Nuclear Regulatory Commission finds that Calvert Cliffs Project should consider alternatives to nuclear power

The draft environmental impact statement’s “discussion of a combination of alternatives is inadequate and faulty,” the report states. “By selecting a single alternative that under-represents potential contributions of wind and solar power

Judge nuclear power against wind and solar, panel says NRC board agrees with foes of Calvert Cliffs project, Gazette.Net, Maryland Newws onlineby Meghan Russell , Jan. 7, 2011 Federal regulators agree with opponents of a proposed third reactor at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant that a draft report did not sufficiently consider alternative power sources, such as wind and solar, to the $10 billion, 1,600-megawatt project.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board released a report responding to a contention submitted in June by five environmental groups challenging UniStar Nuclear Energy’s Lusby project. The board’s three-judge panel acknowledged that the commission staff’s draft environmental impact statement for the project requires more discussion of such alternatives to nuclear power, as mandated by the National Energy Policy Act.

The draft environmental impact statement’s “discussion of a combination of alternatives is inadequate and faulty,” the report states. “By selecting a single alternative that under-represents potential contributions of wind and solar power, the combination alternative depends excessively on the natural gas supplement, thus unnecessarily burdening this alternative with excessive environmental impacts.”

The environmental groups that raised the concern include the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, Public Citizen’s Energy Program and Southern Maryland Citizens Alliance for Renewable Energy Solutions.

Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project for Beyond Nuclear, said he was thrilled the NRC licensing board agreed with opponents……The National Energy Policy Act merely requires parties advocating for nuclear construction to examine “reasonable alternatives,” Gunter said, “and they basically ignored the advent of a renewable energy renaissance, which in fact provides much cleaner, much safer and much less environmentally harmful electricity than nuclear power.”……….

The impact statement emphasized a need for the electricity the proposed reactor could generate. Opponents challenged the board’s research, arguing electricity demand has dropped in Maryland because of legislative changes and the Great Recession and that the researchers should have included a broader geographic discussion in their analysis.

Judge nuclear power against wind and solar, panel says