Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant#Proposal to add a third reactor

The plant is owned and operated by Constellation Energy and has two 2737 megawatt thermal (MWth) Combustion Engineering Generation II two-loop pressurized water reactors. Each generating plant (CCNPP 1&2) produces approximately 850 megawatt electrical (MWe) net or 900 MWe gross. Each plant's electrical load consumes approximately 50 MWe. These are saturated steam plants (non-superheated) and are approximately 33% efficient (ratio of 900 MWe gross/2700 MWth core). Only the exhaust of the single high-pressure main turbine is slightly superheated by a two-stage reheater before delivering the superheated steam in parallel to the three low-pressure turbines. Unit 1 uses a General Electric–designed main turbine and generator, while Unit 2 uses a Westinghouse–designed main turbine and generator.{{cite web

|url = http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.0275303d670d51908d84ff10025166a0/

|title = Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant

|publisher = Constellation Energy

|access-date = 2010-01-14

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100105043147/http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.0275303d670d51908d84ff10025166a0/

|archive-date = 2010-01-05

|url-status=dead

}} The heat produced by the reactor is returned to the bay, which operates as a cooling heat-sink for the plant.

Unit 1 went into commercial service in 1975 and Unit 2 in 1977. The total cost of the two units was approximately $766 million (equivalent to ${{inflation|USD|.766|1977|r=2}} billion in {{Inflation/year|US}}).{{cite book|title=Your Maryland A History|author=Vera Foster Rollo|page=374}}

Unit 1 had its two steam generators replaced in 2002 and its reactor vessel closure head replaced in 2006, while unit 2 had its two steam generators replaced in 2003, and its vessel closure head replaced in 2007.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}}

The water around the plant (see lower-right-center of photograph) is a very popular place for anglers. Unit 1 & 2 each takes in bay water (from the fenced-in area) to cool its steam driven turbine condensers plus other bay-water–cooled primary and secondary system heat exchangers. The bay water is pumped out at a nominal flow rate of 1.2 million gallons per minute (75,000 L/s) per unit (Unit 1 and 2) for each steam turbine condenser. The water is returned to the bay no more than 12 °F (6.7 °C) warmer than the bay water. Unlike many other nuclear power plants, Calvert Cliffs did not have to utilize water cooling towers to return the hot water to its original temperature. As the water comes out very quickly and creates a sort of artificial rip current, it can be a dangerous place to fish.

CCNPP 3 will only need about 10% of the bay cooling water volume needed for Unit 1 and 2 combined. The increase in fish and shellfish impingement and entrainment will be less than 3.5% over Unit 1 and 2 existing conditions.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}}

In February 2009, Calvert Cliffs set a world record for pressurized water reactors (PWRs) by operating 692 days non-stop.{{cite web

|url = http://ir.constellation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=372101

|title = Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Sets World Record

|publisher = Constellation Energy

|year = 2009

|access-date = 2010-01-14

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120301024435/http://ir.constellation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=372101

|archive-date = 2012-03-01

|url-status=dead

}} In addition, Unit 2's capacity factor in 2008 was a world-record high of 101.37 percent.{{cite web |url=http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090619005669/en/Maryland-Chamber-Commerce-Visits-Calvert-Cliffs-Nuclear |title=Maryland Chamber of Commerce Visits Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant |date=June 19, 2009 |publisher=Business Wire |access-date=2010-04-20}}

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of {{convert|10|mi}}, concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination, and an ingestion pathway zone of about {{convert|50|mi}}, concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity.{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html |title=Backgrounder on Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Power Plants |publisher=U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission |access-date=2012-08-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061002131207/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html |archive-date=2006-10-02 }}

The 2010 US population within {{convert|10|mi}} of Calvert Cliffs was 48,798, an increase of 86.4 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com. The 2010 U.S. population within {{convert|50|mi}} was 2,890,702, a decrease of 2.0 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include Washington, D.C., (45 miles to city center).{{cite news |first=Bill |last=Dedman |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42555888 |title=Nuclear neighbors: Population rises near US reactors |work=MSNBC |date=April 14, 2011}}

In 2001, when the Dominion Cove Point LNG plant was scheduled to reopen, many local residents were concerned about the proximity to this nuclear power plant (3 miles). Residents thought that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not consider the risks could be caused by an attack or an explosion before opening the plant.{{cite news |url=http://www.bayweekly.com/year02/issue10_01/dock10_01.html |title=Worries Aside, Cove Point Gas Plant Gets a Green Light |date=2001-01-03 |work=Bay Weekly |publisher=Chesapeake Bay Media, LLC |location=Annapolis, MD |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060321035517/http://www.bayweekly.com/year02/issue10_01/dock10_01.html |archive-date=March 21, 2006}}

The NRC's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Calvert Cliffs was 1 in 100,000 for Reactor 1 and 1 in 83,333 for Reactor 2, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.{{cite news |first=Bill |last=Dedman |title=What are the odds? US nuke plants ranked by quake risk |work=NBC News |date=March 17, 2011 |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42103936}}{{Cite web |title=Memorandum from Patrick Hiland, Chairman, Safety/Risk Assessment Panel for Generic Issue 199; to Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Subject: Safety/Risk Assessment Results for Generic Issue 199, "Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants" |publisher=U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission |date=2010-09-02 |url=http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%20risk%20estimates.pdf |access-date=2011-04-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525170632/http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%20risk%20estimates.pdf |archive-date=2017-05-25 |url-status=dead}}

In the 1960s scientists at Johns Hopkins University became concerned that the discharge of heated cooling water from the plant would be detrimental to a crucial element of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the bay's famed blue crabs.{{Cite web |last=Tarlock |first=A. Dan |url=http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/2003-2004workshops/tarlock.pdf |title=The Story of Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Council: A Court Construes the National Environmental Policy Act to Create a Powerful Cause of Action |date=2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120302180951/http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/2003-2004workshops/tarlock.pdf |archive-date=2012-03-02 |url-status=dead}} Litigation pursuant to the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act led to a 1971 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit requiring the Atomic Energy Commission (succeeded by the NRC in 1974) to consider the environmental impact of building and maintaining such an atomic energy plant.{{cite court |litigants=Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. et al v. United States Atomic Energy Commission |vol=449 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=1109 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=1971 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10538473539026641582}}

In 2000, the NRC extended the license of the plant for 20 additional years, making Calvert Cliffs the first nuclear plant in the United States to receive such an extension. President George W. Bush visited the plant in June 2005, the first time a president had visited a nuclear power plant in nearly two decades.{{cite web |url=http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/factsheets |title=Nuclear Technology Milestones |publisher=Nuclear Energy Institute |access-date=2010-01-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100324222221/http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/factsheets |archive-date=2010-03-24 |url-status=dead}}

UniStar Nuclear Energy announced plans to build a unit of the Evolutionary Power Reactor (US-EPR variant) at Calvert Cliffs. UniStar Nuclear Energy, a Delaware limited liability company, was jointly owned by Constellation Energy (CEG) and Électricité de France (EDF), the French builder and supplier of nuclear power plants. The proposed unit was to produce approximately twice the energy of each individual existing unit. On July 13, 2007, UniStar Nuclear Energy filed a partial application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review its plans to build a new nuclear power plant, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 3 (CCNPP 3) based on the AREVA US Evolutionary Power Reactor{{cite web |url=http://www.areva-np.com/scripts/info/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?p=1655&l=us&sync=y |title=EPR: the first generation III+ reactor currently under construction |publisher=AREVA NP |date=2008-01-04 |access-date=2008-01-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071224191438/http://www.areva-np.com/scripts/info/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?P=1655&L=US&SYNC=Y |archive-date=2007-12-24}} (US-EPR), Generation III+,{{cite web|url=http://www.areva-np.com/us/liblocal/docs/epr/epr_GenIII_performanceFactSheet090607.pdf |title=EPR: Generation III+ Performance Fact Sheet |publisher=AREVA NP |date=2008-01-04 |access-date=2008-01-09 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} four loop pressurized water reactor.

The third reactor was intended to address a need for more baseload power generation in the Mid-Atlantic region. The unit proposed to be located south of the existing units 1 and 2, set back from the shoreline. Although only a single unit, its power plant footprint was almost twice the size of the existing units together. It was to have a closed-loop cooling system using a single hybrid mechanical draft cooling tower, incorporating plume abatement for no visible water vapor plume from the tower. Units 1 and 2 use an open-cycle heat dissipation system without cooling towers. The cooling tower of the Unit 3 reactor was to release two thirds of its waste heat to the atmosphere. The proposed EPR design was a saturated steam plant with one high-pressure turbine in tandem with three low-pressure turbines and a main generator design similar to Unit 1 and 2. Alstom was to supply the main steam turbine and main generator.

On November 13, 2007, UniStar Nuclear Energy filed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity with the Maryland Public Service Commission for authority to construct CCNPP 3. This application is being considered in Case Number 9127.{{cite web |url=http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/CaseNum/CaseForm.cfm|title=Case Number: 9127 |date=2007-11-13 |publisher=Maryland Public Service Commission |access-date=2008-01-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080105032158/http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/CaseNum/CaseForm.cfm |archive-date = 2008-01-05 |url-status=dead}}

Opponents and supporters of the proposed third reactor at Calvert Cliffs were involved in a series of public hearings before officials of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In March 2009, Bill Peil of southern Calvert County asked the NRC to deny an emissions permit for the reactor due to health and safety concerns he asserted that the plant posed to the community. UniStar Nuclear Energy President and CEO George Vanderheyden urged the NRC to approve the air permit application.[http://www.somdnews.com/stories/03112009/rectop114800_32191.shtml NRC hears both sides of nuclear expansion debate]{{Dead link |date=August 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

