be a significant contributor to these impacts. The review team also concludes that the 

17 cumulative impacts to groundwater use from building and operation of the proposed project 

18 would be SMALL. 

19 Water Quality. Point and non-point pollution sources have impacted the water quality of the 

20 Potomac River upstream and downstream of the site. Water quality information presented for 

21 the impacts of building and operating a new unit at the Eastalco site would also apply to 

22 evaluation of cumulative impacts. As mentioned, an MDE-issued NPDES permit would be 

23 required to operate the nuclear project at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES24 permitted outfall would confirm the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such 

25 permits for other point source discharges into the Potomac River and its tributaries and EPA’s 

26 Total Maximum Daily Load program for non-point sources are designed to protect water quality. 

27 The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-8 are either considered in the included analysis or 

28 would have little or no impact on surface water quality. The review team also concludes that 

29 with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from building and 

30 operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site would likely be minimal and, therefore, 

31 concludes the cumulative impact on surface and ground water quality would be SMALL. 

32 9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

33 The Eastalco site is a deactiviated aluminum production site in Frederick County, Maryland, with 

34 existing structures that occupy about 400 ac. The ecological potential of this site had been 

35 drastically reduced during clearing for the construction of the aluminum production facility 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-89 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 (MDNR PPRP 2006). Primary cover types include agricultural fields, maintained grasslands, 

2 and forested woodlots. Most agricultural fields consist of row crops, including corn, soybeans, 

3 and winter wheat. Grasses consist of meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis) and switchgrass 

4 (Panicum virgatum) (MDNR PPRP 2006). Woodlots are deciduous and dominated by oaks 

5 (Quercas spp.), maples (Acer spp.), and tulip poplar. Man-made drainage ditches are present 

6 and are vegetated with grasses, weedy species, and a few black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), 

7 cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and ash (Fraxinus sp.) trees. This site is surrounded primarily 

8 by agricultural lands. Eastalco contains 10 discrete wetlands totaling approximately 4.5 ac 

9 (UniStar 2009a). 

10 No Federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur on the Eastalco site 

11 or in Frederick County. The bald eagle, protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 

12 is listed as threatened by the State of Maryland (Table 9-9). Bald eagles may occur along the 

13 Potomac River and in the vicinity of the Eastalco site. The Potomac River is a primary bald 

14 eagle nesting area in Maryland (MDNR 2009b). In 2004, there were 43 active bald eagle nests 

15 along the Potomac River. However, it appears the eagles prefer to nest elsewhere as only 

16 three nests are known in Frederick County and only one was active (MDNR 2008). There is no 

17 open water at Eastalco suitable for eagle foraging on the site, and forest cover used for nesting, 

18 roosting, and perching is limited in distribution. Therefore, it is unlikely that bald eagles would 

19 occur on the Eastalco site. 

20 In addition to the bald eagle, the Maryland DNR Natural Heritage Program’s list of rare, 

21 threatened, and endangered species for Frederick County, Maryland contains 7 terrestrial 

22 wildlife and 49 terrestrial plant species (Table 9-9). However, no Federally listed species are 

23 known to occur in Frederick County (MDNR 2007d). The upland sandpiper (Bartramia 

24 longicauda) is a shorebird that occupies grasslands exclusively and is commonly found nesting 

25 in airports in the northeastern United States (Houston and Bowen 2001). The Eastalco site 

26 contains grass habitats and croplands, but it is unknown if these habitat are suitable and used 

27 by the upland sandpiper. The green-patterned tiger beetle (Cicindela patruela) commonly 

28 occurs in open areas of dry, sandy soils within forests, such as abandoned roads, trails, sand 

29 pits, and bare slopes (USGS 2006; NatureServe 2009). UniStar stated this species may occur 

30 along the Potomac River where cooling water system structures would be located. The 

31 blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca) is a neotropical migrant that nests within the forest 

32 interior of mixed forests (Morse 2004). Forest stands on the Eastalco site have been highly 

33 fragmented, and it is unlikely this species would nest on the site. The loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

34 ludovicianus) is an irregular resident of Maryland that prefers disturbed or open habitats 

35 (Reuven 1996), such as those located along streams and fence lines on the site. The Allegheny 

36 woodrat (Neotoma magister) occurs in rocky habitats (Chamblin et al. 2004), which are not 

37 present on the site. Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii altus) is a species that has benefitted 

38 from the fragmentation of forested landscapes. It thrives in a landscape mosaic of early39 successional habitats, such as forest edges, and has been associated with brushy areas around 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-90 April 2010 

1 Table 9-9. State-Listed Terrestrial Species that Occur in Frederick County and May Occur on 

2 the Eastalco Site or in the Immediate Vicinity

Scientific Name Common Name State Status 

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Endangered 

Cicindela patruela Green-patterned Tiger Beetle Endangered 

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler Threatened 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Endangered 

Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat Endangered 

Thryomanes bewickii altus Bewick’s Wren Endangered 

Adlumia fungosa Climbing Fumitory Threatened 

Agalinis auriculata Auricled Gerardia Endangered 

Agastache scrophulariifolia Purple Giant Hyssop Threatened 

Asplenium pinnatifidum Lobed Spleenwort Endangered 

Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobe Grape-fern Endangered 

Calopogon tuberosus Grass-pink Endangered 

Carex aestivalis Summer Sedge Endangered 

Carex davisii Davis’ Sedge Endangered 

Carex shortiana Short’s Sedge Endangered 

Castilleja coccinea Indian Paintbrush Endangered 

Chelone obliqua Red Turtlehead Threatened 

Coeloglossum viride Long-bracted Orchid Endangered 

Coptis trifolia Goldthread Endangered 

Corallorhiza wisteriana Wister’s Coralroot Endangered 

Cornus rugosa Round-leaved Dogwood Endangered 

Dirca palustris Leatherwood Threatened 

Dryopteris campyloptera Mountain Wood-fern Endangered 

Equisetum sylvaticum Wood Horsetail Endangered 

Erythronium albidum White Trout Lily Threatened 

Euphorbia purpurea Darlington’s Spurge Endangered 

Eurybia radula Rough-leaved Aster Endangered 

Filipendula rubra Queen-of-the-prairie Endangered 

Gentiana andrewsii Fringe-tip Closed Gentian Threatened 

Glyceria acutiflora Sharp-scaled Mannagrass Endangered 

Hasteola suaveolens Sweet-scented Indian-plantain Endangered 

3 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-91 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 9-9. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name State Status 

Helianthus microcephalus Small-headed Sunflower Endangered 

Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal Threatened 

Krigia dendelion Potato Dandelion Endangered 

Lythrum alatum Winged Loosestrife Endangered 

Melanthium latifolium Broad-leaved Bunchflower Endangered 

Minuartia glabra Mountain Sandwort Endangered 

Nymphoides cordata Floating-heart Endangered 

Oryzonpsis recemosa Black-fruited Mountainrice Threatened 

Platanthera ciliaris Yellow Fringed Orchid Threatened 

Platanthera grandiflora Large Purple Fringed Orchid Threatened 

Platanthera permoena Purple Fringeless Orchid Threatened 

Pycnanthemum torrei Torrey’s Mountain-mint Endangered 

Quercus shumardii Shumard’s Oak Threatened 

Rumex altissimus Tall Dock Endangered 

Sagittaria rigida Sessile-fruited Arrowhead Endangered 

Scutellaria leonardii Leonard’s Skullcap Threatened 

Scutellaria nervosa Veined Skullcap Endangered 

Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap Endangered 

Sida hermaphrodita Virginia Mallow Endangered 

Smilacina stellata Star-flowered False Solomon’s-seal Endangered 

Spiranthes ochroleuca Yellow Nodding Lady’s Tresses Endangered 

Stenanthium gramineum Featherbells Threatened 

Triosteum angustifolium Yellowfruit Horse-gentian Endangered 

Zanthoxylum americanum Northern Prickly-ash Endangered 

Source: MDNR 2007b 

2 homes and backyards (James and Green 2009). The existence of the altus subspecies of 

3 Bewick’s wren that occupies the Appalachian region has been called into question (James and 

4 Green 2009). It is believed the Bewick’s wren may have been outcompeted and replaced by the 

5 house wren (Troglodytes aedon), a common backyard bird. 

6 Of the 49 State-listed plant species found in Frederick County, 16 are wetland plants, 25 are 

7 found in uplands, and the remaining 8 may occur in both habitats. The distribution and 

8 abundance of these plant species on the Eastalco site is unknown. Because much of the site 

9 has been previously converted to agriculture, it is doubtful many of these plants would occur on 

10 the site. UniStar stated that only three of the State-listed plant species – yellowfruit horse11 gentian (Triosteum angustifolium), potato dandelion (Krigia dandelion), and tall dock (Rumex 

12 altissimus) – could occur in highly disturbed habitats (UniStar 2009a). If any of these species 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-92 April 2010 

1 did occur on the site, they would likely be limited to areas of existing natural vegetation, 

2 including forests, stream and wetland corridors, and grassy areas. 

3 Tulip poplar, mountain laurel, chestnut oak, and New York fern, which were identified as 

4 ecologically important species for the Calvert Cliffs site, either do not occur on the Eastalco site 

5 or do not occur in sufficient numbers to contribute noticeably to the ecological integrity of the 

6 site. Therefore, these species are not considered important at the Eastalco site. The white7 tailed deer, wild turkey, northern bobwhite, and ring-necked pheasant, all recreationally 

8 important species, would likely occur at this site. White-tailed deer are common in agricultural 

9 settings and were observed on the site during the site audit. Wild turkey would also be 

10 expected based on habitat types present and the known distribution in Maryland (UniStar 

11 2009a). The Eastalco site appears to be well suited as habitat for the northern bobwhite and 

12 ring-necked pheasant. Both thrive in disturbed habitats and do particularly well in landscape 

13 mosaics that include agriculture. 

14 Building and Operational Impacts 

15 UniStar identified a representative 420-ac area within the Eastalco site for the purposes of this 

16 analysis. If a plant were built within this footprint, no wetlands would be affected. The water 

17 supply pipeline would disturb approximately 105 additional ac (UniStar 2009a). 

18 The Eastalco site is highly disturbed and dominated by row crop production. Woodlands and 

19 wetlands are not extensive on the site, and these high-quality habitats exist in small, isolated 

20 patches. Adequate land area exists to avoid ecologically high-value lands during development 

21 of a nuclear plant at this site, limiting the potential to affect most important species. The 

22 Eastalco site does not contain suitable bald eagle habitat. The nearest water source large 

23 enough to supply cooling water, the Potomac River, is approximately 5.8 mi from the site. A 

24 pipeline capable of supplying about 50 MGD would be required. Although bald eagles are 

25 known to nest along the Potomac River, only one active nest is known to occur in Frederick 

26 County (MDNR 2008). Therefore, it is unlikely impacts related to the building and operation of a 

27 nuclear power plant would result in significant impacts to bald eagles. 

28 Upland sandpipers may occur in grass-dominated habitats, but pre-disturbance surveys, design 

29 modifications, and mitigation would be used to minimize the potential to affect this species 

30 (UniStar 2009a). Potential nesting habitat could be lost if fallow fields are converted to facilities. 

31 Distribution and abundance of the green-patterned tiger beetle is undetermined, but this species 

32 could be affected by building activities related to the cooling water system along the Potomac 

33 River (UniStar 2009a) or within suitable upland habitat. Surveys, design modifications, and 

34 mitigation could minimize the potential to affect these beetles (UniStar 2009a), and adequate 

35 agricultural land exists to avoid forested habitats. The blackburnian warbler is unlikely to nest 

36 on the site, but may occasionally use forested areas during migration. Avoidance of forest 

37 habitats would preclude impacts to this bird species. The loggerhead shrike, Bewick’s wren, 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-93 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 and most of the 49 State-listed plants would be found within forests, wetlands, and along 

2 streams and fence lines. Building a nuclear power plant within agricultural lands would also 

3 minimize the potential to affect these species as well. The yellowfruit horse-gentian, potato 

4 dandelion, and tall dock may occur in disturbed habitats, but pre-disturbance surveys and 

5 mitigation, if needed, would minimize effects to these species (UniStar 2009a). Habitat 

6 available to the white-tailed deer, wild turkey, northern bobwhite, and ring-necked pheasant 

7 would decrease and individuals would be displaced. However, these effects are not expected to 

8 be noticeable beyond a very local scale and would not destabilize county-level populations. 

9 Building a new unit at Eastalco and the installation of a cooling system pipeline to the Potomac 

10 River and transmission systems would affect terrestrial resources, including wetlands. 

11 However, land use on the Eastalco site is typical of the region, with much of the surrounding 

12 land area already disturbed by agriculture. Few ecologically high-value habitats are likely 

13 present, and sufficient disturbed land area exists to avoid relatively undisturbed habitats during 

14 installation of a pipeline and transmission system. Route adjustments based on data from pre15 disturbance surveys and mitigation measures that would be implemented during and after 

16 building of a plant would minimize impacts (UniStar 2009a). Operational activities within the 

17 transmission corridors might include visual inspection and appropriate maintenance of 

18 transmission line corridors. Maintenance activities might include clearing vegetation and tree 

19 trimming or removal. For maintenance purposes, wooded sections of the corridors would be 

20 cleared to the full width through mechanical clearing, hand cutting, or herbicide application using 

21 industry standard BMPs and are not expected to substantially affect terrestrial resources. 

22 Terrestrial ecological impacts that may result from operation of a new nuclear unit at the 

23 Eastalco alternative site include those associated with the cooling system, transmission system 

24 structures, and maintenance of transmission line corridors. For impacts related to cooling 

25 system operations, the review team assumed the same type of cooling tower proposed for 

26 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be used at any of the alternative sites. In NUREG-1437 

27 (NRC 1996), the NRC staff evaluated terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from operation of 

28 existing nuclear power plants and transmission line operation and maintenance. The types of 

29 terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit would be similar to 

30 those of existing nuclear power plants. When more specific information was not available, 

31 conclusions in the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) were used to assess terrestrial impacts resulting 

32 from the operation of the cooling towers and impacts from transmission line corridor 

33 maintenance and operation. Similarly, the effects of cooling tower drift, avian collisions, noise, 

34 and transmission lines would be similar to those described in Section 5.3.1.1 in which the 

35 operational impacts were determined to be undetectable at the population level. 

36 Cooling Towers 

37 The operation of a cooling tower results in the loss of water through evaporative loss and drift. 

38 Drift is described as small, unevaporated water droplets that are exhausted out the top of the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-94 April 2010 

1 tower. These droplets may carry minerals, debris, microorganisms, and chemicals that may 

2 affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants. Adverse impacts from cooling tower drift 

3 cannot be evaluated in detail without knowing the specific location of the cooling tower at each 

4 alternative site. However, general guidelines for predicting effects of drift deposition on plants 

5 suggest that many species have thresholds for visible leaf damage in the range of 9 to 

6 18 lb/ac/mo of salt deposition on leaves during the growing season (NRC 1996). The Potomac 

7 River near the Eastalco site is a freshwater source; therefore, the review team expects even 

8 less salt deposition at the Eastalco site because the salt content in the cooling water source 

9 would be lower. Because the maximum salt deposition for the proposed Unit 3 is far below the 

10 level that could cause leaf damage in many common species, the impacts would be negligible 

11 both on the Calvert Cliffs site and in the vicinity. Therefore, these impacts would be even less at 

12 the Eastalco site. In general, the impacts of drift on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native 

13 plants were evaluated for existing nuclear power plants and were found to be of minor 

14 significance (NRC 1996). 

15 Similarly, predicting mortality from bird collisions with cooling towers depend on the type 

16 (mechanical or natural draft for a wet cooling system; dry for a dry system) and number of 

17 cooling towers at each alternative site. In this case, a single, large mechanical draft cooling 

18 tower is proposed. The impacts of bird collisions for existing power plants were evaluated and 

19 found to be of minor significance for all operating nuclear plants, including those with various 

20 numbers and types of cooling towers (NRC 1996). On this basis, the review team concludes, 

21 for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling tower drift and bird 

22 collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit at Eastalco would 

23 be minor. 

24 Typical noise levels that can be expected at a distance of 1300 ft from the cooling tower are 

25 65 dBA (UniStar 2009a). Noise from plant operation would also be quickly attenuated by 

26 surrounding forest cover, further limiting its impact on wildlife. Local wildlife would likely adapt 

27 to noise levels, while cooling tower and transformer noise may also serve to limit the potential 

28 for avian collision. Consequently, the review team concludes the impacts of cooling tower noise 

29 on wildlife would be minimal at Eastalco. 

30 Transmission Lines 

31 The impacts associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with 

32 transmission lines and EMF effects on flora and fauna. The impacts associated with building 

33 transmission lines and corridor maintenance activities are alteration and/or conversion of habitat 

34 due to tree cutting and herbicide application and similar related impacts, such as use of 

35 temporary matting, where corridors cross floodplains, wetlands, and other important habitats. 

36 Direct mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed (Avatar 

37 2004). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-95 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory flight by flocking birds 

2 during darkness has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower height, location, 

3 configuration, and lighting also appear to play roles in avian mortality. Weather, such as low 

4 cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Waterfowl may be 

5 particularly vulnerable due to low, fast flight and flocking behavior (Brown 1993). However, in 

6 NUREG-1437, the NRC staff concluded that the threat of avian collision as a biologically 

7 significant source of mortality is very low as only a small fraction of total bird mortality could be 

8 attributed to collision with nuclear power plant structures, including transmission corridors with 

9 multiple transmission lines (NRC 1996). Although collision may contribute to local losses, 

10 thriving bird populations can withstand these losses without threat to their existence (Brown 

11 1993). Although additional transmission lines would be required for a new nuclear unit at 

12 Eastalco, increases in bird collisions would be minor and these would likely not be expected to 

13 cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. Consequently, the incremental direct 

14 mortality posed by the addition of new transmission lines for a new nuclear unit would be 

15 negligible at the Eastalco alternative site. 

16 EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

17 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

18 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

19 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). The 

20 impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at operating nuclear 

21 power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power lines and lines 

22 energized at levels less than 765 kV (NRC 1996). Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have 

23 been published that looked at cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of 

24 their lives (Moulder 2003). These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific 

25 types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed 

26 by operation of existing transmission lines and the addition of new lines for a new nuclear unit 

27 would be negligible at the Eastalco alternative site. 

28 Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission line corridors at Eastalco would 

29 likely be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be required 

30 during the development of new transmission line corridors. Transmission line corridor 

31 management activities (cutting and herbicide application) and related impacts to floodplains and 

32 wetlands in transmission line corridors are of minor significance at operating nuclear power 

33 plants, including those with transmission line corridors of variable widths (NRC 1996). 

34 Consequently, the incremental effects of transmission line corridor maintenance and associated 

35 impacts to floodplains and wetlands for a new nuclear unit would be negligible at Eastalco. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-96 April 2010 

1 For reasons discussed above, impacts to important terrestrial species and habitat would be 

2 minimal, if any, at the Eastalco site. Therefore, impacts to terrestrial resources, including 

3 wetlands, from building and operation of a nuclear power plant at the Eastalco site would be 

4 minor. 

5 Cumulative Impacts 

6 The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative terrestrial 

7 ecology impacts of building and operating a new reactor at the Eastalco site in addition to other 

8 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable other projects on terrestrial resources and wetlands 

9 is defined as Frederick County, Maryland, because the extent of terrestrial impacts is mostly 

10 localized and the site is several miles from neighboring counties. Numerous projects, facilities, 

11 and activities could contribute to cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources and wetlands within 

12 the County. The PATH Project, a 280-mi long transmission line, is proposed to pass through 

13 central Frederick County to the Kemptown substation near Frederick, Maryland. It is likely that 

14 terrestrial habitats and wetlands within Frederick County would be affected by this project, but 

15 much of the route within the county is proposed to parallel or lie within existing transmission 

16 lines, limiting impacts to valuable resources (PATH 2009a). In 2001, Duke Energy applied for 

17 an application to build a natural gas-fired power plant north of Point of Rocks, Maryland. This 

18 project was cancelled in 2002, but land has been retained by Duke Energy and may be used for 

19 this purpose. If this land is eventually developed, impacts to terrestrial resources and wetlands 

20 would be likely, but the extent is unknown (MDNR PPRP 2006). Expansion of Fort Detrick, 

21 which occupies more than 1200 ac near Frederick, and subsequent infrastructure upgrades 

22 could also contribute to cumulative impacts. It is unknown to what extent this activity would 

23 affect resources. This facility lies mainly within an urban landscape, so it is unlikely valuable 

24 terrestrial resources still persist. The Eastalco site lies within highly disturbed, highly 

25 fragmented agricultural landscape. The incremental contribution of cumulative impacts resulting 

26 from the building of a nuclear power plant would be inconsequential and undetectable in the 

27 geographic area of interest. 

28 Continued urbanization and GCC have the potential to alter and reduce the amount of terrestrial 

29 habitat and wetlands available to flora and fauna. GCC effects near the Eastalco site could 

30 result in regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, in annual precipitation, and in 

31 average temperature (GCRP 2009). Such factors would affect the terrestrial resources in the 

32 geographic area of interest through reduced open lands and wetlands as a result of inundation 

33 of low-lying areas and river shoreline. Forest growth may increase as a result of more carbon 

34 dioxide in the atmosphere (GCRP 2009). The impacts of GCC on plants and wildlife in the 

35 geographic area of interest are not precisely known. Changes in climate could alter and 

36 fragment key terrestrial habitats and result in substantial northward shifts in species’ ranges, 

37 diversity, and abundance in the geographic area of interest for the Eastalco site (GCRP 2009). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-97 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

2 the review team concludes the cumulative impacts to terrestrial and wetland resources of 

3 building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco alternative site, including impacts 

4 attributable to cooling towers, transmission lines, and transmission line corridors would be 

5 SMALL. 

6 9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources 

7 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

8 aquatic ecology resources. The Potomac River, which is about 5.8 mi from the site, would 

9 provide the cooling water for a new nuclear power plant at Eastalco (UniStar 2009a). The 

10 Potomac River near the Eastalco site is non-tidal freshwater and is within the Upper Potomac 

11 River watershed upstream of Great Falls, which is a natural barrier to most anadromous fish 

12 migrations. A new reactor on the Eastalco site would require a new cooling water intake and 

13 discharge system, which would include a pipeline from the Potomac River to the plant that 

14 would be at least 5.8 mi long. 

15 The Potomac River is the largest and most important aquatic resource near this alternative site. 

16 During the site visit in August 2009, it was observed that water depth in the vicinity of the site is 

17 relatively shallow. Other aquatic communities within the site include wetlands areas, as 

18 discussed in Section 9.3.5.4, and two small streams, Tuscarora Creek and Horsehead Run. 

19 These streams are within the Monocacy River watershed. The onsite resources have not been 

20 characterized, but there are approximately 33,000 linear ft of streams contained within the 

21 banks of Tuscarora Creek, its tributaries, and Horsehead Run (UniStar 2009a). However, 

22 during a site visit in August 2009, it was observed that flow in the streams was low, banks were 

23 incised and undercut, and some farm roads cross directly through the streams. 

24 Recreationally Important Species 

25 Recreational fishing on the Potomac River often targets the smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

26 dolomieu) and walleye (Sander vitreus), but also includes channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), 

27 and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (MDNR 2009g). 

28 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Smallmouth bass are not native to Maryland, but 

29 have become widespread in the State (MDNR 2007m). Smallmouth occur in streams and rivers 

30 with moderate currents, rocky substrates, shade, and pools. Smallmouth feed on fish, crayfish, 

31 and insects. Spawning occurs in late spring with adhesive eggs laid in nests built on the 

32 substrate nearshore. 

33 Walleye (Sander vitreus). The walleye is a large perch that is common across the northern U.S. 

34 and Canada, but has been widely introduced in the U.S., including Maryland (MDNR 2007n). 

35 Walleye live in large waterbodies that are clear and have rocky substrates. Walleye are 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-98 April 2010 

1 primarily predators on fish but also eat crayfish. Spawning occurs in early spring with adhesive 

2 eggs attaching to rocky substrates in shallower water. 

3 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Channel catfish are large fish that have become 

4 established in non-tidal and tidal waters throughout Maryland, although the species is not native 

5 to the State (MDNR 2007f). Catfish live in deep pools that are sheltered by large rocks and 

6 logs. These catfish feed at night on bottom-dwelling prey, such as crayfish, mollusks, and 

7 insects. They also eat plants. Spawning occurs in late spring with the eggs being deposited in 

8 nests that are protected within depressions, holes, or undercut banks. 

9 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). Largemouth bass are widespread in Maryland, 

10 living in fresh and brackish waters (MDNR 2007g). Largemouth bass live in large rivers where 

11 flow is slow, and the bottom is soft. These bass are long-lived predators that primarily eat fish, 

12 but also occasionally eat frogs and snakes. Spawning occurs from March through June with 

13 eggs being deposited into nests that are guarded by males. 

14 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

15 The zebra mussel and Asian clam are two introduced nuisance species that have not yet been 

16 recorded in the middle Potomac River near the Eastalco site. There is one record of the zebra 

17 mussel in the Potomac watershed in Prince William County, Virginia (MDNR 2009a). Asian 

18 clams have been found in Potomac waters in Charles, Prince Georges, and Montgomery 

19 Counties, Maryland (Foster et al. 2009). The rusty crayfish is native to the Ohio River basin, but 

20 has been found in Marsh Creek, a tributary of the upper Monocacy River (MDNR 2007l). 

21 Maryland banned the possession of any crayfish species in the Middle Potomac River basin in 

22 2008 (MDNR 2009e). 

23 Federally and State-Listed Species 

24 There are no Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species or critical habitat near 

25 the Eastalco site (MDNR 2007d). Three State-listed fish species – the State-threatened pearl 

26 dace (Margariscus margarita), comely shiner (Notropis amoenus) and the Highly State 

27 Rare/State Rare checkered sculpin (Cottus n. sp. cf. C. cognatus) – are reported for Frederick 

28 County (MDNR 2007d). Seven State-listed freshwater mussel species are reported for 

29 Frederick County. These are the triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), brook floater 

30 (A. varicosa), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Atlantic spike (E. producta), yellow lampmussel 

31 (Lampsilis cariosa), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and creeper. 

32 Pearl Dace (Margariscus margarita). The pearl dace is a moderately sized minnow that can 

33 reach a length of about 4 in. (Cunningham 2006). The pearl dace generally occurs across 

34 Canada and the northern portion of the U.S. from Montana to Maine, but its range also extends 

35 south through Pennsylvania to Virginia. The species is listed as threatened by the State of 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-99 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Maryland (MDNR 2007d). Pearl dace generally live in slow moving, winding streams that have 

2 vegetated banks and many pool habitats (Cunningham 2006). Dace feed on zooplankton, 

3 benthic invertebrates, detritus, and plants. In Maryland, pearl dace occur only in limestone 

4 streams, which extend from the southern part of Frederick County near the Potomac River 

5 northeastward near the Eastalco site (MDNR 2005). The streams on the Eastalco site have not 

6 been characterized, and it is not known whether they are limestone streams. The occurrence of 

7 the pearl dace near or on the Eastalco site is uncertain. 

8 Comely Shiner (Notropis amoenus). The comely shiner is a small minnow that reaches a length 

9 of about 4 in. It lives in moderate to large streams where the water is at least 2 ft deep 

10 (NYSDEC 2008b). It may occur in lakes and reservoirs. Spawning occurs in late spring and 

11 summer. Feeding habits are not known, but it is likely that the comely shiner feeds in the water 

12 column on aquatic and terrestrial arthropods (NYSDEC 2008b). The comely shiner is listed as 

13 threatened in Maryland (MDNR 2007d). Its possible occurrence near the Eastalco site is not 

14 known. 

15 Checkered Sculpin (Cottus n. sp. cf. C. cognatus). The checkered sculpin is an undescribed 

16 species, formerly assigned to the slimy sculpin (C. cognatus), that is known from Virginia, 

17 Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (PANHP 2009b). The species lives only in 

18 limestone streams (MDNR 2005, PANHP 2009b). Maryland lists the species as Highly State 

19 Rare/State Rare (MDNR 2007d). During stream surveys conducted in 1995 to 2002, the 

20 checkered sculpin occurred at only two sites within Frederick County (MDNR 2009d). Its 

21 possible occurrence near the Eastalco site is not known. 

22 Freshwater Mussels (Family Unionidae). Maryland State-Endangered mussels include the 

23 triangle floater, brook floater, and the green floater. The Atlantic spike and the creeper are 

24 Maryland State-Imperiled. The yellow lampmussel and yellow lance are listed as State 

25 Uncertain (MDNR 2007d). The creeper, triangle floater, brook floater, and green floater all 

26 inhabit highland and piedmont streams and rivers in Frederick County, many of which are near 

27 the Eastalco site (MDNR 2005). The Atlantic spike ranges from the Potomac River basin to the 

28 Savannah River (Bogan and Alderman 2008) and is poorly known. The species has been 

29 confused with E. lanceolata and several similar species (Price 2009). These mussels are often 

30 considered as a mussel community that inhabits rivers and large streams (Walsh et al. 2007). 

31 The yellow lampmussel inhabits highland and piedmont rivers, and the yellow lance lives in 

32 piedmont streams and rivers in Frederick County (MDNR 2005). Although the occurrence of 

33 these mussels in the Potomac River near the Eastalco site is uncertain, there are historical 

34 records that document the occurrence of all of the species, except the yellow lance, in the 

35 Middle Potomac River (Pearce and Evans 2008). The possible occurrence of these mussels in 

36 the Potomac River near the Eastalco site or in the streams in the site is uncertain, but the 

37 possibility that they occur in either location cannot be discounted. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-100 April 2010 

1 Building and Operational Impacts 

2 Building a nuclear unit on the Eastalco site would affect about 1311 linear ft of streams (UniStar 

3 2009a). Assuming that the plant design would be similar to that proposed for Calvert Cliffs 

4 Unit 3, a new plant would permanently add about 130 ac of impervious surface to the Eastalco 

5 site, which would increase runoff during storms, potentially increasing erosion and adding 

6 pollutants to aquatic resources. The potential impacts of the building on the onsite aquatic 

7 resources primarily would be loss of stream habitat, but it would not adversely affect the overall 

8 aquatic resources in the region. 

9 New cooling water intake and discharge structures would be required for a new reactor located 

10 at the Eastalco site. The intake and discharge structures are assumed to be designed like 

11 those at the proposed site having no screens or return system at the intake pipe openings, 

12 which lead to a common forebay (see Chapter 3). The structures would be built on the Potomac 

13 River and would require a new pipeline at least 5.8 mi long. An exact pipeline route has not 

14 been determined, but the pipeline would most likely cross one or more small streams en route to 

15 the Potomac River. Building of a new intake would result in the temporary displacement of 

16 aquatic biota within the vicinity of the intake. It is expected these biota would return to the area 

17 after building is complete. Some silt runoff could occur during development and could affect 

18 local fish and benthic populations. However, the impacts on aquatic organisms would be 

19 temporary and largely mitigated through the use of BMPs. The type of substrate on the 

20 Potomac River bottom at possible intake and discharge locations is not known but, most likely, 

21 is substantially rocky. Installation of the intake and discharge structures on hard-bottom 

22 substrates could involve the use of cofferdams and dewatering, which would introduce pile23 driving noise, discussed in Section 4.3.2.1, as a potential impact. The installation of the intake 

24 and discharge system in soft sediment areas would involve dredging, the potential impacts of 

25 which are discussed in Section 4.3.2.1. 

26 New transmission lines would be needed to connect a new reactor on the Eastalco site to 

27 existing lines that are within 5 mi of the site (UniStar 2009a). A specific route for the new right28 of-way has not been specified. The severity of impacts would depend on the characteristics of 

29 the aquatic resources within the corridor, but the use of BMPs during building and operation 

30 would lessen the potential impacts.

31 The most likely effects on aquatic populations from operation of a new nuclear unit at the 

32 Eastalco site would be the impingement, entrainment, and entrapment of organisms from the 

33 Potomac River. However, assuming that a new reactor at the Eastalco site would use a 

34 closed-cycle cooling system that meets the EPA’s Phase I regulations for new facilities 

35 (66 FR 65256), would have a maximum through-screen velocity of 0.5 ft/s (0.15 m/s) at the 

36 cooling water intake, and would meet the appropriate EPA intake flow to source water volume 

37 criterion, then substantial adverse impacts to most Potomac River aquatic populations from 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-101 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 entrainment, impingement, and entrapment would not be anticipated. Many of the aquatic 

2 species in the Potomac River have benthic eggs that are adhesive or laid in nests, which 

3 lessens the potential for entrainment of this life stage. The species most likely to be impinged, 

4 entrained or entrapped at the Eastalco site would be those affected by the Dickerson 

5 Generating Plant downstream from the Eastalco site. McLean et al. (2002) concluded that 

6 entrainment and impingement impacts at Dickerson were minor. However, as for the proposed 

7 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site (see Chapter 4), the review team recognizes that potential 

8 mitigation measures could be implemented at the intake pipeline openings at the Eastalco site 

9 to reduce entrainment, impingement, and entrapment effects on aquatic species in the Potomac 

10 River. Most notably, creation of a recessed intake and installation of small-mesh traveling 

11 screens or wedgewire screens and a fish-return system at the intake pipeline openings in the 

12 river would further reduce adverse effects on aquatic organisms. 

13 Although a discharge plume has not been modeled for the Eastalco site, the plume area would 

14 be relatively small compared to the river size unless the water depth is shallow enough to result 

15 in a plume with an areal extent greater than that modeled for the Calvert Cliffs site. Without a 

16 site-specific modeled thermal plume, the potential existence of a thermal barrier to fish passage 

17 cannot be evaluated. The potential for adverse impacts from cold shock or heat shock because 

18 of exposure to the thermal plume likely would be minor. Chemical concentrations in the 

19 effluents from the Eastalco site would be required to follow permitted guidelines. 

20 Overall, the combined impact of building and operation of a new reactor on the Eastalco site to 

21 aquatic resources on the site and in the Potomac River would be minor, but could be noticeable 

22 if State-listed species do occur in onsite waterbodies. 

23 Cumulative Impacts 

24 The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

25 building and operating a new reactor at the Eastalco site and from other past, present, and 

26 reasonably foreseeable projects on aquatic resources is defined as parts of the Upper and 

27 Middle Potomac River watersheds that extend through parts of Washington, Frederick, 

28 Montgomery, and Carroll Counties and includes the Lower Monocacy River watershed (MDNR 

29 2007j, 2007h). Water quality in the Potomac River at Point of Rocks, near the possible location 

30 of the intake/discharge system, for 2003 to 2005 was rated poor (suspended solids) to fair 

31 (nitrogen, phosphorus) (MDNR 2007j). Streams in the Upper Potomac watershed were rated 

32 from fair to poor during Maryland Biological Stream Survey monitoring conducted in 2003 

33 (MDNR 2003a). The main activities that could interact with those related to a new reactor at the 

34 Eastalco site include the Dickerson Generating Plant, the PATH Project, and the Brunswick 

35 Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Dickerson Generating Plant, which is located on the 

36 Potomac River about 7 mi downriver from the Point of Rocks area, consumes about 1.5 MGD of 

37 water from the Potomac. The primary species entrained or impinged at the plant include spottail 

38 and spotfin shiners, channel catfish, and redbreast sunfish. The ecological impacts were 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-102 April 2010 

1 estimated to be minor (McLean et al. 2002). Thermal discharges from the plant were found to 

2 have localized impacts on benthic communities, but these impacts did not result in adverse 

3 effects to fish populations that exploit benthic communities (MDNR PPRP 2008). 

4 The PATH project would build a transmission line from Amos, West Virginia to Kemptown, 

5 Maryland. The route crosses the Potomac River upriver of Point of Rocks and proceeds 

6 through lower Frederick County, approximately 2 mi south of the Eastalco site. The method of 

7 crossing the river is not available, but probably would avoid direct effects on the river. The 

8 Brunswick Treatment Plant, which is about 6 mi upriver from the Point of Rocks area, 

9 discharged about 0.6 MGD of effluent into the Potomac River in 2004 and 2005 with nitrogen 

10 and phosphorus being the primary nutrients in the discharge stream (MDNR 2007j). The plant 

11 has recently installed technologies to reduce the nutrient discharges. A new reactor on the 

12 Eastalco site would affect the Potomac River primarily by the entrainment and impingement of 

13 biota and the thermal discharge. These effects would not significantly add to those from the 

14 downriver Dickerson plant. A new reactor would not add significant discharges of nutrients to 

15 those discharged by the Brunswick Treatment Plant. In addition, urbanization in the vicinity 

16 could adversely affect water quality and, therefore, aquatic habitat, through increases in both 

17 point and nonpoint source pollution. 

18 In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, GCC would impose additional stressors on aquatic 

19 communities. The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term 

20 changes in precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental 

21 impacts to the Potomac River and onsite streams. GCC could lead to increased precipitation, 

22 increased pollution from nonpoint source runoff, increased temperatures, and greater intensity 

23 of storms in the geographic area of interest (GCRP 2009). Such changes could alter flow rates 

24 and reduce dissolved oxygen, which directly affect aquatic habitat. These stressors would 

25 result in shifts in species’ ranges, habitats, and migratory behaviors and also alter ecosystem 

26 processes (GCRP 2009). 

27 Based on the information from UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

28 review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operating a nuclear 

29 generation unit at the Eastalco site in addition to other past, present, and reasonably 

30 foreseeable projects on most aquatic resources in the area of interest would be SMALL to 

31 MODERATE. The incremental contribution of building and operating a new reactor at the 

32 Eastalco site would likely be SMALL for most aquatic species but could be MODERATE for 

33 State-listed aquatic species if they occur onsite. 

34 9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics 

35 In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of development and operation at the Eastalco site in 

36 Frederick County, Maryland, the review team undertook a review of the site using data sources 

37 discussed in Section 9.3.2. The analysis also considers, past, present, and reasonably 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-103 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 foreseeable future actions that would affect the same environmental resources as a nuclear 

2 reactor at the Eastalco site, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects 

3 listed in Table 9-8 within the geographic area of interest. 

4 Physical Impacts 

5 Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

6 Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

7 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

8 roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

9 equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (for example, borrow pits, 

10 quarries, and disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

11 Impacts on those facilities from building a new nuclear unit would be minimal. 

12 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, emissions, and visual 

13 intrusions (aesthetics). A new unit would produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling 

14 towers, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also 

15 would be a source of noise. Any noise coming from this site would be controlled in accordance 

16 with standard noise protection and abatement procedures. By inference, this practice also 

17 would be expected to apply to all alternative sites. Commuter traffic would be controlled by 

18 speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level 

19 generated by the workforce commuting to the alternative site. 

20 Any new unit at an alternative site would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power 

21 systems. Permits obtained for these generators would confirm that air emissions comply with 

22 applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term 

23 basis. During normal plant operation, a new unit would not use a significant quantity of 

24 chemicals that could generate odors exceeding odor threshold values. Good access roads and 

25 appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

26 Building activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of the 

27 Eastalco site. Offsite impacts would represent minimal changes to offsite services supporting 

28 the building activities. During facility operations, noise levels would be managed to State and 

29 local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the diesel generators, and chemical 

30 use would be limited, which should limit odors. Based on the information provided by UniStar 

31 and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the physical 

32 impacts of building and operating a nuclear unit at the Eastalco site would be minimal. 

33 Demography 

34 The Eastalco site is located near the town of Frederick (2008 population 59,213) in Frederick 

35 County, central Maryland. The U.S. Census indicates that Frederick County had a 2008 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-104 April 2010 

1 population of 225,721, which was a 16 percent increase from 2000 (USCB 2009d). Baltimore is 

2 approximately 53 mi east, and Washington, D.C. is 54 mi southeast. 

3 At the peak of the site development period, UniStar would expect an onsite workforce of 

4 3950 construction workers (UniStar 2009a). Based on the analysis of impacts presented in 

5 Section 4.4.2, the total maximum number of construction workers migrating into the region 

6 (within 50 mi of the site) from outside of the region would be between 790 and 1383 workers 

7 (20 to 35 percent of the total workforce) at the peak of the building period. Using an average 

8 household size of 2.61, the total in-migrating population would be between 2062 and 3608 

9 people. The majority of impacts would be expected to occur in Frederick County because it 

10 contains the site. The impacts are more dispersed farther away from the site due to the large 

11 populations of the other Counties within commuting distance of the Eastalco site. Considering 

12 that the maximum estimation of in-migrating population would be less than 6 percent of the total 

13 population for Frederick County, the demographic impacts of building a nuclear plant at the 

14 Eastalco are expected to be minimal. 

15 If the facility were built and commenced operations, the operational workforce would number at 

16 least 363 workers, half (182 workers) of whom may migrate into the region. The Eastalco site 

17 would likely have a larger workforce than the Calvert Cliffs site because Calvert Cliffs has an 

18 existing security and administrative workforce. At the Eastalco site, a larger number of security 

19 and administrative workers would need to be hired, but because this is not specialized labor, 

20 they would likely already reside in the 50-mi region. Given the small number of in-migrating 

21 workers and the large population in the 50-mi region, the review team concludes that the 

22 demographic impact during operations would be minor. 

23 Economy and Taxes 

24 According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2005–2007 American Community Survey, the labor force 

25 in Frederick County was 123,907 persons and, of these, 118,721 were employed. The four 

26 industries in Frederick County that accounted for more than 50 percent of employment were 

27 educational services, health care, and social assistance (18 percent); professional, scientific, 

28 management, administrative, and waste management services (15 percent); retail trade 

29 (11 percent); and construction (11 percent) (USCB 2009e). The 2005-2007 estimated 

30 unemployment rate for Frederick County was 2.5 percent, compared to 5.6 percent for the State 

31 of Maryland (USCB 2009b, 2009f). 

32 Economic impacts would be spread across the 50-mi region, but would likely be the greatest in 

33 Frederick County. Impacts are generally considered minimal if plant-related employment is less 

34 than 5 percent of the study area’s total employment (NRC 1996). During development of the 

35 new unit, up to 3950 construction workers would be required to build the plant (at the peak 

36 period). While some of these workers may need to in-migrate to the region, many would be 

37 drawn from the approximate 140,000–150,000 construction workers in the workforce of more 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-105 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 than 2.5 million in the greater MSA (USBLS 2007a, b). The peak site development workforce 

2 would represent less than 5 percent of the current workforce in the region. Therefore, the 

3 review team concludes that the impacts of building a nuclear plant on the economy of the region 

4 would be minimal and beneficial, but temporary. 

5 The wages and salaries of the construction workforce would have a multiplier effect that could 

6 result in increases in business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. This would 

7 have a positive impact on the business community and could provide opportunities for new 

8 businesses to get started and increase job opportunities for local residents. During operations, 

9 approximately 182 new operations jobs would be added to the local economy. Based on the 

10 analysis in Section 5.4.3.1 for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site, the review team concludes the 

11 impact of these new jobs would constitute a small percentage of the total number of jobs in 

12 Frederick County and would have a minimal and beneficial economic impact. 

13 As with the new proposed unit at the Calvert Cliffs site, there would be some positive sales, use, 

14 income, and property tax revenue benefits that would be generated as a result of the building 

15 and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site (Sections 4.4.2.2 and 5.4.3.2). Tax 

16 revenues would accrue to the State primarily from income and sales taxes and to local 

17 governments from taxes on property and income (see Section 2.5.2.2). The primary tax impacts 

18 would occur once the unit becomes valued as property and property tax revenues are collected 

19 by Frederick County according to the millage rate and the negotiated value of the plant. In fiscal 

20 year 2008, Frederick County tax revenues totaled $395.2 million (FCBCB 2008). The tax 

21 revenues from a unit in Frederick County are unknown but likely to be similar to the revenues for 

22 the Calvert Cliffs site. Tax estimates for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be up to 

23 $71 million during building and at $57 million once operations commence. Impacts would not 

24 have as large an impact in Frederick County because of the County’s already large tax base. 

25 The review team concludes that the impact on tax revenues would be greatest in Frederick 

26 County, with a noticeable and beneficial impact during building and operation of a nuclear unit. 

27 The revenue impacts from building and operating a nuclear unit at the Eastalco site for the 

28 remainder of the 50-mi region would be minimal and beneficial. 

29 Transportation and Housing 

30 The local transportation network in Frederick County includes I-70, which runs from Baltimore to 

31 Pennsylvania, and I-270, which runs from Frederick to Virginia by connecting to I-495. Other 

32 major roads connected the region with Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Roads in 

33 Frederick County can be congested with commuter traffic to Frederick and to Washington D.C. 

34 and it suburbs (UniStar 2009a). A fairly developed system of roads already exists within the 

35 Eastalco site. The site does not have barge access, but the main line of the Baltimore and Ohio 

36 (B&O) railroad is located approximately 0.7 mi from the site, while a rail spur runs 0.5 mi from 

37 the site (UniStar 2009a). The review team expects traffic impacts from building activities, 

38 including both construction workers and deliveries, would be minimal for the region, yet could be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-106 April 2010 

1 significant, but not destabilizing, on the local roads near the site during shift change when the 

2 construction workforce is at its peak. During operations, impacts would be minimal, except 

3 during outages when an additional 800 to 1000 workers would be employed onsite and impacts 

4 would be noticeable but not destabilizing. 

5 Based on the analysis in Section 4.4.2, and 5.4.2, up to 1383 construction workers and 

6 182 operations workers and their families would in-migrate to the 50-mi region during the 

7 building of a unit at the Eastalco site and the subsequent operation. According to the 

8 2005-2007 American Community Survey data, there are 4386 vacant housing units in Frederick 

9 County alone, which is adequate to accommodate the expected influx of construction workers. 

10 Workers could also find housing in other parts of the 50-mi region. The review team expects 

11 that the in-migrating site development and operations workforce would have a minimal impact 

12 on housing demand in Frederick County and the larger 50-mi region. 

13 Public Services and Education 

14 The influx of construction workers and plant operations staff in-migrating into the region could 

15 impact local municipal water and water treatment plants and other public services (police, fire, 

16 and medical) in the region. There are approximately five hospitals, five police stations, and 

17 25 fire stations located in Frederick County (UniStar 2009a). There are 14 water treatment 

18 plants providing 1700 MGD and 14 wastewater treatment facilities with a capacity of 7.7 MGD. 

19 Excess capacity exists within the current systems to support the expected increase of 

20 186,000 gpd to 325,000 gpd increase in water supply needs and wastewater treatment. 

21 Therefore, the review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating a nuclear unit 

22 on public services in Frederick County would be minimal. The much smaller operations 

23 workforce is expected to also have a minimal impact on public services. 

24 Frederick County has one school district, which includes 64 schools and a 2006–2007 student 

25 body population of 40,224 students. The average student/teacher ratio was 15.6 (NCES 2009). 

26 As stated in Section 4.4.4.5, approximately 361 to 632 students are expected to in-migrate into 

27 the 50-mi region during building activities. Though they could in-migrate anywhere within the 

28 50-mi region, if they were to all go into Frederick County schools, it would only raise their 

29 student population less than 2 percent. Students related to building and operations activities 

30 would represent a small percentage increase in the student body population. Given the number 

31 of schools in Frederick County and the large student body populations, it is likely the new 

32 students would be absorbed easily and education impacts would be minimal for Frederick 

33 County and the larger 50-mi region. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-107 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Aesthetics and Recreation 

2 Sixty-three parks and other recreational areas and the stadium for one minor league baseball 

3 team (the Frederick Keys) are located within 10 mi of the site (UniStar 2009a). Multiple 

4 nationally protected areas are located within 25 mi of the site, including Monocacy National 

5 Battlefield, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Antietam National Battlefield, 

6 and Catoctin Mountain Park, which includes the presidential retreat Camp David. Recreational 

7 users in the vicinity of the site may be impacted by traffic near the plant during shift change. 

8 Impacts on recreation resulting from building and operating a nuclear unit on the Eastalco site 

9 would be minimal. 

10 The site is already visually altered by the Eastalco aluminum smelter facility. However, the 

11 reactor building and other associated structures may be visible to surrounding areas as most of 

12 the land is agricultural and does not provide much viewshed protection. An underdetermined 

13 number of miles of transmission lines would need to be added, but this likely would not require 

14 new corridors. Impacts on aesthetics resulting from building and operating a nuclear unit on the 

15 Eastalco site would be noticeable but not destabilizing. 

16 Cumulative Impacts

17 For the analysis of cumulative socioeconomic impacts at the Eastalco site, the geographic area 

18 of interest is the 50-mi region centered on the Eastalco site with special consideration for 

19 Frederick County, as it is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the 

20 greatest. Historically, Frederick County had an agricultural-based economy, and, although it still 

21 retains some of its agricultural base, it has diversified its economy recently. Frederick County’s 

22 population was 150,208 in 2000, but, by 2005, the population was near 219,000 (MDBED 

23 2009). 

24 In addition to socioeconomic impacts from building and operating a nuclear unit at the Eastalco 

25 site, the analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

26 that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts. The projects identified in 

27 Table 9-8 within the geographic area of interest have or would contribute to the demographics, 

28 economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

29 urbanization and industrialization. However, many impacts, such as those on housing or public 

30 services, are able to adjust over time, particularly with increased tax revenues. Furthermore, 

31 State and County plans, along with modeled demographic projections, include forecasts of 

32 future development and population increases. Because the projects within the geographic area 

33 of interest identified in Table 9-8 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control 

34 policies, the review team considers the cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to 

35 be manageable. Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on 

36 existing buildings, transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic 

37 impacts span issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-108 April 2010 

1 In summary, based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent 

2 evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative socioeconomic impacts of building 

3 and operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site would be SMALL in terms of physical 

4 impacts, demography, housing, public service, educational, and recreational impacts – except 

5 for a SMALL to MODERATE impact on aesthetics and a MODERATE impact on transportation 

6 near the site. The cumulative impacts to Frederick County economy and tax base would be 

7 beneficial and MODERATE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site 

8 would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

9 9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice 

10 The 2000 Census block groups were used for ascertaining minority and low-income populations 

11 in the region. There were a total of 4600 census block groups within the 50-mi region (which 

12 included portions of Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania). 

13 Approximately 1307 of these census block groups were classified as aggregate minority 

14 populations with 1145 of them African American mostly in the Washington D.C. and Baltimore 

15 areas. Frederick County has two census block groups with aggregate minority populations, one 

16 African American classified block group and one Hispanic classified block group. There are 

17 312 census block groups classified as low income in the 50-mi region, two of which are in 

18 Frederick County. Figure 9-9 shows the geographic locations of the minority populations of 

19 significance within the 50-mi radius of the Eastalco site, and Figure 9-10 shows the 

20 geographic locations of the low-income populations of significance within the 50-mi radius of the 

21 Eastalco site. 

22 Building activities (noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic) would not disproportionately 

23 adversely affect minority populations because of their distance from the Eastalco site. The 

24 operation of the proposed project at the Eastalco site is also unlikely to have a disproportionate 

25 adverse impact on minority or low-income populations. See Sections 4.5 and 5.5 for more 

26 information about environmental justice criteria and impacts. 

27 The projects identified in Table 9-8 likely did not or would not contribute to environmental justice 

28 impacts of the region. Housing rental rates can be an area of concern with regards to low29 income populations. If projects commence and cause a rise in rental rates, there may be a 

30 disproportionate adverse impact on low-income populations. Therefore, based on information 

31 provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes 

32 there would not be any disproportionate and adverse environmental justice cumulative impacts 

33 from the building and operation of a new generating unit at the Eastalco site in addition to other 

34 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, and the cumulative environmental justice 

35 impacts would be SMALL. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-109 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 9-9. Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

3 Eastalco Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-110 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 9-10. Distribution of Aggregate Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

3 Eastalco Site 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-111 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

2 UniStar conducted a literature review at the MHT and found there are 16 properties and one 

3 historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places within 5 mi of the site (UniStar 

4 2009a). One listed property, Carrollton Manor, is within 1 mi of the Eastalco site. The 

5 Carrollton Manor was the home of Charles Carroll, an American Revolutionary statesman and a 

6 signer of the Declaration of Independence. 

7 Development of a pipeline to the Potomac River would cross the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 

8 (C&O Canal), which is a historic linear resource and would require consultation with the MHT, 

9 as well as the National Park Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The C&O Canal has 

10 played a significant role in American history relative to western expansion, transportation 

11 engineering, the Civil War, immigration, industry, and commerce (NPS 2009). 

12 Consultation with the MHT would be necessary regarding the need for systematic 

13 archaeological and architectural surveys to identify historic and archaeological resources prior 

14 to any ground-disturbing activities to address impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological 

15 resources at this particular site. UniStar would be expected to put protective measures in place 

16 to secure discoveries in the event that historic or archaeological materials are found during 

17 building or operating of a new plant. In the event that an unanticipated discovery is made, site 

18 personnel should be instructed to notify the MHT and consult with them in conducting an 

19 assessment of the discovery to determine if additional work is needed. 

20 Cumulative Impacts 

21 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating a nuclear generating 

22 unit at the Eastalco site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

23 foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other Federal and non24 Federal projects within the geographic area of interest and those projects listed in Table 9-8 

25 within the geographic area of interest. For the analysis of cultural impacts at the Eastalco site, 

26 the geographic area of interest is the APE that would be defined for this considered undertaking. 

27 This includes the physical APE, defined as the area that would be directly affected by the site 

28 development and operation activities at the site and transmission lines, and the visual APE. 

29 The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi radius around the physical APE consistent with 

30 the discussion in Section 2.7 about the maximum distance from which the structures can be 

31 seen. 

32 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, for 

33 example, it includes preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

34 cultural resources. However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon 

35 reconnaissance-level information to perform its evaluation of alternative sites. Reconnaissance36 level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-112 April 2010 

1 can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

2 cultural resources at the Eastalco site, the following information was used: 

3 • UniStar ER (UniStar 2009a) 

4 • NRC-Alternative Sites Visit August 2009 (NRC 2010a). 

5 Cultural resources are non-renewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

6 is cumulative. No projects were identified in Table 9-8 within the geographic area of interest 

7 that would contribute to cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources. 

8 Based on reconnaissance-level information regarding historic and cultural resources at the site, 

9 specifically the rich history in the area, the close proximity to Carrollton Manor, and the crossing 

10 of the C&O Canal, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on historic properties 

11 of building and operating a new generating unit at the Eastalco site would be MODERATE to 

12 LARGE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site would be a significant 

13 contributor to these impacts. No archaeological and/or architectural surveys have been 

14 conducted in the area where the nuclear plant would be built. 

15 9.3.4.8 Air Quality 

16 The emissions related to building and operating a nuclear power plant at the Eastalco site in 

17 Frederick County would be similar to those at the Calvert Cliffs site described in Chapters 4 and 

18 5 of the EIS. However, Frederick County is in the Central Maryland Intrastate Air Quality 

19 Control Region (40 CFR 81.155). The air quality attainment status for Frederick County as set 

20 forth in 40 CFR 81.321 reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant 

21 sources in the region. Frederick County is in non-attainment of both the 8-hour ozone standard 

22 and the PM 2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns) standard. 

23 Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-8, most of the effects on air quality would be to 

24 maintain the status quo. Any new industrial projects would either have de minimis impacts or 

25 would be subject to regulation by the Maryland DNR. Given these institutional controls, it is 

26 unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade significantly (i.e., degrade to the extent 

27 that the region is in nonattainment of national standards). 

28 The cooling tower for the power plant would be a source of small particles. As a result, although 

29 the air quality impacts of building and operating a nuclear power plant at the Eastalco site would 

30 probably be minor, it is possible that the cumulative impacts of the cooling tower particulate 

31 emissions could be MODERATE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site 

32 would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

33 Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 for 

34 building and operating a nuclear power plant and for the fuel cycle, respectively. As described 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-113 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 in Chapter 7, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are not sensitive to location of the 

2 source. Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are 

3 applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the Eastalco site. The impacts of greenhouse gas 

4 emissions from a nuclear plant considered in isolation would be SMALL, but the cumulative 

5 impact of greenhouse gas emissions would be MODERATE. Building and operating a new 

6 nuclear unit at the Eastalco site would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

7 9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

8 The following impact analysis includes nonradiological health impacts from building activities 

9 and operations to the public and workers from a nuclear unit at the Eastalco alternative site. 

10 The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

11 impact nonradiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those 

12 projects listed in Table 9-8 within the geographic area of interest. The building-related activities 

13 that have the potential to impact the health of members of the public and workers include 

14 exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, noise, and the transport of 

15 construction materials and personnel to and from the site. The operation-related activities that 

16 have the potential to impact the health of members of the public and workers includes exposure 

17 to etiological agents, noise, EMFs, and impacts from the transport of workers to and from the 

18 site. For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts at the Eastalco alternative site, the 

19 geographic area of interest is considered to include projects within a 5-mi radius from the site’s 

20 center based on the localized nature of the impacts. For impacts associated with transmission 

21 lines, the geographic area of interest is the transmission line corridor. 

22 Building Impacts

23 Nonradiological health impacts to construction workers and members of the public from building 

24 a new nuclear unit at the Eastalco site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for the 

25 Calvert Cliffs site. The impacts include noise; vehicle exhaust; dust; occupational injuries; and 

26 transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Applicable Federal and State regulations on air 

27 quality and noise would be complied during the site preparation and building phase. The 

28 incidence of construction worker accidents would not be expected to be different from the 

29 incidence of accidents estimated for the Calvert Cliffs site. The Eastalco site is located in a rural 

30 area, and building impacts would likely be minimal on the surrounding area. 

31 There are no past or current actions in the geographic areas of interest that have similarly 

32 impacted nonradiological health. Proposed future actions would include the Fort Detrick BRAC 

33 expansion recommendations and construction of the National Interagency Biodefense Campus; 

34 transportation upgrades to US 15, MD 85, I-70, and I-270; and transmission line development 

35 and/or upgrading, including the PATH project. Future urbanization would also be expected to 

36 occur throughout the geographical area of interest. These actions would likely result in 

37 nonradiological health impacts similar to those discussed in Chapter 4 for the building at the 

38 Calvert Cliffs site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-114 April 2010 

1 Operational Impacts 

2 Nonradiological health impacts from the operation of a new nuclear unit on occupational health 

3 and members of the public at the Eastalco site would be similar to those evaluated in 

4 Section 5.8 for the Calvert Cliffs site. Occupational health impacts to workers (e.g., falls, electric 

5 shock, or exposure to other hazards) at the Eastalco site would likely be the same as those 

6 evaluated for workers at a new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site. Based on the configuration of the 

7 proposed new unit at the Eastalco site (closed-cycle, wet cooling system with mechanical draft 

8 cooling towers), etiological agents would not likely increase the incidence of water-borne 

9 diseases in the vicinity of the site. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled 

10 in accordance with applicable OSHA regulations. Effects of EMF on human health would be 

11 controlled and minimized by conformance with NESC criteria. Nonradiological impacts of traffic 

12 associated with the operations workforce would be less than the impacts during building. 

13 Mitigation measures taken during building to improve traffic flow would also minimize impacts 

14 during operation of a new unit. 

15 The past and present actions in the geographic area of interest associated with existing 

16 transmission lines are the only nonradiological impacts from operations to the public and 

17 workers. Proposed future actions that would impact nonradiological health in a similar way to 

18 operation activities at the Eastalco site would include transmission line systems and future 

19 urbanization, which would both occur throughout the designated geographical areas of interest. 

20 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

21 a recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (GCRP 2009) has been 

22 considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region 

23 include an increase in average temperature and an increase in precipitation, which may alter the 

24 presence of microorganisms and parasites. In view of the water source characteristics, the 

25 review team did not identify anything that would alter its conclusion regarding the presence of 

26 etiological agents or change in the incidence of water-borne diseases. 

27 Summary 

28 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

29 the review team expects that the impacts to nonradiological health from building and operation 

30 of a new unit at the Eastalco site would be similar to the impacts evaluated for the Calvert Cliffs 

31 site. While there are past, present, and future activities in the geographic area of interest that 

32 could affect nonradiological health in ways similar to the building and operation of a new unit at 

33 the Eastalco site, those impacts would be localized and managed through adherence to existing 

34 regulatory requirements. Therefore, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of 

35 building and operation of a nuclear unit at Eastalco on nonradiological health would be SMALL. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-115 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

2 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts to the public and workers from 

3 building activities and operations for one nuclear unit at the Eastalco alternative site. The 

4 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

5 impact radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects 

6 listed in Table 9-8 within the geographical area of interest. As described in Section 9.3.4, the 

7 Eastalco site includes an inactive aluminum production facility; there are currently no nuclear 

8 facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius of the 

9 Eastalco site. A facility potentially affecting radiological health within this geographic area of 

10 interest is the operating research reactor at the existing National Institute of Standards and 

11 Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Also there are likely to be hospitals and 

12 industrial facilities within 50 mi of the Eastalco site that use radioactive materials. 

13 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed U.S. EPR plant at the Eastalco 

14 site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

15 pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

16 regulatory limits. These impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the Calvert 

17 Cliffs Unit 3 site. 

18 The radiological impacts of the NIST reactor include doses from direct radiation and liquid and 

19 gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result in low doses to people and biota offsite 

20 that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing REMP conducted around 

21 this facility. The NRC staff concludes the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals 

22 and industrial facilities that use radioactive materials would be an insignificant contribution to the 

23 cumulative impact around the Eastalco site. This conclusion is based on data from the REMPs 

24 conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

25 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the 

26 NRC staff concludes the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the 

27 proposed U.S. EPR unit and other existing and planned projects and actions in the geographic 

28 area of interest around the Eastalco site would be SMALL. 

29 9.3.4.11 Postulated Accidents 

30 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

31 operations for one nuclear unit at the Eastalco alternative site. The analysis also considers 

32 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that impact radiological health 

33 from postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects 

34 listed in Table 9-8 within the geographic area of interest. As described in Section 9.3.4, the 

35 Eastalco site includes an inactive aluminum production facility; there are currently no nuclear 

36 facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-116 April 2010 

1 nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

2 (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Eastalco site. Existing 

3 facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are 

4 Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, North Anna Units 1 and 2, Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, and Three 

5 Mile Island Unit 1. Within the geographic area of interest, an additional nuclear power plant is 

6 planned at the North Anna site. Also in the geographic area of interest is the operating research 

7 reactor at the NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

8 As described in Section 5.10.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

9 of DBAs at the Calvert Cliffs site would be minimal for an U.S. EPR. DBAs are addressed 

10 specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

11 The U.S. EPR design is independent of site conditions and the meteorology of the Eastalco and 

12 Calvert Cliffs sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental 

13 consequences of DBAs at the Eastalco site would be minimal. Because the meteorology, 

14 population distribution, and land use for the Eastalco alternative site are expected to be similar 

15 to the proposed Calvert Cliffs site, risks from a severe accident for a U.S. EPR reactor located 

16 at the Eastalco alternative site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the proposed 

17 Calvert Cliffs site. These risks for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site are presented in Table 5-16 

18 and 5-17 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, 

19 estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are well below the 

20 Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing plants within the geographic area of 

21 interest, which are Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2, North Anna Units 1 and 2, Peach Bottom Units 2 

22 and 3, and Three Mile Island Unit 1, the NRC has determined the probability-weighted 

23 consequences of severe accidents are small (10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). In addition, 

24 the EIS for the North Anna Power Station Unit 3 (NUREG-1917, NRC 20010b) shows that risks 

25 for the other proposed unit within the geographic area of interest are also well below current26 generation reactors and meet the NRC’s safety goals. The research reactor at NIST operates 

27 at a much lower power (roughly one percent) than any of the nuclear power plants discussed 

28 above; therefore, the additional risk is not significant in the evaluation of the cumulative severe 

29 accident risk for a nuclear power plant at the Eastalco site. On these bases, the NRC staff 

30 concludes that the cumulative risks of severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the 

31 Eastalco alternative site would be SMALL. 

32 9.3.5 Former Thiokol Brownfield Site 

33 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

34 a new nuclear unit at a brownfield site once owned by Thiokol and referred to here as the former 

35 Thiokol brownfield site or simply the Thiokol site. The Thiokol site is located in southern 

36 Maryland across the Patuxent River from the Calvert Cliffs site. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-117 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The following sections describe the cumulative impact assessment conducted for each resource 

2 area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects 

3 of the proposed action if it were sited at the Thiokol site and other actions in the same 

4 geographical area were assessed. This assessment includes the impacts of construction and 

5 operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also included are past, present, and 

6 reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could have meaningful 

7 cumulative impacts with the proposed action. Other actions and projects considered in this 

8 cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-10. 

9 9.3.5.1 Land Use 

10 The following impact analysis includes impacts to land use from building and operations at the 

11 Thiokol site and within the geographic area of interest, which is the 15-mi region surrounding the 

12 Thiokol site. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

13 actions that affect land-use, including other Federal and non-Federal projects (Table 9-10). 

14 The Thiokol site is a 619-ac brownfield tract of land located about 1.5 mi northwest of Hillville, 

15 Maryland near Mechanicsville in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. It is approximately 10 mi west16 southwest of the Calvert Cliffs site across the Patuxent River (Figure 9-11). The site is bordered 

17 by MD State Route 235 to the north and Friendship School Road to the west (Figure 9-12) 

18 (UniStar 2009a). Rich Neck Creek and Tom Swamp Run and their tributaries flow through the 

19 property, generally to the south and southwest toward the Potomac River (MDE 2009b). The 

20 current property owner is PB II, LLC (MDE 2009b). 

21 The Thiokol site was used in the early to mid-1950s as a manufacturing and testing facility for 

22 detonators and initiators for military ordnance (UniStar 2009a). Thiokol Corporation, now known 

23 as Cordant Technologies, purchased the site in 1959, but did not resume munitions production 

24 and sold the property in 1999. Buildings were removed from the site in the early 1980s, timber 

25 was harvested, and the site was reforested (MDE 2007). MDE placed the property on its list of 

26 potentially hazardous waste sites in 1985. 

27 Site remediation with a focus on finding and removing any unexploded ordnance and any other 

28 hazardous material was conducted from 1992 to 1994 (MDE 2007). Nineteen of 26 areas with 

29 suspected explosives were unearthed, and the 1360 lb of explosives found were detonated 

30 onsite. Soil contaminated with explosive materials or fuel oil was removed from the site (MDE 

31 2007). The remaining seven areas (about 22 ac) with suspected explosives were inspected 

32 between September 1999 and June 2000 (MDE 2007). These sites were excavated, suspect 

33 soils were sifted with a mechanical sifter, and ground-penetrating radar was used to identify 

34 debris (UniStar 2009a). Eleven pounds of explosives were found and removed during this 

35 investigation. MDE confirmed the areas sampled contained no significant chemical 

36 contamination. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-118 April 2010 

1 Table 9-10. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Thiokol Site Cumulative Analysis 

Project Name or Other 

Action Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

CCNPP Units 1 and 2 CCNPP consists of two existing 

nuclear generating units, Units 1 and 

2, with a combined net electric 

generating capacity of 1700-1780 

MW(e). 

Approximately 

14 mi eastnortheast of the 

Thiokol site. 

Operational. In 2000, the 

NRC extended the license 

of Unit 1 to July 31, 2034 

and the license of Unit 2 to 

August 31, 2036.(a)

Dominion Cove Point 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) Facility 

LNG is unloaded at an off-shore 

dock, then stored and transported 

onshore through a pipeline. 

Approximately 

11 mi east of the 

Thiokol site. 

Operational. An 

expansion project, 

completed in 2009, 

increased storage and 

capacity by approximately 

80%.(b) 

Dominion Cove Point 

Pier Reinforcement 

Project 

Upgrades and modifications to 

existing offshore pier to allow 

docking of larger-sized LNG vessels. 

Approximately 

11 mi east of the 

Thiokol site. 

Planned.(c)(d) Original 

schedule called for project 

to be completed in spring 

2011. 

Operation of Chalk 

Point Generating 

Station 

Chalk Point consists of 11 fossil fuelbased power-generating units with a 

listed capacity of 2413 MW. 

Approximately 

12 mi northwest 

of the Thiokol 

site. 

Operational.(e)

Morgantown 

Generating Station 

Morgantown Generating Station 

consists of six generating units. Two 

units are coal-fired and four are oilfired with a listed capacity of 

1486 MW. 

Approximately 

23 mi west of the 

Thiokol site. 

Operational.(f)

Mid-Atlantic Power 

Pathway (MAPP) 

Transmission Line 

Project 

Proposed new 500-kV transmission 

line. 

From Possum 

Point Substation 

in Virginia to the 

Calvert Cliffs 

Substation, with 

subsequent lines 

constructed 

under 

Chesapeake Bay 

terminating at 

the Vienna 

Substation in MD 

and the Indian 

River Substation 

in Delaware. 

Proposed. June 2014 inservice date proposed by 

Pepco. Under 

consideration by MPSC as 

Case 9179.(g)

3 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-119 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 9-10. (contd)

Project Name or Other 

Action Summary of Project Location Status 

Transportation Projects 

MD Route 4/Thomas 

Johnson Bridge 

Upgrade, Maryland 

SHA 

Study to upgrade MD 4 between 

MD 2 and MD 235, including the 

Thomas Johnson Bridge and MD 

235 intersection. Sidewalks would 

be provided (where appropriate) for 

pedestrians. Shoulders or wide curb 

lanes will accommodate bicycles. 

Approximately 7 

to 10 mi 

southeast of the 

Thiokol site, in 

Calvert and St. 

Mary’s County. 

Planned.(h)

MD Route 5 near 

Leonardtown, Maryland 

SHA 

Study to upgrade MD 5 from MD 243 

to MD 245, approximately 1.4 mi in 

length. 

Approximately 

6 mi south of the 

Thiokol site. 

Planned.(i)

MD Route 237, 

Maryland SHA 

Study to upgrade and widen MD 237 

to a multi-lane highway from Pegg 

Road to MD 235 (2.80 mi). 

Approximately 

10 to 12 mi 

southeast of the 

Thiokol site. 

Planned.(j)

Other Actions/Projects 

Leonardtown 

Wastewater Treatment 

Plant 

Expand capacity and upgrade facility 

with enhanced nutrient removal 

technology. 

Approximately 

6 mi south of 

Thiokol site. 

Phased construction; 

expected completion in 

2013.(k)

Patuxent River Naval 

Air Station Complex 

Large facility for the U.S. Navy’s 

research, development, testing, 

training, and evaluation of aircraft 

and related components and 

operations. 

Approximately 

9 mi south of 

proposed 

CCNPP Unit 3. 

Operations.(l)

Star-Spangled Banner 

National Historic Trail 

The trail traces four major events 

from the Chesapeake Campaign of 

the War of 1812. The trail, which 

includes forested and open water 

areas, provides opportunity for 

recreation, interpretation, and 

learning. 

A portion of the 

trail is close to or 

adjacent to the 

Thiokol site. 

In development. A 

management plan and 

environmental assessment 

(MP/EA) for the StarSpangled Banner National 

Trail will be published in 

2010.(m)

Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake National 

Historic Trail 

The trail, which is on open water, 

provides opportunities for recreation, 

interpretation, and learning. 

A portion of the 

trail is close to or 

adjacent to the 

Thiokol site. 

A comprehensive 

management plan will be 

published in 2010.(n)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-120 April 2010 

Table 9-10. (contd)

Project Name or Other 

Action Summary of Project Location Status 

Potomac Heritage 

National Scenic Trail 

A network of locally managed trails 

that extends from the mouth of the 

Potomac River to the Allegheny 

highlands. Trails provide 

opportunities for recreation, 

interpretation, and learning. 

A portion of the 

trail is close to or 

adjacent to the 

Thiokol site. 

Currently exists and a 

comprehensive 

management plan will be 

published in the future.(o)

Various hospitals and 

industrial facilities that 

use radioactive 

materials 

Medical and other isotopes. Within 50 mi. Operational. 

Future urbanization Construction of housing units and 

associated commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and rail; and water 

and/or wastewater treatment and 

distribution facilities and associated 

pipelines as described in local landuse planning documents. 

Throughout 

region. 

Construction would occur 

in the future, as described 

in State and local land-use 

planning documents. 

Waterfront development A variety of residential and 

commercial waterfront property 

development, including potential pier 

facilities, dredging, and shoreline 

erosion control structures; controlled 

commercial and residential 

development outside and within the 

limits of the town center designated 

areas of the various county master 

plans. 

Throughout 

region. 

Construction would occur 

in the future, as described 

in State and local land-use 

planning documents. 

(a) Source: NRC 2000b. 

(b) Source: Dominion 2009. 

(c) Source: FERC 2009a. 

(d) Source: FERC 2009b. 

(e) Source: Mirant 2009b. 

(f) Source: Mirant 2009c. 

(g) Source: MAPP 2009. 

(h) Source: MD SHA 2009c. 

(i) Source: MD SHA 2009d. 

(j) Source: MD SHA 2009e. 

(k) Source: MDE 2009a. 

(l) Source: DOD 2010. 

(m) Source: NPS 2010a. 

(n) Source: NPS 2010b. 

(o) Source: NPS 2010c. 
Draft NUREG-1936 9-121 April 2010 

 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Figure 9-11. Thiokol Site Location (UniStar 2009a) 2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-122 Draft NUREG-1936 1 Figure 9-12. Thiokol Site and Surrounding Area (UniStar 2009a) 2 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-123 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The explosives were classified as “combat safe,” meaning they would not explode from shock, 

2 hammer, or bullet impact. During the cleanup phases, there was no evidence of live rounds or 

3 rounds outside of the suspected areas. In addition, no accidents occurred for explosives 

4 removal during any cleanup, suggesting that the level of hazard posed by any previously 

5 unrecovered explosive material is low. 

6 Most of the site has been disturbed, much of it to 4 ft, but it has since been reforested. Future 

7 property use has been designated as mixed residential and commercial (MDE 2007). The 

8 property contains covenants that restrict residential development, educational facilities, and day 

9 care in two areas totaling approximately 67 ac because of the possible presence of unexploded 

10 ordnances (UniStar 2009a). The site is currently being monitored by the MDE Land Restoration 

11 Program. 

12 The area surrounding the Thiokol site is a mix of suburbs, agriculture, military installation, and 

13 parks. Land north and east of the site contains low-density residential development. Land west 

14 of the site is a mix of low-density residential development and agriculture. The area south of the 

15 site is generally undeveloped, but contains some low-density residential development (UniStar 

16 2009a). The Patuxent River Naval Air Station (approximately 6500 ac) is about 10 mi southeast 

17 of the Thiokol site in St. Mary’s County, and the Dominion Cove Point liquefied natural gas 

18 (LNG) import facility (a little over 100 ac of industrial land use) is about 10 mi northeast of the 

19 Thiokol site in Calvert County (DOD 2010; Dominion 2009). In addition, the Thiokol sites abuts 

20 or is very close to land and water portions of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, the 

21 Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail, and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 

22 Historic Trail (NPS 2010a, b, c). The National Park Service is still developing portions of the 

23 Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 

24 Historic Trail. Otherwise, the nearest dedicated land (Federal, State, or Tribal) is Greenwell 

25 State Park located approximately 8 mi southeast of the Thiokol site. Therefore, the addition of a 

26 nuclear reactor at the Thiokol site would noticeably alter the land use to include industrial area. 

27 If the proposed project were sited at the Thiokol site, some upland hardwood forest would be 

28 lost. In addition, some offsite land would likely be affected to bring water for cooling to the site 

29 from the Patuxent River, which is approximately 3 mi north of the site. UniStar estimates that 

30 approximately 25 ac would be affected by the water pipeline corridor and associated structures 

31 (UniStar 2009b). 

32 There are no existing transmission corridors connecting to the Thiokol site. One or more 

33 transmission corridors would be needed to connect to an existing 500-kV transmission line 

34 located approximately 2 mi southeast of the site (UniStar 2009b). The corridor(s) would pass 

35 through areas that are mostly rural with low population densities. Farmlands that would become 

36 part of a corridor could generally continue to be farmed (UniStar 2008b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-124 April 2010 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 For this cumulative land use analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 15-mi region 

3 surrounding the Thiokol site. This geographic area of interest includes the primary communities 

4 (Leonardtown, Lexington Park, and Solomons) that would be affected by the proposed project if 

5 it were located at the Thiokol site. 

6 The project with the greatest potential for affecting land use in the geographic area of interest 

7 would be the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) transmission line project. The MAPP project 

8 is discussed in Section 7.1. Because the transmission line would be built in an existing corridor 

9 within the geographic area of interest, it would have limited impact on land use. Some of the 

10 other projects identified in Table 9-10 have or would contribute to decreases in open lands, 

11 wetlands, and forested areas and generally result in increased urbanization and industrialization 

12 consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies. In addition, GCC could increase 

13 precipitation, sea level, storm surges, and flooding events in the area of interest (GCRP 2009), 

14 thus changing land use through inundation of low-lying areas and river shoreline. Forest growth 

15 may increase as a result of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (GCRP 2009). Existing 

16 parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve open lands, wetlands, and forested 

17 areas to the extent that they are not affected by the same factors. In addition, GCC could 

18 reduce crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), which might change portions of 

19 agricultural land uses in the area of interest. Direct changes resulting from GCC could cause a 

20 shift in land use in the geographic area of interest. 

21 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

22 the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating a new 

23 nuclear generating unit and its associated transmission lines at the Thiokol site would be 

24 SMALL to MODERATE. Building and operating a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol site would be 

25 a significant contributor to these impacts. 

26 9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality 

27 Water for the Thiokol site would be obtained primarily from the Patuxent River. According to 

28 UniStar (2009a), the proposed plant would require the withdrawal of about 50 MGD for cooling 

29 and other uses. Of that total, about 27 MGD would be consumed, and the remainder would be 

30 discharged back to the Patuxent River. UniStar (2008b) states that the plant would use closed31 cycle cooling with a cooling tower. The plant would have separate intake and discharge 

32 structures in the Patuxent River. Discharge water would include cooling tower blowdown, 

33 treated process wastewater, treated sanitary wastewater, and some radioactive water. The 

34 discharge would be at an elevated temperature relative to the temperature of the Patuxent 

35 River. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-125 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The site is about 3 mi southwest of the western Patuxent River shoreline and located along the 

2 western side of a watershed divide that is nominally aligned with MD State Route 235. The site 

3 is drained by Rich Neck Creek and Tom Swamp Run, both of which flow to the west toward 

4 Breton Bay on the Potomac River (MDNR 2002a). Regionally, groundwater is pumped primarily 

5 from the Aquia aquifer for a variety of uses, including municipal water supplies (MDNR 2002a). 

6 According to UniStar (2008b), the Thiokol site would require significant alterations, including 

7 grading and watershed surface revision; building of roads, piers, jetties, and water intake and 

8 discharge structures; and dredging in the Patuxent River. Development of the intake/discharge 

9 pipes would affect the 3-mi stretch from the site to the river, and it would affect the river bed in 

10 the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. Because of the distance to the water source, 

11 UniStar (2008b) would need to construct an onsite impoundment to provide a secure UHS. 

12 UniStar estimates that the area and depth would be approximately 4.7 ac and 25 ft, respectively 

13 (UniStar 2009a). 

14 The average monthly flow of the Patuxent River measured about 60 mi upstream of the Thiokol 

15 site (USGS Station No.01594440 at Bowie, Maryland) is about 384.4 cfs (170,000 gpm) (USGS 

16 2008). Between 1977 and 2007, flow in individual months ranged from 65.2 to 1358 cfs (29,262 

17 and 609,470 gpm). Given that additional flow enters the river downstream of the measurement 

18 location and the Patuxent River is a tidal system in the vicinity of the Thiokol site, the water 

19 consumed by the plant will be minor with respect to the existing resource. 

20 The Chalk Point Generating Station is a non-nuclear facility located on the Patuxent River about 

21 10 mi north of the potential location for an intake structure for the Thiokol plant. Chalk Point has 

22 two once-through cooling units and two closed-cycle units (MDNR PPRP 2008). Water 

23 withdrawal in 2006 was approximately 419,400 gpm, or 604 MGD (MDNR PPRP 2008). Total 

24 water withdrawal by the Thiokol plant would be less than 10 percent of the withdrawal by the 

25 Chalk River Generating Plant. Given the small amount of withdrawal at the Thiokol site relative 

26 to the Chalk River Generating Plant and the small amount of water consumed relative to the 

27 existing resource in the tidal portion of the Patuxent River, the review team concludes that the 

28 hydrological alterations to the Patuxent River from plant operations would be minor. 

29 UniStar (2009a) would temporarily need water for building, but the source and quantity of water 

30 are not known. If surface water or groundwater is used, permits would be required and the 

31 permitting process would ensure no adverse impacts from this limited and temporary withdrawal 

32 of water. 

33 Water quality alterations to both the surface water and groundwater would be regulated by 

34 NPDES discharge and stormwater permits. BMPs would prevent or mitigate spills from altering 

35 surface or groundwater resource’s quality. The nutrient load from the plant’s sanitary effluent 

36 system would be a minor contribution to the Patuxent River’s cumulative nutrient load. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-126 April 2010 

1 Building activities, including surface alterations and dewatering, have the potential to affect the 

2 local hydrology significantly because the available surface water and surficial aquifer resources 

3 are small; however, impacts would be temporary and localized. Groundwater from deeper 

4 aquifers would not be affected. 

5 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

6 the review team concludes that, although the local hydrology would be altered, the impacts on 

7 the regional surface water and groundwater resources of constructing and operating a nuclear 

8 generating unit at the Thiokol site would be minor. 

9 Cumulative Impacts 

10 For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the 

11 Thiokol site is the drainage basin of the Patuxent River upstream and downstream of the site 

12 and the portion of Chesapeake Bay near the outlet of the Patuxent River because this is the 

13 resource that would be impacted by the proposed project if it were sited at the Thiokol site. Key 

14 actions that have past, present, and future potential impacts to water supply and water quality in 

15 the Patuxent River basin include the operation of the Chalk Point Generating Station and other 

16 municipal and industrial activities in the Patuxent River basin. For the cumulative analysis of 

17 impacts on groundwater, the geographic area of interest is the extent within St. Mary’s County 

18 of the confined aquifers beneath the site. 

19 Water Use. The surface water-use impacts of building and operating a nuclear power plant at 

20 this site are dominated by the demands that would occur under normal operation. The 

21 consumptive water use of the plant is projected to be about 42 cfs, which would be 

22 approximately 11 percent of the average river discharge reported at the nearest gauge 

23 upstream on the Patuxent River. However, the intake would be located in the tidal portion of the 

24 Patuxent River, so water would controlled by the water level in the Chesapeake Bay. Based on 

25 the small volume of water consumed relative to the Bay’s water volume and the Bay’s 

26 freshwater inflow, the review team concludes the impact of withdrawing surface water to operate 

27 a nuclear unit at the Thiokol site would be SMALL. 

28 The review team determined that the consumptive use of surface water by the operation of a 

29 nuclear reactor at the Thiokol site (surface water would not be used for building activities) would 

30 remain undetectable within the geographic area of interest. In the Chesapeake Bay, the 

31 predominant surface water user within a 20-mi radius of the Calvert Cliffs site is CCNPP Units 1 

32 and 2, but that withdrawal is not consumptive and does not impact surface water availability in 

33 the Patuxent River basin. The Chalk Point Generating Station, currently the largest power plant 

34 in Maryland, is a fossil fuel facility located on the Patuxent River about 15 mi upstream of the 

35 Thiokol site. Chalk Point is near the center of the Patuxent River estuary and experiences large 

36 tidal exchanges. The mean tidal range is about 1.6 ft and the maximum flood and ebb currents 

37 in mid-channel are about 1.0 and 1.25 ft per second. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-127 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The review team determined the consumptive use of water by the operation of a nuclear reactor 

2 at the Thiokol site and all other consumptive uses (existing or likely future uses) within the 

3 geographic area of interest could not alter the volume of water in the Patuxent River in the 

4 vicinity of the Thiokol site. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

5 cumulative impacts to surface water would be SMALL. 

6 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect the water 

7 resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water resources for 

8 other users. The impact of climate change on the water available at the Thiokol site would be 

9 minor because of the availability of water from Chesapeake Bay. 

10 Increases in consumptive use of water in the Patuxent River drainage is anticipated in the 

11 future. The impacts of the other operational projects listed in Table 9-10 are considered in the 

12 analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface water use. 

13 As indicated, groundwater could be used temporarily as a water source for building needs at the 

14 Thiokol site. Given the high yields of the aquifers in this region, no significant impact is 

15 anticipated to regional users of groundwater. Regionally, the potentiometric surfaces in the Piney 

16 Point-Nanjemoy and Aquia aquifers have been declining due to increases in regional groundwater 

17 withdrawals. Because of the declining trend in groundwater potentiometric surfaces, the review 

18 team determined that the cumulative impact is MODERATE. Building and operating a new 

19 nuclear unit at the Thiokol site would not be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

20 Water Quality. Point and non-point pollution sources have impacted the water quality of the 

21 Patuxent River upstream and downstream of the site and the Chesapeake Bay at the mouth of 

22 the Patuxent River. Although nutrient loads have impaired the ability to support biota, they have 

23 not impaired water quality in a manner that limits the ability of the River and Bay to support 

24 other functions, including serving as a supply of cooling water. Based on its evaluation, the 

25 review team concludes that the cumulative surface water quality impacts would be SMALL. 

26 There are no reports of water quality issues in the regional Aquia aquifer, which is the primary 

27 aquifer in the region. There are no known contaminant plumes in the Aquia aquifer in the 

28 vicinity of the Thiokol site that might be affected by groundwater withdrawals at the site. The 

29 MDE regulates groundwater withdrawal rates in all aquifers to ensure aquifer stability and water 

30 quality. Because (1) there is no evidence of a decrease in groundwater quality as a result of the 

31 regional use of groundwater, (2) there are no known contaminant plumes, and (3) there would 

32 be no discharges to groundwater, the review team concludes that the cumulative groundwater 

33 quality impacts would be SMALL. 

34 9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

35 St. Mary’s County, where the Thiokol site is located, is a mix of forest, agriculture, and 

36 residential development. Most of the Thiokol site has been previously disturbed. Industrial use 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-128 April 2010 

1 occurred on a portion of the site, and, during the 1980s, much of the forest was harvested. The 

2 site is currently dominated by upland hardwood forest similar to the Mixed Deciduous 

3 Regeneration Forest found on the Calvert Cliffs site. Common tree species present include 

4 Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), tulip poplar, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple 

5 (Acer rubrum), white ash (Fraxinus americana), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and 

6 oaks. Some bottomland deciduous forest may be found in lowlands, likely containing more red 

7 maple and sweetgum than upland sites. Small Virginia pine stands are also present. Although 

8 harvested, forest regrowth with limited development or fragmentation has resulted in a relatively 

9 large patch of unfragmented forest that provides suitable habitat for forest interior-dwelling 

10 species (FIDS). This suite of species has been identified as ecologically important in the region 

11 as discussed in Section 2.4.1 for the Calvert Cliffs site (CAC 2000). 

12 Wetlands have not been delineated at the Thiokol site, but National Wetland Inventory data 

13 maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) indicates that approximately 49 ac of 

14 forested wetlands and about 14,400 linear ft of stream channel are present (UniStar 2009c) 

15 (Figure 9-13). Most wetlands are associated with Rich Neck Creek and Tom Swamp Run that 

16 generally flow southward. Parts of both stream systems are intermittent. 

17 No formal biota sampling has been conducted at or around the Thiokol site. Flora and fauna 

18 inhabiting Thiokol are expected to be representative of those found regionally within similar 

19 habitat types. Fauna inhabiting the site would include those common to upland and lowland 

20 forests in the region. The FWS does not list any Federally threatened or endangered or 

21 candidate species as occurring in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. However, the State of Maryland 

22 lists the northeastern beach tiger beetle as a Federally listed species that has been found in the 

23 county. It is highly unlikely this beetle would occur as no suitable habitat exists on the Thiokol 

24 site for this species, although suitable habitat may occur along the nearby Patuxent River. 

25 In addition, the Maryland DNR Natural Heritage Program’s list of rare, threatened, and 

26 endangered species for St. Mary’s County, Maryland, contains four terrestrial wildlife and 

27 19 terrestrial plant species (Table 9-11). The sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis) is also unlikely 

28 to occur, as stands of tall, dense sedges that it prefers (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2009) are not 

29 present on the site. These habitats may be present where water intake structures could be 

30 placed. The eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis) breeds in still or very 

31 slow-moving water and may use both temporary and permanent water sources (NatureServe 

32 2007). This species also uses a variety of upland habitats, including those available on the 

33 Thiokol site and in the vicinity. Bald eagles prefer to nest in forested habitat near open water 

34 and likely occur along the Patuxent River. The least tern (Sternula antillarum) nests on open, 

35 sandy beaches (Thompson et al. 1997). This habitat is not found on the Thiokol site and was 

36 not observed along the Patuxent River in the vicinity of the site during the NRC staff’s visit. The 

37 distribution and abundance of the 19 State-listed plants within St. Mary’s County and within the 

38 Thiokol site is unknown. Most occur exclusively in various wetland habitats. Wetland habitats 

39 are somewhat limited on the Thiokol site, and the occurrence of many of these species may 

40 also be limited. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-129 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 9-13. Distribution and Abundance of Wetlands Documented by the National Wetlands 

3 Inventory as Occurring On and Around the Thiokol Site (FWS 2008a) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-130 April 2010 

1 Table 9-11. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species that Occur in St. Mary’s County and 

2 May Occur on the Thiokol Site or in the Immediate Vicinity (MDNR 2007c)

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status 

Cicendela dorsalis dorsalis Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle Threatened Endangered 

Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren Endangered 

Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad Endangered 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened 

Sternula antillarum Least Tern Threatened 

Arnica acaulis Leopard’s-bane Endangered 

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s Sedge Threatened 

Carex venusta Dark Green Sedge Threatened 

Chelone obliqua Red Turtlehead Threatened 

Desmodium pauciflorum Few-flowered Tick-trefoil Endangered 

Drosera capillaris Pink Sundew Endangered 

Eleocharis albida White Spikerush Threatened 

Elephantopus tomentosus Tobaccoweed Endangered 

Gratiola viscidula Short’s Hedge-hyssop Endangered 

Iris prismatica Slender Blue Flag Endangered 

Kyllinga pumila Thin-leaved Flatsedge Endangered 

Linum intercursum Sandplain Flax Threatened 

Polygonum glaucum Seaside Knotweed Endangered 

Prunus maritima Beach Plum Endangered 

Sarracenia purpurea Northern Pitcher-plant Threatened 

Symphyotrichum concolor Silvery Aster Endangered 

Torreyochloa pallida Pale Mannagrass Endangered 

Trachelospermum difforme Climbing Dogbane Endangered 

Utricularia inflata Swollen Bladderwort Endangered 

3 Species identified by UniStar as ecologically important at the Thiokol site include mountain 

4 laurel, tulip poplar, chestnut oak, and New York fern (UniStar 2009a). As with the Calvert Cliffs 

5 site and the other alternative sites, these species are likely widespread and abundant in suitable 

6 habitat. Forest cover on the Thiokol site is fairly contiguous, providing interior forest that may 

7 contain FIDS. The recreationally important white-tail deer, wild turkey, and northern bobwhite 

8 are also likely present as habitat appears suitable. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-131 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Building and Operational Impacts 

2 Although the placement of the project footprint has not been specified on this site, 

3 approximately 420 ac would be affected by building a nuclear unit. Virtually the entire site is 

4 currently undeveloped and covered in forest. The forest appears contiguous and represents 

5 moderately valuable wildlife habitat, but most forest stands exist in an intermediate seral stage, 

6 thereby limiting their value to some species. Development and operation of a new nuclear unit 

7 would likely result in the loss of wildlife habitats including wetlands and forest. Clearing of forest 

8 would result in fragmentation and habitat loss for FIDS. In addition, the installation of a 

9 3-mi-long water intake pipeline and building of a 2-mi, 500-kV transmission corridor would 

10 increase the overall project footprint and likely affect other habitats and wetlands. 

11 Approximately 61.5 ac of wetlands would be permanently affected during building of the plant, 

12 intake pipeline, and transmission corridor (UniStar 2009a). Many of the listed species are not 

13 likely present at the site or in the vicinity, and impacts to these species would be limited. 

14 Eastern narrow-mouthed toads may be present, and individuals and habitat would be lost, but 

15 the extent cannot be determined. Bald eagles may lose habitat or be displaced by building16 related activities, especially near the Patuxent River. Impacts to State-listed plants may also 

17 occur, but the extent of impacts on these 19 plants cannot be determined. Wetlands are limited 

18 in distribution on the site, so impacts to State-listed wetland plants could also be limited. 

19 Individual mountain laurel, tulip poplar, chestnut oak, and New York fern plants would likely be 

20 lost, but populations are not expected to be destabilized. White-tailed deer, wild turkey, and 

21 northern bobwhite would also lose habitat during land clearing, but these species could benefit 

22 from disturbance and subsequent revegetation on the site as well as the maintenance of open 

23 habitats during operation. 

24 Terrestrial ecological impacts that may result from operation of a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol 

25 alternative site include those associated with the cooling system, transmission system 

26 structures, and maintenance of transmission line corridors. For impacts related to cooling 

27 system operations, the review team assumed the same type of cooling tower proposed for 

28 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be used at each of the alternative sites. In NUREG-1437 

29 (NRC 1996), the NRC staff evaluated terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from operation of 

30 existing nuclear power plants and transmission line operation and maintenance. The types of 

31 terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit would be similar to 

32 those of existing nuclear power plants. When more specific information was not available, 

33 conclusions in the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) were used to assess terrestrial impacts resulting 

34 from the operation of the cooling tower and impacts from transmission line corridor maintenance 

35 and operation. Similarly, the effects of cooling tower drift, avian collisions, noise, and 

36 transmission lines would be similar to those described in Section 5.3.1.1 in which the 

37 operational impacts were determined to be undetectable at the population level. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-132 April 2010 

1 Cooling Towers 

2 The operation of a cooling tower results in the loss of water through evaporative loss and drift. 

3 Drift is described as small, unevaporated water droplets that are exhausted out the top of the 

4 tower. These droplets may carry minerals, debris, microorganisms, and chemicals that may 

5 affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants. Adverse impacts from cooling tower drift 

6 cannot be evaluated in detail without knowing the specific location of the cooling tower at each 

7 alternative site. However, general guidelines for predicting effects of drift deposition on plants 

8 suggest that many species have thresholds for visible leaf damage in the range of 9 to 

9 18 lb/ac/mo of salt deposition on leaves during the growing season (NRC 1996). The Unit 3 

10 cooling tower at Calvert Cliffs, which includes plume abatement, would be drawing salt/brackish 

11 water for cooling from the Chesapeake Bay through a desalination facility. Thiokol would use 

12 brackish cooling water from the Patuxent River. Because the maximum deposition for the 

13 proposed unit is far below the level that could cause leaf damage in many common species, the 

14 impacts would be negligible both on the Thiokol site and in the vicinity. In general, the impacts 

15 of drift on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants were evaluated for existing nuclear 

16 power plants and found to be of minor significance (NRC 1996). 

17 Similarly, detailed mortality from bird collisions with cooling towers depend on factors such as 

18 height, location, and lighting at the Thiokol site. The impacts of bird collisions for existing power 

19 plants were evaluated and found to be of minor significance for all operating nuclear plants, 

20 including those with various numbers and types of cooling towers (NRC 1996). On this basis, 

21 the review team concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts 

22 of bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit at Thiokol 

23 would be minor. 

24 Typical noise levels that can be expected at a distance of 1300 ft from the cooling tower are 

25 65 dBA (UniStar 2009a). Noise from plant operation would also be quickly attenuated by 

26 surrounding forest cover, further limiting any impact to wildlife. Local wildlife would likely adapt 

27 to noise levels, while cooling tower noise may also serve to limit the potential for avian collision. 

28 Consequently, the review team concludes the impacts of cooling tower noise on wildlife would 

29 be minimal at Thiokol. 

30 Transmission Lines 

31 The impacts associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with 

32 transmission lines and EMF effects on flora and fauna. The impacts associated with building 

33 transmission lines and corridor maintenance activities are alteration and/or conversion of habitat 

34 due to cutting and herbicide application and similar related impacts, such as temporary matting, 

35 where corridors cross floodplains, wetlands, and other important habitats. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-133 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Direct mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed (Avatar 

2 2004). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and 

3 related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory flight by flocking birds 

4 during darkness has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower height, location, 

5 configuration, and lighting also appear to play a role in avian mortality. Weather, such as low 

6 cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Waterfowl may be 

7 particularly vulnerable due to low, fast flight and flocking behavior (Brown 1993). However, in 

8 NUREG-1437, the NRC staff concluded that the threat of avian collision as a biologically 

9 significant source of mortality is very low as only a small fraction of total bird mortality could be 

10 attributed to collision with nuclear power plant structures, including transmission corridors with 

11 multiple transmission lines (NRC 1996). Although collision may contribute to local losses, 

12 thriving bird populations can withstand these losses without threat to their existence (Brown 

13 1993). Although additional transmission lines would be required for a new nuclear unit at 

14 Thiokol, increases in bird collisions would be minor, and these would likely not be expected to 

15 cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. Consequently, the incremental direct 

16 mortality posed by the addition of new transmission lines for a new nuclear unit would be 

17 negligible at Thiokol. 

18 EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

19 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

20 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

21 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). The 

22 impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at operating nuclear 

23 power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power lines and lines 

24 energized at levels less than 765 kV (NRC 1996). Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have 

25 been published that looked at cancer in animals exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives 

26 (Moulder 2003). These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of 

27 cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by 

28 operation of existing transmission lines and the addition of lines for a new nuclear unit would be 

29 negligible at the Thiokol alternative site. 

30 Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission line corridors at Thiokol would likely 

31 be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be required during 

32 the development of new transmission line corridors. Transmission line corridor management 

33 activities (cutting and herbicide application) and related impacts to floodplains and wetlands in 

34 transmission line corridors are of minor significance at operating nuclear power plants, including 

35 those with transmission line corridors of variable widths (NRC 1996). Consequently, the 

36 incremental effects of transmission line corridor maintenance and associated impacts to 

37 floodplains and wetlands for a new nuclear unit would be negligible at the Thiokol 

38 alternative site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-134 April 2010 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

3 building a new reactor at the Thiokol site on terrestrial resources and wetlands is defined as 

4 St. Mary’s County, Maryland, because the extent of terrestrial impacts is mostly localized and 

5 the site is several miles from neighboring counties with the exception of Calvert County, which is 

6 closer but on the other side of the Patuxent River, which is a natural barrier isolating most 

7 terrestrial impacts. No major development activities are proposed that would significantly 

8 contribute to the loss or degradation of terrestrial resources or wetlands within the foreseeable 

9 future in St. Mary’s County. Like at the Calvert Cliffs site, building a power plant at this site 

10 would require the removal of relatively intact, albeit early-successional, forest cover. Unlike the 

11 Calvert Cliffs site, the Thiokol site is not located within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area 

12 (CBCA), but removal of forest cover would still contribute to cumulative forest fragmentation 

13 within St. Mary’s County and the surrounding region. 

14 Continued urbanization and GCC have the potential to alter and reduce the amount of terrestrial 

15 habitat and wetlands available to flora and fauna. Urbanization within the region has been 

16 identified as a contributing factor to forest fragmentation. GCC effects near the Thiokol site 

17 would result in regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, in annual precipitation, 

18 and in average temperature (GCRP 2009). Such factors would affect the terrestrial resources in 

19 the geographic area of interest through reduced open lands and wetlands as a result of 

20 inundation of low-lying areas and river shoreline. Forest growth may increase as a result of 

21 more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (GCRP 2009). The impacts of GCC on plants and 

22 wildlife in the geographic area of interest are not precisely known. Changes in climate could 

23 alter and fragment key terrestrial habitats and result in substantial northward shifts in species’ 

24 ranges, diversity, and abundance in the geographic area of interest for the Thiokol site (GCRP 

25 2009). 

26 Building and operation of a new nuclear unit would likely result in the loss of important plants, 

27 wildlife, and wildlife habitats including a large extent of interior forest. Based on the information 

28 provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes 

29 the cumulative impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources of building and operation of a new 

30 nuclear unit at the Thiokol site and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

31 would be SMALL to MODERATE. Building and operating the new unit would be a significant 

32 contributor to these impacts. 

33 9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources 

34 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

35 aquatic ecology resources. The Thiokol site is located about 3 mi from the western shore of the 

36 Patuxent River, which is the largest and most important aquatic resource in the vicinity. The 

37 Thiokol site is located within the Breton Bay watershed, which is part of the Lower Potomac 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-135 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 River watershed. The location of the cooling water intake and discharge facilities would be in 

2 the Lower Patuxent River watershed, which provides migratory habitat for anadroumous species 

3 and provides foraging and nursery habitat, including EFH, for commercially important estuarine 

4 species. 

5 Other aquatic resources on the Thiokol site include two small streams, Rich Neck Creek and 

6 Tom Swamp Run, that flow south and southwest through the property (MDE 2007). The two 

7 streams drain about 2565 ac within the Breton Bay watershed and join with Burnt Mill Creek to 

8 flow into McIntosh Run that empties into Breton Bay, which is a tidal bay on the Potomac River 

9 (MDNR 2002a). About 620 ac of the streams’ area is listed as highly erodible. Tom Swamp 

10 Run has a small channel and intermittent flow. Rich Neck Creek is larger and probably 

11 perennial, but quite shallow. Flow in both likely depends on storms. Most of the length of each 

12 stream is within the Maryland’s Sensitive Species Project Review Area within the Breton Bay 

13 watershed (MDNR 2002a). The sensitive species area also includes most of Burnt Mill Creek 

14 and McIntosh Run. McIntosh Run provides important habitat for the Federally endangered 

15 dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), which is described later in this section. The 

16 lower reaches of Rich Neck Creek and Tom Swamp Run were included in the Maryland DNR 

17 nutrient synoptic survey conducted in April 2002 (MDNR 2002b). Characterization of the 

18 benthic invertebrate communities in the streams resulted in Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 

19 (B-IBI) scores of 4.14, which the State rates as “good” (MDNR 2002b). The two onsite streams 

20 likely provide habitat for female American eels and are upstream of yellow perch (Perca 

21 flavescens) and white perch (Morone americana) spawning areas (NMFS 2009). 

22 The potential for impacts from building and operating a nuclear generating unit at Thiokol to 

23 aquatic biota would be primarily to organisms inhabiting Rich Neck Creek, Tom Swamp Run, 

24 and the Patuxent River.

25 Commercially or Recreationally Important Species 

26 The important commercial or recreational species in the Patuxent River are generally among 

27 those included in the Chesapeake Bay. These are described in Section 2.4.2. One important 

28 commercial species is the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica). The Patuxent River has many 

29 historical and current oyster beds, including Natural Oyster Bars that stretch about 5.5 mi along 

30 the western shore where the new intake and discharge systems would likely be located (MDNR 

31 2003b, MDNR 2009h). The Maryland DNR is considering at least two areas in the Patuxent 

32 River that are near the Thiokol site as potential oyster Aquaculture Enterprise Zones designed 

33 to help restore oyster populations in the Bay (MDNR 2009f). 

34 The lower Patuxent watershed contains spawning and nursery areas for several anadromous 

35 fish species, including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), river herring (Alosa spp.), white perch, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-136 April 2010 

1 and yellow perch (MDNR 2003b; NMFS 2009). The area where the cooling water intake pipes 

2 would likely be located is downstream from the spawning areas but is within the migratory path 

3 of these fish (NMFS 2009). 

4 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

5 The non-native and nuisance species most likely occurring in the Patuxent River include 

6 species such as those listed for the Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs site. Potential 

7 invasive estuarine invertebrate species of concern that eventually may occur in the Patuxent 

8 River are the green crab (Carcinus maenas) and the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) 

9 (see Section 2.4.2). Pfiesteria (Pfiesteria piscicida) is a nuisance dinoflagellate algal species 

10 known to produce toxins. Pfiesteria is most commonly found low in the water column and close 

11 to bottom sediments but is not yet known in the Patuxent River (Bowers et al. 2006). Other 

12 potential nuisance species are sea nettles (Chrysaora quinquecirrha) and comb jellies 

13 (Mnemiopsis leidyi, Beroe ovata) (see Section 2.4.2). 

14 Federally and State-Listed Species 

15 Federally listed species that may occur in the Patuxent River include the shortnose sturgeon, 

16 loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), and Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Federally 

17 listed species of concern that may occur in the river include the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser 

18 oxyrinchus), alewife, and blueback herring. Two other endangered marine turtles, the green 

19 turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), may occur in 

20 Chesapeake Bay, but usually stay in the lower part of the Bay. These Federally protected 

21 species are discussed in Section 2.4.2. 

22 One Federally endangered species, the dwarf wedgemussel, occurs in a creek near the Thiokol 

23 site (FWS 2007). This species is also listed as endangered by the State of Maryland (MDNR 

24 2007f). No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS or NMFS in the vicinity of the 

25 Thiokol site. 

26 State-listed aquatic plants in St. Mary’s County include the swollen bladderwort (Utricularia 

27 inflata) and the claspingleaf pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus) (MDNR 2007f). State-listed 

28 aquatic animals, in addition to the dwarf wedgemussel, listed for St. Mary’s County that may 

29 occur near the Thiokol site include the Atlantic spike, the comely shiner, the flier (Centrarchus 

30 macropterus), and the ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus) (MDNR 2007f). The spotfin 

31 killifish (Fundulus luciae) is listed by the State of Maryland as State “Rare(?)” (uncertain), and 

32 the white catfish (Ameiurus catus) is listed as State uncertain (possibly rare). The spotfin 

33 killifish is discussed in Section 2.4.2. 

34 Swollen Bladderwort (Utricularia inflata). The swollen bladderwort is a rootless, perennial 

35 aquatic plant that floats just above the bottom sediment (Urban et al. 2006). The species occurs 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-137 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 from Texas to New York and is an introduced species in Washington State (USDA 2008a). It is 

2 endangered in several states, including Maryland. Bladderworts are carnivorous, trapping prey 

3 with a suction trap comprised of a hollow bladder that has negative internal pressure and is 

4 anoxic (Peroutka et al. 2008). A recent study showed that microscopic algae are included in the 

5 bladderwort diet (Peroutka et al. 2008). Bladderworts typically inhabit small lakes and ponds. 

6 Claspingleaf Pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus). The claspingleaf pondweed is distributed 

7 primarily in northeastern North America with a scattered occurrence across the southeastern 

8 United States (USDA 2008b). It is listed as State rare in Maryland. This species is found in 

9 brackish (oligohaline to mesohaline waters) within the Chesapeake Bay (Brush and Hilgartner 

10 2000). Its occurrence in the Patuxent River is uncertain because no seeds were found in 

11 sediment cores that were dated from the early 1700s to the late 1980s, and plants were not 

12 seen in the river during the core collections in 1987 (Brush and Hilgartner 2000). 

13 Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). The dwarf wedgemussel is a small freshwater 

14 clam that reaches a length of about 1.5 in. (FWS 2005). These mussels live in clear-water 

15 creeks and streams that have firm sand, clay, or gravel substrates. Mussel survival depends on 

16 the streams being silt free, having stable substrates, and having high dissolved oxygen content. 

17 The reproductive biology of the species involves the initial development of the fertilized eggs 

18 within the gills of the female mussel. The eggs mature into a larval stage that is released into 

19 the water and attaches to the gills of a fish. After a period of development, the larvae release 

20 from the fish and settle to the stream bottom. Dwarf wedgemussels live as long as 10 years. 

21 The principal causes of the mussel’s decline are habitat degradation from pollution and land-use 

22 changes that increase siltation in streams. 

23 Dwarf wedgemussels occur from North Carolina to New Hampshire and are becoming 

24 increasingly rare throughout the southern part of the region (FWS 2005). In Maryland, the 

25 species occurs in two creeks in Queen Anne’s County, one creek in Charles County, and 

26 McIntosh Run in St. Mary’s County (FWS 2007). A large population of dwarf wedgemussels 

27 lives in the mainstem portion of McIntosh Run, below its confluence with Burnt Mill Creek, which 

28 is about 2 mi downstream of the Thiokol site (CWP 2003). It is not known whether mussel 

29 populations occur farther upstream or in streams on the Thiokol site. The mussel population in 

30 McIntosh Run is one of the three most viable populations in Maryland (FWS 2007). A 

31 restoration strategy for the Breton Bay watershed suggested that any development affecting the 

32 tributaries that feed lower McIntosh Run has the potential to affect the Run, and appropriate 

33 precautions need to be taken (CWP 2003). 

34 Atlantic Spike (Elliptio producta). The Atlantic spike is discussed in Section 9.3.5.5 (Eastalco). 

35 Because these mussels typically inhabit rivers and large streams, they are not likely to occur 

36 near the Thiokol site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-138 April 2010 

1 Flier (Centrarchus macropterus). The flier is a moderately sized sunfish that can reach a length 

2 of about 7.5 in. (USGS 2009). The flier is native to the southern Mississippi River area, the Gulf 

3 coastal area, and the southern Atlantic coastal plain (USGS 2009). The St. Mary’s County area 

4 represents the northernmost part of the species’ known range on the coastal plain. There is one 

5 historical record of the flier, which is listed as threatened in Maryland, from a farm pond in 

6 St. Mary’s County, and it is thought the species may not be native to Maryland (Lee et al. 1981; 

7 USGS 2009). 

8 Comely Shiner (Notropis amoenus). The comely shiner is a small minnow that reaches a length 

9 of about 4 in. It is discussed in Section 9.3.5.5 (Eastalco). Its possible occurrence near the 

10 Thiokol site is not known. 

11 Ironcolor Shiner (Notropis chalybaeus). The ironcolor shiner only grows to about 2.5 in. in 

12 length and lives in deeper pools in creeks and streams (NYSDEC 2008a). It lives with aquatic 

13 plants, such as bladderwort and pondweed. Spawning occurs over sandy areas from spring to 

14 summer. Eggs are broadcast into the water column, where they are fertilized. Ironcolor shiners 

15 feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects. It is listed as endangered in Maryland. 

16 White Catfish (Ameiurus catus). The white catfish is one of the smaller of the North American 

17 catfish, rarely growing larger than 24 in. long and 6 lb in weight (MDNR 2007o). Although white 

18 catfish have been introduced in many regions, they are native to the Chesapeake Bay region. 

19 They live in slow-moving brackish waters that have mud substrates in small to large rivers. 

20 White catfish eat a variety of fish, crustaceans, and insects. Spawning occurs in early summer. 

21 Based on the habitat information provided, building or operating a new unit on the Thiokol site 

22 would not result in impacts to most of these Federally and State-listed species. However, 

23 building or operating a new unit on this site could affect an important population of the Federally 

24 endangered dwarf wedgemussels, which occur just downstream from the site. 

25 Building and Operation Impacts 

26 Building a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol site would be expected to affect about 420 ac. An 

27 additional 25.1 ac along the potential cooling water pipeline route would be affected (UniStar 

28 2009a). Building the new unit would adversely affect about 3435 linear ft of stream channels 

29 (UniStar 2009g). Assuming that the plant design would be similar to that proposed for Calvert 

30 Cliffs Unit 3, a new plant would permanently add about 130 ac of impervious surface to the 

31 Thiokol site, which would increase runoff during storms, potentially increasing erosion and 

32 adding pollutants to aquatic resources. The potential impacts of the building activities on the 

33 onsite aquatic resources primarily would be loss of stream habitat. Impacts on the two onsite 

34 streams could affect downstream populations of the endangered dwarf wedgemussel. 

35 However, given that the known dwarf wedgemussel population is a couple of miles from the site 

36 and if other populations do not exist closer to or on the site, it is probable that such effects 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-139 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 would not destabilize the population. In addition, construction BMPs would likely be 

2 implemented that would minimize downstream effects, and it is expected that FWS would 

3 require implementation of protective measures to minimize adverse effects on the dwarf 

4 wedgemussel if a new reactor is proposed at the Thiokol site. 

The main source of water for the new plant would be the Patuxent River, which drains a 932-mi2 5 

6 area and is the largest river completely within Maryland (MDNR 2007i). A new nuclear 

7 generating unit would require new, separate intake and discharge structures located offshore in 

8 the river and a screenwell and pumphouse structure located onshore at the common forebay 

9 (UniStar 2009a). Building a new intake would result in the temporary displacement of aquatic 

10 biota within the vicinity of the intake. It is expected that these biota would return to the area 

11 after building was complete. UniStar (2009a) stated that a cooling water intake structure for a 

12 plant at the Thiokol site would need to be located about 1000 ft into the Patuxent River. Such 

13 an installation would affect about 2.25 ac of bottom on the river and would require the 

placement of about 8000 yds3 14 of sediment. Installation of the intake and discharge systems, 

15 which most likely would involve dredging and the use of cofferdams (UniStar 2009a), would 

16 cause impacts similar to those discussed for Chesapeake Bay in Section 4.3.2.1 and could 

17 interrupt migratory pathways of anadromous fish. However, the impacts on aquatic organisms 

18 probably would be temporary, except where riprap would be installed to protect the pipeline 

19 systems. Benthic invertebrates likely would recolonize the disturbed sediments. Sedimentation 

20 from trenching or dredging can be mitigated through the use of appropriate BMPs. Installation 

21 of the intake and discharge systems may affect potential aquaculture and restoration oyster 

22 beds. The severity of impacts on the aquatic ecology of the Patuxent River depends on the 

23 location of the intake and discharge structures in relation to location and resource values of the 

24 many oyster beds in the river near the Thiokol site.

25 A new 500-kV transmission line with a new transmission line corridor would be needed to 

26 connect the new plant to existing or proposed transmission lines. The new transmission 

27 corridor would extend from the southern portion of the Thiokol site to an existing 500-kV line 

28 located about 2 mi to the southeast (UniStar 2009c). About 4201 linear ft of stream channel are 

29 included within this new corridor (UniStar 2009a). The aquatic resources of this stream channel 

30 have not been characterized. The severity of impacts would depend on the characteristics of 

31 the aquatic resources within the corridor, but the use of BMPs during building and operation 

32 would lessen the potential impacts. 

33 The most likely effect on aquatic populations from operation of a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol 

34 site would be impingement, entrainment, and entrapment of organisms from the Patuxent River. 

35 Assuming that a new reactor at the Thiokol site would use a closed-cycle cooling system that 

36 meets the EPA’s Phase I regulations for new facilities (66 FR 65256), has a maximum through37 screen velocity of 0.5 ft/s (0.15 m/s) at the cooling water intake structure on the Patuxent River, 

38 and meets the appropriate EPA intake flow-to-source water volume criterion, adverse impacts at 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-140 April 2010 

1 the population level of many Patuxent River aquatic species from impingement, entrainment, 

2 and entrapment would not be anticipated. Operation of the intake could affect establishment of 

3 oyster populations by entraining the oyster larvae (NMFS 2009). The review team examined 

4 the results of entrainment studies conducted at the nearby Chalk Point Generating Station to aid 

5 in the assessment of impacts to aquatic resources at the Thiokol site. 

6 The Chalk Point Generating Station is a non-nuclear facility located on Patuxent River about 

7 10 mi north of the Thiokol site area. Chalk Point has two once-through cooling units and two 

8 closed-cycle units (MDNR PPRP 2008). McLean et al. (2002) described the entrainment at 

9 Chalk Point as potentially affecting several forage fish in the Patuxent River, including the bay 

10 anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), silversides (Menidia spp.), naked goby (Gobiosoma bosc), and 

11 hogchokers (Trinectes maculatus). However, the water withdrawal in 2006 for Chalk Point was 

12 about 604 MGD (MDNR PPRP 2008), which is more than 10 times what would be withdrawn by 

13 the type of plant proposed by UniStar. Thus, the effects of impingement, entrainment, and 

14 entrapment at the Thiokol site would be smaller than those at Chalk Point. Several anadromous 

15 species that inhabit the Patuxent River are known to have been entrained or impinged by 

16 CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (Ringger 2000; EA Engineering 2008) and could be impinged, entrained, 

17 or entrapped by operating the cooling water system at the Thiokol site. As for the proposed 

18 Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site (see Chapter 4), the review team recognizes that potential 

19 mitigation measures could be implemented at the intake pipeline openings at the Thiokol site to 

20 reduce entrainment, impingement, and entrapment effects on aquatic species in the Patuxent 

21 River. Most notably, installation of small-mesh traveling screens or wedgewire screens and a 

22 fish-return system at the intake pipeline openings in the river would significantly reduce adverse 

23 effects on aquatic organisms. 

24 Although a discharge plume has not been modeled for the Thiokol site, the Patuxent River is a 

25 large and deep waterbody at that location, and the review team assumes the plume would be 

26 similar in areal extent and depth to that modeled for the Calvert Cliffs site. Therefore, the plume 

27 would likely be relatively small compared to the river size in the area, and there would not likely 

28 be a thermal barrier to fish passage. In addition, the potential for adverse impacts from cold 

29 shock or heat shock because of exposure to the thermal plume would minor. Chemical 

30 concentrations in the effluents from the Thiokol site would be required to follow permitted 

31 guidelines. 

32 Overall, the impact of building and operation of a new reactor on the Thiokol site to most aquatic 

33 resources would be substantial because of potential effects on several important anadromous 

34 fish species, benthic impacts from installation of pipelines, and potential disruption of important 

35 oyster aquaculture and restoration beds and potential adverse effects on the Federally 

36 endangered dwarf wedgemussel. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-141 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

3 building a new reactor at the Thiokol site on aquatic resources is defined as the Breton Bay and 

4 Lower Patuxent River watersheds, the mainstem of the Patuxent River, and the mesohaline 

5 (salinity ranges from about 5 to 19 ppt) western portion of the Chesapeake Bay. The extent of 

6 the mesohaline zone in the Chesapeake Bay varies seasonally, but, at its maximum, it includes 

7 the western Bay shore from about the mouth of the Rappahannock River to Baltimore and 

8 includes the tidal Patuxent River (MDNR PPRP 2008; CBP 2009). One concern with building 

9 and operating a new reactor on the Thiokol site is the potential for the entrainment, 

10 impingement, and entrapment of biota from the Patuxent River. Because the river in the area 

11 where the intake and discharge system would be located is mesohaline and contains biota 

12 similar to the Chesapeake Bay, the general entrainment, impingement, and entrapment impacts 

13 would be similar to those from operating a new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site. However, the 

14 Patuxent River is a more restricted waterbody than the Chesapeake Bay and is a valuable 

15 spawning and nursery area. Historically, entrainment at the Chalk Point Generating Station 

16 Power Plant removed an estimated 20 to 30 percent of the bay anchovy population in the 

17 Patuxent estuary, but the losses could range as large as 50 percent (McLean et al. 2002). The 

18 bay anchovy is the most heavily entrained species at CCNPP Units 1 and 2 (see Table 5-2). 

19 The additional entrainment by a new reactor at Thiokol could exacerbate the losses from Chalk 

20 Point and CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Some entrainment by ships that use the LNG facility at Cove 

21 Point would occur, but would likely be relatively small because of the comparatively small 

22 volumes withdrawn by the ships. Dominion proposes to reinforce the pier at the Cove Point 

23 LNG facility to allow for the docking larger tankers (USCG and USACE 2009). This project 

24 would primarily involve dredging of an area of Bay bottom near the present pier, the installation 

25 of mooring and breasting dolphins, and the disposal of the dredged material. The effects of 

26 these actions would not intersect with the building and operating of a new plant at the Thiokol 

27 site. Thermal impacts from existing plants in mesohaline waters, including Chalk Point and 

28 Calvert Cliffs, have not had significant effects on the Chesapeake Bay (MDNR PPRP 2008). 

29 The plume from the Thiokol discharge would likely be small and would not significantly modify 

30 the temperature regime in the Patuxent River. 

31 The Breton Bay watershed is part of the Lower Potomac River watershed. Streams in the 

32 Breton Bay watershed drain into Breton Bay, which is affected by suspended sediments, 

33 nutrient loads, and high bacteria counts (MDNR 2002a). Discharge from the Leonardtown 

34 Wastewater Treatment Plan was the main source of nutrient loads into Breton Bay, but 

35 discharge loads have decreased since 2003 after plant upgrades began (MDE 2009a). Building 

36 a new reactor at Thiokol would increase sediment loads in onsite streams, and those loads 

37 could be transferred to Breton Bay. In addition, urbanization in the vicinity could adversely 

38 affect water quality and, therefore, aquatic habitat, in the Chesapeake and Breton Bays through 

39 increases in both point and nonpoint source pollution. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-142 April 2010 

1 In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, GCC would impose additional stressors on aquatic 

2 communities. The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term 

3 changes in precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental 

4 impacts to the Patuxent River, Breton Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay. GCC could lead to 

5 increased precipitation, increased sea levels, varying freshwater inflow, increased pollution from 

6 nonpoint source runoff, increased temperatures, increased storm surges, and greater intensity 

7 of coastal storms in the geographic area of interest (GCRP 2009). Such changes could alter 

8 salinity, change freshwater inflow, and reduce dissolved oxygen, which directly affect aquatic 

9 habitat. Rising sea water due to GCC could affect water levels in the Patuxent River and the 

10 Bays and subsequently change the water quality associated with the mixing of freshwater and 

11 estuarine waters (GCRP 2009). These stressors would result in shifts in species’ ranges, 

12 habitats, and migratory behaviors and also alter ecosystem processes (GCRP 2009). 

13 Based on the information from UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

14 review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

15 foreseeable future activities, including building and operating a new reactor at the Thiokol site, 

16 on the aquatic resources in the geographical area of interest would be MODERATE primarily 

17 because of potential adverse effects on anadromous and other important forage and 

18 commercially valuable fish. The incremental contribution of building and operating a new 

19 reactor at the Thiokol site would be MODERATE for most aquatic species. 

20 9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics 

21 In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of site development and operation at the Thiokol site 

22 near Mechanicsville, Maryland in St. Mary’s County, the review team undertook a review of the 

23 site using data sources discussed in Section 9.3.2. The analysis also considers past, present, 

24 and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the same environmental resources, 

25 including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects listed in Table 9-10 within 

26 the geographic area of interest. Impacts from both building and station operation are discussed. 

27 Physical Impacts 

28 Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

29 Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

30 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

31 roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

32 equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and 

33 disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on those 

34 facilities from building a new unit would be minimal. 

35 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, emissions, and visual 

36 intrusions (aesthetics). A new unit would produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-143 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 towers, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also 

2 would be a source of noise. Any noise coming from the site would be controlled in accordance 

3 with standard noise protection and abatement procedures. By inference, this practice also 

4 would be expected to apply to all alternative sites. Commuter traffic would be controlled by 

5 speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level 

6 generated by the workforce commuting to the alternative site. 

7 Any new unit at an alternative site would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power 

8 systems. Permits obtained for these generators would confirm that air emissions comply with 

9 applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term 

10 basis. During normal plant operation, a new unit would not use a significant quantity of 

11 chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads 

12 and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

13 Building activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of the 

14 Thiokol site. Offsite impacts would represent minimal changes to offsite services supporting the 

15 building activities. During facility operations, noise levels would be managed to State and local 

16 ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the diesel generators, and chemical use 

17 would be limited, which should inhibit odors. Based on the information provided by UniStar and 

18 the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the physical impacts 

19 of building and operating a nuclear unit at the Thiokol site would be minimal. 

20 Demography 

21 The Thiokol site is located in St. Mary’s County, near the towns of Hillville and Mechanicsville. 

22 The U.S. Census Bureau indicates that St. Mary’s County had a 2008 population of 

23 101,568 people, which was a 16 percent increase from 2000. Washington, D.C. (2008 

24 population 591,833) is located 40 mi north of the Thiokol site (USCB 2009g, h). The population 

25 within the 50-mi region is approximately 3,702,936 people (UniStar 2009a). 

26 At the peak of the site development period, UniStar would expect an onsite workforce of 

27 3950 construction workers (UniStar 2009a). Based on the analysis of impacts presented in 

28 Section 4.4.2, the total maximum number of construction workers migrating into the region 

29 (within 50 mi of the site) from outside of the region would be between 790–1383 (20 to 

30 35 percent of the total workforce) workers at the peak of the building period. Using an average 

31 household size of 2.61, the total in-migrating population would be between 2062 and 3608 

32 people. The majority of impacts would be expected to occur in St. Mary’s County because it 

33 contains the site. The impacts are more dispersed the farther away from the site due to the 

34 large populations of the other counties within commuting distance of the Thiokol site. Many of 

35 the impacts for the Thiokol site would be similar to those of the proposed Calvert Cliffs site due 

36 to their close proximity. Considering that the maximum estimation of in-migrating population 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-144 April 2010 

1 would be less than 2 percent of the total population for St. Mary’s County, the demographic 

2 impacts of building a nuclear unit at the Thiokol site are expected to be minimal. 

3 If the facility were to be built and commenced operations, the operational workforce would 

4 number at least 363 workers, half (182 workers) of whom may migrate into the region. The 

5 Thiokol site would likely have a larger workforce then the Calvert Cliffs site because Calvert 

6 Cliffs has an existing security and administrative workforce. At the Thiokol site, a larger number 

7 of security and administrative workers would need to be hired, but because this is not 

8 specialized labor, they would likely already reside in the 50-mi region. Given the small number 

9 of in-migrating workers and the large population in the 50-mi region, the review team concludes 

10 that the demographic impact during operation would be minimal. 

11 Taxes and Economy 

12 In 2006, the labor force in St. Mary’s County was 52,371 persons, and, of these, 49,794 were 

13 employed. The three industries in St. Mary’s County that accounted for more than 50 percent of 

14 employment were public administration (19 percent); professional, scientific, management, 

15 administrative, and waste management services (18 percent); and educational services, health 

16 care, and social assistance (16 percent) followed by construction (11 percent) and retail trade 

17 (10 percent) (USCB 2006b). The unemployment rate for St. Mary’s County in 2006 was 

18 4.9 percent, compared to 5.6 percent for the State of Maryland (USCB 2006a, b). 

19 Economic impacts would be spread across the 50-mi region but would be greatest in St. Mary’s 

20 County. Impacts are generally considered minimal if plant-related employment is less than 

21 5 percent of the study area’s total employment (NRC 1996). During site development of a new 

22 unit, up to 3950 construction workers would be required to build the plant (at the peak building 

23 period). While some of these workers may need to in-migrate to the region, many would be 

24 drawn from the approximate 140,000–150,000 construction workers in the workforce of more 

25 than 2.5 million in the greater MSA (USBLS 2007a, b). The peak construction workforce would 

26 represent less than 5 percent of the current workforce in the region. Therefore, the review team 

27 concludes that the impacts of site development on the economy of the region would be minimal 

28 and beneficial, but temporary. 

29 The wages and salaries of the construction and operating workforce would have a multiplier 

30 effect that could result in increases in business activity, particularly in the retail and service 

31 sectors. This would have a positive impact on the business community and could provide 

32 opportunities for new businesses to get started and increase job opportunities for local 

33 residents. During operations, approximately 182 new operations jobs would be added to the 

34 local economy. Based on the analysis in Section 5.4.3.1 for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site, the 

35 review team concludes that the impact of these new jobs would constitute a small percentage of 

36 the total number of jobs in St. Mary’s County and would have a minimal and beneficial economic 

37 impact. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-145 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 As with the new proposed unit at the Calvert Cliffs site, there would be some positive sales, use, 

2 income, and property tax revenue benefits that would be generated as a result of building and 

3 operating a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol site (Sections 4.4.2.2 and 5.4.3.2). Tax revenues 

4 would accrue to the State primarily from income and sales taxes and to local governments from 

5 taxes on property and incomes (Section 2.5.2.2). The primary tax impacts would occur once the 

6 new unit becomes valued as property and property tax revenues are collected by St. Mary’s 

7 County according to the millage rate and the negotiated value of the plant. In fiscal year 2005, 

8 St. Mary’s County tax revenues totaled $145.2 million. The tax revenues from a unit in 

9 St. Mary’s County are unknown, but likely to be similar to the revenues for the Calvert Cliffs site. 

10 Tax estimates for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site would be up to $71 million during building and 

11 at $57 million once operations commence. The review team concludes that the impact on tax 

12 revenues would be greatest in St. Mary’s County, with a significant and beneficial impact during 

13 building and operations of a nuclear unit. The revenue impacts from building and operating a 

14 nuclear unit at the Thiokol site for the remainder of the 50-mi region would be minimal. 

15 Transportation and Housing 

16 Road access to the Thiokol site is provided by MD State Route 235, which runs on the north 

17 side of the Thiokol site. MD State Route 235 is a four-lane highway with unsignalized 

18 intersections, is the main transportation route in this area of the County, and provides the 

19 primary connection between many of the smaller communities. The transportation network in 

20 the 50-mi region also includes State highways and County roads (see Figure 2-16), as well as 

21 three major airports serving Baltimore and Washington, D.C., and St. Mary’s County Airport. 

22 The site does not have barge access and is 17 mi from the nearest rail line (UniStar 2009a). 

23 The review team expects traffic impacts from building a unit at the Thiokol, including both 

24 construction workers and deliveries, would be minimal for the region. However, it could be 

25 noticeable but not destabilizing in the local vicinity during peak building. During operations, 

26 impacts would be minimal except during outages when an additional 800 to 1000 workers would 

27 be employed onsite and impacts could be noticeable but not destabilizing. 

28 Based on the analysis in Section 4.4.2 and 5.4.2, up to 1383 construction workers and 

29 182 operations workers and their families would in-migrate to the 50-mi region during the 

30 building of a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol site and the subsequent operation. According to 

31 the 2005–2007 American Community Survey data, there are 3808 vacant housing units in 

32 St. Mary’s County alone, which is adequate to accommodate the expected influx of construction 

33 workers. Workers could also find housing in other parts of the 50-mi region, which has 

34 approximately 145,957 housing units available (UniStar 2009a). The review team expects that 

35 the in-migrating construction and operations workforce would have a minimal impact on housing 

36 demand in St. Mary’s County and the larger 50-mi region. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-146 April 2010 

1 Public Services and Education

2 The influx of construction workers and plant operations staff in-migrating into the region could 

3 impact local municipal water and water treatment plants and other public services (police, fire, 

4 and medical) in the region. The public services of St. Mary’s are described in Section 2.2.2.6. 

5 St. Mary’s County has 117 police officers with a total number of police calls of 66,006 in 2006 

6 (UniStar 2009a). St. Mary’s County has 9fire stations and 7 volunteer rescue squads manned 

7 by approximately 730 volunteer fire fighters. St. Mary’s has one hospital, with 108 beds and, on 

8 average; the hospital housed 76.7 patients for an average excess capacity of about 29 percent 

9 (UniStar 2009a). St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission provides water and sewer 

10 systems to 41,000 and 36,000 residents respectively. The water supply and wastewater 

11 systems operate at approximately 43 and 58 percent average capacity with an excess capacity 

12 of 4.8 million gpd and 2.9 million gpd, respectively. Therefore, the review team concludes that 

13 the impacts of building and operating a nuclear unit on public services in St. Mary’s County and 

14 the larger 50-mi region would be minimal. 

15 St. Mary’s County has one school district, which includes five high schools, four middle schools, 

16 18 elementary schools and two special-needs schools (SMCPS 2008). The 2005–2006 student 

17 population was 16,649 students and had a student/teacher ratio range between 11 and 21 

18 (MSDE 2005; GS 2008). Building and operations related students would represent a small 

19 percentage increase in the student body population. Given the number of schools in St. Mary’s 

20 County and the large student body populations, it is likely that the new students will be absorbed 

21 easily and education impacts would be minimal for St. Mary’s County and the larger 50-mi 

22 region. 

23 Aesthetics and Recreation 

24 In St. Mary’s County there are four state parks that provide summer camps and special events, 

25 horseback riding, camping, fishing, biking, hiking, and picnicking (SMTT 2008, SMCBCC 2005). 

26 Calvert County’s two main parks are Calvert Cliffs State Park and Flag Ponds Nature Park, 

27 which provide hiking, swimming, picnicking, fishing, bird watching, and wildlife viewing 

28 opportunities (MDNR 2007a, UniStar 2009a). Recreational users may be impacted by traffic in 

29 the near vicinity of the plant during shift change. Some plant structures could be visible from 

30 nearby locations, and new transmission lines would be constructed. Impacts on recreation 

31 would be minimal. Likewise, the aesthetic impacts during building and operation of a nuclear 

32 plant on the Thiokol site would be minimal. 

33 Cumulative Impacts 

34 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Thiokol site, the geographic area of interest is 

35 the 50-mi region centered on the Thiokol site with special consideration for St. Mary’s County as 

36 that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. Historically, 

37 St. Mary’s County’s economy was based on tobacco and water-related jobs. Those have 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-147 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 decreased significantly in recent years with the State tobacco buyout program and a shift to 

2 technology-oriented jobs. The Patuxent River Naval Air Station, built in the 1940s, has had 

3 long-lasting effects on the economy, and the County continues to build its defense industry jobs. 

4 St. Mary’s is now designated a “Technology Corridor” by the State (SMCTD 2009). 

5 In addition to socioeconomic impacts from building and operating a nuclear unit at the Thiokol 

6 site, this analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

7 that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts. The projects identified in 

8 Table 9-10 have or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, and community 

9 infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and industrialization. 

10 However, many resource areas, such as housing or public services, are able to adjust over 

11 time, particularly with increased tax revenues. Because the projects within the review area 

12 identified in Table 9-10 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, 

13 the review team considers the cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be 

14 manageable. Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing 

15 buildings, transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts 

16 span issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. 

17 In summary, based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent 

18 evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operating a 

19 new nuclear unit at the Thiokol site and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

20 projects on socioeconomics would be SMALL in terms of adverse physical impacts, 

21 demography, housing, public service, educational, aesthetics, and recreation and MODERATE 

22 for transportation. The cumulative impacts on the St. Mary’s County economy and tax base 

23 during plant operation likely would be beneficial and LARGE. Building and operating the new 

24 unit would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

25 9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice 

26 The 2000 Census block groups were used for ascertaining minority and low-income populations 

27 in the region. There were a total of 2639 census block groups within the 50-mi region (which 

28 includes portions of Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia). Approximately 804 were 

29 classified as aggregate minority, 688 African American and 183 Hispanic. As discussed in 

30 Section 2.6, there are no minority block groups in Calvert County and two (one aggregate 

31 minority and one African American) in St. Mary’s County. There are 66 census block groups 

32 classified as low income in the 50-mi region, one of which is in St. Mary’s County. Figure 9-14 

33 shows the geographic locations of the minority populations of significance within the 50-mi 

34 radius of the Thiokol site, and Figure 9-15 shows the geographic locations of the low-income 

35 populations of significance within the 50-mi radius of the Thiokol site. 

36 Building activities (noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic) would not disproportionately 

37 adversely affect minority populations because of their distance from the Thiokol site. The 

38 operation of the proposed project at Thiokol is also unlikely to have a disproportionate adverse 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-148 April 2010 

1 impact on minority or low-income populations. See Sections 4.5 and 5.5 for more information 

2 about environmental justice criteria and impacts. 

3 The projects identified in Table 9-10 likely did not or would not contribute to environmental 

4 justice impacts of the region. Housing rental rates can be an area of concern with regards to 

5 low-income populations. If projects commence and cause a rise in rental rates, there may be a 

6 disproportionate adverse impact on low-income populations. Further, the determinations 

7 reached for the Calvert Cliffs site (Sections 4.5 and 5.5) are believed to be generally applicable 

8 to the Thiokol site. Therefore, based on information provided by UniStar and the review team’s 

9 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that there would likely not be any 

10 disproportionate and adverse environmental justice cumulative impacts from building and 

11 operating a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol site, and the cumulative environmental justice 

12 impacts, including building and operation of a nuclear power plant at the Thiokol site, would be 

13 SMALL. 

14 9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

15 The former Thiokol site has a history of manufacturing munitions and burying some of them 

16 onsite. Prior to 1950, a company called the Federal Ordnance Corporation operated a 

17 munitions plant on the property. In the 1950s, a company, Hunter Manufacture, purchased the 

18 property and continued to produce munitions until the late 1950s (MDE 2007). When the factory 

19 was in operation in the 1950s, employees were directed to bury unexploded ordnances on the 

20 property. The locations of the buried ordnances were not recorded (MDE 2007). In 1959, 

21 Thiokol Corporation (today known as Cordant Technologies) purchased the property, but did not 

22 continue with the production of munitions. In the 1980s, Thiokol razed buildings, harvested 

23 timber, and later reforested parts of the property. In 1999, South Resource Management 

24 purchased the property from Cordant with a declaration of covenant prohibiting residential 

25 construction at two special reserve areas in suspected burial regions of the property. The 

26 719-ac property was split and 619 ac, along with the reserve areas, were sold to PB II, LLC in 

27 2006 (MDE 2007). 

28 UniStar conducted a literature review at the MHT. One report on file was specific to 

29 Mechanicsville related to historic properties. There are no known National Register of Historic 

30 Properties in St. Mary’s County (UniStar 2008a). No buildings remain on the Thiokol site. Due 

31 to the building removal, soil removal, and overall land disturbance associated with the 

32 production of munitions on the property, historical resources that may be encountered at the site 

33 would most likely be disturbed and located below surface, and the probability would be low of 

34 finding resources above ground (UniStar 2009a). 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-149 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 

2 Figure 9-14. Distribution of Aggregate Minority Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

3 Thiokol Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-150 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 9-15. Distribution of Aggregate Low-Income Populations of Significance in 2000 for the 

3 Thiokol Site 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-151 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Cumulative Impacts

2 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating a nuclear generating 

3 unit at the Thiokol site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

4 foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources including other Federal and non5 Federal projects and those projects listed in Table 9-10 within the geographic area of interest. 

6 For the analysis of cultural impacts at the Thiokol site, the geographic area of interest is the 

7 APE that would be defined for this considered undertaking. This includes the physical APE, 

8 defined as the area that would be directly affected by the site development and operation 

9 activities at the site and transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as 

10 an additional 1-mi radius around the physical APE consistent with the discussion in Section 2.7 

11 about the maximum distance from which the structures can be seen. 

12 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, for 

13 example, it includes preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

14 cultural resources. In developing this EIS the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level 

15 information to perform its evaluation of alternative sites. Reconnaissance-level information is 

16 data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It can also include 

17 information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and cultural 

18 resources at the Thiokol site, the following information was used: 

19 • UniStar ER (UniStar 2009a) 

20 • NRC-Alternative Sites visit October 2008 (NRC 2010a). 

21 Cultural resources are non-renewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

22 is cumulative. No projects were identified in Table 9-10 that would contribute to cumulative 

23 impacts to historic and cultural resources. 

24 Based on reconnaissance-level information regarding historic and cultural resources at the site 

25 and the overall land disturbance associated with the production of munitions at the site and the 

26 extensive remediation activities, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on historic 

27 properties of building and operating a new nuclear generating unit at the Thiokol site and other 

28 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are likely to be SMALL. No archaeological 

29 and/or architectural surveys have been conducted. 

30 9.3.5.8 Air Quality 

31 The emissions related to building and operating a nuclear power plant at the Thiokol site in 

32 St Mary’s County would be similar to those at the Calvert Cliffs site. St. Mary’s County is in the 

33 Central Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR Part 81.155). It is in attainment 

34 of all air quality standards. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-152 April 2010 

1 Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-10, most of the effects on air quality would be to 

2 maintain the status quo. Any new industrial projects would either have de minimis impacts or 

3 would be subject to regulation by the Maryland DNR. Given these institutional controls, it is 

4 unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade significantly (i.e., degrade to the extent 

5 that the region is in nonattainment of national standards). As a result, because the emissions 

6 would be the same as at the Calvert Cliffs site, the review team concludes that the air quality 

7 impacts of building and operating a nuclear power plant at the Thiokol site would be minimal 

8 and that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL. 

9 Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 for 

10 building and operating a nuclear power plant and for the fuel cycle, respectively. As described 

11 in Chapter 7, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are not sensitive to location of the 

12 source. Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are 

13 applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the Eastalco site. The impacts of greenhouse gas 

14 emissions considered in isolation would be minor, but the cumulative impact of greenhouse gas 

15 emissions would be MODERATE. Building and operating the new unit would not be a 

16 significant contributor to these impacts. 

17 9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

18 The following impact analysis includes nonradiological health impacts from building activities 

19 and operations to the public and workers from a nuclear unit at the Thiokol alternative site. The 

20 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

21 impact nonradiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those 

22 projects listed in Table 9-10 within the geographic area of interest. The building-related 

23 activities that have the potential to impact the health of members of the public and workers 

24 include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, noise, and the transport of 

25 construction materials and personnel to and from the site. The operation-related activities that 

26 have the potential to impact the health of members of the public and workers includes exposure 

27 to etiological agents, noise, EMFs, and impacts from the transport of workers to and from the 

28 site. For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts at the Thiokol alternative site, the 

29 geographic area of interest is considered to include projects within a 5-mi radius from the site’s 

30 center based on the localized nature of the impacts. For impacts associated with transmission 

31 lines, the geographic area of interest is the transmission line corridor. 

