Speakers mostly support reactor

Opponents question safety, necessity at hearing

Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2008

The Aug. 4 hearing, held in Solomons by the Maryland Public Service Commission, was one in a series of hearings scheduled to determine whether the project will receive a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which is required to go forward.

The parade of supporters included local business and political leaders, plant workers and local residents, while other local residents and a handful of environmental activists asked the PSC to deny the certificate.

Speaking on behalf of the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners, President Wilson Parran (D) said the county had reviewed the reactor’s proposed design and was confident it would be safe. The project would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide desirable jobs to Calvert County high school graduates and increase the energy supply, he said.

He also said that the alternative forms of energy, including wind and solar power, championed by skeptics of the expansion have their place but that their ‘‘intermittent nature” precludes their being a primary source of energy.

‘‘The fact is, the wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine,” Parran said.

Kevin Nietmann, a 28-year county resident and plant employee, said innovations in nuclear reactor design make the proposed reactor safer and more environmentally friendly than other U.S. nuclear power plants. He cited a desalinization plant included in the proposal to lessen the plant’s dependence on groundwater and a cooling tower to reduce the discharge of hot water into the Chesapeake Bay as two measures that would lessen its ecological impact.

‘‘Maryland needs new sources of power. These sources should include nuclear power,” Nietmann said.

Another county resident, Bill Peil, blasted much of the testimony as personally or politically motivated. The number of reactor supporters who live outside the county and would not be in immediate danger during a nuclear disaster also disturbed him.

‘‘I’m also offended by people who speak because they stand to expand their careers,” Peil said. ‘‘... It’s wrong that those people should be testifying to the advantage of the plant when they personally, they will benefit themselves.”

Joseph Krovisky of St. Leonard was milder in his criticism but still skeptical that those within a 10-mile radius of the plant would be able to escape during an emergency.

‘‘I have not heard anyone explain to me addressing how that [evacuation plan] would be implemented,” Krovisky said. ‘‘... I envision nothing but chaos and confusion, frankly, a large mess.”

Krovisky also questioned the viability of any long-term storage plan for nuclear waste, noting that the time it would take for the waste to become safe is more than that separating ‘‘us from the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians.”

Speaking after the hearing, George Vanderheyden, president and CEO of UniStar Nuclear, the consortium seeking to build the reactor, attempted to answer some of the skeptics’ questions but said he would not have time to get to all of them.

For waste storage, Vanderheyden said he hoped the embattled facility planned for Yucca Mountain, Nev., would be built, but that there is enough ‘‘dry-cask” storage space at Calvert Cliffs itself to store anticipated waste from the plant, including a third reactor. The large steel storage casks are encased in concrete for additional protection, he added.

In response to a comment that Calvert Cliffs doesn’t power Calvert County, Vanderheyden said Calvert countians stand to benefit from a third reactor just as much as anyone else in the state.

‘‘Twenty percent of all the electricity in Maryland is provided by Calvert Cliffs [units] 1 and 2 right now,” he said. ‘‘... Electricity goes to wherever the load is. It has nothing to do with who you pay your bills to.”

He also sought to reassure his listeners that the plant would be safe and that the proposed expense of building it would be worthwhile.

‘‘I would assure you, you don’t want us to build the lowest-cost nuclear power plant available or have it built by the lowest bidder,” he said. ‘‘You would not want that, and we would not do it, because we live here.”