In October 2010, Constellation Energy said that it had reached an impasse in negotiations for a federal loan guarantee to build the proposed third reactor. The government sought a fee of $880 million on a guarantee of about $7.6 billion, to compensate taxpayers for the risk of default. Constellation Energy replied that such a fee would doom the project, “or the economics of any nuclear project, for that matter”.{{cite news |first=Matthew L. |last=Wald |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/energy-environment/10reactor.html?_r=1&src=busln |title=Fee Dispute Hinders Plan for Reactor |newspaper=The New York Times |date=October 9, 2010}}{{cite news |first=Matthew L. |last=Wald |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/business/energy-environment/11power.html?partner=rss&emc=rss |title=Sluggish Economy Curtails Prospects for Building Nuclear Reactors |newspaper=The New York Times |date=October 10, 2010}}{{cite news |first=Peter |last=Behr |url=https://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/10/11/11climatewire-constellation-pullout-from-md-nuclear-ventur-82774.html |title=Constellation Pullout From Md. Nuclear Venture Leaves Industry Future Uncertain |newspaper=The New York Times |date=October 11, 2010}}

In November 2010 a deal to transfer Constellation Energy Group's stake in a nuclear development company to its French partner, EDF Group, closed, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A month prior, Constellation agreed to sell its 50 percent stake in UniStar Nuclear Energy to EDF for US$140 million, giving EDF sole ownership of the joint venture and its plans to develop a third unit at Calvert Cliffs in Southern Maryland. The deal called for EDF to transfer 3.5 million shares it owns, valued around US$110 million, to Constellation and give up its seat on the Constellation board. EDF designee Samuel Minzberg resigned.

In April 2011 the NRC stated that UniStar is not eligible to build a third reactor, as it is not a US owned company since Constellation pulled out of the partnership in 2010. The NRC would continue to process the application, but a license would not be issued until the ownership requirements were met. The reactor was estimated to cost $9.6 billion.{{Cite news |url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/2011/04/08/french-owned-unistar-not-eligible-to-build-nuclear-reactor-at-calvert-cliffs/ |title=French-owned UniStar not eligible to build nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs |first=Andrea K. |last=Walker |newspaper=Baltimore Sun |date=April 8, 2011 |access-date=April 9, 2011}}

Constellation Energy merged into Exelon in 2012.

In 2015 Areva, struggling with internal restructuring of its corporation, withdrew from the certification process for the US EPR reactor design, effectively putting on hold plans for the deployment of a European reactor in the US.{{cite web |url = http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-US-EPR-plans-suspended-0603157.html | title = US EPR plans suspended |publisher = World Nuclear News | date = 2015-03-06 | access-date = 2015-03-26}}{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Calvert-Cliffs-3-COL-withdrawn-2107157.html |title=Calvert Cliffs 3 COL withdrawn |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=21 July 2015 |access-date=21 July 2015}}

Unit 2 at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant was shut down on September 5, 2013, after a malfunction during testing. It was re-opened September 10, 2013, after the required maintenance was performed.{{cite web |last=Russell |first=Scott |title=Calvert Cliffs unit brought back online Tuesday after maintenance |url=http://www.somdnews.com/article/20130906/NEWS/130909461/reactor-shut-down-at-calvert-cliffs-nuclear-power-plant&template=southernMaryland |work=Southern Maryland Newspapers Online |access-date=26 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230835/http://www.somdnews.com/article/20130906/NEWS/130909461/reactor-shut-down-at-calvert-cliffs-nuclear-power-plant%26template%3DsouthernMaryland |archive-date=2013-12-02 |url-status=dead}}

The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant consist of two operational reactors, one additional was proposed in 2007 and withdrawn.

• List of power stations in Maryland

{{Portal bar|Maryland|Energy|Nuclear technology}}

{{Reflist|33em}}

{{Commons category}}

• [http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/calvert/Pages/profile.aspx Exelon - Calvert Cliffs]
• [http://www.edf.com Électricité de France]
• [http://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/maryland/ Maryland Nuclear Profile - US Dept. of Energy]
• {{Cite web |url=http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/nuceng/id/71|title=Calvert Cliffs PWR|date=May 1974 |website=Nuclear Engineering International Wall Charts |publisher=University Libraries, University of New Mexico |access-date=2016-11-01}}

{{Power stations in Maryland}}

{{U.S. Nuclear Plants}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Energy infrastructure completed in 1975

Category:Energy infrastructure completed in 1977

Category:Buildings and structures in Calvert County, Maryland

Category:Lusby, Maryland

Category:Nuclear power plants in Maryland

Category:Nuclear power stations with proposed reactors

Category:Nuclear power stations using pressurized water reactors

Category:Électricité de France

Category:Exelon

Category:1975 establishments in Maryland