32 Building Impacts

33 Nonradiological health impacts to construction workers and members of the public from building 

34 a new nuclear unit at the Thiokol site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for the 

35 Calvert Cliffs site. The impacts include noise; vehicle exhaust; dust; occupational injuries; and 

36 transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Applicable Federal and State regulations on air 

37 quality and noise would be complied with during the site preparation and building phase. The 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-153 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 incidence of construction worker accidents would not be expected to be different from the 

2 incidence of accidents estimated for the Calvert Cliffs site. Thiokol site is located in a rural area 

3 and building impacts would likely be minimal on the surrounding populations. 

4 Past and present actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly impacted 

5 nonradiological resources include the construction and operation of the Dominion Cove Point 

6 Liquid Natural Gas Facility. Proposed future actions would include the proposed Dominion 

7 Cove Point Pier Reinforcement Project, and transportation projects to upgrade MD Route 4 and 

8 the Thomas Johnson Bridge. Transmission line development and/or upgrading and 

9 urbanization would both occur throughout the designated geographical area of interest. 

10 Operational Impacts 

11 Nonradiological health impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit on occupational health and 

12 members of the public at the Thiokol site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 5.8 for 

13 the Calvert Cliffs site. Occupational health impacts to workers (e.g., falls, electric shock, or 

14 exposure to other hazards) at the Thiokol site would likely be the same as those evaluated for 

15 workers at a new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site. Based on the configuration of the proposed new 

16 unit at the Thiokol site (closed-cycle, wet cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers), 

17 etiological agents would not likely increase the incidence of water-borne diseases in the vicinity 

18 of the site. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled in accordance with 

19 applicable OSHA regulations. Effects of EMF on human health would be controlled and 

20 minimized by conformance with NESC criteria. Nonradiological impacts of traffic associated 

21 with the operations workforce would be less than the impacts during building. Mitigation 

22 measures taken during building to improve traffic flow would also minimize impacts during 

23 operation of a new unit. 

24 The nonradiological impacts from operations to the public and workers in the geographic areas 

25 of interest would be associated with cooling towers and existing transmission lines. The only 

26 past and current project in the geographical area of interest that has been identified for 

27 cumulative impacts is the operation of CCNPP Units 1 and 2. Proposed future actions that 

28 would impact nonradiological health in a similar way to operation activities at the Thiokol site 

29 would include transmission line systems and future urbanization, which would both occur 

30 throughout the designated geographical areas of interest. 

31 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

32 a recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (GCRP 2009) has been 

33 considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region 

34 include an increase in average temperature and an increase in precipitation, which may alter the 

35 presence of microorganisms and parasites. In view of the water source characteristics, the 

36 review team did not identify anything that would alter its conclusion regarding the presence of 

37 etiological agents or change in the incidence of water-borne diseases. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-154 April 2010 

1 Summary 

2 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

3 the review team expects that the impacts to nonradiological health from building and operation 

4 of a new unit at the Thiokol site would be similar to the impacts evaluated for the Calvert Cliffs 

5 site. While there are past, present, and future activities in the geographic area of interest that 

6 could affect nonradiological health in ways similar to the building and operation of a new unit at 

7 the Thiokol site, those impacts would be localized and managed through adherence to existing 

8 regulatory requirements. The review team concludes that those cumulative impacts would be 

9 SMALL. 

10 9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

11 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts to the public and workers from 

12 building activities and operations for a nuclear unit at the Thiokol alternative site. The analysis 

13 also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that impact 

14 radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects listed in 

15 Table 9-10 within the geographic area of interest. As described in Section 9.3.5, the Thiokol site 

16 is a brownfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on the site. The geographic area of 

17 interest is the area within a 50-mi radius of the Thiokol site. Facilities potentially affecting 

18 radiological health within this geographic area of interest are the existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2. 

19 Also within a 50-mi radius of the Thiokol site, there are likely to be hospitals and industrial 

20 facilities that use radioactive material. 

21 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed U.S. EPR unit at the Thiokol 

22 site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

23 pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

24 regulatory limits. These impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the Calvert 

25 Cliffs Unit 3 site. 

26 The radiological impacts of CCNPP Units 1 and 2 also include doses from direct radiation and 

27 liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people 

28 and biota offsite that would be well below regulatory limits, as demonstrated by the ongoing 

29 REMPs conducted around these nuclear power plants. The NRC staff concludes the dose from 

30 direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material 

31 would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the Thiokol site. This 

32 conclusion is based on data from the REMPs conducted around currently operating nuclear 

33 power plants. 

34 Based on the information provided by UniStar and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the 

35 NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-155 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 proposed U.S. EPR unit and other existing and planned projects and actions in the geographic 

2 area of interest around the Thiokol site would be SMALL. 

3 9.3.5.11 Postulated Accidents 

4 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

5 operations for one nuclear unit at the Thiokol alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

6 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that impact radiological health from 

7 postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects listed 

8 in Table 9-10 within the geographic area of interest. As described in Section 9.3.5, the Thiokol 

9 site is a brownfield test site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on the site. The geographic 

10 area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential 

11 to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any 

12 location within 50 mi of the Thiokol site. Existing facilities potentially affecting radiological 

13 accident risk within this geographic area of interest are the existing CCNPP (Units 1 and 2, 

14 North Anna Units 1 and 2, Surry Units 1 and 2, Salem Units 1 and 2, Hope Creek Unit 1, and 

15 Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. Within the geographic area of interest, an additional nuclear 

16 power plant is planned at the North Anna site. 

17 As described in Section 5.10.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

18 of DBAs at the Calvert Cliffs site would be minimal for an U.S. EPR. DBAs are addressed 

19 specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

20 The U.S. EPR design is independent of site conditions and the meteorology of the Thiokol 

21 alternative and Calvert Cliffs sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

22 environmental consequences of DBAs at the Thiokol alternative site would be minimal. 

23 Because the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Thiokol alternative site 

24 are expected to be similar to the proposed Calvert Cliffs site, risks from a severe accident for a 

25 U.S. EPR reactor located at the Thiokol alternative site are expected to be similar to those 

26 analyzed for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site. These risks for the proposed Calvert Cliffs site are 

27 presented in Table 5-16 and Table 5-17 and are well below the median value for current28 generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 

29 fatality risks are well below the NRC’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). 

30 For existing plants within the geographic area of interest, which are Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2, 

31 North Anna Units 1 and 2, Surry Units 1 and 2, Salem Units 1 and 2, Hope Creek Unit 1, and 

32 Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, the NRC has determined the probability-weighted consequences 

33 of severe accidents are small (10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). In addition, the EIS for the 

34 North Anna Power Station Unit 3 (NRC 2010b) shows that risks for the proposed Unit 3 at that 

35 site would also be well below current-generation reactors and meet the NRC’s safety goals. 

36 Because of the NRC’s safety review criteria, it is expected that risks for any new reactors at the 

37 Salem/Hope Creek site would be well below risks for current-generation reactors and meet the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-156 April 2010 

1 Commission’s safety goals. On these bases, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks 

2 of severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the Thiokol alternative site would be SMALL. 

3 9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative Sites 

4 This section summarizes the NRC staff’s impact characterizations for cumulative impacts 

5 related to locating one new U.S. EPR nuclear unit at the proposed site and each alternative site. 

6 The three Maryland sites selected for detailed review as part of the alternative sites 

7 environmental analysis included the Bainbridge site in Cecil County, the Eastalco site in 

8 Frederick County, and the Former Thiokol Site in St. Mary’s County. Comparisons are made 

9 between the proposed site and alternatives to determine if one of the alternative sites is 

10 environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The NRC’s determination as to whether an 

11 alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site for Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 is 

12 independent of the Corps’ determination of a least environmentally damaging practible 

13 alternative (LEDPA) pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines at 40 CFR 

14 Part 230. The Corps will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its 

15 Record of 

16 The need to compare the proposed site with alternative sites arises from the requirement in 

17 Section 102(2)(c)(iii), 42 U.S.C. 4332 of NEPA that environmental impact statements include an 

18 analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC criteria to be employed in assessing 

19 whether a proposed site is to be rejected in favor of an alternative site is based on whether the 

20 alternative site is “obviously superior” or “environmentally preferable” to the site proposed by the 

21 applicant (Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 1977). An alternative site is “obviously 

22 superior” to the proposed site if it is “clearly and substantially” superior to the proposed site 

23 (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). The standard of obviously superior “...is designed to 

24 guarantee that a proposed site will not be rejected in favor of an alternate unless, on the basis 

25 of appropriate study, the Commission can be confident that such action is called for” (New 

26 England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978). 

27 The “obviously superior” test is appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by the 

28 NRC staff in evaluating alternative sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the 

29 alternative site analysis, such as population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality, 

30 aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics, are 

31 difficult to quantify in common metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site 

32 must have a wide range of uncertainty. Second, the applicant’s proposed site has been 

33 analyzed in detail, with the expectation that most adverse environmental impacts associated 

34 with the site have been identified. The alternative sites have not undergone a comparable level 

35 of detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed site may not be rejected in favor of an 

36 alternative site when the alternative site is marginally better than the proposed site, but only 

37 when it is obviously superior (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). NEPA does not require 

38 that a nuclear plant be constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. Rather, 

39 “...all that NEPA requires is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on the 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-157 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 environment of building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored into 

2 the ultimate decision” (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978). 

3 The NRC staff’s review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test (NRC 2000a). 

4 The first part of the test determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally 

5 preferable to the applicant’s proposed site. The NRC staff considers whether the applicant has 

6 (1) reasonably identified candidate sites, (2) evaluated the likely environmental impacts of 

7 building and operation at these sites, and (3) used a logical means of comparing sites that led to 

8 the applicant’s selection of the proposed site. Based on NRC’s own independent review, the 

9 NRC staff then determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to 

10 the applicant’s proposed site. If the NRC staff determines that one or more alternative sites are 

11 environmentally preferable, then it would compare the estimated costs (i.e., environmental, 

12 economic, and time) of constructing the proposed plant at the proposed site and at the 

13 environmentally preferable site or sites (NRC 2000a). The second part of the test determines if 

14 an environmentally preferable alternative site is obviously superior to the proposed site. The 

15 NRC staff must determine that (1) one or more important aspects, either singly or in 

16 combination, of an environmentally preferable alternative site are obviously superior to the 

17 corresponding aspects of the applicant’s proposed site and (2) the alternative site does not have 

18 offsetting deficiencies in other important areas. A NRC staff conclusion that an alternative site 

19 is obviously superior to the applicant’s proposed site would normally lead to a recommendation 

20 that the application for the license be denied. 

21 Section 9.3.6.1 discusses the process the NRC staff used to compare the alternative sites to the 

22 proposed Calvert Cliffs site. Sections 9.3.6.2 and 9.3.6.3, respectively, discuss the 

23 environmental impacts of proposed site in relation to the alternative sites as they relate to 

24 environmentally preferable and obviously superior evaluations. 

25 9.3.6.1 Comparison of Propose Site and Alternative Site Cumulative Impacts 

26 The NRC staff’s characterizations of the cumulative environmental impacts of building and 

27 operating a new nuclear generating unit at the proposed site (impact levels from Chapter 7) and 

28 three alternatives sites (from Sections 9.3.3 through 9.3.5) are listed in Table 9-12. 

29 The NRC staff reviewed UniStar’s ER (2009a) and its supplemental Alternative Site Evaluation 

30 document (UniStar 2009e). The NRC staff conducted site visits at the proposed Calvert Cliffs 

31 site and each of the alternative sites. The NRC staff found that UniStar implemented a 

32 reasonable process to select alternative sites and used a logical process to compare the 

33 impacts at the proposed site to those at the alternative sites. The following discussion 

34 summarizes the staff’s independent assessment of the proposed and alternative sites. 

35 The NRC staff’s characterization of the expected cumulative environmental impacts of building 

36 and operating a new unit at the Calvert Cliffs site and alternative sites are summarized by 

37 impact category level in Table 9-12. Full explanations for the particular characterizations are 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-158 April 2010 

1 provided in Chapter 7 for the proposed site and in Sections 9.3.3, 9.3.4, and 9.3.5 for the 

2 alternative sites. The staff’s impact category levels are based on professional judgment, 

3 experience, and consideration of controls likely to be imposed under required Federal, State, or 

4 local permits that would not be acquired until an application for a COL is underway. These 

5 considerations and assumptions were similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide 

6 a common basis for comparison. In the following discussion, the NRC staff compares the 

7 impact levels between the proposed site, and each alternative site. 

8 The environmental impact areas listed in Table 9.12 have been evaluated using the NRC’s 

9 three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – as set forth in the 

10 footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B: 

11 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

12 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

13 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

14 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

15 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

16 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

17 9.3.6.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites 

18 None of the four sites appears to have any flaws that would prohibit building a nuclear power 

19 plant at that location. However, as shown in Table 9-12, there are some differences in the NRC 

20 staff’s impact characterizations among the sites. The cumulative impacts of building and 

21 operating a new unit at the proposed site and the alternative sites are generally SMALL for most 

22 impact categories. The categories for which the impact level at an alternative site would be the 

23 same as the proposed site would not cause the alternative site to be environmentally preferable 

24 to the proposed site. Therefore, these categories are not discussed further in determining 

25 whether an alternate site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The categories for 

26 which an alternative site would have a higher or lower impact level than the proposed site are 

27 discussed further to determine if an alternative site is environmentally preferable to the 

28 proposed site. Where there is a range of impacts for a resource, the upper value of the impacts 

29 is used for the comparison. In addition, for those cases in which the cumulative impacts for a 

30 resource are greater than SMALL, consideration is given to those cases in which the impacts of 

31 the project at the specific site do not make any significant contribution to the cumulative impact 

32 level. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-159 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 9-12. Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites

Resource Category Calvert Cliffs Bainbridge Eastalco 

Former 

Thiokol 

Land-Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Water-Related 

 Surface Water Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL 

 Groundwater Use MODERATE SMALL SMALL MODERATE 

 Surface Water Quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

 Groundwater Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology 

 Terrestrial Ecosystems MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

 Aquatic Ecosystems MODERATE MODERATE to 

LARGE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

MODERATE 

Socioeconomic 

 Physical Impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Taxes and Economy SMALL to 

LARGE 

Beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Beneficial 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

Beneficial 

 Housing and Transportation SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

 Public Services and Education SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Aesthetics and Recreation SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Historic and Cultural Resources LARGE MODERATE to 

LARGE 

MODERATE to 

LARGE 

SMALL 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Nonradiological Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-160 April 2010 

1 The Bainbridge site is characterized by the staff more favorably than the Calvert Cliffs site in 

2 Table 9-12 for the resource categories groundwater use and terrestrial ecosystems. 

3 Conversely, the Calvert Cliffs site is characterized more favorably than the Bainbridge site in 

4 Table 9-12 for the following resource categories: surface water quality and aquatic ecosystems. 

5 The impacts of building and operating a nuclear unit at the Bainbridge site would be a significant 

6 contributor to the impacts. The same is true at the Calvert Cliffs site for the impacts to terrestrial 

7 ecosystems. However, regarding the MODERATE impact to groundwater use for the Calvert 

8 Cliffs site and the MODERATE impact to surface water quality at the Bainbridge site, building 

9 and operating a new unit at the site is not a significant contributor to the impacts. Finally, 

10 although both sites have up to a MODERATE impact level for air quality, at the Calvert Cliffs site 

11 building and operating a new nuclear unit is not a significant contributor to the impacts while at 

12 Bainbridge it is. The potential for LARGE impacts to aquatic resources is the most significant 

13 differentiator among these categories. On balance, and based on the impact characterizations 

14 shown in Table 9-12, the NRC staff concludes that the Bainbridge site would not be 

15 environmentally preferable to the Calvert Cliffs site for a new nuclear generating unit. 

16 The Eastalco site is characterized by the staff more favorably than the Calvert Cliffs site in 

17 Table 9-12 for the following resource categories: groundwater use and terrestrial and aquatic 

18 ecosystems. Conversely, the Calvert Cliffs site is characterized more favorably than the 

19 Eastalco site in Table 9-12 for the resource categories: land use, surface water use, taxes and 

20 economy, and aesthetics and recreation. Although Eastalco has an impact level of SMALL to 

21 MODERATE for land use, building and operating a new nuclear unit at the site is not a 

22 significant contributor to that impact. So there is really no appreciable difference between the 

23 sites for this resource area. Similarly, regarding the MODERATE impact to groundwater use for 

24 the Calvert Cliffs site, building and operating a new unit there is not a significant contributor to 

25 that impact, so the impact of the project at both sites is minimal. For surface water use and 

26 aesthetics and recreation, the higher impacts at the Eastalco site are related to building and 

27 operating a new nuclear unit there, which means there is a measurable difference in impacts 

28 between the sites. The difference in the ratings for taxes and the economy (which favors 

29 Calvert Cliffs) and terrestrial ecosystems (which favors Eastalco) are also directly related to the 

30 project. In addition, although both sites have up to a MODERATE impact level for air quality, at 

31 Calvert Cliffs building and operating a new nuclear unit is not a significant contributor to the 

32 impacts while it is at Eastalco. Finally, for aquatic ecosystems the rating of SMALL to 

33 MODERATE for Eastalco is based on uncertainty whether there are state-listed species in the 

34 affected areas while for Calvert Cliffs the rating of MODERATE is based on impacts that will 

35 occur if the project is built. On balance, the NRC staff concludes that the Eastalco site and the 

36 Calvert Cliffs site rank closely and it would be difficult through a comparison of impacts in 

37 different resource categories to precisely state that one is better than the other from an 

38 environmental perspective. In such a case, the proposed site prevails because the alternative is 

39 not clearly environmentally preferable. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-161 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The Former Thiokol site is characterized by the staff more favorably than the Calvert Cliffs site 

2 in Table 9-12 for historic and cultural resources. Conversely, the Calvert Cliffs site is 

3 characterized more favorably than the Former Thiokol site in Table 9-12 for land use. In all 

4 other resource categories, the impacts at the two sites would be similar. The LARGE impact to 

5 cultural resources at the Calvert Cliffs site versus a SMALL impact at the Thiokol site is a 

6 significant difference. Building and operating a new nuclear reactor at the Calvert Cliff site 

7 would be a significant contributor to the site’s LARGE rating. However, the other difference 

8 between the Calvert Cliffs and Thiokol sites is that land use would be SMALL at the Calvert 

9 Cliffs site versus SMALL to MODERATE at the Former Thiokol site. On balance, the NRC staff 

10 concludes that the Thiokol site and the Calvert Cliffs site rank closely, and it would be difficult 

11 through a comparison of impacts in different resource categories to precisely state that one is 

12 better than the other from an environmental perspective. In such a case, the proposed site 

13 prevails because the alternative is not clearly environmentally preferable. 

14 Although there are differences and distinctions between the cumulative environmental impacts 

15 of building and operating a new nuclear generating unit at the Calvert Cliffs site and the 

16 alternative sites, the NRC staff concludes that none of these differences is sufficient to 

17 determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the Calvert Cliffs site. 

18 9.3.6.3 Obviously Superior Sites 

19 Because none of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed site, none 

20 could be obviously superior and no additional evaluation is required. 

21 9.4 System Design Alternatives 

22 The review team considered a variety of heat dissipation systems and circulating water systems 

23 alternatives for the proposed Unit 3. Although other heat dissipation systems and water 

24 systems exist, by far the largest and the most likely to dominate the environmental 

25 consequences of operation is the normal heat sink cooling system. Other water systems, such 

26 as service water and ultimate heat sink cooling systems, are much smaller than the normal heat 

27 sink cooling system. However, because the structures to support safety-related functions, such 

28 as the ultimate heat sink, must be hardened to ensure safe operation during design basis 

29 events, the review team considers the intakes of both the normal and ultimate heat sinks 

30 independently. In this evaluation, the review team only considered alternative heat dissipation 

31 for the normal heat sink cooling system, because it is the dominant heat dissipation system. 

32 The review team considered the possibility of separate water supplies for the normal heat sink 

33 and the service water. The proposed system is a mechanical draft cooling tower with plume 

34 abatement as discussed in Section 9.4.1.4. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-162 April 2010 

1 9.4.1 Heat Dissipation Systems 

2 About two-thirds of the heat from a commercial nuclear reactor is rejected as heat to the 

3 environment. The remaining one-third of the reactor’s generated heat is converted into 

4 electricity. Normal heat sink cooling systems transfer this reject heat load into the atmosphere 

5 and/or nearby waterbodies, primarily as latent heat exchange (evaporating water) or sensible 

6 heat exchange (warmer air or water). Different heat dissipation systems rely on different 

7 exchange processes. The following sections describe alternative heat dissipation systems 

8 considered by the review team for proposed Unit 3. 

9 9.4.1.1 Once-Through Cooling 

10 Once-through cooling systems withdraw water from the source waterbody and return the same 

11 volume of water to the receiving waterbody at an elevated temperature. Typically the source 

12 waterbody and the receiving waterbody are the same body and the intake and discharge 

13 structures are separated to limit recirculation. While there is no consumptive use of water in a 

14 once-through heat dissipation system, the elevated temperature of the receiving waterbody 

15 would result in some induced evaporative loss that decreases the net water supply. The large 

16 intake and discharge flows associated with once-through cooling systems require large intake 

17 and discharge structures, result in higher levels of impingement and entrainment, and may 

18 result in hydrological alterations in the source/receiving waterbodies. Based on rulemaking by 

19 EPA regarding Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, the review team has determined that 

20 once-through cooling systems for new nuclear reactors are unlikely to be permitted in the future, 

21 except in rare situations. 

22 The existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2 use once-through cooling with an onshore intake structure 

23 and an offshore discharge structure. Separate intake and discharge structures would be 

24 required for proposed Unit 3, since the capacity of the existing intake system is inadequate to 

25 meet the combined needs of Units 1, 2, and 3. Either onshore or offshore intake and discharge 

26 structures are possible. In the ER (UniStar 2009a), UniStar stated once-through cooling design 

27 was not considered feasible due to the cost that would be required to construct the intakes and 

28 discharges and make them compliant with Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rules. The review 

29 team determined that once-through cooling would not be environmentally preferable based on 

30 the environmental sensitivity of the Chesapeake estuary and the magnitude of the activities in 

31 building such large intake structures and operational impacts of such large flows. 

32 9.4.1.2 Wet Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers without Plume Abatement 

33 A wet mechanical draft cooling tower transfers heat to the environment via evaporation and 

34 conduction. These towers can be relatively low profile compared to their natural draft 

35 counterparts and rely on large fans to force air through walls of falling water. Drift abatement 

36 features limit the amount of water suspended as droplets in the air to later come down to the 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-163 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 ground outside the tower. Wet mechanical draft towers often generate visible plumes when the 

2 moisture in the cooling tower exhaust air cools and the moisture condenses. The proposed 

3 heat dissipation system uses plume abatement features to reduce aesthetic issues associated 

4 with the plume. The review team determined that the advantage of the mitigation of the visible 

5 plume aesthetic issue offsets the increased cost and land use with the preferred alternative. 

6 Therefore, the review team determined that a wet mechanical draft cooling tower without plume 

7 abatement would not be environmentally preferable to the proposed cooling system design. 

8 9.4.1.3 Mechanical Draft with Plume Abatement 

9 A mechanical draft plume abatement tower is the proposed heat dissipation system for Unit 3 

10 and is discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

11 9.4.1.4 Combination Wet-Dry Mechanical Draft Cooling 

12 A combination wet/dry mechanical draft cooling tower system uses both wet and dry cooling 

13 cells to limit consumption of cooling water. Water used to cool the turbine generators generally 

14 passes first through the dry portion of the cooling tower, where heat is removed by drawing air 

15 at ambient temperature over tubes through which the water is moving. Cooling water leaving 

16 the dry portion of the tower then passes through the wet tower where the water is sprayed into a 

17 moving air stream, and additional heat is removed through evaporation and sensible heat 

18 transfer. When ambient air temperatures are low, the dry portion of these cooling towers may 

19 be sufficient to meet cooling needs. When ambient temperatures are high, the dry portion of 

20 these cooling towers would only be able to satisfy a small portion of the cooling need. The use 

21 of the dry portion of the system would result in a loss in generating efficiency that would 

22 translate into increased fuel cycle impacts. A combination wet/dry mechanical draft cooling 

23 tower system could reduce water-related impacts. However, as discussed in Chapter 5, the 

24 review team determined that the impacts associated with aquatic ecology, water use, and water 

25 quality for the operation of the proposed cooling system were SMALL. Therefore, any reduction 

26 in water use would not result in a lower impact level determination. The review team concluded, 

27 given the increased fuel cycle impacts, a combination wet/dry mechanical draft cooling tower 

28 system would not be an environmentally preferable alternative for Unit 3. 

29 9.4.1.5 Natural Draft Cooling Towers 

30 Natural draft cooling towers, which use about the same amount of water as the proposed 

31 design, induce airflow up through large (500 ft tall and 400 ft in diameter) towers by cascading 

32 hot water downward in the lower portion of the cooling tower. As heat transfers from the water 

33 to the air in the tower, the air becomes more buoyant and moves upward. This buoyant 

34 movement induces more air to enter the tower through its open base. The size of the cooling 

35 towers results in a large visual impact on the viewshed. The review team determined that this 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-164 April 2010 

1 aesthetic issue makes the natural draft cooling tower alternative not environmentally preferable 

2 to the proposed design for a site such as Calvert Cliffs. 

3 9.4.1.6 Dry Cooling Towers 

4 Dry cooling towers would eliminate all water-related impacts from the cooling system operation. 

5 No makeup water would be needed, and no blowdown water would be generated. However, 

6 dry cooling systems require much larger cooling systems and result in both a loss in electrical 

7 generation efficiency (because the theoretical approach temperature is limited to the dry-bulb 

8 temperature and not the lower wet-bulb temperature) and greater parasitic energy losses for the 

9 large array of fans involved. This loss in generation efficiency translates into increased fuel 

10 cycle impacts. Because the impacts associated with aquatic ecology, water use, and water 

11 quality for the proposed cooling system have been determined to be SMALL in Chapters 4 and 

12 5, respectively, the review team determined that although dry cooling eliminates water-related 

13 impacts, it is not environmentally preferred to the proposed alternative. 

14 9.4.1.7 Cooling Pond and Spray Ponds 

15 Cooling pond cooling systems circulate water in man-made ponds. Heat transfer from the 

16 cooling pond surface to the atmosphere occurs primarily through evaporation, black-body 

17 radiation, and conduction. Cooling ponds generally result in less consumptive water use than a 

18 conventional wet mechanical or natural draft cooling tower. Spray ponds enhance evaporative 

19 cooling by spraying water into the air over the pond. Although spray ponds require 

20 substantiality less area than cooling ponds, both require a significant parcel of contiguous level 

21 property. Based on the relief of the proposed site, the review team determined that neither 

22 cooling ponds nor spray ponds were feasible alternatives for the Calvert Cliffs site. 

23 9.4.2 Intake and Discharge Systems 

24 The review team evaluated alternatives related to the balance of the circulating water system, 

25 specifically the intakes and discharges for the normal heat sink cooling system. The evaluation 

26 was based on the proposed heat dissipation system water requirements. The capacity 

27 requirements of the intake and discharge system are defined by the proposed heat dissipation 

28 system. For proposed Unit 3, the proposed heat dissipation system is a closed-cycle 

29 mechanical draft cooling tower with plume abatement. The review team also considered 

30 alternatives for the water supply sources for both the normal heat sink cooling system and the 

31 service water systems in Section 9.4.3. 

32 9.4.2.1 Intake Alternatives 

33 Alternative intakes can be constructed either along the shoreline or offshore. With either 

34 shoreline or offshore intakes, the structures containing the pumps and screens would not be 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-165 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 offshore due to the difficulty of maintaining them. For the U.S. EPR design, two independent 

2 intake systems are required to meet the water supply needs of normal operation and safety3 related functions, respectively. Using a common forebay near the shoreline for UniStar’s 

4 proposed intake design consolidates the impacts to one area and limits dredging to a small part 

5 of the Chesapeake Bay to install the intake pipelines. Therefore, the review team determined 

6 that there were no alternative intake designs that were environmentally preferable to proposed 

7 intake design. 

8 9.4.2.2 Discharge Alternatives 

9 Discharges for the normal or ultimate heat sink cooling system can be constructed either along 

10 the shoreline or offshore. Shoreline discharges release water into the shallow tidal zone with 

11 more limited mixing than an offshore discharge. These shallow tidal areas can be important 

12 habitat, and due to the limited mixing, a shoreline discharge can influence the temperature and 

13 chemistry for a relatively large amount of this habitat. Therefore, the review team determined 

14 there were no alternative intake designs that were environmentally preferable to UniStar’s 

15 proposed offshore discharge design. 

16 9.4.3 Water Supplies 

17 The review team considered alterative sources for both normal heat sink cooling water and 

18 service water. 

19 9.4.3.1 Water Reuse 

20 Sources of water for reuse can either come from the plant itself or from other local water users. 

21 Sanitary wastewater treatment plants are the most ubiquitous source of water for reuse. 

22 Agricultural processing, industrial processing, and oilfield production can also provide significant 

23 supplies of water for reuse. Additional treatment (e.g., tertiary treatment, chlorination) may be 

24 required to provide water of appropriate quality for the specific plant need. Sources of water for 

25 reuse near the Calvert Cliffs site are limited, and, obtaining water from larger, more distant 

26 metropolitan areas would require installing considerable lengths of pipeline. Given the virtually 

27 unlimited water supply from the Chesapeake Bay, the review team determined that water reuse 

28 was not an environmentally preferable alternative to UniStar’s proposed water supply for Unit 3. 

29 9.4.3.2 Groundwater 

30 Either freshwater, brackish, or hypersaline aquifers can provide water supplies for various water 

31 uses. Radial collector wells slowly draw surface water through sediments and, thereby, filter out 

32 some sediment that might have required treatment had the water been directly withdrawn from 

33 the surface waterbody. In general, groundwater withdrawals eliminate most direct operational 

34 impacts to aquatic ecosystems (e.g., entrainment and impingement) associated with water 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-166 April 2010 

1 withdrawal and eliminate some of the building impacts (e.g., dredging). The review team 

2 determined that radial collector wells, inducing flow through the sediments beneath the 

3 Chesapeake Bay into lateral subterranean pipes extending from the shoreline out beneath the 

4 Chesapeake Bay, would require multiple large structures and pipelines near the shoreline. The 

5 space required for these structures would be greater that for the proposed system and would 

6 need to extend into the cliff area that is inhabited by the Federally listed Puritan tiger beetle 

7 (Cicindela puritana). UniStar did not consider such an alternative water source, but the review 

8 team independently determined that, even if such a system were feasible, a radial collector well 

9 design, although effectively eliminating impingement and entrainment, is not environmentally 

10 preferable to the proposed direct withdrawal of Chesapeake Bay water due to the requirement 

11 for multiple shoreline structures. UniStar proposes to not use groundwater for operation and 

12 would install a desalination system to provide freshwater for the needs of both the existing and 

13 proposed facilities. This would eliminate the existing demands for freshwater to the regional 

14 aquifer that has experienced considerable increase in local demand and, therefore, is 

15 environmentally preferable to any alternative that would rely on local freshwater aquifers. 

16 9.4.4 Water Treatment 

17 Both inflow and effluent water may require treatment to confirm they meet plant water needs 

18 and effluent water standards. UniStar proposes to add chemicals to plant water to meet 

19 appropriate water quality process needs. The effluent water chemistry is regulated by EPA 

20 through the NPDES permitting process. The largest chemical inputs are required to maintain 

21 the appropriate chemistry in the cooling towers to preclude biofouling. Mechanical treatment is 

22 generally not a viable option in cooling tower designs. Other alternatives to preclude biofouling, 

23 such as UV treatment, are feasible, but would not eliminate the need for some chemical 

24 treatment. Chemical treatment is a reliable and well-established engineering practice that has 

25 been shown to provide minimal impacts in a variety of settings. The review team identified no 

26 environmentally preferable alternative to UniStar’s proposed chemical water treatment. The 

27 effluents from cooling tower blowdown are specifically regulated in 40 CFR 423 by the EPA to 

28 protect the environment. 

29 9.4.5 Summary of System Design Alternatives 

30 The review team considered a variety of heat dissipation systems, intake and discharge 

31 systems, water source, and water treatment alternatives. As previously discussed, the review 

32 team identified no environmentally preferable alternative to UniStar’s proposed design. 

33 9.5 References 

34 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

35 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-167 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

2 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

3 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

4 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

5 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

6 Criteria.” 

7 33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

8 Part 325, “Processing of Department of the Army Permits.” 

9 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

10 “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

11 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

12 “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

13 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

14 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

15 40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, 

16 “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.” 

17 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

18 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

19 40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

20 “Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.” 

21 40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, 

22 “Stream Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.” 

23 40 CFR Part 1502. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

24 1502, “Environmental Impact Statement.” 

25 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

26 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

27 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants; 

28 Policy Statement; Republication.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-168 April 2010 

1 53 FR 3120. February 3, 1988. “Environmental Quality; Procedures for Implementing the 

2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” Federal Register. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

3 65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

4 Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

5 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

6 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register. 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

8 74 FR 19638. April 29, 2009. “Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on 

9 the Outer Continental Shelf.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

10 AES Corporation (AES). No date. Mid-Atlantic Express Project Information, 

11 Maryland/Pennsylvania. Accessed November 9, 2009 at http://www.mid12 atlanticexpress.com/PDFs/AES%20Brochure%20all%202ndround%20changes%20Mid13 Atlantic_handout_Rev2a_final_email.pdf. 

14 Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2009. Generating Facilities. Accessed December 12, 2009 at 

15 http://www.alleghenyenergy.com/GenFacilities.asp. 

16 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Public Law 111-5. 

17 Avatar Environmental LLC (Avatar). 2004. Notice of Inquiry Comment Review 

18 Avian/Communication Tower Collisions Final. Prepared for Federal Communications 

19 Commission (FCC). 

20 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 1992. 16 U.S.C. 668 et seq. 

21 Bogan, A.E. and J. Alderman. 2008. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South 

22 Carolina. Revised Second Edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina. 

23 Bowers, H.A., T.M. Trice, R.E. Magnien, D.M. Goshorn, B. Michael, E.F. Schaefer, P.A. Rublee, 

24 and D.W. Oldach. 2006. “Detection of Pfiesteria spp. by PCR in Surface Sediments Collected 

25 from Chesapeake Bay Tributaries (Maryland).” Harmful Algae 5:342-351. 

26 Brown, W.M. 1993. “Avian Collisions with Utility Structures: Biological Perspectives.” In 

27 Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, International Workshop, pp. 12-1–3. 

28 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California. 

29 Brush, G.S. and W.B. Hilgartner. 2000. “Paleoecology of Submerged Macrophytes in the 

30 Upper Chesapeake Bay.” Ecological Monographs 70(4):645-667. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-169 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Cecil County Tourism (CCT). 2009. Cecil County, Maryland Tourism, Recreation. Perryville, 

2 Maryland. Accessed August 12, 2009 at http://www.ccgov.org/tourism/things_to_do.cfm. 

3 Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2003. The Breton Bay Watershed Restoration Action 

4 Strategy. Prepared for St. Mary’s County and The Town of Leonardtown: Maryland 

5 Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program publication 

6 prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland. 

