Unistar Files First Part of COL Application for EPR at Calvert Cliffs

Unistar submitted the first part of a licence application to build a new nuclear power plant on 13 July. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has said it is now looking over documents detailing the environmental impact Calvert Cliffs 3 would make.

Calvert Cliffs, owned by Unistar partner Constellation, is about 64 km south of Annapolis, Maryland. It already hosts two pressurized water reactors, which have produced 865 MWe each since the mid 1970s. The US Evolutionary Power Reactor (USEPR) proposed for build would add some 1600 MWe to the plant's output around the middle of the next decade.

The NRC has said it is now examining the environmental report documentation, which runs to around 5900 pages and can be found in the New Reactor Licensing section of its website. Scott Burnell of the NRC told World Nuclear News that the commission was conducting a sufficiency check. If the report seems in order, the NRC will 'docket' it and begin formal review in earnest. A public meeting is already scheduled for 14 August, where the review process would be discussed.

The first public meeting on the application has been scheduled for August 14 in Solomons, Maryland.

Comments

Anonymous said…

I find this very strange and surprising! Constellation - which is one half of UniStar - has always said it would submit its COLA in March 2008...

Are the deliberately trying to mislead us?!?!

July 29, 2007 at 4:21 PM

David Bradish said…

Actually, they've only submitted one part of the application and according to this table we keep up to date, they've always indicated that they will "submit siting information early."

July 30, 2007 at 12:25 PM

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog