Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant 

Units 1 and 2 

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, 

Jacksonville 

Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 

NUREG-1941, Vol. 2
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).
Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant 

Units 1 and 2

Draft Report for Comment 

Manuscript Completed: August 2010 

Date Published: August 2010 

Division of Site and Environmental Review 

Office of New Reactors 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Regulatory Branch 

Jacksonville District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 

NUREG-1941, Vol. 2 
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 

Any party interested 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 draft NUREG-1941 in your comments and send them by the end of the 

75-day comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing availability of this 

draft. 

To submit comments: 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch 

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 email at Levy.COLEIS@nrc.gov. 

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

Mr. Douglas Bruner 

Mail Stop T7-E18 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: (301) 415-2730 

Email: Douglas.Bruner@nrc.gov 

or 

Mr. Gordon A. Hambrick, III 

Senior Project Manager 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Jacksonville District 

1002 West 23rd Street, Suite 350 

Panama City, Florida 32401 

Phone: (850) 763-0717, ext. 25 

Email: Gordon.A.Hambrick@usace.army.mil
August 2010 iii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Abstract 

2 This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application 

3 submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

4 (PEF) for combined construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs). 

5 The proposed actions related to the PEF application are (1) NRC issuance of COLs for two new 

6 power reactor units at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) site in Levy County, Florida, and (2) U.S. 

7 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issuance of a permit to perform certain construction 

8 activities on the site. The USACE is participating in preparing this EIS as a cooperating agency 

9 and participates collaboratively on the review team (which comprises NRC staff, contractor staff, 

10 and USACE staff). 

11 This EIS includes the review team’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 

12 impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units at the LNP site and at alternative 

13 sites, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. 

14 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) requires that the USACE apply the 

15 criteria set forth in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines in evaluating projects that propose to discharge 

16 dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The USACE must also determine 

17 through its Public Interest Review (PIR) whether the proposed project is contrary to the public 

18 interest. The USACE permit decision, including its evaluation under the 404 Guidelines and the 

19 PIR, will be documented in the USACE Record of Decision, which will be issued following the 

20 issuance of the Final EIS. After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed action, 

21 the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission is that the COLs be issued as 

22 proposed. This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the Environmental 

23 Report (ER), submitted by PEF; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; 

24 (3) the review team’s independent review; (4) the consideration of public scoping comments; 

25 and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures 

26 identified in the ER and this EIS. 

August 2010 v Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Contents 

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

3 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. xxxi 

4 Abbreviations/Acronyms .......................................................................................................... xxxv 

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

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

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

8 1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review ....................................................... 1-2 

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

10 1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities ............................................................................. 1-5 

11 1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................. 1-5 

12 1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews ............................................................................ 1-6 

13 1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions ................................................................................. 1-7 

14 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions ........................................................... 1-7 

15 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions ....................................................................... 1-8 

16 1.5 Compliance and Consultations ................................................................................. 1-9 

17 1.6 References ............................................................................................................... 1-9 

18 2.0 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 2-1 

19 2.1 Site Location ............................................................................................................. 2-1 

20 2.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 2-1 

21 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 2-5 

22 2.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ........................................................................ 2-8 

23 2.2.3 The Region ................................................................................................. 2-10 

24 2.3 Water ...................................................................................................................... 2-14 

25 2.3.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................... 2-16 

26 2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology ............................................................ 2-16 

27 2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology ............................................................... 2-24 

28 2.3.2 Water Use ................................................................................................... 2-29 

29 2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use ...................................................................... 2-29 

30 2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use ......................................................................... 2-30 

31 2.3.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 2-30 

32 2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality ................................................................. 2-32 

33 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................... 2-37 
Draft NUREG-1941 vi August 2010 

1 2.3.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 2-38 

2 2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring ............................................................ 2-38 

3 2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .............................................................. 2-40 

4 2.4 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 2-40 

5 2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology ................................................................ 2-40 

6 2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 2-41 

7 2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 2-51 

8 2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Site and Vicinity .... 2-59 

9 2.4.1.4 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Associated Offsite 

10 Facilities ....................................................................................... 2-82 

11 2.4.1.5 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 2-86 

12 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology .......................................................................................... 2-87 

13 2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 2-88 

14 2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................. 2-102 

15 2.4.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats .................................................... 2-103 

16 2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring ..................................................................... 2-120 

17 2.5 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... 2-122 

18 2.5.1 Demographics .......................................................................................... 2-125 

19 2.5.1.1 Resident Population ................................................................... 2-125 

20 2.5.1.2 Transient Population .................................................................. 2-129 

21 2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor ............................................................................. 2-129 

22 2.5.2 Community Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-130 

23 2.5.2.1 Economy .................................................................................... 2-131 

24 2.5.2.2 Taxes ......................................................................................... 2-132 

25 2.5.2.3 Transportation ............................................................................ 2-135 

26 2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation ......................................................... 2-137 

27 2.5.2.5 Housing ...................................................................................... 2-142 

28 2.5.2.6 Public Services .......................................................................... 2-143 

29 2.5.2.7 Education ................................................................................... 2-153 

30 2.6 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... 2-154 

31 2.6.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 2-155 

32 2.6.2 Analysis .................................................................................................... 2-156 

33 2.6.2.1 Location of Minority and Low-income Populations..................2-156 

34 2.6.2.2 Minoriy Population..........................................................2-157 

35 2.6.2.3 Low-income Populations..................................................2-158 

36 2.6.2.4 Communities with Unique Characteristics............................2-163 

37 2.6.3 Scoping and Outreach .............................................................................. 2-164 

38 2.6.4 Migrant Populations .................................................................................. 2-164 
August 2010 vii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary .............................................................. 2-165 

2 2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 2-165 

3 2.7.1 Cultural Background ................................................................................. 2-166 

4 2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site and Offsite Areas ................. 2-168 

5 2.7.2.1 Archaeological Resources ......................................................... 2-169 

6 2.7.2.2 Above-Ground Resources ......................................................... 2-170 

7 2.7.2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties ................................................... 2-170 

8 2.7.2.4 Transmission Lines .................................................................... 2-171 

9 2.7.3 Consultation .............................................................................................. 2-171 

10 2.8 Geology ................................................................................................................ 2-172 

11 2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality ................................................................................. 2-175 

12 2.9.1 Climate ..................................................................................................... 2-175 

13 2.9.1.1 Wind ........................................................................................... 2-176 

14 2.9.1.2 Atmospheric Stability ................................................................. 2-177 

15 2.9.1.3 Temperature .............................................................................. 2-177 

16 2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture ................................................................ 2-177 

17 2.9.1.5 Severe Weather ......................................................................... 2-178 

18 2.9.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 2-178 

19 2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion ............................................................................ 2-179 

20 2.9.3.1 Short-Term Dispersion Estimates .............................................. 2-179 

21 2.9.3.2 Long-Term Diffusion Estimates.................................................. 2-180 

22 2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring ........................................................................ 2-180 

23 2.10 Nonradiological Environment ............................................................................... 2-181 

24 2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................... 2-181 

25 2.10.1.1 Air Quality .................................................................................. 2-182 

26 2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries ................................................................. 2-182 

27 2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents ...................................................................... 2-183 

28 2.10.2 Noise ........................................................................................................ 2-185 

29 2.10.3 Transportation .......................................................................................... 2-187 

30 2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields ............................................................................. 2-187 

31 2.11 Radiological Environment ..................................................................................... 2-188 

32 2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultation .......................................................... 2-189 

33 2.13 References ........................................................................................................... 2-189 

34 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description .................................................................................... 3-1 

35 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout .................................................................... 3-1 

36 3.2 Proposed Plant Structures, Systems, and Components .......................................... 3-3 
Draft NUREG-1941 viii August 2010 

1 3.2.1 Reactor Power Conversion Systems ............................................................ 3-3 

2 3.2.2 Structures, Systems, and Components with a Major Environmental 

3 Interface ........................................................................................................ 3-6 

4 3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ........................................... 3-6 

5 3.2.2.2 Cooling System .............................................................................. 3-6 

6 3.2.2.3 Other Permanent Structures, Systems, or Components with an 

7 Environmental Interface ............................................................... 3-12 

8 3.2.2.4 Other Temporary Plant-Environment Interfacing Structures ........ 3-14 

9 3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface ........................................ 3-15 

10 3.2.3.1 Nuclear Island, Turbine Building, and Annex Building ................. 3-15 

11 3.2.3.2 Pipelines ...................................................................................... 3-15 

12 3.2.3.3 Miscellaneous Buildings .............................................................. 3-15 

13 3.2.3.4 Parking ......................................................................................... 3-15 

14 3.2.3.5 Laydown Areas ............................................................................ 3-16 

15 3.2.3.6 Switchyard ................................................................................... 3-16 

16 3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ........................................................... 3-16 

17 3.3.1 Major Activity Areas .................................................................................... 3-18 

18 3.3.1.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ......................................... 3-18 

19 3.3.1.2 Circulating-Water Intake Structure....................................... 3-19 

20 3.3.1.3 Circulating-Water Discharge Structure ........................................ 3-19 

21 3.3.1.4 Diesel Generators ........................................................................ 3-19 

22 3.3.1.5 Roads .......................................................................................... 3-19 

23 3.3.1.6 Grouting and Dewatering ............................................................. 3-19 

24 3.3.1.7 Water-Supply Wells ..................................................................... 3-20 

25 3.3.1.8 Barge Facility ............................................................................... 3-20 

26 3.3.1.9 Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant .................................................. 3-20 

27 3.3.1.10 Power Transmission System ....................................................... 3-20 

28 3.3.1.11 Cranes and Crane Footings ......................................................... 3-21 

29 3.3.1.12 Concrete Batch Plant ................................................................... 3-21 

30 3.3.1.13 Powerblock and Cooling Towers ................................................. 3-21 

31 3.3.1.14 Pipelines ...................................................................................... 3-22 

32 3.3.1.15 Miscellaneous Buildings .............................................................. 3-22 

33 3.3.1.16 Parking ......................................................................................... 3-22 

34 3.3.1.17 Laydown Areas ............................................................................ 3-22 

35 3.3.1.18 Switchyard ................................................................................... 3-22 

36 3.3.2 Summary of Resource Commitments Due to Building Activities ................ 3-23 

37 3.4 Operational Activities .............................................................................................. 3-24 

38 3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes .............................................................. 3-24 

39 3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation ......................................... 3-24 
August 2010 ix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 3.4.2.1 Circulating-Water System – Intakes, Discharges, and Cooling 

2 Towers ......................................................................................... 3-24 

3 3.4.2.2 Service-Water System ................................................................. 3-27 

4 3.4.2.3 Water-Treatment Systems ........................................................... 3-28 

5 3.4.2.4 Landscape and Drainage ............................................................. 3-29 

6 3.4.2.5 Water-Supply Wells ..................................................................... 3-29 

7 3.4.2.6 Diesel Generators ........................................................................ 3-29 

8 3.4.2.7 Transmission-Line Maintenance .................................................. 3-30 

9 3.4.3 Radioactive Waste-Management Systems ................................................. 3-31 

10 3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management ...................................... 3-31 

11 3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management ................................. 3-32 

12 3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste-Management ........................................ 3-33 

13 3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste-Management Systems ........................................... 3-33 

14 3.4.4.1 Solid-Waste Management............................................................ 3-33 

15 3.4.4.2 Liquid-Waste Management .......................................................... 3-34 

16 3.4.4.3 Gaseous-Waste Management ..................................................... 3-37 

17 3.4.4.4 Hazardous- and Mixed-Waste Management ............................... 3-37 

18 3.4.5 Summary of Resource Commitments During Operation ............................ 3-38 

19 3.5 References ............................................................................................................. 3-39 

20 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site ...................................................................... 4-1 

21 4.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 4-3 

22 4.1.1 The Site, Vicinity, Region, and Offsite Areas ................................................ 4-4 

23 4.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ...................................................................... 4-11 

24 4.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts .................................................................. 4-16 

25 4.2 Water-Related Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-17 

26 4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations .............................................................................. 4-18 

27 4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-23 

28 4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 4-24 

29 4.2.3.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 4-24 

30 4.2.3.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 4-25 

31 4.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 4-27 

32 4.3 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-27 

33 4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts ................................................................. 4-27 

34 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 4-27 

35 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 4-39 

36 4.3.1.3 Impacts on Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............... 4-46 

37 4.3.1.4 Floodplains and Historic Basin Storage ....................................... 4-61 
Draft NUREG-1941 x August 2010 

1 4.3.1.5 Impacts from Fill Acquisition ........................................................ 4-64 

2 4.3.1.6 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 4-65 

3 4.3.1.7 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts .................. 4-66 

4 4.3.1.8 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ............................ 4-69 

5 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-71 

6 4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 4-72 

7 4.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................... 4-74 

8 4.3.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................................... 4-75 

9 4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring ....................................................................... 4-78 

10 4.3.2.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Aquatic Impacts ...................... 4-79 

11 4.3.2.6 Summary of Impacts on Aquatic Resources ................................ 4-79 

12 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-79 

13 4.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-80 

14 4.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public ...................................................... 4-80 

15 4.4.1.2 Buildings ...................................................................................... 4-81 

16 4.4.1.3 Roads .......................................................................................... 4-81 

17 4.4.1.4 Aesthetics .................................................................................... 4-82 

18 4.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts ...................................................... 4-82 

19 4.4.2 Demography ............................................................................................... 4-83 

20 4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ........................................................ 4-84 

21 4.4.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 4-85 

22 4.4.3.2 Commercial Fishing ..................................................................... 4-88 

23 4.4.3.3 Taxes ........................................................................................... 4-89 

24 4.4.3.4 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community ..................... 4-91 

25 4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts .......................................... 4-91 

26 4.4.4.1 Transportation .............................................................................. 4-91 

27 4.4.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 4-94 

28 4.4.4.3 Housing ........................................................................................ 4-95 

29 4.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 4-97 

30 4.4.4.5 Education ..................................................................................... 4-99 

31 4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts ..... 4-100 

32 4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ....................................................... 4-100 

33 4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................................. 4-101 

34 4.5.1 Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts ...................................................... 4-102 

35 4.5.2 Health Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-103 

36 4.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions ........................................................ 4-104 

37 4.5.3.1 Subsistence ............................................................................... 4-104 

38 4.5.3.2 High-Density Communities ........................................................ 4-105 
August 2010 xi Draft NUREG-1941 

1 4.5.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................ 4-105 

2 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ............................................................. 4-105 

3 4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts ................................................................ 4-108 

4 4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ............................................. 4-108 

5 4.7.2 Transportation .......................................................................................... 4-109 

6 4.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts ............................... 4-111 

7 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................ 4-111 

8 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................... 4-111 

9 4.8.1.1 Public Health .............................................................................. 4-112 

10 4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health ....................................................... 4-112 

11 4.8.1.3 Summary of Public and Construction Worker Health Impacts ... 4-113 

12 4.8.2 Noise Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-113 

13 4.8.3 Transporting Construction Materials and Personnel to the Proposed 

14 Site ........................................................................................................... 4-115 

15 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ........................................... 4-117 

16 4.9 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers ...................................................... 4-118 

17 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures ...................................................................... 4-118 

18 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents .......................................... 4-118 

19 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents ............................................... 4-119 

20 4.9.4 Total Dose to Site Preparation Workers ................................................... 4-119 

21 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts ................................................. 4-119 

22 4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................. 4-119 

23 4.10.1 Impacts on Land ....................................................................................... 4-119 

24 4.10.2 Impacts on Water ..................................................................................... 4-121 

25 4.10.3 Impacts on Air ........................................................................................... 4-122 

26 4.10.4 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................ 4-123 

27 4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction 

28 Activities ............................................................................................................... 4-123 

29 4.12 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts ...................................... 4-135 

30 4.13 References ........................................................................................................... 4-139 

31 5.0 Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site ........................................................................ 5-1 

32 5.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 5-1 

33 5.1.1 The Site, Vicinity, Region, and Offsite Areas ................................................ 5-2 
Draft NUREG-1941 xii August 2010 

1 5.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ........................................................................ 5-2 

2 5.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts .................................................................... 5-3 

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

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

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

6 5.2.2.1 Surface Water ................................................................................ 5-5 

7 5.2.2.2 Groundwater .................................................................................. 5-7 

8 5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts .................................................................................. 5-9 

9 5.2.3.1 Surface Water ................................................................................ 5-9 

10 5.2.3.2 Groundwater ................................................................................ 5-16 

11 5.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 5-16 

12 5.3 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 5-18 

13 5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operations ............................. 5-18 

14 5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 5-19 

15 5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 5-31 

16 5.3.1.3 Impacts on Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............... 5-35 

17 5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 5-41 

18 5.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts .................. 5-42 

19 5.3.1.6 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ............................ 5-42 

20 5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operation ........................................................ 5-43 

21 5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Cooling-Water Withdrawal Impacts ........... 5-44 

22 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................... 5-54 

23 5.3.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................................... 5-54 

24 5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation ........................................... 5-57 

25 5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources ............ 5-57 

26 5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-57 

27 5.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-58 

28 5.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public ...................................................... 5-58 

29 5.4.1.2 Buildings ...................................................................................... 5-60 

30 5.4.1.3 Roads .......................................................................................... 5-60 

31 5.4.1.4 Aesthetics .................................................................................... 5-60 

32 5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts ...................................................... 5-61 

33 5.4.2 Demography ............................................................................................... 5-61 

34 5.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ........................................................ 5-64 

35 5.4.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 5-64 

36 5.4.3.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing ......................................... 5-65 

37 5.4.3.3 Taxes ........................................................................................... 5-65 
August 2010 xiii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 5.4.3.4 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community ..................... 5-67 

2 5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services ..................................................... 5-67 

3 5.4.4.1 Transportation .............................................................................. 5-67 

4 5.4.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 5-68 

5 5.4.4.3 Housing ........................................................................................ 5-69 

6 5.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 5-69 

7 5.4.4.5 Education ..................................................................................... 5-72 

8 5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomics Impacts ....................................................... 5-73 

9 5.5 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 5-73 

10 5.5.1 Health Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-73 

11 5.5.2 Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................ 5-74 

12 5.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions .......................................................... 5-75 

13 5.5.3.1 Subsistence ................................................................................. 5-75 

14 5.5.3.2 High-Density Communities .......................................................... 5-76 

15 5.5.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................. 5-76 

16 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts from Operations .................................... 5-76 

17 5.7 Meteorology and Air Quality Impacts ..................................................................... 5-78 

18 5.7.1 Air Quality Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-78 

19 5.7.2 Cooling-System Impacts ............................................................................. 5-79 

20 5.7.3 Transmission-Line Impacts ......................................................................... 5-80 

21 5.7.4 Summary of Meteorology and Air Quality Impacts ..................................... 5-81 

22 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts .............................................................................. 5-81 

23 5.8.1 Etiological Agents ....................................................................................... 5-81 

24 5.8.2 Noise .......................................................................................................... 5-82 

25 5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ..................................................... 5-83 

26 5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields .................................................. 5-84 

27 5.8.5 Occupational Health ................................................................................... 5-85 

28 5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the Proposed 

29 Site ............................................................................................................. 5-86 

30 5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................. 5-87 

31 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ........................................................... 5-88 

32 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................... 5-88 

33 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public ................................................ 5-89 

34 5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-92 
Draft NUREG-1941 xiv August 2010 

1 5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 5-93 

2 5.9.3 Impacts on Members of the Public ............................................................. 5-93 

3 5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual ...................................................... 5-94 

4 5.9.3.2 Population Dose .......................................................................... 5-96 

5 5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts on Members of the Public ...... 5-97 

6 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers ................................................................. 5-97 

7 5.9.5 Impacts on Non-Human Biota .................................................................... 5-98 

8 5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-98 

9 5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 5-98 

10 5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses ................................................. 5-99 

11 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring ............................................................................ 5-100 

12 5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................. 5-101 

13 5.10.1 Impacts on Land ....................................................................................... 5-101 

14 5.10.2 Impacts on Water ..................................................................................... 5-102 

15 5.10.3 Impacts on Air ........................................................................................... 5-103 

16 5.10.4 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................ 5-103 

17 5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents .................................................. 5-104 

18 5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents ............................................................................ 5-105 

19 5.11.2 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Severe Accidents .......................... 5-108 

20 5.11.2.1 Internally Initiated Events ........................................................... 5-108 

21 5.11.2.2 Air Pathway ................................................................................ 5-110 

22 5.11.2.3 Surface-Water Pathway ............................................................. 5-115 

23 5.11.2.4 Groundwater Pathway ............................................................... 5-116 

24 5.11.2.5 Externally Initiated Events ......................................................... 5-116 

25 5.11.2.6 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts ....................................... 5-117 

26 5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ................................................... 5-118 

27 5.11.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts ................................................ 5-121 

28 5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation ................... 5-122 

29 5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts ......................................................................... 5-128 

30 5.14 References ........................................................................................................... 5-131 

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 ..................................................................................................... 6-8 

35 6.1.3 Fossil-Fuel Impacts ...................................................................................... 6-9 
August 2010 xv Draft NUREG-1941 

1 6.1.4 Chemical Effluents ........................................................................................ 6-9 

2 6.1.5 Radiological Effluents ................................................................................. 6-10 

3 6.1.6 Radiological Wastes ................................................................................... 6-12 

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

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

6 6.1.9 Conclusions for Fuel Cycle and Solid-Waste Management ....................... 6-16 

7 6.2 Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................... 6-16 

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 .................. 6-26 

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 ........................ 6-38 

16 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste ......................................................... 6-39 

17 6.2.4 Conclusions for Transportation ................................................................... 6-41 

18 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts ..................................................................................... 6-42 

19 6.4 References ............................................................................................................. 6-43 

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

21 7.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 7-2 

22 7.2 Water Use and Quality ........................................................................................... 7-10 

23 7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 7-10 

24 7.2.1.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts......................................................... 7-10 

25 7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts ........................................................... 7-13 

26 7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 7-15 

27 7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 7-15 

28 7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 7-19 

29 7.3 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 7-20 

30 7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts ................................................................... 7-20 

31 7.3.1.1 Wildlife and Habitats .................................................................... 7-21 

32 7.3.1.2 Important Species ........................................................................ 7-25 

33 7.3.1.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts on the Terrestrial Ecosystem .. 7-27 

34 7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts ....................................................................... 7-28 

35 7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .......................................................... 7-33 
Draft NUREG-1941 xvi August 2010 

1 7.4.1 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 7-33 

2 7.4.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 7-37 

3 7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 7-39 

4 7.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 7-40 

5 7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants ....................................................................................... 7-40 

6 7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 7-41 

7 7.6.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts ................................................................. 7-43 

8 7.7 Nonradiological Health ........................................................................................... 7-43 

9 7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation ............................................................. 7-45 

10 7.9 Nonradiological Waste ........................................................................................... 7-47 

11 7.10 Postulated Accidents .............................................................................................. 7-48 

12 7.11 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning ................................................ 7-48 

13 7.11.1 Fuel Cycle ................................................................................................... 7-49 

14 7.11.2 Transportation ............................................................................................ 7-49 

15 7.11.3 Decommissioning ....................................................................................... 7-51 

16 7.12 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 7-52 

17 7.13 References ............................................................................................................. 7-54 

18 8.0 Need for Power ................................................................................................................. 8-1 

19 8.1 Description of the Power System ............................................................................. 8-1 

20 8.1.1 Description of the PEF System ..................................................................... 8-2 

21 8.1.2 Evaluation of the FPSC Analytical Process .................................................. 8-4 

22 8.1.2.1 Systematic ..................................................................................... 8-4 

23 8.1.2.2 Comprehensive .............................................................................. 8-5 

24 8.1.2.3 Subject to Confirmation ................................................................. 8-5 

25 8.1.2.4 Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty ......................................... 8-6 

26 8.2 Determination of Demand ........................................................................................ 8-6 

27 8.2.1 Factors in the FPSC Determination of Need ................................................ 8-6 

28 8.2.1.1 Growth in Demand ......................................................................... 8-7 

29 8.2.1.2 Electric System Reliability .............................................................. 8-7 

30 8.2.1.3 Demand Side Management and Energy Efficiency ....................... 8-8 

31 8.2.2 PEF's Demand for Electricity ........................................................................ 8-9 

32 8.3 Determination of Supply ........................................................................................... 8-9 

33 8.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 8-10 

34 8.5 References ............................................................................................................. 8-10 

35 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ............................................................................. 9-1 
August 2010 xvii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 9-3 

2 9.2 Energy Alternatives .................................................................................................. 9-3 

3 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity .................................. 9-4 

4 9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity ........................................ 9-6 

5 9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation ........................................................ 9-7 

6 9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .......................................... 9-13 

7 9.2.3 Other Alternatives ....................................................................................... 9-20 

8 9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation ......................................................... 9-20 

9 9.2.3.2 Wind Power ................................................................................. 9-21 

10 9.2.3.3 Solar Power ................................................................................. 9-21 

11 9.2.3.4 Hydropower ................................................................................. 9-22 

12 9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy ...................................................................... 9-22 

13 9.2.3.6 Wood Waste ................................................................................ 9-23 

14 9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste ................................................................. 9-23 

15 9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels ...................................................... 9-24 

16 9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells ..................................................................................... 9-24 

17 9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives ........................................................................ 9-25 

18 9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................ 9-27 

19 9.3 Alternative Sites ..................................................................................................... 9-29 

20 9.3.1 Alternative Sites Selection Process ............................................................ 9-29 

21 9.3.1.1 Selection of Region of Interest ..................................................... 9-30 

22 9.3.1.2 Selection of Candidate Areas ...................................................... 9-30 

23 9.3.1.3 Selection of Potential Sites .......................................................... 9-31 

24 9.3.1.4 Selection of Candidate Sites ........................................................ 9-32 

25 9.3.1.5 Selection of Alternative Sites ....................................................... 9-36 

26 9.3.1.6 Selection of the Proposed Site .................................................... 9-37 

27 9.3.1.7 Review Team Evaluation of PEF’s Site-Selection Process ......... 9-38 

28 9.3.1.8 Evaluation of the Alternative Sites ............................................... 9-38 

29 9.3.2 Crystal River Site ........................................................................................ 9-40 

30 9.3.2.1 Land-Use Impacts ........................................................................ 9-45 

31 9.3.2.2 Water Use and Quality ................................................................. 9-49 

32 9.3.2.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ............................................. 9-54 

33 9.3.2.4 Aquatic Resources for the Crystal River Energy Complex Site ... 9-73 

34 9.3.2.5 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 9-79 

35 9.3.2.6 Environmental Justice .................................................................. 9-88 

36 9.3.2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................. 9-90 

37 9.3.2.8 Air Quality .................................................................................... 9-93 

38 9.3.2.9 Nonradiological Health ................................................................. 9-95 

39 9.3.2.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ................................. 9-97 
Draft NUREG-1941 xviii August 2010 

1 9.3.2.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................... 9-98 

2 9.3.3 Dixie Site .................................................................................................... 9-99 

3 9.3.3.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines ............................................ 9-102 

4 9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-105 

5 9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-111 

6 9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources for the Dixie Site ......................................... 9-118 

7 9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-124 

8 9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-136 

9 9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-140 

10 9.3.3.8 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-142 

11 9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-144 

12 9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-147 

13 9.3.3.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-147 

14 9.3.4 Highlands Site .......................................................................................... 9-148 

15 9.3.4.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines ............................................ 9-151 

16 9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-154 

17 9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-159 

18 9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources for the Highlands Site ................................. 9-166 

19 9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-171 

20 9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-181 

21 9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-185 

22 9.3.4.8 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-187 

23 9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-189 

24 9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-192 

25 9.3.4.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-193 

26 9.3.5 Putnam Site .............................................................................................. 9-193 

27 9.3.5.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines ............................................ 9-197 

28 9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-199 

29 9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-205 

30 9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................... 9-212 

31 9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-217 

32 9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-227 

33 9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-230 

34 9.3.5.8 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-233 

35 9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-234 

36 9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-237 

37 9.3.5.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-238 

38 9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative Sites 9-239 

39 9.3.6.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative 

40 Sites ........................................................................................... 9-241 
August 2010 xix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.3.6.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites ............................................... 9-242 

2 9.3.6.3 Obviously Superior Sites............................................................ 9-245 

3 9.4 System Design Alternatives ................................................................................. 9-245 

4 9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems ........................................................................ 9-246 

5 9.4.1.1 Plant Cooling System – Once-Through Operation ..................... 9-246 

6 9.4.1.2 Cooling Pond and Spray Ponds ................................................. 9-247 

7 9.4.1.3 Dry-Cooling Towers ................................................................... 9-247 

8 9.4.1.4 Combination Wet/Dry-Cooling Tower System ........................... 9-247 

9 9.4.1.5 Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers ............................................. 9-248 

10 9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems ....................................................................... 9-248 

11 9.4.2.1 Water Supplies .......................................................................... 9-248 

12 9.4.2.2 Water Reuse .............................................................................. 9-249 

13 9.4.2.3 Groundwater .............................................................................. 9-249 

14 9.4.2.4 Surface Water ............................................................................ 9-249 

15 9.4.2.5 Intake Alternatives ..................................................................... 9-249 

16 9.4.2.6 Discharge Alternatives ............................................................... 9-250 

17 9.4.2.7 Water Treatment ........................................................................ 9-250 

18 9.4.3 Service-Water System Alternatives .......................................................... 9-251 

19 9.4.4 Summary of System Design Alternatives ................................................. 9-252 

20 9.5 References ........................................................................................................... 9-252 

21 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 10-1 

22 10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 10-3 

23 10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 10-4 

24 10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction .. 10-4 

25 10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation ....................................... 10-9 

26 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the 

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

28 10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................... 10-14 

29 10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources .................................................. 10-14 

30 10.4.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 10-14 

31 10.4.1.2 Water Use .................................................................................. 10-15 

32 10.4.1.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota...................................................... 10-15 

33 10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................ 10-15 

34 10.4.1.5 Air and Water ............................................................................. 10-16 

35 10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................. 10-16 

36 10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ..................................................................... 10-16 

37 10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance ............................................................................................ 10-17 
Draft NUREG-1941 xx August 2010 

1 10.6.1 Benefits ..................................................................................................... 10-18 

2 10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits ........................................................................ 10-19 

3 10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits ....................................................................... 10-20 

4 10.6.2 Costs ........................................................................................................ 10-21 

5 10.6.2.1 Internal Costs ............................................................................. 10-25 

6 10.6.2.2 External Costs ........................................................................... 10-28 

7 10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs ............................................................... 10-30 

8 10.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 10-30 

9 10.8 References ........................................................................................................... 10-31 

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

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

12 Appendix C – NRC and USACE Environmental Review Correspondence ............................... C-1 

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

14 Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses .................. E-1 

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

16 Appendix G – Supporting Socioeconomic Documentation ....................................................... G-1 

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

18 Appendix I – Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a Model 1000-MW(e) Light Water 

19 Reactor (LWR) ............................................................................................................................ I-1 

20 Appendix J – Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment .......................... J-1 

21 Appendix K – Wildlife Species Observed During Pedestrian Surveys, 2006 – 2008 ................ K-1
August 2010 xxi Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Figures 

2 2-1 LNP Site Location and Region ......................................................................................... 2-2

3 2-2 LNP Site and Vicinity ....................................................................................................... 2-3

4 2-3 LNP Site and Select Offsite Facilities .............................................................................. 2-4

5 2-4 Principal Land Uses in the Vicinity of the LNP Site ......................................................... 2-6

6 2-5 Locations of the Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors and Substations for the 

7 LNP Site........................................................................................................................... 2-9

8 2-6 Gulf of Mexico as the Source of Makeup Water for the Proposed LNP ......................... 2-15

9 2-7 Location of the LNP Site with Respect to the Adjacent Watersheds and River 

10 Basins ............................................................................................................................ 2-17

11 2-8 Location of the LNP Site with Respect to Sub-Basin Drainage Areas ........................... 2-18

12 2-9 The Hydrologic Setting near the Head of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, Including 

13 Water-Control Structures ............................................................................................... 2-20

14 2-10 The Plant Site for Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 ............................................................ 2-22

15 2-11 LNP Units 1 and 2 Footprint, the 100-Year Flood Plain, and the Estimated Area to 

16 be Disturbed During Construction .................................................................................. 2-23

17 2-12 Local-Scale Model Grid Showing the Location of Proposed LNP Supply Wells, 

18 Adjacent Permitted Users, and Springs ......................................................................... 2-31

19 2-13 Water-Quality Sampling Stations for the Proposed LNP Units ...................................... 2-33

20 2-14 Water-Quality Sampling Stations for the CREC Discharge Canal ................................. 2-34

21 2-15 Cover Types from the LNP Site and Vicinity .................................................................. 2-42

22 2-16 Delineated Wetlands of the LNP Site ............................................................................ 2-49

23 2-17 Important Natural Resources near the LNP Site ........................................................... 2-80

24 2-18 Location of Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) Discharge Canal in Relation to 

25 the Gulf of Mexico .......................................................................................................... 2-88

26 2-19 Aquatic Sampling Locations in the CFBC and OWR ..................................................... 2-91

27 2-20 Aquatic Sampling Locations for CREC ........................................................................ 2-100

28 2-21 10-Mi Sector Chart ....................................................................................................... 2-123

29 2-22 Regional Sector Chart ................................................................................................. 2-124

30 2-23 Regional Parks and Recreational Areas ...................................................................... 2-140

31 2-24 Regional Recreational Trails ........................................................................................ 2-141

32 2-25 Regional Healthcare Services ..................................................................................... 2-152

33 2-26 Regional Minority Population ....................................................................................... 2-159

34 2-27 Regional African-American Population ........................................................................ 2-160

35 2-28 Regional Hispanic Population ...................................................................................... 2-161

36 2-29 Regional Low-Income Population ................................................................................ 2-162

37 2-30 Physiographic Provinces in the Vicinity of the LNP Site .............................................. 2-173

38 2-31 Relationship of Stratigraphy and Hydrogeologic Units in West-Central Florida ........... 2-174

39 3-1 Proposed LNP Site Footprint ........................................................................................... 3-2
Draft NUREG-1941 xxii August 2010 

1 3-2 Conceptual Drawing with the Proposed Units 1 and 2 Superimposed on the 

2 Proposed Site .................................................................................................................. 3-4

3 3-3 Simplified Flow Diagram of the Reactor Power Conversion System ............................... 3-5

4 3-4 LNP Units 1 and 2 Detailed Site Layout .......................................................................... 3-7

5 3-5 Section View of the Cooling-Water-Intake Structure ....................................................... 3-9

6 3-6 Proposed Cooling-Water-Intake Structure and Barge Unloading Facility Layout .......... 3-10

7 3-7 Discharge Pipeline Route and CREC Discharge Canal ................................................ 3-11

8 3-8 LNP Units 1 and 2 Water-Balance Diagram .................................................................. 3-26

9 4-1 Simulated Incremental Surficial Aquifer Drawdown for 1 Year of Pumping at the 

10 Annual Average Usage Rate ........................................................................................ 4-22

11 4-2 Extent of Project Development-Related Impacts on Delineated Wetlands of the 

12 LNP Site......................................................................................................................... 4-33

13 5-1 Simulated Incremental Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) Drawdown Associated with 

14 LNP Operations ............................................................................................................... 5-6

15 5-2 Local-Scale Groundwater Model Water Balance ............................................................. 5-8

16 5-3 Conceptualization of Flow Within the CFBC-OWR System Under Existing 

17 Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 5-10

18 5-4 Conceptualization of Flow Within the CFBC-OWR System During Low Flows 

19 Ignoring Tidal Effects from the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................... 5-11

20 5-5 Simulated Groundwater Drawdown from Operational Pumping (1.58 Mgd at Year 

21 60) Relative to Wetlands on the Well-Field Site ............................................................ 5-25

22 5-6 Thermal Plume Analysis Using the Finite Volume Community Ocean Model 

23 (FVCOM) Showing the Temperature Difference Between the Current and 

24 Proposed Thermal Discharge Under Summer Conditions at Ebb Tide ......................... 5-50

25 5-7 Thermal Plume Analysis Using the FVCOM Showing the Temperature Difference 

26 Between Current and Proposed Thermal Discharge Under Winter Conditions at 

27 Ebb Tide ........................................................................................................................ 5-50

28 5-8 Salinity Difference Between the Current (CREC Units 1-5) and Proposed (CREC 

29 Units 1-5 and LNP Units 1 and 2) Discharge Plume at Ebb Tide .................................. 5-52

30 5-9 Exposure Pathways to Man ........................................................................................... 5-90

31 5-10 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man ............................................................... 5-91

32 6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option .................................................................. 6-6

33 6-2 Illustration of Truck Stop Model ..................................................................................... 6-31

34 8-1 The PEF Service Territory ............................................................................................... 8-3

35 9-1 Map Highlighting the Florida Counties in Which the Top 20 Potential Sites for New 

36 Nuclear Units Are Located ............................................................................................. 9-33

37 9-2 Dixie County Minority Populations ............................................................................... 9-137

38 9-3 Dixie County Low-Income Populations ....................................................................... 9-138

39 9-4 Highlands Site Minority Populations ............................................................................ 9-182

40 9-5 Highlands Site Low-Income Populations ..................................................................... 9-183

41 9-6 Putnam Site Minority Populations ............................................................................... 9-228
August 2010 xxiii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9-7 Putnam Site Low-Income Populations ......................................................................... 9-229

2 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxiv August 2010 

1 Tables 

2 2-1 Potentially Affected Land Uses and Habitats in Conceptual Transmission-Line 

3 Corridors Associated with the LNP Site in Acres ........................................................... 2-11

4 2-2 Land Use in the Region ................................................................................................. 2-13

5 2-3 Water-Quality Sampling in the CFBC, the Gulf of Mexico, and the CREC 

6 Discharge Canal ............................................................................................................ 2-35

7 2-4 Surface-Water Monitoring at USGS Streamflow Stations near the LNP Site ................ 2-39

8 2-5 Area of Cover Types at the LNP Site ............................................................................. 2-43

9 2-6 Area of Wetland Cover Types at the LNP Site .............................................................. 2-50

10 2-7 FLUCFCS Cover Types Within the Associated Facilities Corridors .............................. 2-56

11 2-8 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring on the LNP 

12 Site and Associated Facilities ........................................................................................ 2-61

13 2-9 Other Important Species That May Occur on the LNP Site and Associated Offsite 

14 Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 2-81

15 2-10 Benthic Invertebrate Diversity for the CFBC, OWR, and CREC Sampling Events ........ 2-92

16 2-11 Motile Macroinvertebrates Sampled in the CFBC and CREC with Catch per Unit 

17 Effort (CPUE) >1.0 from October 2007 Through November 2008 by Trawl and 

18 Crab Trap....................................................................................................................... 2-93

19 2-12 Fish Species Sampled in the CFBC, OWR, and CREC with CPUE >1.0 from 

20 October 2007 Through November 2008 by Beach Seine, Trawl, Cast Net, Gill Net, 

21 and Minnow Trap ........................................................................................................... 2-93

22 2-13 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that are Endangered, Threatened, 

23 and Species of Concern .............................................................................................. 2-112

24 2-14 Important Species and Likelihood of Occurrence in Waters Associated with 

25 Construction and Operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 ....................................................... 2-118

26 2-15 Estuarine Essential Fish Habitat Species for the CFBC and CREC Discharge Area .. 2-121

27 2-16 Population Projections by County from 2000−2080 ..................................................... 2-127

28 2-17 Age and Gender Distribution Within the Region .......................................................... 2-128

29 2-18 Racial and Ethnic Distribution Within the Region ........................................................ 2-128

30 2-19 Income Distribution Within the Region – Percent of Households ................................ 2-129

31 2-20 Summary of Baseline Transient Populations by County .............................................. 2-130

32 2-21 Regional Employment Trends ..................................................................................... 2-133

33 2-22 Regional Per Capita Personal Income ......................................................................... 2-133

34 2-23 Total Sales Taxes Collected in the Regional Counties for Fiscal Year 2004–2005 ..... 2-134

35 2-24 Recreational Areas Within 50 Mi of the LNP site ......................................................... 2-138

36 2-25 Total Trail Distances in the Region .............................................................................. 2-139

37 2-26 Mobile Home and RV Parks in the Region .................................................................. 2-139

38 2-27 Regional Housing Stock in 2000 .................................................................................. 2-142

39 2-28 Regional Public Lodgings: Apartments, Rooming Houses, Rental Condominiums, 

40 and Transient Apartments in 2006 ............................................................................... 2-144
August 2010 xxv Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2-29 Hotels Within 10 Mi of the LNP Site in 2008 ................................................................ 2-144

2 2-30 Projected Levy County Water Demand, from 2000–2020 ........................................... 2-146

3 2-31 Projected Water Demand for Marion County from 2000–2025 .................................... 2-146

4 2-32 Citrus County Forecast of Water Use .......................................................................... 2-147

5 2-33 Estimated Future Raw Sewage Output in Levy County ............................................... 2-148

6 2-34 Medical Facilities Within the Region ............................................................................ 2-151

7 2-35 Estimated Public School Students per Household ...................................................... 2-153

8 2-36 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Unit 3 and 4 Design Basis Accident 

9 Calculations ................................................................................................................. 2-180

10 2-37 Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for 

11 Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest ............................................. 2-181

12 2-38 Construction Noise Sources and Attenuation with Distance ........................................ 2-186

13 3-1 Descriptions and Examples of Activities Associated with Building Units 1 and 2 .......... 3-17

14 3-2 Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Construction and 

15 Preconstruction of Proposed Units 1 and 2 ................................................................... 3-23

16 3-3 Characterization of Potential Pollutants in the LNP Discharge to the CREC 

17 Discharge Canal ............................................................................................................ 3-35

18 3-4 Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Operation of Proposed LNP 

19 Units 1 and 2.................................................................................................................. 3-38

20 4-1 LNP Onsite Land-Use Impacts by Major Component ...................................................... 4-5

21 4-2 LNP Offsite Land-Use Impacts by Major Component ...................................................... 4-8

22 4-3 Land-Use Impacts within Representative Transmission-Line Corridors in Acres .......... 4-13

23 4-4 Extent of Project Development-Related Impacts on Cover Types of the LNP Site ....... 4-28

24 4-5 Extent of Project Development-Related Impacts on Cover Types in the LNP 

25 Vicinity ........................................................................................................................... 4-30

26 4-6 Extent of Project Development Impacts to Wetlands on the LNP Site .......................... 4-32

27 4-7 Extent of Development-Related Impacts on Cover Types for the Associated 

28 Offsite Facilities ............................................................................................................. 4-41

29 4-8 Cover Types Present Within Potential Floodplain Compensation Areas ....................... 4-63

30 4-9 Preliminary UMAM Assessment for the LNP Project ..................................................... 4-68

31 4-10 New Jobs at Peak Employment During Construction and Preconstruction Activities .... 4-86

32 4-11 2008 and Projected 2015 P.M. Peak-Hour Roadway LOS Conditions Near the 

33 LNP Site......................................................................................................................... 4-93

34 4-12 2008 and Projected 2015 P.M. Peak-Hour Intersection LOS Conditions Near the 

35 LNP Site......................................................................................................................... 4-93

36 4-13 Regional Housing and Residential Distribution for In-Migrating Construction 

37 Workers ......................................................................................................................... 4-96

38 4-14 Expected Number of Students from In-Migrating Construction Worker Households 

39 at Peak ........................................................................................................................ 4-100

40 4-15 Annual Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers and Materials to and 

41 from the Proposed LNP Site for a Single AP1000 Reactor ......................................... 4-117
Draft NUREG-1941 xxvi August 2010 

1 4-16 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by PEF to Limit Adverse Impacts 

2 During Construction of Proposed Units 1 and 2 .......................................................... 4-125

3 4-17 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts for Proposed Units 1 and 2 .. 4-135

4 5-1 Thermal Plume Scenarios Simulated by the Review Team ........................................... 5-14

5 5-2 Potential Wetland Impacts by FLUCFCS Cover Types for Simulated Groundwater 

6 Drawdown (1.58 Mgd at Year 60) Using the Recalibrated Groundwater Model ............ 5-26

7 5-3 Chemical Discharges to the Gulf of Mexico from Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 ............ 5-52

8 5-4 Potential Increase in Resident Population Resulting from Operating Proposed 

9 LNP Units 1 and 2.......................................................................................................... 5-62

10 5-5 Distribution of Operations-Related Workers .................................................................. 5-63

11 5-6 Expected Number of Students from In-Migrating Operations Worker Households ....... 5-72

12 5-7 Regulated Source Emissions ......................................................................................... 5-79

13 5-8 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers to and from the Proposed 

14 LNP Site for Two Reactors ............................................................................................ 5-87

15 5-9 Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases 

16 from a New Unit ............................................................................................................. 5-92

17 5-10 Annual Individual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous 

18 Effluents for a New Unit ................................................................................................. 5-94

19 5-11 Comparisons of MEI Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluent for a 

20 Single New Nuclear Unit to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Dose Design Objectives ....... 5-95

21 5-12 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Rates with 40 CFR Part 190 

22 Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 5-96

23 5-13 Biota Doses for Proposed Units 1 and 2 ........................................................................ 5-99

24 5-14 Comparison of Biota Doses from the Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 to IAEA 

25 Guidelines for Biota Protection .................................................................................... 5-100

26 5-15 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for the LNP Site DBA Calculations .......................... 5-106

27 5-16 DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor for LNP Units 1 and 2 ......................................... 5-107

28 5-17 Mean Environmental Risks from an AP1000 Reactor Severe Accident at the LNP 

29 Site .............................................................................................................................. 5-111

30 5-18 Comparison of Environmental Risks for an AP1000 Reactor at the LNP Site with 

31 Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 ....... 5-112

32 5-19 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal 

33 Events for an AP1000 Reactor at the LNP Site with Risks Initiated by Internal 

34 Events for Current Nuclear Power Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal 

35 Review and Environmental Risks of the AP1000 Reactor at Other Sites .................... 5-113

36 5-20 Comparison of LNP SAMDA Site Characteristics with Site Parameters Specified in 

37 AP1000 DCD Appendix 1B .......................................................................................... 5-119

38 5-21 Design Alternatives Considered for SAMDA in the AP1000 DCD ............................... 5-120

39 5-22 Summary of Proposed Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

40 Operation ..................................................................................................................... 5-123

41 5-23 Summary of Operational Impacts at the Proposed LNP Site ....................................... 5-128
August 2010 xxvii Draft NUREG-1941 

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

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

3 6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources ...... 6-13

4 6-3 Number of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and a 

5 Single AP1000 Reactor at the LNP Site ........................................................................ 6-20

6 6-4 RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Reference LWR Fresh Fuel Shipments ............... 6-21

7 6-5 Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel 

8 to the LNP Site or Alternative Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor ................................. 6-22

9 6-6 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the LNP Site and 

10 Alternative Sites with a Single AP1000 Reactor, Normalized to Reference LWR ......... 6-27

11 6-7 Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the LNP Site and Alternative 

12 Sites to the Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Disposal Facility ............................................. 6-29

13 6-8 RADTRAN 5.6 Normal (Incident-Free) Exposure Parameters ...................................... 6-30

14 6-9 Normal (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from 

15 Shipping Spent Fuel from the LNP Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed 

16 High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain ......................................................... 6-32

17 6-10 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for 

18 the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor ............................................................................... 6-35

19 6-11 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for an AP1000 Reactor at the 

20 LNP Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference 1100-MW(e) LWR Net 

21 Electrical Generation ..................................................................................................... 6-38

22 6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the LNP Site and 

23 Alternative Sites to Yucca Mountain for a Single AP1000 Reactor, Normalized to 

24 Reference LWR ............................................................................................................. 6-39

25 6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the LNP Site and Alternative 

26 Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor ................................................................................ 6-40

27 6-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the LNP Site 

28 and Alternative Sites with a Single AP1000 Reactor ..................................................... 6-41

29 7-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

30 Considered in the Levy Cumulative Analysis ................................................................... 7-3

31 7-2 Contributions of Past Projects to Current Conditions .................................................... 7-35

32 7-3 Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates ............................................... 7-42

33 7-4 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

34 Proposed Units 1 and 2 ................................................................................................. 7-53

35 8-1 Shares of Electricity Sales by PEF Customer Class ........................................................ 8-4

36 8-2 PEF Reserve Margin Forecast by Case .......................................................................... 8-8

37 8-3 PEF's Expected Demand for Electricity 2008-2017 ......................................................... 8-9

38 8-4 Forecasted Installed Capacity at Summer Peak.................................................. 8-10 

39 9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation at the LNP 

40 Site ................................................................................................................................ 9-14

41 9-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .............. 9-19
Draft NUREG-1941 xxviii August 2010 

1 9-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources .................... 9-26

2 9-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New 

3 Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas-Fired Power-Generating Units, and a 

4 Combination of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 9-27

5 9-5 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives ............................... 9-28

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

7 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Crystal River Alternative Site ................ 9-41

8 9-7 Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on and in the Vicinity of the 

9 Alternative Sites and Offsite Facilities and Corridors, and Associated 

10 Transmission-Line Corridors .......................................................................................... 9-56

11 9-8 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Crystal River Site .............................. 9-68

12 9-9 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Crystal River Site ............................................ 9-69

13 9-10 Selected Socioeconomic Data for the EIA for the Crystal River Site ............................. 9-81

14 9-11 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA 

15 for the Crystal River Site ................................................................................................ 9-82

16 9-12 Educational System Impacts from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ...... 9-85

17 9-13 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

18 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Dixie Site ............................................. 9-100

19 9-14 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Dixie Alternative Site ....................... 9-113

20 9-15 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts on the Dixie Site ...................................................... 9-114

21 9-16 Socioeconomic Data for the Dixie Site EIA .................................................................. 9-125

22 9-17 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA ..... 9-129

23 9-18 Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ................................... 9-133

24 9-19 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

25 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Highlands Site ..................................... 9-149

26 9-20 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Highlands Site ................................. 9-161

27 9-21 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Highlands Site .............................................. 9-162

28 9-22 Socioeconomic Data for the Highlands Site EIA .......................................................... 9-172

29 9-23 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA ..... 9-174

30 9-24 Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ................................... 9-179

31 9-25 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

32 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Putnam Alternative Site ....................... 9-195

33 9-26 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Putnam Alternative Site ................... 9-207

34 9-27 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Putnam Site .................................................. 9-208

35 9-28 Socioeconomic Data for the Putnam Site EIA ............................................................. 9-219

36 9-29 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA ..... 9-221

37 9-30 Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ................................... 9-225

38 9-31 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites ................ 9-240

39 10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

40 Preconstruction .............................................................................................................. 10-5

41 10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation .................................... 10-10
August 2010 xxix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 10-3 Summary of Benefits of the Proposed Action .............................................................. 10-19

2 10-4 Summary of Costs of Construction, Preconstruction, and Operation .......................... 10-21

August 2010 xxxi Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Executive Summary 

2 By letter dated July 28, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 

3 Commission) received an application from Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) for combined 

4 construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant 

5 (LNP) Units 1 and 2 located in southern Levy County, Florida. The review team’s evaluation is 

6 based on the October 2009 revision to the application, responses to requests for additional 

7 information, and supplemental letters. 

8 The proposed actions related to the LNP Units 1 and 2 application are (1) NRC issuance of 

9 COLs for construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the LNP site, and (2) U.S. Army 

10 Corps of Engineers (USACE) issuance of a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water 

11 Pollution Control Act, (Clean Water Act) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act to 

12 perform certain construction activities on the site. The USACE is participating with the NRC in 

13 preparing this environmental impact statement (EIS) as a cooperating agency and participates 

14 collaboratively on the review team, which consists of NRC staff, contractor staff, and USACE 

15 staff. The reactor specified in the application is Revision 17 to the Westinghouse Electric 

16 Company, LCC AP1000 certified design. 

17 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) directs that 

18 an EIS be prepared for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human 

19 environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of 

20 Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has determined that the 

21 issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS. 

22 The purpose of PEF’s requested NRC action – issuance of the COLs – is to obtain licenses to 

23 construct and operate two new nuclear units. These licenses are necessary but not sufficient 

24 for construction and operation of the units. A COL applicant must also obtain and maintain 

25 permits from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies and permitting authorities. 

26 Therefore, the purpose of the NRC’s environmental review of the PEF application is to 

27 determine if two nuclear units of the proposed design can be constructed and operated at the 

28 LNP site without unacceptable adverse impacts on the human environment. The purpose of 

29 PEF’s requested USACE action is to obtain a permit to perform regulated activities that would 

30 affect waters of the United States. 

31 Upon acceptance of the PEF application, NRC began the environmental review process 

32 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare 

33 an EIS and conduct scoping. On December 4, 2008, the NRC held two public meetings in 

34 Crystal River, Florida, to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental review. The staff 

35 reviewed the oral testimony and written comments received during the scoping process and 

36 contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxxii August 2010 

1 To gather information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs, the NRC and its 

2 contractors visited the Dixie, Putnam, and Highlands alternative sites in October 2008. In 

3 December 2008, the review team visited the LNP site and Crystal River alternative site. During 

4 the December 2008 site visit, the review team also conducted a site audit and met with PEF 

5 staff, public officials, and members of the public. 

6 Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s analyses, which consider and weigh 

7 the environmental effects of the proposed action; (2) potential mitigation measures for reducing 

8 or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed 

9 action; and (4) the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

10 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative 

11 actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

12 Environmental Quality guidance found in 40 CFR 1508.27. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

13 Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels – 

14 SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE: 

15 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

16 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

17 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

18 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

19 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

20 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

21 In preparing this EIS, the review team reviewed the application, including the Environmental 

22 Report (ER) submitted by PEF; consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and 

23 followed the guidance set forth in NRC’s NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan –

24 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. In addition, the 

25 NRC staff considered the public comments related to the environmental review received during 

26 the scoping process. Comments within the scope of the environmental review are included in 

27 Appendix D of this EIS. 

28 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental 

29 aspects of the proposed action is that the COLs be issued as requested. This recommendation 

30 is based on (1) the application, including the ER submitted by PEF; (2) consultation with other 

31 Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s 

32 consideration of public scoping comments; and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, 

33 including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. The USACE will 

34 issue its Record of Decision based, in part, on this EIS. 
August 2010 xxxiii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental 

2 Protection Agency Notice of Availability of the filing of the draft EIS to allow members of the 

3 public and agencies to comment on the results of the environmental review. During this period, 

4 the NRC and USACE staff will conduct a public meeting near the LNP site to describe the 

5 results of the environmental review and accept public comments. All comments received during 

6 the comment period will be addressed in the final EIS. 

7 The NRC staff’s evaluation of the site safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the 

8 proposed action will be addressed in the NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report anticipated to be 

9 published in 2011. 

August 2010 xxxv Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Abbreviations/Acronyms 

2 7Q10 the lowest average flow over a period of 7 consecutive days that occurs 

3 once every 10 years, on average 

4 μS micro Siemens 

5 

6 AADT annual average daily traffic 

7 ac acre(s) 

8 ACHP Advisory Counsel of Historic Preservation 

9 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

10 ADM average daily membership 

11 ADT average daily traffic 

12 AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

13 AFUDC allowance for funds used during construction 

14 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

15 a.m. ante meridian 

16 AO archaeological occurence 

17 AP1000 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC AP1000 pressurized water reactor 

18 APE Area of Potential Effect 

19 APT Aquifer Performance Testing 

20 AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

21 AQI Air Quality Index 

22 ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

23 

24 BA biological assessment 

25 BACT Best Available Control Technologies 

26 BDS blowdown system 

27 BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

28 BEBR Bureau of Economic Business Research 

29 BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 

30 bgs below ground surface 

31 BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

32 BMP best management practice 

33 BP Before Present 

34 Bq Becquerel(s) 

35 BRA Biological Research Associates 

36 BRC Bureau of Radiation Control (of the State of Florida Department of Health) 

37 Btu British thermal unit(s) 

38 

39 °C degree(s) Celsius 

40 CAA Clean Air Act 

41 CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

42 CDF core damage frequency 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxxvi August 2010 

1 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

2 CESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generator 

3 CFBC Cross Florida Barge Canal 

4 cfm cubic feet per minute 

5 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

6 cfs cubic feet per second 

7 CGP Construction General Permit 

8 CH2M Hill CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group 

9 CHARTS (Florida’s) Community Health Assessment Resource Tool Set 

10 Ci curie(s) 

11 cm centimeter(s) 

cm3 12 cubic centimeter(s) 

13 cm/s centimeter(s) per second 

14 CO carbon monoxide 

15 CO2 carbon dioxide 

16 COD chemical oxygen demand 

17 COL combined construction permit and operating license or combined license 

18 CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System 

19 Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

20 CP construction permit 

21 CPUE catch per unit effort 

22 CPI Consumer Price Index 

23 CR County Road 

24 CRDC Crystal River Discharge Canal 

25 CREC Crystal River Energy Complex 

26 CWA Clean Water Act (aka Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 

27 CWIS cooling-water intake structure 

28 CWS circulating-water system 

29 

30 d day(s) 

31 DA Department of Army 

32 dB decibel(s) 

33 dBA decibel(s) (acoustic) 

34 DBA Design Basis Accident 

35 DCD Design Control Document 

36 DHS (Florida) Department of Human Services 

37 DO dissolved oxygen 

38 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

39 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

40 D/Q deposition values or factors 

41 DSM demand-side management 

42 DTS demineralized water-treatment system 

43 DWRM2 District-Wide Regulation Model, Version 2 

44 

45 E&SCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 
August 2010 xxxvii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 EA environmental assessment 

2 EAB exclusion area boundary 

3 EDG emergency diesel generator 

4 EFH essential fish habitat 

5 EIA Energy Information Administration or Economic Impact Area 

6 EIS environmental impact statement 

7 ELF extremely low frequency 

8 EMF electromagnetic field 

9 EMS emergency management services 

10 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

11 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

12 EPU Extended Power Uprate 

13 EPZ emergency planning zone 

14 ER Environmental Report 

15 ERP Environmental Resource Permit 

16 ESA U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

17 ESO Environmental Support Organization 

18 ESP early site permit 

19 ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan 

20 ESWEMS Essential Service Water Emergency Makeup System 

21 ESWS Essential Service Water System 

22 

23 °F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

24 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

25 FAC Florida Administrative Code 

26 FAS Floridan Aquifer System 

27 FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

28 FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service 

29 FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs 

30 FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

31 FDOE Florida Department of Education 

32 FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

33 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

34 FES Final Environmental Statement 

35 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

36 FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

37 FGT Florida Gas Transmission Company 

38 FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

39 FLUCFCS Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System 

40 FMP fishery managemen plan 

41 FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

42 fps foot (feet) per second 

43 FPSC Florida Public Service Commission 

44 FR Federal Register 

45 FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxxviii August 2010 

1 FS Florida Statutes 

2 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

3 FSER Final Safety Evaluation Report 

4 ft foot/feet 

ft2 5 square foot/feet 

ft3 6 cubic foot/feet 

7 FTE full-time equivalent (employee) 

8 FVCOM Finite Volume Community Ocean Model 

9 FWDS Fire Water Distribution System 

10 FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (aka Clean Water Act) 

11 FWRI Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

12 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

13 

14 g gram(s) 

15 gal gallon(s) (3) 

16 GBq gigabecquerel 

17 GCC global climate change 

18 GCN Greatest Conservation Need 

19 GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

20 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 GHG greenhouse gas 

22 GI-LLI gastrointestinal lower large intestine

23 GIS geographic information system 

24 gpd gallon(s) per day 

25 gph gallon(s) per hour 

26 gpm gallon(s) per minute 

27 gps gallon(s) per second 

28 GW(e) gigawatt(s) electric 

29 GWh gigawatthour(s) 

30 

31 ha hectare(s) 

32 HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

33 HAZMAT hazardous material 

34 HBS historic basin storage 

35 HDPE high-density polyethylene 

36 HLW high-level waste 

37 hr hour(s) 

38 hr/yr hour(s) per year 

39 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

40 Hz hertz 

41 

42 I Interstate 

43 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

44 IAQCR Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

45 IBA Important Bird Area 
August 2010 xxxix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 ICRP International Council on Radiological Protection 

2 IEA International Energy Agency 

3 IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle 

4 in. inch(es) 

5 in./s inch(es) per second 

6 INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

7 IRP integrated resource planning 

8 IRWST in-containment refueling water storage tank 

9 

10 K-8 kindergarten through 8th grade 

11 K–12 kindergarten through 12th grade 

12 kcfs thousand cubic feet per second 

13 kg kilogram(s) 

14 KH Kimley-Horn 

15 kHz kilo Hertz 

16 km kilometer(s) 

km2 17 square kilometer(s) 

18 kV kilovolt(s) 

19 kVA kilovolt-ampere(s) 

20 kW kilowatt(s) 

21 kWh kilowatt-hour(s) 

22 kW(e) Kilowatt electric 

23 L liter(s) 

24 L/hr liter(s) per hour 

25 L/m liter(s) per minute 

26 lb pound(s) 

27 LC50 the concentration that is lethal to 50 percent of the sample population 

28 LCFS the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to Central Florida 

29 South substation 

30 LCR the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to the CREC 

31 500-kV switchyard 

32 Ld daytime average noise levels 

33 Ldn day-night average noise level 

34 LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable aternative 

35 LLW low-level waste 

36 Ln nighttime average noise levels 

37 LNP Levy Nuclear Plant 

38 LNG liquefied natural gas 

39 LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level 

40 LOCA loss-of-coolant accident 

41 LOS level of service 

42 LPC the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to the proposed 

43 Citrus substation 

44 Lpm liter(s) per minute 

45 LPZ low population zone 
Draft NUREG-1941 xl August 2010 

1 LWA limited work authorization 

2 LWR light water reactor 

3 

4 m meter(s) 

m2 5 square meter(s) 

m3 6 cubic meter(s) 

7 mA milliampere 

8 MACCS(2) Melcor Accident Consequence Code System 

9 MBq megabecquerel(s) 

10 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

11 μg microgram(s) 

12 mg milligram(s) 

13 MCL maximum contaminant level 

14 MEI maximally exposed individual 

15 MFL minimum flows and levels 

16 Mgd million gallons per day 

17 mG milliGauss 

18 mGy milliGray(s) 

19 MHW mean high water 

20 mi mile(s) 

mi2 21 square mile(s) 

22 MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

23 ml milliliter(s) 

24 MLU Multi-Layer Unsteady state (model) 

25 MMBtu a thousand thousand British thermal units 

26 mo month 

27 MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

28 mph mile(s) per hour 

29 mR milliroentgen 

30 mrad millirad 

31 mrem millirem 

32 MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

33 MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

34 MSGP Multi-Sector Generic Permit 

35 msl mean sea level 

36 mSv millisievert(s) 

37 MSW municipal solid waste 

38 MT metric ton(nes) 

39 MTU metric ton(nes) uranium 

40 MW megawatt(s); also monitoring well 

41 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

42 MWh megawatt-hour(s) 

43 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

44 MWd megawatt-day(s) 

45 
August 2010 xli Draft NUREG-1941 

1 N2 nitrogen 

2 NA not applicable or data not available 

3 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

4 NAGPRA National American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

5 NAVD88 Northern American Vertical Datum of 1988 

6 NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

7 NCI National Cancer Institute 

8 NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

9 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

10 NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

11 NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

12 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

13 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

14 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

15 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

16 NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level 

17 NOx Nitrogen oxides 

18 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

19 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

20 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

21 NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical document 

22 NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

23 

24 OCA Owner-Controlled Area 

25 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

26 OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation 

27 OFW Outstanding Florida Water(s) 

28 OMHD Office of Minority Health & Health Disparities 

29 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

30 OWR Old Withlacoochee River 

31 oz ounce(s) 

32 

33 PAM primary amoebic meningoencephalitis 

34 PARS Publicly Available Records System 

35 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

36 pCi picocuries 

37 PCR polymer chain reaction 

38 PEF Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

39 PEST Model-Independent Parameter Estimation (code) 

40 PIR Public Interest Review 

41 PK preschool 

42 p.m. post meridian 

43 PM particulate matter 

44 PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

45 PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 
Draft NUREG-1941 xlii August 2010 

1 PMF probable maximum flood 

2 ppm parts per million 

3 PMP probable maximum precipitation 

4 PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

5 ppm part(s) per million 

6 PPSA Power Plant Siting Act 

7 ppt part(s) per thousandPPSA 

8 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

9 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

10 pss practical salinity scale 

11 psu practical salinity unit 

12 PWS potable water system 

13 

14 R roentgen(s) 

15 RAI Request for Additional Information 

16 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

17 RCS reactor coolant system 

18 rem roentgen equivalent man (a special unit of radiation dose) 

19 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

20 RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index 

21 RIMS Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

22 RLE Required Local Effort 

23 RM river mile 

24 ROD Record of Decision 

25 ROI region of influence or region of interest 

26 ROW Rights-of-way(s) 

27 RV recreational vehicle 

28 Ryr reactor-year 

29 RWS raw water system 

30 

31 μS microsievert(s) 

32 s or sec second(s) 

33 SACTI Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact (prediction code) 

34 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives 

35 SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives 

36 SAR Safety Analysis Report 

37 SAS surficial aquifer system 

38 SCA Site Certification Application 

39 SCL straight carpace length 

40 SCR selective catalytic reduction 

41 SDS sanitary drainage system 

42 SER Safety Evaluation Report 

43 SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council 

44 SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

45 SG steam generator 
August 2010 xliii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 SHGW seasonal high groundwater 

2 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office or Officer 

3 SHWL seasonal high-water level 

4 SJRWMD St. Johns River Waste Management District 

5 SMZ Streamside Management Zone 

6 SO2 sulfur dioxide 

7 SOx sulfur oxides 

8 SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasures 

9 SQG small quantity generator 

10 SR State Route 

11 SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District 

12 SSC structures, systems, or components 

13 SU Standard Unit 

14 Sv sievert(s) 

15 SWA Small Wild Area 

16 SWAPP Source Water Assessment and Protection Program 

17 SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District 

18 SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan 

19 SWS service-water system 

20 

21 T ton(s) 

22 Tarmac Tarmac America, LLC 

23 TBD to be determined 

24 TBq terabecquerel(s) 

25 T&E threatened and endangered 

26 TCP traditional cultural property 

27 TDS total dissolved solids 

28 TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

29 TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing 

30 TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

31 TN total nitrogen 

32 TP total phosphorus 

33 TRAGIS Transportation Routing Analysis Geographical Information System 

34 TRU transuranic (elements) 

35 TSS total suspended solids 

36 

37 μm micrometer(s) or micron(s) 

38 U-235 uranium-235 

39 U-238 uranium-238 

40 U3O8 triuranium octoxide (“yellowcake”) 

41 UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

42 UFA Upper Floridan Aquifer 

43 UHS ultimate heat sink 

44 UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology 

45 UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 
Draft NUREG-1941 xliv August 2010 

1 UO2 uranium dioxide 

2 

3 US U.S. Highway 

4 U.S. United States 

5 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (or Corps) 

6 USC United States Code 

7 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

8 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

9 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

10 UTM Universal Transverse Mercator 

11 

12 VOC volatile organic compound 

13 

14 Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

15 WHO World Health Organization 

16 WIC (Citrus County) Women-Infant-Children (Program) 

17 WMA Wildlife Management Area 

18 WRB wastewater-retention basin 

19 WTE waste-to-energy (plant) 

20 WWS wastewaster system 

21 

22 /Q atmospheric dispersion factor(s); annual average normalized air 

23 concentration value(s) 

24 XOQDOQ computer program for the meteorological evaluation of routine effluent 

25 releases at nuclear power plants 

26 yd yard(s) 

yd3 27 cubic yard(s) 

28 yr year(s) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

2 This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

3 (NRC) action for combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) and the U.S. 

4 Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) action for a Department of the Army (DA) Individual 

5 Permit and discusses the environmental impacts of those alternatives. Section 9.1 discusses 

6 the no-action alternative. Section 9.2 addresses alternative energy sources. Section 9.3 

7 reviews Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s (PEF’s) region of interest (ROI) and its alternative site8 selection process, and summarizes and compares the environmental impacts for the proposed 

9 and alternative sites. Section 9.4 examines system design alternatives. Section 9.5 lists the 

10 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 USC 4321) that environmental impact statements (EISs) include an analysis of alternatives 

14 to the proposed action. The NRC implements this comparison through its regulations in Title 

15 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 and its Environmental Standard Review 

16 Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000). The environmental impacts of the alternatives are evaluated using 

17 the NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed 

18 using Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines (40 CFR 1508.27) and set forth in the 

19 footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. The issues evaluated in this 

20 chapter are the same as those addressed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

21 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 

1999)(a) 22 with the additional issue of environmental justice. Although NUREG-1437 was 

23 developed for NRC’s review of renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, it provides 

24 useful information for this review and is referenced throughout this chapter. 

25 As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Federal Water 

26 Pollution Control Act, as amended (also referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33 USC 1251 et 

27 seq.), the USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the Section 404(b)(1) 

28 Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (Guidelines) (33 USC 

29 1344; 40 CFR Part 230). The Guidelines establish criteria that must be met for the proposed 

30 activities to be permitted pursuant to Section 404, and stipulate that no discharge of dredged or 

31 fill material into waters of the United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) shall be permitted 

32 if there is a practicable alternative that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic 

33 environment, as long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental 

34 consequences. The Guidelines state that an alternative is practicable if it is available and 

 

(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. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-2 August 2010 

1 capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in 

2 light of overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently 

3 owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill 

4 the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered. 

5 Where the activity associated with a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site, such as 

6 wetlands (as defined in 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart E), and does not require access or proximity 

7 to or siting within these types of areas to fulfill its basic project purpose (i.e., the project is not 

8 “water dependent”), practicable alternatives that avoid special aquatic sites are presumed to be 

9 available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. See Section 1.3 for the USACE’s 

10 determination of the basic purpose and overall purpose to be used for the USACE’s alternatives 

11 analysis for this project. 

12 Even if an applicant’s preferred alternative is determined to be the least environmentally 

13 damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) that meets the project’s purpose, the USACE must 

14 determine whether the LEDPA is in the public interest. USACE’s Public Interest Review, 

15 described at 33 CFR 320.4, directs the USACE to consider several factors in a balancing 

16 process. A permit will not be issued for a practicable alternative that is not the LEDPA, nor will 

17 a permit be issued for an activity that is determined to be contrary to the public interest. In 

18 considering both the LEDPA and the Public Interest Review, the USACE must consider 

19 compliance with other applicable substantive laws such as the Endangered Species Act of 

20 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and the National Historic Preservation Act of 

21 1966, as amended (NHPA) (16 USC470 et seq.), as well as consult with other Federal 

22 agencies. USACE also must follow procedural laws such as NEPA and other applicable laws 

23 described in 33 CFR 320.3. 

24 Since the USACE is a cooperating agency with the NRC in this environmental review and for 

25 development of this EIS; the USACE and the NRC have provided information to the maximum 

26 extent practicable in this EIS that the USACE will use in its evaluation of the project, including 

27 the evaluation of alternatives. While the USACE concurs as part of the review team with the 

28 qualitative designation of impact levels for terrestrial or aquatic resource areas for this EIS; in so 

29 far as waters of the United States are concerned, the USACE must conduct a quantitative 

30 comparison of impacts on waters of the United States as part of the LEDPA analysis. By written 

31 submittal dated December 14, 2009 PEF provided to the USACE additional information in 

32 regard to the LEDPA analysis for this project, titled “Levy Nuclear Units 1 and 2 (LNP) Section 

33 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis” (PEF 2009d). The USACE reviewed the additional information 

34 and in letters dated March 5, 2010 (Moser 2010) and June 17, 2010 (USACE 2010c), provided 

35 written comments to PEF in regard to the analysis. PEF responded to the USACE’s comments 

36 by written submittal dated June 30, 2010 (PEF 2010). 

37 The USACE’s evaluation of this project will not be completed until it receives public feedback in 

38 the form of public comments on this draft EIS, and subsequent issuance of a final EIS. The 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 USACE’s Record of Decision, which will document its evaluation and whether a Department of 

2 the Army (DA) permit will be issued for this project, will reference the information provided by 

3 this EIS and present any additional information required by the USACE to support its permit 

4 decision. 

5 9.1 No-Action Alternative 

6 For purposes of an application for a COL, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which 

7 the NRC would deny the COLs requested by PEF, which would result in the proposed units not 

8 being built. Likewise, the USACE could also take no action or deny the DA Individual Permit 

9 request. Upon such a denial by the NRC or the USACE, the construction and operation of two 

10 new nuclear units at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) site in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52 

11 would not occur and the predicted environmental impacts associated with the project would not 

12 occur. Some preconstruction impacts associated with activities not within the NRC’s definition 

13 of construction at 10 CFR 50.10(a) and 51.4 may occur nonetheless. If no other power plants 

14 were to be built in lieu of the proposed project or other strategy implemented to take its place, 

15 the benefits of the additional electrical capacity and electricity generation to be provided by the 

16 project would not occur. If no additional measures (e.g., conservation, importing power, 

17 restarting retired power plants, and/or extending the life of existing power plants) were 

18 implemented to realize the amount of electrical capacity that would otherwise be required for 

19 power in PEF’s ROI (see Section 9.3.1), then the need for baseload power, discussed in 

20 Chapter 8, would not be met. Therefore, the purpose and need of this project would not be 

21 satisfied if the no-action alternative was chosen and the need for power was not met by other 

22 means. 

23 If other generation sources were installed, either at another site or using a different energy 

24 source, the environmental impacts associated with these other sources would eventually occur. 

25 As discussed in Chapter 8, there is a demonstrated need for power. It is reasonable to assume 

26 that other options to meet the need for power would be pursued. This needed power may be 

27 provided and supported through several alternatives that are discussed in Sections 9.2 and 9.3. 

28 9.2 Energy Alternatives 

29 The purpose and need for the proposed project identified in Section 1.3 is to provide additional 

30 baseload electrical generation capacity for use in PEF’s current markets. This section examines 

31 the potential environmental impacts associated with alternatives to construction of a new 

32 baseload nuclear generating facility. Section 9.2.1 discusses energy alternatives not requiring 

33 new generating capacity. Section 9.2.2 discusses energy alternatives requiring new generating 

34 capacity. Other alternatives are discussed in Section 9.2.3. A combination of alternatives is 

35 discussed in Section 9.2.4. Section 9.2.5 compares the environmental impacts from new 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-4 August 2010 

1 nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas-fired generating units and a combination of energy sources 

2 at the LNP site. 

3 For analysis of energy alternatives, PEF assumed a bounding target value of 2200-MW(e) 

4 electrical output (PEF 2009a). The review team (composed of NRC staff, its contractor staff, 

5 and USACE staff) also used this level of output in its analysis of energy alternatives. 

6 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 

7 Four alternatives to the proposed action that do not require PEF to construct new generating 

8 capacity are as follows: 

9 • Purchase the needed electric power from other suppliers. 

10 • Extend the operating life of existing power plants. 

11 • Reactivate retired power plants. 

12 • Implement conservation or demand-side management programs. 

13 If power to replace the capacity of the proposed new nuclear units was to be purchased from 

14 sources within the United States or from a foreign country, the generating technology likely 

15 would be one of those described in NUREG-1437 (e.g., coal, natural gas, or nuclear) (NRC 

16 1996). The environmental impacts of other technologies described in the GEIS for license 

17 renewal (NUREG-1437) are representative of the impacts associated with the construction and 

18 operation of new generating units at the LNP site. The environmental impacts of coal-fired and 

19 natural-gas-fired plants are discussed in Sections 9.2.2.1 and 9.2.2.2. 

20 Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental impacts of power production would 

21 still occur, but they would occur elsewhere in the region, nation, or in another country. If the 

22 purchased power alternative was to be implemented, the most significant environmental 

23 unknown would be whether new transmission-line corridors would be required. The 

24 construction of new transmission lines could have both environmental and aesthetic 

25 consequences, particularly if new transmission-line corridors were needed. The review team 

26 concludes that the local environmental impacts from purchased power would be SMALL when 

27 existing transmission-line corridors are used and could range from SMALL to LARGE if 

28 acquisition of new corridors is required. The overall environmental impacts of power generation 

29 would depend on the generation technology and location of the generation site and, therefore, 

30 are unknown. However, as discussed in Section 9.2.5, the review team concluded that from an 

31 environmental perspective, none of the viable energy alternatives would be clearly preferable to 

32 construction of a new baseload nuclear power-generation plant located within PEF’s ROI. 

33 Nuclear power facilities are initially licensed by the NRC for a period of 40 years. Operating 

34 licenses issued by the NRC can be renewed for up to 20 years, and NRC regulations do not 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 preclude multiple renewals. PEF currently operates an 838-MW(e) nuclear power plant at the 

2 Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC, an energy facility also owned by PEF); the nuclear plant 

3 – CREC Unit 3 – came online in 1977. The CREC also includes two coal-fired plants that came 

4 online in the 1960s (CREC Units 1 and 2) and two coal-fired plants that came online in the 

5 1980s (CREC Units 4 and 5). The future power-generation plans of PEF for CREC Unit 3 

6 include 37-MW(e) and 129-MW(e) uprates in 2009 and 2011, respectively (PEF 2009a), 

7 although the 2009 date has slipped since the Environmental Report (ER) was submitted. 

8 The environmental impacts of continued operation of a nuclear power plant are significantly less 

9 than construction of a new plant. However, solely extending the service life of the CREC 

10 nuclear plant without construction of the proposed LNP would not fulfill PEF’s Ten-Year Site 

11 Plan (PEF 2009a) or meet the need for power discussed in Chapter 8. Extending the service 

12 life of the CREC nuclear plant and constructing the proposed LNP are both part of PEF’s future 

13 baseload generation capacity. Therefore, extending the service life of the CREC nuclear plant 

14 alone is not a feasible alternative to the proposed LNP. 

15 Older, existing fossil-fueled plants nearing the end of their useful lives, predominately coal- and 

16 natural-gas-fired plants, are likely to need refurbishing to extend plant life for an extensive 

17 period (the proposed action assumes a minimum operating period of 40 years) and meet 

18 applicable environmental requirements. Currently, there are no deactivated power plants with 

19 the potential for future operation, although PEF has two oil-fired power plants scheduled for 

20 retirement that may be available for service life extension (Bartow, 444 MW[e], in Pinellas 

21 County; and Suwannee River, 129 MW[e], in Suwannee County). In addition, the Florida 

22 Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Conditions of Certification (FDEP 2010a) 

23 states that PEF will retire its two oldest coal-fired units, which came online at CREC in the 

24 1960s, by December 31, 2020 if LNP Units 1 and 2 are licensed, built, and begin commercial 

25 operation (FDEP 2010a). Given both the costs of refurbishment and the environmental impacts 

26 of operating such facilities, the review team concludes that extending the life of older, existing 

27 generating plants or reactivating retired plants would not be a reasonable alternative to the 

28 proposed action. 

29 Improved energy efficiency and demand-side management (DSM) strategies can potentially 

30 cost less than construction of new generation and provide a hedge against market, fuel, and 

31 environmental risks. PEF already offers many conservation and DSM programs to its 

32 customers to reduce peak electricity demands and daily power consumption. PEF’s DSM Plan 

33 consists of seven residential programs, eight commercial programs, and one research and 

34 development program (PEF 2009b). Since 1981, PEF’s energy-efficiency programs have saved 

35 more than 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity (PEF 2009a). As noted in Section 8.2.1.5, PEF 

36 proposes adding 512 MW of DSM capacity to its portfolio by 2016, but additional capacity would 

37 still be needed to meet the need for baseload power. DSM programs are very successful in 

38 reducing peak load, but they cannot supply 2200 MW(e) of baseload power. The Florida Public 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-6 August 2010 

1 Service Commission stated that DSM available today or in the foreseeable future cannot 

2 provide enough baseload capacity to avoid the need for the addition of proposed LNP Units 1 

3 and 2 (FPSC 2008). 

4 The need for power discussion in Chapter 8 takes account of conservation and DSM programs. 

5 The review team concluded in Chapter 8 that there is a justified need for power in the PEF 

6 service territory even with the implementation of conservation and DSM programs. 

7 Based on the preceding discussion, the review team concludes that the options of purchasing 

8 electric power from other suppliers, reactivating retired power plants, extending the operating 

9 life of existing power plants, and conservation and DSM programs are not reasonable 

10 alternatives to providing new baseload power-generation capacity. 

11 9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity 

12 Consistent with the NRC’s evaluation of alternatives to operating license renewal for nuclear 

13 power plants, a reasonable set of energy alternatives to the building and operation of two new 

14 nuclear units at the LNP site should be limited to analysis of discrete power-generation sources, 

15 a combination of sources, and those power-generation technologies that are technically 

16 reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 1996). The current mix of baseload power17 generation options in Florida is one indicator of the feasible choices for power-generation 

18 technology within the state. The electricity produced in Florida in 2007 came mainly from coal 

19 (31.3 percent), natural gas (29.1 percent), oil (14.8 percent), and nuclear energy (13.9 percent) 

20 (NWF 2008). The other 10.9 percent of the generation mix would have come from other 

21 sources not specified in the reference. 

22 This section discusses the environmental impacts of energy alternatives to the proposed action 

23 that would require PEF to construct new generating capacity. The three primary energy sources 

24 for generating electric power in the United States are coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy 

25 (DOE/EIA 2010b). Coal-fired plants are the primary source of baseload generation in the United 

26 States (DOE/EIA 2009a). Natural-gas combined-cycle power-generation plants are often used 

27 as intermediate generation sources, but they are also used as baseload generation sources 

28 (SSI 2010). Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. 

29 Department of Energy (DOE), issues an annual energy outlook. In its Updated Annual Energy 

30 Outlook 2009 (DOE/EIA 2009b), EIA’s reference case projects that total electric generating 

31 capacity additions between 2007 and 2030 will use the following fuels in the approximate 

32 percentages: natural gas (55 percent), renewable (27 percent), coal (14 percent), and nuclear 

33 (5 percent) (DOE/EIA 2009b). The EIA projection includes baseload, intermittent, and peaking 

34 units and is based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity would seek to 

35 minimize cost while meeting applicable environmental requirements. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The discussion in Section 9.2.2 is limited to a reasonable range of the individual energy 

2 alternatives that appear to be viable for new baseload generation: coal-fired and natural-gas 

3 combined-cycle generation. The impacts discussed in Section 9.2.2 are estimates based on 

4 present technology. Section 9.2.3 addresses alternative generation technologies that have 

5 demonstrated commercial acceptance but may be limited in application, total capacity, or 

6 technical feasibility when based on the need to supply reliable, baseload capacity. 

7 The review team assumed that (1) new generation capacity would be located at the LNP site for 

8 the coal- and natural-gas-fired alternatives, (2) the cooling approach planned for proposed Units 

9 1 and 2 (Section 3.2.2.2) would be used for plant cooling, and (3) four new 500-kV electric 

10 power transmission lines would be needed to serve a new coal- or natural-gas-fired plant sited 

11 at the LNP site, consistent with the LNP proposal. 

12 9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation 

13 For the coal-fired generation alternative, the review team assumed construction of four 

14 pulverized coal-fired units, each with a total net capacity of 550 MW(e). The team’s estimates of 

15 coal consumption, coal combustion technology, air emissions, and waste products are based on 

16 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

17 Factors – Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion (EPA 1998). The review team also 

18 assumed that four additional 500-kV transmission-line corridors would be acquired, as 

19 discussed in Section 2.2.2. The plant was assumed to have an operating life of 40 years. 

20 These assumptions are consistent with PEF’s COL application. 

21 The review team also considered and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal-fired 

22 plants. IGCC is an emerging technology for generating electricity with coal that combines 

23 modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam turbine power generation. 

24 The technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized coal plants because major pollutants 

25 can be removed from the gas stream before combustion. The IGCC alternative also generates 

26 less solid waste than the pulverized-coal-fired alternative. The largest solid waste stream 

27 produced by IGCC installations is slag, a black, glassy, sand-like material that is potentially a 

28 marketable byproduct. The other large-volume byproduct produced by IGCC plants is sulfur, 

29 which is extracted during the gasification process and can be marketed rather than placed in a 

30 landfill. IGCC units do not produce ash or scrubber wastes. In spite of the preceding 

31 advantages, the review team concludes that, at present, a new IGCC plant is not a reasonable 

32 alternative to a 2200-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility for the following reasons: 

33 (1) IGCC plants are more expensive than comparable pulverized coal plants (DOE/NETL 2007), 

34 (2) the two existing IGCC plants in the United States have considerably smaller capacity, 

35 approximately 250 MW(e) each, than the proposed 2200-MW(e) nuclear plant, (3) system 

36 reliability of existing IGCC plants has been lower than pulverized coal plants, and (4) a lack of 

37 overall plant performance warranties for IGCC plants has hindered commercial financing (NPCC 

38 2005). For these reasons, IGCC plants are not considered further in this EIS. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-8 August 2010 

1 Therefore, for the coal-fired alternative, the review team assumed that coal and limestone 

2 (calcium carbonate) would be delivered to the plant by barge. The review team estimates that 

3 the plant would consume 6,552,000 T/yr of pulverized bituminous coal with an ash content of 

4 approximately 9 percent (EPA 1998). Slaked lime or limestone, used in the flue gas scrubbing 

5 process for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, is injected as slurry into the hot effluent 

6 combustion gases to remove entrained SO2. The limestone-based scrubbing solution reacts 

7 with SO2 to form calcium sulfite or calcium sulfate, which precipitates and is removed from the 

8 process as sludge for dewatering and then sold to industry for use in the manufacture of 

9 wallboard or other industrial products. The review team estimates that approximately 

10 450,000 T/yr of limestone would be used for flue gas desulfurization, generating approximately 

11 700,000 T/yr of scrubber sludge. 

12 Air Quality 

13 The impacts on air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of 

14 nuclear generation because of emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), 

15 particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants such 

16 as mercury and lead. The review team estimates that a 2200-MW(e) coal-fired plant would also 

17 have unregulated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 18.7 million tons per year (T/yr) that could 

18 affect climate change (EPA 1998). 

19 The coal-fired plant emissions were determined based on factors contained in the 

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (AP-42) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

21 Factors (EPA 1998). It is noted that estimates of emissions are based on “as fired” and 

22 controlled conditions using both combustion and post-combustion technologies to reduce 

23 criteria pollutants. Emissions estimates are not necessarily representative of what would be 

24 permitted. 

25 The review team assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions through a 

26 combination of boiler and combustion technology as well as post-combustion pollutant removal, 

27 and would maintain local and regional attainment status for the criteria pollutants listed below. 

28 A final air permit would likely require applicable Best Available Control Technologies. The 

29 review team’s estimates of the emissions from the coal-fired generation alternative are 

approximately as follows(a) 30 : 

31 • SO2 = 7469 T/yr 

32 • NOx = 1638 T/yr 

 

(a) Based on 6,552,000 T/yr of bituminous coal and controlled using overfire air in combination with lowNOx burners and selective catalytic reduction, limestone-based flue gas desulfurization, and 

conventional particulate capture technology (EPA 1998). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 • CO = 1638 T/yr 

2 • PM = 147 T/yr 

3 • PM10 = 34 T/yr. 

4 PM10 is particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns 

5 (40 CFR 50.6). 

6 The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.) capped the 

7 nation’s SO2 emissions from power plants. PEF would need to obtain sufficient pollution credits 

8 either from a set-aside pool or purchases on the open market to cover annual emissions from 

9 the plant. 

10 A new coal-fired power-generation plant at the LNP site would need a Prevention of Significant 

11 Deterioration (PSD) Permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The plant would 

12 need to comply with the new source performance standards for such plants in 40 CFR Part 60, 

13 Subpart Da. The standards establish emission limits for PM and opacity (40 CFR 60.42Da), 

14 SO2 (40 CFR 60.43Da), NOx (40 CFR 60.44Da), and mercury (40 CFR 60.45Da). 

15 The review team assumes that fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be 

16 mitigated using best management practices (BMPs), similar to mitigation discussed in Chapter 4 

17 for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. Such emissions would be temporary. 

18 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

19 P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an area 

20 designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act 

21 (40 CFR 51.307(a)). The entire State of Florida is designated as in attainment or unclassified 

22 for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2006). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for 

23 criteria pollutants are in 40 CFR Part 50. Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a 

24 national goal of preventing future impairment of visibility and remedying existing impairment in 

25 mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment is from air pollution caused by human 

26 activities. In addition, EPA regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area 

27 located within a State, the State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress 

28 toward achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for 

29 an improvement in visibility on the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation 

30 plan and make sure there is no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the 

31 same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new coal-fired power-generation station was located 

32 close to a mandatory Class I area, additional requirements for air-pollution control could be 

33 imposed. There are three mandatory Class I Federal areas in Florida: 

34 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-10 August 2010 

1 • Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area – 13 mi south of the LNP site 

2 • St. Marks Wilderness Area – 119 mi northwest of the LNP site 

3 • Everglades National Park – 282 mi southeast of the LNP site. 

4 The GEIS for license renewal considers global warming from unregulated CO2 emissions and 

5 acid rain from emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx) and NOx as potential impacts (NRC 1996). 

6 Adverse human health effects, such as cancer and emphysema, have been associated with the 

7 byproducts of coal combustion. Overall, the review team concludes that air quality impacts from 

8 new coal-fired power generation at the LNP site would be MODERATE. The impacts would be 

9 clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality. 

10 Waste Management 

11 As the NRC has described in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and verified during its preparation of 

12 the operating license renewal supplemental EIS analysis, coal combustion generates waste in 

13 the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution generates additional ash, spent 

14 selective catalytic reduction catalyst, and scrubber sludge. The review team estimates that the 

15 coal-fired plants would generate approximately 590,000 tons of ash per year (DOE/EIA 2009a). 

16 Significant quantities of the fly ash may be recycled for use in commodity products such as 

17 concrete, thus reducing the total landfill volume. 

18 In May 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

19 Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (65 FR 32214). The EPA concluded that some form of national 

20 regulation is warranted to address coal-combustion waste products because of health concerns. 

21 Accordingly, the EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal22 combustion waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as 

23 amended (RCRA) (42 USC 6901, et seq.). As of November 2009, the EPA is continuing to 

24 study the appropriate form of regulation for coal-combustion waste products. 

25 Waste impacts on groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the 

26 plant if leachate runoff from the waste-storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could 

27 noticeably affect land use (because of the acreage needed for waste) and groundwater quality, 

28 but with appropriate management and monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After 

29 closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for some other uses. 

30 Construction-related debris would be generated during plant construction activities, and would 

31 be disposed of in approved landfills. 

32 For the reasons stated above, the review team concludes that the impacts from waste 

33 generated at a coal-fired plant would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, 

34 but would not destabilize any important resource. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Human Health 

2 Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker and 

3 public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of 

4 coal-combustion waste, and worker and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. In 

5 addition, the discharges of uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce 

6 radiological doses in excess of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 

7 1993). 

8 Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air emission standards and 

9 requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific emission 

10 limits as needed to protect human health. Given the regulatory oversight exercised by the EPA 

11 and State agencies, the review team concludes that the human health impacts from radiological 

12 doses and inhaled toxins and particulates generated from coal-fired generation would be 

13 SMALL. 

14 Other Impacts 

15 Based on the GEIS (NRC 1996), at least 1700 ac of land would need to be converted to 

16 industrial use on the LNP site for the powerblock, infrastructure and support facilities, coal and 

17 limestone storage and handling, and landfill disposal of ash and scrubber sludge. Additional 

18 land would be needed for four new transmission-line corridors. Land-use changes would occur 

19 in an undetermined offsite coal-mining area to supply coal for the plant. In NUREG-1437 (NRC 

20 1996), the staff estimated that approximately 22,000 ac would be needed for coal mining and 

21 waste disposal to support a 1000-MW(e) coal-fired plant over its operating life (48,000 ac for a 

22 2200 MW[e] plant) (NRC 1996). Based on the amount of land affected for the site, mining, and 

23 waste disposal, the review team concludes that land-use impacts would be MODERATE. 

24 The amount of water used and the impacts on water use and quality from constructing and 

25 operating a coal-fired plant at the LNP site would be comparable to those associated with a new 

26 nuclear plant. The new facility would use closed-cycle cooling. Water consumption due to 

27 evaporative cooling would also be comparable to that of a new nuclear facility. All discharges 

28 would be regulated by the Florida Department of Natural Resources through a National Pollution 

29 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Indirectly, water quality could be affected by 

30 acids and mercury from air emissions. However, these emissions are regulated to minimize 

31 impacts. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that some erosion and sedimentation 

32 would likely occur during construction of new facilities (NRC 1996). These impacts would be 

33 similar to those for a new nuclear plant. Overall, the review team concludes that the water-use 

34 and water-quality impacts would be SMALL. 

35 The coal-fired power-generation alternative would introduce ecological impacts from 

36 construction and new incremental impacts from operations. The impacts would be similar to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-12 August 2010 

1 those of the proposed action at the LNP site and along the transmission-line corridors. The 

2 impacts could include terrestrial and aquatic functional loss, habitat fragmentation and/or loss, 

3 reduced productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity. The impacts could occur at 

4 the LNP site and at the sites used for coal and limestone mining. Construction and 

5 maintenance of new transmission-line corridors and lines would have ecological impacts. Stack 

6 emissions and disposal of waste products could affect aquatic and terrestrial resources. 

7 Additional impacts on threatened and endangered species could result from ash disposal and 

8 mining activities if the locations of such activities overlap with habitat for such protected species. 

9 Overall, the review team concludes that the ecological impacts would be MODERATE, primarily 

10 because of potential impacts associated with disposal of ash and the large area of land affected 

11 by mining activities. 

12 The review team considered the effects of global climate change on a coal-fired plant at the 

13 LNP site, including sea-level rise, changes in precipitation rates, frequency of severe weather 

14 events, and changes in the distribution of species. The review team concluded that the impacts 

15 of global climate change on a coal-fired plant would be comparable to impacts on a new nuclear 

16 facility. 

17 Socioeconomic impacts would result from the peak workforce of approximately 2000 

18 construction workers and the approximately 250 workers needed to operate the coal-fired facility 

19 (PEF 2009a). The construction workers are predominantly temporary; however, it is expected 

20 that demands on housing and public services during construction would noticeably affect the 

21 surrounding areas. Overall, the review team concludes that these impacts would be SMALL, 

22 resulting from the mitigating influence of the site’s proximity to the surrounding population area 

23 and the relatively small number of workers needed to operate the plant. PEF would pay 

24 significant property taxes to Levy County. Considering the population and economic condition 

25 of the county, the review team concludes that the taxes would have a LARGE beneficial impact 

26 on the county. 

27 The four coal-fired powerblock units would be as much as 200 ft tall and visible offsite during 

28 daylight hours. The stacks and associated emissions would likely be visible in daylight hours for 

29 distances greater than 10 mi. Cooling towers and associated plumes also would have aesthetic 

30 impacts. The powerblock units and associated stacks would also be visible at night because of 

31 outside lighting. Visual impacts at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting and 

32 enhanced use of down-facing lighting, provided the lighting meets Federal Aviation 

33 Administration requirements, and appropriate use of shielding. The new transmission lines 

34 would have a larger aesthetic impact, but would be consistent with the proposed project. 

35 Overall, the review team concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated with new coal-fired 

36 power generation at the LNP site would be MODERATE, and the aesthetic impacts of the 

37 transmission lines would also be MODERATE, consistent with the proposed project. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Coal-fired power generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would likely be 

2 audible offsite. Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant operation are classified as 

3 continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated 

4 with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related to coal 

5 handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and lime/limestone delivery, use of 

6 outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. The impacts of noise on 

7 residents in the vicinity of the facility are considered MODERATE. 

8 As discussed in Section 2.6.2, there are no environmental pathways by which the identified 

9 minority or low-income populations within the 50-mi radius surrounding the proposed LNP site 

10 (region) that would be likely to suffer disproportionately high and adverse environmental 

11 impacts. Therefore, environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated 

12 with a coal-fired plant at the LNP site would be SMALL. 

13 The historic and cultural resource impacts for a new coal-fired plant located at the LNP site 

14 would be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant, as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5.6. 

15 A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property that has not been 

16 previously surveyed. Other lands that would be acquired to support the plant would also likely 

17 need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording of existing historic and 

18 archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effects from ground-disturbing 

19 actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the plant 

20 site, any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste-disposal sites, and along associated 

21 corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads and transmission-line corridors). The 

22 review team concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts would be SMALL. 

23 The construction and operational impacts of a 2200-MW(e) coal-fired power-generation plant at 

24 the LNP site are summarized in Table 9-1. 

25 9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation 

26 For the natural-gas alternative, the review team assumed construction and operation of a 

27 natural-gas-fired plant at the LNP site. The review team assumed that the plant would use 

28 combined-cycle combustion turbines, which is consistent with PEF’s ER (PEF 2009a). The 

29 review team assumed four units with a net capacity of 550-MW(e) per unit. The team’s 

30 estimates of natural-gas consumption, gas-combustion technology, air emissions, and waste 

31 products are based on EPA AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors – Stationary 

32 Gas Turbines (EPA 2000). The review team also assumed the construction of four additional 

33 transmission-line corridors, as discussed in Chapter 3. The natural-gas-fired plant is assumed 

34 to have an operating life of 40 years. The review team estimated that the natural-gas-fired plant 

35 would use approximately 114 billion standard cubic feet of gas per year (EPA 2000). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-14 August 2010 

1 Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation at the LNP Site 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE At least 1700 ac would be needed for powerblock; coal-handling, 

storage, and transportation facilities; infrastructure facilities; and 

cooling-water facilities. Additional land would be needed for new 

transmission-line corridors. Coal mining (offsite) and wastedisposal activities would require an additional 48,000 ac. 

Air Quality MODERATE SO2 – 7469 T/yr 

NOx – 1638 T/yr 

CO – 1638 T/yr 

PM – 147 T/yr 

PM10 – 34 T/yr 

CO2 – 18.7 million T/yr 

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants. Global warming and 

acid rain are also of concern. 

Water Use and 

Quality 

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear 

power plant located at the LNP site. 

Ecology MODERATE Impacts could include terrestrial and aquatic functional loss, 

habitat fragmentation and/or loss, reduced productivity, and a 

local reduction in biological diversity. Impacts could occur at the 

LNP site and vicinity and at the sites used for coal and limestone 

mining. Disposal of ash could affect the terrestrial and aquatic 

environments. Additional impacts on threatened and 

endangered species could result from ash disposal and mining 

activities. Permanent impact on wetlands within the project 

footprint would occur. 

Waste Management MODERATE Total volume of combustion wastes would exceed 1 million T/yr 

(590,000 T/yr ash and 700,000 T/yr scrubber sludge). 

Socioeconomics LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Positive socioeconomic impacts would result due to the need for 

approximately 250 people to operate the plant, plus several 

hundred coal-mining jobs (offsite). The local property tax base 

would benefit, mainly during operations. Depending on where 

the workforce lives, the construction-related impacts (e.g., noise, 

traffic) would be noticeable or minor. Impacts during operation 

likely would be smaller than during construction. The plant and 

new transmission-line corridors would have aesthetic impacts. 

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight are assumed to be protective 

of human health. 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-1. (contd) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

SMALL Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. Most 

of the facility and infrastructure would be built on ground 

previously disturbed by pine plantations. Impacts may also be 

associated with new transmission-line corridors. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL Based on analysis of census data, no disproportionately high or 

adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations would be 

anticipated. 

2 Air Quality 

3 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. When compared with a coal-fired plant, a natural4 gas-fired plant would release similar types of emissions, but in lower quantities. The associated 

5 emissions estimates were estimated based on factors contained in the EPA Compilation of Air 

6 Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA 2000) except where noted. These assumptions are consistent 

7 with the application submitted by PEF. It is noted that emissions estimates are based on “as 

8 fired” and controlled conditions and are not representative of what would likely be permitted. 

9 A new natural-gas-fired power-generation plant would likely need a PSD Permit and an 

10 operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle plant would 

11 also be subject to the new source performance standards specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts 

12 Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and NOx. 

13 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, 

14 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in 

15 areas designated as in attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. The entire State of 

16 Florida is designated as in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2006). 

17 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future impairment of 

18 visibility and remedying existing impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas when 

19 impairment is from air pollution caused by human activities. In addition, the EPA regulations 

20 provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the State regulatory 

21 agencies must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural 

22 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility 

23 for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and make sure there is 

24 no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period 

25 (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new natural-gas-fired power plant was located close to a mandatory
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-16 August 2010 

1 Class I area, additional air-pollution control requirements could be imposed. There are three 

2 mandatory Class I Federal areas in Florida: 

3 • Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area – 13 mi south of the LNP site 

4 • St. Marks Wilderness Area – 119 mi northwest of the LNP site 

5 • Everglades National Park – 282 mi southeast of the LNP site. 

6 A natural-gas-fired plant equipped with appropriate combustion and post-combustion pollutioncontrol technology would have approximately the following emissions(a) 7 : 

8 • SO2 – 32 T/yr 

9 • NOx – 564 T/yr 

10 • CO – 214 T/yr 

• PM – 108 T/yr(b) 11 

12 • PM10 – 108 T/yr. 

13 Based on data from previous NRC EIS documents, the review team determined that these 

14 emissions estimates are reasonable. The review team estimates that a natural-gas-fired power 

15 plant would also have unregulated CO2 emissions of 6.3 million T/yr that could affect climate 

16 change (EPA 1998). 

17 The combustion turbine portion of the combined-cycle plant would be subject to EPA’s National 

18 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines (40 CFR 

19 Part 63) if the site is a major source of hazardous air pollutants. Major sources have the 

20 potential to emit 10 T/yr or more of any single hazardous air pollutant or 25 T/yr or more of any 

21 combination of hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR 63.6085(b)). 

22 The review team assumes that fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be 

23 mitigated using BMPs, similar to mitigation discussed in Chapter 4 for proposed LNP Units 1 

24 and 2. Such emissions would be temporary. 

25 The impacts of emissions from a natural-gas-fired power-generation plant would be clearly 

26 noticeable, but would not be sufficient to destabilize air resources. Overall, the review team 

27 concludes that air quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of new natural-gas28 fired power generation at the LNP site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

 

(a) Emissions based on 114 MMBtu/yr and control technology, including lean-premix combustion, and 

catalytic control for NOx at a 90-percent reduction rate and CO at a 75-percent reduction rate. 

(b) Filterable particulate matter considered for analysis. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Waste Management 

2 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff concluded that waste generation from natural-gas-fired 

3 technology would be minimal (NRC 1996). The only significant waste generated at a natural4 gas-fired power plant would be spent selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR), which is used 

5 to control NOx emissions. The spent catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. 

6 Other than spent SCR catalyst, waste generation at an operating natural-gas-fired plant would 

7 be largely limited to typical operations and maintenance waste. Construction-related debris 

8 would be generated during construction activities. Overall, the review team concludes that 

9 waste impacts from natural-gas-fired power generation would be SMALL. 

10 Human Health 

11 Natural-gas-fired power generation introduces public risk from inhalation of gaseous emissions. 

12 The risk may be attributable to NOx emissions that contribute to ozone formation, which in turn 

13 contributes to health risk. Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air 

14 emission standards and requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose 

15 site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. Given the regulatory oversight 

16 exercised by the EPA and State agencies, the review team concludes that the human health 

17 impacts from natural-gas-fired power generation would be SMALL. 

18 Other Impacts 

19 The natural-gas-fired power-generating plant would require at least 110 ac for the powerblock 

20 and support facilities for 2200 MW(e). Construction of a natural-gas pipeline from the LNP site 

21 to the closest natural-gas distribution line would require approximately 10 ac. Thus, the total 

22 land-use commitment, not including natural gas wells and collection stations, would be at least 

23 120 ac (NRC 1996). Consistent with the proposed project, additional land would be needed for 

24 four new transmission-line corridors as well. A small amount of additional land would also be 

25 required for natural-gas wells and collection stations. Due to the proximity of the LNP site to 

26 existing natural-gas infrastructure, these impacts would be minimized. Overall, the review team 

27 concludes that the land-use impacts from new natural-gas-fired power generation would be 

28 MODERATE due mainly to the transmission-line corridor impacts. 

29 The amount of water used and the impacts on water use and quality from constructing and 

30 operating a natural-gas-fired plant at the LNP site would be comparable to the impacts 

31 associated with building and operating a new nuclear facility. The impacts on water quality from 

32 sedimentation during construction of a natural-gas-fired plant were characterized in 

33 NUREG-1437 as SMALL (NRC 1996). The NRC staff also noted in NUREG-1437 that the 

34 impacts on water quality from operations would be similar to, or less than, the impacts from 

35 other power-generating technologies (NRC 1996). Overall, the review team concludes that 

36 impacts on water use and quality would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-18 August 2010 

1 A natural-gas-fired plant at the LNP site would have fewer ecological impacts than a new 

2 nuclear facility because less land would be affected. Constructing a new underground gas 

3 pipeline to the site would result in permanent loss of some terrestrial and aquatic function as 

4 well as conversion and fragmentation of habitat; however, because the distance to connect to 

5 natural-gas distribution systems would be minimal, no important ecological attributes would be 

6 noticeably altered. Impacts on threatened and endangered species would be similar to the 

7 impacts from a new nuclear facility located at the LNP site. Overall, the review team concludes 

8 that ecological impacts would be SMALL. 

9 The review team considered the effects of global climate change on a natural-gas-fired plant at 

10 the LNP site, including sea-level rise, changes in precipitation rates, frequency of severe 

11 weather events, and changes in the distribution of species. The team concluded that the 

12 impacts of global climate change on a natural-gas-fired plant would be comparable to impacts 

13 on a new nuclear facility. 

14 Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 1200 construction workers (NRC 

15 1996) and 150 workers needed to operate the natural-gas-fired facility (PEF 2009a), demands 

16 on housing and public services during construction, and the loss of jobs after construction. 

17 Overall, the review team concludes that these impacts would be SMALL because of the 

18 mitigating influence of the site’s proximity to the surrounding population area and the relatively 

19 small number of workers needed to construct and operate the plant in comparison to nuclear 

20 and coal-fired generation alternatives. PEF would pay property taxes to Levy County. 

21 Considering the population and economic condition of the county, the review team concludes 

22 that the taxes would have a LARGE beneficial impact on the county. 

23 The turbine buildings, four exhaust stacks (each approximately 200 ft high) and associated 

24 emissions, and the gas pipeline compressors would be visible during daylight hours from offsite. 

25 Noise and light from the plant would be detectable offsite. The new transmission lines would 

26 have an aesthetic impact. Overall, the review team concludes that the aesthetic impacts 

27 associated with new natural-gas-fired power generation at the LNP site would be SMALL, but 

28 the impact along new transmission lines would be MODERATE, similar to the proposed project. 

29 Historic and cultural resource impacts for a new natural-gas-fired plant located at the LNP site 

30 would be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant, as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5.6. A 

31 cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property that has not been 

32 previously surveyed. Other lands (if any) that are acquired to support the plant would also likely 

33 need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording of existing historic and 

34 archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect from ground-disturbing 

35 actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the plant 

36 site, any offsite affected areas, such as gas wells, collection stations, and waste-disposal sites, 

37 and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads and a new 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 pipeline). The review team concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts associated 

2 with new natural-gas-fired power generation at the LNP site would be SMALL. 

3 As described in Section 2.6.2, there are no environmental pathways by which the identified 

4 minority or low-income populations within the region would be likely to suffer disproportionately 

5 high and adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, environmental impacts on minority and 

6 low-income populations associated with a natural-gas-fired plant at the LNP site would be 

7 SMALL. 

8 The impacts of natural-gas-fired power generation at the LNP site are summarized in 

9 Table 9-2. 

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

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE At least 120 ac would be needed for powerblock, cooling towers, and 

support systems, and connection to a natural-gas pipeline. Additional 

land would be needed for transmission-line corridors, infrastructure, 

and other facilities. 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SO2 – 32 T/yr 

NOx – 564 T/yr 

CO – 214 T/yr 

PM – 108 T/yr 

PM10 – 108 T/yr 

CO2 – 6.3 million T/yr 

Some hazardous air pollutants 

Water Use and Quality SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear power 

plant located at the LNP site. 

Ecology SMALL Constructing a new underground gas pipeline to the site would result 

in permanent loss of some terrestrial and aquatic function as well as 

conversion and fragmentation of habitat. Impacts on threatened and 

endangered species would be similar to the impacts from new nuclear 

generating units. Most impacts from pipeline construction would be 

temporary. Permanent impact on wetlands within the project footprint 

would occur. 

Waste Management SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent selective catalytic 

reduction catalyst used for control of emissions of NOx. 

Socioeconomics LARGE 

Beneficial 

to MODERATE 

Adverse 

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively small. 

Addition to property tax base, while smaller than for a nuclear or coalfired plant, might still be quite noticeable. Construction-related 

impacts would be noticeable. Impacts during operation would be 

minor because of the small workforce involved. The plant and new 

transmission lines would have aesthetic impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-20 August 2010 

1 Table 9-2. (contd) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human health. 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

SMALL Most of the facility and infrastructure would be built on ground 

previously disturbed by pine plantations. Impacts may also be 

associated with new transmission-line corridors. 

Environmental Justice SMALL No disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations would be anticipated based on analysis of census 

data. 

2 9.2.3 Other Alternatives 

3 This section discusses other energy alternatives, the review team’s conclusions about the 

4 feasibility of each alternative, and the review team’s basis for its conclusions. New nuclear units 

5 at the LNP site would be baseload generation units. Any feasible alternative to the new units 

6 would need to generate baseload power. In evaluating other energy technologies, PEF used 

7 the technologies discussed in the GEIS for license renewal (NRC 1996). The review team 

8 reviewed the information submitted by PEF in its ER and also conducted an independent 

9 review. The review team determined that the other energy alternatives are not reasonable 

10 alternatives to two new nuclear units that would provide baseload power. Also, the Florida 

11 Public Service Commission stated that renewable generation available today or in the 

12 foreseeable future cannot provide enough baseload capacity to avoid the need for the addition 

13 of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 (FPSC 2008). 

14 The review team has not assigned significance levels to the environmental impacts associated 

15 with the alternatives discussed in this section because, as noted above, the generation 

16 alternatives are not feasible for providing 2200 MW(e) of baseload power. In addition, some of 

17 the generation alternatives would have to be installed at a location other than the LNP site, and 

18 any attempt to assign significance levels would require the staff’s speculation about the 

19 unknown site. 

20 9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation 

21 The EIA’s reference case in its Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 projects that oil-fired 

22 power plants would not account for any new electric power-generation capacity in the United 

23 States through the year 2030 (DOE/EIA 2009b). Oil-fired generation is more expensive than 

24 nuclear, natural-gas-fired, or coal-fired generation options. In addition, future increases in oil 

25 prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive. The high cost 

26 of oil has resulted in a decline in its use for electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of 

27 NUREG-1437, the staff estimated that construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would 

28 require about 120 ac of land (NRC 1996). Operation of an oil-fired power plant would have air 

29 emissions that would be similar to those of a comparably sized coal-fired plant (NRC 1996). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 For the aforementioned economic and environmental reasons, the review team concludes that 

2 an oil-fired power plant would not be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 2200-MW(e) 

3 nuclear power-generation facility that would be operated as a baseload plant within PEF’s ROI. 

4 9.2.3.2 Wind Power 

5 The LNP site is in a wind power Class 1 region (average wind speeds lower than 5.6 m/s) 

6 (DOE 2005). Class 1 regions have the lowest potential for generation of wind energy and are 

7 unsuitable for wind-energy development (DOE 2005). Wind turbines typically operate at a 25- 

8 to 40-percent capacity factor compared to 90 to 95 percent for a baseload plant such as a 

9 nuclear plant (AWEA 1998). The world’s largest operating wind farm, the Horse Hollow Wind 

10 Energy Center in Texas, is 735 MW (TSECO 2008a), but most are well under 200 MW. A 

11 utility-scale wind power-generation plant in open, flat terrain would generally require about 

12 60 ac/MW of installed capacity, although much of this land could be used for other compatible 

13 purposes such as farming or ranching (AWEA 2007). With modern wind turbine designs, more 

14 than 1000 wind turbines would be required to produce the 2200 MW(e) of the proposed nuclear 

15 units. 

16 For the reasons cited above, the review team concludes that a wind-energy facility at the LNP 

17 site or elsewhere within PEF’s ROI would not currently be a reasonable alternative to 

18 construction of a 2200-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility that would be operated as a 

19 baseload plant. 

20 9.2.3.3 Solar Power 

21 Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light, hot 

22 water, and electricity for consumers. Solar energy can be converted to electricity using solar 

23 thermal technologies or photovoltaics. Solar thermal technologies use concentrating devices to 

24 create temperatures suitable for power production. Concentrating thermal technologies are 

25 currently less costly than photovoltaics for bulk power production. They can also be provided 

26 with energy storage or auxiliary boilers to allow operation during periods when the sun is not 

27 shining (NPCC 2006). The largest operational solar thermal plant is the 310-MW(e) Solar 

28 Energy Generating System located on approximately 1500 ac in the Mojave Desert in southern 

29 California (NextEra 2009). 

30 Solar insolation has a low energy density relative to other common energy sources. 

31 Consequently, a large total acreage is needed to gather an appreciable amount of energy. 

32 Typical solar-to-electric power plants require 5 to 10 ac for every megawatt of generating 

33 capacity (TSECO 2008b). For PEF’s target capacity of 2200 MW(e) for LNP Units 1 and 2, land 

34 requirements would be approximately 11,000 to 22,000 ac. Solar thermal electric technologies 

35 also typically require considerable water supplies. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-22 August 2010 

1 For the preceding reasons, the review team concludes that a solar-energy facility at or in the 

2 vicinity of the LNP site would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 

3 2200-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility that would be operated as a baseload plant. 

4 9.2.3.4 Hydropower 

5 The EIA’s reference case in its Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 projects that U.S. 

6 electricity production from hydropower plants will remain essentially stable through the year 

7 2030 (DOE/EIA 2009b). In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff estimated that land requirements for 

8 hydroelectric power are approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MW(e) (NRC 1996). For the target 

9 capacity of 2200 MW(e) for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, land requirements would thus be 

10 2.2 million ac. 

11 Because of the extremely low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in Florida and the 

12 large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting 

13 hydroelectric facilities large enough to produce 2200 MW(e), the review team concludes that 

14 local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to construction of a new nuclear power-generation 

15 facility operated as a baseload plant at the proposed site. 

16 9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy 

17 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 

18 power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload power 

19 generation because of the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status 

20 of the technology (NRC 1996). Geothermal plants are most likely to be sited in the western 

21 continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent 

22 (DOE 2008b). Geothermal systems have a relatively small footprint and minimal emissions 

23 (MIT 2006). Florida has high-temperature geothermal resources that are suitable for space 

24 heating applications, but not for baseload power generation (DOE 2010). A recent study led by 

25 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that a $300 to $400 million investment 

26 over 15 years would be needed to make early-generation enhanced geothermal system power 

27 plant installations competitive in the evolving U.S. electricity supply markets (MIT 2006). 

28 For these reasons, the review team concludes that a geothermal energy facility at the LNP site 

29 or elsewhere in PEF’s ROI would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 

30 2200-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant. 

31 9.2.3.6 Wood Waste 

32 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that a wood-burning facility can provide baseload 

33 power and operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 

34 20- to 25-percent efficiency (NRC 1996). The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-23 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 significant impediment to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high cost of fuel 

2 delivery and high construction cost per megawatt of generating capacity. The larger wood3 waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in NUREG-1437 suggest that 

4 the overall level of construction impacts per megawatt of installed capacity would be 

5 approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for 

6 fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996). Similar to coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants 

7 require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of combustion 

8 equipment. 

9 Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a 

10 baseload power plant, the ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and 

11 loss of wildlife habitat), and the relatively small size of wood power-generation plants, the review 

12 team concludes that wood waste would not be a reasonable alternative to a 2200-MW(e) 

13 nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant. 

14 9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste 

15 Municipal solid-waste combustors incinerate waste and can use the resultant heat to produce 

16 steam, hot water, or electricity. The combustion process reduces the volume of waste and the 

17 need for new solid-waste landfills. Mass-burning technologies are most commonly used in the 

18 United States. This group of technologies processes raw municipal solid waste with little or no 

19 sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. More than one-fifth of the U.S. municipal 

20 solid-waste incinerators use refuse-derived fuel. In contrast to mass burning – where the 

21 municipal solid waste is introduced “as is” into the combustion chamber – refuse-derived fuel 

22 facilities are equipped to recover recyclables (e.g., metals, cans, and glass) followed by 

23 shredding the combustible fraction into fluff for incineration (EPA 2008). 

24 In NUREG-1437, the staff determined that the initial capital cost for municipal solid-waste plants 

25 is greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities because of the 

26 need for specialized waste-separation and waste-handling equipment for municipal solid waste 

27 (NRC 1996). 

28 Municipal solid-waste combustors generate SO2 and NOx emissions and an ash residue that is 

29 buried in landfills. The ash residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers 

30 to the portion of the unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash 

31 represents the small particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash 

32 is generally removed from flue gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (EPA 2009a). 

33 Currently, approximately 87 waste-to-energy plants are operating in the United States (EPA 

34 2009a). These plants generate approximately 2500 MW(e), or an average of approximately 

35 29 MW(e) per plant (EPA 2009a). Given the small average output of existing plants, the review 

36 team concludes that generating electricity from municipal solid waste would not be a reasonable 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-24 August 2010 

1 alternative to a 2200-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant 

2 within PEF’s ROI. 

3 9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels 

4 In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuel, several other biomass-derived fuels are 

5 available for fueling electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel 

6 such as ethanol, and gasifying crops (including wood waste). EIA estimates that wind and 

7 biomass will be the largest sources of renewable electricity generation among the non8 hydropower renewable fuels through 2030 (DOE/EIA 2009b). However, in NUREG-1437, the 

9 NRC staff determined that none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being 

10 competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a large baseload power11 generating plant (NRC 1996). The major operating waste from biomass plants would be the fly 

12 ash and bottom ash that results from the combustion of the carbonaceous fuels. 

13 Co-firing biomass with coal is possible when low-cost biomass resources are available. Co14 firing is the most economic option for the near future to introduce new biomass power 

15 generation. These projects require small capital investments per unit of power-generation 

16 capacity. Co-firing systems range in size from 1 to 30 MW(e) of biopower capacity (DOE 

17 2008a). 

18 The review team concludes that given the relatively small average output of biomass power19 generation facilities, biomass-derived fuels do not offer a reasonable alternative to a 

20 2200-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant within PEF’s ROI. 

21 9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells 

22 Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is 

23 produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode, 

24 and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts are heat, water, and CO2. 

25 Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam 

26 under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen. 

27 Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. Higher28 temperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal 

29 efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the second30 generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle 

31 operations. 

32 During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical 

33 and affordable fuel cell designs for stationary power applications, but progress has been slow. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The cost of fuel cell power systems must be reduced before they can be competitive with 

2 conventional technologies (DOE 2008c). 

3 The review team concludes that, at the present time, fuel cells are not economically or 

4 technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Future 

5 gains in cost competitiveness for fuel cells compared to other fuels are speculative. 

6 For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a fuel cell energy facility located at or in the 

7 vicinity of the proposed site would not currently be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 

8 2200-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant. 

9 9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives 

10 Individual alternatives to the construction of two new nuclear units at the LNP site might not be 

11 sufficient on their own to generate PEF’s target value of 2200 MW(e) because of the limited 

12 availability of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities. Nevertheless, it is conceivable 

13 that a combination of alternatives might be cost effective. There are many possible 

14 combinations of alternatives. It would not be reasonable to examine every possible combination 

15 of alternatives in an EIS. Doing so would be counter to CEQ guidance that an EIS should be 

16 analytic rather than encyclopedic, should be kept concise, and should be no longer than 

17 absolutely necessary to comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.2(a), (b)). 

18 Given that PEF’s objective is for a new baseload generation facility, a fossil-fuel energy source, 

19 most likely natural gas or coal, would need to be a significant contributor to any reasonable 

20 alternative energy combination. 

21 Section 9.2.2.2 assumes the construction of four 550-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle 

22 power-generating units at the LNP site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. For a 

23 combined alternatives option, the review team assessed the environmental impacts of an 

24 assumed combination of three 550-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle power-generating 

25 units at the LNP site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers, and the following 

26 contributions from within PEF’s ROI: 200 MW(e) from conservation and DSM programs beyond 

27 what is currently planned, 150 MW(e) from solar, 100 MW(e) from wind, and 100 MW(e) from 

28 biomass sources, including municipal solid waste. Solar and wind energy would need to be 

29 combined with an energy-storage mechanism, such as compressed air energy storage, to be 

30 baseload resources. The review team believes that the preceding contributions are reasonable 

31 and representative for PEF’s ROI. The contributions reflect the review team’s analysis in 

32 Sections 9.2.2 and 9.2.3. 

33 The review team considered the effects of global climate change on a combination of 

34 alternatives at the LNP site, including sea-level rise, changes in precipitation rates, frequency of 

35 severe weather events, and changes in the distribution of species. Global climate change could 

36 have an impact on some of the alternative generation sources (solar, wind, and biomass) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-26 August 2010 

1 considered in the combination of alternatives. For example, increased cloud cover could affect 

2 solar-power generation and biomass production, and severe weather events could affect wind3 power generation. The review team concluded, however, that the impacts of global climate 

4 change on the gas-fired component of the combination of alternatives would be comparable to 

5 impacts on a new nuclear facility. A summary of the review team’s characterizations of the 

6 environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the preceding 

7 assumed combination of alternatives is provided in Table 9-3. 

8 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, new transmission-line corridors, cooling towers, and 

support systems, and connection to a natural-gas pipeline. Solar, 

wind, and biomass facilities and associated transmission lines 

would also have land-use impacts because of the large footprints 

required for these facilities. 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Emissions from the natural-gas-fired plant would be approximately:

SO2 – 24 T/yr 

NOx – 423 T/yr 

CO – 161 T/yr 

PM – 81 T/yr 

PM10 – 81 T/yr 

CO2 – 4.7 million T/yr 

Some hazardous air pollutants. Biomass would also have some 

emissions. 

Water Use and 

Quality 

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear 

power plant located at the proposed site. 

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Wind-energy facilities could result in increased avian and bat 

mortality. Permanent impact on wetlands within the project 

footprint would occur. 

Waste 

Management 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The only significant waste would be from spent selective catalytic 

reduction catalyst used for control of NOx emissions and ash from 

biomass and municipal solid waste. 

Socioeconomics LARGE 

Beneficial 

To 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively small. 

Addition to property tax base, while smaller than for a nuclear or 

coal-fired plant, might still be quite noticeable. Construction-related 

impacts would be noticeable. Impacts during operation would be 

minor because of the small workforce involved. The power plants 

and new transmission lines would have aesthetic impacts. 

9 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-27 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-3. (contd) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human 

health. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

SMALL Most of the facilities and infrastructure at the LNP site would likely 

be built on ground previously disturbed by pine plantations. 

Impacts may also be associated with new transmission-line 

corridors. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL Some impacts on housing availability and prices during 

construction may occur, as might beneficial impacts from property 

tax revenues. 

2 9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

3 Table 9-4 contains a summary of the review team’s environmental impact characterizations for 

4 constructing and operating new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas-fired power-generating 

5 units, and a combination of alternatives at the LNP site. The combination of alternatives shown 

6 in Table 9-4 assumes siting of three natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle units at the LNP site and 

7 siting of other alternative power-generating units within PEF’s ROI. The significance levels used 

8 in the comparison table for the nuclear category originate from Chapters 4 and 5, construction 

9 and preconstruction as well as operational impacts. 

10 Table 9-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New 

11 Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas-Fired Power-Generating Units, and a 

12 Combination of Alternatives 

Impact Category Nuclear Coal Natural Gas

Combination of 

Alternatives

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Water Use and Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

MODERATE SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Waste Management SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

13 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-28 August 2010 

1 Table 9-4. (contd) 

Impact Category Nuclear Coal Natural Gas

Combination of 

Alternatives

 

Socioeconomics LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

2 The review team reviewed the available information on the environmental impacts of power3 generation alternatives compared to the construction of new nuclear units at the LNP site. 

4 Based on this review, the review team concludes that, from an environmental perspective, none 

5 of the viable energy alternatives is environmentally preferable to construction of a new baseload 

6 nuclear power-generation plant at the LNP site. 

7 Because of current concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions, it is appropriate to 

8 specifically discuss the differences among the alternative energy sources regarding CO2

9 emissions. The CO2 emissions for the proposed action and energy-generation alternatives are 

10 discussed in Sections 5.7.1, 9.2.2.1, and 9.2.2.2. Table 9-5 summarizes the CO2 emission 

11 estimates for a 40-year period for the alternatives considered by the review team to be viable for 

12 baseload power generation. These estimates are limited to the emissions from power 

13 generation and do not include CO2 emissions for workforce transportation, construction fuel 

14 cycle, or decommissioning. 

15 Table 9-5. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives 

Generation Type Years 

CO2 Emissions 

(MT) 

Nuclear Power(a) 40 22,500 

Coal-Fired Generation(b) 40 678,000,000 

Natural-Gas-Fired Generation(c)

 40 229,000,000 

Combination of Alternatives(d) 40 171,000,000 

(a) From ER (PEF 2009a) 

(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) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-29 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Among the viable energy-generation alternatives, the CO2 emissions for nuclear power are a 

2 small fraction of the emissions of the other viable energy-generation alternatives. Adding the 

3 transportation emissions for the nuclear plant workforce and fuel-cycle emissions, would 

4 increase the emissions for plant operation over a 40-year period to about 40,000,000 MT 

5 (Appendix I). This number is still significantly lower than the emissions for any of the other 

6 baseload generation alternatives. 

7 The CO2 emissions associated with generation alternatives such as wind, solar, and 

8 hydropower would be associated with workforce transportation, construction, and 

9 decommissioning of the facilities. Because these power-generation alternatives do not involve 

10 combustion, the review team considers the emissions to be minor and concludes that the 

11 emissions would have a minimal cumulative impact. Other energy-generation alternatives 

12 involving combustion of oil, wood waste, municipal solid waste, or biomass-derived fuels would 

13 have CO2 emissions from combustion as well as from workforce transportation, plant 

14 construction, and plant decommissioning. It is likely that the CO2 emissions from the 

15 combustion process for these alternatives would dominate the other CO2 emissions associated 

16 with the generation alternative. It is also likely that the CO2 emissions from these alternatives 

17 would be the same order of magnitude as the emissions for the fossil-fuel alternatives. 

18 However, because the review team determined that these alternatives do not meet the need for 

19 baseload power generation, the review team has not evaluated the CO2 emissions 

20 quantitatively. 

21 As discussed in Chapter 8, the review team concludes that the need for additional baseload 

22 power generation has been demonstrated. Also, as discussed earlier in this chapter, the review 

23 team concludes that the viable alternatives to the proposed action all would involve the use of 

24 fossil fuels (coal or natural gas). Consequently, the review team concludes that the proposed 

25 action results in the lowest level of emissions of greenhouse gases among the viable 

26 alternatives. 

27 9.3 Alternative Sites 

28 This section discusses PEF’s alternative site-selection process for possible siting of a new 

29 nuclear power plant. It provides the review team’s description of the alternative sites selected 

30 and the building and operational impacts of locating two new units at each alternative site. 

31 Finally, the construction and operational impacts of the proposed and alternative sites are 

32 compared. 

33 9.3.1 Alternative Sites Selection Process 

34 NRC EISs prepared in conjunction with a COL application are to analyze alternatives to the 

35 proposed action (10 CFR 51.71(d)). This section discusses PEF’s process for selecting its 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-30 August 2010 

1 proposed and alternative sites and the review team’s evaluation of the process. PEF’s site2 selection process was based on guidance in the following documents (PEF 2009a): the NRC’s 

3 ESRP (NRC 2000), Regulatory Guide 4.2 (NRC 1976), Regulatory Guide 4.7 (NRC 1998), and 

4 the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) Siting Guide (EPRI 2002). In evaluating sites, 

5 PEF assumed that a twin-unit Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) AP1000 

6 pressurized water reactor would be built and operated (PEF 2009a). 

7 NRC’s site-selection process guidance calls for identification of an ROI, followed by successive 

8 screenings to identify candidate areas, potential sites, candidate sites, and the proposed site 

9 (NRC 2000). Candidate areas are those areas within an ROI that remain after areas unsuitable 

10 for nuclear power plant construction or operation have been excluded. Potential sites are those 

11 sites within candidate areas that meet minimum size and other siting criteria. Candidate sites 

12 are chosen from potential sites using a defined site-selection methodology and are those that 

13 would be expected to be granted construction permits or COLs. Candidate sites include both 

14 the proposed site and alternative sites. 

15 9.3.1.1 Selection of Region of Interest 

16 The ROI is the geographic area considered by an applicant in searching for candidate areas 

17 and potential sites for a new nuclear power plant. The ROI is typically the state in which the 

18 proposed site is located or the relevant service area for the proposed plant (NRC 2000). PEF 

19 selected as its ROI the land area included in the PEF service territory and all or parts of the 

20 Florida counties surrounding PEF’s service territory, including Bay, Calhoun, Jackson, 

21 Suwannee, Columbia, Union, Bradford, Alachua, Clay, Putnam, Flagler, Volusia, Seminole, 

22 Brevard, Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Glades, Highlands, DeSoto, Hardee, Manatee, 

23 Pasco, Polk, and Hillsborough (see Figure 8-1) (PEF 2009a). PEF expanded the ROI around 

24 the periphery of its service territory to provide additional flexibility and to make sure it would not 

25 overlook any viable sites within a reasonable distance of the service territory. PEF’s service 

26 territory is further discussed in Section 8.1. 

27 9.3.1.2 Selection of Candidate Areas 

28 Candidate areas are one or more areas within the applicant’s ROI that remain after unsuitable 

29 areas for a new nuclear power plant (e.g., due to high population, lack of water, fault lines, or 

30 distance to transmission lines) have been removed from consideration (NRC 2000). PEF 

31 systematically reviewed candidate areas within the ROI using the ESRP guidance (NRC 2000) 

32 and the EPRI Siting Guide (EPRI 2002) as the basis for its selections. The following broad 

33 criteria were applied in screening for candidate areas within the ROI: population density, 

34 availability of cooling-water sources, dedicated Federal and State land uses, and regional 

35 ecological features (e.g., threatened or endangered species habitats) (PEF 2009a, d). Areas 

36 were removed from consideration if they did not meet the required characteristics (e.g., 

population density no more than 300 persons/mi2 37 , no Federal or State parks). Nine areas that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 met the required characteristics were designated candidate areas and were plotted on a map of 

2 Florida. The following nine candidate areas were identified by PEF (PEF 2009a): 

3 • Western Panhandle along the Gulf Coast/St. Joseph Bay (Bay and Gulf Counties) 

4 • Apalachicola and Chipola River basin areas (Calhoun, Gulf, and Liberty Counties) 

5 • Ochlockonee River basin along borders of Liberty, Franklin, Leon, and Wakulla Counties 

6 • Gulf Coast along Taylor and Dixie, Levy, Citrus, and Hernando Counties 

7 • Tampa Bay area/Manatee River south of Tampa/St. Petersburg area (Hillsborough and 

8 Manatee Counties) 

9 • Suwannee River Basin (Dixie, Levy, Gilchrist, and Lafayette Counties) 

10 • Kissimmee River near Lake Okeechobee (Highlands, Okeechobee and Glades Counties) 

11 • St. Johns River Basin (Seminole, Volusia, and Putnam Counties) 

12 • Atlantic Coastal areas (numerous locations between Flagler County to the north, and Indian 

13 River County to the south). 

14 9.3.1.3 Selection of Potential Sites 

15 Potential sites are those sites within a candidate area that have been identified by an applicant 

16 for preliminary assessment in establishing candidate sites (NRC 2000). Within the nine 

17 candidate areas, PEF used aerial photographs and other geographic information to identify 

18 potential sites for its planned new nuclear units. 

19 In the first phase of the potential site-selection process, PEF used the following considerations 

20 to identify a number of general siting areas within the candidate areas (PEF 2009g): 

21 • at least one potential site for each major water source 

22 • proximity to transmission/load centers 

23 • avoidance of high-population areas in the area 

24 • consideration of ecologically sensitive and special designation areas, both along the coast 

25 and river corridors (e.g., Outstanding Florida Waters as defined by the FDEP(2009a) 

26 • proximity to transportation (e.g., railroad lines, barge terminals) 

27 • diversity of potential sites within the ROI (coastal and inland waterways) 

28 • areas particularly compatible with PEF’s business objectives. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-32 August 2010 

1 PEF then searched within the general siting areas to identify potential sites, using the following 

2 factors: 

3 • flexibility to optimize site layout and design to minimize costs and to avoid or mitigate 

4 environmental impacts 

5 • minimization of the number of land parcels contained within the site 

6 • optimization of site engineering factors (e.g., topography, foundation conditions, grading 

7 requirements). 

8 Finally, the following criteria were applied in locating potential sites (PEF 2009a): 

9 • distance to existing transmission-load centers in the Orlando and Tampa/St. Petersburg areas 

10 was minimized to the extent possible. 

11 • distance from towns, villages, and developed areas was maximized. 

12 • distance from industrial areas identifiable from the aerial photographs and topographic maps 

13 (e.g., airports, industrial complexes) was maximized. 

14 • when possible, land near existing water-supply sources (rivers, lakes, and coastal areas) was 

15 identified. 

16 • the optimal topography was assumed to be a relatively flat area above the 100-year floodplain 

17 for construction of the plant, adjacent to streams with surrounding topography showing some 

18 relief. 

19 • vehicle transportation access to the potential sites was qualitatively evaluated. Land areas 

20 around major highways were avoided, but those within a reasonable distance of State 

21 highways were considered. 

22 • potential sites were generally 6000 ac in size, although some sites as small as 2000 ac were 

23 considered (PEF 2009a). PEF selected 20 potential sites for new nuclear units based mainly 

24 on the availability of sufficient land for two AP1000 reactors and the availability of sufficient 

25 cooling water for the units. As shown in Figure 9-1, the 20 potential sites are located in the 

26 following counties: Calhoun, Liberty (two sites), Gilchrist, Putnam (three sites), Volusia, 

27 Seminole, Highlands and Glades, Manatee, Hillsborough, Citrus, Levy (three sites), Dixie, 

28 Lafayette, Taylor, and Gulf (PEF 2009a). 

29 9.3.1.4 Selection of Candidate Sites 

30 Candidate sites are those potential sites within the ROI that are considered in the comparative 

31 evaluation of sites to be among the best that can reasonably be found for the siting of a nuclear 

32 power plant (NRC 2000). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-33 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 9-1. Map Highlighting the Florida Counties in Which the Top 20 Potential Sites for New 

3 Nuclear Units Are Located 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-34 August 2010 

1 PEF’s technical evaluation and screening of the 20 potential sites were based on criteria derived 

2 from the EPRI Siting Guide (EPRI 2002) as well as PEF staff expertise on transmission issues, 

3 environmental issues, community support, economic development, and State and local 

4 regulations at each of the sites. The following nine screening criteria were used to select 

5 candidate sites: 

6 • availability of an adequate cooling-water supply 

7 • flooding potential 

8 • distance to nearest population center and regional population density 

9 • distance from hazardous land uses (e.g., airports, pipelines) 

10 • numbers of threatened or endangered species within the site area 

11 • acreage of wetlands within the site area 

12 • railroad access 

13 • transmission-line access 

14 • estimated cost of acquiring the land at the site. 

15 Numerical ranges were defined for each of the nine criteria. For example, for the wetlands 

16 criterion, the metric used in the screening process was the number of acres of wetlands within 

17 the potential site area, and the following ratings were defined (PEF 2009a): 

18 • 5 = less than 60 ac 

19 • 4 = less than 300 ac 

20 • 3 = less than 600 ac 

21 • 2 = less than 1200 ac 

22 • 1= greater than 1200 ac 

23 Each of the 20 potential sites was assigned a rating of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the wetlands criterion, 

24 and a rating was also assigned for the other eight screening criteria. PEF staff obtained criteria 

25 weights from previous nuclear power plant siting studies to reflect the relative importance of 

26 each criterion. The overall score for each potential site, reflecting its overall suitability for 

27 construction of a nuclear power plant, was developed by multiplying each criterion rating by its 

28 corresponding criterion weight, and then summing over all nine criteria. The potential sites with 

29 the highest overall scores were selected for more detailed analysis (PEF 2009g). 

30 PEF’s technical evaluation identified the following eight candidate sites for more detailed 

31 evaluation: 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-35 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 • Crystal River 

2 • Dixie 

3 • Gilchrist 

4 • Hillsborough 

5 • Lafayette 

6 • Levy 2 

7 • Levy 3 

8 • Taylor. 

9 For the reasons described below, PEF decided to make several modifications to the initial list of 

10 candidate sites (PEF 2009a): 

11 Gilchrist was removed from the list due to the need for a supplemental reservoir and related 

12 water supply constraints. 

13 Hillsborough was removed from the list due to water supply uncertainties and potential 

14 transmission connection constraints. 

15 Putnam 3 was added to the list based on its location allowing an alternative water source (St. 

16 Johns River), proximity to PEF load centers, rail and transmission access advantages, and real 

17 estate considerations. 

18 Highlands was added to the list based on its location allowing an alternative water source 

19 (Kissimmee River) and proximity to PEF load centers. 

20 So the final list of eight candidate sites selected by PEF for more detail evaluation was as 

21 follows (PEF 2009a): 

22 • Crystal River 

23 • Dixie 

24 • Highlands 

25 • Lafayette 

26 • Levy 2 

27 • Levy 3 

28 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-36 August 2010 

1 • Putnam 3 

2 • Taylor 

3 9.3.1.5 Selection of Alternative Sites 

4 The next step in the site-selection process was to select from the eight candidate sites a suite of 

5 alternative sites for detailed evaluation and consideration. General siting criteria derived from 

6 the EPRI Siting Guide (EPRI 2002) were tailored to specific issues applicable to the candidate 

7 sites. PEF used 40 criteria related to health and safety (e.g., geology and seismology, extreme 

8 weather conditions, surface-water radionuclide pathway), environmental considerations 

9 (e.g., disruption of important species/habitats, dewatering effects on adjacent wetlands, thermal 

10 discharge effects), socioeconomics (e.g., construction-related effects, operations-related effects, 

11 environmental justice), and engineering and cost considerations (e.g., pumping distance, 

12 highway access, land rights) to screen the candidate sites and identify the five alternative sites. 

13 The process used for this more-detailed analysis was analogous to the process described in 

14 Section 9.3.1.4. Each of the eight candidate sites was assigned a rating from 1 to 5 on each of 

15 the 40 criteria. PEF staff obtained criteria weights from other siting studies to reflect the relative 

16 importance of each criterion. The overall score for each candidate site, reflecting its overall 

17 suitability for construction of a nuclear power plant, was developed by multiplying each criterion 

18 rating by its corresponding criterion weight, and then summing over all 40 criteria (PEF 2009a). 

19 In addition to this quantitative analysis, helicopter flyovers of the sites provided additional input 

20 to the decision (PEF 2009g). 

21 Following this analysis, PEF selected the following alternative sites: 

22 • Crystal River 

23 • Dixie 

24 • Highlands 

25 • Levy 2 

26 • Putnam 3. 

27 The other three candidate sites (Taylor, Levy 3, and Lafayette) were dropped from further 

28 consideration based on a number of factors. Even though Taylor had ranked in the top 5 sites 

29 using the 40-criteria evaluation, Taylor, along with Levy 3, would require extended pipelines in 

30 estuarine areas between the sites and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in permitting and 

31 regulatory concerns. Both sites are also located along the coast, which makes them vulnerable 

32 to storm surge flooding. The Lafayette site would require zoning and land-use changes due to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-37 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 existing residential and recreational land uses. In addition, the Lafayette site has lower water 

2 flows than the Dixie site (PEF 2009a). 

3 9.3.1.6 Selection of the Proposed Site 

4 To screen the five alternative sites to identify a proposed site, PEF performed a technical 

5 evaluation of each alternative site that included the following components: transmission-line 

6 evaluations, geotechnical studies, environmental assessments, reliability analyses, and land7 acquisition analyses. PEF’s evaluations considered the land-use, water-related, ecological, and 

8 socioeconomic impacts of locating two new reactors at each of the five alternative sites. PEF 

9 concluded that all five alternative sites represented a cross-section of siting tradeoffs available 

10 within the ROI, including a variety of water sources, locations, and transmission connection 

11 strategies (PEF 2009a). The Crystal River and LNP sites were ranked highest mainly due to 

12 geological conditions and the availability of cooling-water sources (PEF 2009a). 

13 PEF also evaluated whether the advantages of collocating new nuclear power-generating units 

14 with its existing power plant at the Crystal River site outweighed the potential advantages of the 

15 other alternative sites. The following potential advantages of collocation were identified in the 

16 application (PEF 2009a): 

17 • The total number of required power-generating sites is reduced. 

18 • Construction of new transmission-line corridors may not be required due to potential use of 

19 existing corridors. 

20 • No additional land acquisitions would be necessary because PEF already controls the 

21 property. 

22 • The site has already gone through the alternatives review process mandated by NEPA, and 

23 was the subject of extensive environmental screening during the original site-selection 

24 process. 

25 • The site-development costs and environmental impacts of any preconstruction activities 

26 would be reduced. 

27 • Construction, installation, and operation and maintenance costs would be reduced because of 

28 the existing site infrastructure. 

29 However, strategic considerations indicated the LNP site would be preferable to the Crystal 

30 River site because it is located farther from the Gulf Coast and at a higher elevation. Thus, the 

31 LNP site would provide increased protection from wind and flood damage over the Crystal River 

32 site. In addition, adding new nuclear generating capacity at the CREC would result in a 

33 significant concentration of PEF’s generating assets at one location, which would make the PEF 

34 system overly vulnerable to a major hurricane or other natural disaster. On the basis of its 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-38 August 2010 

1 environmental analysis and strategic business considerations, PEF selected the Levy 2 area as 

2 its proposed site. 

3 9.3.1.7 Review Team Evaluation of PEF’s Site-Selection Process 

4 The review team evaluated the methodology used by PEF to select its proposed and alternative 

5 sites. PEF’s designated ROI is consistent with the description in NRC’s guidance for 

6 preparation of ERs for nuclear power stations (NRC 2000). PEF established candidate areas 

7 based on a group of exclusionary criteria similar to those described in ESRP 9.3. The staff 

8 evaluated the exclusionary criteria and determined that they were reasonable. Next PEF 

9 identified potential sites within the candidate areas based on aerial photographs and other 

10 geographic information, and evaluated them against a set of high-level criteria. PEF then used 

11 more specific criteria to evaluate the potential sites and identify candidate sites, including the 

12 alternative sites and its preferred site. The staff reviewed the specific criteria used to identify 

13 potential sites, candidate sites, and alternate sites and concluded that application of the criteria 

14 would result in the identification of alternate sites that are among the best that can reasonably 

15 be found in the candidate areas. Additionally, the staff reviewed the technical evaluation used 

16 to evaluate each of the identified alternative sites and found the criteria and the application of 

17 the criteria to each alternative site reasonable. 

18 Based on its review of PEF’s site-selection process using NRC’s guidance, the review team 

19 concludes that PEF’s process for selecting its ROI, candidate areas, potential sites, candidate 

20 sites, alternative sites, and the proposed LNP site was reasonable; resulted in the identification 

21 of alternative sites that were among the best that could reasonably be found in the region of 

22 interest; did not arbitrarily exclude locations that might be suitable choices for siting two new 

23 nuclear generating units to satisfy the need for power identified in Chapter 8; and was 

24 consistent with the guidance in ESRP 9.3 and the EPRI siting guidance (EPRI 2002). 

25 9.3.1.8 Evaluation of the Alternative Sites 

26 The four alternative sites examined in detail in this chapter are Crystal River, located in Citrus 

27 County; Dixie, located in Dixie County; Highlands, located in Highlands and Glades counties; 

28 and Putnam, located in Putnam County – all in Florida. The NRC staff visited each of the four 

29 alternative sites and the proposed site. The review team used information in PEF’s ER related 

30 to the four alternative sites and also independently collected and analyzed reconnaissance-level 

31 information for each of the alternative sites using ESRP 9.2 (NRC 2000) as guidance. 

32 In the discussion of the alternative sites that follows, the review team evaluated cumulative 

33 impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at each site for each resource category, 

34 considering the impacts of other nearby projects on that resource. Included in the cumulative 

35 analysis are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

36 actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts with the proposed action. For purposes 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-39 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 of this analysis, the past is defined as the time period before receipt of the COL application. 

2 The present is defined as the time period from the receipt of the COL application until the start 

3 of building the proposed Units 1 and 2. The future is defined as the start of building Units 1 and 

4 2 through operation and eventual decommissioning. 

5 Using Chapter 7 as a guide, the specific resources and components that could be affected by 

6 the incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the alternative site and other 

7 actions in the same geographic area were identified. The affected environment that serves as 

8 the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis is described for each alternative site and 

9 includes a qualitative discussion of the general effects of past actions. For each resource area, 

10 the geographic area over which past, present, and future actions could reasonably contribute to 

11 cumulative impacts is defined and described in later sections. The analysis for each resource 

12 area at each alternative site concludes with a cumulative impact finding (SMALL, MODERATE, 

13 or LARGE). For those cases in which the impact level for a resource was greater than SMALL, 

14 the review team also discussed whether building and operating the nuclear units would be a 

15 significant contributor to the cumulative impact. In the context of this evaluation, “significant” is 

16 defined as a contribution that is important in reaching that impact-level determination. 

17 The nonradiological waste impacts described in Sections 4.10 and 5.10 would not vary 

18 significantly from one site to another. The types and quantities of nonradiological and mixed 

19 waste would be approximately the same for the construction and operation of two AP1000 

20 reactors at any of the alternative sites. For each alternative, all wastes destined for land-based 

21 treatment or disposal would be transported offsite by licensed contractors to existing, licensed, 

22 disposal facilities operating in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local 

23 requirements, and all nonradioactive, liquid discharges would be discharged in compliance with 

24 the provisions of the applicable NPDES permit. For these reasons, these impacts are not 

25 discussed separately in the evaluation of each alternative site. 

26 The impacts described in Chapter 6 (e.g., nuclear fuel cycle, decommissioning) would not vary 

27 significantly from one site to another. This is true because all of the alternative sites and the 

28 proposed site are in low-population areas and because the review team assumes the same 

29 reactor design (therefore, the same fuel-cycle technology, transportation methods, and 

30 decommissioning methods) for all of the sites. As such, these impacts would not differ between 

31 the sites and would not be useful in the determination of whether an alternative site is 

32 environmentally preferable to the proposed site. For this reason, these impacts are not 

33 discussed in the evaluation of the alternative sites. 

34 The cumulative impacts are summarized for each resource area at each site in the sections that 

35 follow. The level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for each resource 

36 area. The findings for each resource area at each alternative site then are compared in 

37 Table 9-31 at the end of this chapter to the cumulative impacts at the proposed site (brought 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-40 August 2010 

1 forward from Chapter 7). The results of this comparison are used to determine if any of the 

2 alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. 

3 9.3.2 Crystal River Site 

4 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

5 a new two-unit nuclear power plant adjacent to the CREC. The CREC is located in a rural area 

6 of Citrus County about 9 mi southwest of the LNP site, approximately 5 mi south-southwest of 

7 Inglis, and about 8 mi northwest of Crystal River. The Crystal River alternative site (hereafter 

8 Crystal River site) proposed for additional units would be located adjacent to the current CREC 

9 footprint on land owned by PEF. The Gulf of Mexico would be the source for water for plant 

10 cooling and other plant uses, and construction of a new water-storage reservoir would not be 

11 required. The CREC is an industrial site currently owned and operated by PEF (PEF 2009a). 

12 Conceptual routes of transmission lines necessary to connect the Crystal River site to the 

13 electrical grid are located in Levy, Citrus, Ocala, Sumter, Lake, and Hernando Counties. 

14 The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

15 resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

16 incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the Crystal River site and other 

17 actions in the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of 

18 NRC-authorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also 

19 included in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non20 Federal, and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered 

21 together with the proposed action if implemented at the Crystal River site. Other actions and 

22 projects considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-6. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-41 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-6. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Crystal River Alternative Site 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

Operation and 

decommissioning of 

CREC Units 1 to 5 

The CREC consists of five 

power-generating plants 

operated by PEF, four fossil-fuel 

plants, and one nuclear plant. 

The fossil-fuel plants began 

operations in 1966, 1969, 1982, 

and 1984. The nuclear plant 

began operations in 1977. 

Adjacent to 

the Crystal 

River site 

Operational. The State 

of Florida’s Siting 

Board’s Conditions of 

Certification for LNP 

would require PEF to 

discontinue the 

operations of two 

fossil-fuel units by 

December 31, 2020, 

assuming licensing, 

construction and 

commencement of 

operation of LNP 

occurs in a timely 

manner (DOE/EIA 

2010a; FDEP 2010a). 

Renewal of the 

CREC nuclear Unit 

3 Operating License, 

Extension of operations of 

CREC Unit 3 for an additional 

20-year period beyond the end 

of the current license term, 

which is valid through midnight 

December 3, 2016. 

Adjacent to 

the Crystal 

River site 

Proposed. If granted, 

the license renewal 

would provide PEF the 

authority to continue 

operations through 

2036. The draft 

Supplemental EIS for 

the license renewal is 

scheduled to be issued 

in 2010 (NRC 2010a). 

3 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-42 August 2010 

1 Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Uprate at CREC 

Unit 3 

CREC Unit 3 is planning to 

request a power uprate or 

increase in the maximum power 

level at which the nuclear power 

plant may operate. The project 

would also include construction 

of a new helper cooling tower. 

Adjacent to 

the Crystal 

River site 

Proposed. The 

application submitted 

to the State of Florida 

was approved in 

August 2008. USACE 

issued a public notice 

on May 25, 2010 

(USACE 2010a). A 

Federal application is 

expected to be 

submitted to NRC in 

2010 (PEF 2009f). 

Inglis Lock bypass 

channel spillway 

hydropower project 

2-MW hydroelectric project at 

the existing Inglis Lock bypass 

spillway. This project would 

include construction of an intake 

structure, intake and discharge 

channels, turbines, and a 

transmission line. 

About 5 mi 

northeast of 

the Crystal 

River site 

Proposed. An 

application has been 

submitted to the 

Federal Energy 

Regulatory 

Commission (FERC 

2009a). 

Florida Gas 

Transmission 

Company, LLC 

(FGT) Phase VIII 

Expansion Project 

Construction and expansion of 

natural-gas pipelines, new 

compressor, meter, regulator 

stations, and other appurtenant 

facilities 

Various 

Counties in 

Alabama and 

Florida, 

including 

Levy, Citrus, 

and 

Hernando. 

Route passes 

2 mi east of 

Crystal River 

site. 

Completion expected 

by 2011 (FERC 2010; 

Panhandle Energy 

2010). 

Mining Projects 

Tarmac King Road 

Limestone Mine 

A 9400-ac aggregate mining 

site. The mining site would be 

4900 ac (including 900 ac set 

aside for wetlands); with 

remaining 4500 ac donated to 

Florida for preservation. 

The southern 

border of the 

site is about 

8 mi northnortheast of 

the Crystal 

River site 

Proposed. A permit 

application was 

submitted to USACE in 

September 2007. A 

draft EIS is expected to 

be completed in 2010 

(USACE 2008; PEF 

2009e). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-43 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Holcim Mine Limestone quarry About 1 mi 

north of the 

Crystal River 

site 

Operational (FDEP 

1997) 

Inglis Quarry Limestone quarry About 3 mi 

north of the 

Crystal River 

site 

Operational (EPA 

2010a) 

Crystal River 

Quarries – Red 

Level 

Limestone quarry About 3 mi 

east of the 

Crystal River 

site 

Operational (EPA 

2010b) 

Crystal River 

Quarries – Lecanto 

Limestone quarry About 16 mi 

east-southeast 

of the Crystal 

River site 

Operational (EPA 

2010c) 

Gulf Hammock 

Quarry 

Limestone quarry About 19 mi 

north of the 

Crystal River 

site 

Operational (EPA 

2010d) 

Transportation Projects 

Cross Florida Barge 

Canal (CFBC)/ 

Marjorie Harris Carr 

Cross Florida 

Greenway 

The CFBC was a proposal to 

connect the Gulf of Mexico to 

the Atlantic Ocean. Two 

sections were partially 

constructed between 1964 and 

1971. A constructed section 

extends westward from Lake 

Rousseau to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Portions of the CFBC are 

currently used as part of the 

Marjorie Harris Carr Cross 

Florida Greenway (FDEP 

2010b). 

About 3 mi 

north of the 

Crystal River 

site 

Operational 

downstream of Lake 

Rousseau. Marjorie 

Harris Carr Cross 

Florida Greenway is 

currently managed as 

a protected greenbelt 

corridor. Construction 

was suspended 

January 1971 (FDEP 

2010b). 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-44 August 2010 

1 Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

Parks, forests, and 

reserves 

Numerous State and national 

parks, forests, reserves, and 

other recreational areas, 

including: Goethe State Forest, 

Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic 

Preserve, St. Martens Marsh, 

Fanning Springs State Park, 

Chassahowitzka National 

Wildlife Refuge, Fort Cooper 

State Park, Cedar Keys 

National Wildlife Refuge; 

Cummer Sanctuary, Crystal 

River National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lower Suwannee National 

Wildlife Refuge; Withlacoochee 

State Forest; Ocala National 

Forest; Crystal River Preserve 

State Park; Silver 

River State Park; and the 

Homosassa Springs Wildlife 

State Park. 

Throughout 

50-mi region 

Development likely 

limited in these areas 

(PEF 2008). 

Crystal River 

Mariculture Center 

Multi-species marine hatchery Adjacent to 

Crystal River 

site 

Operational (FFWCC 

2010) 

Other aquaculture 

facilities 

Multi-species marine hatcheries Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Other Actions/Projects 

Commercial forest 

management 

Managed forests for timber 

production. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Commercial dairies Several dairies are located 

within the 50-mi region, 

including the Levy County 

Dairy, Alliance, and Piedmont 

Dairies, Hill Top Dairy, and Oak 

Grove Dairy, Inc. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-45 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Minor water 

dischargers and 

wastewatertreatment plants 

NPDES-permitted dischargers 

in Fanning Springs, Trenton, 

Blitchville, Bell, Chiefland, 

Cedar Key, Suwannee, and 

other locations. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Concrete companies Two ready-mixed concrete 

suppliers. 

Northern Levy 

County 

Operational (EPA 

2010e, f) 

Various hospitals 

and industrial 

facilities that use 

radioactive materials 

Medical and other industrial 

isotopes 

Within 50 mi Operational in nearby 

cities and towns 

Future urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings such as the proposed 

Port District near Inglis; roads, 

bridges, and railroads, such as 

the Suncoast toll road expansion 

and the US-19 bridge and 

highway expansions; 

construction of water- and/or 

wastewater-treatment and 

distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use 

planning documents. 

About 3 mi 

north of the 

CREC and 

throughout 

region 

Construction would 

occur in the future, as 

described in local landuse planning 

documents (FTE 2010; 

FDOT 2010a, b; Citrus 

County 2009). 

2 The geographic area of interest for cumulative impacts considers all existing and proposed 

3 nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

4 (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Crystal River site. An 

5 accident at a nuclear plant within 100 mi of the Crystal River site could potentially increase this 

6 risk. However, other nuclear plants in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia that are more than 100 mi 

7 from the Crystal River site are not included in the cumulative impact analysis.

8 9.3.2.1 Land-Use Impacts 

9 The following analysis includes impacts from building and operating two nuclear units at the 

10 Crystal River site, along with the necessary transmission lines to connect them to the electrical 

11 grid. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

12 actions that affect land use, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-46 August 2010 

1 Table 9-6. For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the area within the 15-mi radius 

2 of the Crystal River site and the area within the transmission-line corridors. The review team 

3 determined that a 15-mi radius would represent the smallest area that would be directly affected 

4 because it includes the primary communities (such as Crystal River, Homossassa Springs, 

5 Inglis, and Yankeetown) that would be affected by the proposed project if it were located at the 

6 Crystal River site. 

7 Historically, Citrus County was known for mining and timber operations as well as its namesake 

8 citrus orchards, but today only one large grove remains. From 1964 to 1972, the CFBC was 

9 partially constructed from the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Rousseau. Currently, this area and other 

10 lands that were acquired to construct the CFBC are managed as the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross11 Florida Greenway to conserve natural resources and provide recreational opportunities. 

12 Construction of the CREC, which consists of five power-generating plants operated by PEF, four 

13 fossil-fuel plants, and one nuclear plant, began in the 1960s. The fossil-fuel plants began 

14 operations in 1966, 1969, 1982, and 1984. The 860-MW nuclear plant began operations in 

15 1977. From 1960 until 1985, the population of Citrus County increased from about 10,000 to 

16 about 70,000, and the population of Levy County increased from about 10,000 to about 22,000 

17 (USCB 2000a). Thus, residential land use in the region increased dramatically during that 

18 period. 

19 The Crystal River site is adjacent to the existing CREC and has level terrain that gradually 

20 slopes west toward the Gulf of Mexico. The land uses in the region are a mix of industrial 

21 development, agriculture, forestry, and mining. The site already includes both nuclear and 

22 fossil-fuel power plants, so zoning is compatible with additional nuclear power-generating 

23 plants. The Crystal River site is subject to the Florida Coastal Management Act (The Florida 

24 Senate 2009), because the plant is located within one of the designated Florida coastal zone 

25 counties. There are several public properties within the region, including the Goethe State 

26 Forest, Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge, Cummer Sanctuary, Crystal River National Wildlife 

27 Refuge, Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge, Withlacoochee State Forest, Ocala National 

28 Forest, Crystal River Preserve State Park, Fanning Springs State Park, Silver River State Park, 

29 Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, Fort Cooper State Park, and Homosassa State Park 

30 (PEF 2009a). 

31 PEF would not have to acquire new land for the siting of new nuclear reactor units at Crystal 

32 River. Like the LNP site, the footprint of new power-generating units would be approximately 

33 627 ac, with about 150 ac of additional land needed for temporary facilities and laydown yards. 

34 Because the Crystal River site already has been developed as a power station, the review team 

35 expects additional land conversions to industrial or utility use would be minimal. 

36 Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions to 

37 accommodate new workers and services. Because the workforce would be dispersed over 

38 larger geographic areas in the labor supply region, the impacts from land conversion for 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-47 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 residential and commercial buildings induced by new workers relocating to the local area can be 

2 absorbed into the wider region. Therefore, the review team concludes that such impacts would 

3 be minimal. 

4 Although transmission-line corridors exist to serve the Crystal River site, approximately 180 mi 

5 of additional transmission system infrastructure would be needed. The review team estimated 

6 the linear run of the expected transmission-line corridors by referring to Table 4-3, which 

7 addresses the potentially affected land use in the conceptual transmission-line corridors. In the 

8 case of Crystal River, this routing is somewhat similar to that described for LNP Units 1 and 2 in 

9 Section 4.1.2 and would amount to about 180 linear miles. For purposes of land-use impact 

10 analysis, the review team made the assumption that 10 ac/mi would be disturbed, based on the 

11 LNP case where 1790 ac are expected to be disturbed over the 180 mi of corridor, as discussed 

12 in Section 4.1.2. The review team concludes that this assumption is reasonable because siting 

13 in Florida through the Site Certification Application process is a rigorous process and the 

14 applicant would be bound by permit conditions resulting from that process, which would force it 

15 to use existing corridors to the extent practicable. The review team expects the FDEP 

16 Conditions of Certification for the LNP site (FDEP 2010a) would be consistently applied 

17 anywhere transmission lines are proposed in Florida, which would lessen the overall 

18 environmental impacts. 

19 As stated above, the State of Florida requires that new transmission lines be collocated within 

20 existing transmission-line corridors to the extent possible, thereby minimizing potential terrestrial 

21 impacts (FDEP 2010a). In addition, transmission-line corridors, towers, and access road would 

22 be situated to avoid critical or sensitive habitats and species and historical and cultural 

23 resources to the extent possible. Transmission-line corridor width would be dependent on the 

24 size, voltage, and whether existing corridors could be used, and would vary from 55 ft to 460 ft. 

25 These widths were used in the analysis of the hypothetical routes for each alternative site to 

26 determine land-use cover types (CH2M Hill 2009). Existing transmission-line corridors run 

27 through counties designated under the Florida 

Coastal Management Program (FDEP 2009b).(a) 28 Any expansion of these transmission-line 

29 corridors would require review under the procedures established under the Florida Coastal Zone 

30 Management Act (The Florida Senate 2009). Procedures for siting new transmission lines in 

31 Florida are discussed in Section 4.1.2. The review team assumes that the conditions of 

32 certification issued to PEF by the FDEP would apply at all of the alternative sites. Similar to the 

33 case at the LNP site, the review team concludes that land-use impacts from developing about 

34 180 mi of new transmission-line corridor to connect new units at the Crystal River site would be 

 

(a) The Florida Coastal Management Program makes funds awarded under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act available as pass-through grants to State agencies, water-management districts, 

local governments, national estuary programs, and national estuarine research reserves for priority 

projects that protect coastal resources and communities. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-48 August 2010 

1 noticeable, but not destabilizing, and additional mitigation beyond the measures identified by 

2 PEF and conditions identified by the State of Florida would not be warranted. 

3 Cumulative Impacts 

4 Within the geographic area of interest, the reasonably foreseeable project with the greatest 

5 potential to affect cumulative land-use impacts would be the Tarmac King Road Limestone 

6 Mine. The 4900-ac mine site is located 1 mi west of the intersection of U.S. Highway 19 

7 (US-19) and King Road in Levy County, within about 8 mi of the Crystal River site. About 

8 2700 ac would be mined over about a 100-year period, with an additional 1300 ac disturbed to 

9 site a quarry processing plant, roads, and other infrastructure. The company plans to donate 

10 another 4500 ac of land to the State of Florida for preservation. Tarmac America LCC (Tarmac) 

11 has applied for permits to begin construction of the mine in 2011, with operations targeted to 

12 begin in 2013. Tarmac estimates that at the height of mining activity, about 500 trucks would 

13 leave the mine site daily and enter US-19 (Tarmac America 2010). The potential impacts from 

14 this increased traffic, coupled with traffic from the CREC site, are considered in Section 9.3.2.5. 

15 Completion of the new US-19 bridge and highway expansion in the fall of 2010 would alleviate 

16 some of the traffic issues. Because the mine would include less than 7 percent of the 

17 geographic area of interest, excluding the Gulf water area, the review team expects that the 

18 proposed Tarmac mine would have a detectable, but not noticeable, effect on land use. 

19 In the State of Florida's Conditions of Certification (FDEP 2010a), CREC Unit 1 and 2, two coal20 fired plants, would stop operating by December 31, 2020, as long as PEF completes the 

21 licensing process, construction activities, and commences commercial operation of LNP Units 1 

22 and 2 within a timely manner. If the Crystal River site were selected, the review team expects 

23 the same condition would apply. If CREC Units 1 and 2 are shut down, land use at the units 

24 likely would remain industrial. Depending on economic conditions, PEF sells 60 to 95 percent of 

25 the coal plant ash to cement and building materials manufacturers, with the remainder going to 

26 Citrus Central Landfill in Lecanto, Florida. With the closure of CREC Units 1 and 2, this source 

27 of ash no longer would be available locally. The review team expects land-use impacts 

28 associated with this project would be minimal. 

29 Future urbanization in the review area could contribute to additional decreases in open areas, 

30 forests, and wetlands and generally result in some increased residential and industrialized 

31 areas. Currently, only about 18 percent of Citrus County is in residential land use (PEF 2008), 

32 but local land-use planning documents describe future construction of residential and 

33 commercial buildings. The University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 

34 (BEBR) projects that the Citrus County population will increase approximately 40 percent from 

35 2000 to 2020, which constitutes an average annual increase of about 2 percent (Citrus County 

36 2005). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-49 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Increased urbanization, especially long linear projects such as new or expanded roads or 

2 pipelines also would contribute to the loss of open or forested areas and increase fragmentation 

3 of habitats along or near the transmission lines. Due to the extent of new transmission lines that 

4 would be built, the review team expects that the corridors would have a noticeable impact on the 

5 local area. The Florida Department of transportation (FDOT) currently plans to expand the 

6 US-19 bridge and the Suncoast toll road. Florida Gas Transmission Company proposes to 

7 expand its liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline collocated with the existing pipeline in the vicinity 

8 of the Crystal River site. These projects would have limited impacts on land use because a 

9 small incremental amount of land would be converted to a new land use, and it would be 

10 adjacent to the current roads or pipelines. Development would likely be limited in the nearby 

11 Goethe State Forest and other parks and recreational areas. Therefore, the incremental 

12 impacts associated with increased urbanization would be minimal. 

13 Global climate change could increase temperature and reduce precipitation, which could result 

14 in reduced crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), which, in turn, may change 

15 portions of agricultural and ranching land uses in the geographic area of interest. In addition, 

16 global climate change could increase sea level and storm surges in the geographic area of 

17 interest (GCRP 2009), thereby changing land use through inundation and loss of coastal 

18 wetlands and other low-lying areas. However, existing State and national forests, parks, 

19 reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas to the extent 

20 that they are not affected by sea-level rise. Because other projects identified in Table 9-6 that 

21 are within the geographic area of interest would be consistent with applicable land-use plans 

22 and control policies and would occur in dispersed locations, the review team considers their 

23 contribution to the cumulative land-use impacts to be relatively minor and manageable. 

24 Because detailed information about the routing of the possible new transmission-line corridors is 

25 not known at this time, a complete evaluation of potential land-use impacts cannot be made. 

26 Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review, the 

27 review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating two new 

28 nuclear power units at the Crystal River site and other projects would be MODERATE. The 

29 incremental impact from the proposed project would be a significant contributor to the 

30 MODERATE impacts due to the extent of new transmission lines that would be built. 

31 9.3.2.2 Water Use and Quality 

32 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

33 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

34 could affect water use and quality, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in 

35 Table 9-6. 

36 The geographic area of interest for surface water at the Crystal River site includes the Gulf of 

37 Mexico and the Springs Coast watershed in the vicinity of the site and for groundwater, the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-50 August 2010 

1 surficial aquifer at the site and the Upper Floridan aquifer within 20 mi of the site. These regions 

2 are of interest because they represent the water resource potentially affected by building and 

3 operating the proposed project at the Crystal River site. 

4 Building Impacts 

5 PEF has not determined whether new cooling-water intake and discharge structures would be 

6 required for the Crystal River site, but use of the existing intake configuration for existing CREC 

7 Units 4 and 5 and the existing discharge canal are likely sites for these respective structures. 

8 CREC Units 4 and 5 use water discharged from CREC Units 1 to 3 for cooling water, and the 

9 effluents may be a possible source of cooling water for the additional two units (CH2M Hill 

10 2009). Similarly, the discharge canal receives discharge from all five existing units, and the 

11 discharge for the additional two units could outfall into the existing canal, or tie into blowdown 

12 pipelines from one of the existing units. 

13 Consistent with the proposed water use at the LNP site, the review team assumed that no 

14 surface water would be used to build the units at the Crystal River site. Therefore, the review 

15 team determined that there would be no impacts on surface-water use. 

16 Wetlands located on or adjacent to the site could be affected by surface-water runoff during site 

17 preparation and the building of the facilities. The FDEP would require PEF to develop an 

18 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E&SCP) and a stormwater pollution prevention plan 

19 (SWPPP) (PEF 2009a). These plans would be developed before initiation of site-disturbance 

20 activities and would identify control measures to be used during site-preparation activities to 

21 mitigate erosion and control stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). The plan would identify BMPs to 

22 control stormwater runoff. The review team anticipates that PEF would construct new detention 

23 and infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to control delivery of sediment from the disturbed 

24 area to onsite waterbodies. Sediment carried with stormwater from the disturbed area would 

25 settle in the detention ponds and stormwater would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. 

26 Implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on bodies of surface water near the Crystal 

27 River site. Therefore, the impacts on surface-water quality near the Crystal River site would be 

28 temporary and minimal. 

29 The review team assumes that the groundwater use for building activities at the Crystal River 

30 site would be identical to the proposed groundwater use for the LNP site. During building, the 

31 maximum groundwater withdrawal rate is projected to be 550,000 gpd and the projected 

32 average groundwater withdrawal rate would be 275,000 gpd (see Table 3-2). Groundwater 

33 would be used for potable and sanitary use as well as various building-related activities. The 

34 groundwater withdrawal rate during building activities would be less than the potential operation 

35 withdrawal rate. PEF provided no specific information about where it would obtain water for 

36 building the units at the Crystal River site. However, PEF currently draws water from the Upper 

37 Floridan aquifer for the operation of the existing units at the CREC (PEF 2008). The U.S. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-51 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the current groundwater withdrawal in Citrus County 

2 to be about 30 Mgd (PEF 2007a). The additional water that would be withdrawn to build the 

3 new units would be a small fraction of this current withdrawal. The review team concludes that 

4 the impact of groundwater use for building the potential plant at the Crystal River site would be 

5 minimal and limited to the building period. 

6 While building the potential plant at the Crystal River site, groundwater quality may be affected 

7 by leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs 

8 PEF has proposed for the LNP site would also be in place at the Crystal River site during 

9 building activities and therefore the review team concludes that any spills would be quickly 

10 detected and remediated. In addition, groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of 

11 these activities, and therefore, would be temporary. The review team examined the BMPs that 

12 could be implemented at such a site (FDEP 2010a). Because any spills related to building 

13 activities would be quickly remediated under BMPs, and the activities would be temporary, the 

14 review team concludes that the groundwater-quality impacts from building at the Crystal River 

15 site would be minimal. 

16 Operational Impacts 

17 PEF has proposed a closed-cycle cooling system for two additional units at the LNP site. PEF 

18 indicated that the Gulf of Mexico would be the source of cooling water. The review team 

19 assumed that the cooling water system for the proposed units, if they were to be built and 

20 operated at the Crystal River site, would be similar to that proposed at the LNP site; specifically, 

21 the cooling water system would use cooling towers. The blowdown discharge from the 

22 additional units would be mixed with the CREC discharge. Because the two additional units at 

23 the Crystal River alternative site would also withdraw makeup water for their closed-cycle 

24 cooling systems, the review team assumed that the makeup water withdrawal rate and the 

25 blowdown discharge rate would be the same as that at the LNP site, specifically 84,780 gpm 

26 (190 cfs) and 57,923 gpm (129 cfs), respectively. 

27 Because the Gulf of Mexico is a virtually unlimited source of water, the review team determined 

28 that the use of Gulf of Mexico waters for cooling the additional units at the Crystal River site 

29 would have a minimal impact. Therefore, the impact on surface-water resources due to plant 

30 use during operations would not be noticeable. 

31 During the operation of the additional units at the Crystal River site, impacts on surface-water 

32 quality could result from stormwater runoff, discharges of treated sanitary and other wastewater, 

33 and blowdown from cooling towers into the Gulf of Mexico. The FDEP would require PEF to 

34 develop a SWPPP (PEF 2009a). The plan would identify measures to be used to control 

35 stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). The blowdown would be regulated by FDEP pursuant to 

36 40 CFR Part 423, and all discharges would be required to comply with limits established by 

37 FDEP in an NPDES permit. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-52 August 2010 

1 The review team analyzed the impact of discharging effluent from the proposed Units 1 and 2 at 

2 the LNP site on the CREC discharge canal. The review team determined that the impact on 

3 water quality in the Gulf of Mexico would be small if the two proposed units were located at the 

4 LNP site. If the proposed units were located at the Crystal River site, the effluent would still be 

5 discharged to the Gulf of Mexico via the CREC discharge canal. Therefore, the review team 

6 determined that the assessment of surface-water quality impacts for the LNP site (see 

7 Section 5.2.3.1) would remain applicable to the Crystal River site. Therefore, the impact on 

8 surface-water quality due to operation of additional units at the Crystal River site would be 

9 minimal. 

10 PEF currently relies on groundwater at the CREC to meet operational needs for potable water 

11 and other plant systems requiring freshwater (PEF 2008). PEF currently has seven active 

12 groundwater wells and three inactive groundwater wells at the CREC to supply groundwater to 

13 the existing power plants. The wells are currently permitted to withdraw 2 Mgd, and PEF is 

14 anticipating increasing the permitted amount by 265,000 gpd once the inactive wells are 

15 permitted. As indicated above, the USGS estimates the current groundwater withdrawal in 

16 Citrus County to be about 30 Mgd (PEF 2007a). 

17 PEF indicated that the annual average groundwater withdrawal to support operations of two 

18 units at the LNP site would be 1.58 Mgd (PEF 2009e). The review team assumes that the 

19 groundwater use for operation of additional units at the Crystal River site would be similar to the 

20 proposed groundwater use for the LNP site. This would be an increase in groundwater 

21 withdrawal in the vicinity of the CREC of approximately 70 percent, and an increase in 

22 groundwater withdrawal in Citrus County of approximately 5 percent. Permits would be required 

23 for the additional withdrawal and the permitting process would make sure impacts on 

24 surrounding users would not be significant (SWFWMD 2010). 

25 During the operation of the additional units at the Crystal River site, impacts on groundwater 

26 quality could result from accidental spills. Because BMPs would be used to quickly remediate 

27 spills and no intentional discharge to groundwater would occur, the review team concludes that 

28 the groundwater-quality impacts from operation of the additional units at the Crystal River site 

29 would be minimal. 

30 Cumulative Impacts 

31 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

32 cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

33 affect the same water resources. 

34 The geographic area of interest for surface water includes the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of 

35 the Crystal River site. The geographic area of interest for groundwater includes the surficial 

36 aquifer at the site and the Upper Floridan aquifer in the region. These areas are of interest 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-53 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 because they represent the water resource potentially affected by building and operating the 

2 additional units at the Crystal River site. Key actions that have past, present, and future 

3 potential impacts on water supply and water quality near the Crystal River site include the 

4 operation and decommissioning of the existing units at the CREC and the power uprate 

5 proposed for Unit 3 at the CREC. 

6 The FDEP Conditions of Certification for the LNP Units 1 and 2 (FDEP 2010a) indicate that 

7 Crystal River Unit 1 and Unit 2 may cease to be operated as coal-fired units by December 31, 

8 2020. The document indicates the shutdown of these units may be linked to the startup of the 

9 proposed units. If the additional units are located at the Crystal River site, the staff assumes 

10 that the same conditions would apply. 

11 Cumulative Water Use 

12 The only surface-water-use impacts of building and operating the additional units at this site are 

13 the water demands occurring during operation. Because the Gulf of Mexico is a virtually 

14 unlimited source of water supply compared to the makeup-water requirements for additional 

15 units at the site and the makeup-water requirements for the other units at the CREC including 

16 Unit 3 after the proposed power uprate, the review team determined that the use of water from 

17 the Gulf of Mexico would have essentially no impact on surface water. Therefore, the review 

18 team concludes that cumulative impacts on surface-water use would be SMALL. 

19 Groundwater would be used during the building and operation of additional units at the LNP site. 

20 The analysis included above considered groundwater withdrawal to support the existing units at 

21 the CREC and the groundwater withdrawal associated with two additional units at the Crystal 

22 River site. As mentioned above, PEF currently has permits to withdraw 2 Mgd and is 

23 anticipating increasing the permitted amount by 265,000 gpd once its inactive wells are 

24 permitted. An additional 1.58 Mgd (PEF 2009e) would be required to operate the additional 

25 units at the Crystal River site. Permits would be required for the additional withdrawal and the 

26 permitting process would make sure impacts on surrounding users would not be significant, or, 

27 otherwise alternative sources of freshwater would need to be developed (SWFWMD 2010). 

28 Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on groundwater use would be 

29 SMALL. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-6 are either considered in the analysis 

30 included above or would have little or no impact on surface-water and groundwater use. 

31 Cumulative Water Quality 

32 As described above, the impacts from building and operating two additional units at the Crystal 

33 River site on surface-water quality would be minimal. Other present and reasonably 

34 foreseeable future actions in the geographic area of interest of the Crystal River site include the 

35 operation of CREC Units 1–5, the renewal of the operating license for Unit 3, and the shutdown 

36 of Unit 1 and Unit 2. As discussed in Chapter 7, the areal extent of the influence of these 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-54 August 2010 

1 facilities on water quality is small, and the influence of these facilities would be minor in the 

2 Springs Coast watershed. The FDEP, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean 

3 Water Act) Section 305(b), prepares a statewide Water Quality Inventory. The FDEP also 

4 identifies impaired waterbodies during this process and lists them on the 303(d) List. 