7 Chamblin, H.D., P.B. Wood and J.W. Edwards. 2004. “Allegheny Woodrat (Neotoma magister) 

8 Use of Rock Drainage Channels on Reclaimed Mines in Southern West Virginia.” American 

9 Midland Naturalist 151:346-354. 

10 Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2009. Water Quality – Maps. Accessed September 1, 2009 

11 at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.aspx?menuitem=15165. 

12 City of Brunswick. 2009. City of Brunswick Water Resource Element. Brunswick, Maryland. 

13 Accessed December 29, 2009 at 

14 http://www.mdp.state.md.us/PDF/OurWork/CompPlans/Frederick/Brunswick/09_Draft_WRE_Br

15 unswick.pdf. 

16 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

17 Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

18 Control Act (FWPCA)). 

19 ConEdison Development. 2009. Rock Springs Generation Facility. Accessed December 18, 

20 2009 at http://www.coneddev.com/con_edison_development/projects/rock.asp. 

21 Conner, A.M. and J.E. Francfort. 1997. U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for Maryland. 

22 DOE/ID-10430(MD). Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Idaho Falls, 

23 Idaho. Available at hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/states/md.pdf. 

24 Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2009. “Sedge Wren.” In All About Birds. Cornell Lab of 

25 Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

26 Cunningham, G.R. 2006. Pearl Dace (Margariscus margarita) A Technical Conservation 

27 Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed October 30, 2009 at 

28 http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pearldace.pdf. Accession No. 100481436. 

29 Dominion. 2009. Dominion Cove Point LNG. Accessed December 16, 2009 at 

30 http://www.dom.com/business/gas-transmission/cove-point/index.jsp. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-170 April 2010 

1 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA Engineering). 2008. Entrainment 

2 Characterization Data Report for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Prepared for Constellation 

3 Energy. Accession No. ML083110678. 

4 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2002. Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation 

5 Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application, Final Report. Product ID: 1006878, EPRI, 

6 Palo Alto, California. 

7 EmPOWER Maryland Energy Efficiency Act. 2008. Maryland Laws page 892. 

8 Energy Policy Act of 2005. 45 U.S.C. 15801 et seq. 

9 Exelon Corporation. 2009. Conowingo Hydroelectric Station. Accession No. ML093080206. 

10 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Advisory 

11 Circular AC 70/7460-1K. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 

12 Washington D.C. Accessed November 24, 2009 at 

13 https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/content/AC70_7460_1K.pdf. Accession No. 

14 ML093280428. 

15 Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2008. Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) – 

16 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtwood Hydroelectic Project, No. 1881-050. 

17 Accessed December 21, 2009 at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/eis/2008/11-

18 14-08.asp. Accession No. ML100540808. 

19 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009a. Application for Pipeline Certificate of 

20 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP in CP09-60. Docket numbers CP09-60-000, CP09-60-001. 

21 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009b. Request for Rehearing of 

22 Washington Gas Light Company under CP09-60, et al. Docket numbers CP09-60-002. 

23 Fort Detrick. 2009. Fort Detrick, Maryland. Accessed December 28, 2009 at 

24 http://www.detrick.army.mil. 

25 Foster, A.M., P. Fuller , A. Benson, S. Constant, and D. Raikow. 2009. “Corbicula fluminea.” 

26 USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, Florida. Accessed October 29, 

27 2009 at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=92. 

28 Frederick County Board of County Commissioners (FCBCB). 2008. Frederick County, 

29 Maryland Summary of the Proposed Operating & Capital Budgets Fiscal Year 2009. Frederick, 

30 Maryland. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-171 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger.” Oak Ridge National 

2 Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed 

3 November 24, 2009 at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html. 

4 Gazzette.Net. 2009. “Land-use changes could thwart Eastalco plans.” Accessed October 23, 

5 2009 at http://www.gazette.net/stories/08272009/busiflo135922_32521.shtml. 

6 Grabarkiewicz, J.D. and W.S. Davis. 2008. An Introduction to Freshwater Mussels as 

7 Biological Indicators, Including Accounts of Interior Basin, Cumberlandian, and Atlantic Slope 

8 Species. EPA-260-R-08-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental 

9 Information, Washington, D.C. 

10 Great Schools (GS). 2008. Great Schools. Accessed September 4, 2008 at 

11 http://www.greatschools.net/. 

12 Historic Port Deposit (HPD). 2009. Fishing Around Port Deposit. Accessed October 30, 2009. 

13 at http://www.portdeposit.com/nature/fishing.htm. 

14 Houston, C.S. and D.E. Bowen Jr. 2001. “Upland Sandpiper.” In Birds of North America 

15 Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

16 James D.A. and A.R. Green. 2009. A Status Assessment of the Eastern Subspecies of 

17 Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii bewickii and Thryomanes bewickii altus). University of 

18 Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

19 Lee, D.S., S.P. Platania, C.R. Gilbert, R. Franz, and A. Norden. 1981. “A Revised List of the 

20 Freshwater Fishes of Maryland and Delaware.” Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings 3(3). 

21 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

22 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (ME DIFW). 2003. Tidewater Mucket

23 (Leptodea ochracea). Accessed November 2, 2009 at 

24 http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/species/endangered_species/tidewater_mucket/index.htm. 

25 Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (Maryland 

26 CAC). 2000. A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake 

27 Bay Critical Area. Annapolis, Maryland. 

28 Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development (MDBED). 2009. Frederick 

29 County, Maryland – Brief Economic Facts. Baltimore, Maryland. 

30 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2007. Facts About... PB II, LLC (Voluntary 

31 Cleanup Program). Available through http://www.mde.state.md.us. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-172 April 2010 

1 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2008. Water Quality Analysis of Cadmium in 

2 Lower Susquehanna River, Cecil and Harford County, Maryland. Final Report. Baltimore, 

3 Maryland. Available at 

4 http://www.mde.maryland.gov/programs/waterprograms/tmdl/approvedfinaltmdl/wqa_final_lower

5 susquehanna_cd.asp. 

6 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2009a. Facts About Leonardtown 

7 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Accessed November 10, 2009 at 

8 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=leonardtown+wastewater+treatment+plant

9 &aq=f&oq=&aqi=. 

10 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2009b. Facts About PB II, LLC (Voluntary 

11 Cleanup Program). Accessed October 21, 2009 at: 

12 http://textonly.mde.state.md.us/Programs/LandPrograms/ERRP_Brownfields/mapping/errp_fact

13 sheets.asp. 

14 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2001. Physiographic Provinces and 

15 Their Subdivisions in Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey. 

16 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2002a. Breton Bay Watershed 

17 Characterization. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

18 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2002b. Report on Nutrient and 

19 Macroinvertebrtate Synoptic Surveys in the Breton Bay Watershed, St. Mary’s County, 

20 Maryland, April 2002 as Part of the Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. Chesapeake and 

21 Coastal Watershed Service, Annapolis, Maryland. 

22 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2003a. Basin Overview, Upper Potomac. 

23 Annapolis, Maryland. 

24 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2003b. Lower Patuxent River in Calvert 

25 County Watershed Characterization. Annapolis, Maryland. Accession No. ML093210624. 

26 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005. Maryland Wildlife Diversity 

27 Conservation Plan. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, 

28 Annapolis, Maryland. 

29 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2006. Hellbender (Cryptobranchus 

30 alleganiensis). Accessed on October 29, 2009 at 

31 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rtehellbender.asp. Accession No. ML100191072. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-173 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Maryland Department of Natural (MDNR). 2007a. Calvert Cliffs State Park. Accessed 

2 November 19, 2008 at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/southern/calvertcliffs.html. 

3 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007b. Channel Catfish, Ictalurus 

4 punctatus (A.K.A. Forked Tail, Blue-channel Cat, Spotted Cat, River Cats). Accessed 

5 November 2, 2009 at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishfacts/channelcatfish.asp. 

6 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007c. Current and Historical Rare, 

7 Threatened, and Endangered Species of Cecil County, Maryland. Maryland Department of 

8 Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis, Maryland. 

9 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007d. Current and Historical Rare, 

10 Threatened, and Endangered Species of Frederick County, Maryland. Maryland Department of 

11 Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis, Maryland. 

12 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007f. Current and Historical Rare, 

13 Threatened, and Endangered Species of St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Maryland Department of 

14 Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis, Maryland. 

15 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007g. Largemouth Bass, Micropterus 

16 salmoides. Accessed November 2, 2009 at 

17 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishfacts/lgmouthbass.asp. 

18 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007h. Maryland Tributary Strategy 

19 Middle Potomac River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data. Maryland Department of 

20 Natural Resources, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment, Annapolis, Maryland. 

21 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007i. Maryland Tributary Strategy 

22 Patuxent River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data. Maryland Department of Natural 

23 Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

24 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007j. Maryland Tributary Strategy 

25 Upper Potomac River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data. Maryland Department of 

26 Natural Resources, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment, Annapolis, Maryland. 

27 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007l. Rusty Crayfish, (Orconectes 

28 rusticus). Accessed October 29, 2009 at 

29 http://www.mdinvasivesp.org/archived_invaders/archived_invaders_2007_11.html 

30 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007m. Smallmouth bass, Micropterus 

31 dolomieu. Accessed November 2, 2009 at 

32 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishfacts/smallmouthbass.asp. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-174 April 2010 

1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007n. Walleye, Stizostedion vitreum. 

2 Accessed November 2, 2009 at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishfacts/walleye.asp. 

3 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007o. White Catfish, Ameiurus catus, 

4 (A.K.A. – Mudcats, cats). Accessed October 23, 2008 at 

5 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishfacts/whitecatfish.asp. 

6 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008. Maryland 2004 Bald Eagle Nesting 

7 Summaries by County and by Select Watersheds. Accessed September 25, 2009 at 

8 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/2004benestsum.asp. 

9 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009a. Are there zebra mussels in the 

10 Chesapeake Bay Watershed? Accessed October 30. 2009 at 

11 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/IRC/zebra/zm_bay.html. 

12 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009b. Bald Eagle. Accessed at 

13 http://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/baldeagle.html. 

14 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009c. Bainbridge CWMA. Accessed 

15 August, 12, 2009 at http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/publiclands/central/bainbridge.asp.

16 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009d. Checkered Sculpin. Accessed 

17 October 30, 2009 at 

18 http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mbss/SA_spec6.cfm?species=Checkered%20sculpin. 

19 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009e. Crayfish Ban in Effect for Middle 

20 Potomac and Susquehanna River Basins. Accessed November 2, 2009 at 

21 http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/recreational/index.asp#4e. Accession No. ML100481359. 

22 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009f. Elements of MD’s Oyster 

23 Recovery Initiative. Accessed October 12, 2009 at 

24 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/oysters/mtgs/071509/OysterrestorationplanJuly152009%5B

25 1%5D.pdf. 

26 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009g. Maryland’s Inland Fisheries 

27 Hotspots. Accessed November 2, 2009 at 

28 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/fwhot.html. 

29 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009h. Oyster Advisory Committee 

30 Meeting. Accessed October 12, 2009 at 

31 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/oysters/mtgs/052009/DNR52009OACpresentation.pdf. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-175 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program (MDNR PPRP). 

2 2006. Environmental Review of the Proposed Catoctin Power Project. Maryland Power Plant 

3 Research Program, DNR 12-8112006-156, PPSE-CAT-01. Annapolis, Maryland. 

4 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program (MDNR PPRP). 

5 2008. Maryland Power Plants and the Environment. A Review of the Impacts of Power Plants 

6 and Transmission Lines on Maryland’s Natural Resources. Maryland Cumulative Environmental 

Impact Report — 14th 7 Edition. MDNR Publication No. 12-1142008-271, PPRP-CEIR-14. 

8 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2007. Electric Supply Adequacy Report of 

9 2007. Accessed August 29, 2008 at 

10 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/psc/Reports_new.cfm. 

11 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2008a. Ten-Year Plan (2007-2016) of Electric 

12 Companies in Maryland. Accessed August 29, 2008 at 

13 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/psc/Reports_new.cfm. 

14 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2008b. Final Report Under Senate Bill 400: 

15 Options for Re-Regulation and New Generation. Accessed December 22, 2008 at 

16 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/sitesearch/whats_new/MD%20PSC%20Slide%20Presen

17 tation_12.16.08_Re%20SB%20400%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

18 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2008c. In the Matter of Baltimore Gas and 

19 Electric Company’s Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Demand Response Programs 

20 Pursuant to the Empower Maryland Energy Efficiency Act of 2008. Order No. 82384. Case 

21 No. 9154. 

22 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009a. In the Matter of the Application of 

23 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of 

24 Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in 

25 Calvert County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Order Number 82741. 

26 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009b. Ten-Year Plan (2008-2017) of Electric 

27 Companies in Maryland. Accessed October 8, 2009 at 

28 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/psc/Reports_new.cfm. 

29 Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). 2005. Maryland State Department of 

30 Education, Maryland Public School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity and Gender and Number of 

31 Schools, September 30, 2005. Accessed December 2, 2008 at 

32 http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/85E7723B-CB82-46B0-AD4B33 EAD45A69B4F2/8628/enroll05.pdf. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-176 April 2010 

1 Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA). 2009a. Frederick County – Pre2 Construction. Accessed December 28, 2009 at 

3 http://www.sha.state.md.us/WebProjectLifeCycle/countyProjects.asp?county=10. 

4 Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA). 2009b. Project Information – IS 0270 

5 Shady Grove Metro to North of Biggs Ford Road. Accessed December 10, 2009 at 

6 http://www.marylandroads.com/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.asp?projectno=FR1921

7 110. 

8 Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA). 2009c. MD 0004 Solomons Island 

9 Rd/Patuxent Beach Rd Upgrade Between MD 2 and MD 235. Accessed December 28, 2009 at 

10 http://www.sha.state.md.us/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.asp?projectno=SM351114. 

11 Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA). 2009d. MD 0005 Point Lookout Road MD 

12 243 (Newtowne Neck Road/Maypole Rd) and MD 245 (Hollywood Rd). Accessed 

13 December 10, 2009 at 

14 http://www.marylandroads.com/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.asp?projectno=SM352

15 1118. 

16 Maryland State Highway Administration (MD SHA). 2009e. MD 0237 Chancellor’s Run Road 

17 RI – MD 235 to Pegg Road. Accessed December 10, 2009 at 

18 http://www.marylandroads.com/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.asp?projectno=SM757

19 5118. 

20 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2006. The Future of Geothermal Energy. 

21 Accessed November 6, 2008 at 

22 http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf. 

23 Mayasich, J., D. Grandmaison, and C. Phillips. 2003. Eastern Hellbender Status Assessment 

24 Report. NRRI/TR-2003/09. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. 

25 McLean, R., W.A. Rickhus, S.P. Schreiner, and D. Fluke. 2002. Maryland Power Plant Cooling 

26 Water intake Regulations and Their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental Impact. 

27 PPRP-127, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 

28 Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP). 2009. Project Schedule. Accessed November 4, 2009 at 

29 http://www.powerpathway.com/schedule.html. 

30 Millard, C.J., P.F. Kazyak, and D.M. Boward. 1999. Lower Susquehanna Basin Environmental 

31 Assessment of Stream Conditions. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Resource 

32 Assessment Service, Annapolis, Maryland. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-177 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Mirant. 2009a. Dickerson Generating Plant. Accessed December 21, 2009 at 

2 http://www.mirant.com/our_business/where_we_work/dickerson.htm. 

3 Mirant. 2009b. Chalk Point Generating Plant. Accessed December 16, 2009 at 

4 http://www.mirant.com/our_business/where_we_work/chalkpoint.htm. 

5 Mirant. 2009c. Morgantown Generating Plant. Accessed December 28, 2009 at 

6 http://www.mirant.com/our_business/where_we_work/morgantown.htm. 

7 Montgomery County. 2009. Division of Solid Waste Services – Resource Recovery Facility. 

8 Accessed December 21, 2009 at 

9 http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/swstmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/solidwaste/facilities/rrf.asp. 

10 Morse, D.H. 2004. “Blackburnian Warbler.” In Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of 

11 Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

12 Moulder, J.E. 2003. Powerlines & Cancer FAQs. Accessed October 31, 2008 at 

13 http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/powerlines-cancer-faq/. 

14 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2009. Frederick County Public Schools. 

15 Common Core of Data. Accessed at 

16 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_list.asp?Search=1&State=24&County=frederick. 

17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

18 National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. Cost and Performance Baseline for 

19 Fossil Energy Plants. Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. 

20 DOE/NETL-2007/1281. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy21 analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf. Accession No. ML093280556. 

22 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Species of Concern, River herring (Alewife 

23 and Blueback herring), Alosa pseudoharengus and A. aestivalis. Accessed October 7, 2008 at 

24 www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_detailed.pdf. Accession No. ML100481337. 

25 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Letter from J. Nichols (NMFS) to L. Quinn 

26 (NRC) dated December 10, 2009, “Subject: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 

27 Alternative Sites Analysis. Accession No. ML093520687. 

28 National Park Service (NPS). 2009. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal: History and Cultural. 

29 National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed on October 10, 2009 at 

30 http://www.nps.gov/choh/historyculture/index.htm. Accession No. ML100481428. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-178 April 2010 

1 National Park Service (NPS). 2010a. Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Accessed 

2 on January 20, 2010 at http://www.nps.gov/stsp/index.htm. Accession No. ML100750370. 

3 National Park Service (NPS). 2010b. Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. 

4 Accessed on January 29, 2010 at http://www.nps.gov/cajo/index.htm. Accession No. 

5 ML100750366. 

6 National Park Service (NPS). 2010c. Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail. Accessed on 

7 January 29, 2010 at http://www.nps.gov/pohe/index.htm. Accession No. ML100820308. 

8 

9 National Register of Historical Places (NRHP). 2006. Maryland – Cecil County – Historic 

10 Districts – Tome School for Boys Historic District. Accessed March 17, 2010 at 

11 http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/MD/cecil/districts.html. 

12 NatureServe. 2007. “Gastrophryne carolinensis, Eastern Narrowmouth Toad.” In NatureServe 

13 Explorer. Accessed February 7, 2008 at 

14 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Gastrophryne+carolinen

15 sis. 

16 NatureServe. 2009. “Cicindela patruela patruela, Northern Barrens Tiger Beetle.” In 

17 NatureServe Explorer. Accessed October 20, 2009 at 

18 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=CICINDELA+PATRUEL

19 A+PATRUELA. 

20 Near, T.J. 2008. “Rescued from Synonymy: A Redescription of Percina bimaculata Haldeman 

21 and a Molecular Phylogenetic Analysis of Logperch Darters (Percidae: Etheostomatinae).” 

22 Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 49:3-18. 

23 Nedeau, E. 2007. Creeper, Strophitus undulatus. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & 

24 Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts. Accessed November 2, 2009 at 

25 http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/nhfacts/strophitus_undulatus.pdf. 

26 Neely, D.A. and A.L. George. 2006. Range extensions and rapid dispersal of Etheostoma 

27 blennioides (Teleostei: Percidae) in the Susquehanna River drainage. Northeastern Naturalist

28 13:391-402. 

29 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 1978. New England Coalition on Nuclear 

30 Pollution v. NRC. 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978). 

31 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008a. Comely Shiner 

32 (Notropis Amoenus). Accessed October 23, 2008 at 

33 http://pond.dnr.cornell.edu/nyfish/cyprinidae/s_comely_shiner.html. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-179 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008b. Ironcolor 

2 Shiner Fact Sheet. Accessed October 23, 2008 at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/26037.html. 

3 NextEra Energy. 2009. “SEGS III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX.” Accessed November 24, 2009 at 

4 http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/content/where/portfolio/solar/facts.shtml#glance. 

5 Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2005. The Fifth Northwest Electric Power 

6 and Conservation Plan. Accessed November 6, 2008 at 

7 http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/Default.htm. 

8 Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2006. Biennial Assessment of the Fifth 

9 Power Plan: Assessment of Other Generating Technologies. Accessed November 6, 2008 at 

10 http://www.nwppc.org/energy/Biennial/BiennialOther%20gen.pdf. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2009. Draft Northwest 6th 11 Power Plan. 

12 Accessed September 29, 2009 at http://www.nwppc.org/energy/powerplan/6/default.htm. 

13 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2009. U.S. Nuclear Industry Capacity Factors (1971 - 2008). 

14 Accessed November 24, 2009 at 

15 http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsand

16 charts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/. 

17 Patty, S.S., N. Roth, and D. Mountain. 1999. Maryland, the Power Plant Research Program, 

18 and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Science of the Total Environment 240:171-188. 

19 Pearce, T.A. and R. Evans. 2008. “Freshwater Mollusca of Plummers Island, Maryland.” 

20 Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington May 2008(15):20-30. 

21 Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PANHP). 2009a. Eastern Lampmussel (Lampsilis

22 radiata). Accessed May 19, 2009 at 

23 http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/12218.pdf. 

24 Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PANHP). 2009b. Checkered Sculpin (Cognatus 

25 n.sp.). Accessed October 30, 2009 at 

26 http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/11258.pdf. 

27 Peroutka, M., W. Adlassnig, M. Volgger, T. Lendl, W.G. Url, and I.K. Lichtscheidl. 2008. 

28 “Utricularia: a vegetarian carnivorous plant? Algae as prey of bladderwort in oligotrophic bogs.” 

29 Plant Ecology 199(2):153–162. 

30 Port Deposit Chamber of Commerce (PDCC). 2009a. Mark your Calendar’s [sic] for the 

31 4th Annual Lower Susquehanna Rockfish Tournament. Accessed October 30, 2009 at 

32 http://www.portdepositcc.org/?a=10_tournament. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-180 April 2010 

1 Port Deposit Chamber of Commerce (PDCC). 2009b. 2009 Classes and Course Map. 

2 Accessed October 30, 2009 at http://www.portdepositcc.org/ragin/?a=race_classes. 

3 Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline Project (PATH). 2009a. PATH - Potomac4 Appalachian Transmission Highline. Accessed January 5, 2010 at 

5 http://www.pathtransmission.com/. 

6 Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline Project (PATH). 2009b. “Maps.” Accessed 

7 December 10, 2009 at http://pathtransmission.com/maps/default.asp#County. 

8 Price, J. 2009. Atlantic Spike Elliptio producta. South Carolina Department of Natural 

9 Resources. Accessed October 28, 2009 at www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/AtlanticSpike.pdf. 

10 Public Service Company of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 

11 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England 

Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st 12 Circuit 1978). 

13 Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. 2009. Contracts – Award Summary – Great 

14 Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC. Accessed December 19, 2009 at 

15 http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummar

16 y508.aspx?AwardIdSur=44790&AwardType=Contracts. 

17 Reliability First Corporation (RFC). 2009. Long Term Resource Assessment 2009-2018. 

18 Accessed November 24, 2009 at http://www.rfirst.org/Reliability/ReliabilityHome.aspx. 

19 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 

20 Reuven, Y. 1996. “Loggerhead Shrike.” In Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of 

21 Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

22 Richards, T. and R. Seigel. 2009. Habitat use of Northern Map Turtles (Graptemys 

23 geographica) in an altered system, the Susquehanna River, Maryland (USA). Poster, 

24 Ecological Society of America 2009 Annual Meeting. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

25 Ringger, T.G. 2000. “Investigations of Impingement of Aquatic Organisms at the Calvert Cliffs 

26 Nuclear Power Plant, 1975-1995.” Environmental Science and Policy 3:S261-S273. 

27 Roche, B. 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Northern Map Turtle

28 Graptemys geographica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

29 Canada. Ottawa. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-181 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project 

2 Nuclear Unit No. 1). ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 39 (1978), affirmed, CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731 

3 (1980). 

4 Sage Policy Group, Inc. 2007. The Cecil County Growth Study. Baltimore, Maryland. 

5 St. Mary’s County Board of County Commissioners (SMCBCC). 2005. St. Mary’s County 2005 

6 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

7 http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/recreate/docs/2005R&PLandPreservationPlan.pdf. 

8 St. Mary’s County Tourism Department (SMCTD). 2009. “History and Heritage.” St. Mary’s 

9 Travel & Tourism. 

10 St. Mary’s County Public Schools (SMCPS). 2008. St. Mary’s County Public Schools. 

11 Accessed December 2, 2008 at http://www.smcps.k12.md.us/. 

12 St. Mary’s Travel and Tourism (SMTT). 2008. State Parks. Accessed November 19, 2008 at 

13 http://tour.co.saint-marys.md.us/tourismtemplate.asp?content=stateparkscontent.asp. 

14 Sage Policy Group, Inc. 2007. The Cecil County Growth Study. Baltimore, Maryland. 

15 Southern Co. and Georgia Institute of Technology (Southern and GIT). 2007. Southern Winds: 

16 A Study of Wind Power Generation Potential off the Georgia Coast. Accessed November 6, 

17 2008 at http://www.energy.gatech.edu/news-events/release.php?id=1622. 

18 Steiner, L. 2000. Pennsylvania Fishes. Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. Harrisburg, 

19 Pennsylvania. 

20 Succar, S. and R. H. Williams. 2008. “Compressed Air Energy Storage: Theory, Resources, 

21 and Applications for Wind Power.” Princeton University Energy Systems Analysis Group. 

22 Accessed September 30, 2009 at http://www.princeton.edu/~ssuccar/caesReport.html. 

23 Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC). 2006. Conowingo Pond Management Plan— 

24 A Summary. Accessed November 9, 2009 at http://www.srbc.net/conowingo.htm. 

25 Texas State Energy Conservation Office (TSECO). 2008. Texas Solar Energy. Accessed July 

26 21, 2008 at http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_solar.htm. 

27 Thompson, B.C., J.A. Jackson, J. Burger, L.A. Hill, E.M. Kirsch, and J.L. Atwood. 1997. “Least 

28 Tern.” In Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

29 Town of Port Deposit. 2008. “Bainbridge Development News.” Accessed October 23, 2009 at 

30 http://www.portdeposit.org/?a=bainbridge1. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-182 April 2010 

1 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008a. Letter from G. Vanderheyden (UniStar) to NRC 

2 dated August 18, 2008, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal 

3 of Response to Requests for Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 

4 Unit 3 and Request for Withholding of Documents.” In response to NRC’s Request for 

5 Additional Information dated May 13, 2008. Accession No. ML100970387. 

6 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2008b. Letter from G Vanderheyden (UniStar) to NRC dated 

7 June 12, 2008, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Submittal of 

8 Response to Requests for Additional Information for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 

9 Unit 3 and Request for Withholding of Documents.” In response to NRC’s Request for 

10 Additional Information dated May 13, 2008. Accession No. ML100040300. 

11 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

12 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6, UniStar, Baltimore, 

13 Maryland, September 30, 2009. Accession No. ML092880921. 

14 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009b. Letter from D. Lutchenkov (UniStar) to William Seib 

15 (USACE) in response to USACE’s Request for Additional Information dated October 28, 2008, 

16 Supplemental Response to Question 2, “Subject: Joint Federal/State Application of Calvert 

17 Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC, Calvert Cliffs 

18 Nuclear Power Plant Site, Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland,” USACE Tracking No. NAB-2007-

19 08123-M05. February 27, 2009. Accession No. ML091480200. 

20 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009c. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to NRC in response 

21 to Request for Additional Information dated February 3, 2009, “Subject: UniStar Nuclear 

22 Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Environmental 

23 RAIs No. 1001 through 1011.” In response to NRC’s Request for Additional Information dated 

24 February 3, 2009. March 5, 2009. Accession No. ML0907101463. 

25 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009d. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Combined 

26 License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 5, June 30, 2009, Baltimore, 

27 Maryland, June 30, 2009. Accession No. ML092330294. 

28 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009e. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar Nuclear Energy) to 

29 NRC dated August 29, 2009, “Subject: NRC Docket No. 52-016 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

30 Plant, Unit 3, Alternative Site Evaluation and Environmental Report Chapter 9.3.” Accession 

31 No. ML092450557. 

32 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009f. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to B. Bachur 

33 (USACE) dated September 25, 2009. “Subject: Summary of Phase I Compensatory Mitigation 

34 plan for Non-Tidal Wetland and Stream Impacts, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, 

35 Calvert County, Maryland.” Accession No. ML092730188. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-183 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009g. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to NRC dated 

2 October 15, 2009. “Subject: UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016, Calvert Cliffs 

3 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, Supplemental Response to Environmental Report, RAI No. 1019, 

4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Question No. 1 and No. 5.” Accession No. 

5 ML092920352. 

6 U.S. Army Base Realignment and Closure Division (BRACD). 2005. BRAC 2005 Army 

7 Recommendations. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (Army Recommendation-Fort 

8 Monmouth, New Jersey). Available at 

9 http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/StateInstallationBreakdown/MDAberdeenProvingGround. 

10 pdf. Accession No. ML100500717. 

11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters (HQUSACE). 1989. Memorandum from Patrick 

12 J. Kelly, USACE Director of Civil Works, to Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, New 

13 Orleans, regarding “Permit Elevation, Plantation Landing Resort, Inc.” April 21, 1989. Available 

14 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/PlantationLandingRGL.pdf. Accession No.

15 ML100490592.

16 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007a. May 2007 State Occupational Employment 

17 and Wage Estimates, Maryland. Accessed October 29, 2008 at 

18 http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_md.htm. Accession No. ML100490592. 

19 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2007b. May 2007 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 

20 Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area. 

21 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD22 WV. Accessed November 18, 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_47900.htm. 

23 Accession No. ML100780174. 

24 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006a. St. Mary’s County, Maryland: Selected Economic 

25 Characteristics: 2006. Accessed October 19, 2008 at 

26 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US24037&-

27 qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-

28 _sse=on. Accession No. ML093270594. 

29 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006b. Maryland, Selected Economic Characteristics, 2006. 

30 Accessed October 19, 2008 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-

31 geo_id=04000US24&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_DP3&-

32 ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on. Accession No. 

33 ML093270595. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-184 April 2010 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009a. Port Deposit town, Maryland. 2008 Population Estimate.

2 Population Finder, American FactFinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. Accession 

3 No. ML100200426. 

4 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009b. Cecil County, Maryland, Selected Economic 

5 Characteristics: 2005-2007. American FactFinder. Accession No. ML100191112. 

6 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009c. Maryland, Selected Economic Characteristics, 2006. 

7 American FactFinder. Accession No. ML093270594. 

8 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009d. Frederick County, Maryland. 2008 Population Estimate. 

9 Population Finder, American Factfinder. Accession No. ML100200364. 

10 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009e. Frederick City, Maryland. 2008 Population Estimate. 

11 Population Finder, American FactFinder. Accession No. ML100200379. 

12 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009f. Maryland, Selected Economic Characteristics: 2005-

13 2007. American FactFinder. Accession No. ML093270595. 

14 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009g. St Mary’s County, Maryland, 2008 Population Estimate. 

15 Population Finder, American FactFinder. Accession No. ML100760236. 

16 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009h. District of Columbia, 2008 Population Estimate.

17 Population Finder, American FactFinder. Accession No. ML100760240. 

18 U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCG and USACE or the Corp). 2009. 

19 Cove Point Pier Reinforcement Project Environmental Assessment. Federal Energy Regulatory 

20 Commission, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP Docket No. CP09-60-000. 

21 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008a. Plants Profile: Utricularia inflata Walter, 

22 swollen bladderwort. Accessed December 10, 2008 at 

23 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=UTIN. Accession No. ML093280668. 

24 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008b. Plants Profile: Potamogeton perfoliatus L. 

25 claspingleaf pondweed. Accessed December 9, 2008 at 

26 http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=POPE7. Accession No. ML100481315. 

27 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 2010. CNIC--Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Accessed 

28 January 29, 2010 at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/Patuxent/AboutCNIC/index.htm. Accession 

29 No. ML100760365 

30 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006. Geothermal FAQs. Accessed November 6, 2008 at 

31 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html. Accession No. ML100481478. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-185 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. 20% Wind Energy by 2030. DOE/GO-102008-

2 2567. Accessed November 6, 2008 at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/. Accession 

3 No. ML100481467. 

4 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. Alternative Energy Resources in Maryland. 

5 Accessed November 6, 2008 at 

6 http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources_md.cfm. Accession 

7 No. ML100490495. 

8 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008c. State Energy Alternatives: Biomass Energy. 

9 Accessed November 6, 2008 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/biomass.cfm. 

10 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008d. Fuel Cell Technology Challenges. Accessed 

11 January 16, 2009 at 

12 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_challenges.html. Accession 

13 No. ML100500161. 

14 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Renewable 

15 Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628(2000), Washington, D.C. Accessed 

16 November 6, 2008 at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf. Accession 

17 No. ML093280377. 

18 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007. Electric 

19 Power Annual: Overview. Accessed December 3, 2008 at: 

20 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Accession No. ML100490684. 

21 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008. Maryland 

22 Quick Facts. Accessed November 7, 2008 at 

23 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=MD. Accession No. ML093280288. 

24 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009. An Updated 

25 Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery 

26 and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook. SR/OIAF/2009-03. 

27 Accessed July 22, 2009 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html. 

28 Accession No. ML100490743. 

29 U.S. Department of the Army (U.S. Army). 2007a. Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

30 BRAC Actions at Aberdeen Proving Ground Harford and Baltimore Counties, Maryland. 

31 Available at: http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/eis_docs/APGMD%20FEIS.pdf. Accession 

32 No. ML100481100. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-186 April 2010 

1 U.S. Department of the Army (U.S. Army). 2007b. Record of Decision Final Environmental 

2 Impact Statement Construction and Operation of New U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of 

3 Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Facilities and Decommissioning and Demolition and/or Re-use 

4 of Existing USAMRIID Facilities at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Available at: 

5 http://www.usamriid.army.mil/eis/pdfs/USAMRIID_Facilities_EIS--Record_of_Decision.pdf. 

6 Accession No. ML100481112. 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: 

8 Naval Training Center Bainbridge EPA ID: MDD985397256, OU 01, 02, Bainbridge, MD, 

9 2/10/2000. EPA/ROD/R-03/007. 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Municipal Solid Waste. Accessed 

11 November 24, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/municipal12 sw.html. 

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Mid-Atlantic Superfund – Forth Ritchie – 

14 Current Site Information. Accessed December 28, 2009 at 

15 http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/MD0000795211.htm. Accession No. ML100490786. 

16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1991. Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) Recovery Plan. 

17 Newton Corner, Massachusetts. Available at 

18 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1991/910930c. Accession No. ML100490629.

19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Puritan Tiger Beetle (Cicindela puritana G. Horn) 

20 Recovery Plan. Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts. Available at 

21 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1993/930929a.pdf. Accession No. ML100490629. 

22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Northern 

23 Population Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. Available at 

24 www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/bogturtle.pdf. Accession No. ML100500286. 

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon. 

26 Fact Sheet. Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts. 

27 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon. 

28 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. New England Field Office, Concord, New 

29 Hampshire. 

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008a. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed at 

31 http://www.fws.gov/nwi/WetlandsData/GoogleEarth.htm. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-187 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008b. Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

2 cinereus. Arlington, Virginia. Accessed August 12, 2009 at 

3 http://www.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode_A00B. 

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Shortnose Sturgeon in the Potomac River. 

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Update. Maryland Fishery Resources Office, Annapolis, 

6 Maryland. 

7 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Tiger Beetles of the United States – No Common 

8 Name (Cicindela Patruela). Accessed October 20, 2009 at 

9 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/insects/tigb/usa/62.htm. Accession No. ML 

10 

11 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. “USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics for Maryland: 

12 USGS Gauge 01594440 on the Patuxent River near Bowie, Maryland.” National Water 

13 Information System. Web Interface. Available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/. 

14 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Centrarchus macropterus (Lacepède, 1801). 

15 Accessed October 28, 2009 at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=375. 

16 U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

17 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press, 

18 New York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts19 report.pdf. 

20 United States Naval Training Center Bainbridge Association (USNTCB). 2009. USNTC 

21 Bainbridge. Accessed on October 30, 2009 at http://www.usntcb.org/. 

22 Urban, R.A., J.E. Titus, and W-X Zhu. 2006. “An Invasive Macrophyte Alters Sediment 

23 Chemistry Due to Suppression of a Native Isoetid.” Oecologia 148(3): 455–463. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Preparation of Environmental Reports for 

25 Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C. 

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

27 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

28 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/. 

29 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. General Site Suitability for Nuclear Power 

30 Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C. 

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

32 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1936 9-188 April 2010 

1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.” 

2 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. 

3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Standard Review Plans for 

4 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 

5 Includes 2007 revisions. 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 

7 1 and 2 – Renewal of Operating License. Accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc8 collections/commission/secys/2000/secy2000-0010/2000-0010scy.html. 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

10 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 10 Regarding Peach Bottom Atomic 

11 Power Station, Units 2 and 3. NUREG-1437, Final Report, NRC, Washington, D.C. 

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Letter from T. Fredrichs (NRC) to 

13 G. Wrobel (UniStar), “Subject: RAIS for Calvert Cliffs Environmental Report.” May 13, 2008. 

14 Accession No. ML081430521. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Letter from T. Fredrichs (NRC) to 

16 G. Gibson (UniStar), “Subject: Request for Additional Information Related to the Environmental 

17 Report for the Calvert Cliffs Combined License Application.” February 3, 2009. Accession No. 

18 ML083310256. 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Letter from L. Quinn (NRC) to G. Gibson 

20 (UniStar), “Subject: Request for Additional Information Related to the Environmental Review for 

21 the Calvert Cliffs Combined License Application – Revised Alternative Sites.” September 18, 

22 2009. Accession No. ML092450423. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009c. NRC Renews National Institute of 

24 Standards and Technology’s Research Reactor License for an Additional 20 Years. Accessed 

25 December 21, 2009 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-123.html. 

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009d. Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1. 

27 Accessed December 28, 2009 at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/hope.html. 

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009e. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 

29 Unit 1. Accessed December 28, 2009 at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/salm1.html. 

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009f. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2. 

31 Accessed December 28, 2009 at http://www.nrc.gov/info32 finder/reactor/salm2.html.http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/salm2.html. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-189 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009g. New Reactor Licensing Applications – 

2 Schedules by Calendar Year. Accessed December 09, 2009 at 

3 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009h. Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 

5 Accessed December 28, 2009 at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/tmi1.html. 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009i. Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. 

7 Accessed December 28, 2009 at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/lim1.html. 

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009j. Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2. 

9 Accessed December 28, 2009 at http://www.nrc.gov/info10 finder/reactor/hope.html.ttp://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/lim2.html. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009k. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

12 for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Supplement 36 Regarding Beaver Valley Power 

13 Station, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437 Supplement 36. Washington, D.C. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Memorandum from L.M. Quinn (NRC) to 

15 R.G. Schaaf (NRC), “Site Audit Summary of Calvert Cliffs Revised Alternatives Sites Analysis 

16 for the Combined License Application,” March 16, 2010. Accession No. ML100040222. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 20010b. Supplemental Environmental Impact 

18 Statement for the Combined License (COL) for North Anna Power Station Unit 3 – Final Report 

19 for Comment. NUREG-1917, NRC, Washington, D.C. 

20 Vanesky, T. 2009. Zebra mussels have some worried about Susquehanna. Accessed 

21 January 7, 2009 at http://www.timesleader.com/sports/Mussels_pose_threat_to_river_01-06-

22 2009.html. Accession No. ML100540798. 

23 Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 2010. SAV in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays: 

24 Havre de Grace, MD. Accessed January 29, 2010 at 

25 http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav08/quads/hg003th.html. Accession No. ML100350684. 

26 Walsh, M.C., J. Deeds, and B. Nightingale. 2007. User’s Manual and Data Guide to the 

27 Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification; Chapter 4 Freshwater Mussel Community 

28 Descriptions. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, 

29 Middletown, Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

April 2010 10-1 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 

2 This chapter provides a discussion of the conclusions reached in earlier parts of this 

3 environmental impact statement (EIS), as well as recommendations. Section 10.1 summarizes 

4 the impacts of the proposed action, Section 10.2 summarizes the proposed project’s 

5 unavoidable adverse impacts with an accompanying table, and Section 10.3 discusses the 

6 relationship between the short-term use of resources and long-term productivity of the human 

7 environment. Section 10.4 summarizes the irretrievable and irreversible use of resources, and 

8 Section 10.5 summarizes the alternatives to the proposed action. Section 10.6 discusses 

9 benefits and costs. Section 10.7 includes the NRC staff’s recommendation, and Section 10.8 

10 provides the references. 

11 On July 13, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received Part 1 of an 

12 application from UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC, on behalf of Constellation Generation 

13 Group, LLC, and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a combined construction and 

14 operating license (combined license or COL) for construction of a new Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs 

15 site located 7.5 mi north of Solomons, Maryland. The NRC received Part 2 of the application on 

16 March 14, 2008. A COL is a Commission approval to build and operate one or more nuclear 

17 power facilities. On July 7, 2008, Constellation Generation Group, LLC withdrew as an 

18 applicant and Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC joined as an applicant (UniStar 2008a). 

19 UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC is designated in the application as the operator, and 

20 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC is designated as the owner (collectively referred to as 

21 “UniStar” or “applicant”). In its application, UniStar specified the AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA) 

22 U.S. EPR as the proposed reactor design for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. The location of the 

23 proposed reactor is south of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Units 1 and 2. The 

24 existing facilities at the Calvert Cliffs site are owned by Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, 

25 LLC (Constellation). 

26 On May 16, 2008, UniStar submitted a joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any 

27 Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland to the U.S. Army Corps of 

28 Engineers (USACE or Corps) and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) (UniStar 

29 2008b). The Corps application number is NAB-2007-08123-M05 (Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear 

30 Project, LLC/UniStar Nuclear Operating Service, LLC) on behalf of co-applicants, Calvert Cliffs 

31 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC. The MDE Tidal 

32 Application number is Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/200862371/08-WL-1462. The MDE 

33 Nontidal Application number is Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/200862335/08-NT-0191. 

34 The proposed actions related to the Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 application are (1) NRC issuance of a 

35 COL for constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site, and (2) Corps 

36 permit action on a Department of the Army (DA) Individual Permit application pursuant to 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-2 April 2010 

1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act 

2 of 1899 (River and Harbors Act) (33 U.S.C. 403). The Corps is a cooperating agency with the 

3 NRC to ensure that the information presented in the EIS is adequate to fulfill the requirements of 

4 Corps regulations and the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Corps has the 

5 authority to issue permits for work or structures in navigable waters and the discharge of 

6 dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps would regulate activities that 

7 would temporarily or permanently affect wetlands and waterbodies affected by the proposed 

8 project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to review and veto 

9 Corps decisions on Section 404 permits. A COL applicant must also obtain and maintain the 

10 necessary permits from other Federal, State, and local agencies and permitting authorities. 

11 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

12 4321 et seq.), directs that an EIS is required for major Federal actions that significantly affect 

13 the quality of the human environment. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that an EIS include 

14 information about the following: 

15 • the environmental impact of the proposed action 

16 • any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

17 implemented 

18 • alternatives to the proposed action 

19 • the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

20 enhancement of long-term productivity 

21 • any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved if the 

22 proposed action is implemented. 

23 The NRC has implemented NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. 

24 In 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC requires preparation of an EIS for issuance of a COL to construct 

25 and operate a nuclear power plant. Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52 contains the NRC regulations 

26 related to COLs. 

27 The environmental review described in this EIS was conducted by a team consisting of NRC 

28 staff, its contractor’s staff, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and staff from the 

29 Corps. During the course of preparing this EIS, the review team reviewed the Environmental 

30 Report (ER) submitted by UniStar (2009a) and supplemental letters from UniStar in response to 

31 requests by NRC staff and the Corps for additional information; consulted with Federal, State, 

32 Tribal, and local agencies; and followed the guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, Environmental 

33 Standard Review Plans (NRC 2000). In addition, the NRC considered the public comments 

34 related to the environmental review received during the scoping process. The in-scope 

35 comments and responses are provided in Appendix D of this EIS. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-3 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the review team’s preliminary analyses, which consider 

2 and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action and of constructing and operating a 

3 new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site; (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding 

4 adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and 

5 (4) the NRC staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action based on its environmental 

6 review. The Corps will base its evaluation of the DA Individual Permit application on the 

7 requirements of Corps regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the 

8 Corps public interest review process. The Corps permit decision will be made following 

9 issuance of the final EIS. 

10 The Corps permit, if issued, would include special conditions that UniStar must ensure the 

11 created and enhanced wetlands meet the Federal wetland criteria outlined in the report entitled 

12 “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” dated January 1987 (USACE 1987), in 

13 accordance with Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (33 CFR Parts 325 

14 and 332) (USACE 2008). The Corps requires that mitigation may only be employed after all 

15 appropriate and practical steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to aquatic resources, 

16 including wetlands and streams, have been taken. All remaining unavoidable impacts must be 

17 compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable. If the Corps does not find the wetland 

18 and stream mitigation satisfactory, the Corps would determine if adverse impacts to the 

19 waterway and wetlands are more than minimal and if any project modifications would be 

20 warranted. Also, the Corps would require UniStar to assume all liability for accomplishing the 

21 corrective work. 

22 In order to consider and evaluate the impacts of UniStar’s proposed project, the Corps released 

23 a public notice on September 3, 2008, to solicit comments from the public; Federal, State, and 

24 local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties (USACE 2008). The 

25 Corps will issue a second public notice upon release of the draft EIS, which will include 

26 notification for the public hearing. 

27 Environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance – SMALL, 

28 MODERATE, or LARGE – developed by the NRC using guidelines from the Council on 

29 Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.27). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

30 Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels: 

31 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

32 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

33 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

34 important attributes of the resource. 

35 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

36 important attributes of the resource. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-4 April 2010 

1 Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the 

2 appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the review team considered planned 

3 activities and actions that UniStar indicates it and others would likely take should UniStar 

4 receive a COL. In addition, UniStar provided estimates of the environmental impacts resulting 

5 from the building and operation of a new nuclear unit on the proposed site. 

6 10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

7 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of 

8 “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority in 10 CFR 51.4. Many of 

9 the activities required to build a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to license the 

10 plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of the NRC 

11 action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing 

12 and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

13 associated activities. Because the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, 

14 their impacts are not reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the 

15 preconstruction activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. In addition, 

16 certain preconstruction activities require permits from the Corps, as well as other Federal, State, 

17 and local agencies. 

18 Chapter 4 of this EIS describes the relative magnitude of impacts related to preconstruction and 

19 construction activities with a summary of impacts in Table 4-11. Impacts associated with 

20 operation of the proposed facilities are discussed in Chapter 5 of this EIS and are summarized 

21 in Table 5-20. Chapter 6 describes the impacts associated with fuel cycle, transportation, and 

22 decommissioning. Chapter 7 describes the impacts associated with preconstruction and 

23 construction activities and operation of Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 when considered along with the 

24 cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

25 geographical region around the Calvert Cliffs site. Chapter 9 of this EIS includes the review 

26 team’s review of alternative sites and alternative power generation systems. 

27 10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

28 Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any adverse 

29 environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

30 Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of the NRC and the 

31 Corps’ actions that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of mitigation are 

32 available. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-5 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction 

2 Activities

3 Chapter 4 discusses in detail the potential impacts from construction and preconstruction of the 

4 proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site and presents mitigation and controls intended to lessen 

5 the adverse impacts. Table 10-1 presents the adverse impacts associated with construction 

6 and preconstruction activities to each of the resource areas evaluated in this EIS and the 

7 mitigation measures that would reduce impacts. Those impacts remaining after mitigation is 

8 applied are identified in Table 10-1 as unavoidable adverse impacts. The impact determinations 

9 in Table 10-1 are for the combined impacts of construction and preconstruction. However, the 

10 impact determinations for NRC-regulated construction are the same for all resource areas 

11 except terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, Chesapeake Bay, economic 

12 impacts to the community, infrastructure and community services, and historic and cultural 

13 resources. For impact determinations that differ for the combined construction and 

14 preconstruction activities and the NRC-regulated activities, the impacts from the NRC-regulated 

15 activities are also identified in Table 10-1. 

16 The Unavoidable Adverse Impacts are identified in Table 10-1 and are primarily attributable to 

17 preconstruction activities due to the initial land disturbance from clearing the land, land use, 

18 excavation, filling wetlands and waterways, impervious surface addition, dredging, and removal 

19 or demolition of three sites with historic or cultural value. NRC authorized construction activities 

20 partially contribute to most of the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts shown in Table 10-1. 

21 All building activities for proposed Unit 3, including ground-disturbing activities, would occur 

22 within the existing Calvert Cliffs site boundary. Three local groundwater aquifers (Surficial, 

23 Piney Point-Nanjemoy and Aquia) could be impacted during construction. Dewatering systems 

24 employed during excavation within the powerblock area would depress water levels in the 

25 Surficial aquifer; however, the impacts would be localized and temporary. Within the Calvert 

26 Cliffs site boundary, four existing wells in the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer would be removed, 

27 while up to two new wells would be installed in the Aquia aquifer. The impacts to the Aquia 

28 aquifer are expected to be minor and temporary. In addition, the alteration of the land surface at 

29 proposed Unit 3 would cause a localized change in the recharge rate to these aquifers. 

30 Building of proposed Unit 3 and supporting facilities would affect approximately 460 ac of wildlife 

31 habitat. Approximately 320 ac would be permanently lost, including approximately 253 ac of 

32 forested cover and approximately 12 ac of wetland habitat. Approximately 33.4 ac of the 

33 permanently lost habitat is located within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Proposed 

34 mitigation actions would create or enhance approximately 25 ac of nontidal wetlands. Additional 

35 proposed mitigation actions include planting native forested wetland trees to create a new forest 

36 stand, planting trees within forest gaps to reduce fragmentation, and removing invasive plants. 

37 Building activities would also fill approximately 8350 ft of intermittent and perennial stream 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-6 April 2010 

1 channels and would add 130 ac of impervious surfaces to the watersheds. Proposed mitigation 

2 measures would restore or enhance more than 10,000 ft of degraded streams (Appendix J). 

3 Table 10-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

4 Preconstruction Activities 

Resource Area

Adverse 

Impacts Actions to Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Land Use SMALL Comply with requirements of 

applicable Federal, State, and 

local permits. 

Approximately 320 ac of land 

disturbed permanently; an 

additional 140 ac would be 

disturbed on a temporary basis. 

Water Use SMALL Limit maximum withdrawal from 

Aquia aquifer per State-issued 

permit. 

Drawdown of Surficial aquifer 

during excavation and drawdown 

of Aquia aquifer from increased 

withdrawal. 

Water Quality SMALL Best management practices 

(BMPs) and Stormwater 

Management Plan. 

Increased sediment load in 

stormwater and potential to 

contaminate surface and 

groundwater through inadvertent 

spills. 

Ecological 

(Terrestrial) 

MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL) 

Implement construction BMPs; 

plant forest to reduce 

fragmentation; remove 

impermeable surfaces; set 

aside lands for conservation 

purposes; identify and enhance 

bald eagle nest locations. 

Approximately 320 ac of wildlife 

habitat permanently lost, including 

33.4 ac in the Chesapeake Bay 

Critical Area; additional 140 ac 

impacted on a temporary basis. 

Ecological 

(Wetlands) 

MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL) 

Any conditions required by the 

Corps, such as compensatory 

mitigation, will be addressed in 

the Corps permit, if issued. 

Mitigation may only be 

employed after all appropriate 

and practical steps to avoid and 

minimize adverse impacts to 

aquatic resources, including 

wetlands and streams, have 

been taken. All remaining 

unavoidable impacts must be 

compensated to the extent 

appropriate and practicable. 

Onsite, in-kind mitigation, such 

as wetland creation and 

enhancement, would be used. 

The project would affect 7.88 ac of 

forested nontidal wetlands; 1.21 ac 

of emergent nontidal wetlands; 

2.63 ac of nontidal open water; 

and 0.08 ac of isolated forested 

wetland (USACE 2008). 

5 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-7 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area

Adverse 

Impacts Actions to Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Ecological 

(Aquatic) 

MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL) 

Implement BMPs; control 

erosion and sedimentation; 

time-of-year restrictions on 

dredging or trenching. 

Fishing pond eliminated; fill about 

8350 ft of intermittent and 

perennial stream channels; 

addition of 130 ac impervious 

surfaces; dredging, trenching, or 

armoring 5.7 ac subtidal Bay 

bottom; benthic infauna locally 

affected by dredging, trenching, or 

armoring; some gradual 

recolonization may occur. 

Socioeconomic SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Conduct traffic study and 

develop Traffic Management 

Plan. 

Local traffic would increase 

temporarily during construction; 

Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge 

potential traffic chokepoint. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL None None 

Historic and 

Cultural 

LARGE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL) 

Mitigation plans have been 

developed as part of the 

Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA). UniStar has worked 

with the Maryland Historical 

Trust and the Corps on specific 

mitigation measures identified 

in the MOA. Procedures to 

protect cultural and historic 

resources discovered during 

construction are also outlined in 

the MOA. 

Three National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP)-eligible properties 

would be adversely affected, 

including destruction of Camp 

Conoy, the Baltimore & Drum Point 

Railroad, and archaeological site 

18CV474; potential for discovery of 

cultural/historic sites during 

construction. 

Air Quality SMALL Compliance with Federal, State, 

and local regulations governing 

construction activities and 

construction vehicle emissions. 

Implementation of a dust control 

program. 

Increased equipment, vehicular, 

and fugitive dust emissions, but 

impacts would be temporary. 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Operational controls, such as 

fugitive dust suppression. 

Maintain equipment in good 

mechanical order. 

Noise-limiting devices on 

vehicles and equipment. 

Restrict noise-related activities 

to daylight hours. 

Inhalation of dust and vehicle 

exhaust. 

Noise from construction activities. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-8 April 2010 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area

Adverse 

Impacts Actions to Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Radiological 

Health 

SMALL Doses to construction workers 

would be maintained below 

NRC public dose limits. 

Small doses to construction 

workers, less than NRC public 

dose limits. 

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL Develop a Sediment and 

Erosion Control Plan; stabilize 

disturbed land to prevent 

erosion. Implement BMPs for 

surface water and groundwater 

quality. 

Erosion from construction 

activities and disposal of dredged 

material may impact water quality. 

1 As part of USACE regulations, UniStar must demonstrate to the Corps why the project proposed 

2 could not be reconfigured or reduced in scope to further minimize or avoid adverse impacts to 

3 waters of the United States as proposed dredge. Fill activities would not comply with the EPA 

4 404(b)(1) guidelines in the absence of demonstrating that there are no practicable alternatives 

5 available with less damaging impacts to the special aquatic site. The Corps may require 

6 additional mitigation measures. 

7 Three NRHP-eligible sites would be adversely affected, including the destruction of Camp 

8 Conoy. Nearly all unavoidable adverse impacts would be attributable to preconstruction 

9 activities. An MOA between the Maryland Historical Trust, the Corps, and UniStar outlines 

10 specific mitigation measures, such as data recovery and documentation and interpretive plans 

11 (USACE 2010). 

12 No new offsite transmission corridors are planned to support proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert 

13 Cliffs site (UniStar 2009a). Required breaker upgrades and associated modifications would be 

14 implemented within the boundaries of existing substations (UniStar 2009a). Socioeconomic 

15 impacts of construction would include an increase in traffic from construction workers. The 

16 Governor Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge connecting Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties may 

17 be a significant traffic chokepoint. Air quality impacts include fugitive dust from building 

18 activities that can be mitigated by the dust-control plan. Radiological doses to construction 

19 workers from the adjacent operating nuclear units are expected to be well below regulatory 

20 limits. No unusual resource dependencies for minority and low-income populations in the region 

21 were identified. In addition, no environmental pathways related to construction and operation 

22 activities were found that would lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority and 

23 low-income populations. 

24 Nonradiological health impacts to members of the public from building activities, including public 

25 and occupational health; noise; and transportation of materials, equipment, and personnel, 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-9 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 would be minimal because of UniStar’s application of controls and measures associated with 

2 compliance to Federal, State, and local regulations, permits, and authorizations. 

3 Radiological health impacts to members of the public from building of the proposed unit would 

4 be below annual exposure limits set to protect the general public. Radiological doses to 

5 construction workers at Unit 3 from the adjacent operating units are expected to be well below 

6 regulatory limits. 

7 The NRC staff concludes that the potential unavoidable adverse impacts on terrestrial and 

8 wetland ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, Chesapeake Bay, economic impacts to the 

9 community, infrastructure and community services, and historic and cultural resources from 

10 NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL. Nearly all such unavoidable adverse 

11 impacts would be attributable to preconstruction activities. 

12 10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation 

13 Chapter 5 of this EIS provides a detailed discussion of the potential impacts from operation of 

14 the proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. Table 10-2 presents the adverse impacts 

15 associated with the operation of a new unit to each of the resources evaluated in this EIS and 

16 the mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts. Those impacts remaining after 

17 mitigation are identified in the table as the unavoidable adverse impacts. 

18 Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation 

Resource Area Adverse Impacts 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Land Use SMALL Local land management 

plans. 

Land would not be available 

for other use until after 

decommissioning of the entire 

Calvert Cliffs site, including the 

proposed new unit. 

Water Use SMALL BMPs and Stormwater 

Management Plan. 

Increased sediment load in 

stormwater and potential to 

contaminate surface and 

groundwater through 

inadvertent spills. 

Water Quality SMALL Compliance with National 

Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit limits. 

Thermal and chemical 

discharges to Chesapeake 

Bay. 

19 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-10 April 2010 

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area

Adverse 

Impacts 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Ecological 

(Terrestrial) 

SMALL Cooling tower plume 

abatement and proper 

lighting. BMPs to limit 

potential impacts from 

vegetation control, road 

maintenance, and other 

corridor activities. 

Increased risk of bird and 

bat collisions with 

structures. Transmission 

line maintenance would 

prevent forest succession 

and maintain habitat 

fragmentation. Vegetation 

control may have some 

minimal impact on 

vegetation and wildlife. 

Unavoidable but small 

impact may occur as a 

result of keeping the 

corridors in a safe condition.

Ecological (Aquatic) SMALL Stormwater management 

plan. Limit intake velocity. 

Implement the use of a fishreturn system. Meet all 

applicable Federal and State 

regulatory requirements 

regarding the discharge of 

heat. Meet all applicable 

State and Federal Clean 

Water Act and NPDES 

permit regulations and 

limitations. 

Increased stormwater 

runoff. Cooling water 

withdrawal would result in 

entrainment, impingement, 

and entrapment of some 

Chesapeake Bay species. 

A small thermal plume may 

affect some aquatic species 

abundance and distribution. 

Small amounts of biofouling 

and other process control 

chemicals that may affect 

aquatic species would be 

discharged. Periodic 

maintenance dredging 

would temporarily affect 

benthic habitat around 

barge slip. 

Socioeconomic SMALL None needed based on 

mitigation performed under 

construction and 

preconstruction phase. 

Slight increase in commuter 

traffic and use of services, 

especially during outages. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL None None 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-11 Draft NUREG-1936 

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area

Adverse 

Impacts 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Historic and Cultural SMALL None likely 

Air Quality SMALL Comply with Federal, State, 

and local air permits; use 

cooling-tower drift 

eliminators. 

Slight increase in certain 

criteria pollutants and CO2

from plant auxiliary 

combustion equipment 

(e.g., diesel generators); 

plumes and drift from 

cooling towers. 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Workers wear personal 

protective equipment, 

adhere to Occupational 

Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) 

standards. 

Worker inhalation of vapors, 

dusts, and air contaminants.

Radiological Health SMALL Doses to members of the 

public would be maintained 

below NRC and EPA 

standards; worker doses 

would be maintained below 

NRC limits and as low as 

reasonably achievable 

(ALARA); and mitigative 

actions instituted for 

members of the public would 

also ensure doses to biota 

other than humans would be 

well below National Council 

on Radiation Protection and 

Measurements (NCRP) and 

International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) guidelines. 

Small radiation doses to 

members of the public, 

below NRC and EPA 

standards; ALARA doses to 

workers; and biota doses 

well below NCRP and IAEA 

guidelines.

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL Meet NPDES permit 

requirements. 

Discharges of wastewater 

and stormwater to 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Increased vehicle emissions 

from operations personnel. 

1 The unavoidable adverse impacts from operation for land use would be minimal and are 

2 associated with offsite development to accommodate new workers at the plant. 

3 Water-related impacts during operation would be mitigated through compliance with the NPDES 

4 permit, MDE Water Appropriation and Use, Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, and through 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-12 April 2010 

1 UniStar’s adherence to BMPs, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and 

2 Resource Management Plan. Remaining adverse impacts to hydrological water use and water 

3 quality during operation would be minimal and limited to increased surface water use for 

4 cooling, potential increases in sedimentation to surface waterbodies, and potential surface and 

5 groundwater contamination from inadvertent spills. 

6 Unavoidable adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology resources would include increased risks of 

7 bird and bat collisions with structures, wildlife avoidance due to noise, and continued 

8 disturbance of habitats within transmission corridors. Assuming that BMPs are followed as 

9 proposed, terrestrial impacts during operation would be minor. Unavoidable adverse impacts to 

10 aquatic ecology resources would include increased potential entrainment, impingement, 

11 entrapment, and thermal loading to the Chesapeake Bay, but operation of the additional unit 

12 would not increase them such that they would noticeably alter the aquatic resources of the Bay. 

13 Other impacts from operational activities, such as cooling tower drift, maintenance dredging, 

14 and transmission corridors maintenance, would be minor, if not negligible. 

15 Unavoidable adverse socioeconomic impacts would include an increase in traffic. There also 

16 would be a minimal impact on the regional infrastructure and public services. Because the site 

17 is relatively isolated, light industrial in nature, and well masked by vegetation in most directions, 

18 the impacts on aesthetics and recreation would be minor. 

19 Unavoidable adverse environmental justice impacts would be minimal based upon the widely 

20 dispersed composition of the region’s minority and low-income populations and because the 

21 review team found no evidence of unique characteristics or practices among current minority 

22 and low-income populations that would make them differentially affected by operations 

23 activities. No unusual resource dependencies of minority and low-income populations in the 

24 region were identified. 

25 The review team did not identify any cultural resources that would be affected by operation of 

26 the proposed unit. If an unanticipated discovery is made during operation, similar procedures to 

27 that of the unanticipated discovery plan that is contained in the MOA for construction (USACE 

28 2010) would be sufficient for operation. 

29 Unavoidable adverse air quality impacts would be negligible and pollutants emitted during 

30 operations would not be significant. Unavoidable adverse nonradiological health impacts to 

31 members of the public from operation, including etiological agents, noise, electromagnetic fields, 

32 occupational health, and transportation of materials and personnel, would be minimal through 

33 UniStar’s implementation of controls and measures associated with compliance to Federal and 

34 State regulations. 

35 Radiological doses to members of the public from operation of proposed Unit 3 at the Calvert 

36 Cliffs site would be below the NRC and EPA standards. Doses to workers from operation of 

37 proposed Unit 3 would also be below NRC limits and maintained ALARA. The radiation 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-13 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 protection measures designed to maintain doses to members of the public below NRC and 

2 EPA standards would also ensure that doses to biota other than humans would be well 

3 below NCRP and IAEA guidelines. 

4 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-term 

5 Productivity of the Human Environment 

6 Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on the relationship 

7 between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

8 long-term productivity. 

9 The local use of the human environment by the proposed project can be summarized in terms of 

10 the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of building and operation and the irreversible 

11 and irretrievable commitments of resources. With the exception of the consumption of 

12 depletable resources as a result of building and operation, these uses may be classified as 

13 short term. The principal short-term benefit of the proposed project is represented by the 

14 production of electrical energy. The economic productivity of the site, when used for this 

15 purpose, would be extremely large compared to the productivity from agriculture or other 

16 probable uses for the site. 

17 The maximum long-term impact to productivity would result if the plant is not dismantled at the 

18 end of the period of plant operation, and, consequently, the land occupied by the plant 

19 structures would not be available for any other use for some extended period of time based on 

20 the delay in dismantlement. However, the enhancement of regional productivity resulting from 

21 the electrical energy produced by the plant is expected to result in a correspondingly large 

22 increase in regional long-term productivity that would not be equaled by any other long-term use 

23 of the site. In addition, most long-term impacts resulting from land-use preemption by plant 

24 structures can be eliminated by removing these structures or by converting them to other 

25 productive uses. Once the plant ceases operations, it would be decommissioned according to 

26 NRC regulations. Once decommissioning is complete and the NRC license is terminated, the 

27 site would be available for other uses. 

28 The NRC staff concludes that the negative aspects of constructing and operating a new unit as 

29 they affect the human environment are outweighed by the positive, long-term enhancement of 

30 regional productivity through the generation of electrical energy. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-14 April 2010 

1 10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

2 Resources 

3 Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any irreversible and 

4 irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed action is implemented. 

5 The term “irreversible commitments of resources” refers to environmental resources that would 

6 be irreparably changed by the building or operation activities authorized by the Corps or NRC 

7 permit and licensing decisions, where the environmental resources could not be restored at 

8 some later time to the resource’s state before building or operation. “Irretrievable commitments 

9 of resources” refers to materials that would be used for or consumed by the new unit in such a 

10 way that they could not, by practical means, be recycled or restored for other uses. The 

11 environmental resources are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this EIS. Irretrievable 

12 commitments of resources during building of the proposed new unit generally would be similar 

13 to that of any major construction project. 

14 10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources 

15 Irreversible commitments of environmental resources resulting from the construction, 

16 preconstruction, and operation of Unit 3, in addition to the materials used for the nuclear fuel, 

17 include: 

18 10.4.1.1 Land Use 

19 The review team considers that the proposed preconstruction activities would result in the loss, 

20 through infilling, of approximately 12 ac of nontidal wetland habitat and approximately 33.4 ac of 

21 nontidal wetland buffer (UniStar 2009a). These losses would be irreversible. Waterbodies such 

22 as Camp Conoy Fishing Pond and several streams would be filled in. Land committed to the 

23 disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive waste is committed to that use and cannot be used 

24 for other purposes. The land used for siting Unit 3, with the exception of any filled wetlands, is 

25 not irreversibly committed because once Unit 3 ceases operations and the plant is 

26 decommissioned in accordance with NRC requirements, the land supporting the facilities could 

27 be returned to other industrial or nonindustrial uses. 

28 10.4.1.2 Water Use 

29 Under average conditions, Unit 3 would withdraw 41,095 gpm from the Chesapeake Bay over 

30 40 years of operation. Nearly half of the cooling water from the Chesapeake Bay would be 

31 evaporated during operation. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-15 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10.4.1.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Biota 

2 Construction and preconstruction activities would permanently convert some portions of 

3 terrestrial and aquatic habitats, which would temporarily adversely affect the abundance and 

4 distribution of local terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna on the Calvert Cliffs site. Irretrievable 

5 commitment of resources include losses of approximately 12 ac of nontidal wetlands, 34 ac of 

6 high-value habitat for forest interior dwelling species, filling of Camp Conoy Fishing Pond, and 

7 conversion of approximately 6 ac of subtidal Bay soft-bottom habitat to rocky habitat. Portions 

8 of designated essential fish habitat and some individuals of Federally managed fish species 

9 would be lost during construction, preconstruction, and operation. However, enough suitable 

10 habitat likely exists elsewhere in the area that such changes would noticeably alter, but would 

11 not destabilize, regional populations despite localized permanent loss of habitat and some 

12 individuals. Dredging and pipelaying would temporarily affect benthic habitats. Most of these 

13 would recover, although periodic maintenance dredging would interrupt complete recovery near 

14 the barge dock. No irretrievable loss of resources detectable at the population level would be 

15 expected as a result of operations, and any impacts as a result of operations would cease post 

16 operations. The removal of an active bald eagle nest and subsequent abandonment by the pair 

17 using the nest may result in the permanent loss of bald eagle productivity. Grading and filling of 

18 wetlands would result in the loss of wetland function. The majority of terrestrial and aquatic 

19 habitat losses are due to preconstruction activities. 

20 10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources 

21 The review team expects that no irreversible socioeconomic commitments would be made to 

22 socioeconomic resources since they will be reallocated for other purposes once the plant is 

23 decommissioned. 

24 10.4.1.5 Historic and Cultural Resources 

25 Irreversible commitments to historic and cultural resources are discussed in Chapter 4. These 

26 resources include two historic buildings/structures (Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad (CT-1259) 

27 and Camp Conoy (CT-1312)) and one archaeological site (18CV474). The State Historic 

28 Preservation Office (SHPO) requested an MOA be prepared between UniStar, the Corps, and 

29 the Maryland SHPO that stipulates agreed-upon mitigation measures appropriate to each 

30 property (MHT 2009). The MOA was finalized on March 16, 2010 (USACE 2010). Nearly all 

31 loss of irreversible commitments would be attributable to preconstruction activities. 

32 10.4.1.6 Air and Water 

33 Dust and other emissions, such as vehicle exhaust, would be released to the air during 

34 construction and preconstruction activities. During operations, vehicle exhaust emissions would 

35 continue, and other air pollutants and chemicals, including very low concentrations of 

36 radioactive gases and particulates, would be released from the facility into the air and surface 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-16 April 2010 

1 water. Because these releases would conform to applicable Federal and State regulations, their 

2 impact to public health and the environment would be limited. The NRC and the Corps expect 

3 no irreversible commitment to air or water resources because all Unit 3 releases would be made 

4 in accordance with duly issued permits. 

5 10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

6 Irretrievable commitments of resources during the building of the proposed new unit generally 

7 would be similar to that of any major construction project. A study by the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE/EIA 2004a) on new reactor construction estimated that approximately 12,239 yd3 8 

9 of concrete, 3107 tons of rebar, 13,000,000 ft of cable, and 275,000 ft of piping would be 

10 required for the reactor building of a typical new 1300 MW(e) nuclear power plant. Historical 

records of operating reactors suggest a total of approximately 182,900 yd3 11 of concrete and 

12 20,512 tons of structural steel would be required to construct the reactor building, major 

13 auxiliary buildings, turbine generator building, and turbine generator pedestal (DOE 2005). The 

14 proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 is rated at 1735 MW(e) net, approximately 30 percent higher than 

15 the 1300 MW(e) unit on which the DOE/EIA study is based. However, UniStar (2009a) expects 

16 the numbers to be approximately representative of the materials that would be consumed during 

17 construction. 

18 U.S. Census Bureau data (USCB 2006a, b) cited by UniStar in its ER (UniStar 2009a) indicate 

19 that inventories of construction materials have increased in response to demand, are likely to be 

20 available for the foreseeable future, and surplus capacity exists in industrial sectors that may 

21 affect nuclear power plant construction. The review team expects that the use of construction 

22 materials in the quantities associated with those estimated for Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site, 

23 while irretrievable, would be of small consequence with respect to the availability of such 

24 resources. 