5 Historically, streams, lakes, estuaries, and bays near the Crystal River site have been listed on 

6 the 303(d) list as impaired because of the presence of bacteria, nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, 

7 and mercury in fish. Therefore, the review team concludes that past and present actions in the 

8 region have noticeably affected the water quality adversely. Based on its evaluation, the review 

9 team concludes that the cumulative surface-water-quality impacts would be MODERATE. 

10 Building and operating the proposed units at the Crystal River alternative site would not be a 

11 significant contributor to these impacts on surface-water quality, because industrial and 

12 wastewater discharges from the proposed units would comply with NPDES permit limitations 

13 and any stormwater runoff from the site during operations would comply with the SWPPP (PEF 

14 2009a). 

15 As stated in Section 7.2.1.1, global climate change can result in a rise in sea level that may 

16 induce saltwater intrusion in the surficial and Floridan aquifers. Projected changes in the 

17 climate for the region during the life of the proposed units include an increase in average 

18 temperature and a decrease in precipitation. These changes are likely to result in changes to 

19 agriculture including crops, pests, and the associated changes in application of nutrients, 

20 pesticides, and herbicides that may reach groundwater. As a result, groundwater quality may 

21 be altered by the infiltration of chemicals. While the changes in groundwater quality that are 

22 indirectly attributable to climate change may not be insignificant, the review team did not identify 

23 anything that would alter its conclusion regarding groundwater quality above. The review team 

24 also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts of groundwater quality from 

25 building and operating two additional units at the Crystal River site would likely be minimal, and 

26 therefore, the cumulative impact on groundwater quality would be SMALL. The impacts of other 

27 projects listed in Table 9-6 are either considered in the analysis included above or would have 

28 little or no impact on surface-water and groundwater quality. 

29 9.3.2.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

30 Site Description 

31 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from construction 

32 and preconstruction activities and operations. The analysis also considers past, present, and 

33 reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including 

34 the other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis 

35 of terrestrial ecological impacts at the Crystal River site, the geographic area of interest is 

36 considered to be a 20-mi-wide radius centered on the Crystal River site and the corridors 

37 surrounding the entire length of proposed route for the associated transmission-lines. This area 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-55 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 within the 20-mi radius and transmission-line corridor is expected to encompass the ecologically 

2 relevant landscape features and species. 

3 The Crystal River site was predominately pine flatwoods before the mid-twentieth century, but 

4 most flatwoods have been converted from natural longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and slash pine 

5 (P. elliottii) communities to managed forests made up of slash pine and loblolly pine (P. taeda). 

6 The surrounding landscape is predominately rural and habitats are typical of the Gulf Coast 

7 Flatwoods ecoregion, consisting of slash pine and remnant longleaf pine with bottomland oak8 gum-cypress forest in some low-lying areas along most rivers (EPA 2010l). The site terrain is 

9 generally level and gradually slopes west toward the Gulf of Mexico. At an elevation of about 

10 9 ft above sea level, the site is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain. There are also 

11 vast coastal estuaries and numerous protected natural areas near the site. 

12 The area immediately surrounding the proposed site is a mix of hardwood hammock forest, pine 

13 forest, salt marsh, and freshwater swamp (PEF 2008). Hardwood hammock habitats found on 

14 the proposed site are characterized by magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), laurel oak 

15 (Quercus laurifolia), and blue-beech (Carpinus caroliniana), although species composition is 

16 varied (PEF 2008). Pine forests on the proposed site are dominated by slash pine and loblolly 

17 pine (PEF 2008). The salt marshes on the proposed site are dominated by smooth cordgrass 

18 (Spartina alterniflora) and black rush (Juncus roemerianus) and are typical of coastal marshes 

19 of Central western Florida (PEF 2008). Freshwater swamps on the Crystal River site are 

20 characterized by pond cypress (Taxodium ascenduns), swamp tupelo, (Nyssa biflora) and 

21 swamp ash (Fraxinus pauciflora) (PEF 2008). 

22 Common wildlife, including important species, that are known to occur in the habitats present on 

23 the Crystal River site include American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis); Florida white-tailed 

24 deer (Odocoileus virginianus seminolus); bobcat (Lynx rufus); feral hog (Sus scrofa); multiple 

25 squirrel species; northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus); mourning dove (Zenaida macroura); 

26 several species of woodpecker, skunk, and river otter; and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Various 

27 bird, reptile, and amphibian species also reside on the Crystal River site (PEF 2008; USDA 

28 2006; FNAI 2009). 

29 The associated proposed transmission-line corridors begin in the Gulf Coast Flatwoods 

30 ecoregion and cross the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods and Central Florida Ridges and 

31 Uplands ecoregions. Vegetation community types in the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods 

32 ecoregion include slash pine, longleaf pine, cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and live oak 

33 (Quercus virginiana) with typical understory species of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), 

34 gallberry (Ilex glabra), and grasses such as bluestems and wiregrasses (USDA 2006). 

35 Vegetation community types in the Central Florida Ridges and Uplands ecoregion include sand 

36 hill vegetation such as turkey oak (Quercus laevis), bluejack oak (Quercus incana), and longleaf 

37 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-56 August 2010 

1 pine for the dominant canopy species along with common understory species of running oak 

2 (Quercus pumila), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), and bluestem and panicum grasses (USDA 

3 2006). 

4 Important Species 

5 Common wildlife, including important species, associated with the above-mentioned ecoregions 

6 that may occur in the associated transmission-line corridors includes recreationally important 

7 species such as Florida white-tailed deer, bobcat, feral hog, squirrel, northern bobwhite, 

8 mourning dove, as well as several woodpecker species, skunk, and raccoon. Various bird, 

9 reptile, and amphibian species also have the potential to reside on the Crystal River site and 

10 associated proposed transmission-line corridors (USDA 2006; FNAI 2009). 

11 PEF consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service 

12 (NMFS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) in support of the 

13 CREC operating license renewal application, and determined that other than the Critical Habitat 

14 for the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) designated adjacent to the Crystal 

15 River site in King’s Bay, there are no other areas designated as Critical Habitat for endangered 

16 species (PEF 2008). Table 9-7 lists all Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered 

17 species that could occur on the Crystal River site and in the vicinity, in the associated offsite 

18 facilities and corridors, as well as in the counties crossed by the associated proposed 

19 transmission-line corridors. Counties crossed by the proposed transmission-line corridors for the 

20 Crystal River site include Citrus, Marion, Hernando, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Sumter 

21 Counties. PEF has stated that on-the-ground field surveys would be conducted before 

22 commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the site or within transmission-line corridors 

23 (once final routes are determined) (PEF 2009a, CH2M Hill 2009). 

24 Table 9-7. Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on and in the Vicinity of the 

25 Alternative Sites and Offsite Facilities and Corridors, and Associated 

26 Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Mammals 

Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted 

bat 

SE Roosts in palms and hollow trees and in 

buildings 

Highlands 

Trichechus manatus 

latirostris 

West Indian 

(Florida) manatee 

FE/SE Marine and freshwater habitats; prefer 

warm-water sites 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

27 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-57 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Microtus 

pennsylvanicus 

dukecampbelli 

Florida salt marsh 

vole 

FE/SE Periodically flooded high salt marsh zone 

(FWS 2009) 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Peromyscus polionotus 

niveiventris 

Southeastern 

beach mouse 

FT/ST Sea oats (Uniola 

paniculata) zone of primary coastal dunes 

Putnam 

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther FE/SE Heavily vegetated mixed swamp forests and 

hammock forests 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Ursus americanus 

floridanus 

Florida black bear ST Large areas of forested uplands and 

forested wetlands 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Birds 

Ammodramus 

savannarum floridanus 

Florida 

grasshopper 

sparrow 

FE/SE Large (greater than 50 ha), treeless, 

relatively poorly-drained grasslands that 

have a history of frequent fires 

Highlands 

Aphelocoma 

coeruluscens 

Florida scrub-jay FT/ST Low-growing oak scrub habitat Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

Snowy plover ST Open, dry sand near dunes Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 2 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT/ST Tidal mudflats Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Polyborus plancus 

audubonii 

Audubon's crested 

caracara 

FT/ST Open country, dry prairies/pastures with 

cabbage palm/live oak hammocks, and 

shallow ponds and sloughs 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern 

American kestrel 

ST Open pine habitats, woodland edges, 

prairies, and pastures 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Grus americana Whooping crane ST Along lake margins among rushes and 

sedges; estuarine marshes, shallow bays 

and tidal flats 

Highlands 

3 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-58 August 2010 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

Florida sandhill 

crane 

ST Prairies, freshwater marshes, and pastures Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

FE Mature longleaf and slash pine forests Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Rostrhamus sociabilis 

plumbeus 

Snail kite FE/SE Freshwater marshes and shallow vegetated 

edges of lakes (natural and man-made) 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Coastal areas, beaches, lagoons, bays, 

estuaries 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Reptiles 

Alligator 

mississippiensis 

American alligator FT/SC Most permanent bodies of fresh water, 

including marshes, swamps, lakes, and 

rivers 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Crocodylus acutus American crocodile FT/SE Freshwater and brackish coastal habitats Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Dymarchon corais 

couperi 

Eastern indigo 

snake 

FT/ST Broad range of habitats, from scrub and 

sandhill to wet prairies and mangrove 

swamps; often commensal with gopher 

tortoises 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Eumeces egregius 

lividus 

Blue-tailed mole 

skink 

FT/ST Well-drained sandy uplands with loose sand 

for burrowing 

Highlands 

Gopherus polyhemus Gopher tortoise ST Dry upland habitats, including sandhills, 

scrub, xeric oak hammock, and dry pine 

flatwoods; also pastures, old fields 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-59 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink FT/ST Rosemary scrub, sand pine and oak scrubs, 

scrubby flatwoods, turkey oak ridges within 

scrub, citrus groves occupying former scrub 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Nerodia clarkii taeniata Atlantic salt marsh 

snake 

FT/ST Coastal marshes and mangrove swamps 

along shallow tidal creeks and pools; often 

associated with fiddler crab burrows 

Putnam 

Stilosoma extenuatum Short-tailed snake ST Sandhills, xeric hammock, and sand pine 

scrub 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Amphibians 

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods 

salamander 

FT Seasonally wet pine flatwoods near cypress 

ponds 

Putnam 

Vascular Plants 

Acrostichum aureum Golden leather fern ST Brackish and freshwater marshes Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Adiantum tenerum Brittle maidenhair 

fern 

SE Limestone outcrops, grottoes, sinkholes Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Agrimonia incisa Incised groove-bur SE Sandhills and scrub Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Andropogon arctatus Pine-woods 

bluestem 

ST Wet pine flatwoods Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Arnoglossum 

diversifolium 

Variable-leaf Indian 

plantain 

ST Freshwater and riparian habitats Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Asplenium dentatum American toothed 

spleenwort 

SE Tropical hardwood hammock Putnam 

Asplenium erosum Auricled spleenwort SE 

Pinelands 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-60 August 2010 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Asplenium pumilum Dwarf spleenwort SE 

Pinelands 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Asplenium verecundum Modest spleenwort SE Rockland hammocks, limestone outcrops, 

grottoes, sinkholes 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Adiatum tenerum Brittle maidenhair 

fern 

SE Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Balduina atropurpurea Purple honeycombhead 

SE Putnam 

Bigelowia nuttallii Nuttall’s rayless 

goldenrod 

SE Sand pine scrub in Pinellas County Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Blechnum occidentale Sinkhole fern SE Moist woodlands, hammocks, rocky creek 

banks, woodlands with open shade 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Bonamia grandiflora Florida bonamia FT/SE Openings or disturbed areas in white sand 

scrub 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Calaminntha ashei Ashe’s savory ST Sandhills and scrub Highlands, 

Putnam 

Calopogon multiflirus Many-flowered 

grasspink 

SE Dry to moist flatwoods with longleaf pine, 

wiregrass, saw palmetto 

Highlands 

Calydorea coelestina Bartram’s Ixia SE Putnam 

Campanula robinsiae Brooksville 

bellflower 

FE/SE Wet, grassy slopes and drying pond edges 

in vicinity of Chinsegut Hill in Hernando 

County 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Carex chapmanii Chapman’s sedge SE Grasslands, pinelands Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Centrosema arenicola Sand butterfly pea SE Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, dry upland 

woods 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-61 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Chamaesyce 

cumulicola 

Sand-dune spurge SE Coastal scrub and stabilized dunes Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Cheilanthes microphylla Southern lip fern SE 

Coastal habitats 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Chionanthus pygmaeus Pygmy fringe tree SE Scrub, sandhill, and xeric hammock Highlands, 

Putnam 

Chrysopsis 

(=Heterotheca) 

floridana 

Florida golden aster FE/SE Sand pine scrub, sand ridges of excessively 

well-drained, fine sands, railroad and 

highway corridors 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Cladonia perforata Perforate reinder 

lichen 

FE/SE High, xeric white sand rosemary scrub (FNAI 

2010) 

Highlands 

Clitoria fragrans Scrub pigeon-wing FT/SE Turkey oak barrens with wire grass, bluejack 

and turkey oak; scrubby high pine 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Coelorachis 

tuberculosa 

Piedmont jointgrass ST 

Freshwater habitats 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Conradina brevifolia Short-leaved 

rosemary 

FE/SE White sand scrub with sand pine and 

evergreen scrub oaks 

Highlands 

Conradina grandiflora Large-flowered 

rosemary 

ST Deep, fine sandy soils on or in the vicinity of 

ancient dunes (CPC 2010) 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Conradina etonia Etonia rosemary FE/SE Deep, white-sand scrub with sand pine and 

oak shrubs in natural or artificial clearings 

Putnam 

Crotalaria avonensis Avon Park rabbit 

bells 

FE/SE White sand scrub dominated by rosemary 

and oaks and/or sand pine; mostly in open 

areas with bare sand. 

Highlands 

Ctenium floridanum Florida toothache 

grass 

SE Sandhills and dry pinelands Putnam 

Cucurbita 

okeechobeensis 

Okeechobee gourd FE/SE Pond apple swamps and mucky soils on 

Lake Okeechobee shores and islands and 

along the St. Johns River (CPC 2010) 

Putnam 

Deeringothamnus 

rugelii 

Rugel’s pawpaw FE/SE Poorly-drained slash pine/saw palmetto 

flatwoods (FWS 2009) 

Putnam 

Dennstaedtia bipinnata Hay scented fern SE Hydric hammocks, wet woods (FNAI 2010) Putnam 

Dicerandra christmanii Garrett’s scrub 

balm 

FE/SE Exclusively on well-drained yellow sands in 

oak-dominate Florida scrub (ABS 2003a) 

Highlands 

Dicerandra 

cornutissima 

Longspurred mint FE/SE Sand pine and oak scrub Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Dicerandra frutescens Scrub mint FE/SE Well-drained yellow soils (ABS 2003b) Highlands 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-62 August 2010 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Drosera intermedia Spoon-leaved 

sundew 

ST Freshwater habitats Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Eltroplectris calcarata Spurred neottia SE Mesic hammock, rockland hammock (FNAI 

2010) 

Highlands 

Eragrostis pectinacea 

var. tracyi 

Sanibel lovegrass SE Disturbed beach dunes, maritime 

hammocks, coastal strands, coastal 

grasslands, old fields, clearings, and other 

disturbed sites 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Eryngium cuneifolium Wedge-leaved 

button-snakeroot 

FE/SE Sand pine scrub, mostly in gaps on 

rosemary balds (FNAI 2010) 

Highlands 

Eriogonum logifolium 

var. gnaphalifolium 

Scrub wild 

buckwheat 

FT/SE Sandhill, oak-hickory scrub Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Euphorbia coommutata Wood spurge SE Riparian habitats Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey’s 

swampprivet 

SE Upland hardwood forests with limestone at 

or near the surface, often on slopes above 

lakes and rivers 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Gladularia maritima Coastal vervain SE Back dunes, dune swales, coastal 

hammocks 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Gladularia tampensis Tampa vervain SE Live oak–cabbage palm hammocks and 

pine-palmetto flatwoods 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Gossypium hirsutum Wild cotton SE Coastal strands and disturbed areas Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Harrisia fragrans Fragrant prickly 

apple 

FE/SE Scrubby flatwoods and xeric hammocks with 

sand live oak, myrtle oak, cabbage palm, 

and prickly pear (FNAI 2010) 

Putnam 

Harrisia simpsonii Simpson’s prickly 

apple 

SE Mangroves and coastal thickets and strands 

(FNAI 2010) 

Putnam 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-63 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Hartwrightia floridana Hartwrightia ST Seepage slopes, edges of baygalls and 

springheads, wet prairies, flatwoods 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Hasteola robertiorum Florida hasteola SE Saturated, peaty soils of river and creek 

floodplain swamps; hydric hammocks with 

cabbage palm, cypress, or hardwood 

canopy 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Helianthus carnosus Lake-side 

sunflower 

SE Wet flatwoods and prairies (FNAI 2010) Putnam 

Hypericum cumicola Highlands scrub 

hypericum 

FE/SE Openings in white sand and rosemary 

scrubs; sometimes found in scrubby 

flatwoods and oak scrubs in yellow sands. 

Highlands 

Hypericum 

edisonianum 

Edison’s ascyrum SE Depressions in scrub, cutthroat seeps, 

flatwoods ponds, lake margins, wet prairie 

Highlands 

Illicium parviflorum Star anise SE Banks of spring-run or seepage streams, 

bottomland forest, hydric 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Justicia cooleyi Cooley’s waterwillow 

FE/SE Mesic hardwood hammocks over limestone Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Justicia crassifolia Thick-leaved water 

willow 

SE Highlands 

Lantana depressa var. 

floridana 

Atlantic coast 

Florida lantana 

SE Dunes and sandy inland ridges (FNAI 2010) Putnam 

Lechea cernua Nodding pinweed ST Usually ancient dunes with evergreen scrub 

oaks, mature scattered pine or oak forest 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Lechea divaricata Pine pinweed SE Scrub and scrubby flatwoods Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands 

Leineria floridana Corkwood ST Edges of marshy openings and along small 

drainages in coastal hydric hammocks; fresh 

or tidal marshes 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Liatris ohlingerae Florida blazing star SE Rosemary balds, edges of oak scrub; 

scrubby flatwoods and disturbed scrub 

(FNAI 2010) 

Highlands 

Litsea aestivalis Pondspice SE Edges of baygalls, flatwoods ponds, and 

cypress domes. May form thickets around 

edges of ponds 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Lupinus aridorum Scrub lupine FE/SE Highlands 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-64 August 2010 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Matalea floridana Florida spiny-pod SE Pinelands and temperate forests Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Monotropa hypopithys Pinesap SE Temperate forests Putnam 

Monotropsis 

reynoldsiae 

Pygmy pipes SE Upland mixed hardwood forest, mesic and 

xeric hammock, sand pine and oak scrub 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Najas filifolia Narrowleaf naias ST Freshwater habitats Highlands, 

Putnam 

Nemastylis floridana Celestial lily SE Freshwater habitats Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Nolina atopocarpa Florida beargrass ST Grasslands, pinelands Highlands, 

Putnam 

Nolina brittoniana Britton’s beargrass FE/SE Scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, and xeric 

hammock 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Ophioglossum 

palmatum 

Hand fern SE Old leaf bases of cabbage palms in maritime 

and wet hammocks 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Panicum abscissum Cutthroat grass SE Highlands, 

Putnam 

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved 

grass-of-parnassus 

SE Seepage slopes, wet prairies, edges of 

cypress strands 

Putnam 

Paronychia chartacea 

ssp. chartacea 

Paper-like nailwort FT/SE Highlands, 

Putnam 

Pecluma dispersa Widespread 

polypody 

SE Tree branches and limestone outcrops in dry 

hammocks 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-65 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Pecluma plumula Plume polypody SE Tree branches or limestone in hammocks, 

wet woods, and limesinks 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Pecluma ptilodon Swamp plume 

polypody 

SE Rockland hammocks, strand swamps, wet 

woods 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Phyllanthus 

leibmannianus 

Pinewood dainties SE Hydric hammocks, floodplain and 

bottomland forests 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Peperomia humilis Terrestrial 

pepperomia 

SE Shell mounds and limestone outcrops in 

mesic hammocks, coastal berms, cypress 

swamps 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands 

Platanthera integra Yellow fringeless 

orchid 

SE Wet pine flatwoods, wet prairies, 

depressions within pinelands 

Highlands 

Polygala lewtonii Lewton’s polygala FE/SE Oak scrub, sandhill Highlands, 

Putnam 

Polygonella basiramia Florida jointweed FE/SE Highlands 

Polygonella myriophylla Small’s jointweed FE/SE Open, sandy areas within scrub Highlands, 

Putnam 

Prunus geniculata Scrub plum FE/SE Sandhill and oak scrub Highlands, 

Putnam 

Pteroglossaspis 

ecristata 

Giant orchid ST Sandhill, scrub, pine flatwoods, pine 

rocklands 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Pycnanthemum 

floridanum 

Florida mountainmint ST Pinelands, sandhills, scrub Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Rudbeckia triloba var. 

pinnatiloba 

Pinnate-lobed 

coneflower 

SE Freshwater habitats, grasslands, pinelands Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Salix Floridana Florida willow SE Springheads, edges of spring runs, hydric 

hammocks, floodplains 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-66 August 2010 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Schizachurium niveum Scrub bluestem SE Rosemary, sand pine, and oak scrub Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands 

Schwalbea Americana Chaffseed FE/SE Moist, grassy ecotones around ponds in 

longleaf pine sandhills and savannas (FNAI 

2010) 

Putnam 

Sideroxylon alachuense Silver buckthorn SE Upland hardwood forests around limesinks Putnam 

Sideroxylon lycioides Buckthorn SE Wooded slopes, floodplains, and bluffs Dixie, 

Putnam 

Spigelia loganioides Pinkroot SE Floodplain forests, upland and hydric 

hardwood hammocks over limestone 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Putnam 

Spiranthes polyantha Green ladies’-

tresses 

SE Rock outcrops in mesic hammock, rockland 

hammock, maritime hammock 

Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Stylisma abdita Scrub stylisma SE Pinelands, sandhills, scrub Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands, 

Putnam 

Thelypteris reptans Creeping maiden 

fern 

SE Limestone grottoes and sinkholes Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Thelypteris serrata Toothed maiden 

fern 

SE Cypress swamps, sloughs, floodplains Crystal 

River, 

Dixie, 

Highlands 

Trichomanes 

punctatum ssp. 

Floridanum 

Florida filmy fern SE Rock outcrops Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Triphora amazonica Broad-leaved 

nodding-caps 

SE Rich damp hardwood hammocks Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Triphora graigheadii Craighead’s 

nodding-caps 

SE Mesic hardwood hammocks Crystal 

River, 

Dixie 

Vicia ocalensis Ocala vetch SE Open, wet thickets along margins of spring 

runs and streams 

Putnam 

Warea amplexifolia Clasping warea FE/SE Sandhill with longleaf pine and wiregrass Highlands, 

Putnam 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-67 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-7. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status Suitable Habitat 

Alternate 

Site 

Warea carteri Carter’s warea FE/SE Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, scrub Highlands, 

Putnam 

Zephyranthes simpsonii Redmargin zepyrlily FE/SE Wet flatwoods and meadows (FDACS 2004) Highlands 

Ziziphus celata Scrub ziziphus FE/SE Highlands 

Species list sources: FNAI (2009), FWS (2009) 

FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; 

ST = State listed as threatened 

2 Building Impacts 

3 Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife, including important 

4 species and habitats, would be unavoidable. Activities that would affect terrestrial resources 

5 include land clearing and grading (temporary and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, 

6 increased human presence, heavy equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and 

7 fugitive dust. These activities would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the areas of 

8 disturbance. Some wildlife, including important species, would perish or be displaced during 

9 land clearing for any of the above activities as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation and 

10 competition for remaining resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and 

11 small mammals, would be at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such 

12 as birds, many of which would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land 

13 adjacent to areas of disturbance could provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but 

14 increased competition for available space and resources could affect population levels. Wildlife 

15 would also be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, and birds could be injured if they 

16 collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and 

17 minor. The creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some important 

18 wildlife species, including those that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge 

19 environments, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), northern bobwhite, eastern 

20 meadowlark (Sturnella magna), and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, 

21 such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) would likely exploit newly created hunting 

22 grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be converted to and maintained in an 

23 herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide improved foraging habitat for waterfowl 

24 and wading birds. However, fragmentation of upland and wetland forests could adversely affect 

25 species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous forested habitat. 

26 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the Crystal River site, PEF would need to 

27 clear approximately 442 ac of terrestrial habitats for the nuclear facility and approximately 61 ac 

28 for associated offsite structures and corridors; not including transmission lines, which are 

29 discussed in the paragraph below (see Table 9-2 and Table 9-3) (CH2M Hill 2009). The 

30 proposed facility footprint of approximately 442-ac parcel lies within the CREC boundary (CH2M 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-68 August 2010 

1 Hill 2009). Based upon Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) 

2 analysis, approximately 27 ac of wetlands on the site would be filled (CH2M Hill 2009). PEF 

3 states that the nuclear facility would be sited to avoid wetlands whenever possible and that 

4 potential impacts on wetlands would be minimized through the use of established BMPs (PEF 

5 2009a). Approximately 6 ac of wetlands would be filled to build the associated offsite facilities 

6 (other than transmission lines)(CH2M Hill 2009). 

7 New transmission system infrastructure would be needed to support a nuclear power facility at 

8 the Crystal River site and would include approximately 180 mi of transmission lines (estimates 

9 made by measuring the approximate distance of hypothetical corridors provided by CH2M Hill 

10 [2009]; see Section 9.3.2.1). The proposed transmission-line corridors are situated mostly in or 

11 adjacent to existing transmission lines; however, some new right-of-way would have to be 

12 created to accommodate the new lines (CH2M Hill 2009). The total acreage of transmission13 line corridor for the Crystal River site is approximately 9038 ac, of which approximately 1516 ac 

14 are wetlands and approximately 1653 ac are forested habitat (see Table 9-8) (CH2M Hill 2009). 

15 Some portion of the total 1653 ac of forested habitat and 1516 ac of wetland habitat present in 

16 the corridors would be affected; however, because actual routes have not been determined, 

17 impacts on forests and wetlands cannot be quantified. Under Federal and State permitting 

18 requirements, PEF would be obligated to mitigate any unavoidable construction impacts on 

19 jurisdictional wetlands and listed species (PEF 2009a; FDEP 2010a). 

20 Table 9-8. Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Crystal River Site 

Land-Use Class (FLUCFCS) 

(acreage) Onsite 

Offsite 

Corridors 

(Except 

Transmission) 

Transmission 

Corridors(a)

Urban and Built Environment (percent of area) 9 (2%) 0 (0%) 1769 (19%) 

Agriculture 129 (29%) 4 (7%) 1714(19%) 

Upland Nonforested 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 172 (2%) 

Upland Forested 277 (63%) 35 (57%) 1654 (18%) 

Water 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 114 (1%) 

Wetlands 27 (6%) 6 (10%) 1516 (16%) 

Barren Lands 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (<1%) 

Transportation, Communication and Utilities 0 (0%) 14 (23%) 2091 (22%) 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Acreages are the total acres of each land-use class (FLUCFCS) cover type present in the transmission-line 

corridor, not acres affected. 

21 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-69 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 PEF stated that all land clearing associated with the nuclear facility, offsite structures, and 

2 transmission-line corridor development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and 

3 local regulations, permit requirements, existing procedures, and established BMPs 

4 (PEF 2009a). 

5 Building two new nuclear reactors at the Crystal River site would result in the loss of 

6 approximately 503 ac of terrestrial habitat on the site and offsite corridors (excluding 

7 transmission-line corridors) (see Table 9-9). 

8 Table 9-9. Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Crystal River Site 

Impact Areas Acres(a)

Onsite Impact Areas 442

Reservoir Impact Areas Not applicable

Transmission-Line Corridor Areas 9038(a)

Offsite Impact Areas 61

Total Impact Areas 

503 (plus portion of 

9038 ac 

transmission 

corridor)

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Transmission-line acreages are the total acres available, not total acres 

affected. Only a portion of the total available would be affected. 

9 Clearing land within the 9038-ac transmission-line corridor would further increase forested 

10 habitat losses and increase habitat fragmentation. Other sources of impacts on terrestrial 

11 resources such as noise, increased risk of collision and electrocution, and displacement of 

12 wildlife would likely be temporary and result in minimal impacts on the resource. Because of the 

13 extent of unavoidable terrestrial habitat losses, building the two new units and associated offsite 

14 facilities, including transmission lines, would noticeably alter the available terrestrial habitat on 

15 and in the landscape surrounding the Crystal River Site. 

16 Operational Impacts 

17 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources, including important species, from operation of two 

18 new nuclear units at the Crystal River site include those associated with transmission system 

19 structures, maintenance of transmission-line corridors, and operation of the cooling towers. 

20 Also, during plant operation, wildlife would be subjected to impacts from increased traffic. 

21 Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling-tower drift cannot be 

22 evaluated in detail in the absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at 

23 each alternative site. Similarly, bird collisions with cooling towers cannot be evaluated in the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-70 August 2010 

1 absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at the site. The impacts of 

2 cooling-tower drift and bird collisions for existing power plants were evaluated in NUREG-1437 

3 (NRC 1996) and found to be of minor significance for nuclear power plants in general, including 

4 those with various numbers and types of cooling towers. On this basis, the review team 

5 concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling-tower 

6 drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of new nuclear units would 

7 be minor. 

8 Outdoor noise levels on the Crystal River site are predicted to range from 90 dBA near the 

9 loudest equipment to 65 dBA in areas more distant from major noise sources (PEF 2009a). 

10 Noise modeling predicts not perceptible to slight increases in noise from plant operations at the 

11 site boundary (PEF 2009a). Except in areas immediately adjacent to major noise sources, 

12 expected noise levels would be below the 60- to 65-dBA threshold at which birds and red foxes 

13 (a surrogate for small and medium-sized mammals) are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 

14 1980). Thus, noise from operating cooling towers at the Crystal River site would not be likely to 

15 disturb wildlife beyond the site boundary. Consequently, the review team concludes that the 

16 impacts of cooling-tower noise on wildlife would be minimal. 

17 An evaluation of specific impacts resulting from building of transmission lines and transmission18 line corridor maintenance cannot be conducted in any detail due to the lack of information, such 

19 as the specific locations of new corridors that could result from transmission system upgrades. 

20 However, in general, impacts associated with transmission-line operation consist of bird 

21 collisions with transmission lines, electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on flora and fauna, and 

22 habitat loss due to corridor maintenance. The impacts associated with transmission-line 

23 corridor maintenance activities include alteration of habitat, including but not limited to wetland 

24 and floodplain habitat, due to cutting and herbicide application. 

25 Transmission lines and associated structures pose a potential avian collision hazard. Direct 

26 mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed (Erickson et al. 

27 2005). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and 

28 related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory flight during darkness by 

29 flocking birds has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower height, location, 

30 configuration, and lighting also appear to play a role in avian mortality. Weather, such as low 

31 cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Waterfowl may be 

32 particularly vulnerable due to their low, fast flight, and flocking behavior (EPRI 1993). Bird 

33 collisions with transmission lines are recognized as being of minor significance at operating 

34 nuclear power plants, including transmission-line corridors with variable numbers of power lines 

35 (NRC 1996). Although additional transmission lines would be required for new nuclear units at 

36 the alternative sites, increases in bird collisions would be minor and these would likely not be 

37 expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. PEF would also be 

38 required to have an Avian Protection Plan in compliance with State certification guidelines 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-71 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions posed by the addition 

2 of new transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

3 EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

4 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

5 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

6 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). At a 

7 distance of 300 ft, the magnetic fields from many lines are similar to typical background levels in 

8 most homes. Thus, impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at 

9 operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power 

10 lines (NRC 1996). Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at 

11 cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2003). 

12 These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or 

13 mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by addition of new 

14 transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

15 Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission-line corridors at the alternative sites 

16 would likely be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be 

17 required during the construction of new transmission-line corridors. Management activities 

18 (cutting and herbicide application) related to transmission-line corridors and related impacts on 

19 floodplains and wetlands in transmission-line corridors are recognized as being of minor 

20 significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors 

21 of variable widths (NRC 1996). The review team assumes that the same vegetation and 

22 construction management of corridors currently used by PEF would be used in the 

23 establishment and maintenance of the new corridors. Under the Conditions of Certification for 

24 Levy County, PEF would also be required to retain existing vegetation whenever practicable and 

25 use BMPs that comply with the Florida State regulations (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the 

26 incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and associated impacts on 

27 floodplains and wetlands posed by expanding existing corridors or the addition of a new 

28 transmission-line corridor for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

29 To summarize, the potential effects of operating two new nuclear reactors at the Crystal River 

30 site would be primarily associated with the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and 

31 increased traffic. In general, operational impacts on terrestrial resources would be expected to 

32 be minimal. 

33 Cumulative Impacts 

34 Past and present actions in the geographic area of interest that have influenced terrestrial 

35 resources in a similar way to the proposed two new nuclear units at the Crystal River site 

36 include development and operation of the CREC, located adjacent to the Crystal River site; 

37 development and operation of the Crystal River Quarries, Inc. mine, approximately 3 mi east of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-72 August 2010 

1 the Crystal River site; and development and operation of the Inglis Limestone Quarry, which is 

2 part of the Citrus Mining and Timber Company, approximately 3 mi north of the Crystal River 

3 site. All of these projects have contributed to loss of terrestrial habitat in the area. Furthermore, 

4 terrestrial habitats throughout the geographic area of interest have been extensively altered by a 

5 history of forestry and agricultural practices as well as low density residential development. 

6 Proposed reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a way 

7 similar to development at the Crystal River site include development and operation of the 

8 proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, as close as 8 mi north-northeast of the proposed 

9 Crystal River site. The proposed mine would occupy approximately 9400 ac including a quarry, 

10 processing plant, roads, and buffers. This proposed project would affect approximately 2700 ac 

11 of wetlands and uplands by incremental losses extending over approximately 100 years. In 

12 addition to its ongoing quarrying activities noted in the paragraph above, Citrus Mining and 

13 Timber Inc. is also proposing to develop a “Port District” approximately 2 mi north of the Crystal 

14 River site, which would include waterfront residential, commercial, and industrial development. 

15 The Inglis Lock bypass channel spillway is a proposed project to construct an intake structure, 

16 intake and discharge channels, turbines and a transmission line located approximately 5 mi 

17 northeast of the Crystal River site. This project would contribute to terrestrial habitat loss and 

18 fragmentation within the ROI. The FDOT is planning an expansion of US-19 at the CFBC, 

19 approximately 3 mi north-northeast from the Crystal River site, which would include construction 

20 of a two-lane bridge and expansion of the existing roadway to a four-lane divided highway. 

21 Transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographical ROI, and 

22 future urbanization would also be expected to occur. There are, however, several areas within 

23 the geographic ROI that are managed for the benefit of wildlife, including (but not limited to) 

24 Goethe State Forest, Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge, Waccasassa Bay Preserve State 

25 Park, Gulf Hammock Wildlife Management Area, and the Big Bend Seagrasses Preserve. 

26 The other impact on terrestrial resources at the Crystal River site would be the effect of global 

27 climate change on plants and wildlife. The impact of global climate change on terrestrial wildlife 

28 and habitat in the geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change 

29 could result in a rise in sea level and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe 

30 weather, decreases in annual precipitation, increases in average temperature, and saltwater 

31 intrusion into freshwater wetlands (GCRP 2009). Such changes in climate could alter terrestrial 

32 community composition on or near the Crystal River site through changes in species diversity, 

33 abundance, and distribution. Elevated water temperatures, droughts, and severe weather 

34 phenomena may adversely affect or severely reduce terrestrial habitat. Specific predictions on 

35 habitat changes in this region due to global climate change are inconclusive at this time. 

36 However, because of the regional nature of climate change, the impacts related to global 

37 climate change would be similar for all of the alternative sites. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-73 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Summary Statement 

2 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources, including important species, are estimated based on 

3 the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review. Past, present, and 

4 reasonably foreseeable future activities in the geographic area of interest could affect terrestrial 

5 ecology in ways similar to building and operation of the proposed two new units at the LNP site. 

6 The Crystal River site and some of the associated transmission-line corridors are natural 

7 habitats that would be substantially altered by development and maintenance activities, 

8 noticeably affecting the level and movement of terrestrial wildlife populations in the surrounding 

9 landscape. Other anticipated development projects would further alter wildlife habitats and 

10 migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The review team therefore concludes that the 

11 cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for terrestrial ecological resources would be 

12 MODERATE. 

13 This determination is based upon the extent of expected wetland loss and habitat fragmentation 

14 from ongoing and planned development projects, continued widespread manipulation of habitats 

15 for commercial forest management, and anticipated losses of habitat for important species. The 

16 incremental impacts from building and operating the Crystal River project would be a significant 

17 contributor to the moderate cumulative impact, primarily because of a loss or modification of 

18 habitats that support wildlife, wetlands, and important species. Although incremental impacts on 

19 terrestrial resources could be noticeable near the Crystal River project, these impacts would not 

20 be expected to destabilize the overall ecology of the regional landscape. 

21 9.3.2.4 Aquatic Resources for the Crystal River Energy Complex Site 

22 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

23 aquatic ecology resources. The CREC site is located on Crystal Bay, which is a small 

24 embayment of the Gulf of Mexico. CREC has four fossil-fuel units and one nuclear unit, which 

25 draw a total of 1897 Mgd from May 1 to October 31, and 1613 Mgd from November 1 to 

26 April 30. Water from Crystal Bay is drawn in through three intakes on a common intake canal 

27 for Units 1, 2, and 3. Cooling water for Units 4 and 5 is provided from Units 1–3 effluent, and all 

28 effluents including blowdown from CREC Units 4 and 5 are ultimately discharged via a 

29 discharge canal to the Gulf of Mexico. Mechanical draft helper cooling towers cool the station 

30 discharge for thermal compliance (PEF 2008). A two-unit, closed-cycle plant would require 

31 84,780 gpm (190 cfs) of cooling water, which would be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico, and 

32 station blowdown would be added to the existing discharge for CREC Units 1–5 (PEF 2009a). 

33 The geographic area of interest is considered to be hydrologically related water bodies 

34 surrounding the proposed Crystal River site, which encompasses Levy and Citrus counties 

35 offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico, including the mouth of the CFBC, and the mouth of the 

36 Withlacoochee River, and associated transmission-line corridors. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-74 August 2010 

1 The CREC site is a coastal facility near a shallow inshore estuarine habitat in the Gulf of 

2 Mexico. Crystal River enters to the Gulf of Mexico 2 mi to the south, and the Withlacoochee 

3 River opens 2 mi to the north. The mouth of the CFBC in the Gulf of Mexico is between the 

4 CREC discharge and the Withlacoochee River. There are no sanctuaries or preserves that 

5 could be affected by the proposed action. The nearest managed areas are the Big Bend 

6 Seagrasses aquatic preserve to the north of the mouth of the Withlacoochee River (FDNR 

7 1988), St. Martins Marsh that includes the estuarine coastal areas between Crystal River and 

8 Homosassa River (FDNR 1987), and the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge (Buckingham 

9 1989). Big Bend Seagrasses is managed by the FDEP and is approximately 5 mi to the north 

10 along the Gulf Coast of Florida from the mouth of the CFBC, and extends up along the coast 

11 and up to 8 mi offshore to the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge to cover 945,000 ac. St. 

12 Martins Marsh is also managed by FDEP and encompasses 23,000 ac in the nearshore and 

13 offshore region due west of the city of Crystal River, 3.5 mi to the south of the CREC discharge 

14 location. Both aquatic preserves were established to protect seagrass bed habitats, which 

15 provide nursery areas for finfish and shellfish as well as foraging resources for local birds and 

16 aquatic vertebrates. The Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge is managed by the FWS and is 

17 the Kings Bay headwaters of Crystal River, which lies 10 mi inland from the mouth of Crystal 

18 River on the Gulf of Mexico. The Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge was designated to 

19 protect the West Indian (Florida) manatee and its habitat. 

20 Historically, the construction and operation of CREC Units 1–5 have had some impact on 

21 fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, which PEF mitigates by hatchery supplementation. The Crystal 

22 River Mariculture Center began operation in October 1991, with red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), 

23 spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), and pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) among 

24 the primary species cultured. Other species such as pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), pigfish 

25 (Orthopristis chrysoptera), stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), and blue crab (Callinectes 

26 sapidus) are also cultured and released in the Gulf of Mexico (PEF 2009c). Between 1999 and 

27 2005, 8 loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta), 38 green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), 1 

28 hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and 92 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys 

29 kempii) have been collected at CREC (Eaton et al. 2008). PEF currently has an incidental take 

30 permit from NMFS that allows an incidental live take of 75 sea turtles annually, 3 annual causal 

31 sea turtle mortalities, and a reporting requirement for non-causal related mortalities of 8 or more 

32 within a 12-month period (NMFS 2002). PEF has an ongoing program to monitor the intake 

33 canal for the presence of sea turtles, perform rescues for stranded individuals, provide 

34 rehabilitation, and release resources when possible. In 2000, NRC found no significant impact 

35 on marine turtles from the operation of CREC Unit 3 (NMFS 2002). Aquatic species and 

36 habitats associated with the discharge from CREC have been characterized historically from 

37 CREC operations (Stone & Webster Engineering 1985), and were again sampled from April 

38 through November 2008. The extent of seagrass beds have been surveyed beginning in the 

39 early 1990s as a part of quantifying recovery of the CREC offshore Gulf of Mexico habitats 

40 following installation of helper cooling towers (MML 1993, 1994, 1995). Previously affected 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-75 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 seagrass areas nearest the CREC discharge were observed to recover with 50-percent bottom 

2 coverage by colonization by shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), a dominant, quick-growing 

3 seagrass. However, between 1995 and 2001, overall seagrass abundance declined, likely from 

4 a number of environmental influences such as turbidity, salinity, and storm events (Marshall 

5 2002). 

6 The potential for impacts from construction and/or operation of two new CREC units on aquatic 

7 biota would be primarily to organisms inhabiting the Crystal Bay habitat of the Gulf of Mexico. 

8 Aquatic commercial, recreational, and indicator species of importance would include the same 

9 species described for the proposed LNP site. 

10 Commercial and Recreational Species 

11 The Crystal River site has the same species as those listed for the proposed LNP site (see 

12 Section 2.4.2). Commercial fisheries allowed in the Gulf of Mexico in offshore Florida waters for 

13 Citrus and Levy Counties include black mullet (Mugil cephalus), red grouper (Epinephelus 

14 morio), crevalle jack (Caranx hippos), ladyfish (Elops saurus), black grouper (Epinephelus 

15 mystacinus), gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis), grunts (family Haemulidae), porgies 

16 (family Sparidae), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), blue crab, stone crab , and oysters 

17 (Crassostrea viginica). All of these species are also considered recreationally important and are 

18 described in detail in Section 2.4.2. 

19 Important Species 

20 Important species and species of concern listed for the Crystal River site are the same as those 

21 already described for the proposed LNP site. For species and habitat descriptions, refer to 

22 Table 2-13 in Section 2.4.2. 

23 Critical Habitats 

24 There are no critical habitats designated by the NMFS or FWS in the vicinity of the Crystal River 

25 site. Critical habitat for the gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) occurs on the Gulf 

26 Coast of Florida in the Suwannee River over 29 mi to the northwest from the mouth of the 

27 CFBC, and immediate offshore area and is described further under the Federally and State28 listed species subheading for gulf sturgeon (68 FR 13370). Critical habitat for the smalltooth 

29 sawfish (Pristis pectinata) is currently under review for designation of more than 220,000 ac of 

30 coastal habitat in the Charlotte Harbor estuary and more than 619 coastal ac in the Ten 

31 Thousand Islands/Everglades region of Florida Bay and are described further under the 

32 Federally and State-listed species subheading for smalltooth sawfish (73 FR 70290). Critical 

33 habitat for the Florida manatee closest to the Crystal River site includes Crystal River and its 

34 Kings Bay headwaters in Citrus County (41 FR 41914). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-76 August 2010 

1 Essential Fish Habitats 

2 The CREC intake and discharge areas of the Gulf of Mexico are designated by the Gulf of 

3 Mexico Fisheries Management Council as Ecoregion 2, which is a management unit that 

4 extends from Tarpon Springs north to Pensacola Bay, Florida (GMFMC 2004). Estuarine 

5 essential fish habitat has been designated by NMFS for Crystal Bay for species listed in Table 

6 2.14 in Section 2.4.2.3. There are no habitat areas of particular concern near the CREC. 

7 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

8 No invasive aquatic species have been noted in the aquatic environments at the Crystal River 

9 site (PEF 2008). 

10 Federally and State-Listed Species 

11 Federally and State-listed aquatic species that may occur near the Crystal River site and along 

12 existing transmission-line corridors include the endangered Florida manatee, green sea turtle 

13 (Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill sea turtle 

14 (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), smalltooth sawfish, 

15 and the threatened gulf sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Detailed species 

16 information is provided in Section 2.4.2.3. 

17 Building Impacts 

18 No onsite waterbodies would be adversely affected by building activities on the CREC site. 

19 Installation of a new intake and discharge structure in the existing CREC discharge canal would 

20 result in the temporary displacement of aquatic biota within the vicinity of these structures. It is 

21 expected that these biota would return to the area after installation is complete. Impacts on 

22 aquatic organisms from installation activities in the discharge canal would be temporary and 

23 minor and largely mitigable through the use of BMPs. Installation activities for makeup water 

24 and discharge for two new units at CREC would have minimal impact on the aquatic ecology of 

25 Crystal Bay. 

26 New transmission lines would be required to connect the facility to the existing load centers. 

27 The additional transmission lines could be installed in existing corridors when possible to avoid 

28 sensitive or critical habitat areas. Transmission-line corridors are assumed to follow those 

29 identified for LNP without the need for an LNP-to-CREC corridor (CH2M Hill 2009). PEF 

30 anticipates transmission-line corridors would cross 6 streams and 135 open waterbodies and 

31 should have minimal impact on aquatic resources (CH2M Hill 2009). Therefore, assuming that 

32 no transmission towers are placed in waterbodies and the use of good management practices 

33 during construction, the staff concludes that the impacts associated with new transmission lines 

34 would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-77 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Operational Impacts 

2 Impingement and entrainment of organisms from Crystal Bay would be the most likely impacts 

3 on aquatic populations that could occur from operation of two new nuclear units at CREC. After 

4 submission of a Clean Water Act Section 316 (b) report by PEF (Stone and Webster 1985), the 

5 EPA found that entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish was unacceptable at CREC 

6 due to use of once-through cooling for CREC Units 1–3. Mitigation for entrainment and 

7 impingement is currently met through seasonal flow reduction and a restocking program at 

8 CREC for red drum, spotted seatrout, pink shrimp, striped mullet, pigfish, silver perch, blue crab, 

9 and stone crab (PEF 2008). 

10 The NMFS issued a Biological Opinion in 2002 allowing for an incidental take of 75 live sea 

11 turtles from CREC intake structures and 3 causally related lethal takes annually. The annual 

12 take and release of 75 live turtles annually was determined to have no impact on turtle 

13 populations, and the annual lethal take of 3 turtles was considered to represent a small 

14 percentage of total sea turtle take in the Southeast United States (NMFS 2002). Due to PEF’s 

15 commitment to use best available technology, and the small incremental increase in cooling16 water withdrawal for the two new units, it is expected that there will be no significant increase in 

17 sea turtle mortalities attributable to the operation of two additional closed-cycle units at the 

18 CREC site. 

19 Assuming a closed-cycle cooling system and a maximum through-screen intake velocity of 0.5 

20 ft/sec or less which meets the EPA’s Phase I regulations for new facilities (66 FR 65256), the 

21 anticipated additional impacts on aquatic populations from entrainment and impingement are 

22 expected to be minimal. 

23 The current NPDES permit for CREC requires that thermal effluents not exceed 96.5°F during 

24 the summer months. Helper cooling towers are used to comply with thermal limits, and 

25 reduction in power generation from coal-fired CREC Units 1 and 2 is sometimes used during the 

26 hottest summer months to ensure thermal compliance. The additional discharge associated 

27 with two new units (122 Mgd) would increase the total CREC site discharge volume by less than 

28 5 percent. Thermal impacts could be mitigated by the addition of helper cooling towers as is 

29 proposed for the CREC Unit 3 uprate (PEF 2007a). The impact on aquatic populations from 

30 the additional discharge of water from two new closed-cycle units into Crystal Bay is expected to 

31 be minimal.

32 The review team concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of the 

33 transmission-line corridors would also be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs and 

34 transmission-line maintenance procedures are used. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-78 August 2010 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within Crystal Bay may include the operation of CREC 

3 Units 1–5 for impingement, entrainment effects, and chemical and thermal impacts from 

4 discharge. Two new units would require an additional 122 Mgd of makeup water that is likely to 

5 come from discharge effluent from CREC Units 1–5. It is therefore expected that intake 

6 operations would have no impact on impingement and entrainment rates. Discharge for two 

7 additional units would likely increase overall discharge to Crystal Bay by less than 5 percent 

8 (CH2M Hill 2009). Addition of helper cooling towers to control the temperature of discharge to 

9 Crystal Bay, and compliance with FDEP NPDES permitting requirements would minimize the 

10 potential for thermal and chemical discharge impacts, respectively. The proposed uprate of 

11 CREC Unit 3, when combined with existing CREC Units 1–5 discharge would result in no 

12 thermal increase with the operation of a new South Cooling Tower to augment the current 

13 modular helper cooling towers (PEF 2007a). 

14 In addition, in the FDEP Conditions of Certification, there is a condition that PEF will retire its 

15 two oldest coal-fired plants (Units 1 and 2) when LNP Units 1 and 2 are licensed, built, and 

16 begin commercial operation (FDEP 2010a). If this occurs, the two new units would still require 

17 122 Mgd of makeup water that would likely come from the discharge effluent of CREC Units 3, 

18 4, and 5. It is again expected that intake operations would have minimal impact on 

19 impingement and entrainment rates. The discharge for the two additional units, with CREC 

20 Units 1 and 2 shut down, would decrease the discharge volume to Crystal Bay. With the 

21 cessation of operations for CREC Units 1 and 2, the thermal and chemical discharge plume to 

22 Crystal Bay, even with the addition of the two new units, would likely not result in an increase in 

23 impacts over current operating conditions at CREC. 

24 Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

25 nuclear facility can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

26 include shoreline development (i.e., removal of habitat), increased water needs, and increased 

27 discharge of effluents into the Gulf of Mexico near Crystal Bay. Shoreline development is 

28 currently proposed by Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc. for commercial, industrial, and residential 

29 waterfront development along the CFBC to the west of US-19 (Citrus County 2009). The effects 

30 of future development could result in additional habitat loss and/or degradation due to water use 

31 using surface waters and groundwater withdrawal, point and non-point source pollution, 

32 siltation, and bank erosion. The review team is also aware of the potential for global climate 

33 change affecting aquatic resources. The impact of global climate change on aquatic organisms 

34 and habitat in the geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change 

35 would result in a rise in sea level and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe 

36 weather, decreases in annual precipitation, and increases in average temperature (GCRP 

37 2009). Such changes in climate could alter aquatic community composition on or near the 

38 Crystal River site through changes in species diversity, abundance, and distribution. Elevated 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-79 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 water temperatures, droughts, and severe weather phenomena may adversely affect or 

2 severely reduce aquatic habitat, but specific predictions of aquatic habitat changes in this region 

3 due to global climate change are inconclusive at this time. The level of impact resulting from 

4 these events would depend on the intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic 

5 communities. 

6 Summary Statement 

7 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by PEF, 

8 the State of Florida, and the review team’s independent review. There are past and future 

9 activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic ecology resources in ways 

10 similar to the building and operation of two additional units at the Crystal River site. The use of 

11 Gulf of Mexico water for cooling eliminates much of the potential impact associated with water 

12 development needed for closed-cycle cooling for a new site. Proper siting of associated 

13 transmission lines, avoiding habitat for protected species, minimizing interactions with 

14 waterbodies and watercourses along the corridors, and the use of BMPs during corridor 

15 preparation and tower placement would minimize impacts related to the transmission system. 

16 Therefore, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operating two 

17 new reactors on the Crystal River site combined with other past, present, and future activities on 

18 most aquatic resources in the Gulf of Mexico would be SMALL. 

19 9.3.2.5 Socioeconomics 

20 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

21 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

22 affect socioeconomics, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. 

23 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Crystal River site, the geographic area of 

24 interest is considered to be the 50-mi radius (region) centered on the Crystal River site with 

25 special consideration of Citrus, Levy, and Marion Counties, because that is where the review 

26 team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic 

27 impacts of site development and operation at the Crystal River site in Citrus County, the review 

28 team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the site using readily obtainable data from the 

29 Internet or published sources. 

30 The Crystal River site is in Citrus County, approximately 5 mi south-southwest of Inglis and 8 mi 

31 northwest of the City of Crystal River. The review team drew upon U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 

32 2000 data to find the available total construction workforce within the host county, adjacent 

33 counties, and any nearby counties with a major population center within a reasonable 

34 commuting distance from the site. For the Crystal River site, this included Citrus, Levy, Marion, 

35 Hernando, Sumter, and Pasco Counties. The total construction workforce available in these 

36 counties in 2000 was 33,633. Based on this availability, the review team assumed that 

37 50 percent of the 3300 construction workforce, or 1650 workers would migrate into the area. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-80 August 2010 

1 The review team identified Citrus County and the immediately adjacent Levy and Marion 

2 Counties as a primary Economic Impact Area (EIA) for the two new nuclear units in Citrus 

3 County on the basis of expected effects of in-migrating construction workers and families. The 

4 review team expects that a few of the in-migrating workers would choose to reside in Alachua 

5 County, more than an hour’s commute distance, because of the amenities available in the large 

6 city of Gainesville, but the county’s economy and community infrastructure are sufficiently large 

7 that the review team expects the effects would not be noticeable. Hernando, Pasco, and 

8 Sumter Counties offer no attractions beyond those offered by the immediately adjacent counties 

9 that would encourage a longer commute; consequently, the review team expects few in10 migrating construction workers would live in these counties and associated effects would not be 

11 noticeable. The review team focused on effects of the construction workforce because the 

12 operations workforce would be smaller, with expected smaller socioeconomic impacts. Table 9-

13 10 provides some socioeconomic data for the EIA. 

14 For purposes of this analysis the review team projected that about 15 percent, or 247, of the in15 migrating workers would choose to reside outside the EIA, with the remaining 1403 in-migrating 

16 workers distributed in the remainder of the 50 mi region. The review team considered two key 

17 factors that would influence in-migrating worker housing patterns: vacant housing in the EIA 

18 (with Marion at 56 percent, Citrus at 34 percent, and Levy at 10 percent of the total vacant 

19 housing in this area), and commute time. From these factors, the review team assumed that in20 migrating workers at peak construction-related employment would be distributed 45 percent in 

21 Marion County, 45 percent in Citrus, and 10 percent in Levy. The review team further assumed 

22 that all workers would bring families; this is unlikely but provides an upper bound to population 

23 increase associated with the project. The review team used the 2.49 average Florida family 

24 size to project the distribution of new jobs and population in the EIA due to in-migrating workers 

25 listed in Table 9-11. 

26 Physical and Aesthetics Impacts 

27 The physical impacts on workers and the public of construction and operation at the Crystal 

28 River site would be similar to those described for the LNP site, with the primary differences due 

29 to the presence of the existing facilities and their workforces. People who work or live around 

30 the site could be exposed to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions from construction 

31 activities. Construction workers and personnel working onsite could be the most affected. Air32 pollution emissions are expected to be controlled by applicable BMPs and Federal, State, and 

33 local regulations. During operation of the two units, standby diesel generators used for auxiliary 

34 power would have air-pollution emissions. It is expected that these generators would see 

35 limited use and, if used, would be used for only short time periods. Applicable Federal, State, 

36 and local air-pollution requirements would apply to all fuel-burning engines. The review team 

37 anticipated that the annual average exposure from gaseous emission sources at the site 

38 boundary would not exceed applicable regulations during normal operations. The impacts of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-81 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-10. Selected Socioeconomic Data for the EIA for the Crystal River Site

 Citrus Levy Marion 

Data 

source 

Population 

 1980 54,703 19,870 122,488 (b) 

 1990 93,515 25,923, 194,833 (b) 

 2000 118,085 34,450 259,914 (c) 

 Projected 2010 147,311 40,694 348,610 (d) 

Median Household 

Income (1999) $31,001 $26,959 $31,944 (e) 

Vacant Housing Units 

 

 2000 9570 2703 15,908 (c)-(i) 

 2005 14,165 3360 24,860 (c)-(i) 

Total Housing Units 

 2000 62,204 16,570 122,663 (c)-(i) 

 2005 73,070 17,701 152,624 (c)-(i) 

Workforce 

 Employed 38,837 12,935 98,248 (e) 

 Construction 2105 1397 8803 (e) 

Total schools(a) 0 A, 5B, 10 A-B, 

4C, 1 A-C, 1 A-B-C 

1 A, 1 A-B-C, 

4 A-B, 3 B-C, 

2 B, 2 C 

2 A, 9 B, 29 A-B, 

8 C, 1 B-C, 

1 A-B-C 

(f) 

Number of Schools 

Failing StudentTeacher Ratio 4 0 4 (f) 

Sheriff and Police Crystal River Inglis, Williston, 

Chiefland, Cedar 

Key. 

Dunnellon, Belleview, 

Ocala 

(g) 

Emergency Services 23 fire stations; 29 

paid and 98 volunteer 

firefighters 

14 fire stations; 8 

paid and 183 

volunteer firefighters 

27 fire stations; 351 paid 

and 100 volunteer 

firefighters 

(h) 

Population 

 

(c) 

 White 96 87.1 85.3 

 African American 2.6 11.2 12 

 Hispanic 2.7 3.9 35.7 

 Low-Income 11.7 18.6 13.1 (e) 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-82 August 2010 

1 Table 9-10. (contd) 

(a) A = elementary school; B = middle school; C = high school 

(b) USCB 1990 

(c) USCB 2000b 

(d) 2010 projection assuming 2000-2008 growth rate (USCB 2009) extends to 2010 

(e) USCB 2000c 

(f) FDOE 2009a 

(g) Section 2.5.2.6 

(h) Citrus, Levy: Section 2.5.2.6, Marion: Marion EM (2009), Marion Fire (2009) 

(i) USCB 2007 

2 Table 9-11. Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA 

3 for the Crystal River Site 

County 

Percent 

Population 

Increase 

1990–

2000(a) 

Projected 

Percent 

Increase 

2000–

2010 (b) 

Workers InMigrating to 

Construct 

Two New 

Units at 

Crystal 

River Site 

Employed 

Workforce 

in 2000 

Population 

of InMigrating 

Workers 

and 

Families 

Population 

of 

Workers 

and 

Families 

(as a 

percent of 

projected 

2010 

population 

Population 

of Workers 

and 

Families (as 

a percent of 

projected 

2010 

population 

+ inmigrants) 

Citrus 26.3 24.8 631 38,837 1572 1.07 1.06 

Marion 32.9 34.1 631 98,248 1572 0.45 0.45 

Levy 32.9 18.1 141 12,935 351 0.86 0.86 

(a) Based on USCB data, as reported in PEF (2007b). 

(b) Calculated as 1.25 times percent change 2000–2008 shown in USCB (2009), i.e., assumes rate of change for first 8 years 

would continue through last 2 years of the decade. 

4 operations on air quality are expected to be minimal. As with building impacts, potential offsite 

5 receptors during operations are generally located well away from the site boundaries. 

6 Residential and commercial areas are located away from the site boundaries, applicable air7 pollution regulations would have to be met by PEF, and applicable BMPs would be put in place. 

8 Therefore, based on information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review of 

9 reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station 

10 construction and operation on workers and the local public around the Crystal River site would 

11 be minimal. 

12 Construction and operations activities are not expected to affect any offsite buildings. Most 

13 buildings not located onsite are well removed from the site boundaries. Buildings most 

14 vulnerable to shock and vibration from pile-driving and other related activities are those located 

15 on the site, which could suffer noticeable temporary and short-term effects. No long-term 

16 physical impacts on structures, including any residences near the site boundaries, would be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-83 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 expected. Therefore, based on consideration of reconnaissance-level information, the review 

2 team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating the two units at the Crystal 

3 River site on onsite and offsite buildings would be minor. 

4 Although transmission-line corridors already exist to serve the Crystal River site, approximately 

5 180 mi of additional transmission system infrastructure would be needed (estimates made by 

6 measuring the approximate distance of hypothetical corridors provided by CH2M Hill [2009]). 

7 PEF has assumed that new transmission lines would be collocated within existing transmission8 line corridors to the extent possible, thereby minimizing potential terrestrial impacts. In addition, 

9 transmission-line corridors, towers, and access road would be situated to avoid critical or 

10 sensitive habitats and species to the extent possible. The width of the transmission-line corridor 

11 would depend on the size, voltage, and whether or not existing corridors could be used, and 

12 would vary from 55 ft to 460 ft wide. The buildings, cooling towers, and transmission lines and 

13 corridors associated with the new reactors would add an increasingly industrial landscape 

14 visible to viewers, with a noticeable aesthetic impact. 

15 Demographic Impacts 

16 Table 9-10 shows that the population in Citrus and Marion Counties increased between 1990 

17 and 2000 at about the same rate as is forecast between 2000 and 2010; for Levy County, about 

18 half the rate of increase is forecast for 2000–2010 than for the prior decade. Based on the 

19 projections that the peak in-migrating population associated with the proposed project would 

20 constitute less than a 2-percent increase over the estimated 2010 populations, the review team 

21 found that the in-migrating population associated with building two new nuclear generating units 

22 would have a minor demographic impact in the EIA. 

23 Economic Impacts 

24 The review team determined that the impact of jobs associated with construction and 

25 preconstruction would have a minor effect on total employment in the EIA. The projected in26 migrating workers would account for less than 2 percent of the year 2000 employee base of the 

27 EIA. The impact of approximately 541 jobs (70 percent of operations jobs) filled by in-migrating 

28 operations workers within a 1-hour commute of the site and the associated 519 indirect jobs 

29 would be minor on employment levels in the EIA. See Section 4.4.3.1 for derivation of indirect 

30 labor. 

31 The review team assumed that tax revenues generated from sales and use taxes associated 

32 with construction and operation of two additional units at the Crystal River site would be similar 

33 to those evaluated for the LNP site in Sections 4.4.3.3 and 5.4.3.3, with a similar minimal impact 

34 on revenues in the EIA and the region. The review team concluded that increased property 

35 taxes from two new operating units at the Crystal River site following reassessment for 

36 improvements and for its expanded use as a utility would have a noticeable and substantial 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-84 August 2010 

1 beneficial impact on Citrus County. The review team found that additional property taxes on 

2 new houses built by in-migrating workers would constitute a small percentage increase in the 

3 local tax base in the EIA; thus the impact of operations on residential property tax revenues 

4 would be minor. 

5 Housing 

6 The review team compared the 2000 figures for vacant housing in the EIA listed in Table 9-10 

7 with the number of in-migrating workers projected for peak workforce years listed in Table 9-11. 

8 Table 9-10 housing figures do not include recreational vehicle (RV) parks, campgrounds, or 

9 hotels, and thus provide a lower bound of what would be available to house workers. In the 

10 EIA, less than 7 percent of the year 2000 vacant housing units in each county would be needed 

11 to house in-migrating workers, assuming that each worker occupied a separate housing unit. 

12 To estimate the number of houses required to accommodate the increase in population without 

13 the project, the review team divided by 2.49 (Florida average family size). The review team 

14 examined estimated housing stock for 2005–2007, based on USCB American Community 

15 Survey data, shown in Table 9-10 as year 2005 vacant housing units. The review team 

16 considered that half of the projected 2000–2010 increase was housed at the time the American 

17 Community Survey data were collected. The review team considered the housing needs of the 

18 other half, against the vacant housing figures produced by the survey. This analysis indicated 

19 that the EIA could absorb the projected increase. Based on this analysis, the review team 

20 concluded that impacts on housing availability related to the building and operation of a plant at 

21 the Crystal River site would be minor in the EIA. 

22 Public Services 

23 As discussed in Section 2.5, Citrus County has the capacity in community infrastructure to 

24 absorb incoming populations; the review team concluded that the impacts of building and 

25 operating two new nuclear generating units at Crystal River would be minimal on public 

26 services. Some localized noticeable effects would be felt in Levy County (fire-protection 

27 services and schools serving Yankeetown and Inglis) and Marion County (Dunnellon schools, 

28 police, and emergency services) for the reasons discussed in Section 4.4.4.4. 

29 Transportation 

30 The review team considered that the primary roads used to access the Crystal River site would 

31 be US-19, County Road 40 (CR-40), State Route 44 (SR-44), and SR-121, with US-19 linking to 

32 the site access road. US-19 has a level of service (LOS) standard of “B,” and SR-44, CR-40, 

33 and SR-121 have an LOS standard of “C.” The review team considered the impact of project34 related traffic in terms of the likelihood that it would lower the LOS along US-19 below the 

35 assigned standard “B.” One-way annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts for US-19 range 

36 from 1600 to 8600 vehicles per day in southern Levy County, 4600 in northern Citrus County, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-85 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9300 north of the intersection with SR-44, and 13,000 south of the intersection with SR-44 

2 (FDOT 2008). The review team assumed 2281 trips daily (following the LNP site analysis in 

3 Section 4.4.4.1); split 30 percent to/from the north and 70 percent to/from the south, based on 

4 the split of in-migrating worker residence patterns discussed above. At morning shift change, 

5 this would add 1977 cars to the total flow on US-19, 397 incoming from the north, 1025 from the 

6 south; and 165 outgoing to the north, 385 to the south. This would add about 10 percent 

7 volume to traffic coming south into the north of Citrus County and about 10 percent coming 

8 north from the intersection with SR-44. The review team found no evidence that the LOS for 

9 US-19 would change as a result of project-related traffic, and concluded that building two new 

10 units at the Crystal River site would have a minor transportation impact. 

11 Recreation 

12 Because of the close proximity of the Crystal River alternative site to the proposed site, the 

13 review team determined that impacts on recreational facilities and on the quality of the 

14 recreational experience during construction and preconstruction would also be minor at the 

15 Crystal River alternative site. 

16 Education 

17 Table 9-12 provides data about schools in the EIA. All schools met the State teacher-student 

18 ratio classroom requirements in 2007–2008 with the exception of four schools in Citrus County 

19 and four schools in Marion County. The review team assumed that school districts in the EIA, 

20 like those analyzed for the LNP site, would address short-term gains in student population with 

21 mobile classrooms. The review team assumed that students would accompany each in22 migrating worker family in the same manner as indicated in Table 9-12. 

23 Table 9-12. Educational System Impacts from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years 

County 

In-Migrating 

Worker 

Households 

Grades 

PK–3 

students

New 

Grades 

PK-3 

Rooms(a)

Grades 

4–8 

Students

New 

Grades 

4-8 

Rooms(b)

Grades 

9–12 

Students 

New 

Grades 

9-12 

Rooms(c)

Citrus 631 85 5 45 3 51 3 

Marion 631 52 3 26 2 30 2 

Levy 141 67 4 37 2 37 2 

Source: Table 4-14 and State of Florida 2002. 

(a) 18 students per teacher required by State law 

(b) 22 students per teacher required by State law 

(c) 25 students per teacher required by State law 

PK = preschool 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-86 August 2010 

1 The review team found that the addition of up to 11 classrooms in Citrus County, 7 classrooms 

2 in Marion County, and 8 classrooms in Levy County would amount to less than 1 additional 

3 classroom per school, a minor impact even during the period when the greatest number of 

4 project-related students would be present. 

5 Summary of Socioeconomics 

6 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

7 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

8 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. Based on 

9 information provided by PEF and its own independent evaluation, the review team finds that the 

10 socioeconomic effects of building of two additional nuclear units at Crystal River site would be 

11 minor for the EIA and region with the following exceptions. There could be possible short-term 

12 noticeable shock and vibration effects to onsite buildings during preconstruction and 

13 construction; and noticeable adverse effects on public services in Levy County (fire protection 

14 and schools serving Yankeetown and Inglis) and Marion County (Dunnellon schools, police, and 

15 emergency services) until local funding is adjusted after the units are operating. In addition, the 

16 review team anticipates long-term noticeable aesthetic affects for viewers of the new structures 

17 and transmission lines/corridors; and noticeable and substantial beneficial tax impacts in Citrus 

18 County once the units are operational. 

19 Cumulative Impacts 

20 In addition to assessing the incremental socioeconomic impacts from the building and operation 

21 of two nuclear units on the Crystal River site, the cumulative impact assessment considers other 

22 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to the cumulative 

23 socioeconomic impacts on the region, including other Federal and non-federal projects and the 

24 projects listed in Table 9-6. As indicated in Table 9-6, the Crystal River site, the location of the 

25 CREC, contains four fossil-fuel units that began operating in 1966, 1969, 1982, and 1984 and a 

26 nuclear plant that began operating in 1977. This table also identifies other projects that might 

27 contribute to socioeconomic impacts. 

28 Within the wider region, the resident population is concentrated around the cities of Gainesville 

29 to the north-northeast, Crystal River to the southeast, and Ocala to the east-northeast. In the 

30 EIA, Levy is the least populated and most rural county; followed by Citrus, which gained 

31 population and urban development after construction of the CREC; and then followed by Marion 

32 the most populated and least rural. All EIA school districts reported trends in school enrollments 

33 that indicated increasing populations of retired persons in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and 

34 all had projected a continuation of that trend before the recent economic downturn. 

35 Within the region, the two reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Table 7-1 with the greatest 

36 potential to affect cumulative socioeconomic impacts would be the Tarmac King Road 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-87 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Limestone Mine during construction and preconstruction of the LNP and the closure of two coal2 fired units at CREC that would possibly occur during operation of the LNP. The other projects 

3 involve continuation of restricted development in existing parkland and open space, little or no 

4 change in current levels of employment at existing establishments, or new development 

5 consistent with controls in existing county comprehensive plans. The effects of these projects 

6 have been included in population and demand projections in the county comprehensive plans 

7 and in other public agency planning processes referenced in Sections 4.4 and 5.4, and have 

8 therefore been taken into consideration in the discussion above. 

9 Tarmac has applied for permits to begin construction of the Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine 

10 in 2010, with operations beginning in 2012. The 4900-ac mine site is located 1 mi west of the 

11 intersection of US-19 and King Road in Levy County, within about 10 mi of the Crystal River 

12 site. Tarmac estimates that at the height of mining activity, about 500 trucks would leave the 

13 mine site daily and enter US-19 (Tarmac America 2010). These 500 trucks would add to the 

14 approximately 800 new trips heading south along US-19 and to the approximately 2000 total 

15 new trips during morning shift changes while the new units are being built at the CREC. Given 

16 the distance of the Tarmac site from the Crystal River site, the review team determined that this 

17 would not be sufficient to change the LOS of US-19, because the potential impacts from this 

18 increased traffic, coupled with increased traffic from the CREC during building of new units at 

19 the site, would be minor except during shift changes. 

20 After construction, the EIA would experience reduced direct construction employment and 

21 related indirect jobs. This reduction would be somewhat offset by the introduction of new 

22 operations workers at the new units. The planned closure of two of the four coal-fired units at 

23 CREC that is expected to occur after the proposed two nuclear power units are operating would 

24 slightly increase the differential between peak construction and long-term employment. In 

25 addition, Citrus County would see a loss in tax revenue paid by PEF for the two coal-fired units 

26 at CREC, but the review team determined the loss in revenue would not be destabilizing given 

27 the new revenue from the two nuclear units and other remaining revenue sources. If the 

28 operating license for the existing nuclear unit at CREC were not renewed (it is currently valid 

29 through midnight December 3, 2016) and the unit closed, the loss of employment, income, and 

30 tax revenues would be larger. 

31 In addition to socioeconomic effects directly related to building and operating the new units, 

32 cumulative socioeconomic impacts include economic, infrastructure, and community services 

33 impacts associated with the items listed in Table 9-6: operation of a new limestone mine, 

34 continued operation of a local quarry, continued and uprated operation of an existing nuclear 

35 unit at CREC, some expanded residential and commercial development consistent with county 

36 comprehensive plans, and some loss of employment and taxes associated with the potential 

37 shutdown of two coal-fired units at CREC. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-88 August 2010 

1 The review team found that physical, demographic, economic, infrastructure, and community 

2 service impacts of construction, preconstruction, and operations of the new units at Crystal 

3 River would be generally minor. The review team identified noticeable short-term adverse 

4 effects on police, emergency, and fire-protection services and schools in specific local 

5 communities during peak employment years. The short-term adverse effects would be 

6 expected to become minor once local funding has been adjusted after a few years of operation. 

7 There would be long-term noticeable aesthetic effects for viewers of the new structures and 

8 Citrus County would see long-term noticeable and substantial beneficial tax impacts from two 

9 nuclear units. 

10 The team determined that the cumulative socioeconomic effects of the Crystal River nuclear 

11 expansion and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL with 

12 the following exceptions attributable to building and operating the two new nuclear units at the 

13 Crystal River site. There would be MODERATE short-term adverse effects on police, 

14 emergency service, fire protection, and schools in specific local communities during peak 

15 construction and preconstruction employment years. The short-term adverse effects would be 

16 expected to become SMALL once local funding has been adjusted after a few years of LNP 

17 operation. There would be long-term MODERATE adverse aesthetic effects for viewers of the 

18 new structures at the Crystal River site. Revenues from property taxes and sales taxes from 

19 operating the two new nuclear units at the site result in a LARGE beneficial impact level. This 

20 LARGE and beneficial tax benefit would fully offset the loss of tax revenues to Citrus County 

21 that would occur if the coal-fired CREC units 1 and 2 are decommissioned; but the net beneficial 

22 impact to tax revenues from the two new units at the Crystal River site would still be LARGE. 

23 9.3.2.6 Environmental Justice 

24 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

25 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

26 could have environmental justice effects, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects 

27 listed in Table 9-6. The cumulative environmental justice impacts were assessed for a 50-mi 

28 radius centered on the Crystal River site (NRC 2000). 

29 The review team used the distribution of minority and low-income populations around the 

30 proposed LNP site to consider distributions around the nearby Crystal River site, which is 

31 approximately 9 mi southwest of the LNP site. As shown in Figures 2-26 through Figure 2-29, 

32 all census block groups with minority and low-income populations that meet the criteria 

33 discussed in Section 2.6 are located 10 mi or farther away from the LNP site; they are even 

34 farther away from the Crystal River site. The closest minority populations (both aggregate and 

35 African American) are in Citrus County between Citrus Springs and Dunnellon, approximately 

36 18 mi from the Crystal River site; and the closest low-income populations, near Otter Creek in 

37 Levy County, are almost 30 mi from the site. There are concentrations of block groups with 

38 African-American populations around the communities of Otter Creek, Usher, Chiefland, and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-89 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Williston in Levy County between 25 and 35 mi from the site; around Ocala in Marion County, 

2 about 40 mi from the site; around Gainesville in Alachua County, about 55 mi from the site; as 

3 well as in the northwest corner of Sumter County, between 15 and 25 mi from the site. (Note: 

4 These are estimated linear distances from the Crystal River site; driving distances to all 

5 communities are greater.) There are concentrations of block groups with low-income 

6 populations that overlap with African-American populations around Otter Creek, Usher, and 

7 Chiefland in Levy County and around Ocala (Marion County) and Gainesville (Alachua County). 

8 As discussed in Section 2.6.2, the review team did not identify any evidence of unique 

9 characteristics or practices in minority or low-income communities that may result in different 

10 socioeconomic impacts for the LNP site compared to the general population. This conclusion 

11 holds for the Crystal River site. 

12 As discussed in Section 9.3.3.5, the review team expects that building and operating two new 

13 nuclear units at the Crystal River site would have minimal physical impacts on all populations in 

14 Citrus and surrounding counties, including minority and low-income populations, because of 

15 their distance from the site, with the exception of long-term noticeable aesthetic affects for 

16 viewers of the new structures, including transmission lines and corridors. The adverse 

17 socioeconomic impacts on minority and low-income populations are also expected to be in 

18 proportion with the impacts discussed in Section 9.3.3.5 and are therefore minor for most 

19 elements, and noticeable in the short term for education, police, emergency services, fire 

20 protection, and transportation in certain locations. In these locations, there is no evidence that 

21 impacts would be disproportionately high and adverse towards minority or low-income 

22 populations as compared to other populations. Therefore, the review team concludes that the 

23 adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations resulting from construction and 

24 operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Crystal River site would be minimal. Because the 

25 review team found no evidence of unique characteristics or practices among minority or low26 income populations that would lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact, the review 

27 team concludes that environmental justice impacts would be minor. 

28 Cumulative Impacts 

29 The review team concluded that, as for socioeconomics effects discussed in Section 9.3.3.5, 

30 within the region, the two reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Table 9-6 with the greatest 

31 potential to affect cumulative environmental justice impacts would be the proposed Tarmac King 

32 Road Limestone Mine during preconstruction and construction of LNP and the possible closure 

33 of two coal-fired units at CREC during operation of LNP. The other projects involve continuation 

34 of restricted development in existing parkland and open space, little or no change in current 

35 levels of employment at existing establishments, or new development consistent with controls in 

36 existing county comprehensive plans. The review team believes the effects of these projects 

37 have been included in population and demand projections in the county comprehensive plans 

38 and in other public agency planning processes. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-90 August 2010 

1 The review team found no evidence that the minor traffic contribution of the new mine and the 

2 net minor employment and tax effects of the possible closure of two CREC coal-fired units could 

3 impose disproportionately high and adverse affects on minority or low-income populations. The 

4 review team concluded that, in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

5 future projects, building and operating two new nuclear units at Crystal River would impose only 

6 a minor impact on minorities or low-income populations. Therefore, the environmental justice 

7 impacts would be SMALL. 

8 9.3.2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

9 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

10 generating units at the Crystal River site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

11 reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect historic and cultural resources, including the 

12 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of cultural impacts 

13 at the Crystal River site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the Area of Potential 

14 Effect (APE) that would be defined for this site. This includes the direct effects APE, defined as 

15 the area physically affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site and 

16 within transmission–line corridors. The indirect effects APE is defined as the area visually 

17 affected and includes an additional 0.5-mi-radius APE around the transmission-line corridors 

18 and a 1-mi-radius APE around the cooling towers. 

19 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, they 

20 include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural resources. 

21 However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level information 

22 to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000). 

23 Reconnaissance-level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other 

24 public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. The 

25 following information was used to identify the historic and cultural resources at the Crystal River 

26 site: 

27 • PEF ER (PEF 2009a) 

28 • Atomic Energy Commission Final EIS for Crystal River Unit 3 (CREC Unit 3) (AEC 1973) 

29 • PEF Crystal River Unit 3 License Renewal ER (PEF 2008) 

30 • National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2010) 

31 • Florida Historical Markers Program (FDOS 2010) 

32 • NRC Alternative Sites Visit October 14–17, 2008 (NRC 2009). 

33 The Crystal River site is owned by PEF and is located adjacent to the CREC. Five existing 

34 power-generation units are located on the CREC site – four coal-fueled plants and one nuclear 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-91 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 unit. Power generation at the CREC began in 1966. Historically, the site and vicinity were 

2 largely undisturbed and likely contained intact archaeological sites associated with the past 

3 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the area has been disturbed by development 

4 associated with phosphate mining, cattle ranching, citrus farming, and timber production (PEF 

5 2008). Cultural resource investigations, related to the initial construction and operation of 

6 CREC nuclear Unit 3, have been ongoing at the CREC since the 1970s. 

7 A search of the Florida Historical Markers Program revealed that there is one historic marker 

8 located in Citrus County – the Historic Citrus County Courthouse, which was built in 1887 

9 (FDOS 2010). The courthouse is also in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or 

10 National Register). A search of the NRHP database revealed that there are nine places in the 

11 NRHP, including the Floral City Historic District and the Crystal River Indian Mounds (NPS 

12 2010). According to the Final EIS completed for the CREC Unit 3, the Crystal River Historical 

13 Memorial, a Native American ceremonial center and burial site is located near the CREC Unit 3 

14 location (AEC 1973). 

15 According to the ER for the license renewal of CREC Unit 3, the Florida Master Site File records 

16 list 37 archaeological studies that have been conducted in the vicinity of the CREC. Two of the 

17 studies appear to have been conducted in support of CREC Unit 3 projects and activities. Of 

18 particular interest is the archaeological survey of the CREC conducted in 1972 that included 

19 some additional investigations within a 5-mi radius of the facility. As a result of this survey, 43 

20 archaeological sites were inventoried, 20 within the boundary of the CREC. With regard to the 

21 20 sites identified on the Crystal River property, 18 were prehistoric, one was prehistoric and 

22 historic, and one was unspecified. None of these sites has been evaluated by the State Historic 

23 Preservation Office (SHPO) for eligibility for listing in the National Register. Siting of the two 

24 proposed units at the Crystal River site has the potential to affect resources through visual 

25 impacts from buildings and transmission lines. If any of the 20 properties is subsequently listed 

26 in the National Register, the visual impacts from the proposed project may result in significant 

27 alterations to the visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. 

28 Building Impacts 

29 To accommodate building two new nuclear generating units on the Crystal River site, PEF 

30 would need to clear approximately 300 ac for the main power plant site – the same area 

31 needed for the LNP site (PEF 2009a). If the Crystal River site were chosen for the proposed 

32 project, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through additional cultural 

33 resource surveys and consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties. The results 

34 would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resources impacts. If significant 

35 cultural resources were identified by these surveys, the review team assumes that PEF would 

36 use the same protective measures used at the LNP site, and therefore the impacts would be 

37 minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be avoided, land clearing, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-92 August 2010 

1 excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize important attributes of historic and 

2 cultural resources. 

3 Section 9.3.2.1 describes the transmission-line corridors. While there are no existing 

4 transmission lines connecting directly to the Crystal River site, transmission-line corridors that 

5 connect to the CREC may be used to construct transmission lines for the Crystal River site 

6 (PEF 2009a). However, a new transmission-line corridor would be built to serve the Crystal 

7 River site. If the Crystal River site were chosen for the proposed project, the review team 

8 assumes that PEF would conduct its transmission line-related cultural resource surveys and 

9 procedures in a manner similar to that for the LNP site including Florida State site-certification 

10 conditions. In addition, the review team assumes the State of Florida’s Conditions of 

11 Certification regarding transmission-line siting and building activities would also apply, and 

12 therefore the impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could 

13 not be avoided, land clearing, excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize 

14 important attributes of historic and cultural resources. 

15 Operations Impacts 

16 Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear generating units at 

17 the Crystal River site would include those associated with the operation of new units and 

18 maintenance of transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures 

19 currently used by PEF, including the State of Florida’s Conditions of Certification (FDEP 2010a), 

20 would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental 

21 effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operation of the two new units and 

22 associated impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the physical and visual 

23 APEs. 

24 Cumulative Impacts 

25 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

26 resources include rural, agricultural, and industrial development and activities associated with 

27 these land-disturbing activities such as road development. Table 9-6 lists past, present, and 

28 reasonably foreseeable projects and other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on 

29 historic and cultural resources in the geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-6 that 

30 may fall within the geographic area of interest for cultural resources include operation of CREC 

31 Units 1–5, uprate at CREC Unit 3, Crystal River Mariculture Center, other aquaculture facilities, 

32 and future urbanization. 

33 Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads and pipelines may intersect the proposed 

34 transmission-line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by long linear 

35 projects, the impacts on cultural resources would be minimal. Future projects associated with 

36 the CREC would not result in increased significance of the current physical or visual alterations 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-93 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 of cultural resources when considered in addition to past and present activities. If building 

2 associated with such activities results in significant alterations (both physical alteration and 

3 visual intrusion) of cultural resources in the transmission-line corridors, then cumulative impacts 

4 on cultural resources would be greater. 

5 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

6 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent 

7 evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building and operating 

8 two new nuclear generating units on the Crystal River site would be SMALL. This impact-level 

9 determination reflects the fact that the known cultural resources on the Crystal River site have 

10 not been evaluated by the SHPO for National Register eligibility, and if the Crystal River site 

11 were to be developed, then cultural resource surveys and evaluations would need to be 

12 conducted and PEF would assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking. Adverse 

13 effects could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

14 9.3.2.8 Air Quality 

15 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

16 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

17 affect air quality, including the shutdown of two coal-fired units, and other Federal and non18 Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. The geographic area of interest for the Crystal River site is 

19 Citrus County, which is in the West Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 

20 CFR 81.96). 

21 The emissions related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the Crystal River site would 

22 be similar to those at the LNP site. The air quality status for Citrus County as set forth in 

23 40 CFR 81.310 reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant sources in 

24 the region. Citrus County is classified as being in attainment for all NAAQSs. 

25 The atmospheric emissions related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the LNP site in 

26 Levy County, Florida, are described in Chapters 4 and 5. Emissions of criteria pollutants were 

27 found to have a SMALL impact. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria pollutant 

28 emissions at the LNP site were evaluated and also determined to have a SMALL impact. 

29 Cumulative Impacts 

30 Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-6, the most significant with regard to air quality within 

31 Citrus County are the operations of Units 1–5 at the CREC. Four of these units are fossil-fuel 

32 plants. Assuming a timely completion and startup of LNP Units 1 and 2, PEF has agreed to 

33 shut down coal-fired CREC Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2020 (FDEP 2010a). In the period 

34 while the fossil-fuel plants are in operation, their effluents are typically released through stacks 

35 with significant vertical velocity. Other industrial projects listed in Table 9-6 would have de 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-94 August 2010 

1 minimis impacts. Given that these projects would be subject to institutional controls, it is 

2 unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade to the extent that the region would be 

3 declared to be in nonattainment for any of the NAAQSs. 

4 The air quality impact of the Crystal River site development would be local and temporary. The 

5 distance from building activities to the site boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid 

6 significant air quality impacts. There are no land uses or projects, including the aforementioned 

7 units at CREC, that would have emissions during site development that would, in combination 

8 with emissions from the Crystal River site, result in a degradation of air quality in the region. 

9 Releases from the operation of two new units at the Crystal River site would be intermittent and 

10 made at low altitudes with little or no vertical velocity. The air quality impacts of the CREC are 

11 included in the baseline air quality status. The cumulative impacts from emissions of effluents 

12 from the Crystal River site and the aforementioned sources would be noticeable until 2020. 

13 After 2020, when the fossil-fuel units at CREC will likely be discontinued, the emissions from the 

14 Crystal River site and aforementioned sources would not be noticeable. 

15 The cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in 

16 Section 7.6.2. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to the location of the source. 

17 Consequently, the discussion in Section 7.6 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the 

18 Crystal River site. The review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative 

19 impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable. The review team further concludes that 

20 the cumulative impacts would be noticeable with or without the greenhouse gas emissions of 

21 the project at the Crystal River site or the potential shutdown of the fossil-fuel units at CREC. 

22 Cumulative impacts on air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

23 PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

24 foreseeable future activities exist in the geographic area of interest (local for criteria pollutants 

25 and global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The 

26 cumulative impacts on criteria pollutant air quality from emissions from the Crystal River site, 

27 other projects, and the CREC could be noticeable, principally as a result of the contribution of 

28 the fossil-fuel units at CREC. The national and worldwide cumulative impacts of greenhouse 

29 gas emissions are noticeable with or without the greenhouse gas emissions from the Crystal 

30 River site. The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from construction, 

31 preconstruction, and operations, as well as other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

32 future actions on air quality resources in the geographic area of interest would be SMALL to 

33 MODERATE for criteria pollutants (assuming the shutdown of the two coal units occurs) and 

34 MODERATE for greenhouse gas emissions. The incremental contribution of impacts on air 

35 quality resources from building and operating two new nuclear units at the Crystal River site 

36 would be insignificant for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-95 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.3.2.9 Nonradiological Health 

2 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations for the 

3 Crystal River site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

4 future actions that could affect nonradiological health, including the other Federal and non5 Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. The building activities that have the potential to affect the 

6 health of members of the public and workers include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, 

7 occupational injuries, noise, and the transport of construction materials and personnel to and 

8 from the site. The operation-related activities that have the potential to affect the health of 

9 members of the public and workers include exposure to etiological agents, noise, EMFs, and 

10 impacts from the transport of workers to and from the site. 

11 The nonradiological health impacts for the Crystal River alternative site would be similar to the 

12 impacts evaluated for the LNP site. For the same reasons discussed in Section 7.7, most of the 

13 nonradiological health impacts for building and operation (e.g., air emissions, noise, 

14 occupational injuries) would be limited to areas within approximately 2 mi from the site. 

15 Occupational injuries would occur only within the boundaries of the Crystal River site, and there 

16 would thus be no potential for cumulative impacts with other projects. Impacts of air and 

17 particulate pollutants released during building activities, and noise from construction and 

18 operation have likewise been assessed as minimal for the offsite receptors nearest to the 

19 Crystal River site. 

20 For nonradiological health impacts associated with transmission lines, the geographic area of 

21 interest would be the transmission-line corridor. As was the case for operation at the LNP site, 

22 thermal discharge from two new units built at the Crystal River site would be discharged into the 

23 CREC outfall. 

24 Building Impacts 

25 Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

26 two new nuclear units at the Crystal River site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 

27 for the LNP site. The impacts include noise, vehicle exhaust, dust, occupational injuries, and 

28 transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Applicable Federal and State regulations on air 

29 quality and noise would be complied with during the site-preparation and building phase. A 

30 detailed noise study has not been performed for the Crystal River site, but it is likely that noise 

31 impacts from building, except for rare, high-noise activities such as pile-driving, would comply 

32 with the Citrus County noise limit for industrial and agricultural areas of 75 dBA (Citrus County 

33 2010). The incidence of construction worker accidents would be the same as the incidence of 

34 accidents estimated for the LNP site. 

35 Analyses in Section 9.3.2.5 indicated that the traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Crystal River 

36 site would be minor and would not require mitigation. Interactions between the traffic destined 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-96 August 2010 

1 for the Crystal River nuclear power plant project and the other power-generating plants are likely 

2 to increase the nonradiological health effects from traffic accidents in the vicinity of the Crystal 

3 River site. The additional injuries and fatalities from traffic accidents involving transportation of 

4 materials and personnel for building of a new nuclear power plant at the Crystal River site would 

5 be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8.3 for the LNP site. Noise impacts from construction 

6 at the Crystal River site would be similar to those predicted for construction at the LNP site, 

7 although detailed noise modeling has not been performed. Noise levels would again be limited 

8 to comply with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and local 

9 regulations. 

10 The cumulative impacts of building two new units at the Crystal River site would, for the most 

11 part, be the same as for construction at the LNP site, because the bulk of the current and future 

12 projects are too distant from the Crystal River site for any interactions to occur. The exception 

13 is the Holcim Mine, which is approximately 1 mi from the CREC. Potential combined noise and 

14 particulate air emission impacts from quarry operations and nuclear plant construction activities 

15 might occur. The Crystal River Mariculture Center is also located adjacent to the Crystal River 

16 site, but combined nonradiological health impacts are unlikely to occur, given that the 

17 Mariculture center is already in operation and is unlikely to be a significant source of noise or air 

18 pollutant emissions. Combined impacts of building activities with other present and future 

19 projects in the area would be unlikely. The review team has concluded that cumulative 

20 nonradiological health impacts associated with construction at the Crystal River site and all 

21 current and foreseeable future projects would be minimal. 

22 Operational Impacts 

23 Occupational injuries and nonradiological health impacts on members of the public from 

24 operation of two new nuclear units at the Crystal River site would be similar to those evaluated 

25 in Section 5.8 for the LNP site. Occupational health impacts on workers (e.g., falls, electric 

26 shock or exposure to other hazards) at the Crystal River site are expected to be the same as 

27 those evaluated for workers at two new units at the LNP site. Exposure of the public to 

28 waterborne etiological agents at the Crystal River site would be limited by the current physical 

29 and administrative controls around the thermal discharge of the existing facility, and the 

30 exposures would be similar to those discussed in Section 5.8.1. The operation of the new units 

31 at the Crystal River site would not likely lead to an increase in waterborne diseases in the 

32 vicinity. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled in accordance with 

33 applicable OSHA regulations. Noise impacts would be similar to those predicted for operations 

34 at the LNP site, although no detailed noise modeling has been performed for the Crystal River 

35 site. Effects of EMF on human health would be controlled and minimized by conformance with 

36 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria and adherence to the standards for transmission 

37 systems regulated by the FDEP. Traffic impacts during facility operation would be less than the 

38 impacts during building (minor). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-97 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Current and future energy projects with the potential for combined impacts include the ongoing 

2 operation of the CREC; these activities include the license renewal and uprate of CREC nuclear 

3 Unit 3 and the retirement of two older coal-fired generation plants at CREC when LNP Units 1 

4 and 2 come online. The review team has concluded that the cumulative nonradiological human 

5 health impact would be minimal for operation at the Crystal River site. The increase risk to 

6 humans from exposure to etiological agents as a result of two additional nuclear closed-cycle 

7 units at the Crystal River site would be insignificant. Facility operations at Crystal River are 

8 unlikely to have any combined health impacts with other nearby projects (Crystal River Quarry 

9 and Crystal River Mariculture Center), and the other projects identified in Table 9-6 are too far 

10 away from the Crystal River site for cumulative impacts to be a concern. Thus, the cumulative 

11 nonradiological health impacts of these operations and the facility operations at the Crystal 

12 River alternative site would also be minimal. 

13 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

14 recent analyses of these issues (GCRP 2009) have been considered in the preparation of this 

15 EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region include an increase in average 

16 temperature and a decrease in precipitation, which may alter the presence of microorganisms 

17 and parasites in surface water. While the overall impacts of climate change may not be 

18 insignificant (Section 7.7), the effect of, or contribution to, these effects from operation at the 

19 Crystal River site is likely to be minor. The review team did not identify anything that would alter 

20 its conclusion regarding the presence of etiological agents or change in the incidence of 

21 waterborne diseases. 

22 Summary 

23 Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

24 review team expects that nonradiological health impacts from building and operation of two new 

25 units at the Crystal River alternative site would be similar to the impacts predicted for the LNP 

26 site. While past, present, and future activities in the geographic area of interest could affect 

27 nonradiological health in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the Crystal 

28 River site, the impacts would be localized and managed through adherence to existing 

29 regulatory requirements. The review team concludes, therefore, that cumulative impacts of 

30 nonradiological health associated with building activities and operations at the Crystal River site 

31 would be SMALL. 

32 9.3.2.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

33 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from building activities and operation 

34 for two additional nuclear units at the Crystal River site. The analysis also considers other past, 

35 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health, including 

36 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. As described in Table 9-6 

37 (Section 9.3.2), the Crystal River site consists of five power-generating plants operated by PEF, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-98 August 2010 

1 four fossil-fuel plants and one nuclear plant, CREC Unit 3. The geographic area of interest is 

2 the area within a 50-mi radius of the Crystal River site. Other than CREC Unit 3, there are no 

3 major facilities that result in regulated exposures to the public or biota within 50 mi of the Crystal 

4 River site. However, there are likely to be hospitals and industrial facilities with 50 mi of the 

5 Crystal River site that use radioactive materials. 

6 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 reactors at the 

7 Crystal River site include direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. 

8 Releases of radioactive materials and all pathways of exposure would produce low doses to 

9 people and biota offsite, well below regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to 

10 those estimated for the LNP. The NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and 

11 effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material would be an 

12 insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the Crystal River site. This conclusion 

13 is based on the radiological monitoring program conducted for the currently operating CREC 

14 Unit 3. 

15 Based on the information provided by PEF and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the NRC 

16 staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 

17 proposed AP1000 units and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and 

18 actions in the geographic area of interest around the Crystal River site would be SMALL. 

19 9.3.2.11 Postulated Accidents 

20 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

21 operations for two additional nuclear units at the Crystal River site. The analysis also considers 

22 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health 

23 from postulated accidents, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects and the 

24 projects listed in Table 9-6. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed 

25 nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

26 (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Crystal River site. As 

27 described in Section 9.3.2, the Crystal River site is adjacent to an existing power plant site; 

28 there is currently one nuclear facility on the adjacent site. There are no proposed reactors that 

29 have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe 

30 accident at any location within 50 mi of the Crystal River site. 

31 As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

32 of design basis accidents (DBAs) at the LNP site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs 

33 are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC 

34 safety criteria. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and the meteorological 

35 conditions of the Crystal River and LNP sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 

36 the environmental consequences of DBAs at the Crystal River site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-99 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Because the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Crystal River site are 

2 similar to the LNP site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor located at the Crystal 

3 River site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the LNP site. The risks for the LNP 

4 site are presented in Tables 5-17 and 5-18 and are well below the median value for current5 generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 

6 fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For the existing plant 

7 within the geographic area of interest, namely CREC Unit 3, the Commission has determined 

8 that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL (10 CFR Part 51, 

9 Appendix B, Table B-1). The planned 20-percent power uprate at CREC Unit 3 will only be 

10 approved by the NRC if the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents would 

11 continue to meet NRC’s regulatory requirements. Therefore, the impact would continue to be 

12 SMALL. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks of severe accidents at 

13 any location within 50 mi of the Crystal River site would be SMALL. 

14 9.3.3 Dixie Site 

15 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

16 a new two-unit nuclear power plant at the Dixie alternative site (hereafter Dixie site) in northern 

17 Florida. The site is located in a rural area of Dixie County northwest of the Suwannee River. 

18 The Suwannee River would be the source for water for plant cooling and other plant uses, and 

19 construction of a new water-storage reservoir would be required. Dixie is a greenfield site not 

20 currently owned by PEF (PEF 2009a). Conceptual routes of the transmission lines necessary to 

21 connect the Dixie site to the electrical grid are located in Taylor, Lafayette, Suwannee, 

22 Columbia, Gilchrist, Dixie, Levy, Citrus, Ocala, Sumter, Lake, and Hernando Counties. 

23 The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

24 resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

25 incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the Dixie site and other actions in 

26 the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRC27 authorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also included 

28 in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non-Federal, 

29 and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together 

30 with the proposed action if implemented at the Dixie site. Other actions and projects considered 

31 in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-13.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-100 August 2010 

1 Table 9-13. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Dixie Site

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects

Operation and 

Decommissioning 

of CREC Units 

1–5 

The CREC consists of five 

power-generating plants 

operated by PEF – four fossilfuel plants and one nuclear 

plant. The fossil-fuel plants 

began operations in 1966, 

1969, 1982, and 1984. The 

nuclear plant began 

operations in 1977. 

Within 50 mi of 

the Dixie site in 

northern Citrus 

County 

Operational. The State of 

Florida Siting Board’s 

Conditions of Certification for 

LNP would require PEF to 

discontinue the operations of 

the two fossil-fuel units by 

December 31, 2020, assuming 

licensing, construction, and 

commencement of operation of 

LNP occurs in a timely manner 

(DOE/EIA 2010a; FDEP 

2010a). 

Renewal of the 

operating license 

for the CREC 

nuclear Unit 3 

Extension of operations of 

CREC Unit 3 for an additional 

20-year period beyond the 

end of the current license 

term, which is valid through 

midnight on December 3, 

2016. 

Within 50 mi of 

the Dixie site in 

northern Citrus 

County 

Proposed. If granted, the 

license renewal would provide 

PEF the authority to continue 

operations through 2036. The 

draft Supplemental EIS for the 

license renewal is scheduled to 

be issued in 2010 (NRC 2010a). 

Uprate at CREC 

Unit 3 

CREC Unit 3 is planning to 

request a power uprate, or 

increase in the maximum 

power level at which the 

nuclear power plant may 

operate. The project would 

also include construction of a 

new helper cooling tower 

. 

Within 50 mi of 

the Dixie site in 

northern Citrus 

County 

Proposed. The application 

submitted to the State of Florida 

was approved in August 2008. 

USACE issued a public notice 

on May 25, 2010 (USACE, 

2010a). An application is 

expected to be submitted to 

NRC in 2010 (PEF 2009f). 

Florida Gas 

Transmission 

Company, LLC 

(FGT) Phase VIII 

Expansion Project 

Construct natural-gas 

pipelines, new compressor , 

meter, regulator stations, and 

other appurtenant facilities 

Various 

Counties in 

Alabama and 

Florida, 

including Levy, 

Citrus, and 

Hernando 

Completion expected in 2011 

(FERC 2010; Panhandle 

Energy 2010). 

3 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-101 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-13. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Parks and Conservation Areas

Parks, forests, and 

reserves 

Several parks, recreation, and 

conservation areas are located 

within the 50-mi region. 

Examples of such areas include 

Goethe State Forest, Cedar 

Keys National Wildlife Refuge; 

Cummer Sanctuary, Crystal 

River National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lower Suwannee National 

Wildlife Refuge; Crystal River 

Preserve State Park, Manatee 

Springs State Park, Yellow 

Jacket Conservation Area, 

Fowlers Bluff Conservation 

Area, Lower Coastal Creeks 

Conservation Area, and 

Steinhatchee Wildlife 

Management Area 

Throughout 

region 

Currently managed by 

various local, State, and 

Federal agencies and 

organizations. 

Development likely 

limited in these areas. 

Other Actions/Projects

Commercial forest 

management 

Managed forests for timber 

production. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Commercial dairies Several dairies are located 

within the 50-mi region, 

including the Levy County 

Dairy, Alliance, and Piedmont 

Dairies, Hill Top Dairy, Aurora 

Dairy, Dairy Production 

Systems, and Oak Grove Dairy, 

Inc. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Minor water 

dischargers and 

wastewatertreatment plants 

NPDES-permitted dischargers 

in Fanning Springs, Trenton, 

Blitchville, Bell, Chiefland, 

Cedar Key, Suwannee, and 

other locations. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Concrete 

companies 

Two ready-mixed concrete 

suppliers. 

Within 10 mi Operational 

(EPA 2010e, f) 

Bryan Farms Animal aquaculture Within 10 mi Operational (EPA 2010g) 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-102 August 2010 

1 Table 9-13. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Crystal River 

Mariculture Center 

Multi-species marine hatchery 

adjacent to the CREC. 

Within 50 mi Operational (FFWCC 

2010) 

Kaiser Agricultural 

Chemicals 

RCRA site on Suwannee River 

in Branford, Florida 

Within 40 mi Operational (EPA 2010h) 

Other Actions/Projects 

Various hospitals 

and industrial 

facilities that use 

radioactive materials 

Medical and other industrial 

isotopes 

Within 50 mi Operational in nearby 

cities and towns 

Future urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, such as 

widening, bridges, and 

railroads; construction of waterand/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 (FDOT 

2010a; Dixie County 

2006). 

2 The geographic area of interest for cumulative impacts considers all existing and proposed 

3 nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

4 (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Dixie site. An accident at a 

5 nuclear plant within 100 mi of the Dixie site could increase this risk. The CREC is within 50 mi 

6 of the Dixie site and is included in Table 9-13. Other nuclear plants in Florida, Alabama, and 

7 Georgia that are more than 100 mi from the Dixie site are not included in the cumulative impact 

8 analysis. 

9 9.3.3.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines 

10 The following analysis includes impacts from building and operating two nuclear units at the 

11 Dixie site, along with the necessary transmission lines to connect them to the electrical grid. 

12 The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

13 affect land use, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-13. For 

14 this analysis, the geographic area of interest for considering cumulative impacts is the area 

15 within the 20-mi radius of the Dixie site and within the transmission-line corridors. The review 

16 team determined that the 20-mi radius would represent the smallest area that would be directly 

17 affected because it includes the primary communities (such as Trenton, Chiefland, and Fanning 

18 Springs) that would be affected by the proposed project if it were located at the Dixie site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-103 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Historically, Dixie County was known for commercial fishing, agriculture, and timber operations. 

2 Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Dixie site include agriculture, forestry, and low-density 

3 residential development. Several subdivisions are located along the Suwannee River. The 

4 area around the site is relatively flat, but prone to flooding (PEF 2009a). The Dixie site is 

5 subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act because the site is located within one of the 

6 designated Florida coastal zone counties. Manatee Springs State Park, Yellow Jacket 

7 Conservation Area, Fowlers Bluff Conservation Area, Lower Coastal Creeks Conservation Area, 

8 and Steinhatchee Wildlife Management Area lie within the region. 

9 Zoning changes would likely be needed to accommodate construction and operation of a 

10 nuclear power plant at the Dixie site. Like the LNP site, the footprint of new power-generating 

11 units would be approximately 627 ac, with about 150 ac of additional land needed for temporary 

12 facilities and laydown yards. In addition, PEF indicates that a 1291-ac reservoir would be 

13 needed at the Dixie site to provide cooling water during periods of low flow of the Suwannee 

14 River (PEF 2009d; CH2M Hill 2009). Construction of these facilities would result in a permanent 

15 land-use change from the existing land uses described in the previous paragraph to a 

16 transportation, communications, and utilities land-use category. 

17 Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions to 

18 accommodate new workers and services. Because the workforce would be dispersed over 

19 larger geographic areas in the labor supply region, the impacts from land conversion for 

20 residential and commercial buildings induced by new workers relocating to the local area can be 

21 absorbed into the wider region. Therefore, the review team concludes that such impacts would 

22 be minimal. 

23 There are no existing transmission lines or transmission-line corridors in the geographic area of 

24 interest around the Dixie site. New transmission lines would need to be constructed to connect 

25 the site to existing transmission lines. The transmission lines would run through counties 

26 designated under the Florida Coastal Management Program. Any expansion of these 

27 transmission-line corridors would require review under the procedures established under the 

28 Florida Coastal Management Program. Procedures for siting new transmission lines in Florida 

29 are discussed in Section 4.1.2. The review team assumes that the conditions of certification 

30 issued to PEF by the FDEP would apply at all of the alternative sites 

31 The review team estimated the linear run of the expected transmission-line corridors by referring 

32 to PEF Figure 3.3.3-9 (PEF 2009d), which depicts the potential routing of corridors needed to 

33 connect the Dixie units to the grid. That figure suggests that 340 mi of transmission-line corridor 

34 would be needed. For purposes of land-use impact analysis, the review team made the 

35 assumption that 10 ac/mi would be disturbed, based on the LNP case where 1790 ac are 

36 expected to be disturbed over the 180 mi of corridor, as discussed in Section 4.1.2. The review 

37 team concludes that this assumption is not unreasonable because siting in Florida is a relatively 

38 rigorous process (Site Certification Application process), and the applicant would be bound by 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-104 August 2010 

1 permit conditions resulting from that process, which would require it to use existing corridors to 

2 the extent practicable. The review team expects that the Site Certification Application (SCA) 

3 process would be consistently applied anywhere transmission lines are proposed in Florida. 

4 Therefore, the review team concludes that about 3400 ac of land would be disturbed to 

5 construct the transmission-line corridors for the Dixie site. Similar to the case at the LNP site, 

6 the review team concludes that land-use impacts from developing about 340 mi of new 

7 transmission-line corridor to connect new units at the Dixie site would be noticeable, but not 

8 destabilizing, and additional mitigation beyond the measures and conditions identified would not 

9 be warranted. 

10 Cumulative Impacts 

11 Future urbanization in the review area could contribute to additional decreases in open areas, 

12 forests, and wetlands and generally result in some increased residential and industrialized 

13 areas. Currently, the area around the Dixie site consists of farmland, forests, and low-density 

14 rural residential land uses, but local land-use planning documents describe potential future 

15 construction of residential and commercial buildings. The population of Dixie County grew by 

16 30.6 percent between 1990 and 2000 (USCB 2000d), so it seems reasonable to expect that an 

17 increase of 3 percent per year might continue into the foreseeable future. Increased 

18 urbanization, especially long linear projects such as new or expanded roads or pipelines also 

19 would contribute to the loss of open or forested areas and increase fragmentation of habitats 

20 along or near the transmission lines. Due to the extent of new transmission lines that would be 

21 built, the review team expects that the corridors would have a noticeable impact on the local 

22 area. These projects would have limited impacts on land use because a small incremental 

23 amount of land would be converted to a new land use, and it would be adjacent to the current 

24 roads or pipelines. Development would likely be limited in the nearby parks and recreational 

25 areas. Therefore, the incremental impacts associated with increased urbanization would be 

26 minimal. 

27 Global climate change could increase temperature and reduce precipitation, which could result 

28 in reduced crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), which, in turn, may change 

29 portions of agricultural and ranching land uses in the geographic area of interest. In addition, 

30 global climate change could increase sea level and storm surges in the geographic area of 

31 interest (GCRP 2009), thereby changing land use through inundation and loss of coastal 

32 wetlands and other low-lying areas. However, existing State and national forests, parks, 

33 reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas to the extent 

34 that they are not affected by sea-level rise. Because other projects identified in Table 9-13 that 

35 are within the geographic area of interest would be consistent with applicable land-use plans 

36 and control policies and would occur in dispersed locations, the review team considers their 

37 contribution to the cumulative land-use impacts to be relatively minor and manageable. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-105 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 In the State of Florida's Conditions of Certification (FDEP 2010a), CREC Unit 1 and 2, two coal2 fired plants, would stop operating by December 31, 2020, as long as PEF completes the 

3 licensing process, construction activities, and commences commercial operation of LNP Units 1 

4 and 2 within a timely manner. If the Dixie site were selected, the review team expects the same 

5 condition would apply. If CREC Units 1 and 2 are shut down, land use at the units likely would 

6 remain industrial. Depending on economic conditions, PEF sells 60 to 95 percent of the coal 

7 plant ash to cement and building materials manufacturers, with the remainder going to Citrus 

8 Central Landfill in Lecanto, Florida. With the closure of CREC Units 1 and 2, this source of ash 

9 no longer would be available locally. The review team expects land-use impacts associated 

10 with the shutdown of CREC Units 1 and 2 would be minimal. 

11 Because detailed information about the routing of the possible new transmission-line corridors is 

12 not known at this time, a complete evaluation of potential land-use impacts cannot be made. 

13 Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s own independent review, the 

14 review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating two new 

15 nuclear reactor units at the Dixie site and other projects would be MODERATE. The proposed 

16 project would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts because of the substantial 

17 amount of land that would be needed for the proposed power plant, reservoir, and transmission 

18 infrastructure. 

19 9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality 

20 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

21 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

22 could affect water use and quality, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in 

23 Table 9-13. PEF has indicated that the development of this site for two nuclear units would 

24 require the building of a water reservoir on the Dixie site supplied with water from the Suwannee 

25 River (PEF 2009a). PEF has indicated that the site is located in an area considered to be low26 lying and flood prone, and the construction of flood protection structures may be required (PEF 

27 2009a). 

28 The geographic area of interest for surface water at the Dixie site is considered to be the 

29 drainage basin of the Suwannee River upstream and downstream of the site, because the water 

30 resource in this area that could be affected if the proposed project were located at the Dixie site. 

31 For groundwater, the geographic area of interest is limited to the alternative site because PEF 

32 has indicated no plans for use of groundwater to build or operate the plant (PEF 2009a). 

33 Historical flow data for water years 1941–2008 are available for Suwannee River near Wilcox 

34 and for the Suwannee River above the Gopher River near Suwannee, Florida (USGS 2010a, b). 

35 The Suwannee River near the Wilcox streamflow gauge is upstream of the Dixie site and the 

36 Suwannee River above the Gopher River streamflow gauge is downstream of the Dixie site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-106 August 2010 

1 Minimum flows and levels for the Suwannee River are summarized by the Suwannee River 

2 Water Management District (SRWMD) (SRWMD 2005).

3 The average streamflow reported by the SRWMD is approximately 10,000 cfs based on historic 

4 data from the gauge at Wilcox (SRWMD 2005). Mean annual flow for the past 10 years in the 

5 Suwannee River above Gopher River is reported as 7440 cfs (USGS 2009). Minimum flow and 

6 level objectives are established by the SRWMD for the Suwannee River (SRWMD 2005). For 

7 the Suwannee River near the Wilcox streamflow gauge, the recommended minimum flow is 

8 6600 cfs from May to October and 7600 cfs from November to April (PEF 2007b). These 

9 minimum flows provide an indication of the water potentially available for use in building and 

10 operating two units at the site. During the 2008 water year, these minimum flows were equaled 

11 or exceeded only during the months of March and September. SRWMD would determine the 

12 actual yield available for consumption that exceeds recommended minimum flow. Based on the 

13 available information, the review team determined that the Suwannee River occasionally does 

14 not meet the SRWMD recommendation for minimum flow for extended periods during a water 

15 year. 

16 The Lower Suwannee River was identified as being impaired by nutrients and was included on 

17 Florida’s Verified List of Impaired Waters (Hallas and Magley 2008). A USGS report on the 

18 condition of the river states, “human health and ecological concerns have arisen recently 

19 because of the large nitrogen inputs to the land surface from fertilizers, animal wastes and 

20 atmospheric deposition. This problem occurs primarily in the middle and lower Suwannee and 

21 lower Santa Fe Rivers in Florida, where spring water and diffuse upward leakage of 

22 groundwater contribute substantial loads of nitrate-N” (USGS 2004). Based on available 

23 information, the review team determined that the waters of the Lower Suwannee River are 

24 impaired because of historical activities in the basin. 

25 Building Impacts 

26 Because the building activities at the Dixie site would be similar to those at the LNP site, the 

27 review team determined that the amount of surface water needed for building activities at the 

28 Dixie site would be similar to the proposed amount of groundwater use for building at the LNP 

29 site. During building activities at the LNP site, the total maximum usage is projected to be 

30 550,000 gpd (0.85 cfs) and the projected average estimated groundwater usage is 275,000 gpd 

31 (0.43 cfs) (see Table 3-2). The review team assumed that surface water from the Suwannee 

32 River would be used at the Dixie site for potable and sanitary use as well as for various building33 related activities. This surface-water withdrawal rate is minor when compared to the average 

34 annual flow in the Suwannee River (10,000 cfs). However, as mentioned above, recommended 

35 minimum flows were met only during March and October of the 2008 water year. The applicant 

36 would need to obtain an approval from the SRWMD to use surface water from the river for 

37 building activities. Because the surface-water withdrawal would be minor compared to the 

38 average annual flow and because the withdrawal from the river would be temporary and limited 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-107 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 to the building period, the review team concludes that the impact of surface-water use for 

2 building the potential units at the Dixie site would be minimal. 

3 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to build the 

4 units at the Dixie site. The review team also assumed that the impact of dewatering the 

5 excavations needed for building two units at the site would be managed through the installation 

6 of diaphragm walls and grouting as is proposed for the LNP site. Therefore, because there 

7 would be no groundwater use and the impact of dewatering would be controlled, the review 

8 team determined that there would be minimal impact on groundwater resources. 

9 Surface-water quality would most likely be affected by surface-water runoff during site 

10 preparation and the building of the facilities. The FDEP would require PEF to develop an 

11 E&SCP and a SWPPP (PEF 2009a). The plan would identify BMPs to control the impacts of 

12 stormwater runoff. The review team anticipates that PEF would construct new detention and 

13 infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to control delivery of sediment from the disturbed area to 

14 nearby waterbodies. Sediment carried with stormwater from the disturbed area would settle in 

15 the detention ponds and the stormwater would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. While 

16 stormwater runoff is anticipated to contain nitrogen in low concentrations (Table 3-3) it is not 

17 anticipated to contribute significantly to the nutrient concentrations in the river and 

18 implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on the Suwannee River near the Dixie site. 

19 Therefore, during building activities, the surface-water-quality impacts near the Dixie site would 

20 be temporary and minimal. 

21 While building new nuclear units at the Dixie site, impacts on groundwater quality may occur 

22 from leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs 

23 PEF has proposed for the LNP site would also be in place during building activities at the Dixie 

24 site, and therefore the review team concludes that any spills would be quickly detected and 

25 remediated. In addition, groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of these 

26 activities, and therefore would be temporary. The review team examined the BMPs that could 

27 be implemented at such a site (FDEP 2010a). Because any spills related to building activities 

28 would be quickly remediated under BMPs, and the activities would be temporary, the review 

29 team concludes that the groundwater-quality impacts from building at the Dixie site would be 

30 minimal. 

31 Operational Impacts 

32 PEF determined that a cooling-water reservoir would be needed at the Dixie alternative site. 

33 The review team assumed that the cooling water system for the proposed plant, if built and 

34 operated at the Dixie alternative site, would be similar to that proposed at the LNP site; 

35 specifically, the cooling water system would use cooling towers and blowdown would be 

36 discharged to the Suwannee River. The cooling-water reservoir would provide capacity for 

37 times when adequate water from the river may not be available. PEF did not provide details of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-108 August 2010 

1 the cooling-water intake and effluent discharge locations. However, it is standard practice for 

2 power plants to design cooling-water intake and effluent discharge locations such that 

3 recirculation of discharged effluent to the intake does not occur. The reservoir was sized 

4 assuming the plant would operate on four cycles of concentration, and that the total cooling5 water requirements would be 45 Mgd (31,250 gpm). The reservoir was sized so that the 

6 storage is sufficient for a 90-day supply of cooling (PEF 2009d; CH2M Hill 2009). 

7 PEF determined that the total amount of water required to operate two units would be 

8 approximately 40,000 gpm (89 cfs). As indicated in Chapter 3, evaporative losses from cooling 

9 two units would be approximately 28,000 gpm (62 cfs). As described above, minimum flows 

10 were equaled or exceeded for only 2 months during the 2008 water year, suggesting that even 

11 with a reservoir, alternative sources of water or other water-saving strategies may be required 

12 for operation of two units at the Dixie site. Monthly mean streamflow lower than the 

13 recommended minimum flows have occurred in other recent water years, most notably in 2000 

14 (12 of 12 months were below recommended minimum flow), 2001 (10 of 12 months), 2002 

15 (12 of 12 months), 2004 (9 of 12 months), 2006 (9 of 12 months), 2007 (12 of 12 months), 2008 

16 (10 of 12 months), and 2009 (9 of 12 months). The review team determined that out of 69 water 

17 years of available streamflow record at Wilcox, mean monthly streamflow at Wilcox was less 

18 than the recommended minimum at least six months during the water year in 26 water years. 

19 Of these 26 water years, mean monthly streamflow was less than the recommended minimum 

20 at least nine months during the water year for 16 water years. The review team also determined 

21 that based on established minimum flows, the discharge in the Suwannee River at Wilcox does 

22 not exceed 22 and 16 percent of the months during the periods November through April and 

23 May through October, respectively. The cooling water withdrawal needed for the proposed 

24 plant is 89 cfs, which is less than 2 percent of the smallest recommended minimum streamflow 

25 at Wilcox in the Suwannee River. Based on the minimum flow requirements for the Suwannee 

26 River and the recent extended periods when these low flows have not been met, the review 

27 team determined that the operational impact of the proposed plant at the Dixie alternative site 

28 on surface water would be noticeable but not destabilizing. 

29 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to operate the 

30 units at the Dixie site. Therefore, because there would be no groundwater use, the review team 

31 determined that there would be no impact on groundwater resources. 

32 During the operation of the proposed plant at the Dixie site, impacts on surface-water quality 

33 could result from stormwater runoff, discharges of treated sanitary and other wastewater, and 

34 blowdown from cooling towers into the receiving waterbody. PEF did not provide the blowdown 

35 rate at the Dixie site. The review team conservatively assumed that the blowdown rate would 

36 be the same as that at the LNP site, 57,923 gpm (129 cfs). This assumption is conservative 

37 because the proposed plant at the Dixie site would use freshwater from the Suwannee River 

38 rather than more saline water at the LNP site, requiring less frequent and smaller blowdown 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-109 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 discharge. The FDEP would require PEF to develop a SWPPP (PEF 2009a). The plan would 

2 identify measures to be used to control stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). The blowdown would 

3 be regulated by FDEP pursuant to 40 CFR Part 423 and all discharges would be required to 

4 comply with limits established by FDEP in an NPDES permit. 

5 During the operation of new nuclear units at the Dixie site, impacts on groundwater quality could 

6 result from potential spills. Spills that might affect the quality of groundwater would be 

7 prevented or remediated by using BMPs. Because BMPs would be used to quickly remediate 

8 spills and no intentional discharge to groundwater should occur, the review team concludes that 

9 the impacts on groundwater quality from operation of two nuclear units at the Dixie site would be 

10 minimal. 

11 Cumulative Impacts 

12 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operation activities, the 

13 cumulative impacts analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

14 that affect the same water resources. 

15 For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the 

16 Dixie site is considered to be the drainage basin of the Suwannee River upstream and 

17 downstream of the site because this is the water resource in the river basin could be affected by 

18 the proposed project. For groundwater, the geographic area of interest is limited to 20 mi from 

19 the Dixie site because it is sufficiently large to characterize the cumulative groundwater-use 

20 impacts. Actions that have past, present, and future potential impacts on water supply and 

21 water quality near the Dixie site include existing agriculture and existing and future urbanization 

22 in the region. 

23 The U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) has compiled the state of knowledge in 

24 climate change (GCRP 2009). This compilation has been considered in the preparation of this 

25 EIS. The projections for changes in temperature, precipitation, droughts, and increasing 

26 reliance on aquifers within the Suwannee Basin are similar to those at the LNP site. Such 

27 significant changes in climate would necessitate adaptations to both surface-water and 

28 groundwater management practices and policies that are unknown at this time. 

29 Cumulative Water Use 

30 The water use during operation of the two units at the Dixie site (89 cfs) would significantly 

31 exceed the amount of water use during building activities (less than 1 cfs). The amount of water 

32 needed for plant operation, 89 cfs, is less than 1 percent of the long-term average flow of the 

33 Suwannee River at the site (10,000 cfs). Extended periods when flows in the Suwannee River 

34 are below the minimum flow levels set by the SRWMD have been observed. Reasonably 

35 foreseeable future actions in the Suwannee River basin (see Table 9-13) would also use 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-110 August 2010 

1 additional waters. Based on the minimum flow requirements for the Suwannee River and the 

2 recent extended periods when these low flows have not been met, the review team determined 

3 that the surface-water-use impact of the proposed plant at the Dixie site would be minor but 

4 alternative sources of water or other water-saving strategies may be needed to support 

5 operation of two units at this site because the river discharge is frequently less than the 

6 recommended minimum flow. 

7 Other projects listed in Table 9-13 are considered in the analysis included above or would have 

8 little or no impact on surface-water use. Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative 

9 impacts on surface-water use would be MODERATE. Building and operating the proposed 

10 plant at the Dixie site would not be a significant contributor to these water-use impacts. 

11 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to build or 

12 operate the units at the Dixie site and that groundwater impacts from dewatering would be 

13 controlled with diaphragm walls and grouting. Therefore, the review team determined that there 

14 would be minimal impact on groundwater resources. 

15 Other projects listed in Table 9-13 are considered in this analysis or would have little or no 

16 impact on groundwater use. Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on 

17 groundwater use would be SMALL. 

18 Cumulative Water Quality 

19 Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the Suwannee River upstream 

20 and downstream of the site. As mentioned above, the Lower Suwannee River was identified as 

21 being impaired by nutrients and was included on Florida’s Verified List of Impaired Waters. 

22 Water-quality information presented for the impacts of building and operating the new units at 

23 the Dixie site would also apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. The State of Florida would 

24 require PEF to develop a SWPPP (PEF 2009a), which would identify measures to be used to 

25 control stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). The blowdown would be regulated by FDEP pursuant 

26 to 40 CFR Part 423 and all discharges would be required to comply with limits established by 

27 FDEP in an NPDES permit. Such permits are designed to protect water quality, and while 

28 stormwater runoff and plant discharge are anticipated to contain nitrogen in low concentrations 

29 (Table 3-3), they are not anticipated to contribute significantly to the nutrient concentrations in 

30 the river. 

31 The lower Suwannee River appears on Florida’s list of impaired waters because of the presence 

32 of nutrients, fecal coliform, iron, and mercury in fish tissue (FDEP 2009f); therefore, the review 

33 team concluded that the cumulative impact on surface-water quality of the receiving waterbody 

34 would be MODERATE. Building and operating the proposed units at the Dixie site would not be 

35 a significant contributor to these impacts on surface-water quality because industrial and
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-111 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 wastewater discharges from the proposed units would comply with NPDES permit limitations 

2 and any stormwater runoff from the site during operations would comply with the SWPPP (PEF 

3 2009a). 

4 As stated in Section 7.2.2.2, global climate change can result in a rise in sea level that may 

5 induce saltwater intrusion in the surficial and Floridan aquifers. Projected changes in the 

6 climate for the region during the life of the proposed units include an increase in average 

7 temperature and a decrease in precipitation. These changes are likely to result in changes in 

8 agriculture including crops, pests, and the associated changes in application of nutrients, 

9 pesticides, and herbicides that may reach groundwater. As a result, groundwater quality may 

10 be altered by the infiltration of chemicals. While the changes in groundwater quality that are 

11 indirectly attributable to climate change may not be insignificant, the review team did not identify 

12 anything that would alter its conclusion regarding groundwater quality above. The review team 

13 also concluded that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from 

14 building and operating two new nuclear units at the Dixie site would likely be minimal. 

15 Therefore, the cumulative impact on groundwater quality would be SMALL. 

16 Other projects listed in Table 9-13 are either considered in the analysis included above or would 

17 have little or no impact on surface-water and groundwater quality. 

18 9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

19 Site Description 

20 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from construction 

21 and preconstruction activities and operations on terrestrial and wetland resources. The analysis 

22 also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect those 

23 resources, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 

24 9-13. For the analysis of terrestrial ecological impacts at the Dixie site, the geographic area of 

25 interest is considered to be a 20-mi-wide area centered on the Dixie site and the associated 

26 offsite and transmission-line corridors. This 20-mi radius and corridor around each proposed 

27 transmission-line is expected to encompass the locations of possible development projects 

28 potentially capable of substantially influencing terrestrial ecological resources on and close to 

29 the Dixie project site. This geographical area of interest generally coincides with those defined 

30 for hydrology and aquatic ecology, both of which are closely interrelated with the terrestrial 

31 ecology of this setting. This area includes watersheds providing direct runoff from the Dixie site 

32 to the Suwannee River and other river basins, as well as the watersheds through which the 

33 transmission lines would be routed. 

34 The Dixie site is a greenfield site located in the Gulf Coast Flatwoods ecoregion. It is situated in 

35 a remote rural area on the Lower Suwannee River, which is classified by the FDEP as an 

36 Outstanding Florida Water. The Suwannee River is considered one of the largest and most 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-112 August 2010 

1 ecologically unique blackwater river systems in the southeastern United States. Land uses in 

2 the Lower Suwannee River basin generally include agriculture, commercial forestry, and low3 density residential development. Vegetation communities present on the site and in the vicinity, 

4 including offsite corridors, are typical of those found in the Gulf Coast Flatwoods ecoregion 

5 consisting of slash pine and remnant longleaf pine with bottomland oak-gum-cypress forests in 

6 low-lying areas along most rivers (USDA 2006). Predominant cover types on the site include 

7 managed pine forestland and scrub vegetation. The topography is relatively flat with only minor 

8 relief (approximately 2 ft). 

9 The proposed associated transmission-line corridors would begin in the Gulf Coast Flatwoods 

10 ecoregion and cross the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods and Central Florida Ridges and 

11 Uplands ecoregions. Vegetation community types in the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods 

12 ecoregion include forests dominated by slash pine, longleaf pine, cabbage palm, and live oak 

13 with typical understory species of sawpalmetto, gallberry, and grasses such as bluestems and 

14 wiregrasses (USDA 2006). Vegetation community types in the Central Florida Ridges and 

15 Uplands ecoregion include sandhill vegetation such as turkey oak, bluejack oak, and longleaf 

16 pine for the dominant canopy species along with common understory species of running oak, 

17 gopher apple, and bluestem and panicum grasses (USDA 2006). 

18 Important Species 

19 Common wildlife, including important species, associated with the above-mentioned ecoregions 

20 that may occur on the Dixie site, associated offsite corridors, and transmission-line corridors, 

21 includes recreationally important species such as Florida white-tailed deer, bobcat, feral hog, 

22 squirrel, northern bobwhite, and mourning dove, as well as skunk, raccoon and several species 

23 of woodpecker. Various bird, reptile, and amphibian species also have the potential to reside on 

24 the Dixie site and within the associated transmission-line corridors (USDA 2006; FNAI 2009). 

25 Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered terrestrial species occur in Dixie County 

26 and all counties crossed by the transmission-line corridors. Some of these species may at 

27 times be found on or in vicinity of the Dixie site or within associated offsite corridors and 

28 transmission-line corridors. No critical habitat for these listed species has been designated by 

29 the FWS in Dixie County; however, no field studies have been conducted on the site and in 

30 vicinity offsite corridors or the associated transmission-line corridors. Table 9-13 lists all 

31 Federally and State-listed species that could occur on the Dixie site and in the vicinity, offsite 

32 corridors, and in the counties crossed by the likely transmission-line corridors. Counties that 

33 would be crossed by the transmission-line corridors include Citrus, Dixie, Levy, Marion, 

34 Hernando, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Sumter Counties. PEF has stated that on-the35 ground field surveys would be conducted before commencement of ground-disturbing activities 

36 on the site and in the offsite corridors and transmission-line corridors as required by the FDEP 

37 (PEF 2009a; CH2M Hill 2009; FDEP 2010a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-113 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Building Impacts 

2 Some impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would 

3 be unavoidable. Activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading (temporary 

4 and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy 

5 equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would 

6 likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the areas of disturbance. Some wildlife, including 

7 important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above 

8 projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 

9 resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

10 at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

11 would be displaced to adjacent communities. 

12 Undisturbed land adjacent to the areas of disturbance could provide habitat to support displaced 

13 wildlife, but increased competition for available space and resources could affect population 

14 levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, and birds could be 

15 injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be 

16 temporary and minor. The creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for 

17 some important species, including those that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge 

18 environments, such as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite, eastern meadowlark, and the 

19 gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks would likely exploit newly created 

20 hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be converted to and maintained 

21 in an herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide improved foraging habitat for 

22 waterfowl and wading birds. However, fragmentation of upland and wetland forests could 

23 adversely affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous forested habitat. 

24 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the Dixie site, PEF would need to clear 

25 approximately 441 ac of terrestrial habitats for the nuclear facility and approximately 579 ac for 

26 associated offsite structures and corridors, and an additional 1292 ac of land would need to be 

27 cleared and excavated to accommodate a reservoir (see Table 9-14 and Table 9-15) (CH2M Hill 

28 2009). 

29 Table 9-14. Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Dixie Alternative Site 

Land-Use Class (FLUCFCS) 

(acreage) Onsite Reservoir 

Offsite 

Corridors 

(Except 

Transmis

sion) 

Transmission 

Corridors(a)

Urban and Built Environment (percent of area) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 95 (16%) 2518 (19%) 

Agriculture 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 172 (30%) 2147 (16%) 

Upland Nonforested 0 (0%) 32 (2%) 16 (3%) 265 (2%) 

Upland Forested 433 (98%) 1170 (91%) 254 (44%) 3180 (24%) 

Water 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 149 (1%) 

30 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-114 August 2010 

1 Table 9-14. (contd) 

Land-Use Class (FLUCFCS) 

(acreage) Onsite Reservoir 

Offsite 

Corridors 

(Except 

Transmis

sion) 

Transmission 

Corridors(a)

Wetlands 8 (2%) 90 (7%) 38 (7%) 2163 (16%) 

Barren Lands 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 18 (<1%) 

Transportation, Communication and Utilities 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (<1%) 2849 (21%) 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Acreages shown in table for transmission-line corridors are total acres available, not total acres affected. 

2 Table 9-15. Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts on the Dixie Site 

Impact Areas Acres 

Onsite Impact Areas 441 

Reservoir Impact Areas 1292 

Transmission-Line Corridor Areas 13,288(a)

Offsite Impact Areas 579 

Total Impact Areas 

2312 (plus portion of 13,288 ac 

transmission corridor) 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Acreages for transmission lines are total acres available, not total acres 

affected. 

3 Based upon FLUCFCS land-use data, approximately 8 ac of wetlands would be affected on the 

4 site during building (CH2M Hill 2009). Approximately 38 ac of wetlands would be affected in the 

5 offsite corridors (CH2M Hill 2009). Approximately 90 ac of wetlands would be affected to 

6 excavate the reservoir (CH2M Hill 2009). PEF states that the nuclear facility would be sited to 

7 avoid wetlands whenever possible and potential impacts on wetlands near building zones would 

8 be minimized through the use of established BMPs (PEF 2009a). Under Federal and State 

9 permitting requirements, PEF would be obligated to mitigate any unavoidable construction 

10 impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and listed species (FDEP 2010a). 

11 New transmission system infrastructure would be needed to support a nuclear power facility at 

12 the Dixie site and would include approximately 340 mi of transmission lines (estimates made by 

13 measuring the approximate distance of hypothetical corridors provided by CH2M Hill [2009]; see 

14 Section 9.3.3.1). There are no existing transmission lines or transmission-line corridors present 

15 on the site. PEF has assumed that new transmission lines would be collocated within existing 

16 transmission-line corridors to the extent possible to minimize potential terrestrial impacts. In 

17 addition, transmission-line corridors, towers, and access road would be situated to avoid critical 

18 or sensitive habitats and species to the extent possible. Transmission-line corridor width would 

19 vary from 55 ft to 460 ft wide, depending on size, voltage, and whether or not existing corridors 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-115 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 could be used. These widths were used in the analysis of the hypothetical routes for each 

2 alternative site to determine land-use cover types (CH2M Hill 2009). The likely transmission3 line corridors for the Dixie site consist of approximately 13,288 ac, of which approximately 

4 2163 ac are wetlands (CH2M Hill 2009). Some portion of the total 3180 ac of upland forested 

5 habitat and 2163 ac of wetland habitat present in the corridors would be affected; however, 

6 because actual routes have not been determined, the impacts on forests and wetlands cannot 

7 be quantified (see Table 9-14). Under Federal and State permitting requirements, PEF would 

8 be obligated to mitigate any unavoidable construction impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and 

9 listed species. PEF stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear facility, offsite 

10 structures, and transmission-line creation would be conducted according to Federal, State, and 

11 local regulations, permit requirements, existing procedures, and established BMPs (PEF 

12 2009a). 

13 Building two new nuclear reactors at the Dixie site, including offsite corridors (excluding 

14 transmission line corridors) and a reservoir, would result in the loss of approximately 2312 ac of 

15 terrestrial habitat (Table 9-15). Clearing land within the 13, 288-ac transmission-line corridor 

16 would also result in a loss of an undetermined additional amount of forested terrestrial habitat 

17 and increase habitat fragmentation along the corridor. Other sources of impacts on terrestrial 

18 resources such as noise, increased risk of collision and electrocution, and displacement of 

19 wildlife would likely be temporary and result in minimal impacts on the resource. Because of the 

20 extent of unavoidable terrestrial habitat losses, building the two new units and associated 

21 facilities (including transmission lines) would noticeably alter the available terrestrial habitat on 

22 and in the landscape surrounding the Dixie site. 

23 Operational Impacts 

24 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources, including important species, from operation of two 

25 new nuclear units at the Dixie site include those associated with transmission system structures, 

26 maintenance of transmission-line corridors, and operation of the cooling towers. Also, during 

27 plant operation, wildlife would be subjected to impacts from increased traffic. 

28 Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling-tower drift cannot be 

29 evaluated in detail in the absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at 

30 each alternative site. Similarly, bird collisions with cooling towers cannot be evaluated in the 

31 absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at the site. The impacts of 

32 cooling-tower drift and bird collisions for existing power plants were evaluated in NUREG-1437 

33 (NRC 1996) and found to be of minor significance for nuclear power plants in general, including 

34 those with various numbers and types of cooling towers. On this basis, the review team 

35 concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling-tower 

36 drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of new nuclear units would 

37 be minor. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-116 August 2010 

1 Outdoor noise levels on the Dixie site are predicted to range from 90 dBA near the loudest 

2 equipment to 65 dBA in areas more distant from major noise sources (PEF 2009a). Noise 

3 modeling predicts not perceptible to slight increases in noise from plant operations at the site 

4 boundary (PEF 2009a). Except in areas immediately adjacent to major noise sources, expected 

5 noise levels would be below the 60- to 65-dBA threshold at which birds and red foxes (a 

6 surrogate for small and medium-sized mammals) are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). 

7 Thus, noise from operating cooling towers at the Dixie site would not be likely to disturb wildlife 

8 beyond the site boundary. Consequently, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

9 cooling-tower noise on wildlife would be minimal. 

10 An evaluation of specific impacts resulting from building of transmission lines and transmission11 line corridor maintenance cannot be conducted in any detail due to the lack of information, such 

12 as the specific locations of new rights of way that could result from transmission system 

13 upgrades. However, in general, impacts associated with transmission-line operation consist of 

14 bird collisions with transmission lines, EMF effects on flora and fauna, and habitat loss due to 

15 corridor maintenance. The impacts associated with transmission-line corridor maintenance 

16 activities include alteration of habitat, including but not limited to wetland and floodplain habitat, 

17 due to cutting and herbicide application. 

18 Transmission lines and associated structures pose a potential avian collision hazard. Direct 

19 mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed (Erickson et al. 

20 2005). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and 

21 related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory flight during darkness by 

22 flocking birds has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower height, location, 

23 configuration, and lighting also appear to play a role in avian mortality. Weather, such as low 

24 cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Waterfowl may be 

25 particularly vulnerable due to their low, fast flight and flocking behavior (EPRI 1993). Bird 

26 collisions with transmission lines are recognized as being of minor significance at operating 

27 nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors with variable numbers of 

28 power lines (NRC 1996). Accordingly, although additional transmission lines would be required 

29 for new nuclear units at the alternative sites, increases in bird collisions would be minor and 

30 these would likely not be expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. 

31 PEF would also be required to have an Avian Protection Plan in compliance with State 

32 certification guidelines (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions 

33 posed by the addition of new transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

34 EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

35 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

36 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

37 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). At a 

38 distance of 300 ft, the magnetic fields from many lines are similar to typical background levels in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-117 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 most homes. Thus, impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at 

2 operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power 

3 lines (NRC 1996). Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at 

4 cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2003). 

5 These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or 

6 mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by addition of new 

7 transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

8 Existing roads providing access to the proposed transmission-line corridors at the alternative 

9 sites would likely be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be 

10 required during the construction of new transmission-line corridors. Management activities 

11 (cutting and herbicide application) related to transmission-line corridors and related impacts on 

12 floodplains and wetlands in transmission-line corridors are recognized as being of minor 

13 significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors 

14 of variable widths (NRC 1996). The review team assumes that the same vegetation and 

15 construction management of corridors currently used by PEF would be used in the 

16 establishment and maintenance of the new corridors. Under the Conditions of Certification for 

17 the State, PEF would also be required to retain existing vegetation whenever practicable and 

18 use BMPs that comply with the Florida State regulations (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the 

19 incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and associated impacts on 

20 floodplains and wetlands posed by expanding existing corridors or the addition of a new 

21 transmission-line corridor for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

22 To summarize, the potential effects of operating two new nuclear reactors at the Dixie site would 

23 be primarily associated with the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and increased 

24 traffic. In general, operational impacts on terrestrial resources would be expected to be 

25 minimal. 

26 Cumulative Impacts 

27 There are no past or current actions in the geographic area of interest that have influenced 

28 terrestrial resources in a way exactly similar to the building and operation of the proposed two 

29 new nuclear units at the Dixie site. However, terrestrial habitats throughout the geographic area 

30 of interest have been extensively altered by a history of forestry and agricultural practices as 

31 well as low density residential development. 

32 Proposed future actions that could affect terrestrial resources in a way similar to development at 

33 the Dixie site would include the proposed expansion of SR-26 from US-19 in Gilchrist County to 

34 CR-26A in Alachua County (22 mi), located within 10-mi northeast of the Dixie site that would 

35 include expansion of the existing two-lane roadway to a four-lane divided highway. 

36 Transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographical ROI and 

37 future urbanization would also be expected to occur. However, there are several areas within 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-118 August 2010 

1 the geographical ROI that are managed for the benefit of wildlife, including but not limited to 

2 Manatee Springs State Park, Yellow Jacket Conservation Area, and Fowlers Bluff Conservation 

3 Area. 

4 The other impact on terrestrial resources at the Dixie site would be the effect of global climate 

5 change on plants and wildlife. The impact of global climate change on terrestrial wildlife and 

6 habitat in the geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change would 

7 result in a rise in sea level and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe 

8 weather, decreases in annual precipitation, and increases in average temperature (GCRP 

9 2009). Such changes in climate could alter terrestrial community composition on or near the 

10 Dixie site through changes in species diversity, abundance, and distribution. Elevated water 

11 temperatures, droughts, and severe weather phenomena may adversely affect or severely 

12 reduce terrestrial habitat. Specific predictions of habitat changes in this region due to global 

13 climate change are inconclusive at this time. However, because of the regional nature of 

14 climate change, the impacts related to global climate change would be similar for all of the 

15 alternative sites. 

16 Summary Statement 

17 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

18 PEF and the review team’s independent review. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

19 future activities in the geographic area of interest could affect terrestrial ecology in ways similar 

20 to the building of the proposed two units at the LNP site. The Dixie site and some of the 

21 associated transmission-line corridors are natural habitats that would be substantially altered by 

22 development and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of 

23 terrestrial wildlife populations in the surrounding landscape. Other anticipated development 

24 projects would further alter wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. 

25 The review team therefore concludes that the cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for 

26 terrestrial ecological resources would be MODERATE. This determination is based upon the 

27 extent of expected wetland loss and habitat fragmentation from ongoing and planned 

28 development projects, continued widespread manipulation of habitats for commercial forest 

29 management, and anticipated losses of habitat for important species. The incremental impacts 

30 from building and operating the Dixie project would be a significant contributor to the moderate 

31 cumulative impact, primarily because of a loss or modification of habitats that support wildlife, 

32 wetlands, and important species. Although incremental impacts on terrestrial resources could 

33 be noticeable near the Dixie project site, these impacts would not be expected to destabilize the 

34 overall ecology of the regional landscape. 

35 9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources for the Dixie Site 

36 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

37 aquatic ecology resources. The proposed Dixie County alternative site has no existing 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-119 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 infrastructure associated with development of a nuclear power plant. This greenfield site is 

2 adjacent to the Suwannee River, which is proposed as the water source for cooling and 

3 discharge. Water flow in the Suwannee River is managed by the SRWMD and has a multi4 tiered minimum-flow-level program designed to maintain the quality of the unique freshwater 

5 springs system throughout the middle and Lower Suwannee River basin. The recommended 

6 minimum flow for the Lower Suwannee River is 6600 cfs for May–October, and 7600 cfs from 

7 November–April. PEF maintains that there would be adequate flow to supply water through a 

8 closed-cycle cooling design for a two-unit plant. However, under drought conditions, the 

9 Suwannee River may not be able to provide sufficient water, and PEF acknowledges that 

10 building of a reservoir would be required to ensure consistent water supply (PEF 2009a). The 

11 geographic area of interest considered includes the Suwannee River watershed from the Gulf of 

12 Mexico up to Fanning Springs, Florida, because it and the associated transmission-line 

13 corridors are the area most likely to be affected by new nuclear units. 

14 The Suwannee River is classified by the State of Florida as an Outstanding Florida Water 

15 system. There are several State parks that could be affected by the proposed action. Dixie 

16 County natural areas include Fanning Springs State Park and Manatee Springs State Park, both 

17 of which have freshwater habitat used by Florida manatees seeking freshwater refuge. The 

18 offshore area from the mouth of the Suwannee River is part of the Big Bend Seagrasses 

19 Aquatic Preserve, which extends from the St. Marks River in Wakulla County to the mouth of the 

20 Withlacoochee River in Levy County. The preserve includes more than 55,000 ac of uplands in 

21 Taylor and Dixie Counties, referred to as the Big Bend marsh buffer (FDNR 1988).

22 The potential impacts on aquatic biota from building and operation of the proposed units at the 

23 Dixie site are assumed to be primarily to organisms inhabiting the Suwannee River and the 

24 immediate offshore habitat of the Gulf of Mexico.

25 Commercially and Recreationally Important Species 

26 While no commercial fisheries exist for the Suwannee River, commercial fisheries allowed near 

27 the mouth of the Suwannee in the Gulf of Mexico include black mullet, red grouper, sea bass 

28 (Centropristis sp.), gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis), grunts, blue crab, and stone crab. 

29 Recreational species include these commercial species as well as sunfish species, catfish 

30 species, and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Save our Suwannee, Inc., no date). 

31 Commercial species not previously described in Section 2.4.2 are described here. 

32 Sea Bass (Centropristis sp.) are in the same family as groupers, and they spawn offshore from 

33 January through July. Larvae develop offshore, then move to onshore habitats and begin 

34 feeding on small fish, crustaceans, and shellfish. Sea bass associate with bottom structures 

35 such as reefs and rubble (ASMFC 2005). Landings of this species for Dixie County in 2008 

36 exceeded 35,000 lb (FFWCC 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-120 August 2010 

1 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

2 Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) are two common 

3 invasive aquatic plant species that have been noted in the Suwannee River, but are largely 

4 under control (Hoyer et al. 2005; FDEP 2002a). These species are managed by the State of 

5 Florida and should not be affected by power plant operations.

6 Critical Habitats 

7 Critical habitats for the threatened gulf sturgeon occurs on the Gulf Coast of Florida in the 

8 Suwannee River and immediate offshore area and are described further under the Federally 

9 and State-listed species subheading for gulf sturgeon (68 FR 13370). The nearshore areas off 

10 Dixie County in the Gulf of Mexico are designated by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management 

11 Council as essential fish habitat Ecoregion 2, which extends from Tarpon Springs north to 

12 Pensacola Bay, Florida (GMFMC 2004). Essential fish habitat has been designated by NMFS 

13 for the nearshore Gulf of Mexico area at the mouth of the Suwannee River, upstream to Little 

14 Lake City, Florida, for species and life stages listed in Section 2.4.2, Table 2-15. There are no 

15 habitat areas of particular concern near the Dixie site. 

16 Federally and State-Listed Species 

17 Federally and State-listed aquatic species that may occur near the Dixie County site and along 

18 existing transmission-line corridors include the endangered Florida manatee, green sea turtle, 

19 leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, smalltooth sawfish, and the 

20 threatened gulf sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtle. Detailed species information is provided in 

21 Section 2.4.2.3. 

22 Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) 

23 The Florida manatee northwest Florida population, which includes Citrus and Levy Counties, 

24 constitutes approximately 12 percent of the total manatee population. This subpopulation of 

25 manatees has the greatest concentration in the Crystal River area, where they are protected 

26 under the ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 USC 1361, et seq.), 

27 and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. In the winter, manatees migrate to warmer waters near 

28 the coast and are known to occur in the Suwannee River in Manatee Springs State Park (FDEP 

29 2002b) and Fanning Springs State Park (FDEP 2009c). 

30 Sea Turtles

31 Four species of sea turtle are listed as Federally and State endangered, with the loggerhead 

32 sea turtle listed at both Federal and State levels as threatened. All sea turtles have certain life33 history similarities in that females swim ashore to sandy beaches and deposit eggs in nesting 

34 pits that are covered to allow incubation. Juveniles hatch, struggle out of the sandy nest and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-121 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 make their way to their respective ocean habitats. Although there are no sandy coastline 

2 habitats in the area of the Suwannee River, juvenile and adult sea turtle life stages have been 

3 found in the offshore Gulf of Mexico area. Sea turtle sightings offshore of the Suwannee River 

4 have been documented since 1999. 

5 Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

6 The current range of the gulf sturgeon is limited to the Mississippi River east to the Suwannee 

7 River, Florida, where the Suwannee River supports the largest subpopulation of gulf sturgeon 

8 (Carr et al. 1996). Critical habitat for Florida is designated for 182 mi of the Suwannee River, 

9 12 mi of the northern Withlacoochee River where it branches off to the north of the Suwannee 

River, and 211 mi2 10 of estuarine/marine area of Suwannee Sound that is north of Cedar Key 

11 (68 FR 13370). Gulf sturgeon show a high homing fidelity (site-specific) spawning behavior 

12 based on gene flow between river drainages (Stabile et al. 1996). Male gulf sturgeon mature in 

13 7 to 9 years and females in 8 to 12 (Huff 1975). Adults spend 8 to 9 months in river habitat, 

14 near springs in the Suwannee River, and move to estuarine or Gulf of Mexico waters during the 

15 coolest months to feed (FWS and GSMFC 1995). Spawning occurs in the Suwannee River 

16 when temperatures range between 17 to 22°C in late March to mid-April and the substrate is 

17 characterized as clean gravel-cobble mix over rock with strong, persistent laminar flows and 

18 eddies that created reversed or diminished bottom currents (Sulak and Clugston 1998). Young19 of-the-year sturgeon disperse widely downstream of spawning habitats within the river inhabiting 

20 open sandy areas away from shorelines and vegetation (Sulak and Clugston 1998). Timing and 

21 location of spawning grounds in the Suwannee River are not well documented, but it is believed 

22 that females seek out gravel or rock bottom habitats associated with freshwater springs (FWS 

23 and GSMFC 1995). Because specific spawning locations and habitat usage by gulf sturgeon 

24 within the Suwannee River are largely unknown, the critical habitat designation includes the 

25 entire Suwannee River. 

26 Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

27 Observations of smalltooth sawfish north of Port Charlotte are rare, but three sightings along the 

28 coastal Dixie County region have been documented since 2002, notably in the mouth of the 

29 Suwannee River (FMNH 2009). However, adverse impacts are unlikely because these fish 

30 would avoid activities occurring in these areas. 

31 Building Impacts 

32 Cooling-water intake and discharge structures on the Swannee River in addition to a cooling33 water reservoir would be required at the Dixie County site. Installation of a new intake and 

34 discharge would result in the temporary displacement of aquatic biota within the vicinity of both 

35 structures. It is expected that these biota would return to the area after installation is complete. 

36 Sedimentation due to disturbances of the river bank and bottom during installation activities 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-122 August 2010 

1 could affect local benthic populations. Impacts on aquatic organisms would be temporary and 

2 largely mitigable through the use of BMPs. However, as the Suwannee River is considered 

3 critical habitat for the gulf sturgeon, some loss of critical habitat may occur through dredging or 

4 installation activities associated with intake and discharge structures. Building impacts of a 

5 cooling-water reservoir may be significant depending on the siting of the reservoir. During the 

6 review team’s site visit, observations of the proposed site via public roads indicated that there 

7 are streams present that are either perennial or seasonal. Offsite transmission-line corridors 

8 would cross two streams, and one open waterbody (CH2M Hill 2009). These aquatic resources 

9 have not been examined for diversity of aquatic biota, but nonetheless, still represent aquatic 

10 habitat that would likely be affected by the building of facilities for the site. The use of good 

11 management practices and BMPs during building activities could result in minimal impacts on 

12 the gulf sturgeon, which occurs in the vicinity of the proposed intake and discharge locations for 

13 the Dixie County site in the Suwannee River (CH2M Hill 2009). Consultation with FDEP and 

14 FWS would likely be required for in-water work associated with designated critical habitat for the 

15 gulf sturgeon and presence of manatees. PEF would comply with the Standard Manatee 

16 Conditions for In-Water Work (FDEP 2010a) for building activities in the Suwannee River to 

17 prevent impacts on manatees in the vicinity of intake and discharge installation activities. Due 

18 to the upriver location of the Dixie site, it is unlikely that there would be impacts on the 

19 smalltooth sawfish or sea turtles. 

20 New transmission-line infrastructure would be required for a new two-unit facility. Currently no 

21 existing transmission-line corridors are located within the immediate vicinity of the Dixie 

22 greenfield site, and new corridors would need to be established. Likely transmission-line 

23 corridors identified by PEF appear to follow those identified for LNP without the need for an 

24 LNP-to-CREC corridor, and additional corridors in Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Madison, and 

25 Suwannee Counties (CH2M Hill 2009). PEF anticipates transmission-line corridors would cross 

26 13 streams and 140 open waterbodies and should have minimal impact on aquatic resources 

27 (CH2M Hill 2009). 

28 Operational Impacts 

29 Impingement and entrainment of organisms from the Suwannee River and inshore Gulf of 

30 Mexico and from a manmade reservoir would be the most likely impacts on aquatic populations 

31 that could occur from operation of two new nuclear units at the Dixie County site. Assuming a 

32 closed-cycle cooling system, a maximum through-screen intake velocity of 0.5 ft/sec or less, 

33 and an intake flow of less than or equal to 5 percent of the mean annual flow which meets the 

34 EPA’s Phase I regulations for new facilities (66 FR 65256), the anticipated impacts on aquatic 

35 populations from entrainment and impingement are expected to be minimal. Thermal 

36 discharges from operations may result in increased use of habitat by manatees near the point of 

37 discharge to the Suwannee River and decrease some habitat suitable for Gulf sturgeon. Plant 

38 outages that result in cold shock could affect manatees and other aquatic biota that become 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-123 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 habituated to power plant thermal discharges. However, it is unlikely that both units would be 

2 shut down at the same time. Operational impacts associated with water quality and discharge 

3 cannot be determined without additional detailed analysis. However, based on the review 

4 team’s experience with other facilities, the review concludes that with proper design the impacts 

5 on aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Dixie County site would 

6 likely be minimal with FDEP NPDES compliance. 

7 The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

8 the transmission-line corridors would also be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs are 

9 used. 

10 Cumulative Impacts 

11 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within the Suwannee River basin include the 

12 operation of dairy farms and small businesses that discharge wastewater to the Suwannee 

13 River watershed within 10 mi of the Dixie site. These dairy operators and businesses have 

14 active NPDES permits for discharge. 

15 Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

16 nuclear facility can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

17 include shoreline development (i.e., removal of habitat), increased water needs, and increased 

18 discharge of effluents into the Suwannee River. The effects of continued dairy practices could 

19 result in additional habitat loss and/or degradation due to water use using surface waters and 

20 groundwater withdrawal, point and non-point source pollution, siltation, and bank erosion. The 

21 review team is also aware of the potential for global climate change affecting aquatic resources. 

22 The impact of global climate change on aquatic organisms and habitat in the geographic area of 

23 interest is not precisely known. Global climate change would result in a rise in sea level and 

24 may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, decreases in annual 

25 precipitation, and increases in average temperature (GCRP 2009). Such changes in climate 

26 could alter aquatic community composition on or near the Dixie site through changes in species 

27 diversity, abundance and distribution. Elevated water temperatures, droughts, and severe 

28 weather phenomena may adversely affect or severely reduce aquatic habitat, but specific 

29 predictions on aquatic habitat changes in this region due to global climate change are 

30 inconclusive at this time. The level of impact resulting from these events would depend on the 

31 intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic communities. 

32 Summary Statement 

33 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by PEF, 

34 the State of Florida, and the review team’s independent review. The review team concludes 

35 that the impacts from building intake and discharge structures for two new nuclear units at the 

36 Dixie site would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the critical habitat within the Suwannee 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-124 August 2010 

1 River for the threatened gulf sturgeon. The review team also concludes that the aquatic impacts 

2 from operation of two new units would be minimal. Therefore, the review team concludes that 

3 the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new reactors on the Dixie site combined 

4 with other past, present, and future activities on most aquatic resources in the Suwannee River 

5 would be MODERATE. This is because of the potential for impact on gulf sturgeon and on 

6 designated critical habitat for gulf sturgeon, the loss of aquatic habitat, particularly during low 

7 flow conditions in the river due to the consumptive loss of water from closed-cycle cooling, and 

8 unspecified impacts related to the construction and operation of a cooling reservoir. Impacts 

9 related to the cooling reservoir could be minimized through proper siting and the use of BMPs 

10 during construction. The use of a cooling reservoir would partially mitigate the effects of 

11 consumptive water loss on aquatic habitat during low river flow. The incremental contribution of 

12 building and operating the two new reactors at the Dixie site to the cumulative impacts within the 

13 ROI would not likely result in destabilization of aquatic resources or populations but would 

14 significantly contribute to noticeable impacts on aquatic resources and populations. 

15 9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics 

16 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from building 

17 activities and operations at the Dixie site, which is located in a remote rural area on the lower 

18 Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida. The analysis considers other past, present, and 

19 reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect socioeconomics, including other Federal and 

20 non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-13 and approximately 340 mi of transmission lines. For 

21 the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Dixie site, the geographic area of interest is 

22 considered to be the region described by a 50-mi radius centered on the Dixie site. The review 

23 team gave special consideration to Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, and Levy Counties, because that 

24 is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the 

25 socioeconomic impacts of site development and operation at the Dixie site, the review team 

26 undertook a reconnaissance survey of the site using readily obtainable data from the Internet or 

27 published sources. 

28 The Dixie site is a greenfield site in eastern Dixie County. The review team drew upon USCB 

29 2000 data to find the available total construction workforce within the host county, adjacent 

30 counties, and any nearby counties with a major population center within a reasonable 

31 commuting distance from the site. For the Dixie site, this included Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, 

32 Taylor, Levy, Suwannee, and Alachua Counties. In 2000 the total construction workforce in 

33 these counties was 10,035 workers. Based on this availability, the review team assumed that 

34 75 percent of the 3300-person workforce involved in building the two-unit plant, or 2475 

35 workers, would migrate into the area. 

36 The review team identified Dixie County and four counties near Dixie County (Gilchrist, 

37 Lafayette, Alachua, and Levy) as the primary Economic Impact Area (EIA) for the Dixie County 

38 site on the basis of expected effects of in-migrating workers and families. All of these counties, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-125 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 except Alachua, are rural, with populations in 2000 ranging between about 7000 people in 

2 Lafayette County to about 35,500 people in Levy County. Much of the population in Alachua 

3 County resides in the greater Gainesville metropolitan area (2000 population of 95,447 people). 

4 The majority of the population in the remaining four counties resides in unincorporated 

5 settlements or rural areas. The largest incorporated communities in the four rural counties of 

6 the EIA are Williston and Chiefland in Levy County and Cross City in Dixie County; each with a 

7 population of close to 3000 people in 2008. Large portions of Dixie, Lafayette, and Levy 

8 Counties are year-round or seasonal marshland or commercial forests, which are generally only 

9 sparsely populated. 

10 The review team expects that some of the in-migrating workers would choose to reside in 

11 Alachua County because of the amenities available in the large city of Gainesville. Because 

12 Suwannee and Taylor Counties offer no attractions that would encourage a longer commute, 

13 the review team expects few in-migrating workers would locate in Suwannee or Taylor County. 

14 The review team focused on effects of the building-phase workforce because the operations 

15 workforce would be smaller and, following after the larger building-related workforce cause 

16 expected smaller socioeconomic impacts. Table 9-16 provides some socioeconomic data for 

17 the five counties. 

18 Table 9-16. Socioeconomic Data for the Dixie Site EIA

Data Category Dixie Gilchrist Lafayette Levy Alachua 

Data 

source 

Population 

 1980 7751 5767 4035 19,870 151,369 (1a) 

 1990 10,585 9667 5578 25,923, 181,596 (1a) 

 2000 13,827 14,437 7022 34,450 217,955 (1) 

 Projected 

2010 15,244 17,866 8260 40,694 243,916 (2) 

 

Median 

Household 

Income (1999) $26,082 $30,328 $30,651 $26,959 $31,426 (3) 

Vacant Housing 

Units 2157 885 518 2703 7604 (1) 

Total Housing 

Units 7362 5906 2660 16,570 95,113 (3) 

19 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-126 August 2010 

1 Table 9-16. (contd) 

Data Category Dixie Gilchrist Lafayette Levy Alachua 

Data 

source 

Workforce 

 Employed 4612 5756 2540 12,935 105,293 (3) 

 Construction 492 682 184 1397 5234 (1) 

Total Schools(a) 2 A-B, 1 B, 1 C 2 A-B, 2 C 1 A-B-C, 1 A-B 

1 A, 1 A-B-C, 

4 A-B, 3 B-C, 

2 B, 2 C 

2 A, 7 B, 

3 A-B-C, 

24 A-B, 2 

B-C, 5 C (4)( 

 

Number of 

Schools Failing 

StudentTeacher Ratio 0 0 0 0 0 (4) 

 

Police Sheriff Dept – 13 

positions 

Sheriff Dept – 

9 positions 

Sheriff Dept – # 

positions 

Sheriff Dept 

and police 

depts. in Inglis, 

Williston, 

Chiefland, 

Cedar Key 

Sheriff 

Dept and 

police 

depts. in 

Gainesvil

le, 

Alachua, 

High 

Springs, 

Santa Fe 

Comm. 

College, 

and Univ 

of Florida (5)(4) 

 

Emergency 

Services 

6 fire stations; 2 

EMS stations 

EMS 

department 

County rescue 

24/7; 1-4 units 

EMS from the 

14 fire 

stations; 8 paid 

and 183 

volunteer 

firefighters 

EMS and 

fire 

rescue 

departme

nts (6) 

 

Population 

 White 89.7 91.6 80.1 87.1 73.5 

 AfricanAmerican 9.2 7.3 14.7 11.2 19.3 

 Hispanic 1.7 2.8 9.1 3.9 5.7 

 Low-Income 19.1 14.1 17.5 18.6 22.8 (3) 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-127 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-16. (contd) 

(a) A-elementary school; B-middle school ;C-high school 

Sources: 

(1a) USCB 1990 

(1) USCB 2000b 

(2) 2010 projection assuming 2000-2008 growth rate (from USCB 2009) extends to 2010 

(3) USCB 2000c 

(4) FDOE 2009a 

(5) Dixie: Dixie Sheriff 2009 

 Gilchrist: Gilchrist Sheriff 2009 

 Lafayette: Lafayette Sheriff 2009 

 Levy: Section 2.5.2.6 

 Alachua: Alachua County Florida 2010 

(6) Dixie: Dixie EM 2009 

 Gilchrist – Gilchrist EM 2009 

 Lafayette: Lafayette EM 2009 

 Levy: Section 2.5.2.6 

 Alachua: Alachua County Florida 2010 

EMS = emergency management services 

2 For purposes of this analysis the review team assumed there would be 619 in-migrants into 

3 Alachua County and the remaining 1856 in-migrating workers would be distributed among the 

4 four rural counties of the EIA as follows: 34 percent to Dixie County (639 workers); 14 percent 

5 to Gilchrist County (262 workers); 8 percent to Lafayette County (154 workers); and 43 percent 

6 to Levy County (801 workers). The review team further assumed that all in-migrating workers 

7 would bring families; this is unlikely but contributes to the provision of an upper bound on the 

8 population increase associated with the project. The review team used the 2.49-person 

9 average Florida family size in 2000 to project the distribution of new jobs and population in the 

10 EIA due to in-migrating workers, as listed in Table 9-16. 

11 Physical and Aesthetics Impacts 

12 With the exception of the need to construct a new access road to the Dixie site, many of the 

13 physical impacts of building and operation on workers and the public would be the same as 

14 those described for the LNP site. People who work or live around the site could be exposed to 

15 noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions from building activities. Building workers and 

16 personnel working onsite could be the most affected. Air-pollution emissions are expected to be 

17 controlled by applicable BMPs and Federal, State, and local regulations. During station 

18 operation, standby diesel generators used for auxiliary power would have air-pollution 

19 emissions. It is expected that these generators would see limited use and, if used, would be 

20 used for only short time periods. Applicable Federal, State, and local air-pollution requirements 

21 would apply to all fuel-burning engines. At the site boundary for most sites, the annual average 

22 exposure from gaseous emission sources is anticipated to not exceed applicable regulations 

23 during normal operations. The impacts of station operations on air quality are expected to be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-128 August 2010 

1 minimal. As with building impacts, potential offsite receptors during operations are generally 

2 located well away from the site boundaries. 

3 Residential and commercial areas are located away from the site boundaries, applicable air4 pollution regulations would have to be met by PEF, and applicable BMPs would be put in place, 

5 including during the construction and use of the site access road. Therefore, based on 

6 information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review of reconnaissance-level 

7 information, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating the 

8 station would have minimal impact on workers and the local public around the Dixie site. 

9 Building activities and station operations are not expected to affect any offsite buildings. Most 

10 buildings are well removed from the site boundaries. Because this is a greenfield site, there are 

11 no onsite buildings to be affected by shock and vibration from pile-driving and other related 

12 activities. No long-term physical impacts on structures, including any residences near the site 

13 boundaries, would be expected. Therefore, based on consideration of reconnaissance-level 

14 information, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of station building and 

15 operation on offsite buildings would be minor. 

16 As the estimated 340 mi of transmission lines are put in place and the buildings and cooling 

17 towers associated with the new reactors reach their final heights and begin operating, they 

18 would add an industrial landscape that is visible to viewers, with a noticeable aesthetic impact. 

19 In places requiring the clearing of new transmission-line corridors, aesthetic impacts would be 

20 noticeable but not destabilizing, depending on the proximity of viewers and the nature of 

21 vegetation remaining between them and the corridors. Given the general characteristics of the 

22 area, there would likely be vegetative screening around the site that would potentially mitigate 

23 the aesthetic impacts at the reactor site. 

24 Demographic Impacts 

25 Table 9-17 lists the estimated project-related population migrating into the EIA at peak 

26 workforce levels and the population increase in each county between 1990 and 2000 and 

27 between 2000 and 2010. As seen in Table 9-17, the EIA has experienced population growth at 

28 least as large as the predicted increase from the proposed new units. For instance, Dixie 

29 County experienced a 30.6-percent increase in population between 1990 and 2000. The review 

30 team estimates that the proposed project would add an additional 9.5 percent to the projected 

31 2010 population for Dixie County, or less than 1 percent per year over the decade of 

32 construction. Therefore the review team determined that the project related demographic 

33 impacts for the five counties would be minor.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-129 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-17. Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA County Percent Population Increase 1990-2000(a) Projected Percent Increase 2000–2010(b) Workers In-Migrating to Construct Dixie Plant Civilian Workforce in 2007(c) Population of In- Migrating Workers and Family Members Population of Workers and Families: as a Percent of Projected 2010 Population Population of Workers and Families: as a Percent of Projected 2010 Population + In- Migrants 

Dixie 30.6 10.3 639 5547 1592 10.4 9.5 

Gilchrist 49.3 23.8 262 7810 653 3.7 3.5 

Lafayette 25.9 17.6 154 2879 382 4.6 4.4 

Levy 32.9 18.1 801 16,744 1995 4.7 4.5 

Alachua 20 11.8 619 126,432 1541 0.6 0.6 

(a) Based on USCB data, as reported in PEF 2007b. 

(b) Calculated as 1.25 times percent change 2000-2008 shown in USCB 2009, i.e., assumes rate of change for first 

 eight years would continue through last two years of the decade. 

(c) Fedstats for Florida and Florida Counties. Compiled from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2010). 

2 Economic Impacts 

3 The review team determined that the impact of jobs associated with building the plant would 

4 have no noticeable effect on total employment and income in Alachua County. However, the 

5 review team determined that the impact of jobs associated with building the plant would have a 

6 noticeable beneficial effect on total employment in the four rural counties, with likely short-term 

7 noticeable effects in Dixie County during the period of peak workforce when the in-migrating 

8 workers are projected to be about 11.5 percent of the 2007 civilian workforce in the county. The 

9 direct jobs filled by local residents would add to the project’s effect on employment, as would the 

10 indirect jobs created as a result of the multiplier effect, as described in Sections 4.4.3 and 5.4.3. 

11 This peak in employment would be temporary, transitioning to the lower employment effects of 

12 plant operations, when approximately 541 operations jobs (70 percent of operations jobs) are
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-130 August 2010 

1 expected to be filled by in-migrating operations workers and a smaller number of local residents 

2 are expected to fill the associated indirect jobs. Consequently, the review team concludes that 

3 the proposed project would have a noticeable, beneficial, but temporary impact on employment 

4 in the four rural counties of the EIA during the years of peak workforce, followed by a minor, 

5 beneficial long-term impact during operations. 

6 State and local taxes would be governed by Florida law. The review team assumed that tax 

7 revenues generated from sales and use taxes associated with the building and operation of a 

8 plant at the Dixie site would be approximately the same as those evaluated for the LNP site in 

9 Sections 4.4.3.3 and 5.4.3.3, with a similar minor impact on revenues for the EIA and the region, 

10 along with a similar delay in substantial property tax payments to Dixie County until the 

11 commencement of operations. The review team concluded that increased property taxes from 

12 the two units following reassessment for improvements and for its use as a utility would have a 

13 substantial beneficial impact on Dixie County. The review team found that additional property 

14 taxes on new houses built by in-migrating workers would constitute a small percentage increase 

15 in the local tax base in the EIA; thus the impact of both building and operations on residential 

16 property tax revenues would be minor. 

17 Housing 

18 The review team compared the 2000 figures for vacant housing in the EIA listed in Table 9-16 

19 with the number of in-migrating workers projected for peak building years listed in Table 9-17. 

20 The housing figures do not include RV parks, campgrounds, or hotels, and thus provide a lower 

21 bound of what would be available to construction workers. The review team divided the 

22 projected increase in population without the project between 2000 and 2010 by 2.49 (Florida 

23 average family size) to estimate the number of housing units required to accommodate that 

24 population increase. 

25 The U.S. Census Housing Profile (USCB 2000b; BEA 2010) for each of the five counties in the 

26 EIA estimated the following: 

27 • Dixie County – a total housing stock of 7362 units with a rental vacancy rate of 29 percent 

28 (approximately 2157 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

29 • Gilchrist County – a total housing stock of 5906 units with a rental vacancy rate of 15 percent 

30 (approximately 885 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

31 • Lafayette County –a total housing stock of 2660 units with a rental vacancy rate of 19 percent 

32 (approximately 518 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

33 • Levy County – a total housing stock of 16,570 units with a rental vacancy rate of 16 percent 

34 (approximately 2703 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-131 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 • Alachua County – a total housing stock of 95,113 units with a rental vacancy rate of 8 percent 

2 (approximately 7604 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

3 The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be absorbed into the existing 

4 housing stock in the EIA without a measureable impact. Based on the information provided by 

5 PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that housing 

6 impacts of building and operating two nuclear units at the Dixie site would not be noticeable. 

7 Public Services 

8 In discussions with county personnel (Dixie County 2009a, b; Gilchrist County 2009; Lafayette 

9 County 2009; Taylor County 2009), the review team learned that, while all counties welcome 

10 additional development and expect that they could manage it, some public services in the four 

11 rural counties of the EIA are currently over, at, or near capacity. Levy County is over capacity 

12 for fire-protection services. Dixie County is near or at capacity at the sheriff’s department, but 

13 has plans to expand for future growth, as in the past, and the department is about to add 

14 another deputy. Dixie County is also near or at capacity in the management of roads and 

15 streets. There are no capacity issues for fire protection or emergency medical response. For 

16 general healthcare, Dixie County residents use resources in Gainesville for serious medical 

17 problems, and this practice is expected to continue. Water and wastewater are generally 

18 handled through wells and residential septic systems in Dixie County, with no capacity issues. 

19 Gilchrist County can handle present demands for police and emergency services, but might 

20 need to add a deputy and another emergency management service (EMS) station and vehicle if 

21 200 families were to move in; capacity is adequate for healthcare, with people using primary 

22 care providers within the county and going to Gainesville or Chiefland for other needs; water 

23 and wastewater are generally provided with wells and septic systems, with no capacity issues 

24 currently. Lafayette County is not at capacity for any services presently, and would add to law 

25 enforcement, fire-protection services (all volunteer currently), and EMS as needed; the county is 

26 currently seeing development of a new prison that will bring in 150 people, which will be an 

27 exercise in responding to new growth. Demands on the planning and permitting infrastructure in 

28 these four counties may increase substantially for a short period in response to efforts to rapidly 

29 expand housing availability. 

30 The review team assumed that the counties and communities in the EIA for the Dixie site, like 

31 those for the LNP site, have planned to meet needs for public services based on forecast 

32 population increases that did not include the presence of a workforce associated with 

33 constructing and operating a nuclear plant. The review team based its analysis of potential 

34 impacts on public services on the level of population increase represented by in-migrant 

35 workers during peak building years added to forecasted population growth without the proposed 

36 project. In addition, the review team took into consideration that the EIA would not receive a 

37 significant increase in property tax revenues during the period of peak demand, and that Dixie 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-132 August 2010 

1 County would be the only major property tax recipient once the proposed units went into 

2 operation. Consequently, the review team expects impacts on public services during peak 

3 building years would be noticeable and adverse in Dixie County, particularly on law enforcement 

4 and road management, and all of the communities near the proposed site and minor in the rest 

5 of the EIA, with the exception of Levy County, where a noticeable adverse impact on fire6 protection services is expected. Once the project transitions to operations, the impacts on 

7 public services are expected to moderate, in part because of the reduction in in-migrant 

8 population and in part because the counties and communities will have expanded capacity to 

9 address peak building-phase demand. The public service providers in the four rural counties of 

10 the EIA may find it more difficult to respond effectively because the demand for service would 

11 increase rapidly and substantially, persist for several years, but then decline substantially as the 

12 project-related workforce rises and falls. 

13 Transportation 

14 Roads closest to the proposed Dixie site include US-19/98/27A/SR55 (US-19), SR-349, and 

15 SR-51. US-19 is a four-lane divided rural highway that crosses Dixie County from northwest to 

16 east-southeast, providing access to the metropolitan areas of Tallahassee (northwest) and 

17 Tampa (south). SR-349, extending from US-19 to the north county boundary in the northeast 

18 part of the county and SR-51, running north-south along the Steinhatchee River, are two-lane, 

19 undivided minor arterials. Dixie County has assigned a LOS standard of “B” to US-19 and “D” to 

20 the State routes and its county roads (Dixie County 2006). CR-349 extends south and 

21 southwest from the intersection of SR-349 and US-19 to the coast at Suwannee; other county 

22 roads extend northeast and southwest from US-19 farther west along the highway. Dixie 

23 County classifies the county roads as undivided minor arterials or undivided major collectors. 

24 Traffic volumes in 2008 on SR-349 ranged from 2111 to 6400; volumes on SR-51 in Taylor and 

25 Lafayette Counties ranged from 309 to 3000; and volumes on US-19 ranged from 4700 to 

26 12200 (FDOT 2008). PEF has indicated that an access road would need to be constructed at 

27 the Dixie site. 

28 US-19 would be the main artery carrying workers from western Dixie County and the three 

29 adjacent counties, as well as from Gainesville and Taylor Counties and other places in 

30 nonadjacent counties. The review team considered the impact of building-related traffic in terms 

31 of the likelihood that it would reduce the LOS along US-19 to be lower than the assigned 

32 standard “B.” The review team assumed 2281 trips daily (following LNP site analysis in 

33 Section 4.4.4.1), split 65 percent to/from the southeast and 35 percent to/from the northwest, 

34 based on the assumed distribution of in-migrating worker residence discussed in Table 9-17. At 

35 morning shift change, this would add an additional 1977 cars to the total flow on US-19, 499 

36 incoming from northwest, 926 from southeast; and 359 outgoing to the southeast, 193 to the 

37 northwest. The highest 2008 AADT count on US-19 in Dixie County was at the eastern county 

38 line, at the bridge over the Suwannee River, with 6200 cars going northwest and 6000 cars 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-133 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 going southeast. Morning flow of building workers would add 926 cars to those going northwest 

2 from the county line toward the plant site and 359 cars leaving the county toward the southeast. 

3 This increase of about 15 percent of current flow to the northwest could change LOS at the 

4 bridge. In addition, there are five road intersections with US-19 within 2 mi of the bridge and 

5 additional traffic on these roads feeding into US-19 might affect LOS at the intersections. While 

6 additional analysis would be needed, the review team concludes that building-related traffic 

7 during peak workforce years could have a noticeable adverse effect on segments of US-19 and 

8 at intersections with State and county roads within Dixie County, especially during the period of 

9 peak onsite workforce. 

10 Education 

11 Table 9-16 provides data about schools in the four rural counties of the EIA. All schools met the 

12 State teacher-student ratio classroom requirements in 2007–2008. The review team assumed 

13 that school districts in these counties, like those for the LNP site, would address short-term 

14 gains in student population with mobile classrooms and that the preschool through 12th grade 

15 (PK–12) public schools would be funded according to the Florida equalized funding formula 

16 (FDOE 2009b). The review team assumed that students would accompany each in-migrating 

17 worker family in the average of the ratios of students per household from counties in the LNP 

18 site listed in Table 2-35. The estimated numbers of new students in each of the four rural 

19 counties of the EIA during peak workforce years are listed in Table 9-18. 

20 Table 9-18. Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years

County 

In-Migrating 

Worker 

Households 

Grades 

PK–3 

Students(a) 

New 

Rooms 

Grades 

4–8 

Students(b) 

New 

Rooms 

Grades 

9–12 

Students(c)

New 

Rooms 

Dixie 639 101 6 52 2 58 2 

Gilchrist 262 41 2 21 1 24 1 

Lafayette 154 24 1 12 1 14 1 

Levy 801 127 7 65 3 73 3 

Alachua 619 98 6 50 2 56 2 

Source: Table 4-14 and State of Florida 2002 

(a) 0.158 per household; 18 students per teacher required by State law 

(b) 0.081 per household; 22 students per teacher required by State law 

(c) 0.091 per household; 25 students per teacher required by State law 

PK = preschool 

21 The review team found that the impact on the four Dixie County schools would require up to 

22 10 additional classrooms in total, an average of over 2 classrooms for each of the 4 schools 

23 (note that the affected schools cover different ranges of grades). The review team found that 

24 the addition of up to13 classrooms in Levy County, 4 classrooms in Gilchrist County, and 3 

25 classrooms in Lafayette County would amount to an average of about 1 additional classroom 

26 per school. For Alachua County, 10 additional classrooms among 43 schools would mean less 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-134 August 2010 

1 than one-quarter of the schools would require an additional classroom. These school districts 

2 would also need to be adding capacity to deal with the students associated with the increase in 

3 population that is forecast to occur even without the proposed project, as discussed previously 

4 in the section on population. The review team concluded that the impact on public schools at 

5 peak impact would be more noticeable in Dixie County than in the other rural counties where the 

6 impact would be minor. As with public service impacts, the schools may find it more difficult to 

7 respond effectively to the demand for student services when it increases rapidly and 

8 substantially, persists for several years, but then decline as it does with the proposed project. 

9 Recreation and Aesthetics 

10 PEF notes that much of the economy of Dixie County is dependent on ecotourism by users of a 

11 national wildlife refuge (the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge), Manatee Springs State 

12 Park, the Fanning Springs State Park, and numerous other State and local parks and trails (PEF 

13 2009a). Because the exact footprint of the site is not determined, specific impacts on specific 

14 recreational facilities from site structures and the intake and discharge structures are not known 

15 but, based on the considerations discussed for the LNP site, the review team anticipates that 

16 adverse impacts of building units at the Dixie site would have minor impacts on use of the 

17 recreational facilities from which activities would be visible or audible. The increased population 

18 in the four rural counties of the EIA may increase use of local recreational areas, which is 

19 expected to have negligible impact on either the sites or the recreational experience, given the 

20 number, geographic distribution, and variety of recreational locations available. The impact of 

21 the transmission lines and corridors is expected to have a noticeable aesthetic impact in places 

22 where vegetation does not screen them from viewers. 

23 Summary of Socioeconomics 

24 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

25 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

26 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. Based on 

27 information provided by PEF and its own independent evaluation, the review team finds that the 

28 socioeconomic effects of building two units at the Dixie site would be minor with the following 

29 exceptions. There would be noticeable adverse, but not destabilizing, effects on transportation, 

30 education, and public services (law enforcement and road management) in Dixie County and on 

31 fire-protection services and transportation in Levy County during the peak building phase that 

32 would persist until the community has responded to the growth and local funding is adjusted 

33 after the units are operating, after which the tax effects are expected to be 

34 noticeable/substantial and positive on Dixie County and minor elsewhere in the five-county local 

35 area. Traffic congestion is expected to have a noticeable, though intermittent and temporary, 

36 impact on US-19 near the Dixie/Levy County border. The transmission lines and corridors 

37 would have a noticeable adverse impact on aesthetics. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-135 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 In addition to assessing the incremental socioeconomic impacts from the building and operation 

3 of two nuclear units on the Dixie site, the review team considers other past, present, and 

4 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic 

5 impacts on the region, including other Federal and non-Federal projects. For the analysis of 

6 cumulative socioeconomic impacts at the Dixie site, the geographic area of interest is 

7 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the Dixie site (the region) with special 

8 consideration of Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, and Levy Counties because that is where 

9 the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest (Economic Impact Area, or 

10 EIA). Table 9-13 identifies the projects that have contributed and will continue to contribute to 

11 the demographics, economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region. Collectively 

12 these projects will contribute to an overall trend toward urbanization and generally will result in 

13 increased populations and economic activities. 

14 Within the wider region, the residential population is concentrated around the city of Gainesville 

15 to the east, which serves as the area’s economic center. Lafayette County has the smallest 

16 population of the four rural counties of the EIA (Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, and Levy Counties). 

17 Within the region, the planned expansion of SR-26, the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone 

18 Mine, the potential closing of coal-fired units at CREC, and continued urbanization are the future 

19 actions identified for the region that would have the most noticeable socioeconomic effects on 

20 the four rural counties of the EIA. 

21 The review team expects that improved road access to the regional urban center of Gainesville 

22 would contribute to and accelerate the population and economic growth in Dixie, Gilchrist, 

23 Lafayette, and northwestern Levy Counties, adding to the ongoing gradual urbanization trends 

24 evident in the region. This road expansion project has not been scheduled and is not expected 

25 to be completed during the building of the proposed nuclear units. 

26 The potential closure of coal-fired units at CREC and subsequent loss of operations jobs would 

27 moderate these growth effects. Considering this combination of ongoing and proposed projects 

28 and project terminations, the review team determined that cumulative socioeconomic effects of 

29 building new units at the Dixie site and the actions identified in Table 9-13 would not differ 

30 noticeably from the project effects analyzed above. Thus, the review team determined that 

31 cumulative socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project and other past, present, and 

32 reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL, with the following exceptions attributable to 

33 building and operating the Dixie site: Dixie County would experience MODERATE, but 

34 temporary and not destabilizing, effects on transportation, education, and public services (law 

35 enforcement and road management) during the peak building phase that would persist until 

36 operations commence, when these impacts would be SMALL and the tax impacts are expected 

37 to be LARGE and positive on Dixie County and minor elsewhere among the four rural counties 

38 of the EIA. Finally, the aesthetic impacts of the transmission lines and corridors are expected to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-136 August 2010 

1 be MODERATE and long-term along their viewsheds. The Dixie nuclear project would be a 

2 significant contributor to the MODERATE adverse effects on infrastructure and the LARGE 

3 beneficial tax effect identified. 

4 9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice 

5 The following impact analysis includes environmental justice impacts from building activities and 

6 operations as well as the cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 

7 foreseeable future actions that could have environmental justice effects, including other Federal 

8 and non-Federal actions listed in Table 9-13. For the analysis of environmental justice impacts 

9 at the Dixie site, the geographic area of interest is the region within a 50-mi radius centered on 

10 the Dixie site. The region includes the urban area of Gainesville in Alachua County and four 

11 rural counties: Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, and Levy. The land use in the vicinity of the site is 

12 scattered residential, farming, and commercial forestry. 

13 The review team determined that from an environmental justice perspective there is a potential 

14 for minority and low-income populations to experience disproportionately high and adverse 

15 impacts. The review team used the approach in identifying minority and low-income populations 

16 of interest and assessing environmental justice impacts described in Sections 2.6, 4.5, and 5.5. 

17 Figure 9-2 shows the distribution of minority populations by census block group within the 

18 region. The closest block group with an aggregate minority population of interest is 

19 approximately 12 mi to the southeast in Levy County. Several additional block groups with 

20 aggregate minority populations of interest are more distant from the proposed site but still within 

21 the region. Figure 9-3 shows the distribution of block groups with low-income populations of 

22 interest within the region. The closest block group with a low-income population of interest is 

23 located approximately 12 mi to the southeast of the proposed site (this is the same block group 

24 with an aggregate minority population of interest discussed above). Some additional block 

25 groups with low-income populations of interest are at a farther distance from the proposed site. 

26 There is some overlap in the block groups with minority and low-income populations of interest. 

27 The review team investigated the presence of unique characteristics or practices in minority or 

28 low-income communities that could result in different socioeconomic impacts from the building 

29 and operating of the Dixie site compared to the general population. Dixie County Environmental 

30 Health Division personnel informed the review team that they are not aware of subsistence use 

31 of resources in the county, and think that they would know if such behavior were present (Dixie 

32 County 2009c). Likewise, the County Manager indicated there was no need for county 

33 residents to fish or hunt for subsistence (Dixie County 2009d). During their independent review 

34 of environmental justice impacts at the Dixie site, the review team determined that some 

35 subsistence fishing or hunting could take place outside the national wildlife refuge mentioned 

36 above, because this area of Florida is well known for its hunting, fishing, and agricultural 

37 resources and for its high levels of participation in these activities by residents and visitors alike. 

38 Such subsistence activities would possibly be affected during the building phase. The review 
August 2010 9-137 Draft NUREG-1941 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Figure 9-2. Dixie County Minority Populations (PEF 2009d) 2 
Draft NUREG-1941 9-138 August 2010 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

1 

Figure 9-3. Dixie County Low-Income Populations (PEF 2009d) 2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-139 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 team determined that an area south of US-19 with a significant low-income population parallels 

2 the Suwannee River and is north of the protected refuge (EPA 2009b). This area was not 

3 revealed by the census block group analysis but its population may rely on subsistence fishing 

4 and be affected by building or operation activities. 

5 Physical effects from building activities (noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic) would not 

6 affect any populations at the distances of the closest populations of interest because physical 

7 effects attenuate with distance, topography, and intervening foliage. None of the minority or low8 income populations of interest is located within 12 mi of the site, which is primarily woodland. 

9 In places requiring the clearing of new transmission-line corridors, aesthetic impacts would be 

10 noticeable but not destabilizing, depending on the proximity of viewers and the nature of 

11 vegetation remaining between them and the corridors. Given the general characteristics of the 

12 area, there would likely be vegetative screening around the site that would potentially mitigate 

13 the aesthetic impacts at the reactor site. The review team determined that the minority and low14 income populations would not experience disproportionately high and adverse aesthetic impacts 

15 from the project. 

16 Minority and low-income populations would experience the noticeable, but relatively short-term 

17 and localized adverse effects on public services, transportation, and education, as discussed in 

18 Section 9.3.3.5. As shown on Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3, the closest minority and low-income 

19 populations of interest are well to the southeast of the affected commuting routes and therefore 

20 would not receive a disproportionately high and adverse transportation impact. For other 

21 socioeconomic categories, the review team found no evidence of unique characteristics or 

22 practices among minority or low-income populations that would result in disproportionately high 

23 and adverse impacts when compared to the general public. 

24 The operation of the proposed nuclear power plant at the Dixie site would have no physical 

25 impact on minority or low-income populations because of their distance from the site. The 

26 review team found no evidence of unique characteristics or practices among minority or low27 income populations that would result in their receiving disproportionately high and adverse 

28 impacts to demographics, economics, community services and infrastructure, or transportation 

29 when compared to the general public. 

30 Because the review team found no disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or low-income 

31 populations from building and operating the Dixie project, the review team concludes that 

32 environmental justice impacts would be minor.

33 Cumulative Impacts 

34 The review team did not identify any environmental pathways by which disproportionately high 

35 and adverse impacts could affect minority or low-income populations or communities. Therefore 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-140 August 2010 

1 the review team concludes that the environmental justice impacts on minority and low-income 

2 populations associated with the building and operation of two new units at Dixie in combination 

3 with the other projects and activities identified in Table 9-13 would range from minor to 

4 noticeable as discussed above, in proportion to the effects on majority populations, and would 

5 not be disproportionately high and adverse for the minority and low-income populations. 

6 Therefore, the review team concluded that the environmental justice impacts would be SMALL. 

7 9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

8 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

9 generating units at the Dixie site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

10 reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect historic and cultural resources, including the 

11 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-13. For the analysis of cultural impacts 

12 at the Dixie site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE for this site. This 

13 includes the direct effects APE, defined as the area physically affected by the site-development 

14 and operation activities at the site and transmission lines. The indirect effects APE is defined as 

15 the area visually affected and includes an additional 0.5-mi radius APE around the transmission16 line corridors and a 1-mi radius APE around the cooling towers. 

17 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, the 

18 activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural 

19 resources. However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level 

20 information to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000). 

21 Reconnaissance-level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other 

22 public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To 

23 identify the historic and cultural resources at the Dixie site, the following information was used: 

24 • PEF ER (2009a) 

25 • National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2010) 

26 • Florida Historical Markers Program (FDOS 2010) 

27 • NRC Alternative Sites Visit October 14–17, 2008 (NRC 2009). 

28 Historically, the Dixie site and vicinity were largely undisturbed and likely contained intact 

29 archaeological sites associated with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the 

30 area has been disturbed by low-impact development, including agriculture, commercial forestry, 

31 and low-density residential development (PEF 2009a). In its ER, PEF states that potentially 

32 significant cultural resources are located within Dixie County and that cultural resource 

33 investigations would be required before siting a new reactor at this location. PEF also states 

34 that consultation with the SHPO would occur if any significant historic, cultural, or archaeological 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-141 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 resources are identified and that appropriate mitigation measures would be put in place before 

2 construction and operation (PEF 2009a). 

3 A search of the National Register revealed two sites listed in the Dixie County, including the City 

4 of Hawkinsville shipwreck and the Garden Patch Archaeological Site (NPS 2010). A search of 

5 the Florida Historical Markers Program revealed seven historical markers listed in Dixie County, 

6 including Old Town – one of the largest Native American villages in Florida – and Fort Duval 

7 (FDOS 2010). 

8 Building Impacts 

9 To accommodate building two new nuclear generating units on the Dixie site, PEF would need 

10 to clear approximately 300 ac for the main power plant site as would be needed for the LNP site 

11 and 1282 ac for the reservoir (PEF 2009a). If the Dixie site were chosen for the proposed 

12 project, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural resource 

13 surveys and consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties. The results would be 

14 used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resources impacts. If significant cultural 

15 resources were identified by these surveys, the review team assumes that PEF would develop 

16 protective measures in a manner similar to that for the LNP site, and therefore the impacts 

17 would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be avoided, land 

18 clearing, excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize important attributes of 

19 historic and cultural resources. 

20 There are no existing transmission-line corridors connecting to the Dixie site. Section 9.3.3.1 

21 describes the proposed transmission-line corridors associated with this site. Visual impacts 

22 from transmission lines may result in significant alterations of the visual landscape within the 

23 geographic area of interest. If the Dixie site were chosen for the proposed project, the review 

24 team assumes that PEF would conduct its transmission-line-related cultural resource surveys 

25 and procedures in a manner similar to that for the LNP site described in Section 4.6. In 

26 addition, the review team assumes the State of Florida’s Conditions of Certification regarding 

27 transmission-line siting and building activities would apply, and therefore the impacts would be 

28 minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be avoided, land clearing, 

29 excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize important attributes of historic and 

30 cultural resources. 

31 Operations Impacts 

32 Impacts on historic and cultural resources from the operation of two new nuclear generating 

33 units at the Dixie site would include those associated with the operation of new units and 

34 maintenance of transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures 

35 currently used by PEF, including the State of Florida’s Conditions of Certification, would be used 

36 for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental effects of the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-142 August 2010 

1 maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operation of the two new units and associated 

2 impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the physical and visual APEs. 

3 Cumulative Impacts 

4 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

5 resources include rural development and agricultural development and activities associated with 

6 these land-disturbing activities such as road development. Table 9-13 lists past, present, and 

7 reasonably foreseeable projects and other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on 

8 historic and cultural resources in the geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-13 that 

9 may fall within the geographic area of interest for cultural resources include future urbanization, 

10 such as new or expanded roads. 

11 Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads may intersect the proposed transmission12 line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by long linear projects, impacts 

13 on cultural resources would be minimal. If building associated with such activities results in 

14 significant alterations (both physical alteration and visual intrusion) of cultural resources in the 

15 transmission-line corridors, then cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be greater. 

16 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

17 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent 

18 evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building and operating 

19 two new nuclear generating units on the Dixie site and other projects would be SMALL. This 

20 impact-level determination reflects no known cultural resources that could be affected; however, 

21 if the Dixie site were to be developed then cultural resource surveys and evaluations would 

22 need to be conducted and PEF would assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking. 

23 Adverse effects could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

24 9.3.3.8 Air Quality 

25 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

26 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

27 affect air quality, including the shutdown of two coal-fired units at CREC, and other Federal and 

28 non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-13. The geographic area of interest for the Dixie site is 

29 Dixie County, which is in the Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick (Georgia) Interstate Air Quality 

30 Control Region (40 CFR 81.91). 

31 The emissions related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the Dixie site would be similar 

32 to those at the LNP site. The air quality status for Dixie County as set forth in 40 CFR 81.310 

33 reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant sources in the region. Dixie 

34 County is classified as being in attainment for all NAAQSs. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-143 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The atmospheric emission related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the LNP site in 

2 Levy County, Florida, are described in Chapters 4 and 5. Emissions of criteria pollutants were 

3 found to have a SMALL impact. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria pollutant 

4 emissions at the LNP site were evaluated and also determined to have a SMALL impact. 

5 Cumulative Impacts 

6 Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-13, all industrial projects listed in the table would 

7 have de minimis impacts. The impact of closing two coal-fired units at CREC on criteria 

8 pollutants at the Dixie site are not considered because the CREC is located outside of the 

9 geographic area of interest for this site. Given the small amount of emissions from the projects, 

10 it is unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade to the extent that the region would 

11 be declared to be in nonattainment for any of the NAAQSs. 

12 The air quality impact of the Dixie site development would be local and temporary. The distance 

13 from building activities to the site boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid significant air 

14 quality impacts. There are no land uses or projects, including the aforementioned sources, that 

15 would have emissions during site development that would, in combination with emissions from 

16 the Dixie site, result in a degradation of air quality in the region. 

17 Releases from the operation of two new units at the Dixie site would be intermittent and made at 

18 low altitudes with little or no vertical velocity. The air quality impacts of current emissions near 

19 the Dixie site are included in the baseline air quality status. The cumulative impacts from 

20 emissions of effluents from the Dixie site and other sources would not be noticeable. 

21 The cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in 

22 Section 7.6. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to the location of the source. 

23 Consequently, the discussion in Section 7.6.2 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at 

24 the Dixie site. The review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts 

25 of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable. The review team further concludes that the 

26 cumulative impacts would be noticeable, with or without the greenhouse gas emissions of the 

27 project at the Dixie site or the potential shutdown of the fossil-fuel units at CREC. 

28 Cumulative impacts on air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

29 PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

30 foreseeable future activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants 

31 and global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The 

32 cumulative impacts on criteria pollutants from emissions from the Dixie site and other projects 

33 would not be noticeable. The national and worldwide cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas 

34 emissions are noticeable, with or without the greenhouse gas emissions from the Dixie site. 

35 The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

36 operations, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-144 August 2010 

1 resources in the geographic area of interest would be SMALL for criteria pollutants and 

2 MODERATE for greenhouse gas emissions. The incremental contribution of impacts on air 

3 quality resources from building and operating two new units at the Dixie site would be 

4 insignificant for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. 

5 9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health 

6 The following analysis assesses impacts from building activities and operations for the Dixie 

7 site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

8 that affect nonradiological health, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in 

9 Table 9-13. Impacts from building activities that have the potential to affect the health of 

10 members of the public and workers include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational 

11 injuries, noise, and increased traffic associated with the transport of construction materials and 

12 personnel to and from the site. The operation-related activities that have the potential to affect 

13 the health of members of the public and workers include exposure to etiological agents, noise, 

14 EMFs, and impacts from the transport of workers to and from the site. 

15 Most of the nonradiological health impacts of building and operation (e.g., air emissions, noise, 

16 occupational injuries) would be limited to areas within approximately 2 mi from the site, which 

17 applies to the analysis for the Dixie site. Occupational injuries would occur only within the 

18 boundaries of the site, and noise from construction and operation has likewise been assessed 

19 as minimal for offsite receptors beyond a 2-mi radius. For nonradiological health impacts 

20 associated with transmission lines, the geographic area of interest would be the transmission21 line corridor. If the facility were built and operated at the Dixie alternative site, the Suwannee 

22 River would serve as the source and discharge receptor of cooling water. In addition, a 

23 reservoir would need to be built to assure an adequate cooling-water supply. 

24 Building Impacts 

25 Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

26 two new nuclear units at the Dixie site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for the 

27 LNP site. The impacts include noise, construction vehicle exhaust, dust, occupational injuries, 

28 and transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. A detailed noise study has not been 

29 performed for the Dixie site, but it is likely that noise from building at the site, except for rare, 

30 high-noise activities such as pile-driving, would comply with State and local noise ordinances 

31 and that the overall noise impact associated with building would be minimal. Fugitive dust and 

32 vehicle emissions during building would be controlled by good management practices and 

33 compliance with Federal, State, and local air quality regulations. The incidence of construction 

34 worker accidents would be the same as that for the LNP site, the only difference being potential 

35 injuries associated with cooling-water reservoir construction. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-145 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Analyses described in Section 9.3.3.5 indicate that the traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Dixie 

2 site would be noticeable during peak building activities and could be mitigated by 

3 implementation of a suitable traffic-management plan. Owing to the rural nature of the Dixie 

4 site, there is little potential for cumulative traffic impacts with other projects, and additional 

5 injuries and fatalities from traffic accidents involving transportation of materials and personnel 

6 for building of a new nuclear power plant at the Dixie site would be similar to those estimated in 

7 Section 4.8.3 for building at the LNP site. 

8 Because all of the past, present, or potential future construction projects identified in Table 9-13 

9 are relatively distant (greater than 10 mi) from the Dixie site, it does not appear that combined 

10 nonradiological health impacts from construction at the Dixie site and other projects would 

11 occur. Cumulative impacts of building at the Dixie site would therefore be minimal. 

12 Operational Impacts 

13 Noise, air emissions, and occupational injuries from the operation of two new nuclear units at 

14 the Dixie site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 5.8 for the LNP site. Occupational 

15 health impacts on workers (e.g., falls, electric shock or exposure to other hazards) at the Dixie 

16 site would be the same as those evaluated for workers at two new units operating at the LNP 

17 site. The cooling-system discharge from the facility could encourage the growth of etiologic 

18 organisms in the Suwannee River. Etiological agent growth could be reduced by the use of 

19 biocides in the cooling systems, thermal discharge would be restricted by NPDES permit 

20 limitations, and exposure to impaired water would be limited by controls on access to the 

21 discharge zone (fencing, signage, and other security measures). However, because discharge 

22 may amount to a significant proportion of minimum flows in the river, and because the 

23 Suwannee River is already impaired due to contamination with nitrates and other pollutants 

24 (Hallas and Magley 2008; USGS 2004), the effect of blowdown discharge to the river could have 

25 a noticeable effect on the growth of etiological agents. Exposure to etiological agents in the 

26 cooling-water reservoir would not pose an additional health risk as long as access to the 

27 reservoir is limited by virtue of its being within the controlled and fenced site boundaries. 

28 Noise and EMF exposure from operations would be monitored and controlled in accordance 

29 with applicable OSHA regulations. Although no detailed noise modeling has been performed for 

30 the Dixie site, it is likely that noise impacts would be similar to those predicted for operations at 

31 the LNP site. The effects of EMF on human health in the transmission-line corridors would be 

32 controlled and minimized by conformance with NESC criteria and adherence to the standards 

33 for transmission systems regulated by the FDEP. Nonradiological impacts of traffic associated 

34 with the operations workforce would therefore be less than the impacts during building 

35 (minimal). 

36 A number of the projects and activities identified in Table 9-13 (commercial farms and dairies, 

37 minor permitted municipal discharges) might also affect water quality in the Suwannee River, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-146 August 2010 

1 which has been identified as being impaired by nutrients and was included on Florida’s Verified 

2 List of Impaired Waters (Hallas and Magley 2008). The impairment is due to nitrate 

3 contamination from fertilizers, animal wastes, and atmospheric deposition (USGS 2004). 

4 Releases from the two new nuclear units at the Dixie site (which would be limited by NPDES 

5 permits) would have little impact on nitrate levels in the river. Although, as noted above, 

6 blowdown discharge may result in increased water temperature that could facilitate the growth 

7 of etiological agents. 

8 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

9 recent analyses of these issues (GCRP 2009) have been considered in the preparation of this 

10 EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region include an increase in average 

11 temperature and a decrease in precipitation, which may alter the presence of microorganisms 

12 and parasites in surface water. While the overall impacts of climate change may not be 

13 insignificant (see Section 7.7), the effect of, or contribution to, climate change impacts by the 

14 operation of two new units at the Dixie site is likely to be minor. In its analysis of climate change 

15 impacts the review team did not identify additional data that would alter its conclusion regarding 

16 the presence of etiological agents or change in the incidence of waterborne diseases associated 

17 with operation of a nuclear facility at the Dixie site. 

18 Summary 

19 The assessment of impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of the two 

20 new units at the Dixie alternative site is based on the information provided by PEF and the 

21 review team’s independent evaluation. The review team concludes that nonradiological health 

22 impacts on workers and the public resulting from building two new units and associated 

23 transmission lines at the Dixie alternative site would be minimal. The review team also expects 

24 that the nonradiological health impacts to workers and the public from the operation of two new 

25 nuclear units at the Dixie site would be minimal, except for potential growth of etiological agents 

26 in the Suwannee River from the influence of the cooling-system blowdown discharges during 

27 droughts or low-flow periods. These effects could be reduced if the blowdown were discharged 

28 to the cooling reservoir, rather than directly to the river. Exposure to etiological agents could be 

29 increased if access to the cooling reservoir is not limited by physical and administrative controls. 

30 Based on these findings, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on nonradiological 

31 health from related past, present, and future actions in the geographic area of interest and 

32 building and operations of two nuclear units at the Dixie alternative site risks would be SMALL to 

33 MODERATE. The severity of impacts would depend on the design characteristics of the facility, 

34 which have not been fully defined. If exposure to water heated by thermal discharge is not 

35 limited by administrative of physical controls, the contribution from building and operations at the 

36 Dixie site could be a significant contributor to the nonradiological health impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-147 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

2 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from building activities and operation 

3 for two additional nuclear units at the Dixie site. The analysis also considers other past, 

4 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health, including 

5 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-13. As described in Section 9.3.3, the 

6 Dixie site is a greenfield site. The geographic area of interest is the area within the 50-mi radius 

7 of the Dixie site. There are no major facilities that result in regulated exposures to the public or 

8 biota within 50 mi of the Dixie site. However, there are likely to be hospitals and industrial 

9 facilities with 50 mi of the Dixie site that use radioactive materials. 

10 The radiological impacts of building and operating two AP1000 units at the Dixie site include 

11 direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways produce low 

12 doses to people and biota offsite, well below regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be 

13 similar to those estimated for the LNP site. The NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct 

14 radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material would 

15 be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the Dixie site. This conclusion 

16 is based on the radiological monitoring programs conducted around currently operating nuclear 

17 power plants. 

18 Based on the information provided by PEF and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the NRC 

19 staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 

20 proposed AP1000 units and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and 

21 actions in the geographic area of interest around the Dixie site would be SMALL. 

22 9.3.3.11 Postulated Accidents 

23 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

24 operations for two nuclear units at the Dixie site. The analysis also considers other past, 

25 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

26 postulated accidents, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-13. 

27 The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power plants that 

28 have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe 

29 accident at any location within 50 mi of the Dixie site. As described in Section 9.3.3, the Dixie 

30 site is a greenfield site within 50 mi of the existing CREC power plant site; there is one nuclear 

31 facility at the CREC site. There are no proposed reactors that have the potential to increase the 

32 probability-weighted consequences from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the 

33 Dixie site. 

34 As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

35 of DBAs at the LNP site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

36 specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet the NRC safety 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-148 August 2010 

1 criteria. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions and the meteorological conditions 

2 of the Dixie and LNP sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental 

3 consequences of DBAs at the Dixie site would be minimal. 

4 Assuming the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Dixie site are similar to 

5 the LNP site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor located at the Dixie site are 

6 expected to be similar to those analyzed for the LNP site. These risks for the LNP site are 

7 presented in Tables 5-17 and 5-18 and are well below the median value for current-generation 

8 reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks 

9 are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For the existing plant within the 

10 geographic area of interest, namely CREC Unit 3, the Commission has determined that the 

11 probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL (10 CFR Part 51, 

12 Appendix B, Table B-1). The planned 20-percent power uprate at CREC Unit 3 will only be 

13 approved by the NRC if the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents would 

14 continue to meet NRC’s regulatory requirements. Therefore, the impact would continue to be 

15 SMALL. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks of severe accidents at 

16 any location within 50 mi of the Dixie site would be SMALL. 

17 9.3.4 Highlands Site 

18 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

19 a new two-unit nuclear power plant at the Highlands alternative site (hereafter Highlands site) in 

20 central Florida. The site is located in a rural area in Highlands and Glades Counties southwest 

21 of the Kissimmee River. The Kissimmee River would be the source for water for plant cooling 

22 and other plant uses, and construction of a new water-storage reservoir would likely be 

23 required. Highlands is a greenfield site not currently owned by PEF (PEF 2009a). Conceptual 

24 routes of the transmission lines necessary to connect the Highlands site to the electrical grid are 

25 located in Osceola, Polk, Hardee, Highlands, and Glades Counties. 

26 The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

27 resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

28 incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the Highlands site and other 

29 actions in the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of 

30 NRC-authorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also 

31 included in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non32 Federal, and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered 

33 together with the proposed action if implemented at the Highlands site. Other actions and 

34 projects considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-19. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-149 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-19. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Highlands Site 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

Operation and 

decommissioning 

of St. Lucie Plant 

Units 1 and 2 

Two 839-MW(e) combustion 

engineering reactors 

Within 50 mi Operational (NRC 

2010b). In 2003, the 

operating licenses were 

renewed for an 

additional 20 years, or 

to 2036 for Unit 1 and 

2043 for Unit 2. 

Florida Gas 

Transmission 

Company, LLC 

(FGT) Phase VIII 

Expansion Project 

Construction and expansion of 

natural-gas pipelines, new 

compressor, meter, regulator 

stations, and other appurtenant 

facilities 

Various Counties 

in Alabama and 

Florida, including 

Highlands 

County. Route 

passes within 5 

mi of the 

Highlands site 

and collocated 

with U.S. 

Highway 70. 

Completion expected 

by 2011 (FERC 2010; 

Panhandle Energy 

2010). 

Other Actions/Projects

Transportation Projects 

Florida High-Speed 

Rail 

Construction of a high-speed rail 

corridor. Phase 1 of Florida’s High 

Speed Rail Program. 

Along U.S. 

Highway 4 

corridor from 

Tampa to 

Orlando 

Proposed (FDOT 

2010b) 

Mining Projects 

Daniel Shell Pit Excavation pit. Within 20 mi Operational (EPA 

2010i) 

3 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-150 August 2010 

1 Table 9-19. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Parks, Forests and Reserves

Commercial forest 

management 

Managed forests for timber 

production. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Parks, forests, and 

reserves 

Several parks, recreation, and 

conservation areas are located 

within the 50-mi region. Examples 

of such areas include Kissimmee 

Prairie Preserve State Park, and 

Paradise Run. 

Throughout 

region 

Currently managed by 

various local, State, 

and Federal agencies 

and organizations. 

Development likely 

limited in these areas. 

Everglades 

Restoration 

Multi-agency Comprehensive Plan 

for multiple restoration projects 

Central and 

Southern Florida 

Multiple projects 

underway (CERP 

2010). 

Lake Okeechobee 

Regulation 

USACE management of 

Okeechobee Lake levels. 

Lake 

Okeechobee and 

estuaries 

Revised regulation 

schedule implemented 

in 2008 (USACE 

2010b). 

Brighton 

Reservation 

35,280-ac reservation managed by 

Seminole Indian Tribe 

Within 20 mi Operational (Seminole 

Tribe of Florida 2010) 

Taylor Creek 

Nubbins Slough 

Conservation Area 

A reservoir-assisted stormwatertreatment area as part of the 

Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. 

Within 40 mi Operational. Managed 

by SFWMD (FDEP 

2010c; SFWMD 2010) 

Lake Okeechobee 

Water 

Retention/Phospho

rus Removal 

Critical restoration consists of two

components, the Isolated Wetlands 

Restoration and two constructed 

treatment wetlands known as 

Stormwater Treatment Areas. 

Within 40 mi Operational. Managed 

by SFWMD and 

USACE (FDEP 2010d) 

Minor water 

dischargers 

NPDES permitted dischargers 

including in the town of 

Okeechobee, Kissimmee Oaks 

Ranch, Butler Oaks Farm, B-4 

Dairy, and other locations. 

Throughout 

region. 

Operational 

Other Actions/Projects

Various hospitals 

and industrial 

facilities that use 

radioactive 

materials 

Medical isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in nearby 

cities and towns 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-151 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-19. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Future urbanization Construction of housing units and 

associated commercial buildings; 

roads (such as the proposed 

widening of SR-70 and SR-710), 

bridges, and railroads; construction of 

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 (FDOT 

2010c, d). 

2 9.3.4.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines 

3 The following analysis includes impacts from building and operating two nuclear units at the 

4 Highlands site, along with the necessary transmission lines to connect them to the grid. The 

5 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

6 affect land use, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-19. For 

7 this analysis, the geographic area of interest for considering cumulative impacts is the area 

8 within a 25-mi radius of the Highlands site and the transmission-line corridors. The review team 

9 determined that a 25-mi radius would represent the smallest area that would be directly affected 

10 because it includes the primary communities (such as Okeechobee, Lake Placid, Parker Island, 

11 and Placid Lakes) that would be affected by the proposed project if it were located at the 

12 Highlands site. 

13 The Highlands site is located in two Florida counties – Highlands County and Glades County. 

14 Historically, both Highlands and Glades Counties were known for agriculture. Existing land use 

15 in the geographic area of interest is mostly agriculture, including both citrus orchards and cattle 

16 ranches. The area is relatively flat, but has the potential for flooding (PEF 2009a). The 

17 Highlands site is not subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act because the site is not 

18 located within one of the designated Florida coastal zone counties. There are many parks and 

19 conservation areas in the region, as well as a Seminole Indian reservation. 

20 Zoning changes would be needed to accommodate building and operation of a nuclear power 

21 plant at the Highlands site. Like the LNP site, the footprint of new power-generating units would 

22 be approximately 627 ac, with about 150 ac of additional land needed for temporary facilities 

23 and laydown yards. In addition, PEF indicates that a 1291-ac reservoir would be needed at the 

24 Highlands site to provide cooling water during periods of low flow of the Kissimmee River (PEF 

25 2009d; CH2M Hill 2009). Construction of these facilities would result in a permanent land-use 

26 change from agriculture to a transportation, communications, and utilities land-use category. 

27 Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions to 

28 accommodate new workers and services. Because the workforce would be dispersed over 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-152 August 2010 

1 larger geographic areas in the labor supply region, the impacts from land conversion for 

2 residential and commercial buildings induced by new workers relocating to the local area can be 

3 absorbed into the wider region. Therefore, the review team concludes that such impacts would 

4 be minimal. 

5 There are no existing transmission lines or transmission-line corridors in the geographic area of 

6 interest around the Highlands site. New transmission lines would need to be constructed to 

7 connect the site to existing transmission lines. The transmission lines would run through 

8 counties designated under the Florida Coastal Management Program. Any expansion of these 

9 transmission-line corridors would require review under the procedures established under the 

10 Florida Coastal Management Program. Procedures for siting new transmission lines in Florida 

11 are discussed in Section 4.1.2. The review team assumes that the conditions of certification 

12 issued to PEF by the FDEP would apply at all of the alternative sites. 

13 The review team estimated the linear run of the expected transmission-line corridors by referring 

14 to PEF Figure 3.3.3-12 (PEF 2009d), which depicts the potential routing of corridors needed to 

15 connect the Highland units to the grid. The figure suggests that 200 mi of transmission-line 

16 corridor would be needed. For purposes of land-use impact analysis, the review team made the 

17 assumption that 10 ac/mi would be disturbed, based on the LNP case where 1790 ac are 

18 expected to be disturbed over the 180 mi of corridor, as discussed in Section 4.1.2. The review 

19 team concludes that this assumption is reasonable because siting in Florida is a relatively 

20 rigorous process (Site Certification Application process), and the applicant would be bound by 

21 permit conditions resulting from that process, which would force it to use existing corridors to the 

22 extent practicable. The review team expects the SCA process would be consistently applied 

23 anywhere transmission lines are proposed in Florida. Therefore, the review team concludes 

24 that about 2000 ac of land would be disturbed to construct the transmission-line corridors for the 

25 Highlands site. Similar to the case at the LNP site, the review team concludes that land-use 

26 impacts from developing about 200 mi of new transmission-line corridors to connect new units 

27 at the Highlands site would be noticeable, but not destabilizing, and additional mitigation beyond 

28 the measures and conditions identified would not be warranted. 

29 Cumulative Impacts 

30 Future urbanization could contribute to additional decreases in open areas, forests, and 

31 wetlands and generally result in some increased residential and industrialized areas. However 

32 growth would likely be limited since the Highlands County Commissioners voted to pursue a 

33 “Rural Land Stewardship” program to maintain the rural character of the county (Atlantic Blue 

34 2007). Increased urbanization, especially long linear projects such as new or expanded roads 

35 or pipelines, would also contribute to the loss of open or forested areas and increase 

36 fragmentation of habitats along or near the transmission lines. Due to the extent of new 

37 transmission lines that would be built, the review team expects that the corridors would have a 

38 noticeable impact on the local area. Florida Gas Transmission Company proposes to expand 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-153 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 its liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline in the vicinity, passing near the Highlands site and 

2 collocated with US-70. This project would have limited impacts on land use because a small 

3 incremental amount of land would be converted to a new land use, and it would be adjacent to 

4 the current road. The Florida High Speed Rail project would intersect the potential 

5 transmission-line corridor where the corridor crosses Interstate 4, near Winston, Florida. 

6 However, the review team expects cumulative impacts would be minimal because both projects 

7 likely would be using existing public rights-of-way that already have been established and 

8 modified for current uses. Development would likely be limited in the nearby parks and 

9 conservation areas and the Seminole Indian reservation. Therefore, the incremental impacts 

10 associated with increased urbanization would be minimal. 

11 Global climate change could increase temperature and reduce precipitation, which could result 

12 in reduced crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), which, in turn, may change 

13 portions of agricultural and ranching land uses in the geographic area of interest. In addition, 

14 global climate change could increase sea level and storm surges in the geographic area of 

15 interest (GCRP 2009), thereby changing land use through inundation and loss of coastal 

16 wetlands and other low-lying areas. However, existing State and national forests, parks, 

17 reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas to the extent 

18 that they are not affected by sea-level rise. Because other projects identified in Table 9-19 that 

19 are within the geographic area of interest would be consistent with applicable land-use plans 

20 and control policies and would occur in dispersed locations, the review team considers their 

21 contribution to the cumulative land-use impacts to be relatively minor and manageable. 

22 In the State of Florida's Conditions of Certification (FDEP 2010a), CREC Unit 1 and 2, two coal23 fired plants, would stop operating by December 31, 2020, as long as PEF completes the 

24 licensing process, construction activities, and commences commercial operation of LNP Units 1 

25 and 2 within a timely manner. If the Highlands site were selected, the review team expects the 

26 same condition would apply. If CREC Units 1 and 2 are shut down, land use at the units likely 

27 would remain industrial. Depending on economic conditions, PEF sells 60 to 95 percent of the 

28 coal plant ash to cement and building materials manufacturers, with the remainder going to 

29 Citrus Central Landfill in Lecanto, Florida. With the closure of CREC Units 1 and 2, this source 

30 of ash no longer would be available locally. The review team expects land-use impacts 

31 associated with the shutdown of Units 1 and 2 would be minimal. 

32 Because detailed information concerning the routing of the possible new transmission-line 

33 corridors is not known at this time, a complete evaluation of potential land-use impacts cannot 

34 be made. Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s in independent 

35 review, the review team concludes that the land-use impacts of building and operating two new 

36 nuclear reactor units at the Highlands site and other projects would be MODERATE. The 

37 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-154 August 2010 

1 proposed project would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts due to the 

2 substantial amount of land that would be needed for the proposed power plant, reservoir, and 

3 transmission infrastructure. 

4 9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality 

5 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

6 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

7 affect water use and quality, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in 

8 Table 9-19. The Highlands site is located in rural Highlands County in Florida near the 

9 Kissimmee River. PEF has indicated that the development of this site for two nuclear units 

10 would require the building of a water reservoir on the Highlands site supplied with water from 

11 the Kissimmee River (PEF 2009a). 

12 The geographic area of interest for the Highlands site is considered to be the drainage basin of 

13 the Kissimmee River upstream and downstream of the site because this is the resource that 

14 would be affected if the proposed project were located at the Highlands site. For groundwater, 

15 the ROI is limited to the alternative site because PEF has indicated no plans for use of 

16 groundwater to build and operate the plant (CH2M Hill 2009). 

17 PEF indicates that the primary source of water for the site would be the Kissimmee River. 

18 Groundwater is considered an unavailable or unreliable resource for large quantities of cooling 

19 water at all of the alternative sites; in addition, permitting large groundwater withdrawals for 

20 industrial use is generally inconsistent with State policy (CH2M Hill 2009). This analysis 

21 therefore assumes that groundwater would not be used during building or operation of the two 

22 units at this site and that all water needs would be met with surface water from the Kissimmee 

23 River. 

24 Surface water is available at the site from the Kissimmee River. Historical flow data for October 

25 1948 through September 1951, and October 1962 through September 1964, are available for 

26 the Kissimmee River near Fort Basinger, Florida (USGS 2010c, d). The USGS has recently 

27 begun to measure flow again at this site and data from May 2009 to the present are available on 

28 its website. Mean annual flow for the historic record ranged from 566 cfs in 1963 to 2878 cfs in 

29 1949 with the lowest monthly flow reported as 276.8 cfs in January 1963. 

30 Building Impacts 

31 The review team assumes that the surface-water use for building activities at the Highlands site 

32 would be identical to the proposed groundwater use for the LNP site. During building, the total 

33 maximum usage is projected to be 550,000 gpd (0.85 cfs) and the projected average estimated 

34 maximum groundwater usage 275,000 gpd (0.43 cfs) (see Table 3-2). This assumes that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-155 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 surface water would be used at the Highlands site for potable and sanitary use as well as 

2 various building related activities. This surface-water withdrawal rate is less than the potential 

3 operation withdrawal. This surface-water withdrawal rate is inconsequential when compared to 

4 the historic average monthly flow in the Kissimmee River, being less than 1 percent of the 

5 discharge for even the lowest month reported (January 1963). The review team concludes that 

6 the impact of surface-water use for building the potential units at the Highlands site would be 

7 minimal because withdrawal is small compared to the average monthly flow and withdrawal 

8 from the river would be temporary and limited to the building period. 

9 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to build the 

10 units at the Highlands site. The review team also assumes that the impact of dewatering the 

11 excavations needed for building two units at the site would be managed through the installation 

12 of diaphragm walls and grouting as is proposed for the LNP site. Therefore, because there 

13 would be no groundwater use and the impact of dewatering would be controlled, the review 

14 team determined that there would be little or no impact on groundwater resources. 

15 Surface-water quality would most likely be affected by surface-water runoff during site 

16 preparation and the building of the facilities. FDEP would require PEF to develop an E&SCP 

17 and a SWPPP (PEF 2009a). These plans would be developed before initiation of site18 disturbance activities and would identify measures to be used during site-preparation activities 

19 to mitigate erosion and control stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). 

20 The plans would identify BMPs to control the impacts of stormwater runoff. The review team 

21 anticipates that PEF would construct new detention/infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to 

22 control delivery of sediment from the disturbed area to onsite waterbodies. Sediment carried 

23 with stormwater from the disturbed area would settle in the detention ponds and the stormwater 

24 would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. Implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on 

25 surface-waterbodies near the Highlands site. Therefore, the surface-water-quality impacts near 

26 the Highlands site would be temporary and minimal. 

27 While building new nuclear units at the Highlands site, groundwater quality may be affected by 

28 leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs PEF 

29 has proposed for the LNP site would be in place during building activities and therefore the 

30 review team concludes that any spills would be quickly detected and remediated. In addition, 

31 groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of these activities, and therefore, would be 

32 temporary. The review team reviewed the general BMPs that could be expected to be required 

33 at such a site (FDEP 2010a). Because any spills related to building activities would be quickly 

34 remediated under BMPs, and the activities would be temporary, the review team concludes that 

35 the groundwater-quality impacts from building at the Highlands site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-156 August 2010 

1 Operational Impacts 

2 The Highlands site was identified by PEF as needing a cooling-water storage reservoir to meet 

3 plant cooling needs during periods of low flow. The review team assumed that the cooling4 water system for the proposed units, if they were to be built and operated at the Highlands 

5 alternative site, would be similar to that proposed at the LNP site; specifically, the cooling water 

6 system would use cooling towers and blowdown would be discharged to the Kissimmee River. 

7 The cooling-water reservoir would provide capacity for times when adequate water from the 

8 river may not be available. PEF did not provide details of the cooling-water intake and effluent 

9 discharge locations. However, it is standard practice for power plants to design cooling-water 

10 intake and effluent discharge locations such that recirculation of discharged effluent to the 

11 intake does not occur. The reservoir was sized assuming the plant would operate on four 

12 cycles of concentration. The total cooling-water requirements would be 45 Mgd (31,250 gpm) 

13 and storage of a 90-day supply of water would be needed. In determining the acreage needed 

14 to achieve this amount of storage PEF assumed the reservoir would have an effective depth of 

15 10 ft. PEF indicates that the resulting reservoir size would be 1291 ac (PEF 2009d; CH2M Hill 

16 2009). 

17 PEF indicates that the water needed to operate two units would be approximately 40,000 gpm 

18 or 89 cfs. As indicated in Chapter 3, evaporative losses from cooling two units would be 

19 approximately 28,000 gpm (62 cfs). A withdrawal of 89 cfs represents 16 percent of the mean 

20 annual flow of the Kissimmee River during the year with the lowest flow on record and 

21 32 percent of the flow during the month with the lowest mean monthly discharge. Consumptive 

22 use of 62 cfs represents 11 percent of the lowest mean annual flow and 22 percent of the lowest 

23 mean monthly flow. Based on the indication that the water needed to operate two units at the 

24 Highlands site would represent a significant portion of the flow in the river, the review team 

25 determined that the operational surface-water-use impact of potential the plant at the Highlands 

26 site would be noticeable but not destabilizing. 

27 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to operate the 

28 units at the Highlands site. Therefore, because there would be no groundwater use, the review 

29 team determined that there would be no impact on groundwater resources during operations. 

30 During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Highlands site, impacts on surface-water 

31 quality could result from stormwater runoff, discharges of treated sanitary and other wastewater 

32 and blowdown from cooling towers into the receiving waterbody. PEF did not provide the 

33 blowdown rate at the Highlands site. The review team conservatively assumed that the 

34 blowdown rate would be the same as that at the LNP site, 57,923 gpm (129 cfs). This 

35 assumption is conservative because the proposed plant at the Highlands site would use 

36 freshwater from the Kissimmee River rather than more saline water at the LNP site, requiring 

37 less frequent and smaller blowdown discharge. FDEP would require PEF to develop a SWPPP 

38 (PEF 2009a). These plans would identify measures to be used to control stormwater runoff 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-157 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 (PEF 2009a). The blowdown would be regulated by FDEP pursuant to 40 CFR Part 423 and all 

2 discharges would be required to comply with limits established by FDEP in a NPDES permit. 

3 During the operation of the two units at the Highlands site, impacts on groundwater quality could 

4 result from potential spills. Spills that might affect the quality of groundwater would be 

5 prevented and mitigated by BMPs. Because BMPs would be used to mitigate spills and no 

6 intentional discharge to groundwater should occur, the review team concludes that the 

7 groundwater-quality impacts from operation of two nuclear units at the Highlands site would be 

8 minimal. 

9 Cumulative Impacts 

10 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

11 cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

12 affect the same water resources. 

13 For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the 

14 Highlands site is considered to be the drainage basin of the Kissimmee River upstream and 

15 downstream of the site because this is the resource that would be affected by the proposed 

16 project. For groundwater, the ROI is limited to the alternative site because PEF has indicated 

17 no plans for use of groundwater to build and operate the plant. Actions that have past, present, 

18 and future potential impacts on water supply and water quality near the Highlands site include 

19 existing agriculture and existing and future urbanization in the region. 

20 The GCRP has compiled the state of knowledge in climate change. This compilation has been 

21 considered in the preparation of this EIS. The projections for changes in temperature, 

22 precipitation, droughts, and increasing reliance on aquifers within the Kissimmee Basin are 

23 similar to those at other alternative sites in Florida. Such significant changes in climate would 

24 result in adaptations to both surface-water and groundwater management practices and policies 

25 that are unknown at this time. 

26 Cumulative Water Use 

27 Surface-water use during the building and operation of two units at the Highlands site would be 

28 dominated by water use for operations. PEF indicates that a reservoir would be needed to 

29 provide cooling water during periods of low flow. A withdrawal of 89 cfs represents 16 percent 

30 of the mean annual flow during the year with the lowest flow on record and 32 percent of the 

31 flow during the month with the lowest mean monthly discharge. Consumptive use of 62 cfs 

32 represents 11 percent of the lowest mean annual flow and 22 percent of the lowest mean 

33 monthly flow. Based on the indication that the water needed to operate two units at the 

34 Highlands site would represent a significant portion of the flow in the river, the review team 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-158 August 2010 

1 determined that the operational surface-water-use impact of the proposed plant at the Highlands 

2 site would be noticeable. 

3 The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-19 are considered in the analysis included 

4 above or would have little or no impact on surface-water use. The projects believed to have 

5 little impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the 

6 Highlands site, use relatively little or no surface water, or have little or no discharge to surface 

7 water. Some projects (for example park and forest management) are ongoing, and changes in 

8 their operations that would have large impacts on surface water use appear unlikely. 

9 Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on surface-water use would be 

10 MODERATE. Building and operating the proposed plant at the Highlands site would be a 

11 significant contributor to these water-use impacts. 

12 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to build or 

13 operate the units at the Highlands site and that groundwater impacts from dewatering would be 

14 controlled with diaphragm walls and grouting. Therefore, the review team determined that the 

15 Highlands site by itself would have minimal impact on groundwater resources. 

16 The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-19 are considered elsewhere in this analysis 

17 or else would have little or no impact on groundwater use. The projects believed to have little 

18 impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the Highlands 

19 site, or use relatively little or no groundwater. Some projects (for example park and forest 

20 management) are ongoing, and changes in their operations that would have large impacts on 

21 groundwater use appear unlikely. 

22 Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on groundwater use would be 

23 SMALL. 

24 Cumulative Water Quality 

25 Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the Kissimmee River upstream 

26 and downstream of the site. Water-quality information presented above for the impacts of 

27 building and operating the proposed new units at the Highlands site would also apply to 

28 evaluation of cumulative impacts. The Kissimmee River appears on Florida’s list of impaired 

29 waters because of the presence of nutrients, fecal coliform, depressed dissolved oxygen, 

30 copper, un-ionized ammonia, and mercury in fish tissue (FDEP 2010e); therefore, the review 

31 team concluded that the cumulative impact on surface-water quality of the receiving waterbody 

32 would be MODERATE. As mentioned above, the State of Florida requires an applicant to 

33 develop a SWPPP (PEF 2009a). The plan would identify measures to be used to control 

34 stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). The blowdown would be regulated by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 

35 Part 423 and all discharges would be required to comply with limits established by FDEP in a 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-159 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 NPDES permit. Such permits are designed to protect water quality. Therefore, the review team 

2 concluded that building and operating the proposed units at the Highlands site would not be a 

3 significant contributor to these impacts on surface-water quality, because industrial and 

4 wastewater discharges from the proposed units would comply with NPDES permit limitations 

5 and any stormwater runoff from the site during operations would comply with the SWPPP (PEF 

6 2009a). 

7 The review team also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts of 

8 groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the Highlands site 

9 would likely be minimal. Therefore, the cumulative impact on groundwater quality would be 

10 SMALL. 

11 The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-19 are either considered in the analysis included 

12 above or would have little or no impact on surface-water and groundwater quality. 

13 9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

14 Site Description 

15 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from construction 

16 and preconstruction activities and operations on terrestrial and wetland resources. The analysis 

17 also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect those 

18 resources, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects listed in 

19 Table 9-19. For the analysis of terrestrial ecological impacts at the Highlands site, the 

20 geographic area of interest is considered to be a 20 mi-wide area centered on the Highlands 

21 site and the associated offsite and transmission-line corridors. This 20-mi radius is expected to 

22 encompass the locations of possible development projects potentially capable of substantially 

23 influencing terrestrial ecological resources on and close to the Highlands project site. This 

24 geographical area of influence generally coincides with those defined for hydrology and aquatic 

25 ecology, both of which are closely interrelated with the terrestrial ecology of this setting. This 

26 area includes watersheds providing direct runoff from the Highlands site to the lower Kissimmee 

27 River basin and the northern portion of Lake Okeechobee, as well as the Lake Whales Ridge 

28 district and the watersheds through which the transmission lines would be routed. 

29 The Highlands site is a greenfield site located in the Eastern Florida Flatwoods ecoregion in a 

30 remote rural area near the Kissimmee River (EPA 2010l). Land use on the site and in the 

31 vicinity is predominantly agricultural, with significant farming operations and citrus groves 

32 present. Habitats present on the site are typical of the Eastern Florida Flatwoods ecoregion and 

33 include freshwater marshes and wet prairies with some mixed wetland hardwoods. Freshwater 

34 marsh vegetation communities from a range of hydroperiods include species such as arrowhead 

35 (Sagittaria spp.) and pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata), combinations of saw grass (Cladium

36 spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-160 August 2010 

1 beakrush (Rhynchospora spp), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), bladderwort (Utricularia spp.), white 

2 water lily (Nymphaea odorata), floating hearts (Nymphoides aquatica), and yellow cow lily 

3 (spatterdock, Nuphar luteum). Wet prairie vegetation communities include sparse short saw 

4 grass (Cladium jamaicense), beak rush (Rhynchospora spp.), black sedge (Schoenus 

5 nigricans), wire grass (Aristida stricta), and dwarf cypress (Taxodium spp.). Mixed wetland 

6 hardwood communities in this part of Florida can include species such as oaks (Quercus 

7 virginiana, Q. falcata, and Q. alba) beech (Fagus grandifolia), hickory (Carya spp.) and needle8 leaved evergreens, such as loblolly pine and spruce pine (Pinus glabra) (FWS 2007). 

9 The proposed associated transmission-line corridors would begin in the Eastern Florida 

10 Flatwoods ecoregion and cross the Central Florida Ridges and Uplands and Southwestern 

11 Florida Flatwoods ecoregions. Vegetation community types in the Central Florida Ridges and 

12 Uplands ecoregion include sand hill vegetation such as turkey oak, bluejack oak, and longleaf 

13 pine forests with common understory species of running oak, gopher apple, and bluestem and 

14 panicum grasses (USDA 2006). One of the proposed transmission-line corridors passes 

15 directly through the Lake Whales Ridge district, that contains some of the largest tracts of 

16 sandhill communities left in Florida, which provides habitat for many endemic plant species. 

17 Vegetation community types in the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods ecoregion include forests 

18 dominated by slash pine, longleaf pine, cabbage palm, and live oak with typical understory 

19 species of saw palmetto, gallberry, and grasses such as bluestems and wiregrasses (USDA 

20 2006). 

21 Important Species 

22 Common wildlife, including important species, associated with the above-mentioned ecoregions 

23 that may occur on the Highlands site and associated transmission-line corridors include 

24 recreationally important species such as Florida white-tailed deer, bobcat, feral hog, squirrel, 

25 northern bobwhite, and mourning dove, as well as skunk, raccoon, and several species of 

26 woodpecker. Various bird, reptile, and amphibian species also have the potential to reside on 

27 the Highlands site and associated transmission-line corridors (USDA 2006; FNAI 2009). 

28 No site-specific surveys have been conducted for threatened and endangered species on the 

29 site and in the vicinity, offsite corridors or the associated transmission-line corridors. Table 9-19 

30 lists all Federally and State-listed species that could occur on the Highlands site and vicinity, 

31 within offsite corridors, and in the counties crossed by the transmission-line corridors. Some of 

32 these species may at times be found on or in the vicinity of the Highlands site and associated 

33 offsite corridors. Counties crossed by the likely transmission-line corridors for the Highlands site 

34 include Highlands, Glades, Osceola, Polk, and Sumter Counties. PEF has stated that on-the35 ground field surveys would be conducted before commencement of ground-disturbing activities 

36 on the site and in the offsite corridors and transmission-line corridors as required by the FDEP 

37 (PEF 2009a; CH2M Hill 2009; FDEP 2010a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-161 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Building Impacts 

2 Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

3 unavoidable. Activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading (temporary 

4 and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy 

5 equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would 

6 likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the areas of disturbance. Some wildlife, including 

7 important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for the above activities as a 

8 consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining resources. Less 

9 mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be at greater risk of 

10 incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which would be displaced 

11 to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to areas of disturbance could provide 

12 habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

13 resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise 

14 and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife 

15 from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The creation of new transmission-line 

16 corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit early successional 

17 habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite, eastern 

18 meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks would likely 

19 exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be 

20 converted to and maintained in an herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide 

21 improved foraging habitat for waterfowl and wading birds. However, fragmentation of forests 

22 could adversely affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous forested habitat. 

23 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the Highlands site, PEF would need to 

24 clear approximately 441 ac of terrestrial habitats for the nuclear facility and approximately 

25 329 ac for associated offsite structures and corridors, and an additional 1291 ac of land would 

26 need to be cleared and excavated to accommodate a reservoir (see Table 9-20 and Table 9-21) 

27 (CH2M Hill 2009). 

28 Table 9-20. Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Highlands Site

Land-Use Class (FLUCFCS) 

(acreage) Onsite Reservoir 

Offsite 

Corridors 

(Except 

Transmission) 

Transmission 

Corridors(a)

Urban and Built Environment (% of area) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 19 (6%) 1766 (27%) 

Agriculture 436 (99%) 1156 

(90%) 

263 (80%) 3004 (46%) 

Upland Nonforested 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (2%) 410 (6%) 

Upland Forested 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (3%) 351 (5%) 

Water 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (2%) 28 (<1%) 

29 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-162 August 2010 

1 Table 9-20. (contd) 

Land-Use Class (FLUCFCS) 

(acreage) Onsite Reservoir 

Offsite 

Corridors 

(Except 

Transmiss

ion) 

Transmission 

Corridors(a)

Wetlands 6 (1%) 135 (10%) 17 (5%) 558 (9%) 

Barren Lands 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (2%) 4 (<1%) 

Transportation, Communication and Utilities 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 395 (6%) 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Acreages for transmission lines are total acres available, not acres affected. 

2 Table 9-21. Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Highlands Site

Impact Areas Acres 

Onsite Impact Areas 441 

Reservoir Impact Areas 1291 

Transmission-Line Corridor Areas 6516(a)

Offsite Impact Areas 329 

Total Impact Areas 

2061 

(plus portion of 6516-ac transmission corridor) 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Transmission line acreage is total acres available in the transmission-line corridor, not acres affected. 

3 Based upon FLUCFCS land-use data, approximately 6 ac of wetlands would be affected on the 

4 site during building (CH2M Hill 2009). Approximately 17 ac of wetlands would be affected in the 

5 offsite corridors (CH2M Hill 2009). Approximately 135 ac of wetlands would be affected to 

6 accommodate the reservoir (CH2M Hill 2009). PEF states that the nuclear facility would be 

7 sited to avoid wetlands whenever possible, and potential impacts on wetlands near building 

8 zones would be minimized through the use of established BMPs (PEF 2009a). Under Federal 

9 and State permitting requirements, PEF would be obligated to mitigate any unavoidable 

10 construction impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and listed species (FDEP 2010a). 

11 New transmission system infrastructure would be needed to support a nuclear power facility at 

12 the Highlands site, which includes approximately 200 mi of transmission lines (estimates made 

13 by measuring the approximate distance of hypothetical corridors provided in CH2M Hill 2009; 

14 see assumptions in Section 9.3.4.1). There are no existing transmission lines or transmission15 line corridors present on the site. PEF has assumed that transmission lines would be collocated 

16 within existing transmission-line corridors to the extent possible, thereby minimizing potential 

17 terrestrial impacts. In addition, transmission-line corridors, towers, and access road would be 

18 situated to avoid critical or sensitive habitats and species to the extent possible. Transmission19 line corridor width would be dependent on the size, voltage, and whether existing corridors 

20 could be used, and would vary from 55 ft to 460 ft wide. These widths were used in the analysis 

21 of the hypothetical routes for each alternative site to determine land-use cover types 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-163 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 (CH2M Hill 2009). The transmission-line corridors for the Highlands site would consist of 

2 approximately 6516 ac, of which approximately 558 ac would be wetlands, and approximately 

3 351 ac would be forested habitat (CH2M Hill 2009). Some portion of the total 351 ac of forested 

4 habitat and 558 ac of wetland habitat present in the corridors would be affected; however, 

5 because actual routes have not been determined, impacts to forests and wetlands cannot be 

6 quantified. Under Federal and State permitting requirements, PEF would be obligated to 

7 mitigate any unavoidable construction impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and listed species. 

8 PEF stated that all land clearing associated with the nuclear facility, offsite structures, and 

9 transmission-line creation would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local 

10 regulations, permit requirements, existing procedures, and established BMPs (PEF 2009a; 

11 FDEP 2010a). 

12 Building two new nuclear reactors at the Highlands site, including offsite corridors (except 

13 transmission corridors) and a reservoir would result in a loss of approximately 2061 ac of 

14 terrestrial habitat. Clearing land within the 6,516-ac transmission-line corridor would also result 

15 in a loss of an undetermined additional amount of forested terrestrial habitat and increase 

16 habitat fragmentation along the corridor. Other sources of impacts on terrestrial resources such 

17 as noise, increased risk of collision and electrocution, and displacement of wildlife would likely 

18 be temporary and result in minimal impacts on the resource. Because of the extent of 

19 unavoidable terrestrial habitat loss, building the two new units and associated offsite facilities, 

20 including transmission lines, would noticeably alter the available terrestrial habitat in the 

21 landscape surrounding the Highlands site. 

22 Operational Impacts 

23 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources, including important species, from operation of two 

24 new nuclear units at the Highlands site include those associated with transmission system 

25 structures, maintenance of transmission-line corridors, and operation of the cooling towers. 

26 Also, during plant operation, wildlife would be subjected to impacts from increased traffic. 

27 Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling-tower drift cannot be 

28 evaluated in detail in the absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at 

29 each alternative site. Similarly, bird collisions with cooling towers cannot be evaluated in the 

30 absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at the site. The impacts of 

31 cooling-tower drift and bird collisions for existing power plants were evaluated in NUREG-1437 

32 (NRC 1996) and found to be of minor significance for nuclear power plants in general, including 

33 those with various numbers and types of cooling towers. On this basis, the review team 

34 concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling-tower 

35 drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of new nuclear units would 

36 be minor. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-164 August 2010 

1 Outdoor noise levels on the Highlands site are predicted to range from 90 dBA near the loudest 

2 equipment to 65 dBA in areas more distant from major noise sources (PEF 2009a). Noise 

3 modeling predicts not perceptible to slight increases in noise from plant operations at the site 

4 boundary (PEF 2009a). Except in areas immediately adjacent to major noise sources, expected 

5 noise levels would be below the 60- to 65-dBA threshold at which birds and red foxes (a 

6 surrogate for small and medium-sized mammals) are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). 

7 Thus, noise from operating cooling towers at the Highlands site would not be likely to disturb 

8 wildlife beyond the site boundary. Consequently, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

9 cooling-tower noise on wildlife would be minimal. 

10 An evaluation of specific impacts resulting from building of transmission lines and transmission11 line corridor maintenance cannot be conducted in any detail due to the lack of information, such 

12 as the specific locations of new rights-of-way that could result from transmission system 

13 upgrades. However, in general, impacts associated with transmission-line operation consist of 

14 bird collisions with transmission lines, EMF effects on flora and fauna, and habitat loss due to 

15 corridor maintenance. The impacts associated with transmission-line corridor maintenance 

16 activities include alteration of habitat, including but not limited to wetland and floodplain habitat, 

17 due to cutting and herbicide application. 

18 Transmission lines and associated structures pose a potential avian collision hazard. Direct 

19 mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed (Erickson et al. 

20 2005). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and 

21 related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory flight during darkness by 

22 flocking birds has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower height, location, 

23 configuration, and lighting also appear to play a role in avian mortality. Weather, such as low 

24 cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Waterfowl may be 

25 particularly vulnerable due to their low, fast flight and flocking behavior (EPRI 1993). Bird 

26 collisions with transmission lines are recognized as being of minor significance at operating 

27 nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors with variable numbers of 

28 power lines (NRC 1996). Accordingly, although additional transmission lines would be required 

29 for new nuclear units at the alternative sites, increases in bird collisions would be minor and 

30 these would likely not be expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. 

31 PEF would also be required to have an Avian Protection Plan in compliance with State 

32 certification guidelines (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions 

33 posed by the addition of new transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

34 EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

35 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

36 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

37 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). At a 

38 distance of 300 ft, the magnetic fields from many lines are similar to typical background levels in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-165 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 most homes. Thus, impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at 

2 operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power 

3 lines (NRC 1996). Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at 

4 cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2003). 

5 These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or 

6 mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by the addition of new 

7 transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

8 Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission-line corridors would likely be 

9 sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be required during the 

10 development of new transmission-line corridors. Management activities (cutting and herbicide 

11 application) related to transmission-line corridors and related impacts on floodplains and 

12 wetlands in transmission-line corridors are recognized as being of minor significance at 

13 operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors of variable 

14 widths (NRC 1996). The review team assumes that the same vegetation and construction 

15 management of corridors currently used by PEF would be used in the establishment and 

16 maintenance of the new corridors. Under the Conditions of Certification for the State, PEF 

17 would also be required to retain existing vegetation whenever practicable and use BMPs that 

18 comply with the Florida State regulations (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the incremental effects 

19 of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and associated impacts on floodplains and 

20 wetlands posed by expanding existing corridors or the addition of a new transmission-line 

21 corridor for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

22 To summarize, the potential effects of operating two new nuclear reactors at the Highlands site 

23 would be primarily associated with the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and increased 

24 traffic. Operational impacts on terrestrial resources would be expected to be minimal. 

25 Cumulative Impacts 

26 There are no past or current actions in the geographic area of interest that have influenced 

27 terrestrial resources in a way similar to the building and operation of the proposed two new 

28 nuclear units at the Highlands site. However, terrestrial habitats throughout the geographic area 

29 of interest have been extensively altered by a history of forestry and agricultural practices as 

30 well as low density residential development. 

31 Proposed reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a way 

32 similar to development at the Highlands site would include transmission-corridor creation and/or 

33 upgrading throughout the designated geographical ROI, and future urbanization would also be 

34 expected to occur. However, there is an area within the geographical ROI that is managed for 

35 the benefit of wildlife – the Brighton Indian Reservation, located near the Highlands site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-166 August 2010 

1 The other impact on terrestrial resources at the Highlands site would be the effect of global 

2 climate change on plants and wildlife. The impact of global climate change on terrestrial wildlife 

3 and habitat in the geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change 

4 would result in a rise in sea level and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe 

5 weather, decreases in annual precipitation and increases in average temperature (GCRP 2009). 

6 Such changes in climate could alter terrestrial community composition on or near the Highlands 

7 site through changes in species diversity, abundance and distribution. Elevated water 

8 temperatures, droughts, and severe weather phenomena may adversely affect or severely 

9 reduce terrestrial habitat. Specific predictions of habitat changes in this region due to global 

10 climate change are inconclusive at this time. However, because of the regional nature of 

11 climate change, the impacts related to global climate change would be similar for all of the 

12 alternative sites. 

13 Summary Statement 

14 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based in the information provided by 

15 PEF and the review team’s independent review. Past, present, and future activities in the 

16 geographic area of interest could affect terrestrial ecology in ways similar to the building of the 

17 proposed two units at the LNP site. The Highlands site is predominantly agricultural land and 

18 citrus groves, but, a large portion of the associated transmission-line corridors would cross 

19 natural habitats that would be substantially altered by development and maintenance activities 

20 noticeably affecting the level and movement of terrestrial wildlife populations in the surrounding 

21 landscape. Other anticipated development projects would further alter wildlife habitats and 

22 migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The review team therefore concludes that the 

23 cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for terrestrial ecological resources would be 

24 MODERATE. This determination is based upon the extent of expected wetland loss and habitat 

25 fragmentation from ongoing and planned development projects, continued widespread 

26 manipulation of habitats for commercial agricultural management, and anticipated losses of 

27 habitat for important species. The incremental impacts from building and operating the 

28 Highlands project would be a significant contributor to the moderate cumulative impact, primarily 

29 because of a loss or modification of habitats that support wildlife, wetlands, and important 

30 species. Although incremental impacts on terrestrial resources could be noticeable near the 

31 Highlands project site, these impacts would not be expected to destabilize the overall ecology of 

32 the regional landscape. 

33 9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources for the Highlands Site 

34 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

35 aquatic ecology resources. The proposed Highlands site has no existing infrastructure 

36 associated with development of a nuclear power plant. This greenfield site is adjacent to the 

37 Kissimmee River, which would be the water source for cooling and discharge. Water flow in the 

38 Kissimmee River is managed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). PEF 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-167 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 maintains that because the Kissimmee River is being restored to its original river bed, the 

2 building of a reservoir would be required to ensure consistent water supply (PEF 2009a). The 

3 geographic area of interest includes the lower Kissimmee River basin from Chandler Slough 

4 south and including the northern portions of Lake Okeechobee as the area most likely to be 

5 affected by new nuclear units, as well as associated transmission-line corridors. 

6 The Kissimmee River provides almost one-half of the inflow to Lake Okeechobee. The 

7 previously channelized river is currently under restoration, which is required for successful 

8 restoration of the Everglades as part of the Lake Okeechobee watershed. Originally feeding 

9 floodplain wetlands, the Kissimmee River was channelized for flood control to discharge excess 

10 water to Lake Okeechobee. Currently, the canal is being filled in specific areas to improve flow 

11 velocities and divert water flow to the original floodplains (Audubon of Florida 2005). 

12 There are no sanctuaries or preserves that could be affected by locating the proposed units at 

13 the Highland site. The nearest managed area is the North Fork St. Lucie aquatic preserve east 

14 of Highlands County in St. Lucie and Martin Counties; the preserve protects 5000 ac of surface15 water area on the St. Lucie River. 

16 Commercially Important Species 

17 While there is no commercial fishing in the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee supports a 

18 small commercial fishery for catfish and black mullet (see Section 2.4.2). White catfish 

19 (Ameiurus catus), yellow bullhead (A. natalis), brown bullhead (A. nebulosus), and channel 

20 catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) have been documented in Lake Okeechobee. Spawning ranges 

21 from spring to mid-summer, and these primarily nocturnal fish feed on benthic invertebrates and 

22 other fish (Rohde et al. 1994). 

23 Recreationally Important Species 

24 The Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee support a diverse recreational freshwater fishery. 

25 Largemouth bass and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) represent the most popular, 

26 although some saltwater species are routinely caught near the Franklin and St. Lucie locks on 

27 Lake Okeechobee (FFWCC 2009b). 

28 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

29 Water hyacinth, water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes), alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), and 

30 hydrilla are common invasive aquatic plant species that have been noted in the Kissimmee 

31 River basin and Lake Okeechobee that are controlled by the Kissimmee River restoration, and 

32 Lake Okeechobee restoration efforts in cooperation with FDEP/Florida Fish and Wildlife 

33 Conservation Commission’s Invasive Plant Management Program (FDEP 2008). Torpedograss 

34 (Panicum repens) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) are also spreading rapidly in the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-168 August 2010 

1 marsh areas of Lake Okeechobee due to drought conditions and the lowering of the lake level. 

2 Exotic animals that have been introduced into Lake Okeechobee include tilapia (Tilapia aurea), 

3 Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), and water flea (Daphnia lumholtzii) (SFWMD 2000). Power 

4 plant operations are not expected to have an impact on the presence or spread of these 

5 species. 

6 Critical Habitats 

7 No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

8 Administration in the vicinity of the Highlands site. 

9 Federally and State-Listed Species 

10 There are no Federally and/or State-listed aquatic species that may occur near the Highlands 

11 site. Federally and/or State-listed species may occur along transmission-line corridors, but their 

12 occurrence cannot be determined at this time because specific details regarding placement of 

13 transmission infrastructure are not available. 

14 Based on the assumption that BMPs would be in use during building, site, vicinity, and 

15 transmission preparation, building and operation activities are not expected to result in impacts 

16 on Federally or State-listed species. 

17 Building Impacts 

18 New cooling-water intake and discharge structures in addition to a cooling-water reservoir would 

19 be required at the Highlands site. Preparation of a reservoir with intake and discharge 

20 structures would not result in impacts on aquatic resources from building activities. However, 

21 installation of a makeup-water intake structure on the Kissimmee River for fill water and a 

22 separate discharge to the Kissimmee River to receive discharge would result in the temporary 

23 displacement of aquatic biota within the vicinity of both structures on the Kissimmee River. It is 

24 expected that these biota would return to the area after installation is complete. Sedimentation 

25 due to disturbances of the river bank and bottom during installation could affect local benthic 

26 populations. However, the impacts on aquatic organisms would be temporary and largely 

27 mitigable through the use of BMPs. The impacts of building a cooling-water reservoir may be 

28 significant depending on the siting of the reservoir. During the review team’s site visit, 

29 observations of the proposed site via public roads indicated the presence of streams that are 

30 either perennial or seasonal. Offsite corridor preparations would cross 10 streams and 2 open 

31 waterbodies (CH2M Hill 2009). These aquatic resources have not been examined for diversity 

32 of aquatic biota, but nonetheless still represent aquatic habitat that would likely be affected by 

33 the building of facilities for the site. The use of BMPs during building activities could minimize 

34 impacts on aquatic biota located in water resources within the site building areas. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-169 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 New transmission-line infrastructure would be required for a new two-unit facility. There are 

2 currently no existing transmission-line corridors in the immediate vicinity of the Highlands site 

3 and new corridors would need to be established. Transmission corridors appear to follow routes 

4 in Highlands, Osceola, Polk, and Sumter Counties (CH2M Hill 2009). PEF anticipates 

5 transmission-line corridors would cross 4 streams and 37 open waterbodies and should have 

6 minimal impact on aquatic resources (CH2M Hill 2009). 

7 Operational Impacts 

8 Impingement and entrainment of organisms from the Kissimmee River and from a constructed 

9 reservoir would be the most likely impacts on aquatic populations that could occur from 

10 operation of two new nuclear units at the Highlands site. 

11 Assuming (1) a closed-cycle cooling system that meets the EPA’s Phase I regulations for new 

12 facilities (66 FR 65256), (2) a maximum through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps at the cooling-water 

13 intake, and (3) an intake flow of less than or equal to 5 percent of the mean annual flow, then 

14 anticipated impacts on aquatic populations from entrainment and impingement are expected to 

15 be minimal. However, as discussed in Section 9.3.4.2, the withdrawal of water from the 

16 Kissimmee River needed to operate two new units would be 16 percent of the mean annual flow 

17 during the year with the lowest flow on record. During low-flow conditions, impingement and 

18 entrainment impacts may be noticeable. Operational impacts associated with water quality and 

19 discharge cannot be determined without additional detailed analysis. However, based on the 

20 review team’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that with proper design 

21 the impacts on aquatic resources due to the blowdown discharge from operation of two new 

22 nuclear units at the Highlands site would likely be minimal with FDEP NPDES compliance. 

23 The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

24 the transmission-line corridors would also be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs are 

25 used. 

26 Cumulative Impacts 

27 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within the Kissimmee River basin include the 

28 restoration activities associated with removing anthropogenic channelization and restoration to 

29 historic river flow, and Lake Okeechobee and Everglades restoration activities managed by 

30 USACE and SFWMD. All restoration activities are planned to increase the productivity and 

31 biodiversity within the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades ecosystems (SFWMD 2008). 

32 Restoration activities such as backfilling and channel carving to reconnect hydrological 

33 resources are managed through use of BMPs to minimize erosion and sedimentation (USACE 

34 1996). Early restoration improvements have already demonstrated successful establishment of 

35 pre-channelized conditions and communities characteristic of free-flowing riverine habitats 

36 (SFWMD 2008). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-170 August 2010 

1 Other impacts include operation of dairy farms, agriculture, and small businesses that discharge 

2 wastewater to the Kissimmee River basin within the geographic area of interest for the 

3 Highlands site. These dairy operators and businesses have active NPDES permits for 

4 discharge. 

5 Anthropogenic activities, such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of a 

6 nuclear facility, can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

7 include shoreline development (i.e., removal of habitat), increased water needs, and increased 

8 discharge of effluents into the Kissimmee River. The effects of continued dairy practices and 

9 agriculture could result in additional habitat loss and/or degradation due to water use using 

10 surface waters and groundwater withdrawal, point and non-point source pollution, siltation, and 

11 bank erosion. The review team is also aware of the potential for global climate change to affect 

12 aquatic resources. The impact of global climate change on aquatic organisms and habitat in the 

13 geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change would result in a rise 

14 in sea level and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, decreases in 

15 annual precipitation, and increases in average temperature (GCRP 2009). Such changes in 

16 climate could alter aquatic community composition on or near the Highlands site through 

17 changes in species diversity, abundance, and distribution. Elevated water temperatures, 

18 droughts, and severe weather phenomena may adversely affect or severely reduce aquatic 

19 habitat, but specific predictions of aquatic habitat changes in this region due to global climate 

20 change are inconclusive at this time. The level of impact resulting from these events would 

21 depend on the intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic communities. 

22 Summary Statement 

23 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by PEF, 

24 the State of Florida, and the review team’s independent review. Properly siting associated 

25 transmission lines, avoiding habitat for protected species, minimizing interactions with 

26 waterbodies and watercourses along the corridors, and the using BMPs during intake and 

27 discharge installation, transmission-line corridor preparation, and tower placement would 

28 minimize building and operation impacts. There would be impacts associated with the loss of 

29 aquatic habitat, particularly during low flow conditions in the river, due to the consumptive loss 

30 of water from closed-cycle cooling. There also would be unspecified impacts related to the 

31 construction and operation of a cooling reservoir, however, these could be minimized through 

32 proper siting and the use of BMPs during construction. The use of a cooling reservoir would 

33 partially mitigate the effects of consumptive water loss on aquatic habitat during low river flow. 

34 The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new 

35 reactors on the Highlands site combined with other past, present, and future activities on most 

36 aquatic resources in the Kissimmee River basin and Lake Okeechobee would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-171 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics 

2 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from building 

3 activities and operations at the Highlands site, which is located southwest of the Kissimmee 

4 River in a rural area of Highlands County, Florida. The analysis considers other past, present, 

5 and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect socioeconomics, including other Federal 

6 and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-19. For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the 

7 Highlands site, the geographic area of interest is the region within a 50-mi radius of the 

8 Highlands site (the region). In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of site development and 

9 operation at the Highlands site, the review team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the site 

10 using readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. 

11 The Highlands site is a greenfield site in central Florida. The review team drew upon USCB 

12 data (USCB 2000b, c) to find the available total construction workforce within the host county, 

13 adjacent counties, and nearby counties with a major population center within a reasonable 

14 commuting distance from the site. For the Highlands site, this included Highlands, Hardee, De 

15 Soto, Glades, Okeechobee, Polk, Martin, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach Counties. The total 

16 construction workforce employed in these counties in 2000 was 76,849 workers. Based on this 

17 availability, the review team assumed that up to 80 percent of the 3300-person workforce 

18 involved in building the two-unit plant, or 2640 workers, would be drawn from existing residents 

19 of the region, and that 20 percent, or 660 workers, would be in-migrants to the area. This 20 

20 percent would include special trades needed for nuclear power plant production that may not be 

21 available in the region. 

22 For the purposes of this analysis the review team assumed that about one-quarter or 165 of the 

23 in-migrating workers would be distributed about evenly among Polk, St. Lucie, Martin, or Palm 

24 Beach Counties, because they offer more urban amenities than the EIA. The review team 

25 assumed that the other 495 in-migrating workers would be distributed among Highlands County 

26 and the immediately adjacent Glades, De Soto, Hardee, and Okeechobee Counties, according 

27 to available housing. The review team considered this five-county area as the local area where 

28 most socioeconomic impacts would be expected to be the greatest (Economic Impact Area, 

29 EIA). The review team focused on effects of the workforce involved in building the two-unit 

30 plant because the operations workforce would be smaller, with expected smaller socioeconomic 

31 impacts. Table 9-22 provides some socioeconomic data for the EIA. 

32 The review team assumed that all in-migrating workers would bring families; this is unlikely but 

33 provides an upper bound to the population increase associated with the project. The review 

34 team used the 2.49 average Florida family size to project the distribution of new jobs and 

35 population in the EIA due to in-migrating workers listed in Table 9-23. 
Draft NUREG-1941 9-172 August 2010 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Table 9-22. Socioeconomic Data for the Highlands Site EIA 1 Data Category Highlands Glades De Soto Hardee Okeechobee Data source Population 1980 47,526 5992 19,039 20,357 20,264 (1a) 1990 68,432 7591 23,865 19,499 29,627 (1) 2000 87,366 10,576 32,209 26,938 35,910 (1) Projected 2010 103,201 11,330 34,423 29,362 41,476 (2) Median Household Income (1999) $30,160 $30,744 $30,714 $30,183 $30,456 (3) 

Vacant Housing Units 2000 11,375 1938 2862 1654 2911 (1) Total Housing Units  2000 48,846 5790 13,608 9,820 15,504 (1)  2007 54,467 6067 14,478 10,482 16,512 (1) Workforce  Employed 30,051 3677 12,742 9901 14,169 (3)  Peak Project 2139 368 976 794 1352 (3) Total Schools(a) 1A 

4B 7 A-B 3C 

2 A-B 2 B-C 

1 A 1B 3A-B 1C 1B-C 

0 A 2 B 5 A-B 1 C 

1 A 1 B 4 A-B 2 C 1 A-B-C 

(4) 

2 
August 2010 9-173 Draft NUREG-1941 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Table 9-22. (contd) 1 

Data Category Highlands Glades De Soto Hardee Okeechobee 

Data 

source 

Number of Schools Failing Student-Teacher Ratio 

0 0 0 1 0 (4) 

Police 

Sheriff Dept – 341 

full-time and 18 parttime employees; 

Sheriff Dept – 60+ 

employees; 

currently 

expanding; patrol 

division with 19 

members Sheriff Dept 

Sheriff Dept –

patrol division of 4 

squads. 

Sheriff Dept - 44 

deputies (5) 

Emergency Services 

EMS department, 

details not available 

EMS and fire 

departments, 

details not 

available 

Emergency 

operations center 

with 5 staff; 3 fire 

stations 

EMS department 

and emergency ops 

center, details NA 

EMS department 

and emergency 

operations center, 

details not 

available (6) 

Population  White 84.7 78.3 74.5 72.1 81 (3)  Afr-American 9.8 10.8 12.7 8.9 8.3 (3)  Hispanic 12.1 15.1 24.9 35.7 18.6 (3)  Low-Income 15.2 15.2 23.6 24.6 16.0 (3) 

(a) A-elementary school; B-middle school ;C-high school Sources: (1a) USCB 1990 (1) USCB 2000b (2) 2010 projection assuming 2000-2008 growth rate (from USCB 2009) extends to 2010 (3) USCB 2000c(4) FDOE 2009a (5) Highlands Sheriff 2009, Glades Sheriff 2009, De Soto Sheriff 2009, Hardee Sheriff 2009, Okeechobee Sheriff 2009 (6) Highlands EM 2009, Glades EM 2009, De Soto EM 2009, Hardee EM 2009, Okeechobee EM 2009 EMS = emergency management services 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-174 August 2010 

1 Table 9-23. Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA

County 

Percent 

Population 

Increase 

1990-

2000(a) 

Projected 

Percent 

Increase 

2000–

2010 (b) 

Workers 

InMigrating 

to Build 

Dixie 

Plant 

Civilian 

Workforce 

in 2007 (c)

Population 

of InMigrating 

Workers 

and 

Families 

Population 

of 

Workers 

and 

Families 

as a 

Percent of 

Projected 

2010 

Population

Population 

of 

Workers 

and 

Families 

as a 

Percent of 

Projected 

2010 

Population 

+ InMigrants 

Highlands 27.7 18.1 271 40,340 676 0.66 0.65 

Glades 39.3 7.1 46 4615 115 1.02 1.01 

De Soto 35.0 6.9 68 14,046 170 0.49 0.49 

Hardee 38.2 9.0 39 12,071 98 0.33 0.33 

Okeechobee 21.2 15.5 69 16,512 173 0.42 0.42 

(a) Based on USCB data, as reported in PEF 2007 

(b) Calculated as 1.25 times percent change 2000–2008 shown in USCB 2009, i.e., assumes rate of change for first eight 

years would continue through last two years of the decade. 

(c) BEA 2010

2 Physical and Aesthetics Impacts 

3 The physical impacts on workers and the public of building and operating a two-unit plant at the 

4 Highlands site would be very similar to those described for the LNP site. People who work or 

5 live around the site could be exposed to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions from 

6 building activities. Building workers and personnel working onsite could be the most affected. 

7 Air-pollution emissions are expected to be controlled by applicable BMPs and Federal, State, 

8 and local regulations. During plant operations, standby diesel generators used for auxiliary 

9 power would have air-pollution emissions. These generators would see limited use for only 

10 short periods of time. Applicable Federal, State, and local air-pollution requirements would 

11 apply to all fuel-burning engines. At the site boundary, the annual average exposure from 

12 gaseous emission sources is anticipated to not exceed applicable regulations during normal 

13 operations. The impacts of plant operations on air quality are expected to be minimal. As with 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-175 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 building impacts, potential offsite receptors of operations noise and emissions are generally 

2 located well away from the site boundaries. 

3 The Highlands site is in a rural, agricultural area. Residential and commercial areas are located 

4 away from the site boundaries, applicable air-pollution regulations would have to be met by 

5 PEF, and applicable BMPs would be put in place during the construction and use of the site 

6 access road. Therefore, based on information provided by PEF and the review team’s 

7 independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the review team concludes that the 

8 physical impacts of building and operating the two units at the Highlands site would be minimal 

9 on workers and the local public around the site. 

10 Building activities and plant operations are not expected to affect any offsite buildings. Most 

11 buildings are well removed from the site boundaries. Because this is a greenfield site, there are 

12 no onsite buildings to be affected by shock and vibration from pile-driving and other related 

13 activities. No long-term physical impacts on structures, including any residences near the site 

14 boundaries, would be expected. Therefore, based on consideration of reconnaissance-level 

15 information, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating a 

16 two-unit nuclear plant on offsite buildings would be minor. 

17 PEF reports that a reservoir may need to be created for water supply. Because its size and 

18 footprint are unknown, the review team cannot predict whether such a reservoir would affect 

19 aesthetics in the vicinity of the plant. However, there would likely be vegetative screening 

20 around the reservoir that would potentially mitigate the aesthetic impacts. 

21 As the transmission lines to connect the site to the distribution grid are put in place and the 

22 buildings and cooling towers associated with the new reactors reach their final heights and 

23 begin operating, they would add a visible industrial landscape, with a noticeable aesthetic 

24 impact. In places requiring the clearing of new transmission-line corridors, aesthetic impacts 

25 would be noticeable but not destabilizing, depending on the proximity of viewers and the nature 

26 of vegetation remaining between them and the corridors. Given the general characteristics of 

27 the area, there would likely be vegetative screening around the site that would potentially 

28 mitigate the aesthetic impacts at the reactor site. 

29 Demographic Impacts 

30 Table 9-23 lists the estimated project-related population migrating into the EIA at peak 

31 workforce levels and the population increase in each county between 1990 and 2000 and 

32 between 2000 and 2010. As seen in the table, each county saw a greater population increase 

33 between 1990 and 2000 than is forecast for between 2000 and 2010; with the exception of 

34 Okeechobee County, where growth during the 1990s was a great deal higher. The proposed 

35 project would increase the population in each of the EIA by an estimated 1.01 percent or less 

36 over projected populations for 2010. Consequently, the review team found that the in-migrating 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-176 August 2010 

1 population associated with building two new nuclear generating units would have a minor 

2 demographic impact in the EIA. 

3 Economic Impacts 

4 The review team determined that the impact of jobs associated with building the two units would 

5 have a minor effect on total employment in the EIA, with in-migrating workers projected at 1 

6 percent or less of the 2007 civilian workforce in any county. The impact of approximately 541 

7 new operations jobs (70 percent of operations workforce) within a 1-hour commute of the site 

8 would be minor on employment levels in the EIA. Due to the smaller economy of the Highlands 

9 EIA compared to the Levy EIA, and the smaller number of in-migrating workers at the period of 

10 peak workforce, the review team concludes that the expected number of indirect jobs and 

11 income created by building and operating the two-unit plant at the Highlands site due to the 

12 multiplier effect would be no greater than that estimated for the LNP site and that the combined 

13 direct and indirect economic effects would cause only a slight increase the counties’ economies. 

14 State and local taxes would be governed by Florida law. The review team assumed that tax 

15 revenues generated from sales and use taxes associated with building and operation of the 

16 proposed project at the Highlands site would be similar to those evaluated for the LNP site in 

17 Sections 4.4.3.2 and 5.4.3.2, with a minor impact on revenues in the EIA and region. The 

18 review team concluded that increased property taxes from a facility at the Highlands site during 

19 operations would have a substantial beneficial impact on Highlands County, but minimal 

20 impacts on the other counties in the EIA and region. The review team found that additional 

21 property taxes on new houses built by in-migrating workers would constitute a small percentage 

22 increase in the local tax base in the EIA. Therefore, the review team determined that the impact 

23 of both the building and operation of the proposed project on residential property tax revenues 

24 would be minor and beneficial everywhere in the region, with the exception of Highlands 

25 County, where property tax impacts would be substantial and beneficial. 

26 Housing 

27 The review team compared the 2000 figures for vacant housing in the EIA listed in Table 9-22 

28 with the number of in-migrating workers projected for peak workforce years listed in Table 9-23. 

29 Table 9-22 housing figures do not include RV parks, campgrounds, or hotels, and thus provide a 

30 lower bound of what would be available to house workers. To estimate the baseline number of 

31 houses that would be needed in the EIA (i.e., without the hypothetical plant), the review team 

32 divided the projected non-project related increase in population by 2.49 (Florida average family 

33 size) and determined the vacant housing stock in the EIA could absorb both the in-migrating 

34 workers and the remainder of the projected population increase. In the EIA, less than 5 percent 

35 of the vacant housing present in 2000 would be needed to house in-migrating workers, 

36 assuming that each worker occupied a separate housing unit. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-177 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The U.S. Census Housing Profile (USCB 2000b) for the EIA estimated the following: 

2 • Highlands County – a total housing stock of 48,846 units with a rental vacancy rate of 

3 23 percent (approximately 11,375 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

4 • Glades County – a total housing stock of 5790 units with a rental vacancy rate of 33 percent 

5 (approximately 1938 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

6 • De Soto County – a total housing stock of 13,608 units with a rental vacancy rate of 

7 21 percent (approximately 2862 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

8 • Hardee County – a total housing stock of 9820 units with a rental vacancy rate of 17 percent 

9 (approximately 1654 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

10 • Okeechobee County – a total housing stock of 15,504 units with a rental vacancy rate of 

11 19 percent (approximately 2911 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

12 The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be absorbed into the existing 

13 housing stock in the EIA and the region without a measureable impact. Based on the 

14 information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

15 concludes that housing impacts of building and operating two nuclear units at the Highlands site 

16 would not be noticeable. 

17 Public Services 

18 The review team assumed that the Highlands EIA, like the LNP EIA, have planned to meet 

19 needs for public services based on forecast population increases that did not include the 

20 presence of a workforce associated with constructing and operating a two-unit nuclear plant. 

21 The review team based its analysis of potential impacts on public services on the level of 

22 population increase represented by in-migrating workers and their families during peak 

23 workforce years, an estimated increase of 1.01 percent or less over projected populations for 

24 2010, as shown in Table 9-23. Using this approach, the review team expects that impacts of 

25 the proposed project on county public services during peak workforce years would be minor in 

26 the EIA. 

27 Transportation 

28 Main roads in Highlands County include US-27, a multi-lane north-south road with LOS 

29 standard of “C”; SR-70, a two-lane east-west road across the southern third of the county with 

30 LOS standard of “C”; and SR-64, a two-lane road that extends west from US-27 into Hardee 

31 County in the northwest of the county with LOS standard of “C.” These roads form part of the 

32 Strategic Intermodal System, for which the FDOT sets the standards (FDOT 2009a). 

33 SR-66/US-98, a two-lane east-west road across the northern third of the county, is not part of 

34 the Strategic Intermodal System and Highlands County has not set standards for this route. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-178 August 2010 

1 Where US-98 turns north to join US-27 when it meets SR-66, it is subject to the LOS standard 

2 of “C” as part of the Strategic Intermodal System. For this analysis, the review team assigned 

3 the east-west SR-66/US 98 a LOS standard of “C,” consistent with other two-lane U.S. 

4 highways and State roads in the county. 

5 One-way annual (2008) AADT counts for US-27 ranged from 14,500 to 17,000 around the 

6 intersection with SR-64; 10,500 in both directions around the intersection with SR-66/US-98; 

7 and 4500 to 4200 around the intersection with SR-70. One-way AADT counts for SR-70 ranged 

8 from 2100 to 1700 around the intersection with US-27; and 2100 to 2000 in the eastern side of 

9 the county. One-way AADT counts for SR-66 west of US-27 ranged from 2900 through 3100. 

10 One-way AADT counts for SR-64 west of US-27 ranged from 5200 to 5100 (FDOT 2008). 

11 The review team determined that US-27, SR-70, SR-64, and SR-66/US-98 would be the main 

12 routes used by workers commuting to the plant site, with SR-70 linking to the site access road. 

13 The review team considered the impact of the traffic associated with the peak workforce and 

14 building-related activities in terms of likelihood that it would change the LOS along SR-70 to be 

15 lower than the assigned standard “C.” The review team assumed 2281 trips daily (following 

16 LNP site transportation analysis in Section 4.4.4.1), split 65 percent to/from the east and 

17 35 percent to/from the west, based on the split of in-migrating worker residence discussed 

18 previously, combined with the split of commuters from Polk, Martin, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach 

19 Counties. At morning shift change, this would add 1977 cars to the total flow on SR-70, 924 

20 incoming from the east, 498 from the west; and 357 outgoing to the east, 193 to the west. The 

21 incoming traffic from the east would increase the flow by almost 50 percent over the 2008 AADT 

22 for SR-70 in the east side of the county, but, according to FDOT’s generalized planning 

23 standards (FDOT 2009b), this total flow would not reduce the LOS below “C.” While more 

24 analysis would be required, once specific proposals for turn lanes, signals, and other 

25 modifications were made, the review team identified the potential that a noticeable, intermittent 

26 impact would be observed at the intersection of SR-70 with the site access road, analogous to 

27 that predicted for the LNP site. Given the lower number of commuters during operations, the 

28 review team believes the traffic-related impacts during operations would be minor. 

29 Education 

30 Table 9-22 provides data about schools in the EIA. All schools met the State teacher-student 

31 ratio classroom requirements in 2007–2008 with the exception of one school in Hardee County. 

32 The review team assumed that school districts in the EIA, like those for the LNP site, would 

33 address short-term gains in student population with mobile classrooms and that the PK-12 

34 public schools would be funded according to the Florida equalized funding formula (FDOE 

35 2009b). The review team assumed that students would accompany each in-migrating worker 

36 family in the average of the ratios of students per household from the LNP site counties listed in 

37 Table 2-35, resulting in the number of new students during peak workforce years listed in Table 

38 9-24. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-179 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-24. Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years 

County 

In-Migrating 

Worker 

Households 

Grades 

PK–3 

Students(a) 

New 

Rooms 

Grades 

4–8 

Students(b) 

New 

Rooms 

Grades 

9–12 

Students(c)

New 

Rooms 

Highlands 271 43 2 22 1 25 1 

Glades 46 7 0 4 0 4 0 

De Soto 68 11 1 6 0 6 0 

Hardee 39 6 0 3 0 4 0 

Okeechobee 69 11 1 6 0 6 0 

Source: Table 4-14; State of Florida 2002 

(a) 0.158 per household; 18 students per teacher required by State law 

(b) 0.081 per household; 22 students per teacher required by State law 

(c) 0.091 per household; 25 students per teacher required by State law 

PK = preschool 

2 The review team found that the addition of up to four classrooms in Highlands County and one 

3 classroom in De Soto and Okeechobee Counties would amount to less than one additional 

4 classroom per school, which would constitute a minor impact. Glades and Hardee counties 

5 would not need additional classrooms to accommodate project-related students and still meet 

6 applicable student/teacher ratios. 

7 Recreation and Aesthetics 

8 The economy in the Highlands EIA draws on its natural resources, including many lakes and 

9 parks. Because the exact footprint of the site is not determined, specific impacts on specific 

10 recreational facilities from site structures and the intake and discharge structures are not known. 

11 However, based on the considerations discussed for the LNP site, the review team anticipates 

12 that adverse impacts of building units at the Highlands site would have minor impacts on use of 

13 the recreational facilities from which activities would be visible or audible. Given the general 

14 characteristics of the area, there would likely be vegetative screening around the site that would 

15 potentially mitigate the aesthetic impacts. The increased population in the EIA may increase 

16 use of local recreational areas, which is expected to have negligible impact on either the sites or 

17 the recreational experience, given the number, geographic distribution, and variety of 

18 recreational locations available. In places requiring the clearing of new transmission-line 

19 corridors, aesthetic impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, depending on the 

20 proximity of viewers and the nature of vegetation remaining between them and the corridors. 

21 PEF reports that a reservoir may need to be created for water supply. Because its size and 

22 footprint are unknown, the review team cannot predict whether such a reservoir would affect 

23 resources currently used for recreation or subsistence. However, there would likely be 

24 vegetative screening around the reservoir that would potentially mitigate the aesthetic impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-180 August 2010 

1 Summary of Socioeconomics 

2 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

3 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

4 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

5 based on information provided by PEF and its own independent evaluation, the review team 

6 finds that the socioeconomic impacts of building two units at the Highlands site would be minor 

7 with three exceptions. There would be noticeable adverse, but not destabilizing, effects on 

8 transportation in Highlands County near the site during construction and minor during 

9 operations. The tax impacts on Highlands County would be substantial and positive. The 

10 aesthetic impact of transmission lines would be noticeable. 

11 Cumulative Impacts 

12 In addition to assessing the incremental socioeconomic impacts from the building and operation 

13 of two nuclear units on the Highlands site, the cumulative impact assessment considers other 

14 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to the cumulative 

15 socioeconomic impacts on a given region, including other Federal and non-Federal projects. 

16 For the analysis of cumulative socioeconomic impacts at the Highlands site, the geographic 

17 area of interest is the region within a 50-mi radius centered on the Highlands site (the region) 

18 with special consideration of Highlands, De Soto, Glades, Hardee, and Okeechobee Counties, 

19 because that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest 

20 (Economic Impact Area, EIA). Table 9-19 identifies the projects that have contributed and will 

21 continue to contribute to the demographics, economic climate, and community infrastructure of 

22 the region. Collectively these projects will contribute to a long-term and overall trend toward 

23 urbanization and its associated increase in population and economic activities. 

24 The Highlands site is a greenfield site in a rural area. The EIA is within commuting distance of 

25 Tampa/St. Petersburg. Sebring and Avon Park in Highlands County are each communities of 

26 about 10,000 people, but the EIA is predominately rural. Within the region, the Avon Park Air 

27 Force Range and active residential, retirement, and recreational developments along with 

28 planned improvements to the areas transportation infrastructure are expected to result in 

29 continued urbanization that would have noticeable socioeconomic effects on the economy and 

30 residents of the EIA. The review team determined that cumulative socioeconomic effects of 

31 building new units at the Highlands site and the actions identified in Table 9-19 would not differ 

32 noticeably from the project effects analyzed above. Thus, the review team determined that the 

33 cumulative socioeconomic effects of the proposed project and other past, present, and 

34 reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL, with the following exceptions attributable to 

35 building and operating the Highlands site. Highlands County would experience MODERATE but 

36 short-term and spatially limited impacts on roads/traffic that would reduce to SMALL during 

37 operations, and LARGE beneficial impacts on tax receipts after the plant begins operations. 

38 The review team anticipates MODERATE long-term impacts on aesthetics along the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-181 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 transmission lines and corridors. Building nuclear units at the Highland site would be a 

2 significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts on roads/traffic. Building and operating 

3 nuclear units at the Highland site would be a significant contributor to MODERATE impacts on 

4 aesthetics along the transmission lines and corridors. 

5 9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice 

6 The review team used the approach to identify minority and low-income populations of interest 

7 described in Section 2.6. Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5 show the distribution of minority and low8 income populations of interest by census block group within the region. As seen in these 

9 figures, a number of block groups that meet the criteria for minority populations of interest are in 

10 the region, including areas to the northwest, south, and east of the Highlands site, and much of 

11 the southeastern quadrant of the region. The closest minority populations of interest are within 

12 3 mi of the Highlands site. There are fewer block groups with low-income populations of interest 

13 in the region, most of which are coincidental with those with minority populations. There is a 

14 large area with low-income populations of interest to the southeast of the site, with isolated 

15 pockets elsewhere. The closest low-income populations of interest are 10 to 12 mi northeast of 

16 the Highlands site. The 35,280-ac Brighton Reservation, managed by the Seminole Indian 

17 Tribe, is located southeast of the Highlands site within the region. The 2000 census indicates 

18 that 566 people, predominately Native Americans, live on the reservation (USCB 2000b). 

19 The review team investigated the presence of unique characteristics or practices in minority or 

20 low-income communities that could result in different socioeconomic impacts for the Highlands 

21 site compared to the general population. The review team found two potential sources of 

22 environmental justice impacts arising from unique characteristics and practices: proximity to 

23 transmission line corridors as a source or pathway to impacts, and subsistence fishing. 

24 The review team identified two minority census block groups within 3 to 6 mi of the Highlands 

25 site but determined neither of these communities resided near a road that could be considered a 

26 potential commuting route for construction or operations workers. To the northwest from the 

27 center of the Highlands site is a line of identified census block groups with minority populations 

28 of interest. This line roughly follows a conceptual transmission-line route proposed by PEF that 

29 could impose adverse physical impacts on those communities during transmission-line 

30 construction. If the transmission lines from the site were to follow this conceptual path the 

31 impact on the minority populations could be considered disproportionate and adverse. 

32 Therefore the review team concludes there is a potential for a noticeable disproportionately high 

33 and adverse impact from transmission-line construction. 

34 Highlands County Environmental Health Division and Community Services Division personnel 

35 were unable to provide information about subsistence activities in the county, but the 

36 Community Services Division noted that hunting is popular in the county. Personnel from the 

37 County Natural Resources Department said that perhaps one percent of the county population 
Draft NUREG-1941 9-182 August 2010 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

1 

Figure 9-4. Highlands Site Minority Populations. (CH2M Hill 2009; PEF 2009d) 2 
August 2010 9-183 Draft NUREG-1941 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Figure 9-5. Highlands Site Low-Income Populations. (CH2M Hill 2009; PEF 2009d) 2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-184 August 2010 

1 may engage in subsistence fishing. On average 100 to 150 people per day may rely on fishing 

2 for their protein source. They noted that 12 percent of county population receives food stamps. 

3 (Highlands County 2009). The review team assumes that subsistence fishing activities might be 

4 affected during portions of the building phase, perhaps requiring that fishermen use different 

5 locations. In the absence of specific information about effects on local lakes and streams that 

6 are used for subsistence fishing, the review team concludes that there may be 

7 disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations that engage 

8 in subsistence fishing, possibly extending to the Native American residents of the Brighton 

9 Reservation in Glade County. 

10 The review team concludes that the physical effects of building activities (noise, fugitive dust, air 

11 emissions, traffic) would not impose disproportionately high and adversely affects on minority or 

12 low-income populations because the effects would be attenuated by distance and intervening 

13 foliage such that even the closest population of interest would not experience adverse effects. 

14 Therefore, the review team determined the physical environmental justice impacts from building 

15 and operations would be minor. 

16 The review team concluded that environmental justice impacts would be potentially noticeable 

17 on subsistence fishing populations and on minority communities along the proposed 

18 transmission-line corridor. 

19 Cumulative Impacts 

20 The review team determined the building and operation of a proposed nuclear power plant at 

21 the Highlands site would be unlikely to have a disproportionately high adverse impact on 

22 minority or low-income populations due to economic impacts, or impacts on community 

23 infrastructure; but could have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low24 income populations living near transmission line corridors (aesthetics) or engaged in 

25 subsistence activities. The cumulative impact assessment considers other past, present, and 

26 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to the cumulative environmental 

27 justice impacts in the region, including other Federal and non-Federal projects. The review 

28 team did not find any activity listed on Table 9-19 that would have a cumulative environmental 

29 justice effect when placed in context with the hypothetical Highlands project. The review team 

30 concluded that, in addition to building and operating two new nuclear units at the Highlands site, 

31 the inclusion of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would add only 

32 a minor impact on minorities or low-income populations. Therefore, the cumulative 

33 environmental justice impacts could be MODERATE, with the building and operating of two 

34 nuclear units at the Highlands site a significant contributor to the impact. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-185 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

2 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

3 generating units at the Highlands site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

4 reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect historic and cultural resources, including the 

5 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-19. For the analysis of cultural impacts 

6 at the Highlands site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE that would be 

7 defined for this site. This includes the direct effects APE, defined as the area physically affected 

8 by the site-development and operation activities at the site and transmission lines. The indirect 

9 effects APE is defined as the area visually affected and includes an additional 0.5-mi radius 

10 APE around the transmission-line corridors and a 1-mi-radius APE around the cooling towers. 

11 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, the 

12 activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural 

13 resources. However, in developing this EIS, the review team relies upon reconnaissance-level 

14 information to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000). 

15 Reconnaissance-level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other 

16 public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To 

17 identify the historic and cultural resources at the Highlands site, the following information was 

18 used: 

19 • PEF ER (2009a) 

20 • National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2010) 

21 • Florida Historical Markers Program (FDOS 2010) 

22 • NRC Alternative Sites Visit October 14–17, 2008 (NRC 2009). 

23 Historically, the Highlands site and vicinity were largely undisturbed and likely contained intact 

24 archaeological sites associated with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the 

25 area has been disturbed by mostly agricultural development (PEF 2009a). As described in 

26 Section 9.3.4.6, the Brighton Indian Reservation is located within the region but not within the 

27 geographical area of interest. In its ER, PEF states that an initial database search for potentially 

28 significant cultural resources in Highlands County did not identify any NRHP-listed sites in the 

29 vicinity of the Highlands site and that a cultural and archaeological resources investigation 

30 would be required before siting a new reactor at this location. PEF also states that consultation 

31 with the SHPO would occur if any significant historic, cultural, or archaeological resources are 

32 identified and that appropriate mitigation measures would be put in place before construction 

33 and operation. 

34 A search of the NRHP database completed by the review team revealed 14 sites listed in 

35 Highlands County, including the Haines Elizabeth House and the Sebring Downtown Historic 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-186 August 2010 

1 District (NPS 2010), and 3 Historic Properties listed in Glades County, including Moore Haven 

2 Downtown Historic District, Moore Haven Residential Historic District, and Red Barn. A search 

3 of the Florida State Historical Markers Program completed by the review team revealed one 

4 historical marker in Highlands County – Fort Basinger built in 1837 during the Seminole Wars 

5 (FDOS 2010). In addition, a cultural resources inventory completed for an EIS for the Florida 

6 Gas Transmission Company, LLC Phase VIII Expansion Project has identified five 

7 archaeological sites and nine historic structures in a stretch of expansion area called Greenfield 

8 3. This area crosses four counties, including Highlands, and runs along the border of Glades 

9 and Highlands Counties. Five of the nine historic structures are considered “potentially eligible” 

10 with Florida SHPO concurrence. 

11 Building Impacts 

12 To accommodate building two new nuclear generating units on the Highlands site, PEF would 

13 need to clear approximately 300 ac for the main power plant site (the same acreage needed for 

14 the LNP site) and 1282 ac for the reservoir (PEF 2009a). If the Highlands site were chosen for 

15 the proposed project, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural 

16 resource surveys and consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties. The results 

17 would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resources impacts. If significant 

18 cultural resources were identified by these surveys, the review team assumes that PEF would 

19 develop protective measures in a manner similar to those for the LNP site, and therefore the 

20 impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be 

21 avoided, land clearing, excavation, and grading activities could destabilize important attributes 

22 of historic and cultural resources. 

23 There are no existing transmission-line corridors connecting to the Highlands site. 

24 Section 9.3.4.1 describes the proposed transmission-line corridors associated with this site. 

25 Visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the visual 

26 landscape within the geographic area of interest. If the Highlands site were chosen for the 

27 proposed project, the review team assumes that PEF would conduct its transmission line28 related cultural resource surveys and procedures in a manner similar to that for the LNP site 

29 described in Section 4.6. In addition, the review team assumes the State of Florida’s Conditions 

30 of Certification regarding transmission line siting and building activities would apply, and 

31 therefore the impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could 

32 not be avoided, land clearing, excavation, and grading activities could destabilize important 

33 attributes of historic and cultural resources. 

34 Operations Impacts 

35 Impacts on historic and cultural resources from the operation of two new nuclear generating 

36 units at the Highlands site would include those associated with the operation of new units and 

37 maintenance of transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-187 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 currently used by PEF, including the State of Florida’s Conditions of Certification, would be used 

2 for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental effects of the 

3 maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operation of the two new units and associated 

4 impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the physical and visual APEs. 

5 Cumulative Impacts 

6 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

7 resources include rural development and agricultural development and activities associated with 

8 these land-disturbing activities such as road development. Table 9-19 lists past, present, and 

9 reasonably foreseeable projects and other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on 

10 historic and cultural resources in the geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-19 that 

11 are evaluated in the cultural resources cumulative analysis include future urbanization, the 

12 Florida High Speed Rail project, and the Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) Phase VIII Expansion 

13 project. 

14 Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads, the Florida High-Speed Rail project, or the 

15 FGT Phase VIII Expansion may intersect the proposed transmission-line corridors. Because 

16 cultural resources can likely be avoided by long linear projects, impacts on cultural resources 

17 would be minimal. If building associated with such activities results in significant alterations 

18 (both physical alteration and visual intrusion) of cultural resources in the transmission-line 

19 corridors, then cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be greater. 

20 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

21 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent 

22 evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building and operating 

23 two new nuclear generating units on the Highlands site and other projects would be SMALL. 

24 This impact-level determination reflects no known cultural resources that could be affected; 

25 however, if the Highlands site were to be developed then cultural resource surveys and 

26 evaluations would need to be conducted and PEF would assess and resolve the adverse effects 

27 of the undertaking. Adverse effects could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

28 9.3.4.8 Air Quality 

29 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

30 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

31 affected air quality, including the shutdown of two coal-fired units at CREC, and other Federal 

32 and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-19. The geographic area of interest for the Highlands 

33 site is Highlands and Glades Counties, which are in the Southwest Florida Intrastate Air Quality 

34 Control Region (40 CFR 81.97). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-188 August 2010 

1 The emissions related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the Highlands site would be 

2 similar to those at the LNP site. The air quality status for Highlands County, as set forth in 

3 40 CFR 81.310, reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant sources in 

4 the region. Highlands County is classified as being in attainment for all NAAQSs. 

5 The atmospheric emissions related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the LNP site in 

6 Levy County, Florida, are described in Chapters 4 and 5. Emissions of criteria pollutants were 

7 found to have a SMALL impact. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria pollutants at the 

8 LNP site were evaluated and also determined to have a SMALL impact. 

9 Cumulative Impacts 

10 Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-19, all industrial projects listed in the table would 

11 have de minimis impacts. The impact of the closing of two coal-fired units at CREC on criteria 

12 pollutants at the Highlands site are not considered because the CREC is located outside of the 

13 geographic area of interest for this site. Given the small amount of emissions from this project, 

14 it is unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade to the extent that the region would 

15 be declared to be in nonattainment for any of the NAAQSs. 

16 The air quality impact of the Highlands site development would be local and temporary. The 

17 distance from building activities to the site boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid 

18 significant air quality impacts. There are no land uses or projects, including the aforementioned 

19 sources in Table 9-19, that would have emissions during site development that would, in 

20 combination with emissions from the Highlands site, result in a degradation of air quality in the 

21 region. 

22 Releases from the operation of two new units at the Highlands site would be intermittent and 

23 made at low altitudes with little or no vertical velocity. The air quality impacts of current 

24 emissions near the Highlands site are included in the baseline air quality status. The cumulative 

25 impacts from emissions of effluents from the Highlands site and other sources would not be 

26 noticeable. 

27 The cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in 

28 Section 7.6. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to the location of the source. 

29 Consequently, the discussion in Section 7.6 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the 

30 Highlands site. The review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts 

31 of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable. The review team further concludes that the 

32 cumulative impacts would be noticeable, with or without the greenhouse gas emissions of the 

33 project at the Highlands site or the potential shutdown of the fossil-fuel units at CREC. 

34 Cumulative impacts on air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

35 PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-189 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 foreseeable future activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants 

2 and global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The 

3 cumulative impacts on criteria pollutants from emissions from the Highlands site and other 

4 projects would not be noticeable. The review team concludes that the national and worldwide 

5 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable. The review team further 

6 concludes that cumulative impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, and other 

7 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality resources in geographic 

8 areas of interest would be SMALL for criteria pollutants and MODERATE for greenhouse gas 

9 emissions. The incremental contribution of impacts on air quality resources from building and 

10 operating two new units at the Highlands site would be insignificant for both criteria pollutants 

11 and greenhouse gas emissions. 

12 9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health 

13 The following analysis assesses impacts from building activities and operations for the 

14 Highlands site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

15 future actions that affect nonradiological health, including the other Federal and non-Federal 

16 projects listed in Table 9-19. Impacts from building activities that have the potential to affect the 

17 health of members of the public and workers include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, 

18 occupational injuries, noise, and the increased traffic associated with the transport of 

19 construction materials and personnel to and from the site. The operation-related activities that 

20 have the potential to affect the health of members of the public and workers includes exposure 

21 to etiological agents, noise, EMFs, and impacts from the transport of workers to and from the 

22 site. 

23 Most of the nonradiological health impacts associated with building and operation (e.g., air 

24 emissions, noise, occupational injuries) would be limited to areas within approximately 2 mi from 

25 the site. Occupational injuries would occur only within the boundaries of the site, and noise 

26 from construction and operation has likewise been assessed as minimal for offsite receptors 

27 beyond a 2-mi radius. For nonradiological health impacts associated with transmission lines, 

28 the geographic area of interest would be the transmission line corridor. If the facility were built 

29 and operated at the Highlands alternative site, the Kissimmee River would serve as the source 

30 and discharge receptor of cooling water. In addition, a reservoir would need to be built to 

31 assure an adequate cooling-water supply. 

32 Building Impacts 

33 Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

34 two new nuclear units at the Highlands site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 

35 for the LNP site. The impacts include noise, vehicle exhaust, dust, occupational injuries, and 

36 transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. A detailed noise study has not been performed 

37 for the Highlands site, but it is likely that noise impacts from building, except for rare, high-noise 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-190 August 2010 

1 activities such as pile-driving, would comply with State and local noise ordinances and that the 

2 overall noise impact associated with building would be minimal. Fugitive dust and vehicle 

3 emissions during building would be controlled by good management practices and compliance 

4 with Federal, State, and local air quality regulations. 

5 The incidence of construction worker accidents would be the same as that for the LNP site, the 

6 only difference being potential injuries associated with cooling reservoir construction. 

7 Analyses in Section 9.3.4.5 indicated that noticeable but intermittent traffic impacts would be 

8 observed during peak building activities at the Highlands site at the intersection of SR-70 and 

9 the site access road. These impacts would be of the same magnitude as those predicted for 

10 building at the LNP site. Owing to the rural nature of the Highlands site, there is little potential 

11 for cumulative impacts with other projects, and additional injuries and fatalities from traffic 

12 accidents involving transportation of materials and personnel for building of a new nuclear 

13 power plant at the Highlands site would be similar to those estimated in Section 4.8.3 for 

14 building at LNP site. 

15 Because all of the past, present, or potential future construction projects identified in Table 9-19 

16 are distant (greater than 10 mi) from the Highlands site, combined nonradiological impacts from 

17 construction at the Highlands site and other projects would not occur. Cumulative impacts of 

18 building at the Highlands alternative site would therefore be minimal. 

19 Operational Impacts 

20 Noise, air emissions, and occupational injuries from the operation of two new nuclear units at 

21 the Highlands site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 5.8 for the LNP site. 

22 Occupational health impacts on workers (e.g., falls, electric shock, or exposure to other 

23 hazards) at the Highlands site would be the same as those evaluated for workers at two new 

24 units operating at the LNP site. The cooling-system discharge from the facility could encourage 

25 the growth of etiologic organisms in the Kissimmee River. Etiological agent growth could be 

26 reduced by the use of biocides in the cooling systems, thermal discharge would be restricted by 

27 NPDES permit limitations, and exposure to impaired water would be limited by controls on 

28 access to the discharge zone (fencing, signage, and other security measures). However, 

29 because discharge may amount to a significant proportion of minimum flows in the Kissimmee 

30 River, and because water quality in the river has been identified as impaired due to the of 

31 presence of nutrients, fecal coliform, depressed dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, and 

32 other pollutants (FDEP 2010e), the review team has concluded that the discharge of blowdown 

33 to the river could have a noticeable effect on the growth of etiological agents. Exposure to 

34 etiological agents in the cooling-water reservoir would not pose an additional health risk as long 

35 as access to the reservoir is limited by virtue of its being within the controlled and fenced site 

36 boundaries. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-191 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Noise and EMF exposure from operations would be monitored and controlled in accordance 

2 with applicable OSHA regulations. Although no detailed noise modeling has been performed for 

3 the Highlands site, it is likely that noise impacts would be similar to those predicted for 

4 operations at the LNP site. The effects of EMF on human health in the transmission-line 

5 corridors would be controlled and minimized by conformance with NESC criteria and adherence 

6 to the standards for transmission systems regulated by the FDEP. Nonradiological impacts of 

7 traffic associated with the operations workforce would therefore be less than the impacts during 

8 building (minimal). 

9 A number of the projects and activities identified in Table 9-19 (stormwater discharges, minor 

10 permitted municipal discharges) might also affect water quality in the Kissimmee River near the 

11 Highlands site. However, these releases are unlikely to have significant cumulative impacts on 

12 water quality with a nuclear facility built at the Highlands site because all of the current and 

13 future projects are distant from the site. In addition, chemicals released from the nuclear facility 

14 would be limited by an NPDES permit to levels that would not adversely affect water quality, 

15 even in combination with the existing pollutant load in the Kissimmee River. As noted above, 

16 however, blowdown discharge may result in increased water temperature that could facilitate 

17 the growth of etiological agents. 

18 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

19 recent analyses of these issues (GCRP 2009) have been considered in the preparation of this 

20 EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region include an increase in average 

21 temperature and a decrease in precipitation, which may alter the presence of microorganisms 

22 and parasites in surface water. While the overall impacts of climate change may not be 

23 insignificant (see Section 7.7), the effect of, or contribution to, climate change impacts by the 

24 operation of two new units at the Highlands site is likely to be minor. In its analysis of climate 

25 change impacts, the review team did not identify any additional information that would alter its 

26 conclusion regarding the presence of etiological agents or change in the incidence of 

27 waterborne diseases associated with operation of a nuclear facility at the Highlands site. 

28 Summary 

29 The assessment of impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of the two 

30 new units at the Highlands alternative site is based on the information provided by PEF and the 

31 review team’s independent evaluation. The review team concludes that nonradiological health 

32 impacts on workers and the public resulting from building two new units and associated 

33 transmission lines at the Highlands site would be minimal. The review team also expects that 

34 the nonradiological health impacts to the workers and public from the operations of two new 

35 nuclear units at the Highlands site would be minimal, except for the potential growth of 

36 etiological agents in the Kissimmee River from the influence of blowdown discharges during 

37 droughts or low-flow periods. These effects could be reduced if the blowdown were discharged 

38 to the cooling reservoir, rather than directly to the river. Exposure to etiological agents could be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-192 August 2010 

1 increased if access to the cooling reservoir is not limited by physical and administrative controls. 

2 Based on these findings, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on nonradiological 

3 health from related past, present, and future actions in the geographic area of interest and 

4 building and operations of two nuclear units at the Highlands site would be SMALL to 

5 MODERATE. The severity of impacts would depend on the design characteristics of the facility, 

6 which have not been fully defined. . If exposure to water heated by thermal discharge is not 

7 limited by administrative of physical controls, the contribution from building and operations at the 

8 Highlands site could be a significant contributor to the cumulative nonradiological health 

9 impacts. 

10 9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

11 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from building activities and operation 

12 for two additional nuclear units at the Highlands site. The analysis also considers other past, 

13 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health, including 

14 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-19. As described in Section 9.3.4, the 

15 Highlands site is a greenfield site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi 

16 radius of the Highlands site. There are no major facilities that result in regulated exposures to 

17 the public or biota within 50 mi of the Highlands site. However, there are likely to be hospitals 

18 and industrial facilities with 50 mi of the Highlands site that use radioactive materials. The St. 

19 Lucie Units 1 and 2 nuclear power plants are located approximately 50 mi from the Highlands 

20 site. 

21 The radiological impacts of building and operating two AP1000 units at the Highlands site would 

22 include direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The cow-milk pathway 

23 doses at this site would be higher than at the LNP site because of the proximity of dairies, but 

24 doses would still be within regulatory limits. Releases of radioactive materials and all pathways 

25 of exposure would produce low doses to people and biota offsite, well below regulatory limits. 

26 The impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the LNP site. The NRC staff 

27 concludes that the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities 

28 that use radioactive material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact 

29 around the Highlands site. This conclusion is based on the radiological monitoring programs 

30 conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

31 The radiological impacts of existing St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 also include doses from direct 

32 radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result in low doses to 

33 people and biota offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing 

34 radiological environmental monitoring program conducted around the St. Lucie site. 

35 Based on the information provided by PEF and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the NRC 

36 staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-193 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 proposed AP1000 units and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and 

2 actions in the geographic area of interest around the Highlands site would be SMALL. 

3 9.3.4.11 Postulated Accidents 

4 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

5 operations for two nuclear units at the Highlands site. The analysis also considers other past, 

6 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

7 postulated accidents, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects and those projects 

8 listed in Table 9-19. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed 

9 nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

10 (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Highlands site. The 

11 Highlands site is a greenfield site about 50 mi west of the existing St. Lucie power plant site; 

12 there are two nuclear facilities at the St. Lucie site. There are no proposed reactors that have 

13 the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe 

14 accident at any location within 50 mi of the Highlands site. 

15 As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

16 of DBAs at the LNP site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

17 specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet the NRC safety 

18 criteria. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and the meteorological 

19 conditions of the Highlands and LNP sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 

20 the environmental consequences of DBAs at the Highlands site would be minimal. 

21 Assuming the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Highlands site are 

22 similar to the LNP site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor located at the 

23 Highlands site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the LNP site. These risks for the 

24 LNP site are presented in Tables 5-18 and 5-19 and are well below the median value for 

25 current-generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent 

26 cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For the 

27 existing plants within the geographic area of interest, namely St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, the 

28 Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents 

29 are SMALL (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). On this basis, the NRC staff concludes 

30 that the cumulative risks of severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the Highlands site 

31 would be SMALL. 

32 9.3.5 Putnam Site 

33 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

34 a new two-unit nuclear power plant at the Putnam alternative site (hereafter Putnam site) in 

35 northeastern Florida. The site is located in a rural area of Putnam County west of the St. Johns 

36 River. The St. Johns River would be the source for water for plant cooling and other plant uses, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-194 August 2010 

1 and construction of a new water-storage reservoir would be required. Putnam is a greenfield 

2 site not currently owned by PEF (PEF 2009a). Conceptual routes of transmission lines 

3 necessary to connect the Putnam site to the electrical grid are located in Ocala, Sumter, Lake, 

4 Deltona, Seminole, and Putnam Counties. 

5 The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

6 resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

7 incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the Putnam site and other actions 

8 in the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of the 

9 NRC-authorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also 

10 included in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non11 Federal, and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered 

12 together with the proposed action if implemented at the Putnam site. Other actions and projects 

13 considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-25. 

14 The geographic area of interest for cumulative impacts considers all existing and proposed 

15 nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

16 (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Putnam site. An accident 

17 at a nuclear plant within 100 mi of the Putnam site could increase this risk. The Crystal River 

18 Nuclear Plant (CREC Unit 3) is within 100 mi of the Putnam site and is included in Table 9-25. 

19 Other nuclear plants in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia are more than 100 mi from the Putnam 

20 site and are therefore not included in the cumulative impact analysis. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-195 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-25. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Putnam Alternative Site 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

Seminole Power 

Plant 

Two 650-MW coal-fired generation 

units 

Within 10 mi Operational (SEC 2010) 

Putnam Steam 

Power Plant 

Two combined-cycle gas/oil units 

generating a total net 494 MW 

Within 10 mi Operational (EPA 2010j) 

Operation and 

decommissioning 

of CREC 

Units 1–5 

The CREC consists of five powergenerating plants operated by PEF; 

four fossil-fuel plants and one 

nuclear plant. The fossil-fuel plants 

began operations in 1966, 1969, 

1982, and 1984. The nuclear plant 

began operations in 1977. 

Within 100 mi 

of the Putnam 

site in northern 

Citrus County 

Operational. The State of 

Florida Siting Board’s 

Conditions of Certification 

for LNP would require 

PEF to discontinue the 

operations of the two 

fossil-fuel units by 

December 31, 2020, 

assuming licensing, 

construction, and 

commencement of 

operation of LNP occurs 

in a timely manner 

(DOE/EIA 2010a; FDEP 

2010a). 

Renewal of the 

CREC nuclear 

Unit 3 operating 

license 

Extension of operations of CREC 

Unit 3 for an additional 20-year 

period beyond the end of the current 

license term, which is valid through 

midnight December 3, 2016. 

Within 100 mi 

of the Putnam 

site in northern 

Citrus County 

Proposed. If granted, the 

license renewal would 

provide PEF the authority 

to continue operations 

through 2036. The draft 

Supplemental EIS for the 

license renewal is 

scheduled to be issued in 

2010 (PEF 2008). 

3 

4 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-196 August 2010 

1 

Table 9-25. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Uprate at CREC 

Unit 3 

CREC Unit 3 is planning to request 

a power uprate or increase to the 

maximum power level at which the 

nuclear power plant may operate. 

Within 100 mi 

of the Putnam 

site in northern 

Citrus County 

Proposed. The 

application submitted to 

the State of Florida was 

approved in August 2008. 

A Federal application is 

expected to be submitted 

to the NRC in 2010 

(PEF 2009f). 

Mining Projects 

Surface mining Excavation of sand, gravel, and 

other minerals, including the 

Grandin Sand Mine and the Keuka 

Sand Mine. 

Throughout 

region 

Operation and inactive 

Parks and Conservation Areas 

Parks, forests, and 

reserves 

Several parks, recreation, and 

conservation areas are located 

within the 50-mi region, for example 

the Ocala National Forest and the 

St. Johns River Blueway. 

Throughout 

region 

Currently managed by 

various local, State, and 

Federal agencies and 

organizations. 

Development likely 

limited in these areas 

(St. Johns County 2010). 

Other Actions/Projects 

Minor water 

dischargers 

NPDES-permitted dischargers 

including Putnam County Central 

Landfill, City of Palatka WWTP, E. 

Putnam County WW System, 

Hiawatha Condominiums WWTP, 

Georgia Pacific paper mill, and 

others. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Hard Rock 

Material 

Concrete batch plant and readymixed concrete plant Within 10 mi Operational (EPA 2010k) 

Various hospitals 

and industrial 

facilities that use 

radioactive 

materials 

Medical and other industrial isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in nearby 

cities and towns 

Future 

urbanization 

Construction of housing units and 

associated commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and railroads, such 

Throughout 

region 

Construction would occur 

in the future, as 

described in State and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-197 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table 9-25. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

as SR-20 improvements; 

construction of water- and/or 

wastewater-treatment and 

distribution facilities and associated 

pipelines, as described in local landuse planning documents. 

local land-use planning 

documents (FDOT 

2010a; Putnam County 

2006). 

WW = wastewater; WWTP = wastewater-treatment plant 

1 9.3.5.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines 

2 The following analysis includes impacts from building and operating two nuclear units at the 

3 Putnam site, along with the necessary transmission lines to connect them to the grid. The 

4 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

5 affect land use, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-25. For 

6 this analysis, the geographic area of interest for considering cumulative impacts is the area 

7 within the 20-mi radius of the Putnam site and the associated transmission-line corridors. The 

8 review team determined that a 20-mi radius would represent the smallest area that would be 

9 directly affected because it includes the primary communities (such as Palatka, East Palatka, 

10 and Satsuma) that would be affected by the proposed project if it were located at the Putnam 

11 site. 

12 The Putnam site is located in Putnam County, Florida. Historically, the geographic area of 

13 interest was known for forestry and agriculture. Existing land uses in the area include forestry, 

14 agriculture, and low-density residential. The Putnam site is not subject to the Florida Coastal 

15 Zone Management Act because the site is not located within one of the designated Florida 

16 coastal zone counties. The Ocala National Forest and the St. Johns River Blueway are located 

17 within the 50-mi region. 

18 Zoning changes would be needed to accommodate building and operation of a nuclear power 

19 plant at the Putnam site. Like the LNP site, the footprint of new power-generating units would 

20 be approximately 627 ac, with about 150 ac of additional land needed for temporary facilities 

21 and laydown yards. In addition, PEF indicates that a 1291-ac reservoir would be needed at the 

22 Putnam site to provide cooling water during periods of low flow of the St. Johns River (PEF 

23 2009d; CH2M Hill 2009). Construction of these facilities would result in a permanent land-use 

24 change from agriculture and forestry to a transportation, communications, and utilities land-use 

25 category. As shown in Table 9-25, there are coal-fired and combined-cycle gas/oil power 

26 plants, sand/gravel mines, and a concrete batch plant currently operating in the geographic area 

27 of interest around the Putman site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-198 August 2010 

1 Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions to 

2 accommodate new workers and services. Because the workforce would be dispersed over 

3 larger geographic areas in the labor supply region, the impacts from land conversion for 

4 residential and commercial buildings induced by new workers relocating to the local area can be 

5 absorbed into the wider region. Therefore, the review team concludes that such impacts would 

6 be minimal. 

7 There are no existing transmission lines or transmission-line corridors in the geographic area of 

8 interest around the Putnam site. New transmission lines would need to be constructed to 

9 connect the site to existing transmission lines. The transmission lines would run through 

10 counties designated under the Florida Coastal Management Program. Any expansion of these 

11 transmission-line corridors would require review under the procedures established under the 

12 Florida Coastal Management Program. Procedures for siting new transmission lines in Florida 

13 are discussed in Section 4.1.2. The review team assumes that the conditions of certification 

14 issued to PEF by the FDEP would apply at all of the alternative sites. 

15 The review team estimated the linear run of the expected transmission-line corridors by referring 

16 to PEF Figure 3.3.3-15 (PEF 2009d), which depicts the potential routing of corridors needed to 

17 connect the Putnam units to the grid. That figure suggests that 215 mi of transmission-line 

18 corridor would be needed. For purposes of land-use impact analysis, the review team made the 

19 assumption that 10 ac/mi would be disturbed, based on the LNP case where 1790 ac are 

20 expected to be disturbed over the 180 mi of corridor, as discussed in Section 4.1.2. The review 

21 team concludes that this assumption is reasonable because siting in Florida is a relatively 

22 rigorous process (Site Certification Application process), and the applicant would be bound by 

23 permit conditions resulting from that process, which would force it to use existing corridors to the 

24 extent practicable. The review team expects the SCA process would be consistently applied 

25 anywhere transmission lines are proposed in Florida. Therefore, the review team concludes 

26 that about 2150 ac of land would be disturbed to construct the transmission-line corridors for the 

27 Putnam site. Similar to the case at the LNP site, the review team concludes that land-use 

28 impacts from developing about 215 mi of new transmission-line corridors to connect new units 

29 at the Putnam site would be noticeable, but not destabilizing, and additional mitigation beyond 

30 the measures and conditions identified would not be warranted. 

31 Cumulative Impacts 

32 Future urbanization could contribute to additional decreases in open areas, forests, and 

33 wetlands and generally result in some increased residential and industrialized areas. However, 

34 growth would likely be limited since the population is projected to increase by approximately 1 

35 percent per year during the period from 2000 to 2015 (Putnam County 2006). Increased 

36 urbanization, especially long linear projects such as new or expanded roads or pipelines also 

37 would contribute to the loss of open or forested areas and increase fragmentation of habitats 

38 along or near the transmission lines. Due to the extent of new transmission lines that would be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-199 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 built, the review team expects that the corridors would have a noticeable impact on the local 

2 area. Development would likely be limited in the nearby parks and conservation areas. 

3 Therefore, the incremental impacts associated with increased urbanization would be minimal. 

4 Global climate change could increase temperature and reduce precipitation, which could result 

5 in reduced crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), which, in turn, may change 

6 portions of agricultural and ranching land uses in the geographic area of interest. In addition, 

7 global climate change could increase sea level and storm surges in the geographic area of 

8 interest (GCRP 2009), thereby changing land use through inundation and loss of coastal 

9 wetlands and other low-lying areas. However, existing forests, parks, reserves, and managed 

10 areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas to the extent that they are not affected 

11 by a rise in sea level. Because other projects identified in Table 9-25 that are within the 

12 geographic area of interest would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control 

13 policies and would occur in dispersed locations, the review team considers their contribution to 

14 the cumulative land-use impacts to be relatively minor and manageable. Because detailed 

15 information concerning the routing of the possible new transmission-line corridors is not known 

16 at this time, a complete evaluation of potential land-use impacts cannot be made. 

17 In the State of Florida's Conditions of Certification (FDEP 2010a), CREC Unit 1 and 2, two coal18 fired plants, would stop operating by December 31, 2020, as long as PEF completes the 

19 licensing process, construction activities, and commences commercial operation of LNP Units 1 

20 and 2 within a timely manner. If the Putnam site were selected, the review team expects the 

21 same condition would apply. If CREC Units 1 and 2 are shut down, land use at the units likely 

22 would remain industrial. Depending on economic conditions, PEF sells 60 to 95 percent of the 

23 coal plant ash to cement and building materials manufacturers, with the remainder going to 

24 Citrus Central Landfill in Lecanto, Florida. With the closure of CREC Units 1 and 2, this source 

25 of ash no longer would be available locally. The review team expects land-use impacts 

26 associated with the closure of CREC Units 1 and 2 would be minimal. 

27 Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s own independent review, the 

28 review team concludes that the land-use impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

29 reactor units at the Putnam site and other projects would be MODERATE. The proposed 

30 project would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact due to the substantial 

31 amount of land that would be needed for the proposed power plant, reservoir, and transmission 

32 infrastructure. 

33 9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality 

34 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

35 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

36 affect water use and quality, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 

37 9-25. The Putnam site is located in rural Putnam County in Florida near the St. Johns River. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-200 August 2010 

1 PEF has indicated that the development of this site for two nuclear units would require the 

2 building of a water reservoir on the Putnam site supplied with water from the St. Johns River 

3 (PEF 2009a). 

4 The geographic area of interest for the Putnam site is considered to be the drainage basin of the 

5 St. Johns River upstream and downstream of the site because this is the resource that would be 

6 affected by the proposed project. For groundwater the ROI is limited to the alternative site 

7 because PEF has indicated no plans for use of groundwater to build and operate the plant 

8 (CH2M Hill 2009). 

9 PEF indicates that the primary source of water for the site would be the St. Johns River. 

10 Groundwater is considered an unavailable or unreliable resource for large quantities of cooling 

11 water at all of the alternative sites; in addition, permitting large groundwater withdrawals for 

12 industrial use is generally inconsistent with State policy (CH2M Hill 2009). This analysis 

13 therefore assumes that groundwater would not be used during the building or operation of the 

14 two units at this site and that all water needs would be met with surface water from the St. 

15 Johns River. 

16 Surface water is available at the site from the St. Johns River. Historical flow data for October 

17 1992 through the present are available for the St. Johns River at Buffalo Bluff near Satusma 

18 Florida (USGS 2009). Mean monthly flow for the historic record ranges from 1840 cfs in May to 

19 7445 cfs in November. Minimum monthly flows have fallen below 230 cfs at times. 

20 Building Impacts 

21 The review team assumes that the surface-water use for building activities at the Putnam site 

22 would be identical to the proposed groundwater use for the LNP site. During building at the 

23 LNP site the total maximum usage is projected to be 550,000 gpd (0.85 cfs) and the projected 

24 average estimated maximum groundwater usage is 275,000 gpd (0.43 cfs) (see Table 3-2). 

25 This assumes that surface water would be used at the Putnam site for potable and sanitary use 

26 as well as various building related activities. This surface-water withdrawal rate is 

27 inconsequential when compared to the historic flow in the St. Johns River. The review team 

28 concludes that the impact of surface-water use for building the potential units at the Putnam site 

29 would be minimal because withdrawal is small compared to the average monthly flow and 

30 withdrawal from the river would be temporary and limited to the building period. 

31 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to build the 

32 units at the Putnam site. The review team also assumes that the impact of dewatering the 

33 excavations needed for building two units at the site would be managed through the installation 

34 of diaphragm walls and grouting as is proposed for the LNP site. Therefore, because there 

35 would be no groundwater use and the impact of dewatering would be controlled, the review 

36 team determined that there would be little or no impact on groundwater resources. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-201 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Surface-water quality would most likely be affected by surface-water runoff during site 

2 preparation and the building of the facilities. FDEP would require PEF to develop an E&SCP 

3 and a SWPPP (PEF 2009a). These plans would be developed before initiation of site4 disturbance activities and would identify measures to be used during site-preparation activities 

5 to mitigate erosion and control stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). 

6 The plans would identify BMPs to control the impacts of stormwater runoff. The review team 

7 anticipates that PEF would construct new detention/infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to 

8 control delivery of sediment from the disturbed area to onsite waterbodies. Sediment carried 

9 with stormwater from the disturbed area would settle in the detention ponds and the stormwater 

10 would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. Implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on 

11 surface-waterbodies near the Putnam site. Therefore, the surface-water-quality impacts near 

12 the Putnam site would be temporary and minimal. 

13 While building new nuclear units at the Putnam site, groundwater quality may be affected by 

14 leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs PEF 

15 has proposed for the LNP site would be in place during building activities, and therefore the 

16 review team concludes that any spills would be quickly detected and remediated. In addition, 

17 groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of these activities, and therefore, would be 

18 temporary. The review team reviewed the general BMPs that could be expected to be required 

19 at such a site (FDEP 2010a). Because any spills related to building activities would be quickly 

20 remediated under BMPs and the activities would be temporary, the review team concludes that 

21 the groundwater-quality impacts from building at the Putnam site would be minimal. 

22 Operational Impacts 

23 The Putnam site was identified by PEF as needing a cooling-water storage reservoir to meet 

24 plant cooling needs during periods of low flow. The review team assumed that the cooling water 

25 system for the proposed units, if they were to be built and operated at the Putnam site, would be 

26 similar to that proposed at the LNP site; specifically, the cooling water system would use cooling 

27 towers and blowdown would be discharged to the St. Johns River. The cooling-water reservoir 

28 would provide capacity for times when adequate water from the river may not be available. PEF 

29 did not provide details of the cooling-water intake and effluent discharge locations. However, it 

30 is standard practice for power plants to design cooling-water intake and effluent discharge 

31 locations such that recirculation of discharged effluent to the intake does not occur. The 

32 reservoir was sized assuming that the plant would operate on four cycles of concentration, that 

33 the total cooling-water requirements would be 45 Mgd (31,250 gpm) and that storage of a 90-

34 day supply of water would be needed. In determining the acreage needed to achieve this 

35 amount of storage PEF assumed the reservoir would have an effective depth of 10 ft. PEF 

36 indicates that the resulting reservoir size would be 1291 ac (PEF 2009d; CH2M Hill 2009). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-202 August 2010 

1 PEF indicates that the water needed to operate two units would be approximately 40,000 gpm 

2 or 89 cfs. As indicated in Chapter 3, evaporative losses from cooling two units would be 

3 approximately 28,000 gpm (62 cfs). A withdrawal of 89 cfs represents approximately 5 percent 

4 of the lowest mean monthly flow for the period of record. Flow in individual months has been 

5 much lower, which supports the need for a water reservoir on the Putnam site supplied with 

6 water from the St. Johns River. Minimum flows have been established for the St. Johns River 

7 (Fla. Admin. Code 40c-8). Minimum flows are specified for frequent high, average, and frequent 

8 low flow conditions of the river near DeLand, approximately 75 miles upstream of the Putnam 

9 site. The minimum flow values corresponding to frequent high, average, and frequent low flow 

10 conditions are 4600, 2050, and 1100 cfs, respectively. The withdrawal of 89 cfs would be 8 

11 percent of the minimum recommended frequent low flow in the river. Based on the indication 

12 that the water needed to operate two units at the Putnam site would be less than 5 percent of 

13 the lowest mean monthly flow and 8 percent of the minimum recommended frequent low flow, 

14 the review team determined that the operational surface-water-use impact of a potential plant at 

15 the Putnam site would be minor. 

16 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to operate the 

17 units at the Putnam site. Therefore, because there would be no groundwater use, the review 

18 team determined that there would be no impact on groundwater resources. 

19 During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Putnam site, impacts on surface-water 

20 quality could result from stormwater runoff, discharges of treated sanitary and other wastewater, 

21 and blowdown from cooling towers into the receiving waterbody. PEF did not provide the 

22 blowdown rate at the Putnam site. The review team conservatively assumed that the blowdown 

23 rate would be the same as that at the LNP site, 57,923 gpm (129 cfs). This assumption is 

24 conservative because the proposed plant at the Putnam site would use freshwater from the St. 

25 Johns River rather than more saline water at the LNP site, requiring less frequent and smaller 

26 blowdown discharge. FDEP would require PEF to develop a SWPPP (PEF 2009a), which 

27 would identify measures to be used to control stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). The blowdown 

28 would be regulated by FDEP pursuant to 40 CFR Part 423 and all discharges would be required 

29 to comply with limits established by FDEP in a NPDES permit. 

30 During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Putnam site, impacts on groundwater 

31 quality could result from potential spills. Spills that might affect the quality of groundwater would 

32 be prevented and mitigated by BMPs. Because BMPs would be used to mitigate spills and no 

33 intentional discharge to groundwater should occur, the review team concludes that the 

34 groundwater-quality impacts from operation of two nuclear units at the Putnam site would be 

35 minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-203 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

3 cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

4 affect the same water resources. 

5 For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the 

6 Putnam site is considered to be the drainage basin of the St. Johns River upstream and 

7 downstream of the site because this is the resource that would be affected by the proposed 

8 project. For groundwater, the ROI is limited to the alternative site because PEF has indicated 

9 no plans for use of groundwater to build and operate the plant. Actions that have past, present, 

10 and future potential impacts on water supply and water quality near the Putnam site include the 

11 Seminole Power Plant and the Putnam Steam Power Plant (both located within 20 mi of the 

12 Putnam site), existing agriculture, and existing and future urbanization in the region. 

13 The GCRP has compiled the state of knowledge in climate change. This compilation has been 

14 considered in the preparation of this EIS. The projections for changes in temperature, 

15 precipitation, droughts, and increasing reliance on aquifers within the St. Johns River drainage 

16 are similar to those at other alternative sites in Florida. Such significant changes in climate 

17 would result in adaptations to both surface-water and groundwater management practices and 

18 policies that are unknown at this time. 

19 Cumulative Water Use 

20 PEF indicates that the water needed to operate two units would be approximately 40,000 gpm 

21 or 89 cfs. As indicated in Chapter 3, evaporative losses from cooling two units would be 

22 approximately 28,000 gpm (62 cfs). PEF indicates that a reservoir would be needed to provide 

23 cooling water during periods of low flow. A withdrawal of 89 cfs represents approximately 5 

24 percent of the lowest mean monthly flow for the period of record. Flow in individual months has 

25 been much lower, which supports PEF’s statement that a water reservoir on the Putnam site 

26 supplied with water from the St. Johns River would be needed 

27 Based on the indication that the water needed to operate two units at the Putnam site would be 

28 less than 5 percent of the lowest mean monthly flow and 8 percent of the minimum 

29 recommended frequent low flow, the review team determined that the operational surface30 water-use impact of a potential plant at the Putnam site would be minor. 

31 The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-25 are considered in the analysis included 

32 above or would have little or no impact on surface-water use. The effects of withdrawals by 

33 large existing surface water users (such as by the two power generating stations mentioned 

34 above, and local agricultural and municipal users) are already reflected in historical streamflow 

35 data provided by the USGS. Other projects, that would have little impact, are excluded from the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-204 August 2010 

1 analysis either because they are too distant from the Highlands site, or use relatively little or no 

2 surface water, or have little or no discharge to surface water. Some projects (for example park 

3 and forest management) are ongoing, and changes in their operations that would have large 

4 impacts on surface water use appear unlikely. As stated above, minimum flows have been 

5 established for the St. Johns River (Fla. Admin. Code 40c-8). A withdrawal of 89 cfs would be 8 

6 percent of the minimum recommended frequent low flow in the river. Therefore, the review 

7 team concludes that cumulative impacts on surface-water use would be MODERATE. Building 

8 and operating the proposed units at the Putnam site would not be a significant contributor to the 

9 cumulative impact on surface water use of St. Johns River. 

10 As stated above, the review team assumed that no groundwater would be used to build or 

11 operate the units at the Putnam site and that groundwater impacts from dewatering would be 

12 controlled with diaphragm walls and grouting. Therefore the review team determined that there 

13 would be minimal impact on groundwater resources. The impacts of the other projects listed in 

14 Table 9-25 are considered in this analysis or would have little or no impact on groundwater use. 

15 Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on groundwater use would be 

16 SMALL. 

17 Cumulative Water Quality 

18 Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the St. Johns River upstream and 

19 downstream of the site. The FDEP, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water 

20 Act) Section 305(b), prepares a statewide Water Quality Inventory. The FDEP also identifies 

21 impaired waterbodies during this process and lists them on the 303(d) List. The 303(d) List of 

22 Waters reports on streams and lakes identified as being impaired for one or more pollutants and 

23 that do not meet one or more of the water-quality standards. The lower St. Johns River appears 

24 on Florida’s list of impaired waters because of the presence of nutrients, fecal coliform, 

25 depressed dissolved oxygen, turbidity, dioxin, iron, lead, zinc, and mercury in fish tissue (FDEP 

26 2009h); therefore, the review team concludes that the cumulative impact on surface-water 

27 quality of the receiving waterbody would be MODERATE. Water-quality information presented 

28 above for the impacts of building and operating the new units at the Putnam site would also 

29 apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. As mentioned above, the State of Florida would 

30 require PEF to develop a SWPPP (PEF 2009a), which would identify measures to be used to 

31 control stormwater runoff (PEF 2009a). The blowdown would be regulated by EPA pursuant to 

32 40 CFR Part 423 and all discharges would be required to comply with limits established by 

33 FDEP in a NPDES permit. Such permits are designed to protect water quality. Past and 

34 present action in the region has noticeably affected surface water quality adversely. Therefore, 

35 the review team concluded that building and operating the proposed units at the Putnam 

36 alternative site would not be a significant contributor to impacts on surface-water quality 

37 because industrial and wastewater discharges from the proposed units would comply with 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-205 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 NPDES permit limitations and any stormwater runoff from the site during operations would 

2 comply with the SWPPP (PEF 2009a). 

3 The review team also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on 

4 groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the Putnam site would 

5 likely be minimal. Therefore, the cumulative impact on groundwater quality would be SMALL. 

6 The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-25 are either considered in the analysis included 

7 above or would have little or no impact on surface-water and groundwater quality. 

8 9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

9 Site Description 

10 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from construction 

11 and preconstruction activities and operations on terrestrial and wetland resources. The analysis 

12 also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial 

13 ecological resources, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects 

14 listed in Table 9-25. For the analysis of terrestrial ecological impacts at the Putnam site, the 

15 geographic area of interest is considered to be a 20-mi-wide area centered on the Putnam site 

16 and the associated offsite and transmission-line corridors. This 20-mi radius is expected to 

17 encompass the locations of possible development projects potentially capable of substantially 

18 influencing terrestrial ecological resources on and close to the Putnam project site. This 

19 geographical area of influence generally coincides with those defined for hydrology and aquatic 

20 ecology, both of which are closely interrelated with the terrestrial ecology of this setting. This 

21 area includes watersheds providing direct runoff from the Putnam site to onsite streams and the 

22 St. John’s River, as well as the watersheds through which the transmission lines would be 

23 routed. 

24 The Putnam site is a greenfield site situated in a rural area in the Eastern Florida Flatwoods 

25 ecoregion on the lower St. Johns River, a blackwater river designated as an American Heritage 

26 River. The St. Johns River is a wide, meandering, slow-moving river system that drops less 

27 than 30 ft as it flows north from its origins in south-central Florida to the Atlantic Ocean near 

28 Jacksonville (St. Johns Riverkeeper 2009). Most of the site has been disturbed by previous 

29 mining activities, but much has been reclaimed. Land use on and in the vicinity of the Putnam 

30 site is mostly forested habitat, with a large proportion of coniferous plantations and forest 

31 regeneration areas (CH2M Hill 2009). Habitats found on the Putnam site and in the vicinity are 

32 typical of those in the Eastern Florida Flatwoods ecoregion, which include mixed wetland 

33 hardwoods, cypress swamps, hydric pine flatwoods, freshwater marshes, and some wet 

34 prairies. 

35 The associated transmission-line corridors would begin in the Eastern Florida Flatwoods 

36 ecoregion and cross the Central Florida Ridges and Uplands and Southwestern Florida 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-206 August 2010 

1 Flatwoods ecoregions. Vegetation community types in the Central Florida Ridges and Uplands 

2 ecoregion include sandhill vegetation such as turkey oak, bluejack oak, and longleaf pine for the 

3 dominant canopy species along with common understory species of running oak, gopher apple, 

4 and bluestem and panicum grasses (USDA 2006). Vegetation community types in the 

5 Southwestern Florida Flatwoods ecoregion include slash pine, longleaf pine, cabbage palm, and 

6 live oak with typical understory species of saw palmetto, and gallberry. 

7 Important Species 

8 Common wildlife, including important species, associated with the above-mentioned ecoregions 

9 that may occur on the Putnam site and associated transmission-line corridors includes Florida 

10 recreationally important species such as white-tailed deer, bobcat, feral hog, squirrel, northern 

11 bobwhite, and mourning dove, as well as skunk, raccoon, and several species of woodpecker. 

12 Various bird, reptile, and amphibian species also have the potential to reside on the Putnam site 

13 and associated transmission-line corridors (USDA 2006; FNAI 2009). 

14 No site-specific surveys have been conducted for threatened and endangered species on the 

15 site and in the vicinity, offsite corridors, or the associated transmission-line corridors. Table 9-7 

16 lists all Federally and State-listed species that could occur on the Putnam site and in the vicinity, 

17 offsite corridors, and in the counties crossed by the transmission-line corridors. Some of these 

18 species may at times be found on or in vicinity of the Putnam site and associated offsite 

19 corridors. Counties crossed by the transmission-line corridors for the Putnam site would include 

20 Hillsborough, Marion, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter, and Volusia Counties. PEF 

21 has stated that on-the-ground field surveys would be conducted before commencement of 

22 ground-disturbing activities on the site and in the offsite corridors and transmission-line corridors 

23 as required by the FDEP (PEF 2009a; CH2M Hill 2009; FDEP 2010a). 

24 Building Impacts 

25 Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

26 unavoidable. Activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading (temporary 

27 and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy 

28 equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would 

29 likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the construction areas. Some wildlife, including 

30 important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above 

31 projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 

32 resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

33 at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

34 would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to disturbed areas 

35 could provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space 

36 and resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from 

37 noise and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-207 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The creation of new transmission2 line corridors could be beneficial for some important wildlife species, including those that inhabit 

3 early successional habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, northern 

4 bobwhite, eastern meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks 

5 would likely exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors 

6 would be converted to and maintained in an herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could 

7 provide improved foraging habitat for waterfowl and wading birds. However, fragmentation of 

8 upland and wetland forests could affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous 

9 forested habitat. 

10 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the Putnam site, PEF would need to clear 

11 approximately 441 ac of terrestrial habitats for the nuclear facility, approximately 191 ac for 

12 associated offsite structures and corridors (excluding transmission line corridors), and an 

13 additional 1282 ac of land would need to be cleared and excavated to accommodate a reservoir 

14 (See Table 9-26 and Table 9-27) (CH2M Hill 2009). Based upon FLUCFCS land-use data, 

15 approximately 34 ac of wetlands would be affected on the site during building (CH2M Hill 2009). 

16 Approximately 15 ac of wetlands would be affected in the offsite corridors (CH2M Hill 2009). 

17 Approximately 210 ac of wetlands would be affected to excavate the reservoir (CH2M Hill 2009). 

18 PEF states that the nuclear facility would be sited to avoid wetlands whenever possible and 

19 potential impacts on wetlands near building zones would be minimized through the use of 

20 established BMPs (PEF 2009a). Under Federal and State permitting requirements, PEF would 

21 be obligated to mitigate any unavoidable construction impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and 

22 listed species (FDEP 2010a). 

23 Table 9-26. Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Putnam Alternative Site

Land-Use Class (FLUCFCS) 

(acreage) Onsite Reservoir 

Offsite 

Corridors 

(Except 

Transmission) 

Transmission 

Corridors(a)

Urban and Built Environment (% of area) 159 

(36%) 

413 (32%) 19 (10%) 1360 (23%) 

Agriculture 0 (0%) 1 (<1%) 11 (6%) 828 (14%) 

Upland Nonforested 17 (4%) 3 (<1%) 1 (1%) 202 (3%) 

Upland Forested 225 

(51%) 

652 (51%) 138 (72%) 1978 (33%) 

Water 0 (0%) 3 (<1%) 1 (1%) 402 (7%) 

Wetlands 34 (8%) 210 (16%) 15 (8%) 702 (12%) 

Barren Lands 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (3%) 15 (<1%) 

Transportation, Communication and Utilities 7 (2%) 9 (1%) 2 (1%) 516 (9%) 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Acreages listed for transmission-line corridors are total acres available, not total acres affected. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-208 August 2010 

1 Table 9-27. Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Putnam Site

Impact Areas Acres 

Onsite Impact Areas 442 

Reservoir Impact Areas 1291 

Transmission-Line Corridor Areas 6003(a)

Offsite Impact Areas 191 

Total Impact Areas 

1908 (plus portion of 6003-ac 

transmission corridor) 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009 

(a) Acreages for transmission lines are total acres available in the 

corridor, not total acres affected. 

2 New transmission-system infrastructure would be needed to support a nuclear power facility at 

3 the Putnam site and would include approximately 215 mi of transmission lines (estimates made 

4 by measuring the approximate distance of hypothetical corridors provided in CH2M Hill [2009]; 

5 see assumptions in Section 9.3.5.1). There are no existing transmission lines or transmission6 line corridors present on the site. PEF has assumed that transmission lines would be collocated 

7 within existing transmission-line corridors to the extent possible, thereby minimizing potential 

8 terrestrial impacts (CH2M Hill 2009). In addition, transmission-line corridors, towers, and the 

9 access road would be situated to avoid critical or sensitive habitats and species to the extent 

10 possible. Transmission-line corridor width would vary from 55 ft to 460 ft wide, depending on 

11 size, voltage, and whether or not existing corridors could be used. These widths were used in 

12 the analysis of the hypothetical routes for each alternative site to determine land-use cover 

13 types within the identified corridor (CH2M Hill 2009). The transmission-line corridors for the 

14 Putnam site include 6003 ac, of which approximately 702 ac are wetlands and approximately 

15 1978 ac is forested habitat (CH2M Hill 2009). Some portion of the total 1978 ac of forested 

16 habitat and 702 ac of wetland habitat present in the corridors would be affected; however, 

17 because actual routes have not been determined, impacts on forests and wetlands cannot be 

18 quantified. Under Federal and State permitting requirements, PEF would be obligated to 

19 mitigate any unavoidable construction impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and listed species. 

20 PEF stated that all land clearing associated with the nuclear facility, offsite structures, and 

21 transmission-line creation would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local 

22 regulations, permit requirements, existing procedures, and established BMPs (PEF 2009a; 

23 FDEP 2010a). 

24 Building two new nuclear reactors at the Putnam site, including the reservoir and offsite 

25 corridors (except transmission line corridors), would result in the loss of approximately 1924 ac 

26 of terrestrial habitat. Clearing land for the transmission-line corridor would also result in a loss 

27 of an undetermined amount of terrestrial habitat due to clearing and increase habitat 

28 fragmentation along the corridor. Other sources of impacts on terrestrial resources such as 

29 noise, increased risk of collision and electrocution, and displacement of wildlife would likely be
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-209 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 temporary and result in minimal impacts on the resource. Because of the extent of unavoidable 

2 terrestrial habitat losses, building the two new units would noticeably alter the available 

3 terrestrial habitat on and in the landscape surrounding the Putnam site. 

4 Operational Impacts 

5 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources, including important species, from operation of two 

6 new nuclear units at the Putnam site include those associated with transmission system 

7 structures, maintenance of transmission-line corridors, and operation of the cooling towers. 

8 Also, during plant operation, wildlife would be subjected to impacts from collisions with 

9 increased traffic. 

10 Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling-tower drift cannot be 

11 evaluated in detail in the absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at 

12 each alternative site. Similarly, bird collisions with cooling towers cannot be evaluated in the 

13 absence of information about the specific location of cooling towers at the site. The impacts of 

14 cooling-tower drift and bird collisions for existing power plants were evaluated in NUREG-1437 

15 (NRC 1996) and found to be of minor significance for nuclear power plants in general, including 

16 those with various numbers and types of cooling towers. On this basis, the review team 

17 concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling-tower 

18 drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of new nuclear units would 

19 be minor. 

20 Outdoor noise levels on the Putnam site are predicted to range from 90 dBA near the loudest 

21 equipment to 65 dBA in areas more distant from major noise sources (PEF 2009a). Noise 

22 modeling predicts not perceptible to slight increases in noise from plant operations at the site 

23 boundary (PEF 2009a). Except in areas immediately adjacent to major noise sources, expected 

24 noise levels would be below the 60- to 65-dBA threshold at which birds and red foxes (a 

25 surrogate for small and medium-sized mammals) are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). 

26 Thus, noise from operating cooling towers at the Putnam site would not be likely to disturb 

27 wildlife beyond the site boundary. Consequently, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

28 cooling-tower noise on wildlife would be minimal. 

29 An evaluation of specific impacts resulting from building of transmission lines and transmission30 line corridor maintenance cannot be conducted in any detail due to the lack of information, such 

31 as the specific locations of new rights-of-way that could result from transmission system 

32 upgrades. However, in general, impacts associated with transmission-line operation consist of 

33 bird collisions with transmission lines, EMF effects on flora and fauna, and habitat loss due to 

34 corridor maintenance. The impacts associated with transmission-line corridor maintenance 

35 activities include alteration of habitat, including wetland and floodplain habitat, due to cutting 

36 and herbicide application, and similar related impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-210 August 2010 

1 Transmission lines and associated structures pose a potential avian collision hazard. Direct 

2 mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed (Erickson et al. 

3 2005). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and 

4 related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory flight during darkness by 

5 flocking birds has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower height, location, 

6 configuration, and lighting also appear to play a role in avian mortality. Weather, such as low 

7 cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Waterfowl may be 

8 particularly vulnerable due to their low, fast flight and flocking behavior (EPRI 1993). Bird 

9 collisions with transmission lines are recognized as being of minor significance at operating 

10 nuclear power plants, including transmission-line corridors with variable numbers of power lines 

11 (NRC 1996). Accordingly, although additional transmission lines would be required for new 

12 nuclear units at the Putnam site, increases in bird collisions would be minor and they would 

13 likely not be expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. PEF would 

14 also be required to have an Avian Protection Plan in compliance with State certification 

15 guidelines (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions posed by 

16 the addition of new transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

17 EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

18 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

19 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

20 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). At a 

21 distance of 300 ft, the magnetic fields from many lines are similar to typical background levels in 

22 most homes. Thus, impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at 

23 operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power 

24 lines (NRC 1996). Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at 

25 cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2003). 

26 These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or 

27 mice (Moulder 2003). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by addition of new 

28 transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

29 Roads providing access to the existing transmission-line corridors at the Putnam site would 

30 likely be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be required 

31 during the construction of new transmission-line corridors. Management activities (cutting and 

32 herbicide application) related to transmission-line corridors and related impacts on floodplains 

33 and wetlands in transmission-line corridors are recognized as being of minor significance at 

34 operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors of variable 

35 widths (NRC 1996). The review team assumes that the same vegetation and construction 

36 management of corridors currently used by PEF would be used in the establishment and 

37 maintenance of the new corridors. Under the Conditions of Certification for the State, PEF 

38 would also be required to retain existing vegetation whenever practicable and use BMPs that 

39 comply with the Florida State regulations (FDEP 2010a). Consequently, the incremental effects 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-211 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and associated impacts on floodplains and 

2 wetlands posed by expanding existing corridors or the addition of a new transmission-line 

3 corridor for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

4 To summarize, the potential effects of operating two new nuclear reactors at the Putnam site 

5 would be primarily associated with the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and increased 

6 traffic. Operational impacts on terrestrial resources would generally be expected to be minimal. 

7 Cumulative Impacts 

8 Past and present actions in the geographic area of interest that have influenced terrestrial 

9 resources in a way similar to the building and operation of the proposed two new nuclear units 

10 at the Putnam site include the approximately 2000-ac Seminole Power Plant and the Putnam 

11 Steam Power Plant. Construction of the nuclear facility at the Putnam site would have impacts 

12 on terrestrial resources similar to those of the proposed project at the LNP site, and operation of 

13 the transmission system would have similar impacts on terrestrial resources as mentioned 

14 above. The Iluka Resources Inc. mine, located north of the Putnam site, would have also 

15 affected terrestrial resources in a similar way. Furthermore, terrestrial habitats throughout the 

16 geographic area of interest have been extensively altered by a history of forestry and 

17 agricultural practices as well as low density residential development. 

18 Proposed reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a way 

19 similar to development at the Putnam site would include transmission-line creation and/or 

20 upgrading throughout the designated geographical ROI, and future urbanization would also be 

21 expected to occur. There are no areas within the geographical ROI that are managed for the 

22 benefit of wildlife. 

23 The other impact on terrestrial resources at the Putnam site would be the effect of global climate 

24 change on plants and wildlife. The impact of global climate change on terrestrial wildlife and 

25 habitat in the geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change would 

26 result in a rise in sea level and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe 

27 weather, decreases in annual precipitation, and increases in average temperature (GCRP 

28 2009). Such changes in climate could alter terrestrial community composition on or near the 

29 Putnam site through changes in species diversity, abundance and distribution. Elevated water 

30 temperatures, droughts, and severe weather phenomena may adversely affect or severely 

31 reduce terrestrial habitat. Specific predictions of habitat changes in this region due to global 

32 climate change are inconclusive at this time. However, because of the regional nature of 

33 climate change, the impacts related to global climate change would be similar for all of the 

34 alternative sites. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-212 August 2010 

1 Summary Statement 

2 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based in the information provided by 

3 PEF and the review team’s independent review. There are past, present, and future activities in 

4 the geographic area of interest that could affect terrestrial ecology in ways similar to the building 

5 of two units at the Putnam site. The Putnam site and some of the associated transmission lines 

6 are natural habitats that would be substantially altered by development and maintenance 

7 activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of terrestrial wildlife populations in the 

8 surrounding landscape. Other anticipated development projects would further alter wildlife 

9 habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The review team therefore 

10 concludes that the cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for terrestrial ecological resources 

11 would be MODERATE. This determination is based upon the extent of expected wetland loss 

12 and habitat fragmentation from ongoing and planned development projects, continued 

13 widespread manipulation of habitats for commercial forest management, and anticipated losses 

14 of habitat for important species. The incremental impacts from building and operating the 

15 Putnam project would be a significant contributor to the moderate cumulative impact, primarily 

16 because of a loss or modification of habitats that support wildlife, wetlands, and important 

17 species. Although incremental impacts on terrestrial resources could be noticeable near the 

18 Putnam project site, these impacts would not be expected to destabilize the overall ecology of 

19 the regional landscape. 

20 9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources 

21 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

22 aquatic ecology resources. The proposed Putnam site has no existing infrastructure associated 

23 with development of a nuclear power plant. This greenfield site is adjacent to the St. Johns 

24 River, which is proposed as the water source for cooling and discharge. Water flow in the St. 

25 Johns River is managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), with an 

26 established minimum average flow of 240 cfs for the St. Johns River below the Lake 

27 Washington weir. PEF maintains that there would be adequate flow to supply water through a 

28 closed-cycle cooling design for a two-unit plant. However, under drought conditions, the St. 

29 Johns River may not be able to provide sufficient water, and PEF acknowledges that the 

30 building of a reservoir would be required to ensure consistent water supply (PEF 2009a). The 

31 geographic area of interest includes the site and vicinity streams as well as the St. Johns River 

32 upstream and downstream of the intake and discharge as the area most likely to be affected by 

33 new nuclear units, as well as associated transmission-line corridors. 

34 The St. Johns River flows from swampy headwaters in Melbourne, Florida, northward to the 

35 mouth near Mayport on the Atlantic Ocean. Classified as an American Heritage River, the 

36 St. Johns River has experienced a severe decline in water quality and increased use as a 

37 freshwater resource, which have prompted the water management district to improve water 

38 quality and restore habitat, particularly in the lower river basin, which includes Putnam County 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-213 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 (SJRWMD 2008a). Several initiatives are planned to target water quality, biological health, and 

2 sediment management in the lower St. Johns River basin and the connecting Lake George 

3 basin, which is also located in Putnam County (SJRWMD 2008b). 

4 There are no sanctuaries or preserves that could be affected by the proposed action. The 

5 nearest State-managed areas are the Oklawaha River Aquatic Preserve in Marion County and 

6 the Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve to the south of Putnam County. The Oklawaha River 

7 Aquatic Preserve covers 4600 ac of submerged lands and flows into the St. Johns River at 

8 Palatka (FDEP 2009d). The Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve encompasses 19,000 ac of 

9 submerged land and flows into the middle St. Johns River basin (FDEP 2009e). 

10 Commercially Important Species 

11 Commercial fisheries allowed in the St. Johns River include menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), 

12 black mullet, and blue crab. For life history information on the black mullet and blue crab refer 

13 to Section 2.4.2. 

14 The Atlantic menhaden inhabit inland tidal waters and spawn offshore during October through 

15 March. Juvenile development typically occurs in estuarine or tidal habitat with salinities less 

16 than 10 ppt (ASMFC 2009). Fished as both a bait and food fish, landings for Putnam County in 

17 2008 recorded over 12,000 lb (FFWCC 2009a). 

18 Recreationally Important Species 

19 Largemouth bass, speckled perch (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), 

20 catfish (Ameiurus spp.), blue crab, and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) are the primary recreational 

21 species caught in the Lake George basin and Putnam County area of the St. Johns River 

22 (BASS Online Inc. 2008). 

23 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

24 Water hyacinth, water lettuce, and hydrilla are common invasive aquatic plant species that have 

25 been noted in the St. Johns River and are controlled by the SJRWMD through the FDEP/Florida 

26 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Invasive Plant Management Program (FDEP 

27 2008). Power plant operations are not expected to affect these aquatic nuisance species. 

28 Critical Habitats 

29 No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS or NMFS in the vicinity of the Putnam 

30 County alternative site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-214 August 2010 

1 Federally and State-Listed Species 

2 Federally and State-listed aquatic species that may occur near the Putnam County alternative 

3 site include the endangered Florida manatee and the endangered shortnose sturgeon 

4 (Acipenser brevirostrum). Federally and State-listed species may also occur along 

5 transmission-line corridors in Hillsborough County, such as the endangered green sea turtle, 

6 leatherback sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and the threatened gulf 

7 sturgeon. Detailed species information is provided in Section 2.4.2.3. 

8 Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) 

9 The Florida manatee upper St. Johns River management unit, which includes Putnam County, 

10 constitutes approximately 5 percent of the total manatee population, but is the fastest growing of 

11 the four management units. Over 450 ac are regulated in Putnam County by FWS as Manatee 

12 Protection Zones (FFWCC 2007d). PEF would comply with the Standard Manatee Conditions 

13 for In-Water Work (FDEP 2010a) for construction activities in the St. Johns River to prevent 

14 impacts on manatees in the vicinity of construction activities. Thermal discharges from 

15 operations may result in increased use of habitat near the point of discharge if discharge is to 

16 the St. Johns River. Plant outages that result in cold shock could affect manatees that become 

17 habituated to power plant thermal discharges. 

18 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

19 Shortnose sturgeon range along the eastern Canadian and U.S. coast from the St. John River in 

20 Canada to the St. Johns River in Florida. All spawning occurs in freshwater during a narrow 

21 1- to 2-week period in the spring. Females only spawn every 3 to 5 years after reaching sexual 

22 maturity at age 8 to 12. Males may spawn every year after reaching age 6 to 10 (NMFS 1998). 

23 Shortnose sturgeon are sensitive to water-quality conditions and require rocky or gravel 

24 substrate for spawning. If habitat is not favorable, spawning will not occur, and the lower St. 

25 Johns River has little of this preferred habitat type. In the St. Johns River, most catch records 

26 for the shortnose sturgeon have occurred in the lower basin near Palatka. A sampling survey 

27 from 2002 to 2003 recorded a single shortnose sturgeon to the south of Palatka, despite more 

28 than 820 hours of sampling effort (FFWCC 2009c). To date, no evidence of spawning or adult 

29 migration in the St. Johns River has been collected to indicate that there is a viable reproducing 

30 population in this river. 

31 Building Impacts 

32 New cooling-water intake and discharge structures in addition to a cooling-water reservoir would 

33 be required at the Putnam County site. Installation of a new intake and discharge would result 

34 in the temporary displacement of aquatic biota within the vicinity of both structures. It is 

35 expected that these biota would return to the area after installation is complete. Sedimentation 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-215 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 due to disturbances of the river bank and bottom during installation activities could affect local 

2 benthic populations. However, the impacts on aquatic organisms would be temporary and 

3 largely mitigable through the use of BMPs. The impacts of building a cooling-water reservoir 

4 may be significant depending on the siting of the reservoir. During the review team’s visit to the 

5 Putnam site, observations of the site from public roads indicated the presence of streams that 

6 are either perennial or seasonal. These aquatic resources have not been examined for diversity 

7 of aquatic biota, but nonetheless, they represent aquatic habitat that would likely be affected by 

8 the building of facilities for the site. Offsite corridor preparations would not cross any streams, 

9 but would cross two open waterbodies (CH2M Hill 2009). The use of BMPs during building 

10 activities would result in minimal impacts on aquatic biota located in water resources within the 

11 site building areas. 

12 New transmission-line infrastructure would be required for a new two-unit facility. There 

13 currently are no existing transmission-line corridors in the immediate vicinity of the greenfield 

14 site, and new corridors would need to be established. Transmission corridors appear to follow 

15 the Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas corridor identified for the LNP site in addition to other corridors in 

16 Marion, Putnam, Seminole, Sumpter, and Volusia Counties (CH2M Hill 2009). PEF anticipates 

17 transmission-line corridors would cross 7 streams and 94 open waterbodies and should have 

18 minimal impact on aquatic resources, including minimal impacts on threatened and endangered 

19 sea turtles and the threatened gulf sturgeon (CH2M Hill 2009). 

20 Operational Impacts 

21 Impingement and entrainment of organisms from the St. Johns River and from a constructed 

22 reservoir would be the most likely impacts on aquatic populations that could occur from 

23 operation of two new nuclear units at the Putnam County site. Assuming a closed-cycle cooling 

24 system, a maximum through-screen intake velocity of 0.5 ft/sec or less and an intake flow of 

25 less than or equal to 5 percent of the mean annual flow which meets the EPA’s Phase I 

26 regulations for new facilities (66 FR 65256), the anticipated impacts on aquatic populations from 

27 entrainment and impingement are expected to be minimal. Operational impacts associated with 

28 water quality and discharge cannot be determined without additional detailed analysis. 

29 However, based on the staff’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that 

30 with proper design the impacts on aquatic resources due to the blowdown discharge from 

31 operation of two new nuclear units at the Putnam County site would likely be minimal with FDEP 

32 NPDES compliance. 

33 The staff also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of the 

34 transmission-line corridors would be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs are used. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-216 August 2010 

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within the St. Johns River include the operation of 

3 Seminole Power Plant and Putnam Steam Power Plant, both of which use water from and 

4 discharge to the St. Johns River. Other impacts include small business and wastewater5 treatment plants that discharge wastewater to the St. Johns River within the geographic area of 

6 interest for the Putnam site. These discharge operators and businesses have active NPDES 

7 permits for discharge. 

8 Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

9 nuclear facility can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

10 include shoreline development (i.e., removal of habitat), increased water needs, and increased 

11 discharge of effluents into the St. Johns River. The effects of continued industrial discharge 

12 practices could result in additional habitat loss and/or degradation due to water use using 

13 surface waters and groundwater withdrawal, point and non-point source pollution, siltation, and 

14 bank erosion. 

15 The review team is also aware of the potential for global climate change to affect aquatic 

16 resources. The impact of global climate change on aquatic organisms and habitat in the 

17 geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change would result in a rise 

18 in sea level and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, decreases in 

19 annual precipitation, and increases in average temperature (GCRP 2009). Such changes in 

20 climate could alter aquatic community composition on or near the Putnam site through changes 

21 in species diversity, abundance, and distribution. Elevated water temperatures, droughts, and 

22 severe weather phenomena may adversely affect or severely reduce aquatic habitat, but, 

23 specific predictions of aquatic habitat changes in this region due to global climate change are 

24 inconclusive at this time. The level of impact resulting from these events would depend on the 

25 intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic communities.

26 Summary Statement 

27 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by PEF, 

28 the State of Florida, and the review team’s independent review. Properly siting associated 

29 transmission lines, avoiding habitat for protected species and minimizing interactions with 

30 waterbodies and watercourses along the corridors, and the using BMPs during intake and 

31 discharge installation, transmission-line corridor preparation, and tower placement would 

32 minimize building and operation impacts. There would be impacts associated with the loss of 

33 aquatic habitat, particularly during low flow conditions in the river, due to the consumptive loss 

34 of water from closed-cycle cooling. There also would be unspecified impacts related to the 

35 construction and operation of a cooling reservoir however these could be minimized through 

36 proper siting and the use of BMPs during construction. The use of a cooling reservoir would 

37 partially mitigate the effects of consumptive water loss on aquatic habitat during low river flow. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-217 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new 

2 reactors on the Putnam site combined with other past, present, and future activities on aquatic 

3 resources in the St. Johns River would be SMALL. 

4 9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics 

5 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from the building 

6 activities and operations of two new nuclear units at the Putnam site, which is located in rural 

7 Putnam County in northeastern Florida. The analysis considers other past, present, and 

8 reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect socioeconomics, including other Federal and 

9 non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-25. For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the 

10 Putnam site, the geographic area of interest is the region within a 50-mi radius centered on the 

11 Putnam site (the region) with special consideration of the five counties of Putnam, Clay, Flagler, 

12 Marion, and St. Johns Counties, because that is where the review team expects socioeconomic 

13 impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of site development and 

14 operation at the Putnam site, the review team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the site 

15 using readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. 

16 The Putnam site is a greenfield site located in an area in which there is an operating coal-fired 

17 power plant and a combined-cycle gas/oil-fired power plant, sand mines, and a concrete batch 

18 plant. The review team drew upon UCSB 2000 data to find the available total construction 

19 workforce within the host county, adjacent counties, and any nearby counties with a major 

20 population center within a reasonable commuting distance from the site. For the Putnam site, 

21 this included Putnam, Clay, Alachua, Marion, Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, and Duval Counties. 

22 The total workforce employed in these counties in 2000 was 71,994 workers. Based on this 

23 workforce availability, the review team assumed that up to 80 percent of the 3300-person 

24 workforce involved in building the two-unit plant, or 2640 workers, would be drawn from existing 

25 residents of this region, and that 20 percent, or 660 workers, would migrant into the area. This 

26 20 percent would include special trades needed for nuclear power plant production that may not 

27 be available in the region. 

28 The review team identified the Economic Impact Area (EIA) for a two-unit nuclear plant at the 

29 Putnam site to include Putnam County and the immediately adjacent counties of Clay, Flagler, 

30 Marion, and St. Johns, based on the review team’s expected effects of in-migrating workers and 

31 families. The review team expects that some of the in-migrating workers would choose to 

32 reside in Alachua, Duval, and Volusia Counties because of the amenities available in the larger 

33 cities there, but these counties’ economies and community infrastructures are sufficiently large 

34 that the review team expects that project-related effects would not be noticeable. The review 

35 team focused on the effects of the workforce involved in building the two-unit plant because the 

36 operations workforce would be smaller than the construction and preconstruction workforce, 

37 with smaller socioeconomic impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-218 August 2010 

1 Table 9-28 provides some socioeconomic data for the EIA. For the purposes of this analysis 

2 the review team projected that about one-quarter, or 165 of the in-migrating workers, would be 

3 distributed among Alachua, Duval, and Volusia Counties because they offer more urban 

4 amenities than the counties in the EIA. The review team assumed that the other 495 in5 migrating workers would be distributed among the EIA. The review team further assumed that 

6 all in-migrating workers would bring families; this is unlikely but provides an upper bound on 

7 population impacts associated with the project. The review team used the 2.49 average Florida 

8 family size to project the distribution of population due to in-migrating workers shown in Table 9-

9 29. 

10 Physical and Aesthetics Impacts 

11 The physical impacts on workers and the public from building and operating a two-unit plant at 

12 the Putnam site would be very similar to those described for the LNP site. People who work or 

13 live around the site could be exposed to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions from 

14 building activities. Building workers and personnel working onsite could be the most affected. 

15 Air-pollution emissions are expected to be controlled by applicable BMPs and Federal, State, 

16 and local regulations. During plant operations, standby diesel generators used for auxiliary 

17 power would have air-pollution emissions. These generators would see limited use and, if used, 

18 would be used for only short periods of time. Applicable Federal, State, and local air-pollution 

19 requirements would apply to all fuel-burning engines. During normal operations, the annual 

20 average exposure from gaseous emission sources is anticipated to not exceed applicable 

21 regulations at the site boundary. The review team expects the impacts of plant operations on 

22 air quality to be minimal. As with building impacts, potential offsite receptors of operations noise 

23 and emissions are generally located well away from the site boundaries. 

24 Building activities and unit operations are not expected to affect any offsite buildings. Most 

25 buildings are well removed from the site boundaries. Because this is a greenfield site, there are 

26 no onsite buildings to be affected by shock and vibration from pile-driving and other related 

27 activities. No long-term physical impacts on structures, including any residences near the site 

28 boundaries, would be expected. Therefore, based on consideration of reconnaissance-level 

29 information, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of station building and 

30 operation on offsite buildings would be minor. 

31 PEF reports that a reservoir may need to be created for water supply. There would likely be 

32 vegetative screening around the reservoir that would potentially mitigate the aesthetic impacts. 

33 Therefore, the review team expects the aesthetic impacts of a reservoir would be minimal. 
August 2010 9-219 Draft NUREG-1941 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Table 9-28. Socioeconomic Data for the Putnam Site EIA 1 

Data Category Putnam Clay Flagler Marion St. Johns

Data 

Source

Population  1980 50,549 67,052 10,913 122,488 51,303 (1a) 1990 65,070 105,986 28,701 194,833 83,829 (1) 2000 70,423 140,814 49,832 259,914 123,148 (1) Projected 2010 74,208 195,731 101,595 348,610 196,113 (2)Median Household Income (1999) $28,180 $48,854 $40,214 $31,944 $50,099 (3)Vacant Housing Units 

 2000 6031 3505 3158 15,908 8394 (1), (7) 2005 7582 5089 8396 24,860 13,619 (1), (7)

Total Housing Units  2000 33,870 53,748 24,452 122,663 58,008 (7) 2005 35,870 71,735 48,454 159,283 83,147 (7)Workforce  2000 26,326 66,268 18,815 98,248 59,394 (3) Peak Project 2669 5987 1873 8803 4491 (3)Total schools(a) 

1 A, 5 B, 9 A-B, 

2 C, 1 B-C, 

1 A-B-C

1A, 7 B, 22 A-B,

6 C, 1 B-C, 1 A-B-C

0 A, 2 B, 5 A-B, 

3 C, 1 B-C 

2 A, 9 B, 29 A-B,

8 C, 1 B-C, 

1 A-B-C

0 A, 7 B, 17 A-B,

5 C, 2 B-C (4)

2 
Draft NUREG-1941 9-220 August 2010 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Table 9-28. (contd) 1 Data Category Putnam Clay Flagler Marion St. Johns Data Source Number of Schools Failing Student-Teacher Ratio 1 1 1 4 0 (4) Police Sheriff Dept Sheriff Dept – 40-60 deputies Sheriff Dept –4 patrol squads, traffic unit. Sheriff Dept plus police depts. in Dunnellon, Belleview, and Ocala Sheriff Dept – almost 200 employees and 300 in support (5)

Emergency Services 

Dept of emergency 

services; 70+ EMS 

staff at 7 stations; 2 

staffed and 18 

volunteer fire 

departments

Emergency 

management dept. 

14 fire stations, 

emergency 

dispatchers

Emergency 

services includes 

fire and EMS – 80 

budgeted positions, 

including fire and 

paramedics 

Emergency 

operations 

department – joint 

county, Ocala, 

Dunnellon; 22 staffed 

and 7 volunteer fire 

stations

Emergency 

management 

department details 

not available (6)

Population(8)  White 78.9 89.1 88.5 85.3 91.8  Afr-American 17.3 7.3 9.4 12 6.5  Hispanic 12.1 4.3 5.1 35.7 2.6  Low Income 20.9 6.8 8.7 13.1 8.0 (3) (a) A-elementary school; B-middle school ;C-high school Sources: (1a) USCB 1990 (1) USCB 2000b (2) 2010 projection assuming 2000-2008 growth rate (from USCB 2009) extends to 2010 (3) USCB 2000c(4) FDOE 2009a (5) Putnam: Putnam Sheriff 2009, Clay Sheriff 2009, Flagler Sheriff 2009, Marion: Section 2.5.2.6, St. Johns Sheriff 2009 (6) Putnam: Putnam EM 2009, Clay Public Safety 2009, Flagler EM 2009, Marion EM 2009, Marion Fire 2009, St. Johns EM 2009 

(7) USCB 2007

(8) BEA 2010 EMS = emergency management services 

2 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-221 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-29. Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA 

County 

Percent 

Population 

Increase 

1990-

2000(a) 

Projected 

Percent 

Increase 

2000–

2010 (b) 

Workers 

inmigrating 

to build 

Putnam 

Plant 

Civilian 

Workforce 

in 2007(c)

Population 

of InMigrating 

Workers 

and 

Families 

Population 

of 

Workers 

and 

Families 

(as a 

percent of 

projected 

2010) 

Population 

of 

Workers 

and 

Families 

(as a 

percent of 

projected 

2010 

population 

+ inmigrants) 

Putnam 8.2 5.4 81 31,768 201 0.27 0.27 

Clay 32.9 39.0 47 92,879 117 0.06 0.06 

Flagler 73.6 103.9 42 30,599 105 0.10 0.10 

Marion 32.9 34.1 213 135,333 530 0.15 0.15 

St. 

Johns 

46.9 59.3 

112 89,843 280 0.14 0.14 

(a) Based on USCB data, as reported in PEF 2007b. 

(b) Calculated as 1.25 times percent change 2000-2008 shown in USCB 2009, i.e., assumes rate of change for first 

eight years would continue through last two years of the decade. 

(c) BEA 2010 

2 The Putnam site is in a rural area within an area that has experienced sustained, substantial 

3 population growth over the past several decades, as indicated in Table 9-28. Residential and 

4 commercial areas are located away from the alternative site boundaries, applicable air-pollution 

5 regulations would have to be met by PEF, and applicable BMPs would be put in place, including 

6 during the construction and use of the site access road. Therefore, based on information 

7 provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review of reconnaissance-level 

8 information, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating the 

9 station would have minimal impact on workers and the local public around the Putnam site. 

10 As the transmission lines to connect the site to the distribution grid are put in place and the 

11 buildings and cooling towers associated with the new reactors reach their final heights and
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-222 August 2010

1 begin operating, they would introduce a noticeable aesthetic impact that could be similar to 

2 those created by the existing fossil-fuel plants already operating within the county. In places 

3 requiring the clearing of new transmission-line corridors, aesthetic impacts would be noticeable 

4 but not destabilizing, depending on the proximity of viewers and the nature of vegetation 

5 remaining between them and the corridors. Given the general characteristics of the area, there 

6 would likely be vegetative screening around the site that would potentially mitigate the aesthetic 

7 impacts at the reactor site. 

8 Demographic Impacts 

9 Table 9-29 indicates the estimated project-related population migrating into the EIA at peak 

10 workforce levels and the population increase in each county between 1990 and 2000 and 

11 between 2000 and 2010. As seen in the table, each county except Putnam saw a large rate of 

12 population increase between 1980 and 2000, with continued high rates forecast for between 

13 2000 and 2010. For Putnam County the rates are similar for both the 1990–2000 and the 2000–

14 2010 periods, with a somewhat lower rate of increase forecast for 2000–2010 than for the prior 

15 decade, although this increase is upon a larger base. Given the estimated increase of 

16 0.27 percent or less over projected populations for 2010, the review team found that the 

17 demographic impact of the in-migrating population associated with constructing two new nuclear 

18 generating units would be minor. 

19 Economic Impacts 

20 The review team determined that the combined impact of the direct and indirect jobs and 

21 income associated with building the two units would have a minor effect on total employment 

22 and income in the EIA, with in-migrating workers projected at less than 2.2 percent of the 2000 

23 employee base in any county. The impact of approximately 541 operations jobs (70 percent of 

24 the total operations jobs) filled by in-migrating operations workers within a 1-hour commute of 

25 the site, and the indirect jobs they would create would be minor, given the size of the economy 

26 of the area. 

27 State and local taxes would be governed by Florida law. The review team assumed that tax 

28 revenues generated from sales and use taxes associated with the building and operation of the 

29 proposed project at the Putnam site would be very similar to those evaluated for the LNP site in 

30 Sections 4.4.3.2 and 5.4.3.2, with a similar minor impact on revenues in the EIA and region. 

31 The review team concluded that increased property taxes from the proposed project at the 

32 Putnam site during operation would have a substantial beneficial impact on Putnam County. 

33 The review team found that additional property taxes on new houses built by in-migrating 

34 workers would constitute a small percentage increase in the local tax base in the EIA; thus the 

35 impact of operations on residential property tax revenues would be minor and beneficial for all of 

36 the region except Putnam County, where the review team determined property tax impacts 

37 would be substantial and beneficial. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-223 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Housing 

2 The review team compared the 2000 figures for vacant housing in the EIA listed in Table 9-28 

3 with the number of in-migrating workers projected for peak workforce years listed in Table 9-29. 

4 Table 9-28 housing figures do not include RV parks, campgrounds, or hotels, and thus provide a 

5 lower bound of what would be available to house workers. In the EIA, less than 2 percent of the 

6 2000 vacant housing present in 2000 would be needed to house in-migrating workers, assuming 

7 that each worker occupied a separate housing unit. The review team divided the projected 

8 increase in population without the project by 2.49 (Florida average family size) to estimate the 

9 number of housing units required to accommodate the increase. 

10 The U.S. Census Housing Profile (USCB 2000b) in the EIA estimated the following: 

11 • Putnam County – a total housing stock of 33,870 units with a rental vacancy rate of 18 

12 percent (approximately 6031 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

13 • Clay County – a total housing stock of 53,748 units with a rental vacancy rate of 7 percent 

14 (approximately 3505 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

15 • Flagler County – a total housing stock of 24,452 units with a rental vacancy rate of 13 percent 

16 (approximately 3158 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

17 • Marion County – a total housing stock of 122,663 units with a rental vacancy rate of 13 

18 percent (approximately 15,908 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

19 • St. Johns County – a total housing stock of 58,008 units with a rental vacancy rate of 14 

20 percent (approximately 8394 housing units were unoccupied at the time of the survey). 

21 The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be absorbed into the existing 

22 housing stock in the EIA and the region without a measureable impact. Based on the 

23 information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

24 concludes that housing impacts of building and operating two nuclear units at the Putnam site 

25 would not be noticeable. 

26 Public Services 

27 The review team assumed that the Putnam EIA, like the three-county local area for the LNP 

28 EIA, have planned to meet needs for public services based on forecast population increases 

29 that did not include the presence of a workforce associated with building and operating a 

30 nuclear plant. The review team based its analysis of potential impacts on public services on the 

31 level of population increase represented by in-migrant workers during peak workforce years, an 

32 estimated increase of 0.27 percent or less over projected populations for 2010, as shown in 

33 Table 9-29. Using this approach, the review team expects that the impacts of building two units 

34 on county public services during peak workforce years would be minor in the EIA. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-224 August 2010

1 Transportation 

2 Main roads in Putnam County include US-17, a two-lane north-south road on the eastern side of 

3 the county; SR-20, a two-lane east-west road across the center of the county; and SR-9, a two4 lane north-south road that extends from the center of the county and trends northeast to join 

5 US-17 in the county capital, Palatka. All three roads have a LOS standard of “C.” SR-20 forms 

6 part of the Strategic Intermodal System, for which the FDOT sets the standards (FDOT 2009a). 

7 The other roads are not part of the Strategic Intermodal System and are assigned LOS 

8 standards according to the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Putnam County 2009a). 

9 One-way annual (2008) AADT counts for US-17 ranged from 17,000 to 16,500 near the bridge 

10 east of Palatka and east of the junction with SR-20; 5000 to 4900 north of Palatka; and 2600 to 

11 4600 in the south of the county. Two-way AADT estimates for SR-20 ranged from 7600 in the 

12 west of the county to 15,900 near the intersection with SR-19 and 7700 just south of the 

13 intersection with US-17. Two-way AADT estimates for SR-19 range from 2900 in the south of 

14 the county to 8600 south of the junction with SR-20 (FDOT 2008). 

15 The review team considered these roads to be the main routes that would be used by workers 

16 commuting to the plant site, with US-17 linking to the site access road. The review team 

17 considered the impact of project-related traffic in terms of likelihood that it would change the 

18 LOS along US-17 to be lower than the assigned standard “C.” The review team assumed 2281 

19 trips daily (following LNP site analysis in Section 4.4.4.1), with 50 percent to/from the north and 

20 50 percent to/from the south, based on the distribution of in-migrating worker residence 

21 discussed previously as well as commuters from Duval, Alachua, and Volusia Counties. At 

22 morning shift change, this would add 1977 cars to the total flow on SR-70, 711 incoming from 

23 the north, 711 from the south; and 275 outgoing to the north, 275 to the west. The incoming 

24 traffic from both north and south would increase the flow by about 15 percent over the 2008 

25 AADT for US-17 north of Palatka, in the general site vicinity, which, according to FDOT’s 

26 generalized planning standards (FDOT 2009b), would not reduce the LOS below “C.” Effects 

27 south of Palatka would be less. An increase of 711 cars entering the Palatka area from US-17 

28 south, SR-19 south, and SR-20 west would not significantly add to the 2008 counts. The review 

29 team found no evidence that the LOS for US-17 would change as a result of project-related 

30 traffic. While more analysis would be required once specific proposals for turn lanes, signals, 

31 and other modifications were made, the review team identified the potential for a noticeable, 

32 intermittent impact at the intersection of US-17 with the site access road, analogous to that 

33 predicted for the LNP site. Given the lower number of commuters during operations, the review 

34 team believes the traffic-related impacts during operations would be minor. 

35 Education 

36 Table 9-28 provides data about schools in the EIA. Schools in the socioeconomic impact area 

37 met the State teacher-student ratio classroom requirements in 2007–2008 with the exception of 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-225 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 four schools in Marion County and one school each in each Putnam, Clay, and Flagler 

2 Counties. The review team assumed that school districts in the EIA, like those in the EIA for the 

3 LNP site, would address short-term gains in student population with mobile classrooms and that 

4 the PK-12 public schools would be funded according to the Florida equalized funding formula 

5 (FDOE 2009b). The review team assumed that students would accompany each in-migrating 

6 worker family in the average of the ratios of students per household from the LNP site counties 

7 listed in Table 2-35, resulting in the number of new students listed in Table 9-30. 

8 Table 9-30. Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years 

County 

In-Migrating 

Worker 

Households 

Grades 

PK–3 

Students(a) 

New 

Rooms 

Grades 

4–8 

Students(b) 

New 

Rooms 

Grades 

9–12 

Students(c)

New 

Rooms 

Putnam 81 13 1 7 0 7 0 

Clay 47 7 0 4 0 4 0 

Flagler 42 7 0 3 0 4 0 

Marion 213 34 2 17 1 19 1 

St. Johns 112 18 1 9 0 10 0 

Source: Table 4-14; State of Florida 2002 

(a) 0.158 per household; 18 students per teacher required by State law 

(b) 0.081 per household; 22 students per teacher required by State law 

(c) 0.091 per household; 25 students per teacher required by State law 

PK = preschool

9 The review team found that the addition of up to four classrooms in Marion County, one 

10 classroom each in Putnam and St. Johns Counties, and none in Clay or Flagler County would 

11 amount to less than one additional classroom per school, which would constitute a minor 

12 impact. 

13 Recreation and Aesthetics 

14 The review team learned that fishing for a number of species is important along the St. John’s 

15 River in Putnam County (Florida Bass Online.com 2010). The review team anticipates that 

16 building activities would have short-term minor effects on the recreation industry. 

17 The economy in the Putnam site EIA draws on its natural resources, including many lakes and 

18 parks. Because the exact footprint of the site is not determined, specific impacts on specific 

19 recreational facilities from site structures and the intake and discharge structures are not known, 

20 but, based on the considerations discussed for the LNP site, the review team anticipates that 

21 adverse impacts of building units at the Putnam site would have minor impacts on use of the 

22 recreational facilities from which activities would be visible or audible. The increased population 

23 in the EIA may increase use of local recreational areas, which is expected to have negligible 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-226 August 2010

1 impact on either the sites or the recreational experience, given the number, geographic 

2 distribution, and variety of recreational locations available. 

3 Aesthetic viewsheds would be negatively affected by the height of structures during construction 

4 and operation. Given the general characteristics of the area, there would likely be vegetative 

5 screening around the site that would potentially reduce the aesthetic impacts to minor. In 

6 places requiring the clearing of new transmission-line corridors, aesthetic impacts would vary 

7 depending on the location of viewers and the nature of vegetation remaining between them and 

8 the corridors, ranging from minor to noticeable. 

9 PEF reports that a reservoir may need to be created for water supply. There would likely be 

10 vegetative screening around the reservoir that would potentially mitigate the aesthetic impacts 

11 and therefore the impact would be minor. Also, there are many opportunities in the region for 

12 various sorts of recreation and the review expects the impact to recreation to be minimal. 

13 Summary of Socioeconomics 

14 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

15 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

16 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. Based on 

17 information provided by PEF and its own independent evaluation, the review team finds that the 

18 socioeconomic effects of building two units at the Putnam site would be minor with few 

19 exceptions. There would be noticeable, intermittent and temporary adverse effects on 

20 transportation in Putnam County in the immediate vicinity of the site. Once plant operations 

21 begin, the review team believes transportation impacts would be minor and tax impacts on 

22 Putnam County would be substantial and positive. The aesthetic impacts of the transmission 

23 lines and corridors would be noticeable in the areas along the corridors. 

24 Cumulative Impacts 

25 In addition to assessing the incremental socioeconomic impacts from the building and operation 

26 of two nuclear units on the Putnam site, the cumulative impact assessment considers other 

27 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions including other Federal and non28 Federal projects that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a 50-mi 

29 radius centered on the Putnam site (the region) with special consideration of Putnam, Clay, 

30 Flagler, Marion, and St. Johns Counties, because that is where the review team expects 

31 socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest (Economic Impact Area or EIA). Table 9-25 identifies 

32 the projects that have contributed and will continue to contribute to the demographics, economic 

33 climate, and community infrastructure of the region. 

34 The Putnam site is a greenfield site in a semi-rural area. The region and the EIA are located 

35 within commuting distance of several large cities and the coast, and have been growing rapidly 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-227 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 over the past several decades. Within the region, active residential/retirement /recreational and 

2 commercial developments, along with planned improvements to the areas transportation 

3 infrastructure are expected to result in continued urbanization that would have noticeable 

4 socioeconomic effects on the economy and residents of the EIA. The review team determined 

5 that cumulative socioeconomic effects of building new units at the Putnam site and the actions 

6 identified in Table 9-25 would not differ noticeably from the project effects analyzed above. 

7 Thus, the review team determined that the cumulative socioeconomic effects of the proposed 

8 project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL, with the 

9 following exceptions: Putnam County would experience MODERATE, but short-term and 

10 spatially limited impacts on roads and traffic during construction and SMALL impacts during 

11 operation. Cumulative impacts would be LARGE and beneficial from property tax receipts in 

12 Putnam County after the plant begins operations, and small and beneficial elsewhere in the 

13 region. Building new units at the Putnam site would be a significant contributor to the 

14 MODERATE impacts on roads and traffic. Building and operating the Putnam site would be a 

15 significant contributor to MODERATE impacts on aesthetics along the transmission lines and 

16 corridors. 

17 9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice 

18 The review team used the approach in Section 2.6 in identifying significant minority and low19 income populations. Figure 9-6 shows the distribution of minority populations of interest by 

20 census block group within the region. There are block groups with a concentration of minority 

21 populations distributed throughout the region, but as seen in these figures, no minority or low22 income populations of interest are within 6 mi of the Putnam site. Most of these populations are 

23 at some distance from the Putnam site. The largest geographic area with a concentration of 

24 minority populations is to the south-southeast of the Putnam site extending to the border of the 

25 region. Figure 9-7 shows the distribution of block groups with concentrations of low-income 

26 populations of interest in the region. There are seven geographic clusters of block groups with 

27 concentrations of low-income residents distributed widely within the area defined by the region. 

28 The closest identified block groups with low-income populations of interest are farther than 6 mi 

29 from the Putnam site. 

30 The physical effects of building activities (noise, fugitive dust, air emissions, traffic) would not 

31 impose a disproportionately high and adverse affect on minority or low-income populations of 

32 interest because the effects would be small and spatially limited, with none extending to the 

33 geographic area of the minority or low-income populations of interest. The review team 

34 investigated the presence of unique characteristics or practices in minority or low-income 

35 communities that could result in different socioeconomic impacts from the Putnam site 

36 compared to the general population and found one unique characteristics that could lead to 

37 disproportionate impacts: reliance on subsistence. Personnel from the Putnam County Health 

38 Department, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Draft NUREG-1941 9-228 August 2010 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

1 

Figure 9-6. Putnam Site Minority Populations (PEF 2009d; CH2M Hill 2009) 2 
August 2010 9-229 Draft NUREG-1941 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Figure 9-7. Putnam Site Low-Income Populations (PEF 2009d; CH2M Hill 2009) 2 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-230 August 2010

1 Commission were unable to provide data on subsistence behavior in the region (Putnam County 

2 2009b). The review team assumes that some subsistence fishing may take place along the St. 

3 John’s River, in addition to the recreational fishing mentioned in Section 9.3.5.5, and in the 

4 lakes in the west and southwest of the county. The review team assumes that subsistence 

5 fishing activities may be affected by construction runoff or spills, perhaps requiring fishermen to 

6 use different locations. In the absence of specific information about effects on local lakes and 

7 streams that are used for subsistence fishing, the review team concludes provisionally that there 

8 may be disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income populations that engage in 

9 subsistence fishing. 

10 Minority and low-income populations would experience the minor adverse effects on housing 

11 availability, public services; and education, and the noticeable, intermittent, and geographically 

12 concentrated adverse effects on transportation discussed in Section 9.3.5.5 during the peak 

13 workforce years. The review team has no evidence that impacts would be disproportionately 

14 high and adverse toward minority populations, nor toward low-income populations. 

15 Cumulative Impacts 

16 The building and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant at the Putnam site would be 

17 unlikely to have a disproportionately and adverse impact on minority or low-income populations 

18 due to physical impacts, economic impacts, or impacts on community infrastructure. With the 

19 exception of a potentially disproportionate MODERATE adverse impact on subsistence fishing, 

20 the review team expects that the impacts associated with the building and operation of two new 

21 units at Putnam on minority and low-income populations would be SMALL as discussed above. 

22 The review team concluded that, in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

23 future projects, building and operating two new nuclear units at Putnam would impose only a 

24 minor impact on minorities or low-income populations. Therefore, the environmental justice 

25 impacts would be SMALL, expect for subsistence fishing which may be MODERATE. Building 

26 and operating two units at the Putnam site would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE 

27 impact to subsistence fishing. 

28 9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

29 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

30 generating units at the Putnam site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

31 reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect historic and cultural resources, including the 

32 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-25. For the analysis of cultural impacts 

33 at the Putnam site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE for this site. 

34 This includes the direct effects APE, defined as the area physically affected by the site35 development and operation activities at the site and within the transmission–line corridors. The 

36 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-231 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 indirect effects APE is defined as the area visually affected and includes an additional 0.5-mi–

2 radius APE around the transmission-line corridors and a 1-mi-radius APE around the cooling 

3 towers. 

4 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, the 

5 activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural 

6 resources. However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level 

7 information to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000). 

8 Reconnaissance-level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other 

9 public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To 

10 identify the historic and cultural resources at the Putnam site, the following information was 

11 used: 

12 • PEF ER (2009a) 

13 • National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2010) 

14 • Florida Historical Markers Program (FDOS 2010) 

15 • NRC Alternative Sites Visit October 14–17, 2008 (NRC 2009). 

16 Historically, the Putnam site and vicinity were largely undisturbed and likely contained intact 

17 archaeological sites associated with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the 

18 area has been disturbed by mostly agricultural development (PEF 2009a). In its ER, PEF states 

19 that an initial database search for potentially significant cultural resources in Putnam County 

20 identified NRHP-listed sites, and that further investigation would be required before siting new 

21 reactors at this location. PEF also states that consultation with the SHPO would occur if any 

22 significant historic, cultural, or archaeological resources are identified and that appropriate 

23 mitigation measures would be put in place before construction and operation. 

24 A search of the National Register revealed 15 sites listed in Putnam County, including several 

25 historic districts – Palatka Ravine Gardens Historic District, Crescent City Historic District and 

26 Palatka South Historic District (NPS 2010). A search of the Florida Historical Markers Program 

27 revealed nine sites in Putnam County, including the CFBC and the Mount Royal Site, a Native 

28 American mound and earthworks site (FDOS 2010). 

29 Building Impacts 

30 To accommodate building two new nuclear generating units on the Putnam site, PEF would 

31 need to clear approximately 300 ac for the main power plant site (the same acreage needed for 

32 the LNP site) and 1282 ac for the reservoir (PEF 2009a). If the Putnam site were chosen for the 

33 proposed project, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-232 August 2010

1 resource surveys and consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties. The results 

2 would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resources impacts. If significant 

3 cultural resources were identified by these surveys, the review team assumes that PEF would 

4 develop protective measures in a manner similar to that for the LNP site, and therefore the 

5 impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be 

6 avoided, land clearing, excavation, and grading activities could destabilize important attributes 

7 of historic and cultural resources. 

8 There are no existing transmission-line corridors connecting to the Putnam site. Section 9.3.5.1 

9 describes the proposed transmission-line corridors associated with this site. Visual impacts 

10 from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the visual landscape within the 

11 geographic area of interest. If the Putnam site were chosen for the proposed project, the review 

12 team assumes that PEF would conduct its transmission line-related cultural resource surveys 

13 and procedures in a manner similar to that for the LNP site, as described in Section 4.6. In 

14 addition, the review team assumes the State of Florida’s Conditions of Certification regarding 

15 transmission-line siting and building activities would also apply, and therefore the impacts would 

16 be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be avoided, land clearing, 

17 excavation, and grading activities could destabilize important attributes of historic and cultural 

18 resources. 

19 Operations Impacts 

20 Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear generating units at 

21 the Putnam site would include those associated with the operation of new units and 

22 maintenance of transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures 

23 currently used by PEF, including the State of Florida’s Conditions of Certification, would be used 

24 for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental effects of the 

25 maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operation of the two new units and associated 

26 impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the physical and visual APEs. 

27 Cumulative Impacts 

28 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

29 resources include rural development and agricultural development and activities associated with 

30 these land-disturbing activities such as road development. Table 9-25 lists past, present, and 

31 reasonably foreseeable projects and other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on 

32 historic and cultural resources in the geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-25 that 

33 may fall within the geographic area of interest for cultural resources include future urbanization. 

34 Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads may intersect the proposed transmission35 line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by long linear projects, impacts 

36 on cultural resources would be minimal. If building associated with such activities results in 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-233 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 significant alterations (both physical alteration and visual intrusion) of cultural resources in the 

2 transmission-line corridors, then cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be greater. 

3 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

4 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent 

5 evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building and operating 

6 two new nuclear generating units on the Putnam site and other projects would be SMALL. This 

7 impact-level determination reflects no known cultural resources that could be affected; however, 

8 if the Putnam site were to be developed then cultural resource surveys and evaluations would 

9 need to be conducted and PEF would assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking. 

10 Adverse effects could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

11 9.3.5.8 Air Quality 

12 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

13 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

14 affected or could affect air quality, including the shutdown of two coal-fired units at CREC, and 

15 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-25. The geographic area of interest for 

16 the Putnam site is Putnam County, which is in the Jacksonville (Florida)-Brunswick (Georgia) 

17 Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.91). 

18 The emissions related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the Putnam site would be 

19 similar to those at the LNP site. The air quality status for Putnam County as set forth in 40 CFR 

20 81.310 reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant sources in the region. 

21 Putnam County is classified as being in attainment for all NAAQSs. 

22 The atmospheric emissions related to building and operating a nuclear plant at the LNP site in 

23 Levy County, Florida are described in Chapters 4 and 5. The criteria pollutants were found to 

24 have a SMALL impact. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria pollutants at the LNP 

25 site were evaluated and also determined to have a SMALL impact. 

26 Cumulative impacts 

27 Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-25, the most significant in regard to air quality are the 

28 Seminole Generating Station, which consists of two coal-fired boilers, and the Putnam Steam 

29 Plant, which consists of four combustion turbines fueled with either natural gas or fuel oil. Other 

30 industrial projects listed in Table 9-25 would have de minimis impacts. The impact of closing 

31 two coal-fired units at CREC on criteria pollutants at the Putnam site are not considered 

32 because the CREC is located outside of the geographic area of interest for this site. Given that 

33 these projects would be subject to institutional controls, it is unlikely that the air quality in the 

34 region would degrade to the extent that the region would be declared to be in non-attainment for 

35 any of the NAAQSs. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-234 August 2010

1 The air quality impact of Putnam site development would be local and temporary. The distance 

2 from building activities to the site boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid significant air 

3 quality impacts. There are no land uses or projects, including the aforementioned sources at 

4 the Seminole Generating Station and Putnam Steam Plant, that would have emissions during 

5 site development that would, in combination with emissions from the Putnam site, result in a 

6 degradation of air quality in the region. 

7 Releases from the operation of two new units at the Putnam site would be intermittent and 

8 made at low altitudes with little or no vertical velocity. The air quality impacts of current 

9 emissions near the Putnam site are included in the baseline air quality status. The cumulative 

10 impacts from emissions of effluents from the Putnam site and other sources would be 

11 noticeable, primarily due to emissions from the Seminole Generating Station and the Putnam 

12 Steam Power Plant. 

13 The cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in 

14 Section 7.6. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to the location of the source. 

15 Consequently, the discussion in Section 7.6 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the 

16 Putnam site. The review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of 

17 greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable. The review team further concludes that the 

18 cumulative impacts would be noticeable, with or without the greenhouse gas emissions of the 

19 project at the Putnam site. 

20 Cumulative impacts on air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

21 PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

22 foreseeable future activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants 

23 and global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The 

24 cumulative impacts on criteria pollutants from emissions from the Putnam site and other projects 

25 could be noticeable, principally as a result of the contribution of the coal-fired units at the 

26 Seminole Generating Station and the Putnam Steam Power Plant. The national and worldwide 

27 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable, and the review team 

28 concludes that cumulative impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operation and other 

29 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality resources in geographic 

30 areas of interest would be SMALL to MODERATE for criteria pollutants (due primarily to the 

31 operation of the Seminole Generating Station) and MODERATE for greenhouse gas emissions. 

32 The incremental contribution of impacts on air quality resources from building and operating two 

33 new units at the Putnam site would be insignificant for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse 

34 gas emissions. 

35 9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health 

36 The following analysis assesses impacts from building activities and operations for the Putnam 

37 site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-235 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 that affect nonradiological health, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in 

2 Table 9-25. Impacts from building activities that have the potential to affect the health of 

3 members of the public and workers include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational 

4 injuries, noise, and the transport of construction materials and personnel to and from the site. 

5 The operation-related activities that have the potential to affect the health of members of the 

6 public and workers includes exposure to etiological agents, noise, EMFs, and increased traffic 

7 associated with the transport of workers to and from the site. 

8 Most of the nonradiological health impacts associated with building and operation (e.g., air 

9 emissions, noise, occupational injuries) would be limited to areas within approximately 2 mi from 

10 the site. Occupational injuries would occur only within the boundaries of the site, and noise 

11 from construction and operation has likewise been assessed as minimal for offsite receptors 

12 beyond a 2-mi radius. For nonradiological health impacts associated with transmission lines, 

13 the geographic area of interest would be the transmission-line corridor. If the facility were built 

14 and operated at the Putnam site, the St. Johns River would serve as the source of cooling 

15 water. In addition, a reservoir would need to be built to assure an adequate cooling-water 

16 supply. 

17 Building Impacts 

18 Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

19 two new nuclear units at the Putnam site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for 

20 building at the LNP site. The impacts include noise, vehicle exhaust, dust, occupational injuries, 

21 and transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. A detailed noise study has not been 

22 performed for the Putnam site, but it is likely that noise impacts from building, except for rare, 

23 high-noise activities such as pile-driving, would comply with Federal, State and local noise 

24 ordinances, and that the overall noise impact associated with building would be minimal. 

25 Fugitive dust and vehicle emissions during building would be controlled by good management 

26 practices and compliance with Federal, State, and local air quality regulations. The incidence of 

27 construction worker accidents would be the same as that for the LNP site, the only difference 

28 being potential injuries associated with building of the cooling-water reservoir. 

29 Analyses in Section 9.3.5.5 indicated that noticeable but intermittent traffic impacts would be 

30 observed during peak building activities at the Putnam site at the intersection of US-17 and the 

31 site access road. These impacts would be of the same magnitude as those predicted for 

32 building at the LNP site. Given the existing traffic patterns in the area near the Putnam site, 

33 there is little potential for cumulative traffic impacts with other projects, and additional injuries 

34 and fatalities from traffic accidents involving transportation of materials and personnel for 

35 building of a new nuclear power plant at the Putnam site would be similar to those estimated in 

36 Section 4.8.3 for building at the LNP site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-236 August 2010

1 Because all of the past, present, or potential future construction projects identified in Table 9-25 

2 are relatively distant (greater than 10 mi) from the Putnam site, combined nonradiological 

3 impacts from building at the Putnam site and other projects would not occur. Cumulative 

4 impacts of building at the Putnam alternative site would therefore be minimal. 

5 Operational Impacts 

6 Noise, air emissions, and occupational injuries from the operation of two new nuclear units at 

7 the Putnam site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 5.8 for the LNP site. 

8 Occupational health impacts on workers (e.g., falls, electric shock or exposure to other hazards) 

9 at the Putnam site would likely be the same as those evaluated for workers at two new units 

10 operating at the LNP site. The cooling-system discharge from the facility might encourage the 

11 growth of etiologic organisms in the St. Johns River. Etiological agent growth could be reduced 

12 by the use of biocides in the cooling systems, thermal discharge would be restricted by NPDES 

13 permit limitations, and exposure to impaired water would be limited by controls on access to the 

14 discharge zone (fencing, signage, and other security measures). However, because the cooling15 system discharge may amount to a significant proportion of the recommended minimum flow in 

16 the St. Johns River, and water quality in the river has been identified as impaired due to the 

17 presence of nutrients, fecal coliform, depressed dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and other pollutants 

18 (FDEP 2009g), the review team has concluded that the discharge of blowdown to the river could 

19 have a noticeable effect on the growth of etiological agents. Exposure to etiological agents in 

20 the cooling-water reservoir would not pose an additional health risk as long as access to the 

21 reservoir is limited by virtue of its being within the controlled and fenced site boundaries. 

22 Noise and EMF exposure from operations would be monitored and controlled in accordance 

23 with applicable OSHA regulations. Although no detailed noise modeling has been performed for 

24 the Putnam site, it is likely that noise impacts would be similar to those predicted for operations 

25 at the LNP site. The effects of EMF on human health in the transmission-line corridors would be 

26 controlled and minimized by conformance with NESC criteria and adherence to the standards 

27 for transmission systems regulated by the FDEP. Nonradiological impacts of traffic associated 

28 with the operations workforce would therefore be less than the impacts during building. 

29 A number of the projects and activities identified in Table 9-25 (surface mining, minor permitted 

30 municipal discharges) may also affect water quality in the St. Johns River near the Putnam site. 

31 However, these releases are unlikely to have significant cumulative impacts on water quality 

32 with a nuclear facility built at the Putnam site because all of the current and future projects are 

33 distant from the site. In addition, the amounts of chemicals released from the nuclear facility 

34 would be limited by NPDES permits to levels that would not adversely affect water quality, even 

35 in combination with the existing pollutant load in the St. Johns River. As noted above, however, 

36 blowdown discharge may result in increased water temperature that could facilitate the growth 

37 of etiological agents. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-237 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

2 recent analyses of these issues (GCRP 2009) have been considered in the preparation of this 

3 EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region include an increase in average 

4 temperature and a decrease in precipitation, which may alter the presence of microorganisms 

5 and parasites in surface water. While the overall impacts of climate change may not be 

6 insignificant (see Section 7.7), the effect of, or contribution to, climate change impacts by the 

7 operation of two new units at the Putnam site is likely to be minor. In its analysis of climate 

8 change impacts, the review team did not identify any additional data that would alter its 

9 conclusion regarding the presence of etiological agents or change in the incidence of 

10 waterborne diseases associated with operation of a nuclear facility at the Putnam site. 

11 Summary 

12 The assessment of impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of the two 

13 new units at the Putnam alternative site is based on the information provided by PEF and the 

14 review team’s independent evaluation. The review team concludes that nonradiological health 

15 impacts on workers and the public resulting from building two new units and associated 

16 transmission lines at the Putnam alternative site would be minimal. Similarly, the review team 

17 also expects occupational injuries and other nonradiological health impacts on workers and the 

18 public of two new nuclear units operating at the Putnam site would be minimal except for 

19 potential growth of etiological agents in the St. Johns River from the influence of the cooling20 system blowdown discharges during droughts or low-flow periods. These effects could be 

21 reduced if the blowdown were discharged to the cooling reservoir, rather than directly to the 

22 river. Exposure to etiological agents could be increased if access to the cooling reservoir is not 

23 limited by physical and administrative controls. Based on these findings, the review team 

24 concludes that cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from related past, present, and 

25 future actions in the geographic area of interest and building and operations of two nuclear units 

26 at the Putnam site would be SMALL to MODERATE. The severity of impacts would depend on 

27 the design characteristics of the facility, which have not been fully defined. If exposure to water 

28 heated by thermal discharge is not limited by administrative of physical controls, the contribution 

29 from building and operations at the Putnam site could be a significant contributor to the 

30 cumulative nonradiological health impacts. 

31 9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

32 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from building activities and operation 

33 for two additional nuclear units at the Putnam site. The analysis also considers other past, 

34 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health, including 

35 other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-25. As described in Section 9.3.5, the 

36 Putnam site is a greenfield site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi 

37 radius of the Putnam site. There are no major facilities that result in regulated exposures to the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-238 August 2010

1 public or biota within 50 mi of the Putnam site. However, there are likely to be hospitals and 

2 industrial facilities with 50 mi of the Putnam site that use radioactive materials. 

3 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 units at the 

4 Putnam site include direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. Releases of 

5 radioactive materials and all pathways of exposure would produce low doses to people and 

6 biota offsite, well below regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those 

7 estimated for the LNP site. The NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and 

8 effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material would be an 

9 insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the Putnam site. This conclusion is 

10 based on the radiological monitoring programs conducted around currently operating nuclear 

11 power plants. 

12 Based on the information provided by PEF and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the NRC 

13 staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 

14 proposed AP1000 units and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and 

15 actions in the geographic area of interest around the Putnam site would be SMALL. 

16 9.3.5.11 Postulated Accidents 

17 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

18 operations for two nuclear units at the Putnam site. The analysis also considers other past, 

19 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

20 postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

21 Table 9-24. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power 

22 plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) 

23 from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Putnam site. As described in Section 

24 9.3.5, the Putnam site is less 100 mi from the existing CREC power plant site; there is one 

25 nuclear facility at the CREC site. There are no proposed reactors that have the potential to 

26 increase the probability-weighted consequences from a severe accident at any location within 

27 50 mi of the Putnam site. 

28 As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

29 of DBAs at the LNP site would be minimal for AP1000s. DBAs are addressed specifically to 

30 demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet the NRC safety criteria. The 

31 AP1000 design is independent of site conditions and the meteorological conditions of the 

32 Putnam and LNP sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental 

33 consequences of DBAs at the Putnam site would be minimal. 

34 Assuming the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Putnam site are similar 

35 to those at the LNP site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor located at the 

36 Putnam site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the LNP site. These risks for the 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-239 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 LNP site are presented in Tables 5-17 and 5-18 and are well below the median value for 

2 current-generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent 

3 cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For the 

4 existing plant within the geographic area of interest, namely CREC Unit 3, the Commission has 

5 determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL 

6 (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). The planned 20-percent power uprate at CREC Unit 

7 3 will only be approved by the NRC if the probability-weighted consequences of severe 

8 accidents would continue to meet NRC’s regulatory requirements. Therefore, the impact would 

9 continue to be SMALL. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks of 

10 severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the Putnam site would be SMALL. 

11 9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative Sites 

12 This section summarizes the review team’s characterization of the cumulative impacts related to 

13 locating a two-unit AP1000 nuclear power facility at the proposed LNP site and at each 

14 alternative site. The four sites selected for detailed review as part of the alternative sites 

15 environmental analysis are the Crystal River, Dixie, Highlands, and Putnam sites in Florida. 

16 Comparisons are made between the proposed and alternative sites to evaluate if one of the 

17 alternative sites would be environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The NRC’s 

18 determination is independent of the USACE’s determination of a LEDPA pursuant to the Clean 

19 Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230. While the USACE concurs as part 

20 of the review team with the designation of impact levels for terrestrial or aquatic resource areas 

21 in this EIS; in so far as waters of the United States are concerned, the USACE must conduct a 

22 quantitative comparison of impacts on waters of the United States as part of the LEDPA 

23 analysis. The USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its 

24 Record of Decision. The need to compare the proposed site with alternative sites arises from 

25 the requirement in Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of NEPA (42 USC 4332) that EISs include an analysis 

26 of alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC criteria to be used in assessing whether a 

27 proposed site is to be rejected in favor of an alternative site is based on whether the alternative 

28 site is “environmentally preferable” and if so whether it is “obviously superior” to the site 

29 proposed by the applicant (Public Service Company of New Hampshire 1977). An alternative 

30 site is “obviously superior” to the proposed site if it is “clearly and substantially” superior to the 

31 proposed site (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). The standard of obviously superior “...is 

32 designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be rejected in favor of an alternate unless, 

33 on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can be confident that such action is called 

34 for” (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978). 

35 The “obviously superior” test is appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by the 

36 NRC in evaluating alternative sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the 

37 alternative site analysis, such as population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality, 

38 aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics are 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-240 August 2010

1 difficult to quantify in common metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site 

2 must have a wide range of uncertainty. Second, the applicant’s proposed site has been 

3 analyzed in detail, with the expectation that most adverse environmental impacts associated 

4 with the site have been identified. The alternative sites have not undergone a comparable level 

5 of detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed site may not be rejected in favor of an 

6 alternative site when the alternative site is marginally better than the proposed site, but only 

7 when it is obviously superior (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). NEPA does not require 

8 that a nuclear plant be constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. Rather, 

9 “...all that NEPA requires is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on the 

10 environment of building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored into 

11 the ultimate decision (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978).” 

12 Section 9.3.6.1 reviews the cumulative environmental impacts of building and operating a two13 unit nuclear power plant at the proposed LNP site. Cumulative impact levels from Chapter 7 (for 

14 the proposed LNP site), and the four alternative sites (from Sections 9.3.2 through 9.3.5) are 

15 listed in Table 9-31. Section 9.3.6.2 and Section 9.3.6.3 discuss the cumulative impacts of the 

16 proposed project located at the LNP site and at the alternative sites as they relate to a 

17 determination of environmental preference or obvious superiority. 

18 Table 9-31. Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites

Resource Area Levy Crystal River Dixie Highlands Putnam 

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Water Related 

 Surface-Water Use SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

 Surface-Water Quality MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

 Groundwater Use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Groundwater Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology 

 Terrestrial 

Ecosystems 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

 Aquatic Ecosystems SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomic(a) 

Physical SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Taxes and Economy SMALL to 

LARGE 

(beneficial) 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

(beneficial) 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

(beneficial) 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

(beneficial) 

SMALL to 

LARGE 

(beneficial) 

 Housing SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Transportation SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

 SMALL to 

MODERATE 

 SMALL to 

MODERATE 

19 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-241 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 9-31. (contd) 

Resource Area Levy Crystal River Dixie Highlands Putnam 

 Public Services and 

Education 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

 SMALL to 

MODERATE 

 SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL 

 Aesthetics MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

 Recreation SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Radiological Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

(a) Ranges indicate differences in counties 

2 9.3.6.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites 

3 The following section summarizes the review team’s independent assessment of the proposed 

4 and alternative sites. The team characterized the expected cumulative environmental impacts 

5 of building and operating new units at the LNP site and alternative sites; these impacts are 

6 summarized by resource area in Table 9-31. 

7 The environmental resource areas listed in the following table have been evaluated using the 

8 NRC’s three-level standard of impact significance: SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These 

9 levels were developed using the CEQ guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 

10 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B: 

11 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

12 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 destabilize 

16 important attributes of the resource. 

17 Full explanations of the specific cumulative impact characterizations are provided in Chapter 7 

18 for the proposed site and in Sections 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4, and 9.3.5 for the alternative sites. The 

19 staff’s impact category levels are based on professional judgment, experience, and 

20 consideration of controls likely to be imposed under required Federal, State, or local permits that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-242 August 2010

1 would not be acquired until an application for a COL is underway. The considerations and 

2 assumptions were similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide a common basis 

3 for comparison. In the following discussion, the review team compares the impact levels 

4 between the proposed site, and each alternative site. 

5 9.3.6.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites 

6 As shown in Table 9-31, the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new units at the 

7 proposed site and the alternative sites are characterized as SMALL for many resource areas. 

8 The resource areas for which the impact level at an alternative site is the same as that for the 

9 proposed site does not contribute to the alternative site being judged to be environmentally 

10 preferable to the proposed site. Therefore, these resource areas are not discussed further in 

11 determining whether an alternate site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The 

12 resource areas for which an alternative site has a different impact level than the proposed site 

13 are discussed further to determine if an alternative site is environmentally preferable to the 

14 proposed site. Where there is a range of impacts for a resource, the upper value of the impacts 

15 is used for the comparison. In addition, for the cases in which the cumulative impacts for a 

16 resource are greater than SMALL, consideration is given to those cases in which the impacts of 

17 the project at the specific site do not make any significant contribution to the cumulative impact 

18 level. As shown in Table 9-31, there are some differences in impacts among the sites. 

19 Crystal River Site 

20 The LNP site may be marginally preferable to the Crystal River site with regard to tax revenues. 

21 Revenues from property taxes and sales taxes from operating the two new nuclear units at the 

22 site result in a LARGE beneficial impact level. This LARGE and beneficial tax benefit would 

23 fully offset the loss of tax revenues to Citrus County that would occur if the coal-fired CREC 

24 units 1 and 2 are decommissioned; but the net beneficial impact to tax revenues from the two 

25 new units at the Crystal River site would still be LARGE. The Crystal River site is characterized 

26 more favorably than the LNP site for transportation. 

27 For land use, terrestrial ecosystems, public services and education, and aesthetics at both sites, 

28 the project would be a significant contributor to the incremental MODERATE impact level. 

29 Ongoing and planned development projects at these sites also contribute to the impact level. 

30 For transportation, the MODERATE cumulative impact at the LNP site relates to the combined 

31 impact of the large construction and preconstruction work forces and traffic from mining 

32 activities. 

33 Based on the results and comparison of the resource areas and associated impact 

34 characterizations, the review team concludes that the Crystal River site would not be 

35 environmentally preferable to the LNP site for two new nuclear generating units. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-243 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Dixie Site 

2 The LNP site is characterized more favorably than the Dixie site in Table 9-31 for the resource 

3 areas of surface-water use, aquatic ecosystems, and non-radiological health effects. 

4 Conversely, the Dixie site is not characterized by the review team as more favorable than the 

5 LNP site in Table 9-31 for any resource area. For all of the resource areas for which the LNP 

6 site is characterized more favorably, the differences relate directly to the impacts of the 

7 proposed project at the two sites. For land use, terrestrial ecosystems, and aesthetics, building 

8 and operating two new nuclear units would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE 

9 impact levels at both sites. 

10 For surface-water use, building and operating the proposed plant at the Dixie site would be a 

11 significant contributor to the MODERATE water use assessment because of the amount of 

12 water needed and consumed to operate two units. The impact on surface water use at the LNP 

13 site was determined by the review team to be SMALL. The water use at the Dixie site would 

14 require a significant portion of river flow, particularly during low flow conditions. For aquatic 

15 ecosystems, the concern at the Dixie site is the potential for the water use impact to adversely 

16 affect the Gulf sturgeon, a Federally protected species. The review team found that the impact 

17 to aquatic resources would be SMALL at the LNP site and MODERATE at the Dixie site. For 

18 non-radiological health, the operation of a proposed facility at the Dixie site could result in a 

19 SMALL to MODERATE impact due to an increased risk of human exposure to etiological 

20 agents. The LNP site was determined to have a potential for only a SMALL impact with respect 

21 to non-radiological health effects. 

22 For land use at Dixie, building two new reactor units at the site is a significant contributor to the 

23 MODERATE impact assessment because of the disturbance of a substantial amount of land for 

24 the power plant, reservoir, and transmission lines. The review team concluded that cumulative 

25 land-use impacts also are MODERATE at the LNP site, but would not contribute significantly to 

26 the impact level because the higher impact level is based on the effects of projects other than 

27 the nuclear units. For terrestrial ecosystems at both sites, the MODERATE impacts are based 

28 on alternation of natural environments. 

29 Based on the results and comparison of the resource areas and associated impact 

30 characterizations, the review team concludes that the Dixie site would not be environmentally 

31 preferable to the LNP site for two new nuclear generating units. 

32 Highlands Site 

33 The LNP site is characterized more favorably than the Highlands site in Table 9-31 for the 

34 following resource areas: surface-water use, environmental justice, and nonradiological health 

35 effects. Conversely, the Highlands site is characterized by the review team as more favorable 

36 than the LNP site in Table 9-31 for the resource areas of public services and education. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-244 August 2010

1 For surface-water use, building and operating the proposed plant at the Highlands site would be 

2 a significant contributor to water use because the amount of water needed to operate two units 

3 would represent a significant portion of the river flow. The higher impact level for environmental 

4 justice at the Highlands site relates to potential effects on subsistence fishing, especially on 

5 local Native American populations. For non-radiological health, the operation of a proposed 

6 plant at the Highlands site could result in a SMALL to MODERATE impact due to an increased 

7 risk of human exposure to etiological agents. The LNP site was determined to have a potential 

8 for only a SMALL impact with respect to non-radiological health effects For public services and 

9 education at the LNP site, the MODERATE impact level is a result of short-term adverse effects 

10 on police, emergency service, fire-protection services, and schools in specific local communities 

11 during peak construction and preconstruction. The review team’s finding of a MODERATE 

12 impact for the two resource areas at the LNP site is based on the fact that specific community 

13 public services were either at capacity or otherwise limited. The higher impact level for public 

14 services and education at LNP is directly related to peak construction and preconstruction of 

15 two new nuclear units at the site. 

16 For land use at Highlands, building two new reactor units at the site is a significant contributor to 

17 the MODERATE impact assessment because of the disturbance of a substantial amount of land 

18 for the power plant, reservoir, and transmission lines. The review team concluded that 

19 cumulative land-use impacts also are MODERATE at the LNP site, but would not contribute 

20 significantly to the impact level because the higher impact level is based on the effects of 

21 projects other than the nuclear units. For terrestrial ecosystems at both sites, the MODERATE 

22 impacts are based on the alteration of natural habitats. 

23 Based on the results and comparison of the resource areas and associated impact 

24 characterizations, the review team concludes that the Highlands site would not be 

25 environmentally preferable to the LNP site for two new nuclear generating units. 

26 Putnam Site 

27 The LNP site is characterized more favorably than the Putnam site in Table 9-31 for the 

28 following resource areas: environmental justice and non-radiological health. Conversely, the 

29 Putnam site is characterized more favorably than the LNP site in Table 9-31 for public services 

30 and education. 

31 For environmental justice at Putnam, the MODERATE level is based on a potentially 

32 disproportionate impact on subsistence fishing. For non-radiological health, the operation of a 

33 proposed plant at the Putnam site could result in a SMALL to MODERATE increased risk of 

34 human exposure to etiological agents. The LNP site was determined to have a potential for only 

35 a SMALL effect with respect to non-radiological health. At the LNP site, the review team’s 

36 finding of a MODERATE impact assessment for public services and education is based on the 

37 fact that, during construction, existing community public services would be stressed because 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-245 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 they are at capacity or otherwise limited. Operating two new units at the LNP site would not 

2 contribute significantly to long-term public service and education impacts. 

3 For land use, terrestrial ecosystems, and aesthetics, although the two sites have essentially the 

4 same cumulative impact levels, building and operating two new nuclear units would be a 

5 significant contributor to the impact level at the Putnam site. This is because of the substantial 

6 amount of land needed for the proposed power plant, supplemental cooling reservoir, and 

7 transmission infrastructure and the long-term impacts along transmission lines and corridors. 

8 Based on the results and comparison of the resource areas and associated impact 

9 characterizations, the review team concludes that the Putnam site would not be environmentally 

10 preferable to the LNP site for two new nuclear generating units. 

11 Summary 

12 Although there are differences and distinctions between the cumulative environmental impacts 

13 of building and operating two new nuclear generating units at the proposed LNP site and the 

14 alternative sites, the review team concludes that none of these differences is sufficient to 

15 determine that any of the alternative sites would be environmentally preferable to the proposed 

16 site for building of two new nuclear generating units. 

17 9.3.6.3 Obviously Superior Sites 

18 None of the alternative sites was determined to be environmentally preferable to the proposed 

19 LNP site. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that none of the alternative sites would be 

20 obviously superior to the LNP site. As discussed in Section 9.0, the USACE will conclude its 

21 analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its Record of Decision. 

22 9.4 System Design Alternatives 

23 The review team considered a variety of alternatives for heat-dissipation systems and 

24 circulating-water systems. While other heat-dissipation systems and water systems exist, by far 

25 the largest and the most likely to dominate the environmental consequences of operation is the 

26 cooling-water system that cools and condenses the steam for the turbine generator. Other 

27 water systems, such as service-water systems, are much smaller and reject much less heat 

28 than the circulating-water system. As a result, the review team only considers alternative heat29 dissipation and water-treatment systems for the circulating-water system. The review team also 

30 considers alternative water sources for both the circulating-water system and the service-water 

31 system because withdrawal of water for both of these systems has a potential to affect the 

32 environment. The proposed circulating-water system is a closed-loop system that relies on 

33 evaporative cooling from mechanical draft cooling towers and draws makeup water from the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-246 August 2010

1 CFBC. The proposed service-water system relies on groundwater wells to provide makeup 

2 water. Both of these proposed systems are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. 

3 9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems 

4 About two-thirds of the heat from a commercial nuclear reactor is rejected as heat to the 

5 environment. The remaining one-third of the reactor’s generated heat is converted into 

6 electricity. Normal heat-sink cooling systems transfer this rejected heat load into the 

7 atmosphere and/or nearby waterbodies, primarily as latent heat exchange (evaporating water) 

8 or sensible heat exchange (warmer air or water). Different heat-dissipation systems rely on 

9 different exchange processes. The following sections describe alternative heat-dissipation 

10 systems considered by the review team for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

11 The impacts associated with the proposed heat-dissipation system, mechanical draft wet-tower 

12 cooling system, are discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, and 5.3. The review team determined in 

13 Chapter 4 that the impacts of building the proposed heat-dissipation system would be SMALL 

14 for both hydrologic and ecological resources. The review team determined in Chapter 5 that 

15 the impacts of operating the proposed heat-dissipation system would be SMALL for both 

16 hydrologic and ecological resources. 

17 PEF considered a range of heat-dissipation systems in its ER, including once-through cooling 

18 and several closed-cycle cooling systems. In addition to the closed-cycle alternative using 

19 mechanical draft cooling that they have selected, PEF also considered cooling ponds and spray 

20 ponds, dry cooling towers, hybrid wet/dry cooling towers, and wet natural draft cooling towers 

21 (PEF 2009a). 

22 9.4.1.1 Plant Cooling System – Once-Through Operation 

23 Once-through cooling systems withdraw water from the source waterbody and return the 

24 virtually the same volume of water to the receiving waterbody at an elevated temperature. 

25 Typically, the source waterbody and the receiving waterbody are the same body and the intake 

26 and discharge structures are separated to limit recirculation. While there is no consumptive use 

27 of water in a once-through heat-dissipation system, the elevated temperature of the receiving 

28 waterbody will result in induced evaporative loss that decreases the net water supply. The large 

29 intake and discharge flows associated with once-through cooling systems require large intake 

30 and discharge structures; the high flow rates may result in hydrologic alterations in the 

31 source/receiving waterbodies. In addition, the high flow rates result in higher levels of 

32 impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Based on EPA 316(b) Phase I regulations 

33 (66 FR 65256), the review team has determined that once-through cooling systems for new 

34 nuclear reactors are unlikely to be permitted in the future, except in rare and unique situations. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-247 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The proposed LNP site is approximately 7 mi from the Gulf of Mexico, and construction of intake 

2 and outfall structures that would support once-through cooling at this location are not 

3 considered practical (PEF 2009a). The review team determined that once-through cooling 

4 would not be environmentally preferable because of the magnitude of the impacts of building 

5 large intake and outfall structures, the significant volume of makeup water needed, the 

6 characteristics of the Gulf of Mexico near the LNP site, and the potential for significant impacts 

7 on sensitive aquatic biota. 

8 9.4.1.2 Cooling Pond and Spray Ponds 

9 Cooling-pond cooling systems circulate water in manmade ponds. Heat transfer from the 

10 cooling-pond surface to the atmosphere occurs primarily through evaporation, black-body 

11 radiation, and conduction. Spray ponds enhance evaporative cooling by spraying water into the 

12 air over the pond. While spray ponds require substantiality less area than cooling ponds, both 

13 require a significant parcel of contiguous level property. Based on the additional land required 

14 for cooling-pond or spray-pond construction, the review team concludes that neither cooling 

15 ponds nor spray ponds would be environmentally preferable alternatives for the proposed LNP 

16 site. 

17 9.4.1.3 Dry-Cooling Towers 

18 Dry-cooling towers would eliminate all water-related impacts from the cooling system operation. 

19 No makeup water would be needed and no blowdown water would be generated. However, 

20 dry-cooling systems require much larger cooling systems, result in some loss in electrical 

21 generation efficiency because the theoretical approach temperature is limited to the dry-bulb 

22 temperature and not the lower wet-bulb temperature, and involve parasitic energy losses for the 

23 large array of fans used. This loss in generation efficiency translates into increased fuel-cycle 

24 impacts. Because the impacts associated with aquatic ecology, water use, and water quality for 

25 the construction and operation of the proposed cooling system have been determined to be 

26 SMALL in Chapters 4 and 5, the review team determined that, although dry cooling eliminates 

27 water-related impacts, it is not environmentally preferable to the proposed alternative. 

28 9.4.1.4 Combination Wet/Dry-Cooling Tower System 

29 A combination mechanical draft wet/dry-cooling tower system uses both wet- and dry-cooling 

30 cells to limit consumption of cooling water, often with the added benefit of reducing plume 

31 visibility. Water used to cool the turbine generators generally passes first through the dry 

32 portion of the cooling tower where heat is removed by drawing air at ambient temperature over 

33 tubes through which the water is moving. Cooling water leaving the dry portion of the tower 

34 then passes through the wet tower where the water is sprayed into a moving air stream and 

35 additional heat is removed through evaporation and sensible heat transfer. When ambient air 

36 temperatures are low, the dry portion of these cooling towers may be sufficient to meet cooling 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-248 August 2010

1 needs. The use of the dry portion of the system would result in a loss in generating efficiency, 

2 which would translate into increased fuel-cycle impacts. Although a combination mechanical 

3 draft wet/dry-cooling tower system could reduce water-related impacts, the review team 

4 determined that the impacts associated with aquatic ecology, water use, and water quality for 

5 the building and operating the proposed cooling system were SMALL. The review team 

6 concluded that building and operating a combination wet/dry-cooling tower system would not be 

7 an environmentally preferable alternative for the LNP site. 

8 9.4.1.5 Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers 

9 Wet natural draft cooling towers, which use about the same amount of water as the proposed 

10 design, induce airflow up through large (500 ft tall and 400 ft in diameter) towers by cascading 

11 hot water downward in the lower portion of the cooling tower. As heat transfers from the water 

12 to the air in the tower, the air becomes more buoyant and moves upward. This buoyant 

13 movement induces more air to enter the tower through its open base. The size of the cooling 

14 towers results both in a large visual and land-use footprint. The review team determined that 

15 natural draft cooling towers are not environmentally preferable to the proposed design because 

16 they result in equivalent impacts on the aquatic environment and their height would pose some 

17 risk of avian collisions. 

18 9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems 

19 The review team evaluated alternatives to the proposed intake and discharge for the proposed 

20 cooling system, based on the water requirements of the proposed heat-dissipation system. The 

21 capacity requirements of the intake and discharge system are defined by the proposed heat22 dissipation system. For proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, the proposed heat-dissipation system is a 

23 closed-cycle system with mechanical draft cooling towers. The review team considered 

24 alternatives for the water-supply sources for the normal heat-sink cooling system. 

25 9.4.2.1 Water Supplies 

26 The impacts associated with the proposed water supply, the CFBC, are discussed in Sections 

27 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, and 5.3. Because PEF does not propose to use surface water for building the 

28 proposed units, the review team determined in Chapter 4 that the impacts of building the 

29 proposed units would be SMALL for both hydrologic and aquatic resources. The review team 

30 determined in Chapter 5 that the impacts of withdrawing water to operate the proposed units 

31 would be SMALL for both hydrologic and aquatic resources. 

32 The review team considered alternative sources for the circulating-water system including water 

33 reuse, groundwater, and surface water. Alternative sources of surface water include freshwater 

34 and saltwater. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-249 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.4.2.2 Water Reuse 

2 Sources of water for reuse can either come from the plant itself or from other local water users. 

3 Sanitary wastewater-treatment plants are the most common source of water for reuse. 

4 Agricultural processing, industrial processing, and oilfield production can also provide significant 

5 supplies of water for reuse. Additional treatment (e.g., tertiary treatment, chlorination) may be 

6 required to provide water of appropriate quality for the specific plant need. Population is very 

7 low and there is little industry around the proposed LNP site, so no sources of water for reuse at 

8 the LNP site were identified (PEF 2009a). Therefore, the review team determined that water 

9 reuse would not be feasible and thus not an environmentally preferable alternative to PEF’s 

10 proposed water supply. 

11 9.4.2.3 Groundwater 

12 During operation, PEF proposes to use groundwater for the raw-water system but not for the 

13 cooling-water system. The analysis of groundwater supply performed to support the siting and 

14 permitting of the wellfield for the raw-water system indicates that the groundwater resource 

15 could not meet the cooling-water demands of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 without significant 

16 environmental impacts (PEF 2009a). Therefore, the review team determined that groundwater 

17 use for cooling-water system makeup water would not be an environmentally preferable 

18 alternative for water supply at the LNP site. 

19 9.4.2.4 Surface Water 

20 Surface-water supplies at the proposed LNP site are either saltwater from the CFBC or 

21 freshwater from the Withlacoochee River and Lake Rousseau. The Withlacoochee River is 

22 designated as an Outstanding Florida Water and therefore has regulatory protection (Fla. 

23 Admin. Code 62-302). In addition, the Withlacoochee River Basin Board has made the 

24 restoration of Lake Rousseau and the Lower Withlacoochee River a priority in its Fiscal 

25 Year 2006 Basin Priorities Statement. Both of these surface waters contribute to a major 

26 groundwater recharge area (PEF 2009e). Given that local and State regulators have focused 

27 their attention on protecting or restoring these resources and that the CFBC provides a virtually 

28 unlimited supply of water from the Gulf of Mexico and does not require the construction of an 

29 extensive pipeline, the review team concludes that other alternative water supplies would not be 

30 environmentally preferable to PEF’s proposed water supply. 

31 9.4.2.5 Intake Alternatives 

32 Because water would be withdrawn from the CFBC, the alternatives for intake structures are 

33 limited. Water can be withdrawn from the CFBC either through radial collector wells or through 

34 an intake structure on the bank of the canal near the barge slip. The impacts associated with 

35 the proposed intake system are discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, and 5.3. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-250 August 2010

1 A radial collector-well system was considered by the review team because in many cases it 

2 reduces the impact on aquatic resources and, when water is being withdrawn from turbid 

3 environments, it can reduce the water treatment needed before its introduction into the cooling 

4 system. A radial collector-well system consists of an excavated central concrete caisson with 

5 well screens projected laterally outward in a radial pattern (Riegert 2006). Radial collector wells 

6 slowly draw surface water through sediments and, thereby, filter out some sediment that might 

7 have required some treatment if the water had been directly withdrawn from the surface8 waterbody. In general, collecting surface water in this way eliminates most of the direct 

9 operational impacts on aquatic ecosystems (e.g., entrainment and impingement) associated 

10 with water withdrawal. The staff determined that radial collector wells, which would induce flow 

11 through the sediments of the CFBC into lateral subterranean pipes extending from the shoreline 

12 out beneath the canal, would require multiple large structures near the shoreline. PEF did not 

13 consider such an alternative water source, but the review team independently determined that a 

14 radial collector-well system is not environmentally preferable to the proposed direct withdrawal 

15 from the CFBC due to the environmental impacts associated with excavating the caissons, 

16 drilling the laterals and building new shoreline structures associated with each well, and 

17 because the impacts associated with aquatic ecology for the proposed intake have been 

18 determined to be SMALL in Chapters 4 and 5. Therefore, the review team determines that 

19 there are no alternative intake designs that would be environmentally preferable to the proposed 

20 intake design. 

21 9.4.2.6 Discharge Alternatives 

22 The impacts associated with the proposed discharge system are discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 

23 5.2, and 5.3. Discharges for the normal cooling system can be constructed along the shoreline 

24 or offshore. Shoreline discharges release water into the shallow tidal zone with more limited 

25 mixing than would an offshore discharge. These shallow tidal areas can be important habitat 

26 and, due to the limited mixing, a shoreline discharge can influence the temperature and 

27 chemistry for a relatively large amount of this habitat. As discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, the 

28 overall impacts of the offshore discharge option selected by PEF would be SMALL. In addition, 

29 creation of a new offshore discharge would require temporary disturbance of sensitive 

30 environments during construction of a pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, the review 

31 team determined that there were no alternative discharge designs that would be 

32 environmentally preferable to the proposed discharge design. 

33 9.4.2.7 Water Treatment 

34 Both inflow and effluent water may require treatment to ensure that they meet plant water needs 

35 and effluent water standards. PEF proposes to add chemicals to plant water to meet 

36 appropriate water-quality process needs. The chemistry of effluent water is regulated by the 

37 FDEP through the NPDES permitting process. The largest chemical inputs are required to 

38 maintain the appropriate chemistry in the cooling towers to preclude biofouling. The review 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-251 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 team identified no environmentally preferable alternative to PEF’s proposed chemical water 

2 treatment. The effluents from cooling-tower blowdown are specifically regulated in 40 CFR Part 

3 423 by the EPA to protect the environment. 

4 9.4.3 Service-Water System Alternatives 

5 The review team evaluated alternatives to the proposed source of water for systems using 

6 freshwater within the LNP units. For proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, during plant operations, 

7 water would be withdrawn from groundwater wells to supply makeup water to the service-water 

8 system, and provide raw water to the potable-water supply, the demineralized-water system, for 

9 fire protection, and for media filter backwash (PEF 2009a). Four groundwater wells would be 

10 located south of the plant as shown in Figure 3-1. The review team considered surface-water 

11 alternatives for the water-supply source to meet these freshwater needs. 

12 As mentioned above, surface-water supplies at the proposed LNP site are either saltwater from 

13 the CFBC or freshwater from the Withlacoochee River and Lake Rousseau. The Withlacoochee 

14 River is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water and therefore has regulatory protection 

15 (Fla. Admin. Code 32-602). In addition, the Withlacoochee River Basin Board has made the 

16 restoration of Lake Rousseau and the Lower Withlacoochee River a priority in its Fiscal 

17 Year 2006 Basin Priorities Statement. Given that local and State regulators have focused their 

18 attention on protecting or restoring these resources and that the CFBC provides a virtually 

19 unlimited supply of water from the Gulf of Mexico, the review team eliminated from further 

20 consideration the withdrawal of surface freshwater as a source of water for the service water 

21 system and considered instead the building of a desalination plant at the LNP site to meet the 

22 freshwater needs of the site by desalinating water from the CFBC. 

23 A desalination (also called desalinization or desal) plant could be built on the LNP site. Water 

24 could be routed from the proposed circulating-water system intake structure and pipeline to the 

25 plant. PEF has estimated that plant operations would require an annual average total 

26 withdrawal of 1.58 Mgd (1097 gpm) of groundwater, and a potential maximum daily withdrawal 

27 of 5.8 Mgd (4028 gpm) (PEF 2009e) to meet freshwater needs. Desalination processes often 

28 require the withdrawal of twice as much saltwater to produce the needed freshwater (Ettouney 

29 and Wilf 2009), so between 2000 gpm and 8000 gpm would need to be withdrawn from the 

30 CFBC to meet the freshwater needs. PEF has indicated that the rate for water withdrawal from 

31 the CFBC to provide makeup water to the circulating-water system would be 84,780 gpm 

32 (Table 3-4). The potential added withdrawal to supply a desalination plant represents an 

33 increase withdrawal from the CFBC of approximately 3 percent for normal conditions and 9 

34 percent for maximal conditions. 

35 Discharge of brine from the desalination plant would likely be mixed with blowdown from the 

36 cooling tower basins for discharge through the Crystal River Discharge Canal (CRDC). The salt 

37 concentration of discharge stream would likely be about twice that of the CFBC salinity and be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-252 August 2010

1 similar to salinity of the cooling-tower blowdown water. PEF has indicated that the blowdown 

2 rate for water from the cooling-tower basins to the CRDC would be 57,923 gpm (Table 3-4). 

3 The potential added discharge from a desalination plant (approximately 1000 gpm normal or 

4 4000 gpm maximal) represents an increase of approximately 2 percent for normal conditions 

5 and 7 percent for maximal conditions. 

6 Given that (1) the CFBC provides a virtually unlimited supply of water from the Gulf of Mexico, 

7 (2) the increase in withdrawal through the proposed intake structure would be a small 

8 increment, and (3) that the discharge from the would be similar in chemistry to the blowdown 

9 water from the cooling towers and a small incremental increase in discharge, the review team 

10 determined that the use of desalination to meet the plants need for freshwater is a viable 

11 alternative. While desalinisation is a viable alternative, because the impacts from the proposed 

12 intake structure are already SMALL, the review team determined that desalinisation is not 

13 environmentally preferable to the proposed intake structure. 

14 9.4.4 Summary of System Design Alternatives 

15 The review team considered alternative systems designs including alternative heat-dissipation 

16 systems and alternative intake, discharge, and water-supply systems. As discussed in the 

17 above sections, the review team identified no alternative that was environmentally preferable to 

18 the proposed plant systems design. 

19 9.5 References 

20 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

21 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

22 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

23 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

24 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52. "Licenses, 

25 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." 

26 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

27 Part 320, "General Regulatory Policies." 

28 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

29 “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

30 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

31 “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-253 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

2 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

3 40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, 

4 “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.” 

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 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

8 "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material." 

9 40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, 

10 "Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.” 

11 40 CFR 1502. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1502, 

12 “Environmental Impact Statement.” 

13 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

14 1508, "Terminology and Index." 

15 41 FR 41914. July 14, 1976. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American Crocodile, 

16 California Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of 

17 the Interior. 

18 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. "Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

19 Policy Statement." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

20 65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

21 Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

22 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

23 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register. 

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

25 68 FR 13370. March 19, 2003. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation 

26 of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Interior. 

27 73 FR 70290. November 20, 2008. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 

28 the Endangered Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish." Federal Register. U.S. 

29 Department of Commerce. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-254 August 2010

1 33 USC 1344. United States Code, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Section 1344 

2 "Permits for Dredged or Fill Material." 

3 Alachua County Florida. 2010. Emergency Services. Accessed May 7, 2010 at 

4 http://www.alachuacounty.us/EmSvcs/Pages/EmergencyServices.aspx. 

5 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 1998. What is “Capacity Factor”? Accessed April 

6 29, 2009 at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html. 

7 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007. Wind Energy and the Environment. 

8 Accessed April 29, 2009 at http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html. 

9 Archbold Biological Station (ABS). 2003a. Dicenrandra christmanii Species Account (Revised 

10 14 October 2003). Accessed on April 8, 2010 at http://www.archbold11 station.org/abs/plantspp/dicchrsppacc.htm. 

12 Archbold Biological Station (ABS). 2003b. Dicerandra frutescens Species Account (Revised 14 

13 October 2003). Accessed on April 8, 2010 at http://www.archbold14 station.org/ABS/plantspp/dicfrusppacc.htm. 

15 Atlantic Blue. 2007. “First Step Taken for Consideration of Rural Lands Stewardship in 

16 Highlands County.” Atlanticblue, Sebring, Florida. Available at 

17 http://www.atlanticblue.us/downloads/atlanticblue-022207.pdf 

18 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2005. Species Profile: Black Sea Bass 

19 – Joint Management Yields Positive Results for Popular Mid-Atlantic Fish. Accessed April 27, 

20 2009 at http://www.asmfc.org/. 

21 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2009. Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoorita 

22 tyrannus) – Life History and Habitat Needs. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

23 www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/menhaden/menhadenHabitatFactsheet.pdf. 

24 Audubon of Florida. 2005. Appendix A, Kissimmee River Restoration. Accessed April 27, 2009 

25 at www.audubonofflorida.org/PDFs/LOKissRestore.pdf. 

26 BASS Online Inc. 2008. St. Johns River. Accessed April 23, 2009 at 

27 http://www.bassonline.com/st_johns_river.html . 

28 Buckingham, C. 1989. Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge Public Use Survey Report. 

29 Technical Report No. 37. Prepared for University of Florida by Chassahowitzka National 

30 Wildlife Refuge, Homosassa, Florida. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-255 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Carr, S.H., F. Tatman, and F.A. Chapman. 1996. “Observations on the Natural History of the 

2 Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi Vladykov 1955) in the Suwannee River, 

3 Southeastern United States.” Ecology of Freshwater Fish 1996(5):169-174 

4 Center for Plant Conservation (CPC). 2010. Cucurbita okeechobeensis spp. Okeechobeensis 

5 National Collection Plant Profile. Accessed on April 8, 2010 at 

6 http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/collection/cpc_viewprofile.asp?CPCNum=1148. 

7 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (LNP) 

8 Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis. 338884-TMEM-102 Revision: 3, prepared for Progress 

9 Energy, Inc. Accession No. ML093620213. 

10 Citrus County. 2005. Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on May 3, 2010 at 

11 http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/commdev/comp_plan/chapter_1.pdf. 

12 Citrus County. 2009. Commission Sends Port District Category for Review. Board of County 

13 Commissioners press release. Accessed February 9, 2010 at 

14 http://www.citruscountyfl.org/press_release_results.jsp?PRESSKEY=482. 

15 Citrus County. 2010. “Citrus County, Florida Code, Ordinance No. 2010-A05 Chapter 21 Article 

16 II Sec. 21-22.” Accessed March 30, 2010 at http://library8.municode.com/default17 test/home.htm?infobase=12785&doc_action=whatsnew. 

18 Clay County Public Safety Department (Clay Public Safety). 2009. Clay County Public Safety 

19 Department. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

20 http://www.claycountygov.com/Departments/Public_Safety/Public_Safety.htm. 

21 Clay County Sheriff’s Office (Clay Sheriff). 2009. Clay County Sheriff’s Office. Accessed 

22 August 4, 2009 at http://www.claysheriff.com/00_02_0DivOps.asp. 

23 Clean Air Act, as amended. 42 USC 7401 et. seq. 

24 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). 2010. The Journey to Restore 

25 America’s Everglades. Accessed April 28, 2010 at http://www.evergladesplan.org/index.aspx. 

26 DeSoto County Emergency Management (DeSoto EM). 2009. DeSoto Emergency 

27 Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

28 http://www.co.desoto.fl.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=198:staff&cat. 

29 DeSoto County Sheriff’s Office (DeSoto Sheriff). 2009. DeSoto County Sheriff’s Office. 

30 Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.desotosheriff.com/law_enforcement. 

31 Dixie County. 2006. Dixie County Comprehensive Plan 2016. Available at 

32 http://dixie.fl.gov/pdf_building/cp.pdf. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-256 August 2010

1 Dixie County. 2009a. Telephone call to Mike Cassidy (Dixie County Manager) from Polly Quick 

2 (ICF International) on August 14, 2009, “Public Services capacity in Dixie County.” Accession 

3 No. ML092790122. 

4 Dixie County. 2009b. Email from Mike Cassidy (Dixie County Manager) to Polly Quick (ICF 

5 International) dated September 29, 2009, regarding public service capacity in Dixie County. 

6 Accession No. ML092790122. 

7 Dixie County. 2009c. Telephone call to Karen Evans (Dixie County, Environmental Health 

8 Specialist) from Melissa DuMond (ICF International) on August 3, 2009, “Determine if 

9 subsistence use occurs in Dixie County, FL (Dixie Site).” Accession No. ML092790122. 

10 Dixie County. 2009d. Email from Mike Cassidy (Dixie County Manager) to Polly Quick (ICF 

11 International) dated September 29, 2009, regarding subsistence hunting and fishing in Dixie 

12 County. Accession No. ML092790122. 

13 Dixie County Emergency Services (Dixie EM). 2009. Dixie County Emergency Services. 

14 Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.dixieemergency.com/. 

15 Dixie County Sheriff’s Office (Dixie Sheriff). 2009. Law Enforcement. Accessed August 4, 

16 2009 at http://www.dixiecountysheriff.com/LawEnforcement.html. 

17 Eaton, C., E. McMichael, B. Witherington, A. Foley, R. Hardy, and A. Meyla. 2008. In-water 

18 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Research in Florida: Review and Recommendations. NOAA 

19 Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Silver 

20 Spring, Maryland. 

21 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility 

22 Structure, International Workshop, September 13-16, 1992, Miami, Florida. EPRI TR-103268, 

23 Palo Alto, California. 

24 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2002. Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation

25 Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application, Final Report. Product ID: 1006878, EPRI, Palo 

26 Alto, California. 

27 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq. 

28 Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, and D.P. Young, Jr. 2005. “A Summary and Comparison of Bird 

29 Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions.” USDA Forest Service 

30 Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191: 1029–1042. Available at 

31 http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_1029-

32 1042_erickson.pdf. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-257 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Ettouney, H. and M. Wilf. 2009. “Commercial Desalination Technologies - An Overview of the 

2 Current Status of Applications of Commercial Seawater Desalination Processes.” In: Seawater 

3 Desalination (A. Cipolina, G. Micale, and L. Rizzuti, eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. 

4 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009a. Application for License for a Minor 

5 Water Power Project – Inglis Hydropower Project. Available at http://www.ferc.gov/for6 citizens/projectsearch/SearchProjects.aspx?Region=Southeast. 

7 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009b. Final Environmental Impact 

8 Statement re FGT Phase VIII Expansion Project under CP09-17. Available at: 

9 http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20090918-4001. Accession No. 

10 ML101830254. 

11 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also referred to as Clean Water Act). 33 USC 

12 1251, et seq. 

13 Flagler County Department of Emergency Management. (Flagler EM). 2009. Flagler County 

14 Department of Emergency Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

15 http://www.sjcemergencymanagement.org/ 

16 Flagler County Sheriff’s Office. (Flagler Sheriff). 2009. Flagler County Sheriff’s Office. Accessed 

17 August 4, 2009 at http://www.sjso.org/divisions/SupportServices.aspx 

18 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-302. 2009. Chapter 62-302, “Surface Water Quality Standards.” 

19 Effective April 2, 2008. Florida Administrative Code Annotated. Available at 

20 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-302/62-302.pdf. 

21 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 40C-8. 2010. Chapter 40C-8 , “St. Johns River Water Management 

22 District, Minimum Flows and Levels.” Revised January 11, 2010. Florida Administrative Code 

23 Annotated. Available at http://sjr.state.fl.us/rules/pdfs/40C-8.pdf. 

24 Florida Bass Online.com. 2010. St. John’s River Fishing. Accessed April 27, 2010 at 

25 http://bassonline.com/st_johns_river.html. 

26 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 2004. Simpson’s zephyr 

27 lily, Zephyranthes simpsonii, an Endangered Species. Accessed on April 8, 2010 at 

28 http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/botany/botcirc/Botcirc20.htm. 

29 Florida Department of Education (FDOE). 2009a. Class Size Reduction Amendment, School 

30 Averages Traditional Schools 2008. Accessed June 26, 2009 at 

31 http://www.fldoe.org/arm/pdf/ClassSize-District-Traditional-2008.pdf. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-258 August 2010

1 Florida Department of Education (FDOE). 2009b. 2009-10 Funding for Florida School Districts, 

2 Statistical Report. Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

3 http://www.fldoe.org/fefp.

4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1997 . Environmental Resource 

5 Permit, Permit/Authorization No.:092952179. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

6 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 

7 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2002a. “Water Hyacinth Management 

8 – a Good Example of Maintenance Control in Florida.” Bureau of Invasive Plant Management 

9 Circular 19, Tallahassee, Florida. 

10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2002b. Let’s Protect Manatee Spring. 

11 Tallahassee, Florida. 

12 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2008. Status of the Aquatic Plant 

13 Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters – Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. 

14 Tallahassee, Florida. 

15 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. Outstanding Florida Waters. 

16 Accessed on March 23, 2010 at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/ofw.htm. 

17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Coastal Management 

18 Program – About the Coastal management Program. Accessed on July 29, 2009 at 

19 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/. 

20 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009c. Fanning Springs State Park. 

21 Available at http://www.floridastateparks.org/fanningsprings/default.cfm. 

22 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009d. Oklawaha River Aquatic 

23 Preserve. Accessed April 27, 2009 at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/oklawaha. 

24 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009e. Wekiva River Aquatic 

25 Preserve. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/downloads/glance/wekiva_2-pager.pdf. 

26 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009f. Suwannee River Basin - 

27 Group 1 Cycle 2 - Verified List Revised and Readopted May 2009, Hydrologic Unit: Suwannee 

28 Basin. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Assessment Program, 

29 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

30 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group1/adopted/cycle2/suw

31 annee-verified-c2.pdf.
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-259 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009h. Lower St. Johns Basin Group 

2 2 Cycle 2 - Verified List. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed 

3 Assessment Program, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

4 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group2/adopted/cycle2/lsjr5 verified-c2.pdf 

6 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Levy Nuclear Power Plant, 

7 Units 1 & 2, Progress Energy Florida, PA08-51B, Conditions of Certification, Plant and 

8 Associated Facilities and Transmission Lines. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

9 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa08_51_2010_B.pdf. 

10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010b. Marjorie Harris Carr Cross 

11 Florida Greenway – History. Accessed February 29, 2010 at 

12 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/history.htm. 

13 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010c. Lake Okeechobee 

14 Restoration Action Plan Detailed. Accessed February 25, 2010 at 

15 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/2000/00-070.htm. 

16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010d. Lake Okeechobee Protection 

17 Plan Detailed. Available at 

18 https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/portlet_subtab_draft_rpt/tab198531

19 45/chap/v1_ch10.pdf. 

20 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010e. Kissimmee Basin Group 4 

21 Cycle 2 - Draft Verified List, Lake Istokpoga, Lake Placid, Lower Kissimmee, Upper Kissimmee 

22 Planning Units. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Assessment 

23 Program, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

24 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group4/cycle2/verified/g4c2

25 -vl-kissimm-apr29.pdf. 

26 Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR). 1987. St. Martins Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

27 Management Plan. Prepared by the Bureau of Aquatic Preserves Division of State Lands, 

28 Tallahassee, Florida. 

29 Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR). 1988. Public Meeting Draft Big Bend 

30 Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve and Big Bend Marsh Buffer Management Plan. Prepared by the 

31 Bureau of Aquatic Preserves Division of State Lands, Tallahassee, Florida. 

32 Florida Department of State (FDOS). 2010. Florida Historical Markers Program: Historical 

33 Markers of Florida. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. Accessed 

34 March 9, 2010 at http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/markers/markers_map.cfm 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-260 August 2010

1 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2008. Annual Average Daily Traffic Reports (by 

2 county). Accessed September 2009 at 

3 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/trafficdata/AADT/. 

4 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2009a. Telephone call to James Baxter (Florida 

5 Department of Transportation) from Polly Quick (ICF International) on September 9, 2009, 

6 “Level of Service standards for roads in Highlands County.” Accession No. ML092790122. 

7 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2009b. 2009 Quality/Level of Service 

8 Handbook. State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

9 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/2009FDOTQLOS_Handbook.pdf. 

10 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2010a. U.S. 19 from West Cornflower Dr. to 

11 West Foss Grove Path. Accessed February 5, 2010 at 

12 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/construc/district7pio/citrus.shtm. 

13 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2010b. Florida High Speed Rail. Accessed May 

14 10, 2010 at http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/Rail_Corridors.html. 

15 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2010c. State Road 710 PD&E Study. Accessed 

16 May 10, 2010 at http://www.sr710-okeechobee.com/. 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2010d. SR70 From 34th 17 Avenue NE to the St. 

18 Lucie County Line. Available at http://www.sr70.info/. 

19 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2007d. Florida Manatee 

20 Management Plan, Trichechus manatus latirostris. Tallahassee, Florida. 

21 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009a. 2008 Marine Life 

22 Landings Summary, Edited Data Through Batch 1024 (Closed 3/13/2009). Accessed April 14, 

23 2009 at 

24 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=sumstate_ml_08.pdf

25 &objid=19224&dltype=article. 

26 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009b. South Region 

27 Freshwater Fishing Guide. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

28 http://www.myfwc.com/docs/Freshwater/Freshwater_South_FFguide.pdf. 

29 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009c. Shortnose Sturgeon 

30 Population Evaluation in the St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

31 Commission, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available at 

32 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/directory_process.asp?id=24341. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-261 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2010. Crystal River Mariculture 

2 Center. Accessed February 5, 2010 at 

3 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=10469. 

4 Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978. Subsection 370.12(2), Florida Statue. 

5 Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH). 2009. Email from Joana Fernandez de Carvalho, 

6 Florida Museum of Natural History, to Ann Miracle, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, dated 

7 April 14, 2009, “Subject: Re smalltooth sawfish database,” with spreadsheet and map 

8 attachments. Accession No. ML102030397. 

9 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2009. Tracking List – by County. Accessed various 

10 dates at http://www.fnai.org/trackinglist.cfm. 

11 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2010. Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of 

12 Florida Online. Plants updated in 2000, Animals updated in 2001. Accessed various dates at 

13 http://www.fnai.org/fieldguide/. 

14 Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). 2008. Final Order Granting Petition for 

15 Determination of Need for Proposed Nuclear Power Plants. Final Order PSC-08-0518-FOF-EI, 

16 Docket no. 080148-EI dated August 12, 2008. Accessed April 29, 2009 at 

17 http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/orders/SingleDisplay.aspx?OrderNumber=PSC-08-

18 0518&Method=ByNumber. 

19 The Florida Senate. 2009. The 2009 Florida Statutes. Accessed on July 29, 2009 at 

20 http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL

21 =Ch0380/Sec205.HTM. 

22 Florida Turnpike Enterprise (FTE). 2010. Suncoast Parkway 2. Accessed February 5, 2010 at 

23 http://www.suncoast2online.com/maps.php. 

24 Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger.” Oak Ridge National 

25 Laboratory Review. Summer/Fall 1993. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 

26 Tennessee. Available at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html. 

27 Gilchrist County. 2009. Telephone call to Ronnie McQueen (Gilchrist County Administrator) 

28 from Polly Quick (ICF International) on August 17, 2009, “Public Services Capacity of Gilchrist 

29 County.” Accession No. ML092790122. 

30 Gilchrist County Emergency Medical Services (Gilchrist EM). 2009. Gilchrist County 

31 Emergency Medical Services. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

32 http://www.gilchrist.fl.us/coord/ems.html. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-262 August 2010

1 Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Office (Gilchrist Sheriff). 2009. Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Office. 

2 Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.gilcso.org/patrol.shtml. 

3 Glades County Emergency Management (Glades EM). 2009. Glades County Emergency 

4 Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.myglades.com/BOCC/EM/. 

5 Glades County Sheriff’s Office (Glades Sheriff). 2009. Glades County Sheriff’s Office. Accessed 

6 August 4, 2009 at http://www.gladessheriff.org/patrol.php. 

7 Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data 

8 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

9 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact 

10 Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Following Fishery 

11 Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Drum 

12 Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal and Coral Reef 

13 Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; and Coastal 

14 Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Tampa, Florida. 

15 Hallas, J.F. and W. Magley. 2008. Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for the Suwannee 

16 River, Santa Fe River, Manatee Springs (3422R), Fanning Springs (3422S), Branford Spring 

17 (3422J), Ruth Spring (3422L), Troy Spring (3422T), Royal Spring (3422U), and Falmouth Spring 

18 (3422Z). TMDL Report, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. 

19 Hardee County Emergency Management (Hardee EM). 2009. Hardee County Emergency 

20 Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

21 http://www.hardeecounty.net/eoc/index.cfm?EOC=10. 

22 Hardee County Sheriff’s Office (Hardee Sheriff). 2009. Hardee County Sheriff’s Office.

23 Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.hardeeso.com/home.htm. 

24 Highlands County. 2009. Telephone calls to Highlands County officials (Environmental Health 

25 Division, Natural Resources Department, and Community Services Division) from Melissa 

26 DuMond (ICF International) on August 3 and 4, 2009, “Determine if subsistence use occurs in 

27 Highlands County, FL (Highlands Site).” Accession No. ML092790122. 

28 Highlands County Emergency Management (Highlands EM). 2009. Highlands County 

29 Emergency Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.hceoc.org/. 

30 Highlands County Sheriff’s Office (Highlands Sheriff). 2009. Highlands County Sheriff’s Office.

31 Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.highlandssheriff.org/AboutUs/index.shtml. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-263 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Hoyer, M.V., M.D. Netherland, M.S. Allen, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2005. Hydrilla Management in 

2 Florida: A Summary and Discussion of Issues Identified by Professionals with Future 

3 Management Recommendations. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of 

4 Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

5 Huff, J.A. 1975. “Life History of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeons, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in 

6 Suwannee River, Florida.” Number 16, Florida Marine Research Publications, Florida 

7 Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

8 Lafayette County. 2009. Telephone call to Donnie Hamlin (Chair, Lafayette County Board of 

9 Commissioners) from Polly Quick (ICF International) on August 17, 2009, “Public Services 

10 Capacity of Lafayette County.” Accession No. ML092790122. 

11 Lafayette County Emergency Management (Lafayette EM). 2009. Community Emergency 

12 Response Te4am (CERT). Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

13 http://www.lafayettecountyflorida.org/index.cfm/referer/content.contentList/ID/532/. 

14 Lafayette County Sheriff’s Office (Lafayette Sheriff). 2009. Welcome to the Lafayette County 

15 Sheriff’s Office. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

16 http://www.lafayettecountysheriffsoffice.com/site_map.htm. 

17 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. 16 USC 1361, et seq. 

18 Marion County Board of County Commissioners – Fire Rescue Operations (Marion Fire). 2009. 

19 Fire Rescue Operations. Accessed October 2, 2009 at 

20 http://www.marioncountyfl.org/FireRescue/fire_rescue_operation.aspx. 

21 Marion County Emergency Management (Marion EM). 2009. Marion County Sheriff’s Office – 

22 Sheriff’s Staff, Emergency Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

23 http://www.marionso.com/em.php. 

24 Marshall, M.J. 2002. Survey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Power Crystal River 

25 Generating Facility. Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc., Bradenton, Florida. 

26 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2006. The Future of Geothermal Energy. 

27 Accessed April 29, 2009 at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html. 

28 Moser, M. 2010. Email from Michelle Moser U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 

29 5, 2010 in response to email from Gordon A. Hambrick dated March 5, 2010, “Corps Response 

30 to PEF 404(b)(1) Guidelines Analysis for LNP (SAJ-2008 00490(IP-GAH)).” Accession No. 

31 ML100720018. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-264 August 2010

1 Mote Marine Laboratory (MML). 1993. 1993 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3-Year 

2 NPDES Monitoring Project. Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

3 Mote Marine Laboratory (MML). 1994. 1994 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3-Year 

4 NPDES Monitoring Project. Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

5 Mote Marine Laboratory (MML). 1995. 1995 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3-Year 

6 NPDES Monitoring Project. Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

7 Moulder J.E. 2003. Powerlines & Cancer FAQs. Available at 

8 http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/powerlines-cancer-faq/. 

9 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

10 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose 

11 Sturgeon (Acipenser Brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for 

12 the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

13 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Letter from Joseph E Powers, Ph.D.(NMFS) 

14 to Herbert N. Berkow (NRC) dated August 8, 2002, regarding “The National Marine Fisheries 

15 Service's (NOAA Fisheries) biological opinion (Opinion) based on your request for reinitiation of 

16 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for the operation of the Crystal River 

17 Energy Complex's (CREC) cooling water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus 

18 County, Florida.“ Accession No. ML022460361. 

19 National Park Service (NPS). 2010. National Register of Historic Places – NPS Focus 

20 database. National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior. Accessed March 9, 2010 at 

21 http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome. Accession No. 

22 ML102030401. 

23 National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2008. Charting a New path for Florida’s Electricity 

24 Generation and Use. Accessed April 29, 2009 at 

25 http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/energypdfs/FLORIDA_10-22-9.pdf. 

26 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 1978. New England Coalition on Nuclear 

Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st 27 Circuit 1978). 

28 NextEra Energy Resources (NextEra). 2009. Solar Electric Generating Systems. Accessed 

29 February 24, 2010 at 

30 http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/content/where/portfolio/pdf/segs.pdf. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-265 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2005. The Fifth Northwest Electric Power 

2 and Conservation Plan. Accessed April 29, 2009 at 

3 http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/Default.htm. 

4 Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2006. Biennial Assessment of the Fifth 

5 Power Plan: Assessment of Other Generating Technologies. Accessed February 24, 2010 at 

6 http://www.nwppc.org/energy/Biennial/BiennialOther%20gen.pdf. 

7 Okeechobee Emergency Management (Okeechobee EM). 2009. Okeechobee Emergency 

8 Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.okeechobeeeoc.com/ 

9 Okeechobee County Sheriff’s Office (Okeechobee Sheriff). 2009. Okeechobee County Sheriff’s 

10 Office. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

11 http://www.okeesheriff.org/sheriff/RoadPatrol/tabid/81/Default.aspx. 

12 Panhandle Energy. 2010. FGT Phase VIII Expansion Project Description. Accessed May 10, 

13 2010 at http://www.panhandleenergy.com/phaseviii.asp. 

14 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2007a. Site Certification Application Crystal River Unit 3 

15 Power Uprate Project, Crystal River Florida. St. Petersburg, Florida. 

16 Progress Energy Florida (PEF). 2007b. New Nuclear Baseload Generation Addition, 

17 Evaluation of Florida Sites. Redacted version April 2009. NPD-NRC-2009-084. Accession No. 

18 ML091920125. 

19 Progress Energy Florida (PEF). 2008. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License 

20 Renewal Stage, Crystal River Unit 3; Progress Energy. Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. 

21 ML090080731. 

22 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

23 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, 

24 Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. ML092860995. 

25 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Ten-Year Site Plan, 

26 2009-2018. Submitted to: Florida Public Service Commission. Accessed April 22, 2009 at 

27 http://www.psc.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/electricgas/2009ProgressEnergyFloridaTYSP.pdf. 

28 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report. Accessed 

29 July 21, 2009 at http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/crr/NaturalResrc.asp. 

30 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009d. Letter from John Elnitsky (PEF) to U.S. Nuclear 

31 Regulatory Commission dated December 14, 2009 in response to letter from Douglas Bruner 

32 dated September 25, 2009, “Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 52-029 and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-266 August 2010

1 52-030, Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

2 Environmental Review.” NPD-NRC-2009-242. Accession No. ML093620186. 

3 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009e. Letter from Garry D. Miller (PEF) to U.S. Nuclear 

4 Regulatory Commission dated March 27, 2009 in response to letter dated February 24, 2009, 

5 “Subject: Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030, Response to 

6 Request for Additional Information Regarding the Environmental Review.” NPD-NRC-2009-042. 

7 Accession No. ML091320050. 

8 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009f. Letter from Garry D. Miller (PEF) to U.S. Nuclear 

9 Regulatory Commission dated July 29, 2009 in response to letter dated June 23, 2009, 

10 “Subject: Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030, Response to 

11 Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding the Environmental Review – 

12 Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2.” NPD-NRC-2009-167. Accession No. ML092150337. 

13 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 2009g. Letter from James Scarola (Progress Energy) to U.S. 

14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 16, 2009. “Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, 

15 Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030, Submittal of Site Selection Study in Accordance with 10 CFR 

16 2.390.” NPD-NRC-2009-037. Accession Number ML090830369. 

17 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2010. Letter from Robert Kitchen (PEF) to Gordon A. 

18 Hambrick III, USACE, dated June 30, 1020,“Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, USACE 

19 Application File No. SAJ-2008-00490(IP-GAH), Response to Comments Received on the Levy 

20 Nuclear Units 1 and 2 (LNP) Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis, Revision 3.” Accession 

21 No. ML101820645. 

22 Public Service Company of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Company of New 

23 Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8. 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New 

England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC. 582 F.2d 87 (1st 24 Circuit 1978). 

25 Putnam County. 2006. Putnam County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element. 

26 Accessed May 03, 2010 at http://www1.putnam-fl.com/upload/contents/545/A27 FutureLandUseDataandAnalysis.pdf. 

28 Putnam County. 2009a. Putnam County Comprehensive Plan. Putnam County Planning 

29 Division, Palatka, Florida. Available at http://www.putnam30 fl.com/bocc/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=57&Itemid=74. 

31 Putnam County. 2009b. Telephone call to Putnam County (Environmental Health Division 

32 operator) from Melissa DuMond (ICF International) on August 3 and 4, 2009, “Determine if 

33 subsistence use occurs in Putnam County, FL (Putnam Site).” Accession No. ML092790122. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-267 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Putnam County Department of Emergency Management. (Putnam EM). 2009. Putnam County 

2 Department of Emergency Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www1.putnam3 fl.com/live/es.asp 

4 Putnam County Sheriff’s Office. (Putnam Sheriff). 2009. Putnam County Sheriff’s Office. 

5 Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.pcso.us/community 

6 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). 42 USC 6901, et seq. 

7 Riegert, S. 2006. “Reassessing Ranney Wells; The Ins and Outs of Horizontal Collector.” Public 

8 Works Magazine, Published April 15, 2006. Available at http://www.pwmag.com/industry9 news.asp?sectionID=775&articleID=314672. 

10 Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978. (Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1). ALAB-502, 

11 8 NRC 383, 397 (1978), affirmed, CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731 (1980). 

12 Rohde, F. C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the 

13 Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 

14 North Carolina. 

15 Save our Suwanee, Inc. No Date. Fish and Wildlife of the Suwannee River Basin. Save our 

16 Suwannee, Inc., Bell, Florida. Available at http://www.saveoursuwannee.org/FWbroch.pdf 

17 Seminole Electric Cooperative (SEC). 2010. Seminole Electric Cooperative Generating 

18 Station. Available at http://www.seminole-electric.com/our_energy_resources.php. 

19 Seminole Tribe of Florida. 2010. Tourism/Enterprises. Accessed February 25, 2010 at 

20 http://www.semtribe.com/TourismAndEnterprises/. 

21 Solar Southwest Initiative (SSI). 2010. Baseload and Dispatchable Power. Accessed February 

22 24, 2010 at http://www.solarsouthwest.org/node/9. 

23 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 2000. Lake Okeechobee Conceptual 

24 Ecosystem Model. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

25 xlr8.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/url/ITEM/1E1E8CD3C760268CE040E88D48522E45. 

26 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 2008. “Kissimmee River Restoration 

27 Phase I – Environmental Recovery is Under Way.” West Palm Beach, Florida. 

28 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 2010. Recreational Opportunities - Taylor 

29 Creek. Accessed February 25, 2010 at 

30 https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_landresources/pg_sfwmd_landresource

31 s_recopps_taylorcre. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-268 August 2010

1 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2010. 2010 Regional Water 

2 Supply Plan, Northern Planning Region. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 

3 Brooksville, Florida. Available at 

4 http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/RWSP/drafts/NPR-Public-Draft-4_20_10.pdf. 

5 St. Johns County. 2010. St. Johns River Blueway. Accessed February 25, 2010 at 

6 http://www.co.st-johns.fl.us/BCC/Land_Management/LAMP/SJR_blueway.aspx. 

7 St. Johns County Department of Emergency Management. (St. Johns EM). 2009. St. Johns 

8 County Department of Emergency Management. Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

9 http://www.sjcemergencymanagement.org/ 

10 St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office. (St. Johns Sheriff). 2009. St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office. 

11 Accessed August 4, 2009 at http://www.sjso.org/divisions/SupportServices.aspx 

12 St. Johns Riverkeeper. 2009. The River. Available at 

13 http://www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org/theRiver.asp. 

14 St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2008a. The Lower St. Johns River 

15 Basin. Accessed April 27, 2009 at http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_lsjrb.pdf. 

16 St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2008b. The Lower St. Johns River 

17 Basin – Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan Update. Accessed April 

18 27, 2009 at 

19 http://www.sjrwmd.com/lowerstjohnsriver/pdfs/2008_LSJRB_SWIM_Plan_Update_final.pdf. 

20 Stabile, J. J.R. Waldman, F. Parauka, and I. Wirgin. 1996. “Stock Structure and Homing 

21 Fidelity in Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) Based on Restriction 

22 Fragment Length Polymorphism and Sequence Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA.” Genetics 

23 Society of America 144:767-775. 

24 State of Florida. Article XI Section 4 “Public Education.” Constitution of the State of Florida as 

25 Revised in 1968 and Subsequently Amended. State of Florida. 2002. Florida State 

26 Constitution and Amendments. State Constitution and Amendment of Section 1, Article IX 

27 (November 2002). Accessed June 19, 2010 at 

28 http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?p=2&Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3. 

29 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1985. Crystal River 316 Studies, Final Report. 

30 Prepared for Florida Power Corporation. Stoughton, Massachusetts. 

31 Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. “Early Life History Stages of Gulf Sturgeon in the 

32 Suwannee River, Florida.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:758-771. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-269 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD). 2005. MFL Establishment for the 

2 Lower Suwannee River & Estuary, Little Fanning, Fanning, & Manatee Springs. Prepared by 

3 Water Resource Associates, Inc., Tampa, Florida. 

4 Tarmac America. 2010. About Tarmac America. Accessed September 10, 2009 at 

5 http://www.kingroadmine.com/abouttarmac.html. 

6 Taylor County. 2009. Telephone call to Rick Grier (Taylor County, Director of Economic 

7 Development) from Polly Quick (ICF International) on August 17, 2009, “Taylor County capacity 

8 and planning for public service delivery.” Accession No. ML092790122. 

9 Texas State Energy Conservation Office (TSECO). 2008a. Texas Wind Energy. Accessed 

10 July 22, 2009 at http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind.htm. 

11 Texas State Energy Conservation Office (TSECO). 2008b. Texas Solar Energy. Accessed 

12 July 23, 2009 at http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_solar.htm. 

13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1996. Integrated Project Modification Report and 

14 Supplement to the Final Environmental impact Statement. Kissimmee River Headwaters 

15 Revitalization Project, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, Georgia. 

16 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Public Scoping Meeting Presentation. 

17 Available at http://www.kingroadeis.com/library.htm. 

18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010a. Public Notice, Permit Application No. SAJ19 2010-00190 (IP-TSH). May 25, 2010. Pensacola, Florida. Accessed June 30, 2010 at: 

20 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/publicnotices_Florida.htm. 

21 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010b. Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule 

22 Study (LORSS). Accessed April 28, 2010 at 8:22 PM at 

23 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Everglades/Branches/ProjectExe/Sections/UECKLO/lak

24 eokeechobe_lorss.htm. Accession No. ML102030405. 

25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010c. Letter from Gordon A. Hambrick III, USACE, 

26 to Paul Snead, Progress Energy ,dated June 17, 2010, Summary of Meeting at the U.S. Army 

27 Corps of Engineers' Office in Panama City, Florida in Regarding to Progress Energy Florida's 

28 Alternative Sites Analysis. Accession No. ML101860001. 

29 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

30 Proposed Crystal River Unit 3, Florida Power Corporation. Docket No. 50-302. May 1973. 

31 United States Atomic Energy Commission. Accession No. ML091520178. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-270 August 2010

1 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010. Fedstats for Florida and Florida Counties. 

2 Accessed March 8, 2010 at http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/12/12029.html. 

3 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990. Population and Housing Unit Counts: United States (CPH4 2) [PDF 17M] Includes: Population and Housing Units (Table 30). Source: 1990 Census of 

5 Population and Housing. Accessed March 12, 2010 at 

6 http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html. Accession No. 

7 ML102030409. 

8 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. CensusScope – Citrus County – Population Growth. 

9 Accessed on April 30, 2010 at http://www.censusscope.org/us/s12/c17/chart_popl.html. 

10 Accession No. ML102070325. 

11 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. American Factfinder, Table DP-1. Profile of General 

12 Demographic Characteristics: 2000 (for selected counties). Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

13 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. Accession No. ML102030414. 

14 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. American Factfinder, Table DP-3. Profile of Selected 

15 Economic Characteristics: 2000 (for selected counties). Accessed August 4, 2009 at 

16 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. Accession No. 

17 ML102030416. 

18 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. CensusScope – Dixie County – Population Growth. 

19 Accessed on May 3, 2010 at http://www.censusscope.org/us/s12/c29/chart_popl.html. 

20 Accession No. ML102070326. 

21 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007. American Factfinder, American Community Survey, 2005-

22 2007 3-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics (for selected counties). Accessed 

23 September 17, 2009 at 

24 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=ACS_2007_3

25 YR_G00_&_lang=en&_ts=271711458468. Accession No. ML102030420. 

26 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009. Quickfacts (for selected counties). Accessed September 

27 21, 2009 at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accession No. ML102030424. 

28 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land 

29 Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of 

30 Agriculture Handbook 296. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation 

31 Service. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-271 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. Technologies – Wind Energy Resource Potential. 

2 Accessed April 29, 2009 at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html. 

3 Accession No. ML102030394. 

4 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. State Energy Alternatives: Biomass Energy. 

5 Accessed on February 25, 2009 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/biomass.cfm. 

6 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. Information Resources – U.S. Geothermal 

7 Resource Map. Accessed April 29, 2009 at 

8 http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html. Accession No. ML102070308. 

9 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008c. Fuel Cells – Fuel Cell Technology Challenges. 

10 Accessed April 29, 2009 at 

11 http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_challenges.html. Accession No. 

12 ML102070314. 

13 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. Alternative Energy Resources in Florida. Accessed 

14 July 23, 2010 at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/state_specific_information.cfm/state=FL. 

15 Accession No. ML102070317. 

16 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009a. Electric 

17 Power Annual – Receipts and Quality of Coal Delivered for the Electric Power Industry. 

18 Accessed July 10, 2009 at http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/Electricity/epa/epat4p6.html. Accession 

19 No. ML102030434. 

20 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009b. An Updated 

21 Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery 

22 and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook. SR/OIAF/2009-03. 

23 Accessed February 24, 2010 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html. 

24 Accession No. ML102030440. 

25 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2010a. Crystal 

26 River Nuclear Power Plant, Florida. Accessed February 4, 2010 at 

27 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/crystal.html. Accession No. 

28 ML102030454. 

29 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2010b. Electric 

30 Power Industry 2008: Year in Review. Accessed February 24, 2010 at 

31 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Accession No. ML102070320. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-272 August 2010

1 U.S. Department of Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL). 2007. 

2 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal 

3 and Natural Gas to Electricity. DOE/NETL-2007/1281, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

5 Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 1, Bituminous and 

6 Subbituminous Coal Combustion. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

8 Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 3, Stationary Gas Turbines. 

9 AP 42, Fifth Edition, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards — Region 

11 4 Designations. Available at www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/final/region4.htm. 

12 Accession No. ML102040720. 

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Municipal Solid Waste - Combustion. 

14 Accessed February 24, 2010 at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/combustion.htm. 

15 Accession No. ML102040717. 

16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Clean Energy – Municipal Solid Waste. 

17 Accessed February 24, 2010 at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and18 you/affect/municipal-sw.html. Accession No. ML102040716. 

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Enviromapper, Dixie County Low20 Income Populations. Accessed September 7, 2009 at 

21 http://epamap13.epa.gov/ej/emej.asp?layername=county&fips_code=12029&action=assess&xl=

22 -83.51625&yt=29.82865&xr=-82.9194&yb=29.23475. Accession No. ML102040712. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Inglis Mine Facility Report. Accessed 

24 May 7, 2010 at 

25 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110020068647. 

26 Accession No. ML101830285. 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Crystal River Quarries- Red Level 

28 Facility Report. Accessed May 5, 2010 at 

29 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=11003562713

30 1. Accession No. ML101830292. 

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010c. Crystal River Quarries- Lecanto Facility 

32 Report. Accessed April 29, 2010 at 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-273 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110035584454. 

2 Accession No. ML101830295. 

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010d. Florida Rock Industries – Gulf H Facility 

4 Report. Accessed May 4, 2010 at 

5 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110010043194. 

6 Accession No. ML101830297. 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010e. Water Discharge Permit (PCS) Bell 

8 Concrete. Accessed March 20, 2010 at 

9 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_web.report?PGM_SYS_ID=FLG110370. Accession No. 

10 ML102040707. 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010f. Water Discharge Permit (PCS) Anderson 

12 Materials, Inc. Accessed March 20, 2010 at 

13 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_web.report?PGM_SYS_ID=FLG110369. Accession No. 

14 ML102040701. 

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010g. Bryan Farm Facility Detail Report. 

16 Accessed February 25, 2010 at 

17 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=FLR00013901

18 4&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=RCRAINFO. Accession No. ML102040699. 

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010h. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals Facility 

20 Detail Report. Accessed February 24, 2010 at 

21 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=FLD99127513

22 2&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=RCRAINFO. Accession No. ML102040696. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010i. Water Discharge Permit (PCS) Daniel S 

24 Shell Pit. Accessed May 10, 2010 at 

25 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_web.report?PGM_SYS_ID=FLR10DT46. Accession No. 

26 ML102040683. 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010j. FPL – Putnam Plant Facility Detail 

28 Report. Accessed February 17, 2010 at 

29 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110006645238. 

30 Accession No. ML102040613. 

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010k. Hard Rock Material CBP Facility 

32 Location Information. Accessed at February 25, 2010 at 

33 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/lrt_viewer.map_page?sys_acrnm=PCS&sys_id=FLG110584. 

34 Accession No. ML102040581. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1941 9-274 August 2010

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010l. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Florida. 

2 Accessed February 24, 2010 at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm. 

3 Accession No. ML102070322. 

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (FWS and 

5 GSMFC). 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. 

6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan –

7 Ecological Communities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services 

8 Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Available at 

9 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=programs&NavProgramCategoryID=3&progr

10 amID=108&ProgramCategoryID=3. Accession No. ML102070324. 

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. North Florida Federally-Listed Species (and South 

12 Florida). Accessed on various dates at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species13 Accounts/North_Florida_Fed_TE_Species_Info.htm Accession No. ML102040303. 

14 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Suwannee River Basin and Estuary Initiative: 

15 Executive Summary. Open File Report 2004-1198, Tallahassee, Florida. 

16 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Water-Data Report 2009, 02244040 St. Johns River at 

17 Buffalo Bluff Near Satsuma, FL. Available at 

18 http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2009/pdfs/02244040.2009.pdf. Accession No. ML102040304. 

19 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010a. Water-Data Report 2009 – 02323500 Suwannee 

20 River Near Wilcox, FL. Available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2009/pdfs/02323500.2009.pdf. 

21 Accession No. ML102040306. 

22 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010b. Water-Data Report 2009 – 02323592 Suwannee 

23 River Above Gopher River Near Suwannee, FL. Available at 

24 http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2009/pdfs/02323592.2009.pdf. Accession No. ML102040307. 

25 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010c. USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics for Florida, 

26 USGS 02272500 Kissimmee River at US 98 at Fort Basinger, FL. Accessed March 12, 2010 at 

27 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/fl/nwis/monthly?. Accession No. ML102040309. 

28 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010d. USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for Florida, 

29 USGS 02272500 Kissimmee River at US 98 at Fort Basinger, FL. Accessed March 12, 2010 at 

30 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/fl/nwis/annual?. Accession No. ML102040341. 
 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

August 2010 9-275 Draft NUREG-1941 

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. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Regulatory Guide 4.2 – Preparation of 

5 Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations. Washington, D.C. 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

7 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. Regulatory Guide 4.7 – General Site 

9 Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations. Washington, D.C. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

11 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, 

12 Washington, D.C. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan— 

14 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

15 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Summary of the Environmental Site Audit 

17 and Alternative Sites Visit Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Levy 

18 Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. July 24, 2009. Accession No. ML091250294. 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Crystal River – License Renewal 

20 Application. Accessed July 1, 2010 at 

21 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/crystal-river.html. 

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2. Available at 

23 http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/stl2.html. 

August 2010 10-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application from Progress Energy 

3 Florida, Inc. (PEF) for combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) for Levy 

4 Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2. The location of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 is in Levy 

5 County, Florida, 7.9 mi east of the Gulf of Mexico and 30.1 mi west of Ocala, Florida. In its 

6 application, PEF specified the Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC AP1000 pressurized water 

7 reactor as the reactor design for LNP Units 1 and 2. 

8 On June 2, 2008, PEF submitted a Site Certification Application to the Florida Department of the 

9 Environment (PEF 2008). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) received a copy of this 

10 application on June 30, 2008. In its March 16, 2009 Public Notice (USACE 2009), the USACE 

11 stated that the Environmental Resource Permit application contained in the Site Certification 

12 Application, along with its supporting documents, make up the Department of the Army permit 

13 application. On August 26, 2009 the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 

14 issued its Conditions of Certification for LNP Units 1 and 2, associated facilities, and 

15 transmission lines that were subsequently modified on January 12, 2010 and February 23, 2010 

16 (FDEP 2010). The USACE is participating with the NRC in preparing this environmental impact 

17 statement (EIS) as a cooperating agency. 

18 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

19 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), directs that an EIS is required for major Federal actions that significantly 

20 affect the quality of the human environment. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that an EIS 

21 include information on the following: 

22 • the environmental impact of the proposed action 

23 • any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

24 implemented 

25 • alternatives to the proposed action 

26 • the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

27 enhancement of long-term productivity 

28 • any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the 

29 proposed action is implemented. 

30 NRC has implemented NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. In 

31 10 CFR 51.20, NRC requires preparation of an EIS for issuance of COLs. Subpart C of 10 CFR 

32 Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to COLs. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-2 August 2010 

1 The proposed actions related to the COL application are (1) the NRC issuance of COLs for 

2 construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the LNP site in Levy County, Florida, and 

3 (2) the USACE issuance of a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

4 Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33 USC 1251, et seq) and Section 10 of 

5 the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC 401, et seq). If issued, the USACE 

6 permit would authorize the impact on waters of the United States, including wetlands, to 

7 construct the LNP electrical generation facility, and various associated, integral project 

8 components, including electrical transmission lines and substations, access roads, a barge slip, 

9 blowdown piplines, a make-up water pipeline, and cooling water intake structure. 

10 The environmental review described in this EIS was conducted by a review team consisting of 

11 NRC staff, its contractor’s staff, and staff from the USACE. During the course of preparing this 

12 EIS, the review team reviewed the ER submitted by PEF (2009a) and supplemental 

13 documentation; consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and followed the 

14 guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plans (NRC 2000), and 

15 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear 

16 Power Plants (NRC 2007). In addition, the NRC considered the public comments related to the 

17 environmental review received during the scoping process. The public comments are provided 

18 in Appendix D. 

19 Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s preliminary analyses, which consider 

20 and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action and of constructing and operating 

21 two new nuclear units at the LNP site, (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse 

22 effects, (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and (4) the NRC 

23 staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action based on its environmental review. 

24 The USACE’s role as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS is to ensure to the 

25 maximum extent practicable that the information presented is adequate to fulfill the 

26 requirements of USACE regulations. The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for 

27 Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR Part 230) contain the 

28 substantive environmental criteria used by USACE in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill 

29 material into waters of the United States. While the USACE concurs as part of the review team 

30 with the designation of impact levels for terrestrial or aquatic resource; in so far as waters of the 

31 United States are concerned, the USACE must conduct a quantitative comparison of impacts on 

32 waters of the United States as part of the 404(b)(1) analysis. USACE’s Public Interest Review 

33 (PIR) (33 CFR 320.4) directs the USACE to consider a number of factors as part of a balanced 

34 evaluation process. USACE’s PIR will be part of its permit decision document and will not be 

35 addressed in this EIS. The USACE will document its conclusion of the review process, 

36 including the requirement for compensatory mitigation, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 332, 

37 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, in its permit-decision document. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance – SMALL, 

2 MODERATE, or LARGE – developed by the NRC using guidelines from the Council on 

3 Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.27). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

4 Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels: 

5 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither 

6 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

7 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

8 important attributes of the resource. 

9 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

10 important attributes of the resource. 

11 Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the 

12 appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the review team considered planned 

13 activities and actions that PEF indicates it and others would likely take if PEF receives the 

14 COLs. In addition, PEF provided estimates of the environmental impacts resulting from the 

15 building and operation of two proposed new nuclear units on the LNP site. 

16 10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

17 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of 

18 “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority (10 CFR 51.4). Many of 

19 the activities required to build a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to license the 

20 plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of the NRC 

21 action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing 

22 and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

23 associated activities. Because the “preconstruction” activities are not part of the NRC action, 

24 their impacts are not reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the 

25 preconstruction activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. Although the 

26 preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, they support or are requisite to the 

27 NRC action. In addition, certain preconstruction activities require permits from the USACE, as 

28 well as other Federal, State, and local agencies. 

29 Chapter 4 describes the relative magnitude of impacts related to preconstruction and 

30 construction activities with a summary of impacts in Table 4-17. Impacts associated with 

31 operation of the proposed facilities are discussed in Chapter 5 and are summarized in Table 5-

32 23. Chapter 6 describes the impacts associated with the fuel cycle, transportation, and 

33 decommissioning. Chapter 7 describes the impacts associated with preconstruction and 

34 construction activities and operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 when considered along with the 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-4 August 2010 

1 cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

2 geographic region around the LNP site. 

3 10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

4 Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any adverse 

5 environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. Unavoidable 

6 adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of the NRC action and the USACE 

7 action that cannot be avoided due to constraints inherent in utilizing the LNP site and its 

8 associated offsite facilities. 

9 The unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of the COLs for 

10 LNP Units 1 and 2 would include impacts of construction, preconstruction and operation. 

11 10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction 

12 Chapter 4 discusses in detail the potential impacts from construction and preconstruction of the 

13 proposed Units 1 and 2 at the LNP site and presents mitigation and controls intended to lessen 

14 the adverse impacts. Table 10-1 presents the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with 

15 construction and preconstruction activities to each of the resource areas evaluated in this EIS, 

16 as well as the mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts. Those impacts remaining 

17 after mitigation is applied (e.g. avoidance and minimization, but not including compensatory 

18 mitigation) are identified in Table 10-1 as unavoidable adverse impacts. Unavoidable adverse 

19 impacts are the result of both construction and preconstruction activities, unless otherwise 

20 noted. The impact determinations in Table 10-1 are for the combined impacts of construction 

21 and preconstruction. However, the impact determinations for NRC-regulated construction are 

22 the same for all resource areas except land use, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, physical 

23 and aesthetic impacts, and economic impacts. For impact determinations that differ for the 

24 combined construction and preconstruction activities and the NRC-regulated activities, the 

25 impacts from the NRC-regulated activities are also identified in Table 10-1. 

26 

27 The unavoidable adverse impacts are primarily attributable to preconstruction activities due to 

28 the initial land disturbance from clearing the land, land use, excavation, filling wetlands and 

29 waterways, impervious surface addition, dredging, and removal or demolition of three sites with 

30 historic or cultural value. NRC authorized construction activities partially contribute to most of 

31 the unavoidable adverse impacts. 

32 The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during building activities would be 

33 related to land use and terrestrial habitat loss, because approximately 627 ac of habitat on the 

34 LNP site would be permanently disturbed and about 150 ac would be temporarily disturbed, 

35 including approximately 403 ac of wetlands (PEF 2009b, PEF 2009c). Permanent and 

36 temporary impacts resulting from the offsite facilities could total 2008 ac, including up to 370 ac 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 10-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

2 Preconstruction 

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Land Use MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL) 

Comply with requirements of 

applicable Federal, State, local 

permits, and Conditions of 

Certification 

Approximately 627 ac 

disturbed on a long-term basis. 

About 1790 ac of land would 

be reclassified from existing 

uses to utility corridor use as a 

result of installing the 

transmission system to 

connect the new units to the 

grid. 

Water Use SMALL Control erosion and 

contamination; monitor water 

levels and water quality in 

accordance with the FDEP 

Conditions for Certification 

Drawdown of aquifers and 

redirection of recharge source 

water would occur, but impacts 

would be temporary. 

Water Quality SMALL Implement best management 

practices (BMPs) and a sitespecific stormwater pollution 

prevention plan (SWPPP) 

Onsite and offsite water bodies 

would receive stormwater 

runoff during building phase. 

 Comply with Federal and State 

permits and implementation of 

BMPs. 

Dredging in the Cross Florida 

Barge Canal (CFBC) near the 

CWIS, barge slip, and at the 

blowdown discharge line 

crossing. 

 Compliance with FDEP 

permitting rules and 

implementation of BMPs. 

Inadvertent spills that seep into 

aquifers. 

Ecological 

(terrestrial) 

MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL) 

Implement wetland mitigation 

plan, BMPs, Avian Protection 

Plan(a), and conduct other 

surveys as required by State 

and Federal agencies. 

Permanent impacts would 

occur to approximately 627 ac 

of wildlife habitat on the LNP 

site, and up to 2008 ac for the 

offsite facilities. Total wetland 

impacts (onsite and offsite) 

could approach 773 ac. 

Wildlife and important species 

could be harmed by 

construction and 

preconstruction activities. 

(a) Although the wetland mitigation plan is included as a “Mitigation Measure” in this table, the impacts included 

under “Unavoidable Adverse Impacts” do not reflect the contribution from compensatory mitigation measures.
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-6 August 2010 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Ecological 

(aquatic) 

SMALL Implement BMPs; control 

erosion and sedimentation 

Impacts to the CFBC aquatic 

resources due to in-water 

activities associated with 

CWIS, barge-unloading facility, 

and discharge pipelines. 

Impacts would be localized, 

temporary, and largely 

mitigable. 

 

Socioeconomic 

Physical and 

Aesthetic 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL) 

Alert local governmental 

agencies concerning needed 

road repairs. 

Minor temporary impacts 

during building phase. 

 Develop and implement a 

construction traffic management 

plan during building phase. 

Noticeable impacts on traffic in 

Levy County during building 

phase. 

Noticeable aesthetic impacts 

from transmission corridor and 

lines during the building phase. 

Demography SMALL None. None. 

Economic 

Impacts to 

Community 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

(beneficial) 

(NRC-authorized 

construction 

impact level is 

SMALL 

[beneficial]) 

None. None. 

Infrastructure 

and 

Community 

Services 

SMALL TO 

MODERATE 

Add infrastructure and 

personnel as necessary. 

Some temporary shortages of 

facilities may occur during the 

building period. 

1 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 10-1. (contd) 

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Maintain communication with 

local government and planning 

officials so that ample time is 

given to plan for the influx of 

population and traffic during the 

building phase. Add modular 

classrooms, infrastructure, and 

personnel as necessary during 

building phase. 

Some temporary infrastructure 

shortages in services, traffic 

congestion, and requirements 

for additional classrooms in 

education facilities during the 

building period. 

 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL None. None. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

SMALL Formal inadvertent discovery 

procedures are in place to 

minimize impacts on potential 

onsite historic and cultural 

resources. No mitigation plans 

in place but if any cultural 

resources are unavoidably 

impacted PEF is required to 

work with the Florida State 

Preservation Office (SHPO) on 

specific mitigation measures. 

None. 

Meteorology 

and Air Quality 

SMALL Compliance with Federal, State, 

and local regulations governing 

construction activities and 

construction vehicle emissions. 

Dust emissions, noise, 

occupational injuries, traffic 

accidents. 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Compliance with Federal, State, 

and local regulations governing 

construction activities and 

construction vehicle emissions, 

compliance with Federal and 

local noise-control ordinances, 

compliance with Federal and 

state occupational safety and 

health regulations, 

implementation of traffic 

management plan. 

Dust emissions, noise, 

occupational injuries, traffic 

accidents. 

Radiological 

Health 

SMALL Use of as low as reasonably 

achievable principles 

Dose to construction workers 

on Unit 2 after Unit 1 startup. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-8 August 2010 

1 Table 10-1. (contd) 

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL Implement BMPs to minimize 

waste generation. Manage 

wastes in accordance with 

Federal, State, and county 

requirements. 

Consumption of some landfill 

capacity. Minor discharges to 

outfall and to atmosphere. 

2 of wetlands. Offsite facilities include the cooling-water intake structure (CWIS), heavy-haul 

3 road; barge slip; associated structures for the intake and blowdown pipelines; transmission 

4 lines; and access roads to the LNP, transmission lines, and barge slip. Additional areas could 

5 be disturbed on a short-term basis as a result of temporary activities and facilities and laydown 

6 areas (PEF 2009a). Many of the upland and wetland habitats that would be affected by 

7 construction and preconstruction actions have been altered by prior land-use activities, 

8 particularly commercial forest management on the LNP site, and thus provide lower quality 

9 habitat for wildlife. Wildlife and important species could be harmed by habitat loss or alteration, 

10 hazards posed by clearing and other site-preparation activities, noise and disturbance, avian 

11 collisions with elevated structures, and increased traffic. Implementation of the conceptual 

12 mitigation plan would compensate for the loss or impairment of functions in wetlands affected by 

13 the LNP project. The higher-quality habitat provided by restored communities under the 

14 conceptual wetland mitigation plan would likely be beneficial to wildlife and many important 

15 species. 

16 The Floridan aquifer could be affected during construction and preconstruction. However, the 

17 impacts would be localized and temporary. Building techniques to be used by PEF during 

18 excavation within the powerblock area would eliminate resultant dewatering impacts. The 

19 Upper Floridan aquifer may be affected because water for building activities will be obtained 

20 from wells screened within this aquifer. The FDEP conditions for certification require PEF to 

21 develop an environmental monitoring plan, which includes a hydraulic testing program during 

22 drilling and installation of the proposed water-supply wells to obtain site-specific hydraulic 

23 property estimates and determine whether the wellfield can meet groundwater usage 

24 requirements without significantly affecting water levels in the surficial aquifer. The FDEP 

25 conditions for certification require that PEF operate the wellfield in a way that limits drawdown in 

26 the surficial aquifer to levels which ensure no adverse impacts on wetlands. In addition, the 

27 alteration of the land surface at LNP Units 1 and 2 would cause a localized change in the 

28 recharge rate to these aquifers. 

29 There are no streams onsite or plans for filling any streams. 

30 No sites eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely 

31 affected by the proposed action, and no mitigation measures are currently in place. However, 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 PEF is required to work with the Florida State SHPO to develop specific mitigation measures, 

2 such as data recovery or documentation and interpretive plans. PEF also has agreed to 

3 develop and implement cultural resource specific procedures (PEF 2009a). 

4 Socioeconomic impacts of building the proposed units would include an increase in traffic from 

5 construction workers, and demand pressure on some public services. No unusual resource 

6 dependencies on minority and low-income populations in the region were identified. 

7 Atmospheric and meteorological impacts include fugitive dust from land disturbing and building 

8 activities that can be mitigated by the dust-control plan. The building and maintenance of 

9 transmission corridors and lines would have a moderate impact on aesthetics.

10 10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation 

11 Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the potential impacts from operation of the proposed 

12 Units 1 and 2 at the LNP site and presents mitigation and controls intended to lessen the 

13 adverse impacts. Table 10-2 presents the unavoidable adverse impacts on each of the 

14 resource areas evaluated in this EIS associated with operation of the two proposed units, and 

15 the mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts. Those impacts remaining after 

16 mitigation is applied (e.g. avoidance and minimization, but not including compensatory 

17 mitigation) are identified in Table 10-2 as unavoidable adverse impacts. The unavoidable 

18 adverse impacts from operation for land use would be minimal and are associated with making 

19 land unavailable for other uses until after decommissioning of the two proposed units. 

20 Water-related impacts during operation would be mitigated through PEF’s adherence to State 

21 permits for water withdrawal and discharge. The FDEP conditions of certification require that 

22 PEF operate the wellfield in a way that limits drawdown in the surficial aquifer to levels which 

23 ensure no adverse impacts on wetlands. Remaining adverse impacts on hydrological water-use 

24 and water-quality impacts during operation would be minimal and limited to increased water 

25 use, potential increases in sedimentation to bodies of surface water, and potential surface water 

26 and groundwater contamination from inadvertent spills. 

27 Unavoidable adverse impacts on terrestrial ecology resources would include increased risks of 

28 bird collisions with structures and transmission lines, reduced wildlife use or avoidance of some 

29 habitats due to noise and disturbance, and minor impacts to vegetation from salt deposition 

30 near the mechanical draft cooling towers. Uncertainty exists regarding the potential for 

31 groundwater drawdown effects on wetlands. Assuming that PEF operates the wellfield in a 

32 manner that ensures no adverse impacts on wetlands as stated in the FDEP conditions of 

33 certification, the conceptual wetland mitigation plan is implemented, an avian protection plan is 

34 prepared and implemented, and BMPs are followed, terrestrial impacts during operation would 

35 be minor. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-10 August 2010 

1 Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation 

Resource Area Impact Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Land Use SMALL Adherence to local landmanagement plan. Land would not be available 

for other use until after 

decommissioning of the entire 

LNP site, including the two 

proposed new units. 

Water Use SMALL Compliance with State of 

Florida Conditions of 

Certification. 

Modification of flow patterns in 

the CFBC because of the 

operation of Units 1 and 2. 

 Compliance with State of 

Florida Conditions of 

Certification. 

Groundwater use from the 

Floridan Aquifer because of 

operation of Units 1 and 2. 

Water Quality SMALL Implement BMPs and 

Stormwater Management 

Plan. 

Increased sediment load in 

stormwater and potential to 

contaminate surface and 

groundwater through 

inadvertent spills. 

 Compliance with PEF’s 

National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit. 

Discharge of blowdown water 

to the Crystal River Discharge 

Canal. 

Ecological 

(terrestrial) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Implement conceptual 

wetland mitigation plan, 

BMPs, and Avian 

Protection Plan. Comply 

with State Conditions of 

Certification regarding 

wellfield operation. 

Increased risks of avian 

collision mortality from 

structures and transmission 

lines, reduced use or 

avoidance of some habitats by 

wildlife, minor vegetation 

impacts from salt drift, and 

possible groundwater 

drawdown effects on wetlands. 

Ecological 

(aquatic) 

SMALL PEF has taken measures 

to mitigate operation 

impacts. 

Impacts on individual 

organisms are expected, but 

not on aquatic communities. 

Socioeconomic 

Physical and 

Aesthetic 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Continue to implement 

strategies from the 

building 

Minor levels of increased 

traffic. 

Aesthetic impacts from 

transmission corridors and 

lines. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table 10-2. (contd) 

Resource Area Impact Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Demography SMALL None. Project-related population 

smaller than during peak 

construction years. 

Economic Impacts 

on Community 

and Taxes 

SMALL to LARGE 

(beneficial) 

None. None. 

Infrastructure and 

Community 

Services 

SMALL None Minor impact on traffic from 

additional workers. Continued 

impact on some community 

services in Marion County, 

which will not receive property 

tax payments from the facility 

that would enable expansion of 

service provision. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL None. None. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

SMALL Formal inadvertent 

discovery procedures are 

in place to minimize 

impacts on potential 

onsite historic and cultural 

resources. 

None. 

Metorology and 

Air Quality 

SMALL Compliance with Federal, 

State, and local air quality 

permits and regulations. 

Slight increase in certain 

criteria pollutants and carbon 

dioxide due to plant auxiliary 

combustion equipment (e.g., 

diesel engines, combustion 

turbines); plumes and drift 

deposition from cooling towers. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-12 August 2010 

Table 10-2. (contd) 

Resource Area Impact Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Use of antimicrobial 

agents in the cooling 

system, physical and 

administrative controls on 

exposure to cooling 

system discharge, 

compliance with Federal 

and local noise 

regulations, with Federal 

and State occupational 

safety regulations, and 

transmission-line design 

compliant with National 

Electric Safety Code 

standards. 

Increase in etiological agent 

growth, cooling tower and 

pump noise, occupational 

injuries, acute and chronic 

electromagnetic field 

exposures. 

Radiological 

Health 

SMALL Doses to members of the 

public would be 

maintained below NRC 

and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) 

standards; workers’ 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 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 less than NCRP 

and IAEA guidelines. 

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL All wastes disposed in 

compliance with 

applicable Federal, State, 

and local requirements. 

Consumption of some landfill 

capacity. Minor discharges to 

outfall and to atmosphere. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Aquatic impacts would be minor during operation because PEF’s adherence to its permits would 

2 likely result in minimal impacts on aquatic resources. Socioeconomic impacts would primarily 

3 increase the demand for services and traffic. However, increased tax revenue would support 

4 the increase in services. The review team did not identify any cultural resources that would be 

5 affected by operation of the proposed units. PEF has agreed to follow appropriate procedures if 

6 historic or cultural resources are discovered during operation activities. It is expected that air 

7 quality impacts would be negligible, and pollutants emitted during operations would be 

8 insignificant. Nonradiological and radiological health impacts would be minimal. 

9 Nonradiological health impacts to members of the public from operation, including etiological 

10 agents, noise, electromagnetic fields, occupational health, and transportation of materials and 

11 personnel would be minimal because PEF would apply controls and measures to ensure 

12 compliance with Federal and State regulations. Radiological doses to members of the public 

13 from operation of the two proposed units would be below annual exposure limits set to protect 

14 the general public. 

15 Adverse socioeconomic impacts likely would be similar in character to those during the building 

16 phase but, aside from the aesthetic effects of the transmission corridor and lines, would be 

17 smaller due to the smaller project-related population and workforce and the fact that these 

18 impacts will follow the larger building period demand, which is likely to have resulted in 

19 adaptations and growth in the affected communities. Socioeconomic impacts would primarily be 

20 increased traffic, some damage to roads, an increase in the demand for housing and public 

21 services, along with increased employment opportunities and a substantial increase in tax 

22 revenue in Levy County once the first unit becomes operational. 

23 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

24 Productivity of the Human Environment 

25 Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on the relationship 

26 between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

27 long-term productivity. 

28 The local use of the human environment by the proposed project can be summarized in terms of 

29 the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of construction and operation and the 

30 irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. With the exception of the consumption 

31 of depletable resources as a result of plant construction and operation, these uses may be 

32 classed as short term. The principal short-term benefit of the plant is represented by the 

33 production of electrical energy. The economic productivity of the site, when used for this 

34 purpose, would be extremely large compared to the productivity from agriculture or other 

35 probable uses for the site. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-14 August 2010 

1 The maximum long-term impact on productivity would result when the plant is not immediately 

2 dismantled at the end of the period of plant operation, and, consequently, the land occupied by 

3 the plant structures would not be available for any other use. However, the enhancement of 

4 regional productivity resulting from the electrical energy produced by the plant is expected to 

5 generate a correspondingly large increase in regional long-term productivity that would not be 

6 equaled by any other long-term use of the site. In addition, most long-term impacts resulting 

7 from land-use preemption by plant structures can be eliminated by removing these structures or 

8 by converting them to other productive uses. Once the units are shutdown the plant would be 

9 decommissioned according to NRC regulations. Once decommissioning is complete and the 

10 NRC license is terminated, the site would be available for other uses. The review team 

11 concludes that the negative aspects of plant construction and operation as they affect the 

12 human environment would be outweighed by the positive long-term enhancement of regional 

13 productivity through the generation of electrical energy. 

14 10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

15 Resources 

16 Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information about any irreversible 

17 and irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed actions are 

18 implemented. The term “irreversible commitments of resources” refers to environmental 

19 resources that would be irreparably changed by the building or operation activities authorized by 

20 the Corps or NRC permit and licensing decisions, where the environmental resources could not 

21 be restored at some later time to the resource’s state before the relevant activities. 

22 “Irretrievable commitments of resources” refers to materials that would be used for or consumed 

23 by the new units in such a way that they could not, by practical means, be recycled or restored 

24 for other uses. The resources discussed in this section are the environmental resources 

25 discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. 

26 10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources 

27 Irreversible commitments of environmental resources resulting from the construction, 

28 preconstruction and operation of Units 1 and 2, in addition to the materials used for the nuclear 

29 fuel, are described below. 

30 10.4.1.1 Land Use 

31 Land committed to the disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes is committed to that 

32 use and cannot be used for other purposes. The land used for Units 1 and 2, with the exception 

33 of any filled wetlands, is not irreversibly committed because once Units 1 and 2 cease 

34 operations and the plant is decommissioned in accordance with NRC requirements, the land 

35 supporting the facilities could be returned to other industrial or nonindustrial uses. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 10.4.1.2 Water Use 

2 Approximately 28,600 gpm of cooling water would be lost from the circulating-water system and 

3 the service-water system through consumptive use (i.e., evaporation and drift) during operation. 

4 10.4.1.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota 

5 Construction and preconstruction activities would cause temporary and long-term changes to 

6 both the aquatic and terrestrial biota at the plant site and facilities. Construction would 

7 temporarily adversely affect the abundance and distribution of local terrestrial flora and fauna on 

8 the LNP site and localized permanent loss of habitat associated with the construction footprint 

9 for LNP Units 1 and 2. Although wetlands would be permanently altered during construction 

10 and preconstruction, a conceptual mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for the 

11 loss or impairment of functions in all affected wetlands. Terrestrial habitats could be restored 

12 after decommissioning of the proposed reactors. Thus, no irretrievable loss of terrestrial 

13 habitats, including wetlands, would be expected. Although the terrestrial flora and fauna in the 

14 proposed construction footprint would be displaced for their lifetimes or suffer mortality during 

15 construction and operation, populations of these species would not be adversely affected, and 

16 no irretrievable loss of species would be expected. These impacts on terrestrial resources 

17 would be minimal and would not be expected to adversely affect the resource. In addition, no 

18 irretrievable loss of resources would be expected as a result of operations. The review team 

19 expects that no irretrievable commitment of resources affecting terrestrial habitats or species 

20 would be expected to occur associated with upgrades to the transmission corridor. 

21 Construction and preconstruction activities would temporarily adversely affect the abundance 

22 and distribution of the aquatic community, including essential fish habitat (EFH), in the CFBC in 

23 the vicinity of the CWIS, barge slip, and discharge pipeline placement. These activities are 

24 temporary and largely mitigable. Operation activities are not expected to have adverse impacts 

25 on the abundance and distribution of the aquatic community, including EFH in the CFBC or 

26 Crystal Bay near shore area in the Gulf of Mexico. The review team expects that no 

27 irretrievable commitment of resources affecting habitat or individual species is expected to occur 

28 associated with the new transmission corridors. The aquatic habitat and aquatic populations 

29 would recover once Units 1 and 2 cease operations and the plant is decommissioned in 

30 accordance with NRC requirements. 

31 10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources 

32 The review team expects that no irreversible socioeconomic commitments would be made to 

33 socioeconomic resources because they would be reallocated for other purposes once the plant 

34 is decommissioned. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-16 August 2010 

1 10.4.1.5 Air and Water 

2 During construction, dust and other emissions, such as vehicle exhaust, would be released into 

3 the air. During operations, vehicle exhaust emissions would continue, and other air pollutants 

4 and chemicals, including very low concentrations of radioactive gases and particulates, would 

5 be released from the facility into the air and surface water. Because these releases would 

6 conform to applicable Federal and State regulations, their impact on the public health and the 

7 environment would be limited. The review team expects no irreversible commitment to air or 

8 water resources because all Unit 1 and 2 releases would be made in accordance with duly 

9 issued permits. 

10 10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

11 A study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (DOE/EIA 2004) on new reactor construction 

estimated the following quantities of materials would be required for a single reactor: 12,239 yd3 12 

13 of concrete, 3107 tons of rebar, 13,000,000 ft of cable, and 275,000 ft of piping. Therefore, 

14 about twice these amounts would be needed for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 and considerably 

15 more would be required for all of the other site structures. 

16 The review team expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with 

17 those expected for LNP Units 1 and 2, while irretrievable, would be of small consequence with 

18 respect to the availability of such resources. 

19 The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of the new nuclear 

20 units would be uranium. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly 

21 enriched uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient 

22 (OECD, NEA, and IAEA 2008), so the irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be 

23 negligible. 

24 10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

25 Alternatives to the proposed actions are discussed in Chapter 9 of this EIS. Alternatives 

26 considered are the no-action alternative, energy production alternatives, alternative sites, 

27 system, and design alternatives. 

28 The no-action alternative, described in Section 9.1, refers to a scenario in which the NRC would 

29 deny the request for the COL. If no other power plant were built or electrical power supply 

30 strategy implemented to take its place, the electrical capacity to be provided by the project 

31 would not become available, the benefits (electricity generation) associated with the proposed 

32 action would not occur, and the need for power would not be met. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Alternative energy sources are described in Section 9.2. Alternatives that would not require 

2 additional generating capacity are described in Section 9.2.1. Detailed analyses of coal- and 

3 natural-gas-fired alternatives are provided in Section 9.2.2. Other energy sources are 

4 discussed in Section 9.2.3. A combination of energy alternatives is discussed in Section 9.2.4. 

5 The NRC staff concluded that none of the alternative energy options were both (1) consistent 

6 with PEF’s objective of building baseload generation units and (2) environmentally preferable to 

7 the proposed action. 

8 Alternative sites are discussed in Section 9.3. The cumulative impacts of building and operating 

9 the proposed facilities at the alternative sites are compared to the impacts at the proposed Levy 

10 County site in Section 9.3.6. Table 9-31 contains the review team’s characterization of 

11 cumulative impacts at the proposed and alternative sites. Based on this review, the NRC staff 

12 concludes that while there are differences in cumulative impacts at the proposed and alternative 

13 sites, none of the alternative sites would be environmentally preferable or obviously superior to 

14 the proposed Levy County site. The NRC’s determination is independent of the USACE 

15 determination of a LEDPA pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. The 

16 USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its Record of 

17 Decisions. 

18 Alternative heat-dissipation and circulating-water system designs are discussed in Section 9.4. 

19 The NRC staff concluded that none of the alternatives considered would be environmentally 

20 preferable to the proposed system designs. 

21 10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance 

22 NEPA requires that all agencies of the Federal government prepare detailed environmental 

23 statements on proposed major Federal actions that can significantly affect the quality of the 

24 human environment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require each Federal agency, in its 

25 decision-making process, to consider the environmental impacts of each proposed major action 

26 and the available alternative actions. In particular, Section 102 of NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) 

27 requires all Federal agencies to the fullest extent possible to do the following: 

28 (B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the 

29 Council on Environmental Quality established by title II of this Act, which will 

30 insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be 

31 given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and 

32 technical considerations.” 

33 However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the costs and benefits of a proposed action to be 

34 quantified in dollars or any other common metric. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-18 August 2010 

1 The intent of this section is not to identify and quantify all of the potential societal benefits of the 

2 proposed activities and compare these to the potential costs of the proposed activities. Instead, 

3 this section will focus on the benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance that their 

4 inclusion in this analysis can inform the decision-making process. This section compiles and 

5 compares the pertinent analytical conclusions reached in earlier chapters of this EIS. It gathers 

6 all of the expected impacts from building and operations of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 and 

7 aggregates them into two final categories: (1) the expected costs and (2) the expected benefits 

8 to be derived from approval of the proposed action. As such, costs and benefits include the 

9 costs and benefits of both preconstruction activities and NRC-authorized construction and 

10 operations activities. 

11 Although the analysis in this section is conceptually similar to a purely economic benefit-cost 

12 analysis, which determines the net present dollar value of a given project, the intent of this 

13 section is to identify all potential societal benefits of the proposed activities and compare these 

14 to the potential internal (i.e., private) and external (i.e., societal) costs of the proposed activities. 

15 The purpose of this assessment is to determine if the benefits of the proposed activities 

16 outweigh the aggregate costs. 

17 General issues related to PEF’s financial viability and those of its parent organizations are 

18 outside NRC’s environmental mission and authority and, thus, are not considered in this EIS. 

19 Issues related to the financial qualifications of PEF will be addressed in the staff’s safety 

20 evaluation report. It is not possible to quantify and assign a value to all benefits and costs 

21 associated with the proposed action. This analysis, however, attempts to identify, quantify, and 

22 provide monetary values for benefits and costs when reasonable estimates are available. 

23 Section 10.6.1 discusses the benefits associated with the proposed action. Section 10.6.2 

24 discusses the costs associated with the proposed action. A summary of benefits is provided in 

25 Table 10-3. Section 10.6.3 provides a summary of the impact assessments, bringing previous 

26 sections together to establish a general impression of the relative magnitude of the proposed 

27 project’s costs and benefits. 

28 10.6.1 Benefits

29 The most apparent benefit from a power plant is that it generates power and provides 

30 thousands of residential, commercial, and industrial consumers with electricity. Maintaining an 

31 adequate supply of electricity in any given region has social and economic importance because 

32 adequate electricity is the foundation for economic stability and growth, and is fundamental to 

33 maintaining current standards of living. Because the focus of this EIS is on the proposed 

34 expansion of the LNP’s generating capacity, this section focuses primarily on the relative 

35 benefits of the LNP option rather than the broader, more generic benefits of electricity supply. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 10-3. Summary of Benefits of the Proposed Action 

Benefit 

Category Description

Monetized Value or 

Impact Assessment

 Benefits

Electricity 

generated 

16,400,000 to 17,900,000 MWh per year for the 40-year life of 

the plant (assuming capacity factors in the range of 85 to 

93 percent). 

Generating 

capacity 

2200 MW(e) (two units at 1100 MW[e] each). 

Fuel diversity 

and energy 

security 

Nuclear generation provides diversity to coal- and natural-gasfired baseload generation. 

Tax revenues PEF will pay property taxes to the State of Florida upon 

operation of the LNP. In addition, the State will collect sales 

and use taxes on locally purchased goods and services during 

construction. Finally, the operations workforce will generate 

Property taxes over the 40-year life of the plant. 

$104 million in property taxes 

annually (Levy County would 

receive the majority of this 

tax revenue); $75 million in 

sales taxes statewide 

annually over an 8-year 

construction period; 

Local economy Increased jobs would benefit the area economically and 

increase the economic diversity of region (see 

Sections 4.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.1). 

773 operations workers and 

519 indirect jobs added over 

40-year life of plant; 

$91 million income per year 

in the region during 40-year 

life of plant.

Technical or 

other nonmonetary 

benefits 

Fuel diversity would reduce exposure to supply and price risk 

associated with reliance on any single fuel source. 

Price volatility Would lessen potential for fuel price volatility. 

Electrical 

reliability 

Would enhance reliability of electricity supply. 

2 10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits 

3 For the production of electricity to be beneficial to a society, there must be a corresponding 

4 demand, or “need for power,” in the region. Chapter 8 of this EIS defines and discusses the 

5 need for power in more detail. From a societal perspective, nuclear power offers two primary 

6 benefits relative to most other generating systems: (1) long-term price stability and (2) energy 

7 security through fuel diversity. These benefits are described in this subsection. 

8 Long-Term Price Stability 

9 Because of its relatively low and stable fuel costs, nuclear energy is a dependable generator of 

10 electricity that can provide electricity to the consumer at relatively stable prices over long 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-20 August 2010 

1 periods of time. Unlike some other energy sources, nuclear energy is generally not subject to 

2 unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations, and is less dependent 

3 on foreign suppliers than other energy sources. Nuclear power plants are generally not subject 

4 to the fuel price volatility that affects natural gas and oil power plants. In addition, uranium fuel 

5 constitutes only 3 percent to 5 percent of the cost of a kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated 

6 electricity. Doubling the price of uranium increases the cost of electricity by about 9 percent. 

7 Doubling the price of gas would add about 66 percent to the price of electricity, and doubling the 

8 cost of coal would add about 31 percent to the price of electricity (WNA 2010). 

9 Energy Security Through Fuel Diversity 

10 Currently, more than 70 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is generated 

11 with fossil-based technologies. Thus, non-fossil-based generation, such as nuclear generation, 

12 is essential to maintaining diversity in the aggregate power-generation fuel mix (DOE/EIA 2006). 

13 Nuclear power contributes to the diverse U.S. energy mix, hedging the risk of shortages and 

14 price fluctuations for any one power-generation system and reducing the nation’s dependence 

15 on imported fossil fuels. 

16 A diverse fuel mix helps to protect consumers from contingencies such as fuel shortages or 

17 disruptions, price fluctuations, and changes in regulatory practices. Chapter 8 of this EIS 

18 discusses the State of Florida’s finding that a need exists for the LNP project as proposed by 

19 PEF. The proposed LNP units would generate approximately 2200 MW(e) net, which would 

20 help meet the region’s baseload need. Assuming a reasonably low capacity factor of 

21 85 percent, the plant’s average annual electrical energy generation would be more than 

22 16,400,000 MWh. A reasonably high-capacity factor of 93 percent would result in more than 

23 17,900,000 MWh of electricity. 

24 10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits 

25 Regional benefits of the proposed construction and operation of LNP include enhanced tax 

26 revenues, regional productivity, and community impacts. 

27 Tax Revenue Benefits 

28 As discussed in Sections 4.4.3.3 and 5.4.3.3, once both units become operational, Levy County 

29 would receive a large proportion (the amount of which is currently being negotiated) of the 

30 expected $104 million in tax revenues collected annually over the 40-year license period. This 

31 stream of revenue represents about a 300-percent increase over recent Levy County total 

32 revenue levels. 

33 The staff also determined that the State of Florida would collect about $75 million annually 

34 during construction in sales and use taxes for local purchases of nonexempt materials for use in 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the construction. These revenues would be shared back to the counties from the State and 

2 would not be expected to provide significant local revenues in the affected region. Florida does 

3 not collect income taxes. 

4 Regional Productivity and Community Impacts 

5 The new units would require an operating workforce of 773 people who would stimulate the 

6 creation of 519 additional indirect jobs (Sections 4.4 and 5.4) within the local three-county area, 

7 or a total of approximately 1292 new jobs within the local area that would be maintained 

8 throughout the life of the plant. The economic multiplier effect of the increased spending by the 

9 direct and indirect workforce created as a result of two new units would increase the economic 

10 activity in the region, most noticeably in the communities near the proposed site in Levy, Citrus, 

11 and Marion Counties (PEF 2009a). Sections 4.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.1 provide additional information 

12 about the economic impacts of constructing and operating proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on the 

13 Levy County site. 

14 10.6.2 Costs 

15 Internal costs to PEF for LNP Units 1 and 2, as well as external costs to the surrounding region 

16 and environment, would be incurred during the preconstruction, construction, and operation of 

17 two new units at the Levy County site. A summary of the costs is provided in Table 10-4. 

18 Table 10-4. Summary of Costs of Construction, Preconstruction, and Operation 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Internal Costs(b)

Construction cost(c) $14.1 billion for the two LNP Units (overnight capital cost – 

2008$) 

NA 

Operating cost(c)

 $83 to $111 per MWh (2008$); Fuel cost is about 0.7 cents 

per kWh(d)

NA 

Transmission-line 

construction cost(c)

$2.5 billion (2008$) NA 

Spent fuel 

management(e)

Approximately 0.1 cents per kWh NA 

Decommissioning(f) Approximately 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kWh NA 

 

19 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-22 August 2010 

1 Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Land use 

External Costs

Disturbance of 777 ac of currently undeveloped land; 627 ac 

occupied on a long-term basis by the two new nuclear 

reactors and associated infrastructure. Offsite areas 

amounting to about 250 ac would be developed. 

Transmission-line construction would disturb about 1790 ac 

(see Sections 4.1 and 5.1). 

MODERATE for 

preconstruction 

activities; 

SMALL for 

NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities 

Air quality impacts Air emissions from diesel generators, auxiliary boilers and 

equipment, and vehicles would have a small impact on 

workers and local residents. Emission sources would be 

operated intermittently, and emissions would be within 

Federal, State, and local air quality limits. Negligible impacts 

from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, carbon 

dioxide, and particulate emissions (relative to other baseload 

fossil-fired power generation) (Sections 4.7 and 5.7). 

SMALL 

Ecological impacts Some cost to wildlife is anticipated due to mortality, and from 

the loss or alteration of habitats (including wetlands), during 

construction. However, these costs are not expected to 

adversely affect regional wildlife populations. Mortality to 

wildlife and aquatic biota during operations is expected to be 

minimal. PEF’s adherence to its NPDES permit would likely 

result in balanced aquatic populations. No threatened or 

endangered terrestrial or aquatic species are likely to be 

adversely affected (see Sections 4.3 and 5.3). 

MODERATE 

for 

preconstruction 

activities; 

SMALL for 

NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities; 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

for operations. 

Physical impacts The physical impacts from building and operating the two 

units would be minor and occur within the boundaries of the 

site; they would have negligible effect on immediate 

neighborhoods (see Sections 4.4.1 and 5.4.1). 

SMALL 

2 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-23 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Housing Sufficient housing stock is available (see Sections 4.4.4.3 and 

5.4.4.3). 

SMALL 

Transportation Noticeable, intermittent congestion at a major intersection 

during building, minor during operations (see Sections 

4.4.4.1 and 5.4.4.1). 

SMALL for 

preconstruction 

activities; 

MODERATE 

during peak 

employment 

associated with 

NRCauthorized 

activities 

Public services Potential short-term noticeable strain on some community 

services in Levy and Marion Counties during the building 

period, with the greatest impacts expected during the years of 

peak workforce, minor during operations (see 

Sections 4.4.4.4 and 5.4.4.4). 

SMALL for 

preconstruction 

activities; 

MODERATE 

during peak 

employment 

associated with 

NRCauthorized 

activities 

Nonradioactive 

waste 

Minor consumption of local or regional landfill space, offset by 

payment of tipping fees for waste disposal. Minor 

consumption of regional hazardous waste treatment or 

disposal capacity, offset by treatment and disposal costs (see 

Sections 4.10 and 5.10). 

SMALL 

Uranium fuel cycle Minor impacts distributed at multiple locations throughout the 

United States from the mining, milling, and enrichment of 

uranium, from fuel fabrication, from transportation of 

radioactive materials, and from management of radioactive 

wastes (see Chapter 6). 

SMALL 

2 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-24 August 2010 

1 Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Aesthetics and 

recreation 

Minor impacts on aesthetics and recreation from the 

population and activities associated with building and 

operating the two-units, with the exception of localized 

moderate, long-term impacts on aesthetics from the creation 

of additional transmission-line corridors (see Sections 4.4.1.4, 

4.4.4.2, 5.4.1.4, and 5.4.4.2). 

SMALL for 

NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities; 

MODERATE for 

preconstruction 

activities 

Cultural resources Minor impacts on cultural resources from impacts associated 

with building and operating the two-units. The exception is if 

siting for additional transmission-line corridors does not avoid 

those cultural resources, both currently known and those 

identified through project-related cultural resources inventory 

(Phase 1 investigations). 

SMALL 

Health impacts 

(nonradiological 

and radiological) 

Minor 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 (see 

Sections 4.8, 4.9, 5.8, and 5.9). 

SMALL 

Materials, energy, 

and uranium

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of materials and 

energy, including depletion of uranium. Construction 

materials include concrete, aggregate, rebar, conduit, cable, 

piping, building supplies, tools. Equipment needs include 

cranes, cement trucks, excavation equipment, dump trucks, 

and graders. 

SMALL 

Hazardous and 

radioactive waste 

Mixed waste stored, transported, treated, and disposed in 

compliance with both NRC and EPA regulations would 

consume some regional or national waste treatment or 

disposal capacity, offset by treatment and disposal costs (see 

Sections 4.10 and 5.10). 

SMALL 

2 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Water use and 

water quality 

LNP water usage during construction and operations would 

have a minor impact on the availability and quality of the 

water resource in the area. Planned usage includes water 

withdrawn from the Gulf of Mexico to meet operational 

makeup water requirements, and a relatively small amount of 

groundwater usage for construction and general plant 

operations. FDEP Conditions for Certification require that 

PEF develop and implement an environmental monitoring 

program that ensures no adverse impacts on wetlands, 

groundwater quality, and the availability of groundwater for 

other permitted users. 

SMALL 

(a) Impact assessments are listed for all impacts evaluated in detail as part of this EIS. The details on impact 

assessments are found in the indicated sections of this EIS. 

(b) Internal costs are those incurred by PEF to implement proposed building and operation of the LNP Units 1 

and 2, exclusive of financing costs. Note that no impact assessments are provided for these private financial 

impacts. 

(c) PEF 2009a; construction costs are overnight capital costs. 

(d) NRC staff calculation of price per kWh based on MIT (2009). 

(e) U.S. used-fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh. 

(f) U.S. experience (WNA 2010). 

2 Internal costs include all of the costs included in a total capital cost assessment – the direct and 

3 indirect cost to physically build the power plant (capital costs) plus the annual costs of operation 

4 and maintenance, fuel costs, waste disposal, and decommissioning costs. In accordance with 

5 the NRC staff’s guidance in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), internal costs of the proposed project 

6 are presented in monetary terms. External costs include all costs imposed on the environment 

7 and region surrounding the plant that are not internalized by the company, such as a loss of 

8 regional productivity, environmental degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat. The external costs 

9 listed in Table 10-4 summarize environmental impacts on resources that could result from 

10 preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. 

11 10.6.2.1 Internal Costs 

12 The most substantial monetary cost associated with nuclear energy is the cost of capital. 

13 Nuclear power plants have relatively high capital costs for building the plant, but low fuel costs 

14 relative to alternative power-generation systems. The real prices of key heavy construction 

15 commodities, such as cement, steel, and copper, have fluctuated substantially in recent years, 

16 which could have a significant impact on nuclear plant capital costs (although it should be noted 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-26 August 2010 

these price changes would affect construction costs for non-nuclear power plants as well).(a) 1 

2 Because of the large capital costs for nuclear power and the relatively long construction period 

3 before revenue is returned, servicing the capital costs of a nuclear power plant is a key factor in 

4 determining the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy. Construction delays can add 

5 significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a power plant does not yield profits during 

6 construction, longer construction times mean a longer time before any costs can be offset by 

7 revenues. Furthermore, the longer it takes to build the plant, the higher the interest expenses 

8 on borrowed construction funds will be. In general, because no new nuclear plants have been 

9 built in the United States in many years, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the true costs 

10 of a new unit, which can affect the cost of capital. 

11 Construction Costs 

12 In evaluating the monetary costs related to constructing LNP Units 1 and 2, PEF reviewed 

13 recently published literature and internally generated, site-specific information. These estimates 

14 are based on a number of studies that were conducted by government agencies, universities, 

15 and other entities; the estimates include a significant contingency to account for uncertainty. In 

16 its ER, PEF expressed the construction-cost estimate in terms of “overnight capital cost,” which 

17 is a commonly used approach in the construction industry. “Overnight capital cost” is a term 

18 used to describe the monetary cost of constructing large capital projects such as a power plant, 

19 where costs are exclusive of interest and escalation, but include engineering, procurement, and 

20 construction costs, as well as the owner's costs and contingencies. The owner’s costs include 

21 both preconstruction and construction activities, such as site work and preparation, CWISs and 

22 cooling towers, import duties on components, insurance, spare parts, transmission 

23 interconnection, development costs, project management costs, owner’s engineering, State and 

24 local permitting, legal fees, and staffing-related training. 

25 In the ER PEF’s cost analysis was primarily based on the four following studies: 

26 • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2009. The Future of Nuclear Power. 

27 • University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. 

28 • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. Study of Construction Technologies and 

29 Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for 

30 Advanced Reactor Designs. 

 

(a) Although in real terms, the construction costs for large projects remained relatively flat from 1998 to 

2002, various construction cost indices from such sources as the Electric Power Research Institute 

and McGraw Hill estimate real cost escalation for large power plant construction projects to be 

approximately 4 percent per year since 2002 (through 2007). This is based on actual field data as 

well as data on commodity costs, labor cost information, and other equipment (USDI/Reclamation 

2008). 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-27 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 • Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and International Energy 

2 Agency (OECD/IEA). 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2005 Update. 

3 In addition to the four studies referenced by PEF, the NRC staff reviewed two additional reports, 

4 one published by The Keystone Center titled Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding (Keystone 

5 2007), which concluded, based upon alternative discount rates and construction times, that 

6 overnight construction costs range between $3600 and $4200 per kW(e). The second study is 

7 a 2009 update to the MIT study (MIT 2009) that revised capital cost estimates to $4000 per 

8 kW(e). 

9 Capital costs are costs incurred during construction, including preconstruction, when the actual 

10 outlays for equipment and construction and engineering are made. The construction cost 

11 estimates provided in Table 10-4 are based on costs reported to the Florida Public Service 

12 Commission (FPSC) as part of the docket resulting in Final Order PSC-08-0518-FOF-EI and 

13 discussed in Chapter 8. 

14 After consideration of these studies in the ER, PEF applied to the FPSC, petitioning for a 

15 “Determination of Need” under Section 403.519 of the Florida Statutes. As part of its 

16 determination, FPSC requires the petitioner to provide reasonably detailed cost estimates, 

17 which FPSC found the PEF had done according to the FPSC Final Order granting the need 

18 determination (FPSC 2008). 

19 In the FPSC Final Order (FPSC 2008), FPSC found the in-service cost of proposed LNP Units 1 

20 and 2 to be $14.1 billion. In addition, PEF estimates that transmission facilities needed to 

21 deliver the power from the proposed LNP would cost $2.5 billion (PEF 2009a). Based on 

22 standard utility industry approaches to developing transmission resources (FPSC 2008), FPSC 

23 found the PEF transmission cost estimates to be reasonable. 

24 Costs reported to the FPSC record as part of the need determination reflected PEF’s best 

25 estimate and include an allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). AFUDC costs 

26 reflect the financing costs incurred until the project becomes operational, and these costs are 

27 not included in the studies cited as background for determining PEF’s costs in the PEF ER. 

28 Operation Costs 

29 Operation costs are frequently expressed as levelized cost of electricity, which is the lowest 

30 price per kWh of producing electricity that covers operating costs, annualized capital costs, and 

31 a reasonable profit. For nuclear power plants, overnight capital costs typically account for a 

32 third of the levelized cost, and interest costs on the overnight costs account for another 

33 25 percent (University of Chicago 2004). PEF estimated that the levelized cost for LNP would 

34 be in the range of $36 to $83/MWh (3.6 to 8.3 cents/kWh) (PEF 2009a). In addition, the review 

35 team examined the update to the MIT study (MIT 2009) which re-evaluated the overnight 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-28 August 2010 

1 levelized cost of electricity at 8.4 cents per kWh (2007$). In 2008 dollars, this yields an overall 

2 range of 3.8 to 8.6 cents per kWh. However, the Keystone Study estimates the levelized cost 

3 for their low and high construction cost estimates to range from $0.083 to $0.111/kWh 

4 (Keystone 2007). Factors affecting the range include choices for discount rate, construction 

5 duration, plant life span, capacity factor, cost of debt and equity, split between debt and equity 

6 financing, depreciation time, tax rates, and premium for uncertainty. Estimates include 

7 decommissioning. 

8 Fuel Costs 

9 The cost of fuel is included in the calculation of levelized cost. Based on the recent MIT study 

10 (MIT 2009), the review team estimates nuclear fuel costs to be 0.7 cents per kWh. 

11 Waste Disposal 

12 The back-end costs of nuclear power contribute a small share of total cost because of both the 

13 long lifetime of a nuclear reactor and the fact that provisions for waste-related costs can be 

14 accumulated over that time. Spent fuel management costs are estimated to be 0.1 cents per 

15 kWh (WNA 2010, DOE 2008). It should be recognized, however, that radioactive nuclear waste 

16 poses unique disposal challenges for long-term management. While spent fuel and radioactive 

17 nuclear waste are being stored successfully in onsite facilities, the United States has yet to 

18 implement final disposition of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste streams created at 

19 various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 

20 Decommissioning 

21 NRC has requirements for licensees at 10 CFR 50.75 to provide reasonable assurance that 

22 funds would be available for the decommissioning process. Because of the effect of discounting 

23 a cost that would occur as much as 40 years in the future, decommissioning costs have 

24 relatively little effect on the levelized cost of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant. 

25 Decommissioning costs are about 9 percent to 15 percent of the initial capital cost of a nuclear 

26 power plant. However, when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment 

27 cost and even less to generation cost. In the United States, they account for 0.1 to 0.2 cents 

28 per kWh (WNA 2010). 

29 10.6.2.2 External Costs 

30 External costs are social and/or environmental effects that would be caused by the construction 

31 of and generation of power by two new reactors at the LNP site. This EIS includes the review 

32 team’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of constructing and 

33 operating new nuclear units at the LNP or at alternative sites and mitigation measures available 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-29 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 for reducing or avoiding these adverse impacts. It also includes the NRC staff’s 

2 recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action. 

3 Environmental and Social Costs 

4 Chapter 4 of this EIS describes the impacts of building the proposed LNP on the environment 

5 with respect to the land, water, ecology, socioeconomics, radiation exposure to construction 

6 workers, and measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during building of the proposed 

7 new units at the LNP site. Chapter 5 examines environmental issues associated with operation 

8 of the proposed new nuclear Units 1 and 2 for an initial 40-year period. Potential operational 

9 impacts on land use, air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, 

10 historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and radiological health 

11 effects, and postulated accidents are considered, along with applicable measures and controls 

12 that would limit these impacts during the 40-year operating period. In accordance with 10 CFR 

13 Part 51, all impacts identified in Chapters 4 and 5 have been analyzed, and a significance level 

14 of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned. 

15 Chapter 6 of this EIS addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and 

16 solid-waste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the 

17 decommissioning of nuclear units at the LNP. Chapter 9 of this EIS includes the review team’s 

18 review of alternative sites and alternative power generation systems. 

19 Unlike electricity generated from coal and natural gas, normal operation of a nuclear power 

20 plant does not result in any emissions of air pollutants associated with global warming and 

21 climate change (e.g., nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, or carbon dioxide) or methyl mercury. 

22 Combustion-based power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the carbon dioxide (DOE/EIA 

23 2008), at least 70 percent of the sulfur dioxide, at least 21 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 

24 51 percent of the mercury emissions from industrial sources in the United States (EPA 2009). 

25 Coal-fired plants generate 82 percent of the electric power industry’s emissions (DOE/EIA 

26 2008). Chapter 9 analyzes coal- and natural-gas-fired alternatives to the building and operation 

27 of proposed Units 1 and 2. Air emissions from these alternatives and nuclear power are 

28 summarized in Chapters 4, 5, and 9 of this EIS. 

29 As mentioned previously, Table 10-4 summarizes the external costs (i.e., environmental impacts) 

30 associated with preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. 

31 Impacts on air quality, water use and water quality, housing, cultural resources, and radiological 

32 and nonradiological health all would be SMALL. Because the overall impact on these resources 

33 from the proposed project in its entirety would be SMALL, the NRC portion of the project 

34 (i.e., construction as defined in 10 CFR 51.4 and operation of the proposed new units) 

35 accordingly would also be SMALL. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-30 August 2010 

1 The review team concluded that MODERATE impacts on land use, ecology, transportation, 

2 public services, and aesthetics and recreation would be possible. Land clearing and 

3 transmission-line corridor development activities would cause noticeable, but not destabilizing 

4 impacts from preconstruction activities. NRC-authorized activities represent only a minor 

5 portion of these impacts. Therefore the review team determined that impacts of NRC6 authorized activities on land use and aesthetics and recreation would be SMALL. Noticeable 

7 impacts on transportation and public services would only be expected during project peak 

8 employment when the NRC-authorized activities would be occurring. Therefore, the review 

9 team concluded that impacts of NRC-authorized activities on transportation and public services 

10 would be MODERATE. The impacts of NRC-authorized construction on ecological resources 

11 would be SMALL and the impacts of operations on ecological resources would be SMALL to 

12 MODERATE. 

13 10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs

14 The internal costs to construct additional units appear to be substantial. However, PEF’s 

15 decision to pursue this expansion implies it has concluded that the internal benefits of the 

16 proposed facility (production of 16,400,000 to 17,900,000 MWh per year for the 40-year life of 

17 the plant and 2200 MW of baseload capacity) outweigh the internal costs. Although no specific 

18 monetary values could reasonably be assigned to the identified societal benefits, it would 

19 appear the potential societal benefits of building the proposed LNP, including the primary benefit 

20 of the generated power and baseload capacity, are substantial. In comparison, the external 

21 socio-environmental costs imposed on the region appear to be relatively minor. 

22 Table 10-4 includes a summary of both internal and external costs of the proposed activities at 

23 LNP Units 1 and 2, as well as the identified benefits. The table includes a reference to other 

24 sections of this EIS when more detailed analyses and impact assessments are available for 

25 specific topics. 

26 On the basis of the assessments in this EIS, the construction and operation of the proposed 

27 LNP Units 1 and 2, with the mitigation measures identified by the review team, would have 

28 accrued benefits that most likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. 

29 For the NRC-proposed action (NRC-authorized construction and operation) the accrued benefits 

30 would also outweigh the costs of construction and operation of Units 1 and 2. 

31 10.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations 

32 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental 

33 aspects of the proposed action is that the COLs should be issued. The NRC staff’s evaluation 

34 of the safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in 

35 the Safety Evaluation Report that is anticipated to be published in 2011. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The staff’s preliminary recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by PEF (2009a); 

2 (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the review team’s own 

3 independent review; (4) the staff’s consideration of public scoping comments; and (5) the 

4 assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in 

5 the ER and the EIS. In addition, in making its preliminary recommendation, the NRC staff 

6 determined that none of the alternative sites assessed is obviously superior to the LNP site. 

7 The NRC’s determination is independent of the USACE’s permit decision, which will be 

8 documented in the USACE’s Record of Decision. 

9 10.8 References 

10 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

11 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, Licenses, 

15 Certifications and Approvals for nuclear Power Plants. 

16 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

17 Part 320, "General Regulatory Policies." 

18 33 CFR Part 332. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

19 Part 332, "Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources." 

20 40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

21 "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material." 

22 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

23 1508, "Terminology and Index." 

24 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 

25 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

26 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

27 Act [FWPCA]). 

28 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010. Levy Nuclear Power Plant 

29 Units 1 & 2, Progress Energy Florida, PA08-51B, Conditions of Certification, Plant and 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-32 August 2010 

1 Associated Facilities And Transmission Lines. Modified February 23, 2010. Tallahassee, 

2 Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa08_51_2010_B.pdf. 

3 Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). 2008. "Final Order Granting Petition for 

4 Determination of Need for Proposed Nuclear Power Plants." Final Order PSC-08-0518-FOF-EI, 

5 Docket no. 080148-EI dated August 12, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2009 at 

6 http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/orders/SingleDisplay.aspx?OrderNumber=PSC-08-

7 0518&Method=ByNumber. 

8 29 Florida Statutes 403.519. 2009. Florida Statute, Title 29, Public Health, Chapter 403, 

9 Environmental Control, Part 2, Electrical Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting, Section 

10 519, “Exclusive Forum for Determination of Need.” Accessed April 29, 2009 at 

11 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&UR

12 L=Ch0403/SEC519.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh00403-%3ESection%20519#0403.519. 

13 Keystone Center (Keystone). 2007. Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. Accessed April 21, 

14 2009 at http://208.72.156.157/~keystone/files/file/SPP/energy/NJFF-Final-Report-6_2007.pdf. 

15 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2009. The Future of Nuclear Power. Accessed 

16 April 21, 2009 at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/.

17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

18 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and International Energy Agency 

19 (OECD/IEA). 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2005 Update. International 

20 Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. Accessed April 21, 2009 at 

21 http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/6605011E.PDF. 

22 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, and 

23 International Atomic Energy Agency (OECD, NEA and IAEA). 2008. Uranium 2007. 22nd 

24 Edition, Paris, France. 

25 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Site Certification 

26 Application, Volumes 1 through 9. St. Petersburg, Florida. Including Amendments and 

27 Supplemental Information. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/apps.htm#ppn1. 

28 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Col Application, 

29 Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, St. 

30 Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 

August 2010 10-33 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

2 September 3, 2009, regarding Supplement 5 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

3 Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML091740487. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

5 September 3, 2009, regardingin Supplement 5 to Response to Request for Additional 

6 Information Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML092570297. 

7 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, as amended. 33 USC 403, et seq. 

8 University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Accessed April 21, 2009 

9 at http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports/NuclIndustryStudy-Summary.pdf. 

10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Public Notice – Permit Application 

11 No. SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH); Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) – Progress Energy Florida, SAJ-2008-

12 490 (IP-GAH), Sheet Index/Explanation for Public Notice. Panama City, Florida. Accession 

13 No. ML090890419. 

14 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, 

15 O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced 

16 Reactor Designs. Vol. 1. Dominion Energy Inc, Bechtel Power Corporation, TLG, Inc., and 

17 MPR Associates. Accessed April 22, 2009 at: 

18 http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports/1DominionStudy52704.pdf. Accession No. 

19 ML101820632. 

20 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 2008. Yucca Mountain Repository. Accessed May 2008 at 

21 http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml#4. Accession No. ML100600704. 

22 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004. Application of 

23 Advanced Construction Technologies to New Nuclear Power Plants. MPR-2610, Revision 2. 

24 Washington, D.C. Accessed April 1, 2009 at 

25 http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports/mpr2610Rev2Final924.pdf. Accession No. 

26 ML093160836. 

27 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2006. Energy 

28 Power Annual. Washington, D.C. Accessed February 4, 2008 at 

29 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Accession No. ML100600709. 

30 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008. Energy 

31 Power Annual. Electric Power Industry 2008: Year in Review. Accessed April 21, 2009 at 

32 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Accession No. ML101820643. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1941 10-34 August 2010 

1 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USDI/Reclamation). 2008. Construction 

2 Cost Trends. Washington, D.C. Accessed July 7, 2009 at 

3 http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/estimate/cost_trend.html. Accession No. ML100600715. 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Report on the Environment. A-Z 

5 Indicators List. Accessed on February 3, 2010 at 

6 http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=list.listByAlpha#E. Accession No. 

7 ML100580033. 

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 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

12 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C. 

13 World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2010. The Economics of Nuclear Power. World London, 

14 United Kingdom. Accessed April 21, 2009 at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html.