25 The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of the new nuclear 

26 unit would be uranium. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly enriched 

27 uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient (OECD 

28 NEA and IAEA 2008) so that the irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be negligible. 

29 10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

30 Alternatives to the proposed actions are discussed in Chapter 9 of this EIS. Alternatives 

31 considered are the no-action alternative, energy production alternatives, system design 

32 alternatives, and alternative sites. For the benefit of the Corps, onsite alternatives of facility 

33 placement are also addressed in Appendix J. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-17 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 The no-action alternative, described in Section 9.1, refers to a scenario in which the NRC would 

2 deny the COL request, or the Corps would take no action or deny the Section 404 Clean Water 

3 Act permit. If no other power plant were built or electrical power supply strategy implemented to 

4 take its place, the electrical capacity to be provided by the project would not become available, 

5 the benefits (electricity generation) associated with the proposed action would not occur, and 

6 the need for power would not be met. Failure to supply the needed electricity would have 

7 significant adverse impacts within the region of interest, and the NRC staff expects that the 

8 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC) would take steps to confirm that the need for 

9 power would be met. 

10 Alternative energy sources are described in Section 9.2 of this EIS. Alternatives not requiring 

11 additional generating capacity are described in Section 9.2.1. Detailed analyses of coal- and 

12 natural gas-fired alternatives are provided in Section 9.2.2, and other energy sources are 

13 discussed in Section 9.2.3. The review team concluded that none of the alternative power 

14 production options were both practical and environmentally preferable to the proposed action. 

15 Alternative sites are discussed in Section 9.3 of this EIS, and the cumulative impacts of 

16 construction, preconstruction, and operation of a nuclear generating unit at the alternative sites 

17 are compared in Section 9.3.6 to the impacts at the proposed Calvert Cliffs Unit 3. Table 9-12 

18 contains the review team’s characterization of cumulative impacts at the proposed and 

19 alternative sites. Based on this review, the NRC staff concludes that while there are differences 

20 in cumulative impacts at the proposed and alternative sites, none of the alternative sites would 

21 be environmentally preferable or obviously superior to the proposed Calvert Cliffs site. The 

22 NRC’s determination is independent of the Corps’ determination of a Least Environmentally 

23 Damaging Practicable Alternative pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Corps will 

24 conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its Record of Decision. 

25 Alternative system designs are discussed in Section 9.4 of this EIS, focusing on alternative heat 

26 dissipation systems, intake and discharge systems, water supplies, and water treatment 

27 systems. The review team identified no environmentally preferable alternative to UniStar’s 

28 proposed design. 

29 10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance 

30 NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that all agencies of the Federal government prepare 

31 detailed EISs for proposed major Federal actions that can significantly affect the quality of the 

32 human environment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require each Federal agency to 

33 consider, in its decision-making, the environmental impacts of each proposed major Federal 

34 action and the available alternative actions that can achieve the purpose and need for the 

35 action. In particular, Section 102 of NEPA requires all Federal agencies to the fullest extent 

36 possible: 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-18 April 2010 

1 “(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council 

2 on Environmental Quality established by subchapter II of this chapter, which will 

3 insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given 

4 appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical 

5 considerations.” 

6 However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the costs and benefits of a proposed action be 

7 quantified in dollars or any other common metric. 

8 The intent of this section is not to identify and provide monetary estimates of all the potential 

9 societal benefits of the proposed project and compare these to a monetized estimate of the 

10 potential costs of the proposed project. Instead, this section focuses on monetized values for 

11 only those activities closely related to the building and operation of the proposed new unit. For 

12 other benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance that their inclusion in this analysis can 

13 inform the NRC and Corps decision-making processes, the review team offers quantified 

14 assessments. This section compiles and compares the pertinent analytical conclusions reached 

15 in earlier chapters of this EIS. It gathers all of the expected impacts from building and operating 

16 the proposed Unit 3 and aggregates them into two final categories: the expected environmental 

17 costs and the expected benefits to be derived from approval of the proposed action. 

18 Although the analysis in this section is conceptually similar to a purely economic benefit-cost 

19 analysis, which determines the net present dollar value of a given project, the intent of this 

20 section is to identify potential societal benefits of the proposed activities and compare these to 

21 the potential internal (i.e., private) and external (i.e., societal) costs of the proposed activities. 

22 The purpose is to generally inform the COL process by gathering and reviewing information that 

23 demonstrates the likelihood that the benefits of the proposed activities outweigh the aggregate 

24 costs. 

25 General issues related to UniStar’s financial viability are outside the scope of NRC’s EIS 

26 process and, thus, are not considered in this EIS. Issues related to UniStar’s financial 

27 qualifications will be addressed in the NRC’s safety evaluation report. It is not possible to 

28 quantify and assign a value to all benefits and costs associated with the proposed action. This 

29 analysis, however, attempts to identify, quantify, and provide monetary values for benefits and 

30 costs when reasonable estimates are available. 

31 Section 10.6.1 discusses the benefits associated with the proposed action. Section 10.6.2 

32 discusses the costs associated with the proposed action. A summary of benefits is shown in 

33 Table 10-3. In accordance with NRC’s guidance in NUREG-1555 (page 10.4.2-4), internal costs 

34 of the proposed project are presented in monetary terms. Internal costs include all of the costs 

35 included in a total capital cost assessment: the direct and indirect cost of construction and 

36 preconstruction plus the annual costs of operation and maintenance. Section 10.6.3 provides a 

37 summary of the impact assessments, bringing previous sections together to establish a general 

38 impression of the relative magnitude of the proposed project’s costs and benefits. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-19 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 10-3. Summary of Benefits of the Proposed Action 

Benefit Category Benefit Description 

Value of Benefit Over 

License Period 

Net Electrical Generating Benefits 

Net Generating Capacity ~1600 MW(e) -- 

Electricity Generated (operating 

at 90% capacity) 

~12,600,000 MW(h) per year -- 

Taxes and Other Revenue During Plant Construction, Preconstruction, and Operation Period 

(transfer payments—not independent benefits) 

Tax Revenues Property tax payments increase as UniStar’s 

investment increases during construction 

and preconstruction. Tax payment would 

increase to approximately $71.3 million a 

year. During operations tax payments will 

decline over time due to depreciation, 

starting at $57 million in the first year. Sales, 

income, and residential property taxes will 

have a lesser impact on the local and State 

economy. 

$2.3 Billion 

Effects on Regional Productivity 

Construction Workers Approximately 3950 direct peak workers 

create an additional increase of 542 to 948 

indirect jobs. 

SMALL 

Operational Workers Approximately 363 direct workers create an 

additional increase of 248 indirect jobs within 

the region for 40 years of operation. 

SMALL 

Socioeconomics Increased tax revenue supports 

improvements to public infrastructure and 

social services. The increased revenue 

spurs future growth and development. 

SMALL 

Technical and Other NonMonetary Benefits Fuel diversity reduces exposure to supply 

risk associated with reliance on any single 

fuel source. 

-- 

Electricity Price Volatility Dampens potential for electricity price 

volatility. 

-- 

Electrical Reliability Enhances electricity supply reliability. -- 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-20 April 2010 

1 10.6.1 Benefits 

2 The most apparent benefit from building and operating a power plant is that it generates power 

3 and provides thousands of residential, commercial, and industrial consumers with electricity. 

4 Maintaining an adequate supply of electricity in any given region has social and economic 

5 importance because adequate electricity is the foundation for economic stability and growth and 

6 is fundamental to maintaining the current standard of living. Because the focus of this EIS is on 

7 the proposed expansion of the Calvert Cliffs site’s generating capacity, this section focuses 

8 primarily on the relative benefits of the proposed option rather than the broader, more generic 

9 benefits of electricity supply. 

10 10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits 

11 For the production of electricity to be beneficial to a society, there must be a corresponding 

12 demand, or “need for power,” in the region. Chapter 8 defines and discusses the need for 

13 power in more detail. From a societal perspective, price stability and longevity, energy security, 

14 and fuel diversity are the primary benefits associated with nuclear power generation relative to 

15 most other alternative generating approaches. These benefits are described in this subsection. 

16 Price Stability and Longevity 

17 Because of relatively low and non-volatile fuel costs (approximately 0.5 cents per kWh) and a 

18 projected capacity utilization rate of 85 to 93 percent, nuclear energy is a dependable source of 

19 electricity that can be provided at relatively stable prices to consumers over a long period of 

20 time. Nuclear power plants are generally not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas and 

21 oil power plants. In addition, uranium fuel constitutes only 3 to 5 percent of the cost of a 

22 kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity. Doubling the price of uranium increases the cost 

23 of electricity by about 7 percent, while doubling the price of gas would add about 70 percent to 

24 the price of electricity, and doubling the cost of coal would add about 36 percent to the price of 

25 electricity (WNA 2010). 

26 Energy Security and Fuel Diversity 

27 Currently, more than 70 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is generated 

28 from fossil-based technologies. Thus, non-fossil-based generation, such as nuclear generation, 

29 is essential to maintaining diversity in the aggregate power generation fuel mix (DOE/EIA 2007). 

30 Nuclear power contributes to the diverse U.S. energy mix, thereby hedging the risk of shortages 

31 and price fluctuations for any one generating system. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-21 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 As discussed in Chapter 8, the MPSC has determined the need for an additional 4000 MW of 

2 electric generating capacity to provide a reliable supply and an in-state reserve margin (MPSC 

3 2007). The proposed Unit 3 capacity of 1600 MW would provide 40 percent of the need. 

4 A diverse fuel mix helps to protect consumers from contingencies, such as fuel shortages or 

5 disruptions, price fluctuations, and changes in regulatory practices. Maryland’s fuel mix for 

6 electricity is more than 55 percent coal, 28 percent nuclear, more than 11 percent gas and oil, 

7 and 5 percent renewable (MPSC 2007). The addition of proposed Unit 3 would increase the 

8 share of nuclear capacity from 13.9 to 23.7 percent (MPSC 2007), which would provide the 

9 region with a hedge against risks of future shortages and price fluctuations of alternative 

10 generating systems. 

11 Need for Power 

12 The MPSC analyzed the need for power from a new baseload generating unit in Maryland in a 

13 2007 report (MPSC 2007) and in the CPCN proceeding (MPSC 2009a). In June 2009, the 

14 MPSC granted a CPCN to UniStar for proposed Unit 3 (MPSC 2009b). As discussed in 

15 Chapter 8, the NRC staff relied on the MPSC’s determinations to reach its conclusion that there 

16 is a need for baseload power from proposed Unit 3 at Calvert Cliffs by 2016. 

17 10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits 

18 Regional benefits of the building and operation of Unit 3 include enhanced tax revenues, 

19 regional productivity, and community impacts. 

20 Tax Revenue Benefits 

21 Revenues would accrue to the State and the two-county economic impact area primarily in the 

22 form of property, income, and sales taxes over a short-term period due to construction and 

23 preconstruction activities and over a long-term period due to operation activities. 

24 For the construction and preconstruction period, it was estimated in Chapter 4 that revenues 

25 during the peak in construction and preconstruction activity would increase primarily to Maryland 

26 from State income and sales taxes, to St. Mary’s County in the form of county income taxes, and 

27 in Calvert County due to county income taxes and property taxes from the proposed Unit 3. Tax 

28 revenues to the State of Maryland and St. Mary’s County are expected to be small compared to 

29 their annual revenues. In Calvert County, the property taxes from Unit 3 would be a significant 

30 portion of County revenues. As construction and preconstruction activities progress and the 

31 taxable value of the property increases, so would the annual property taxes. UniStar estimated 

32 Unit 3-related property taxes in 2010 would be $3.5 million, increasing to $71.3 million in the final 

33 year of construction and preconstruction. Given that estimated 2009 Calvert County revenues 

34 are $221 million, the $71.3 million in the final year of construction and preconstruction represents 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-22 April 2010 

1 approximately 32.2 percent of 2009 Calvert County revenues (UniStar 2009b). Once operation 

2 commences, Unit 3 would qualify for a 50 percent reduction in assessed personal property value. 

3 Therefore, property taxes would be based on half the assessed value of the plant and would 

4 continue to decline due to depreciation. UniStar estimates taxes in the first year of operations to 

5 be approximately $57.1 million (UniStar 2009b). After the first 15 years of operation, Calvert 

6 County could tax the full assessed value of the unit, which would bring tax payments up to 

7 $82.1 million in Year 16, then they would continue to decline due to depreciation. Other taxes 

8 would be collected during the 40-year operation period, such as state sales tax on goods bought 

9 by operations workers employed at the facility and those purchased by UniStar in regards to the 

10 new unit, as well as income taxes on operations workers’ income and property taxes they pay on 

11 their homes. However, these tax revenues are considered to be de minimis in comparison to 

12 overall revenues from sales, income, and residential property taxes. 

13 Regional Productivity and Community Impacts 

14 The new unit would require construction and operation workforces of about 3950 and 

15 363 workers, respectively. The economic activity of the in-migrating portion of these workforces 

16 would stimulate additional indirect jobs for an estimated peak in total employment during 

17 construction and preconstruction of 4492 to 4898 (based on 20 to 35 percent in-migration 

18 scenario) workers, declining to 545 for the 40 years of operation. Increased spending by the 

19 direct and indirect workforce created as a result of the proposed new unit would increase the 

20 economic activity in the region, most noticeably in Calvert County (Chapters 4 and 5). The 

21 general growth of the economic opportunities in the region would be a positive economic 

22 development. 

23 Additional information on the economic impacts of constructing and operating the proposed 

24 Unit 3 is provided in Sections 4.4.4 and 5.4.4. A summary of benefits is shown in Table 10-3. 

25 10.6.2 Costs

26 Internal costs to UniStar, as well as external costs to the surrounding region and environment, 

27 would be incurred during construction, preconstruction, and operation of Unit 3 on the Calvert 

28 Cliffs site. Internal costs include the costs to physically build the power plant (capital costs), as 

29 well as operating and maintenance costs, fuel costs, waste disposal costs, and 

30 decommissioning costs. External costs include all costs imposed on the environment and 

31 region surrounding the plant that are not internalized by the company and may include such 

32 things as a loss of regional productivity, environmental degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat. 

33 The external costs listed in Table 10-4 summarize environmental impacts to resources that 

34 could result from construction, preconstruction, and operation of Unit 3. Because Table 10-4 

35 includes costs from preconstruction activities, it overestimates the costs of the NRC-authorized 

36 portion of the proposed action. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-23 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Table 10-4. Summary of Costs of Preconstruction, Construction, and Operation 

Cost Category Description of Cost 

Internal Costs

Overnight Capital Cost $7.2–$9.6 billion [$4500 to $6000 per installed kW(e)] 

Operation $391–580 million per year based on $0.031–0.046 per kWh, and 

$1047–1400 million per year based on $0.083–0.0111 per kWh 

Decommissioning Approximately 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kWh 

External Costs 

Land Use SMALL. Co-located on the Calvert Cliffs site (2070 ac) with CCNPP 

Units 1 and 2. 

Water Use and Water Quality SMALL. Surface and groundwater use would be mitigated by 

construction of desalinization plant for cooling water systems. 

Chesapeake Bay water demand from desalinization equals an 

estimated total 43,480 gpm. 

Terrestrial Ecology MODERATE for terrestrial ecology. High-value habitats and resources 

would be permanently lost or degraded. Rectification, enhancement, 

and conservation set-asides may partially offset losses. NRCauthorized construction impact level is SMALL. 

Aquatic Ecology MODERATE for aquatic species. Construction and preconstruction of 

Unit 3 would eliminate one fishing pond and 8350 ft of intermittent and 

perennial stream channels; also 5.7-ac subtidal Bay bottom would be 

affected by dredging, trenching, or armoring; entrainment, 

impingement, and entrapment during operation of Unit 3 would affect 

many species annually during the lifetime of the plant. NRC-authorized 

construction impact level is SMALL. 

Health Impacts (Nonradiological 

and Radiological)

SMALL. Estimated temperature increases would not significantly 

increase the abundance of thermophilic microorganisms. Radiological 

doses and nonradiological health hazards to the public and 

occupational workers would be monitored and controlled in accordance 

with regulatory limits. Radiological exposure would be below limits to 

workers and public. 

Hazardous and Radioactive 

Waste 

SMALL. Storage, treatment, and disposal of radioactive waste. 

Commitment of underground geological resources for disposal of 

radioactive spent fuel. Compliance with applicable Federal, State, and 

local laws, ordinances, and regulations intended to prevent or minimize 

adverse environmental impacts of hazardous wastes. 

Air Quality SMALL. Air emissions from diesel generators, auxiliary boilers and 

equipment, and vehicles may have a small impact on workers and local 

residents. Cooling tower drift will deposit some salt on the surrounding 

vicinity, but the level is unlikely to result in any measurable impact on 

plants and vegetation. Cooling tower atmospheric plume discharge 

abated with design. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-24 April 2010 

1 Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description of Cost 

Materials, Energy, and Uranium SMALL. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of materials and 

energy, including depletion of uranium. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE. Construction and preconstruction of Unit 3 

may pose additional costs to public and social services in the area. 

Some costs may be offset by tax revenues generated by the 

construction and preconstruction phase. Temporary impacts on the 

local roads near the Calvert Cliffs site. 

Environmental Justice SMALL. No environmental pathways were identified through which 

minority or low-income populations could be disproportionately and 

adversely impacted. 

Cultural Resources LARGE. UniStar has negotiated an MOA with the Corps and the 

Maryland Historical Trust on the process for data recovery and 

documentation for three NRHP-eligible sites that would be adversely 

affected. NRC-authorized construction impact level is SMALL. 

2 10.6.2.1 Internal Costs 

3 Because no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States in many years, there is lack 

4 of empirical cost data on recent domestic construction. Therefore, the analyses upon which the 

5 review team has relied for its conclusions were based largely upon construction cost evidence 

6 for a variety of different designs and in several different countries. Consequently, there is a 

7 significant amount of uncertainty regarding the true costs of constructing a new unit. However, 

8 the review team determined that there are a number of general aspects about major 

9 construction projects that hold for the proposed project and can be used to characterize 

10 expected costs. The most substantial monetary cost associated with nuclear energy is the cost 

11 of capital. Nuclear power plants typically have relatively high capital costs for building the plant, 

12 but low fuel costs relative to alternative power generation systems. Because of the large capital 

13 costs for nuclear power plants, servicing the capital costs of a nuclear power plant is the most 

14 important factor determining the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy. Construction and 

15 preconstruction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant, which translate directly into 

16 higher interest expenses on borrowed funds. Maryland does not allow utilities to pass on the 

17 cost of construction to ratepayers until after the plant is online (a process called “allowance for 

18 funds used during construction”), which is often used as a strategy for reducing the project’s 

19 cost of capital. 

20 Construction and Preconstruction Costs 

21 In evaluating monetary costs related to building Unit 3, UniStar reviewed recently published 

22 literature; vendor information; internally generated financial information; and internally 

23 generated, site-specific information (UniStar 2009b). The NRC also reviewed recently 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-25 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 published literature (MIT 2003; University of Chicago 2004; DOE/EIA 2004b; Keystone 2007; 

2 and IEA 2005) and site-specific information. The overnight capital costs in the studies were 

3 based primarily on estimated rather than actual construction costs and ranged from a low of 

4 approximately $1000/kW(e) to a high of approximately $4000/kW(e). Differences relate to the 

5 year that the dollar value was expressed in, the exchange rate, the sample size, the technology, 

6 the number of units built, site characteristics, and other assumptions used. UniStar’s estimate 

7 of the construction and preconstruction cost is discussed below. 

8 UniStar expressed its capital cost estimate in terms of “overnight capital cost,” which is a 

9 commonly used approach in the construction industry. The following costs are included in the 

10 overnight capital costs: 

11 • the engineering, procurement, construction, and preconstruction costs for the U.S. EPR 

12 proposed for the site 

13 • the owner’s costs, including construction and preconstruction activities, cooling water intake 

14 structures and cooling towers, import duties on components, insurance, spare parts, 

15 transmission interconnection, development costs, project management costs, owner’s 

16 engineering, State and local permitting, legal fees, and staffing-related training 

17 • contingency costs. 

18 UniStar concluded $4500/kW to $6000/kW would be applicable to Unit 3, which equates to 

19 roughly $7.2 billion to $9.6 billion. Interest and cost escalation during the construction and 

20 preconstruction period are excluded from the overnight capital cost. All of these estimates 

21 include the cost of both construction and preconstruction activities. Thus, they overestimate the 

22 costs of the NRC proposed action and provide a conservative estimate of the costs for the 

23 benefit-cost analysis. 

24 Operation Costs 

25 Operation costs are frequently expressed as the levelized cost of electricity, which is the price 

26 per kWh of producing electricity, including the cost needed to cover operating costs and 

27 annualized capital costs. Overnight capital costs account for a third of the levelized cost, and 

28 interest costs on the overnight costs of construction account for another 25 percent (University 

29 of Chicago 2004). Levelized cost estimates in recent studies range from $36 to $83 per MWh 

30 (3.6 to 8.3 cents per kWh). Factors affecting the range include choices for discount rate, 

31 duration of the project, plant life span, capacity factor, cost of debt, the ratio of debt to equity in 

32 financing, depreciation (rate and years), tax rates, and premium for uncertainty. Estimates 

33 include decommissioning, but due to the effect of discounting a cost that would occur as much 

34 as 40 years in the future, decommissioning costs have relatively little effect on the levelized 

35 cost. Also, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a production tax credit for the first advanced 

36 reactors brought online in the United States and would tend to lower the estimated operating 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-26 April 2010 

1 cost (UniStar 2009a). UniStar concluded that $31 to $46 per MWh ($0.031 to $0.046 per kWh) 

2 represents a reasonable range for the expected levelized cost (UniStar 2009a). However, the 

3 Keystone Study estimates the levelized cost to range from $0.083 to $0.111 per kWh (Keystone 

4 2007). In addition, the review team examined the update to the MIT study (MIT 2009), which re5 evaluated the overnight levelized cost of electricity at 8.4 cents per kWh (2007$). In 2008 

6 dollars, the results of the cited studies yield an overall range of 3.8 to 8.6 cents per kWh for 

7 operation costs. 

8 Fuel Costs 

9 From the outset, the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared to 

10 coal, oil, and gas-fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched, and fabricated 

11 into fuel elements and about half of the cost results from enrichment and fabrication. 

12 Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate 

13 disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it. However, even with these costs 

14 included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant are typically about a third of those for a 

15 coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a natural gas combined-cycle plant 

16 (University of Chicago 2004). For consistency with the operating cost estimates provided, the 

17 review team based its fuel cost assumptions on the recent World Nuclear Association’s study, 

18 which estimated nuclear fuel costs to be $0.449 cents per kWh (WNA 2010). 

19 Waste Disposal 

20 The back-end costs of nuclear power contribute a small share of total cost because of the long 

21 lifetime of a nuclear reactor and the fact that provisions for waste-related costs can be 

22 accumulated over that time. Spent fuel management costs are estimated to be 0.1 cents 

23 per kWh (WNA 2010; DOE 2008). 

24 Decommissioning 

25 The NRC has requirements for licensees at 10 CFR 50.75 to provide reasonable assurance that 

26 funds will be available for the decommissioning process. Because of the effect of discounting a 

27 cost that would occur as much as 40 years in the future, decommissioning costs have relatively 

28 little effect on the levelized cost of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant. 

29 Decommissioning costs are about 9 to 15 percent of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power 

30 plant. However, when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and 

31 even less to the generation cost. In the United States, they account for 0.1 to 0.2 cents per 

32 kWh, which is no more than 5 percent of the cost of the electricity produced (WNA 2010). 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-27 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10.6.2.2 External Costs 

2 External costs are social and/or environmental effects caused by the proposed construction, 

3 preconstruction, and operation of a new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site. This COL EIS includes 

4 the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of building and 

5 operating a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site or at alternative sites and mitigation 

6 measures available for reducing or avoiding these adverse impacts. It also includes the staff’s 

7 recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action. 

8 Environmental and Social Costs 

9 Chapter 4 of this EIS describes the impacts of constructing Unit 3 on the environment with 

10 respect to the land, water, ecology, socioeconomics, radiation exposure to construction workers, 

11 and measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during building activities. Chapter 5 of this 

12 EIS examines environmental issues associated with operation of the new Unit 3 for an initial 

13 40-year period. Potential operational impacts on land-use, air quality, water, terrestrial and 

14 aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, 

15 non-radiological and radiological health effects, postulated accidents, and applicable measures 

16 and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station operation during the 40-year 

17 operating period are considered. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, all impacts identified in 

18 Chapters 4 and 5 have been analyzed, and a significance level of potential adverse impacts 

19 (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned. Chapter 6 of this EIS addresses the 

20 environmental impacts from: (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management, (2) the 

21 transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning of Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs 

22 site. Chapter 7 of this EIS places all of the potential impacts of the new unit in the context of all 

23 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the general area that may have a 

24 nexus to the region. Chapter 9 of this EIS includes the review team’s review of alternative sites 

25 and alternative power generation systems. A summary of project internal and external costs is 

26 shown in Table 10-4. 

27 Unlike generation of electricity from coal and natural gas, normal operation of a nuclear power 

28 plant does not result in significant emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., oxides of nitrogen or 

29 sulfur dioxide), methyl mercury, or greenhouse gases associated with global warming and 

30 climate change. Combustion-based power plants are responsible for at least 70 percent of the 

31 sulfur dioxide, at least 21 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 51 percent of the mercury emissions 

32 from industrial sources in the United States (EPA 2009) and 40 percent of the carbon dioxide 

33 (DOE/EIA 2008). Eighty-two percent of the electric power industry’s emissions are from coal34 fired plants (DOE/EIA 2008). Chapter 9 of this EIS analyzes coal- and natural gas-fired 

35 alternatives to building and operating the proposed Unit 3. Air emissions from these alternatives 

36 and nuclear power are summarized in Chapters 4, 5, and 9. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-28 April 2010 

1 As mentioned previously, Table 10-4 summarizes the external costs (i.e., environmental 

2 impacts) associated with the preconstruction, construction, and operation of Unit 3. Table 4-11 

3 summarizes the impacts from construction and preconstruction. Impacts to land use, air quality, 

4 housing, public services, aesthetics and recreation, and radiological and nonradiological health 

5 would all be SMALL. Because the overall impact to these resources from the proposed project 

6 in its entirety would be SMALL, the NRC portion of the project (i.e., construction as defined in 

7 10 CFR 51.4, and operation of the proposed new unit) accordingly would also be SMALL. 

8 For terrestrial and wetland ecosystems the impact from the entire project would be 

9 MODERATE, and the impact from the NRC-authorized portion of the project would be SMALL. 

10 For aquatic ecosystems, the impact from the entire project would be MODERATE, and the 

11 impact from the NRC-authorized portion would be SMALL. The socioeconomic impacts for the 

12 overall project would be SMALL to LARGE (beneficial), and the impact from the NRC-authorized 

13 activities would be SMALL to LARGE (beneficial). Impacts to cultural resources are considered 

14 LARGE for the total project but SMALL for the NRC-authorized activities. 

15 10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs

16 UniStar’s business decision to pursue expansion of Calvert Cliffs’ generating capacity by adding 

17 an additional nuclear reactor is an economic decision based on private financial factors subject 

18 to regulation by the MPSC. Although no specific monetary values could reasonably be 

19 assigned to the identified societal benefits, the review team believes that the potential societal 

20 benefits of the proposed expansion of the Calvert Cliffs site are substantial. In comparison, the 

21 external socioeconomic and environmental costs imposed on the region appear to be relatively 

22 small. 

23 Table 10-3 and Table 10-4 include a summary of both internal and external costs of the 

24 proposed activities at the Calvert Cliffs site, as well as the identified benefits. The tables include 

25 references to other sections of this EIS when more detailed analyses and impact assessments 

26 are available for specific topics. 

27 On the basis of the assessments in this EIS that the construction and operation of the proposed 

28 Calvert Cliffs Unit 3, with mitigation measures identified by the review team, would have accrued 

29 benefits that most likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs 

30 associated with constructing and operating Unit 3 at the Calvert Cliffs site. For the NRC31 proposed action (NRC-authorized construction and operation) the accrued benefits would also 

32 outweigh the costs of construction, preconstruction, and operation of Unit 3. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-29 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 10.7 NRC Staff Recommendation 

2 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental 

3 aspects of the proposed action is that the COL should be issued. The staff’s evaluation of the 

4 safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the 

5 staff’s safety evaluation report that is anticipated to be published in July 2012. 

6 The staff’s preliminary recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by UniStar (2009a); 

7 (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the review team’s 

8 independent review; (4) the NRC staff’s consideration of comments related to the environmental 

9 review that were received during the public scoping process; and (5) the assessments 

10 summarized in this EIS including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and in 

11 this EIS. In making its preliminary recommendation, the staff determined that none of the 

12 alternative sites assessed is obviously superior to the Calvert Cliffs site. 

13 The NRC’s determination is independent of the Corps’ determination of a Least Environmentally 

14 Damaging Practicable Alternative pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. 

15 The Corps will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its Record of 

16 Decision. 

17 10.8 References 

18 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

19 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

20 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

21 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

22 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

23 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

24 33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

25 Part 325, “Processing of Department of the Army Permits.” 

26 33 CFR Part 332. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

27 Part 325, “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.” 

28 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

29 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

30 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

31 Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-30 April 2010 

1 Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

2 Control Act [FWPCA]). 

3 Energy Policy Act of 2005. 45 U.S.C. 15801 et seq. 

4 Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). 2009. Letter from J. Rodney Little (MHT) to William Seib 

5 (USACE), “Subject: MHT Review of Phase II National Register Evaluations and Assessment of 

6 Effects for Cultural Resources, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Expansion, Calvert County, 

7 Maryland.” February 13, 2009. Accession No. ML090570416. 

8 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2007. Electric Supply Adequacy Report of 

9 2007. Accessed October 7, 2009, at 

10 http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/psc/Reports_new.cfm. 

11 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009a. In the Matter of the Application of 

12 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of 

13 Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in 

14 Calvert County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Proposed Order of Hearing Examiner, April 28, 

15 2009. 

16 Maryland Public Service Commission (MPSC). 2009b. In the Matter of the Application of 

17 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for a Certificate of 

18 Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a Nuclear Power Plant at Calvert Cliffs in 

19 Calvert County, Maryland. Case Number 9127. Order Number 82741, June 26, 2009. 

20 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An 

21 Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Accessed at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. 

22 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2009. Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear 

23 Power. 

24 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

25 International Energy Agency (IEA). 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2005 

26 Update. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. 

27 The Keystone Center (Keystone). 2007. Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. Accessed at 

28 http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf. 

29 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency and 

International Atomic Energy Agency (OECD NEA and IAEA). 2008. Uranium 2007. 22nd 30 ed., 

31 Paris. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-31 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (Rivers and Harbors Act). 33 U.S.C. 403, as 

2 amended. 

3 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008a. Letter from G.J. Wrobel (UniStar) to, 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission “UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRC Docket No. 52-016 

5 Submittal of Corrected Revision 3 to the Combined License Application for the Calvert Cliffs 

6 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3.” August 20, 2008. Accession No. ML082390786. 

7 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2008b. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

8 Joint Federal/State Application to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland 

9 Department of the Environment for the Alteration of any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal 

10 Wetland in Maryland. Transmittal letters from D. Lutchenkov (UniStar) to Maryland Department 

11 of the Environment and to K. Anderson (USACE) for USACE Application Number NAB-2007-

12 08123-M05. May 16, 2008. Accession No. ML081840343. 

13 UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC (UniStar). 2009a. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 

14 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental Report. Revision 6. UniStar, Baltimore, 

15 Maryland. Accession No. ML092880921. 

16 UniStar Nuclear Energy (UniStar). 2009b. Letter from G. Gibson (UniStar) to NRC (Document 

17 Control Desk), Follow-up response to Environmental Report, RAI No. 127, Estimated Tax 

18 Benefit, November 16, 2009. Accession No. ML093220193. 

19 University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Accessed at 

20 http://www.anl.gov/Special_Reports/NuclEconAug04.pdf. 

21 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

22 Manual. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Public Notice in Reply to Application Number 

24 CENAB-OP-RMS NAB-2007-01823-M05 (Calvert Cliff’s 3 Nuclear Project, LLC/Unistar Nuclear 

25 Operating Services, LLC). September 3, 2008. Accession No. ML082550288. 

26 

27 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from K.B. Anderson (USACE) to R.J. 

28 Nelson (Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), Review 

29 of US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer regarding 

30 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Plant (CENAB-OP-RMS) effect on historic properties and Memorandum 

31 of Agreement. March 16, 2010. Accession No. ML100810272. 

32 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006a. U.S. Census Bureau 2006 Annual Trade Wholesale 

33 Report, Table 1, Estimated Sales and Inventories of U.S. Merchant Wholesalers 2002 through 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1936 10-32 April 2010 

1 2006. Available at 

2 http://www.census.gov/wholesale/www/historic_releases/annual_historic_releases.html. 

3 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2006b. U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Plant Capacity: 2006. 

4 U.S. Department of commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Available at 

5 http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/historical_data/index.html. 

6 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. Cost Estimating Guidelines for Generation IV 

7 Nuclear Energy Systems, Rev. 2.02 Final. Economic Modeling Working Group. Available at 

8 http://nuclear.inl.gov/deliverables/docs/emwgguidelines_rev2.pdf. 

9 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. Yucca Mountain Repository. Accessed May 22, 

10 2008 at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml#4. Accession No. ML100600704. 

11 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004a. Application 

12 of Advanced Construction Technologies to New Nuclear Power Plants. MPR-2610, Revision 2. 

13 Washington, D.C. Accessed April 1, 2009 at 

14 http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports/mpr2610Rev2Final924.pdf. Accession No. 

15 ML093160836. 

16 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004b. Annual 

17 Energy Outlook, With Projections to 2025. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). Washington, D.C. Accessed 

18 September 17, 2008 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/pdf/0383(2004).pdf. 

19 Accession No. ML093160831. 

20 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007. Electric 

21 Power Annual. Accessed July 6, 2009 at 

22 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Accession No. ML093160832. 

23 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008. Emissions of 

24 Greenhouse Gases in the United States. DOE/EIA-0573(2008). Accessed February 3, 2010 at 

25 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/gwp_gases.html. Accession No. ML100580032. 

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Report on the Environment. A-Z 

27 Indicators List. Accessed on February 3, 2010 at 

28 http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=list.listByAlpha#E. Accession No. 

29 ML100580033. 

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan— 

31 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

32 Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 updates. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-33 Draft NUREG-1936 

1 World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2010. The Economics of Nuclear Power. Accessed 

2 March 8, 2010 at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html. Accession No. ML100600712. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1936 Volume 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

April

YEAR

2010

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License (COL) for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear

Power Plant Unit 3 

Draft Report for Comment

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix A

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket 52-016

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This EIS has been prepared in response to to an application submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by

Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) for a

combined license (COL). UniStar also submitted a joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any Floodplain, Waterway,

Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps is a cooperating agency on this

EIS. This EIS includes the analysis by the NRC and Corps staff that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of

constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Calvert Cliffs site and at alternative sites and mitigation measures available

for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts.

After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed NRC action, the NRC's staff preliminary recommendation to the

Commission is that the COL be issued as requested. This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the

Environmental Report, submitted by UniStar and responses to requests for additional information; (2) consultation with Federal,

State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff's independent review; (4) the staff's consideration of comments related to the

environmental review that were received during the public scoping process; and (5) the assessments summarized in the EIS,

including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. The Corps' permit decision will be made following

the issuance of the final EIS.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Combined license, COL, COLA

Calvert Cliffs Unit 3

draft environmental impact statement, DEIS, EIS

envrionmental review 

National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA

UniStar

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Same as above


UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS