August 2010 6-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

2 This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid 

3 waste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning 

4 of proposed Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2 in Levy County, Florida. 

5 In its evaluation of uranium fuel-cycle impacts from proposed Units 1 and 2 at the LNP site, 

6 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) used the AP1000 advanced passive pressurized water 

7 reactor design. The capacity factor reported by PEF for the AP1000 reactor design is 

8 93 percent (PEF 2009a). The results reported here apply to the impacts from two 

9 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurized water reactor units. 

10 6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Solid-Waste Management 

11 This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium and solid-waste 

12 management for the AP1000 reactor design. The environmental impacts of this design are 

13 evaluated against specific criteria for light water reactor (LWR) designs at Title 10 of the Code of 

14 Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.51. 

15 The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state that 

16 Under § 51.10, every environmental report prepared for the construction permit 

17 stage or early site permit stage or combined license stage of a light-water-cooled 

18 nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take 

19 Table S–3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for 

20 evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and 

21 milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel 

22 fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials 

23 and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium 

24 fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power 

25 reactor. Table S–3 shall be included in the environmental report and may be 

26 supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data set 

27 forth in the table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility. 

28 The AP1000 reactors proposed for the LNP site are LWRs that would use uranium dioxide fuel; 

29 therefore, Table S–3 (10 CFR 51.51) can be used to assess environmental impacts of the 

30 uranium fuel cycle. Table S–3 values are normalized for a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR at an 

31 80-percent capacity factor. The Table S–3 values are reproduced in Table 6-1. The power 

32 rating for the proposed Units 1 and 2 at the LNP site is 2074 MW(e), assuming that two AP1000 

33 reactors would be located on the LNP site (PEF 2009a), with a capacity factor of 93 percent. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-2 August 2010 

1 Specific categories of environmental considerations are included in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). 

2 These categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive 

3 releases, burial of transuranic and high-level and low-level wastes, and radiation doses from 

4 transportation and occupational exposures. In developing Table S–3, the U.S. Nuclear 

5 Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff considered two fuel-cycle options that differed in the 

6 treatment of spent fuel removed from a reactor. The “no-recycle” option treats all spent fuel as 

7 waste to be stored at a Federal waste repository, whereas, the “uranium-only recycle” option 

8 involves reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused uranium and return it to the system. Neither 

9 cycle involves the recovery of plutonium. The contributions in Table S–3 resulting from 

10 reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for both of the 

11 two fuel cycles (uranium only and no-recycle); that is, the identified environmental impacts are 

12 based on the cycle that results in the greater impact. The uranium fuel cycle is defined as the 

13 total of those operations and processes associated with provision, use, and ultimate disposition 

14 of fuel for nuclear power reactors. 

Table 6-1. Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel-Cycle Environmental Data(a) 15 

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Natural Resource Use

Land (ac): 

 Temporarily committed(b) ........................... 100

 Undisturbed area .................................... 79

 Disturbed area ........................................ 22 Equivalent to a 110-MW(e) coal-fired power plant. 

 Permanently committed ............................. 13 

 Overburden moved (millions of MT) .......... 2.8 Equivalent to a 95-MW(e) coal-fired power plant. 

Water (millions of gallons): 

 Discharged to air ............................................ 160 = 2 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR with cooling tower. 

 

 Discharged to waterbodies ........................ 11,090 

 Discharged to ground ................................ 127 

 Total 11,377 <4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) with once-through 

cooling. 

Fossil fuel: 

 Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hr) .... 323 <5 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR output. 

 Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) ............ 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45-MW(e) coal-fired 

power plant. 

Natural gas (millions of standard cubic 

feet) ..........................................................

135 <0.4 percent of model 1000-MW(e) energy output. 

Effluents – Chemical (MT) 

Gases (including entrainment):(c) 

 SOx ............................................................ 4400 

16 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

 NOx

(d) ......................................................... 1190 Equivalent to emissions from a 45-MW(e) coal-fired plant 

for a year. 

 Hydrocarbons ............................................ 14 

 CO 29.6 

 Particulates ................................................ 1154 

Other gases: 

 F ................................................................ 0.67 Principally from uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production, 

enrichment, and reprocessing. The concentration is 

within the range of State standards – below level that 

has effects on human health. 

 HCI ............................................................ 0.014 

Liquids: 

 SO4

-

 ........................................................... 9.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing 

steps. Components that constitute a potential for 

adverse environmental effect are present in dilute 

concentrations and receive additional dilution by 

receiving bodies of water to levels below permissible 

standards. The constituents that require dilution and the 

flow of dilution water are NH3 – 600 cfs, NO3 – 20 cfs, 

Fluoride – 70 cfs. 

 NO3

-

 ........................................................... 25.8

 Fluoride...................................................... 12.9

 Ca++ ........................................................... 5.4

 Cl

 .............................................................. 8.5

 Na+

 ............................................................ 12.1

 NH3 ............................................................ 10.0

 Fe .............................................................. 0.4

 Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) ......... 240 From mills only – no significant effluents to environment. 

Solids ................................................................ 91,000 Principally from mills – no significant effluents to 

environment. 

Effluents – Radiological (curies) 

Gases (including entrainment): 

 Rn-222 ....................................................... Presently under reconsideration by the Commission. 

 Ra-226 ....................................................... 0.02 

 Th-230 ....................................................... 0.02 

 Uranium ..................................................... 0.034 

 Tritium (thousands) .................................... 18.1 

 C-14 ........................................................... 24 

 Kr-85 (thousands) ...................................... 400 

 Ru-106 ....................................................... 0.14 Principally from fuel reprocessing plants. 

 I-129 .......................................................... 1.3 

 I-131 .......................................................... 0.83 

 Tc-99 ......................................................... Presently under consideration by the Commission. 

 Fission products and transuranics ............. 0.203 

Liquids: 

 Uranium and daughters ............................. 2.1 Principally from milling – included tailings liquor and 

returned to ground – no effluents; therefore, no effect on 

environment. 

 Ra-226 ....................................................... 0.0034 From UF6 production. 

 Th-230 ....................................................... 0.0015 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-4 August 2010 

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

 Th-234 ....................................................... 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants – concentration 10 percent of 

10 CFR Part 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel 

requirements for model LWR. 

 Fission and activation products ................. 5.9 x 106

Solids (buried onsite): 

 Other than high level (shallow) .................. 11,300 9100 Ci comes from low-level reactor wastes and 

1500 Ci comes from reactor decontamination and 

decommissioning – buried at land burial facilities. 600 Ci 

comes from mills – included in tailings returned to 

ground. Approximately 60 Ci comes from conversion 

and spent-fuel storage. No significant effluent to the 

environment. 

 TRU and HLW (deep) ................................ 1.1 x 107 Buried at Federal Repository. 

Effluents – thermal (billions of British thermal 

units) .................................................................

4063 <5 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR. 

Transportation (person-rem): 

 Exposure of workers and general public .... 2.5 

 Occupational exposure (person-rem) ........ 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management. 

(a) In some cases where no entry appears, it is clear from the background documents the matter was addressed 

and that, in effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However, there are other 

areas that are not addressed at all in the table. Table S–3 does not include health effects from the effluents 

described in the table, estimates of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle, or estimates of 

technetium-99 released from waste management or reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of 

litigation in the individual licensing proceedings. Data supporting this table are given in the “Environmental 

Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” WASH-1248 (AEC 1974); the “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” NUREG-0116 (Supp.1 to WASH-1248) (NRC 1976); 

the “Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248) 

(NRC 1977b); and in the record of the final rulemaking pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent 

Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, Docket RM-50-3. The contributions from 

reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles 

(uranium-only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes transportation of cold fuel to a 

reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor, which are considered in Table S–4 of 

Sec. 51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns A-E of Table S–3A 

of WASH-1248. 

(b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years because the 

complete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for 1 year or 

57 reactors for 30 years. 

(c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. 

(d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 In 1978, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-242.) was 

2 enacted. This law significantly affected the disposition of spent nuclear fuel by indefinitely 

3 deferring the commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. 

4 commercial nuclear power program. While the ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel was lifted 

5 during the Reagan administration, economic circumstances changed, reserves of uranium ore 

6 increased, and the stagnation of the nuclear power industry provided little incentive for industry 

7 to resume reprocessing. During the 109th Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as 

8 amended (42 USC 15801 et seq.) was enacted. It authorized the U.S. Department of Energy 

9 (DOE) to conduct an advanced fuel-recycling technology research and development program to 

10 evaluate proliferation-resistant fuel-recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize 

11 environmental or public health and safety impacts. Consequently, while Federal policy does not 

12 prohibit reprocessing, additional DOE efforts would be required before commercial reprocessing 

13 and recycling of spent fuel produced in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants could commence. 

14 The no-recycle option is presented schematically in Figure 6-1. Natural uranium is mined in 

15 either open-pit or underground mines or by an in situ leach-solution mining process. In situ

16 leach mining, presently the primary form of mining in the United States, involves injecting a 

17 lixiviant solution into the uranium ore body to dissolve uranium and then pumping the solution to 

18 the surface for further processing. The ore or in situ leach solution is transferred to mills where 

19 it is processed to produce “yellowcake” (U3O8). A conversion facility prepares the uranium oxide 

20 (UO2) by converting it to uranium hexafluoride (UF6), which is then processed by an enrichment 

21 facility to increase the percentage of the more fissile isotope uranium-235 and decrease the 

22 percentage of the non-fissile isotope uranium-238. At a fuel fabrication facility, the enriched 

23 uranium, which is approximately 5-percent uranium-235, is then converted to UO2. The UO2 is 

24 pelletized, sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies, which are destined to be 

25 placed in a reactor to produce power. When the content of the uranium-235 reaches a point 

26 where the nuclear reaction has become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel 

27 assemblies are withdrawn from the reactor as spent fuel. After being stored onsite for sufficient 

28 time to allow for short-lived fission product decay and to reduce the heat-generation rate, the 

29 fuel assemblies would be transferred to a waste repository for internment. Disposal of spent30 fuel elements in a repository constitutes the final step in the no-recycle option. 

31 The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the 

32 operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S–3 (Table 6-1) and 

33 the NRC staff’s analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99. In 

34 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

(GEIS) (NRC 1996, 1999),(a) 35 the NRC staff provides a detailed analysis of the environmental 

36 impacts from the uranium fuel cycle. Although NUREG-1437 is specific to the impacts related to 

37 license renewal, the information is relevant to this review because the advanced LWR design 

 

(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. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-6 August 2010 

1 

2 Figure 6-1. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option (derived from NRC 1996) 

3 considered here uses the same type of fuel; the staff’s analyses in Section 6.2.3 of 

4 NUREG-1437 are summarized and provided here. The fuel-cycle impacts in Table S–3 are 

5 based on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an annual capacity factor of 80 percent for 

6 a net electric output of 800 MW(e). In the following review and evaluation of the environmental 

7 impacts of the fuel cycle, the NRC staff considered the capacity factor of 93 percent with a total 

8 net electric output of 1037 MW(e) for each of the proposed Units 1 and 2 at the LNP site for a 

9 total of 2074 MW(e) (PEF 2009a). This is about 2.6 times (i.e., 2074 MW[e] divided by 800 

10 MW[e] yields 2.6) the impact values in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). Throughout this chapter, this 

11 will be referred to as the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, 2074 MW(e) for the site. 

12 Recent changes in the fuel cycle may have some bearing on environmental impacts; however, 

13 as discussed below, the staff is confident that the contemporary fuel-cycle impacts are below 

14 those identified in Table S–3. This is especially true in light of the following recent fuel cycle 

15 trends in the United States:
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Increasing use of in situ leach uranium mining, which does not produce mine tailings. 

2 Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion to gas 

3 centrifuge. The centrifuge process uses only a small fraction of the electrical energy per 

4 separation unit compared to gaseous diffusion. 

5 Current LWRs use nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher fuel burnup. Therefore, less 

6 uranium fuel per year of reactor operation is required than in the past to generate the same 

7 amount of electricity. 

8 Fewer spent-fuel assemblies per reactor-year are discharged; hence, the waste 

9 storage/repository impact is less. 

10 The values in Table S–3 were calculated from industry averages for the performance of each 

11 type of facility or operation within the fuel cycle. Recognizing that this approach meant that 

12 there would be a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the NRC staff used an approach 

13 of choosing the assumptions or factors to be applied so that the calculated values would not be 

14 underestimated. This approach was intended to ensure that the actual environmental impacts 

15 would be less than the quantities shown in Table S–3 for all LWR nuclear power plants within 

16 the widest range of operating conditions. Many subtle fuel-cycle parameters and interactions 

17 were recognized by the NRC staff as being less precise than the estimates and were not 

18 considered or were considered but had no effect on the Table S–3 calculations. For example, 

19 to determine the quantity of fuel required for a year’s operation of a nuclear power plant in 

20 Table S–3, the NRC staff defined the model reactor as a 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at 

21 80-percent capacity with a 12-month fuel-reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 

22 33,000 MWd/MTU. This is a “reactor reference year” or “reference reactor-year” depending on 

23 the source (either Table S–3 or NUREG-1437), but it has the same meaning. The sum of the 

24 initial fuel loading plus all of the reloads for the lifetime of the reactor can be divided by the now 

25 more likely 60-year lifetime (40-year initial license term and 20-year license renewal term) to 

26 obtain an average annual fuel requirement. This was done in NUREG-1437 for both boiling 

27 water reactors and pressurized water reactors; the higher annual requirement, 35 MT of 

28 uranium made into fuel for a boiling water reactor, was chosen in NUREG-1437 as the basis for 

29 the reference reactor-year (NRC 1996). A number of fuel-management improvements have 

30 been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and 

31 separative work (enrichment) requirements. Since Table S–3 was promulgated, these 

32 improvements have reduced the annual fuel requirement. 

33 Another change is the elimination of the U.S. restrictions on the importation of foreign uranium. 

34 Until recently, the economic conditions of the uranium market favored use of foreign uranium at 

35 the expense of the domestic uranium industry. These market conditions resulted in the closing 

36 of most U.S. uranium mines and mills, substantially reducing the environmental impacts in the 

37 United States from these activities. However, there is some renewed interest in uranium mining 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-8 August 2010 

1 and milling in the United States and the NRC recently received multiple license applications for 

2 uranium mining and milling. The majority of these applications are for in situ leach-solution 

3 mining that does not produce tailings. Factoring in changes to the fuel cycle suggests that the 

4 environmental impacts of mining and tail millings could drop to levels below those given in 

5 Table S–3; however, Table S–3 estimates have not been reduced for these analyses. 

6 Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) discusses the sensitivity to recent changes in the fuel 

7 cycle on the environmental impacts in greater detail. 

8 6.1.1 Land Use 

9 The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled 

10 model would be about 294 ac. Of this land requirement, approximately 34 ac would be 

11 permanently committed land, and 260 ac would be temporarily committed. A “temporary” land 

12 commitment is a commitment for the life of the specific fuel-cycle plant (e.g., a mill, enrichment 

13 plant, or succeeding plants). After completion of decommissioning, such land can be released 

14 for unrestricted use. “Permanent” commitments represent land that may not be released for use 

15 after plant shutdown and decommissioning because decommissioning activities do not result in 

16 removal of sufficient radioactive material to meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, for 

17 release of that area for unrestricted use. Of the 260 ac of temporarily committed land, 205 ac 

18 are undisturbed and 55 ac are disturbed. In comparison, a coal-fired power plant using the 

19 same megawatt-electric output as the LWR-scaled model and using strip-mined coal requires 

20 the disturbance of about 520 ac/yr for fuel alone. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts on 

21 land use to support the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would be SMALL. 

22 6.1.2 Water Use 

23 The principal water use for the fuel cycle supporting a 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would be 

24 that required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the 

25 enrichment step of this cycle. Scaling from Table S–3, of the total annual water use of 29,600 

26 million gallons, about 28,800 million gallons are required for the removal of waste heat. Also 

27 scaling from Table S–3, other water uses involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses 

28 in process cooling) of about 416 million gallons per year and discharge to the ground (e.g., mine 

29 drainage) of about 330 million gallons per year. 

30 On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are less than 

31 5 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using once-through cooling. The maximum 

32 consumptive water use of 29,600 million gallons per year (assuming that all plants supplying 

33 electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle use cooling towers) would be less than 4 percent of 

34 the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal 

35 effluents would be negligible. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts on water use for these 

36 combinations of thermal loadings and water consumption would be SMALL. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 6.1.3 Fossil-Fuel Impacts 

2 Electric energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel-cycle process. 

3 The electric energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power 

4 plants. Electric energy associated with the fuel cycle represents less than 4 percent of the 

5 annual electric power production of the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. Process heat is primarily 

6 generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate 

7 electricity, would be less than 0.4 percent of the electrical output from the model plant. 

8 The largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with nuclear power is from the 

9 fuel cycle, not the operation of the plant, as indicated above and in Table S–3. The CO2 

10 emissions from the fuel cycle are less than 4 percent of the CO2 emissions from an equivalent 

11 fossil-fuel-fired plant. 

12 The largest use of electricity in the fuel cycle comes from the enrichment process. It appears 

13 that gas-centrifuge technology is likely to eventually replace gaseous-diffusion technology for 

14 uranium enrichment in the United States. The same amount of enrichment from a gas15 centrifuge facility uses less electricity and therefore results in lower amounts of air emissions 

16 such as carbon dioxide than a gaseous-diffusion facility. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

17 that the values for electricity use and air emissions in Table S–3 continue to be appropriately 

18 bounding values. 

19 In Appendix I, the NRC staff estimates that the carbon footprint of the fuel cycle to support a 

reference 1000-MW(e) LWR for a 40-year plant life is on the order of 1.8 × 107 20 MT of CO2

21 including a small contribution from other greenhouse gases. Scaling this footprint to the power 

22 level and capacity factor of LNP Units 1 and 2, the NRC staff estimates the carbon footprint for 

40 years of fuel cycle emissions to be about 4.7 × 107 23 MT of CO2. This rate of CO2 production 

equals 1.2 × 106

 MT of CO2 per year, less than 0.05 percent of the 2.36 × 109 24 MT of CO2

25 production from electricity generation in the United States in 2008 (EPA 2010). 

26 On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the fossil fuel impacts, including greenhouse gas 

27 emissions, from the direct and indirect consumption of electric energy for fuel-cycle operations 

28 would be SMALL. 

29 6.1.4 Chemical Effluents 

30 The quantities of gaseous and particulate chemical effluents produced in fuel-cycle processes 

31 are given in Table S–3 (Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR and, according to 

32 WASH-1248 (AEC 1974), result from the generation of electricity for fuel-cycle operations. The 

33 principal effluents are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Table S–3 states that the 

34 fuel cycle for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR requires 323,000 MWh of electricity. The fuel 

35 cycle for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would therefore require 840,000 MWh of 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-10 August 2010 

1 electricity, or 0.02 percent of the 4.1 billion MWh of electricity generated in the United States in 

2 2008 (DOE 2009). Therefore, the gaseous and particulate chemical effluents would add about 

3 0.02 percent to the national gaseous and particulate chemical effluents from electricity 

4 generation. 

5 Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel-cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment and 

6 fabrication and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in 

7 dilute concentrations such that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels 

8 of concentration that are within established standards. Table S–3 (Table 6-1) specifies the 

9 amount of dilution water required for specific constituents. In addition, all liquid discharges into 

10 the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with fuel-cycle operations 

11 would be subject to requirements and limitations set by an appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, 

12 and local agencies. 

13 Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process, but as Table S–3 

14 indicates, effluents are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the 

15 environment. 

16 Based on the above analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of these gaseous, 

17 particulate, and liquid chemical effluents would be SMALL. 

18 6.1.5 Radiological Effluents 

19 Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from waste-management 

20 activities and certain other phases of the fuel-cycle process are set forth in Table S–3 

21 (Table 6-1). Using these effluents in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the NRC staff calculated the 

22 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle of 1 year of 

23 operation of the model 1000-MW(e) LWR. The total overall whole body gaseous dose 

24 commitment and whole body liquid dose commitment from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor 

25 releases and dose commitments because of exposure to radon-222 and technetium-99) were 

26 calculated to be approximately 400 person-rem and 200 person-rem, respectively. Scaling 

27 these dose commitments by a factor of about 2.6 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would 

28 result in whole body dose commitment estimates of 1040 person-rem for gaseous releases and 

29 520 person-rem for liquid releases. For both pathways, the estimated 100-year environmental 

30 dose commitment to the U.S. population would be approximately 1600 person-rem for the 

31 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. 

32 Currently, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are 

33 not addressed in Table S–3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling 

34 operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur 

35 from gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities. PEF provided an assessment of radon-222 and 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 technetium-99 in its Environmental Report (ER) (PEF 2009a). PEF’s evaluation relied on the 

2 information discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

3 In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the NRC staff estimated the radon-222 releases 

4 from mining and milling operations and from mill tailings for each year of operation of the 

5 reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. The estimated release of radon-222 for the reference reactor-year 

6 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, or for the total electric power rating for the site for a 

7 year, is approximately 13,500 Ci. Of this total, about 78 percent would be from mining, 

8 15 percent from milling operations, and 7 percent from inactive tails before stabilization. For 

9 radon releases from stabilized tailings, the NRC staff assumed that the LWR-scaled model 

10 would result in an emission of 2.6 Ci per site year (i.e., about 2.6 times the NUREG-1437 

11 (NRC 1996) estimate for the reference reactor-year). The major risks from radon-222 are from 

12 exposure to the bone and the lung, although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole 

13 body. The organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart C were applied 

14 to the bone and lung doses to estimate the 100-year dose commitment from radon-222 to the 

15 whole body. The estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment from radon from mining, 

16 milling, and tailings before stabilization for each site year (assuming the 1000-MW(e) LWR17 scaled model) would be approximately 2400 person-rem to the whole body. From stabilized 

18 tailings piles, the estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment would be approximately 

19 47 person-rem to the whole body. Additional insights regarding Federal policy/resource 

20 perspectives concerning institutional controls comparisons with routine radon-222 exposure and 

21 risk and long-term releases from stabilized tailing piles are discussed in NUREG-1437 

22 (NRC 1996). 

23 Also as discussed in NUREG-1437, the NRC staff considered the potential doses associated 

24 with the releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference 

25 reactor-year for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model are 0.018 Ci from chemical processing of 

26 recycled uranium hexafluoride before it enters the isotope-enrichment cascade and 0.013 Ci 

27 into the groundwater from a repository. The major risks from technetium-99 are from exposure 

28 of the gastrointestinal tract and kidney, although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole 

29 body. Applying the organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart C to the 

30 gastrointestinal tract and kidney doses, the total-body 100-year dose commitment from 

31 technetium-99 to the whole body was estimated to be 260 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) 

32 LWR-scaled model. 

33 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 

34 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect, and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 

35 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no threshold dose response relationship assumption is used to 

36 describe the relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A 

37 recent report by the National Research Council (2006), the Biological Effects of Ionizing 

38 Radiation (BEIR) VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold model as a basis for estimating the 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-12 August 2010 

1 risks from low doses. This approach is accepted by NRC as a conservative method for 

2 estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate 

3 those risks. Based on this method, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation 

4 exposure using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment. This nominal probability 

5 coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects 

6 per 1,000,000 person-rem, equal to 0.00057 effects per person-rem. The coefficient is taken 

7 from International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 103 (ICRP 2007). 

8 The nominal probability coefficient was multiplied by the sum of the estimated whole body 

9 population doses from gaseous effluents, liquid effluents, radon-222, and technetium-99 

10 discussed above (approximately 4300 person-rem/yr) to calculate that the U.S. population 

11 would incur a total of approximately 2.5 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary 

12 effects annually. 

13 Radon-222 releases from tailings are indistinguishable from background radiation levels at a 

14 few miles from the tailings pile (at less than 1 km in some cases) (NRC 1996). The public dose 

15 limit in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulation, 40 CFR 190.10, is 

16 25 mrem/yr to the whole body from the entire fuel cycle, but most NRC licensees have airborne 

17 effluents resulting in doses of less than 1 mrem/yr (61 FR 65120). 

18 In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute conducted a study 

19 and published Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities in 1990 (NCI 1990). This 

20 report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as well as 

21 several other nuclear fuel-cycle facilities in operation in the United States in 1981. The report 

22 found “no evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear 

23 facilities” (NCI 1990). The contribution to the annual average dose received by an individual 

24 from fuel-cycle-related radiation and other sources as reported in a report published by the 

25 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (NCRP 2009) is listed in 

26 Table 6-2. The nuclear fuel-cycle contribution to an individual’s annual average radiation dose 

27 is extremely small (less than 1 mrem/yr) compared to the annual average background radiation 

28 dose (about 311 mrem/yr). 

29 Based on the analyses presented above, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental 

30 impacts of radioactive effluents from the fuel cycle are SMALL. 

31 6.1.6 Radiological Wastes 

32 The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic 

33 wastes) are specified in Table S–3 (Table 6-1). For low-level waste (LLW) disposal at land 

34 burial facilities, the Commission notes in Table S–3 that there would be no significant 

35 radioactive releases to the environment. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

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

Source Dose (mrem/yr)(a) Percent of Total

Ubiquitous background Radon and thoron 

Space 

Terrestrial 

Internal (body) 

Total background sources 

228 

33 

21 

29 

311 

37 

5 

3 

5 

50 

Medical Computed tomography 

Medical x-ray 

Nuclear medicine 

Total medical sources 

147 

76 

77 

300 

24 

12 

12 

48 

Consumer Construction materials, 

smoking, air travel, mining, 

agriculture, fossil fuel 

combustion 

13 2 

Other Occupational 

Nuclear fuel cycle 

0.5(b)

0.05(c)

0.1 

0.01 

Total 624 

Source: NCRP 2009; Report 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States

(a) NCRP Report 160 table expressed doses in mSv/yr (1 mSv/yr equals 100 mrem/yr). 

(b) Occupational dose is regulated separately from public dose and is provided here for informational purposes. 

(c) Calculated using 153 person-Sv/yr from Table 6.1 of NCRP 160 and a 2006 U.S. population of 300 million.

2 The Barnwell LLW disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, no longer accepts Class B and 

3 C wastes from sources in states outside of the Atlantic Compact, so LNP would not be able to 

4 dispose of these wastes at Barnwell. 

5 By the time LNP Units 1 and 2 would begin operation, PEF expects to have entered into an 

6 agreement with an NRC-licensed facility that would accept LLW from LNP. If PEF has not 

7 entered into an agreement with an NRC-licensed facility that would accept LLW from LNP, PEF 

8 would implement measures to reduce or eliminate the generation of Class B and C wastes, 

9 extending the capacity of the onsite waste storage to more than 2 years (PEF 2009b). If 

10 needed, PEF would also construct additional storage facilities onsite and has indicated 

11 (PEF 2009b) that such facilities would be designed and operated to meet the guidance in 

12 Appendix 11.4-A of the Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007). Finally, PEF could 

13 enter into an agreement with a third party contractor to process, store, own, and ultimately 

14 dispose of LLW from LNP. Because PEF will have to choose one or a combination of these 

15 three options, the staff considered the environmental impacts of each of these three options. 

16 Table S–3 addresses the environmental impacts if PEF enters into an agreement with an NRC17 licensed facility for disposal of LLW, and Table S–4 addresses the environmental impacts from 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-14 August 2010 

1 transportation of LLW as discussed in Section 6.2. The use of third-party contractors was not 

2 explicitly addressed in Tables S–3 and S–4; however, such third-party contractors are already 

3 licensed by the NRC and currently operate in the United States. Experience from the operation 

4 of these facilities shows that the additional environmental impacts are not significant compared 

5 to the impacts described in Tables S–3 and S–4. 

6 The measures to reduce the generation of Class B and C wastes described by PEF, such as 

7 reducing the service run length of resin beds, could increase the volume of LLW, but would not 

8 increase the total curies of radioactive material in the waste. The volume of waste would still be 

9 bounded by or similar to the estimates in Table S–3, and the environmental impacts would not 

10 be significantly different. 

11 In most circumstances, the NRC’s regulations (10 CFR 50.59) allow licensees operating nuclear 

12 power plants to construct and operate additional onsite LLW storage facilities without seeking 

13 approval from the NRC. Licensees are required to evaluate the safety and environmental 

14 impacts before constructing the facility and make those evaluations available to NRC 

15 inspectors. A number of nuclear power plant licensees have constructed and operate such 

16 facilities in the United States. Typically, these additional facilities are constructed near the 

17 powerblock inside the security fence on land that has already been disturbed during initial plant 

18 construction. Therefore, the impacts on environmental resources (e.g., land use and aquatic 

19 and terrestrial biota) would be very small. All of the NRC (10 CFR Part 20) and EPA (40 CFR 

20 Part 190) dose limitations would apply both for public and occupational radiation exposure. The 

21 radiological environmental monitoring programs around nuclear power plants that operate 

22 additional onsite LLW facilities show that the increase in radiation dose at the site boundary is 

23 not significant; the radiation doses continue to be below 25 mrem/yr, the dose limit of 40 CFR 

24 Part 190. The NRC staff concludes that doses to members of the public within the NRC and 

25 EPA regulations are a small impact. In addition, NUREG-1437 assessed the impacts of LLW 

26 storage onsite at currently operating nuclear power plants and concluded that the radiation 

27 doses to offsite individuals from interim LLW storage are insignificant (NRC 1996). The types 

28 and amounts of LLW generated by the proposed reactors at LNP would be similar to those 

29 generated by currently operating nuclear power plants and the construction and operation of 

30 any interim LLW storage facilities would be similar to the construction and operation of the 

31 currently operating facilities. Therefore, the impacts of constructing and operating additional 

32 onsite LLW storage facilities would be small. 

33 In 10 CFR 51.23, the Commission notes that high-level and transuranic wastes are to be buried 

34 at a repository, such as the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Commission 

35 also notes that no release to the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal, 

36 because it has been assumed that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the 

37 spent fuel are released to the atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. In NUREG-0116 

38 (NRC 1976), which provides background and context for the high-level and transuranic 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table S–3 values established by the Commission, the NRC staff indicates that these high-level 

2 and transuranic wastes would be buried and would not be released to the environment. 

3 As part of the Table S–3 rulemaking, the staff evaluated, along with more conservative 

4 assumptions, the zero-release assumption associated with waste burial in a repository, and the 

5 NRC reached an overall generic determination that fuel-cycle impacts would not be significant. 

6 In 1983, the Supreme Court affirmed the NRC’s position that the zero-release assumption was 

7 reasonable in the context of the Table S–3 rulemaking to address generically the impacts of the 

8 uranium fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings (Baltimore Gas & Electric v. NRDC 

9 (1983)). 

10 Furthermore, in the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, the Commission 

11 has made the generic determination that “if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can 

12 be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the 

13 licensed life for operation [...] of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or 

14 offsite independent spent fuel storage installations.” That regulation also states that “the 

15 Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository 

16 will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository 

17 capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to 

18 dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating in such a reactor and 

19 generated up to that time.” The regulation provides that, accordingly, no discussion of any 

20 environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the period following the term of the combined 

21 license is required in any environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared in connection with the 

22 issuance of that combined license. 

23 In October 2008, the Commission proposed a rulemaking to update and revise the Waste 

24 Confidence Decision (73 FR 59551). Public comments were received on the rulemaking, and 

25 the public comment period for the rule was extended through February 2009 (73 FR 72370). At 

26 this time, however, the Commission has not approved the publication of a final rule. If a revised 

27 rule concerning the waste confidence determination is ultimately issued by the Commission, the 

28 staff will be required to follow that determination. Absent further developments with respect to 

29 the Waste Confidence rulemaking, Table S–3 and the existing Waste Confidence Decision 

30 indicate that any environmental impacts associated with the high-level waste that would be 

31 generated by the LNP Units 1 and 2 would be minimal. 

32 In the context of operating license renewal, Sections 6.2 and 6.4 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) 

33 provide additional description of the generation, storage, and ultimate disposal of LLW, mixed 

34 waste, and spent fuel from power reactors, concluding that environmental impacts from these 

35 activities are small. For the reasons stated above, the NRC staff concludes that the 

36 environmental impacts of radioactive waste storage and disposal associated with LNP Units 1 

37 and 2 would be SMALL. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-16 August 2010 

1 6.1.7 Occupational Dose 

2 The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the 1000-MW(e) 

3 LWR-scaled model is about 1560 person-rem. This is based on a 600 person-rem occupational 

4 dose estimate attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 1000-MW(e) LWR 

5 (NRC 1996). The environmental impact from this occupational dose is considered SMALL 

6 because the dose to any individual worker would be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR 

7 Part 20 Subpart C, which is 5 rem/yr. 

8 6.1.8 Transportation 

9 The transportation dose to workers and the public totals about 2.5 person-rem annually for the 

10 reference 1000-MW(e) LWR, according to Table S–3 (Table 6-1). This corresponds to a dose of 

11 3.2 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model (PEF 2009a) and 6.5 person-rem for 

12 two proposed AP1000 reactors located at the LNP site. For purposes of comparison, the 

13 estimated collective dose from natural background radiation to the current population within 

14 50 mi of the LNP site in 2005 is about 400,000 person-rem/yr (PEF 2009a). Based on this 

15 comparison, the NRC staff concludes that environmental impacts of transportation would be 

16 SMALL. 

17 6.1.9 Conclusions for Fuel Cycle and Solid-Waste Management 

18 The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, as given in 

19 Table S–3 (Table 6-1), considered the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99, and 

20 appropriately scaled the impacts for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. The NRC staff also 

21 evaluated the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the uranium fuel cycle 

22 and appropriately scaled the impacts for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. Based on these 

23 evaluations, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle would be 

24 SMALL. 

25 6.2 Transportation Impacts 

26 This section addresses both the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from 

27 normal operating and accident conditions resulting from (1) shipment of unirradiated fuel to the 

28 LNP site and alternative sites, (2) shipment of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage 

29 facility or a permanent repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive waste and mixed 

30 waste to offsite disposal facilities. For the purposes of these analyses, the NRC staff 

31 considered the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site as a surrogate destination for a 

32 permanent repository. The impacts evaluated in this section for two new nuclear generating 

33 units at the LNP site are appropriate to characterize the alternative sites discussed in 

34 Section 9.3 of this EIS. Alternative sites evaluated in this EIS include the LNP site (proposed), 

35 and alternative sites at Crystal River, Dixie, Highlands, and Putnam. There is no meaningful 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 differentiation among the proposed and the alternative sites regarding the radiological and 

2 nonradiological environmental impacts from normal operating and accident conditions and these 

3 conditions are not discussed further in Chapter 9. 

4 NRC performed a generic analysis of the environmental effects of the transportation of fuel and 

5 waste to and from LWRs in the Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials 

6 To and From Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and in a supplement to 

7 WASH-1238, NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975), and found the impact to be small. These documents 

8 provided the basis for Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52 that summarizes the environmental impacts 

9 of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one LWR of 3000 to 5000 MW(t) (1000 to 

10 1500 MW[e]). Impacts are provided for normal conditions of transport and accidents in transport 

for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR.(a) 11 Dose to transportation workers during normal 

12 transportation operations was estimated to result in a collective dose of 4 person-rem per 

13 reference reactor-year. The combined dose to the public along the route and dose to onlookers 

14 were estimated to result in a collective dose of 3 person-rem per reference reactor-year. 

15 Environmental risks of radiological effects during accident conditions, as stated in Table S–4, 

16 are SMALL. Nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents were estimated as one fatal 

17 injury in 100 reference reactor-years and one nonfatal injury in 10 reference reactor-years. 

18 Subsequent reviews of transportation impacts in NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977a) and 

19 NUREG/CR-6672 (Sprung et al. 2000) concluded that impacts were bounded by Table S–4 in 

20 10 CFR 51.52. 

21 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), a full description and detailed analysis of transportation 

22 impacts is not required when licensing an LWR (i.e., impacts are assumed to be bounded by 

23 Table S–4) if the reactor meets the following criteria: 

24 The reactor has a core thermal power level that does not exceed 3800 MW(t). 

25 Fuel is in the form of sintered uranium oxide pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not 

26 exceeding 4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zircalloy-clad fuel rods. 

27 The average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed 

28 33,000 MWd/MTU, and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it is 

29 discharged from the reactor. 

 

(a) The transportation impacts associated with the LNP site were normalized for a reference 1100-MW(e) 

LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor for comparisons to Table S–4. Note that the basis for 

Table S–4 is an 1100 MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor (AEC 1972; NRC 1975). The 

basis for Table S–3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b) that was discussed in Section 6.1 of this EIS is a 1000 MW(e) 

LWR with an 80-percent capacity factor (NRC 1976). However, because fuel cycle and transportation 

impacts are evaluated separately, this difference does not affect the results and conclusions in this 

EIS. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-18 August 2010 

1 With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is 

2 packaged and in solid form. 

3 Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated (spent) fuel is shipped from the 

4 reactor by truck, railcar, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped 

5 from the reactor by truck or railcar. 

6 The environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from 

7 nuclear power facilities are resolved generically in 10 CFR 51.52, provided that the specific 

8 conditions in the rule (see above) are met. The NRC may consider requests for licensed plants 

9 to operate at conditions above those in the facility's licensing basis, for example, higher burnups 

10 (above 33,000 MWd/MTU), enrichments (above 4 weight percent uranium-235), or thermal 

11 power levels (above 3800 MW[t]). Departures from the conditions itemized in 10 CFR 51.52(a) 

12 are to be supported by a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects, as 

13 specified in 10 CFR 51.52(b). Departures found to be acceptable for licensed facilities cannot 

14 serve as the basis for initial licensing of new reactors. 

15 In its application, PEF requested combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) 

16 for two proposed reactors at its LNP site in Florida. Both proposed new reactors would be 

17 Westinghouse AP1000 advanced LWRs. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor has a thermal 

18 power rating of 3400 MW(t), with a minimum net electrical output of 1115 MW(e). The 

19 Westinghouse AP1000 reactors are expected to operate with a 93-percent capacity factor, 

20 yielding a net electrical output (annualized) of about 1037 MW(e). Fuel for the units would be 

21 enriched up to about 4.51 weight percent uranium-235, which exceeds the 4-percent condition 

22 given in 10 CFR 51.52(a). In addition, the expected peak irradiation level of about 

23 62,000 MWd/MTU exceeds the 33,000 MWd/MTU condition given in 10 CFR 51.52(a). 

24 Therefore, a full description and detailed analysis of transportation impacts is required. 

25 In its ER (PEF 2009a), PEF provided a full description and detailed analyses of transportation 

26 impacts. In these analyses, the radiological impacts of transporting fuel and waste to and from 

27 the proposed LNP site and alternative sites were calculated using the RADTRAN 5.6 computer 

28 code (Weiner et al. 2006). RADTRAN 5.6 was used in this EIS and is the most commonly used 

29 transportation impact analysis software in the nuclear industry. 

30 Comments on four previous early site permit EISs also were considered when developing the 

31 scope of this EIS. The most significant change is that this EIS includes an explicit analysis of 

32 the nonradiological impacts of transporting unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste to 

33 and from the LNP site and alternative sites. Nonradiological impacts of transporting 

34 construction workers and materials (see Section 4.8.3) and operations workers (Section 5.8.6) 

35 are addressed elsewhere in this EIS. Publicly available information about traffic accident, injury, 

36 and fatality rates was used to estimate nonradiological impacts. In addition, the radiological 

37 impacts on maximally exposed individuals (MEIs) are evaluated. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

2 The NRC staff performed an independent evaluation of the environmental impacts of 

3 transporting unirradiated (i.e., fresh) fuel to the LNP site and alternative sites. Radiological 

4 impacts of normal conditions and transportation accidents as well as nonradiological impacts 

5 are discussed in this section. Radiological impacts on populations and MEIs are presented. 

6 Because the specific fuel fabrication plant for LNP unirradiated fuel is not known at this time, the 

7 NRC staff’s analysis assumes a “representative” route between the fuel fabrication facility and 

8 LNP site and alternative sites. This means that there are no substantive differences between 

9 the impacts calculated, for the purposes of Chapter 9, for the LNP site and the four alternative 

10 sites. The site-specific differences are minor because the radiation doses from unirradiated fuel 

11 transport are minute and the differences in shipping distances between potential fuel fabrication 

12 plants and the LNP site and alternative sites are small. 

13 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions 

14 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation 

15 activities during which shipments reach their destination without releasing any radioactive 

16 material to the environment. Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of 

17 radiation that penetrate the unirradiated fuel shipping containers. Radiation exposures at some 

18 level would occur to the following individuals: (1) persons residing along the transportation 

19 corridors between the fuel fabrication facility and the LNP or alternative sites; (2) persons in 

20 vehicles traveling on the same route as an unirradiated fuel shipment; (3) persons at vehicle 

21 stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle inspections; and (4) transportation crew workers. 

22 Truck Shipments 

23 Table 6-3 provides an estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel for the 

24 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design compared to those of the reference 1100-MW(e) reactor 

25 specified in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) operating at 80-percent capacity (880 MW[e]). After 

26 normalization, the NRC staff found that the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel to the 

27 LNP site or alternative sites would be fewer than the number of truck shipments of unirradiated 

28 fuel estimated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. The results are consistent with the 

29 estimates provided in PEF’s ER (PEF 2009a). 

30 Shipping Mode and Weight Limits 

31 In 10 CFR 51.52, a condition is identified that states all unirradiated fuel is shipped to the 

32 reactor by truck. PEF specifies that unirradiated fuel would be shipped to the proposed reactor 

33 site by truck. Section 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4, includes a condition that the truck shipments 

34 not exceed 73,000 lb as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle weight restrictions. PEF 

35 states in its ER that the unirradiated fuel shipments to the LNP site and alternative sites would 

36 comply with applicable weight restrictions (PEF 2009a). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-20 August 2010 

1 Table 6-3. Number of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and a 

2 Single AP1000 Reactor at the LNP Site 

Reactor Type

Number of Shipments per 

Reactor Unit Unit Electric 

Generation, 

MW(e)(c) Capacity Factor(c)

Normalized, 

Shipments 

per 

1100 MW(e)(d)

Initial 

Core(a)

Annual 

Reload Total(b)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 18 6 252 1100 0.8 252 

LNP Westinghouse AP1000 23 5.4 233 1115 0.93 198 

(a) Shipments of the initial core have been rounded up to the next highest whole number. 

(b) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of average 

annual reload quantities). 

(c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from WASH-1238 for the reference LWR and from the ER 

(PEF 2009a) for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. 

(d) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100-MW[e] plant at an 80-percent or 

net electrical output of 880 MW[e]). 

3 Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and the Public 

4 Section 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4, includes conditions related to radiological dose to transport 

5 workers and members of the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of many 

6 variables, including the radiation dose rate emitted from the unirradiated fuel shipments, the 

7 number of exposed individuals and their locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit 

8 (including travel and stop times), and the number of shipments to which the individuals are 

9 exposed. For this EIS, the radiological dose impacts of the transportation of unirradiated fuel 

10 were calculated by the NRC staff for the worker and the public using the RADTRAN 5.6 

11 computer code (Weiner et al. 2006). 

12 One of the key assumptions in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) for the reference LWR unirradiated fuel 

13 shipments is that the radiation dose rate at 3.3 ft from the transport vehicle is about 

14 0.1 mrem/hr. This assumption also was used in the NRC staff’s analysis of the Westinghouse 

15 AP1000 reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. This assumption is reasonable because the 

16 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor fuel materials would be low-dose-rate uranium radionuclides and 

17 would be packaged similarly to those described in WASH-1238 (i.e., inside a metal container 

18 that provides little radiation shielding). The numbers of shipments per year were obtained by 

19 dividing the normalized shipments in Table 6-3 by 40 years of reactor operation. Other key 

20 input parameters used in the radiation dose analysis for unirradiated fuel are shown in 

21 Table 6-4. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

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

Parameter

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source

Shipping distance, km 3200 AEC 1972(a)

Travel fraction – Rural 0.90 Rural, suburban, and urban travel 

fractions are taken from NRC (1977a). 

Travel fraction – Suburban 0.05 

Travel fraction – Urban 0.05 

Population density – Rural, persons/km2

 10 Rural, suburban, and urban population 

Population density – Suburban, densities are taken from DOE (2002a). 

persons/km2

349 

Population density – Urban, persons/km2

 2260 

Vehicle speed – km/hr 88.49 Conservative in-transit speed of 55 mph 

assumed; predominantly interstate 

highways used. 

Traffic count – Rural, vehicles/hr 530 Rural, suburban, and urban traffic 

Traffic count – Suburban, vehicles/hr 760 counts are taken from DOE (2002a). 

Traffic count – Urban, vehicles/hr 2400 

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 0.1 AEC 1972 

Packaging length, m 7.3 Approximate length of two LWR fuel 

element packages placed on end (DOE 

1997). 

Number of truck crew 2 AEC 1972, NRC 1977a, and DOE 

2002a 

Stop time, hr/trip 4 Based on one 30-minute stop per 

4-hour driving time. 

Population density at stops, persons/km2

 See Table 6- for truck stop parameters 

(a) AEC 1972 provides a range of shipping distances between 40 km (25 mi) and 4800 km (3000 mi) for 

unirradiated fuel shipments. A 3200-km (2000-mi) “representative” shipping distance was assumed here. 

2 The RADTRAN 5.6 results for this “generic” unirradiated fuel shipment are as follows: 

worker dose: 1.71 × 103 3 person-rem/shipment 

4 general public dose (onlookers/persons at stops and sharing the highway): 

2.91 × 103 5 person-rem/shipment 

6 general public dose (along route/persons living near a highway or truck stop): 

4.12 × 105 7 person-rem/shipment. 

8 These values were combined with the average annual shipments of unirradiated fuel for the 

9 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor to calculate annual doses to the public and workers. Table 6-5 

10 presents the annual radiological impacts on workers, public onlookers (persons at stops and 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-22 August 2010 

1 sharing the road), and members of the public along the route (i.e., residents within 0.5 mi of the 

2 highway) for transporting unirradiated fuel to the LNP site and alternative sites for a single 

3 AP1000 reactor. 

4 Table 6-5. Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel 

5 to the LNP Site or Alternative Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor 

Plant Type

Normalized 

Average 

Annual 

Shipments

Cumulative Annual Dose; person-rem/yr per 

1100 MW(e)(a) (880 MW(e) net)

Workers

Public – 

Onlookers

Public – Along 

Route

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 1.1 × 102 1.8 × 102 2.6 × 104

Reference Westinghouse AP1000 5.0 8.5 × 103 1.4 × 102 2.0 × 104

LNP 5.0 3.1 × 103

 7.6 × 103 2.9 × 104

Crystal River 5.0 3.1 × 103

 7.6 × 103 2.9 × 104

Dixie 5.0 3.0 × 103

 7.5 × 103 2.5 × 104

Highlands 5.0 3.6 × 103

 1.1 × 102 3.5 × 104

Putnam 5.0 2.7 × 103

 7.4 × 103 2.6 × 104

10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4 Condition <1 per day 4.0 × 100

 3.0 × 100 3.0 × 100

(a) Divide person-rem/yr by 100 to obtain doses in person-Sv/yr. 

6 The cumulative annual dose estimates in Table 6-5 were normalized to 1100 MW(e) (880 

7 MW[e] net electrical output). The NRC staff performed an independent review and determined 

8 that all dose estimates are bounded by the Table S–4 conditions of 4 person-rem/yr to 

9 transportation workers, 3 person-rem/yr to onlookers, and 3 person-rem/yr to members of the 

10 public along the route. 

11 In its ER (PEF 2009a), PEF assumed that unirradiated fuel would be shipped from a fuel 

12 fabrication facility located near Lynchburg, Virginia, rather than the “generic” location assumed 

13 in WASH-1238. The NRC staff evaluated PEF’s analysis by attempting to duplicate a sample of 

14 the impact calculations. RADTRAN 5.6 calculations were performed using the route information 

15 and other input parameters specified in the ER. No significant differences were identified. 

16 Based on this confirmatory analysis, the NRC staff concluded that PEF’s analysis of 

17 unirradiated fuel transportation impacts is sufficient to meet the requirements of 

18 10 CFR 51.52(b). 

19 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 

20 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 

21 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 

22 relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report 

23 by the National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold 

24 dose response model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-23 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 accepted by the NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks from radiation 

2 exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this method, the 

3 NRC staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal probability 

4 coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal 

5 cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 

6 0.00057 effects per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from ICRP Publication 103 

7 (ICRP 2007). 

8 Both the NCRP and ICRP suggest that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the 

9 reciprocal of the relevant risk detriment (in other words, less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 

10 1754 person-rem), the risk assessment should note that the most likely number of excess health 

11 effects is zero (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). The largest annual collective dose estimate for 

transporting unirradiated fuel to the LNP site and alternative sites was less than 2 × 102 12 person13 rem, which is less than the 1754 person-rem value that ICRP and NCRP suggest would most 

14 likely result in zero excess health effects. 

15 To place these impacts in perspective, the average U.S. resident receives about 311 mrem/yr 

16 effective dose equivalent from natural background radiation (i.e., exposures from cosmic 

17 radiation, naturally occurring radioactive materials such as radon, and global fallout from testing 

18 of nuclear explosive devices) (NCRP 2009). Using this average effective dose, the collective 

19 population dose from natural background radiation to the population along the generic 

representative route would be about 2.2 × 105 20 person-rem. Therefore, the radiation doses from 

21 transporting unirradiated fuel to the LNP site and alternative sites are minimal compared to the 

22 collective population dose to the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. 

23 Maximally Exposed Individuals Under Normal Transport Conditions 

24 A scenario-based analysis was conducted by the NRC staff to develop estimates of incident25 free radiation doses to MEIs for fuel and waste shipments to and from the LNP site and 

26 alternative sites. The following discussion applies to unirradiated fuel shipments to, and spent 

27 fuel and radioactive waste shipments from, the LNP and any of the alternative sites. The 

28 analysis is based on data from DOE (2002b) and incorporates data about exposure times, dose 

29 rates, and the number of times an individual may be exposed to an offsite shipment. 

30 Adjustments were made where necessary to reflect the normalized fuel and waste shipments 

31 addressed in this EIS. In all cases, the NRC staff assumed that the dose rate emitted from the 

32 shipping containers is 10 mrem/hr at 2 m (6.6 ft) from the side of the transport vehicle. This 

33 assumption is conservative, in that the assumed dose rate is the maximum dose rate allowed by 

34 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (49 CFR 173.441). Most unirradiated fuel 

35 and radioactive waste shipments would have much lower dose rates than the regulations allow 

36 (AEC 1972; DOE 2002a). An MEI is a person who may receive the highest radiation dose from 

37 a shipment to and/or from the LNP site and alternative sites. The analysis of MEIs is described 

38 below. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-24 August 2010 

1 Truck Crew Member

2 Truck crew members would receive the highest radiation doses during incident-free transport 

3 because of their proximity to the loaded shipping container for an extended period. The 

4 analysis assumed that crew member doses are limited to 2 rem/yr, which is the DOE 

5 administrative control level presented in DOE-STD-1098-99, DOE Standard, Radiological 

6 Control, Chapter 2, Article 211 (DOE 2005). The NRC staff anticipates this limit would apply to 

7 spent nuclear fuel shipments to a disposal facility, because DOE would take title to the spent 

8 fuel at the reactor site. There would be more shipments of spent nuclear fuel from the LNP site 

9 (or alternative sites) than there would be shipments of unirradiated fuel to and radioactive waste 

10 other than spent fuel from, these sites. This is because the capacities of spent fuel shipping 

11 casks are limited due to their substantial radiation shielding and accident resistance 

12 requirements. Spent fuel shipments also have significantly higher radiation dose rates than 

13 unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste (DOE 2002a). As a result, crew doses from unirradiated 

14 fuel and radioactive waste shipments would be lower than the doses from spent nuclear fuel 

15 shipments. The DOE administrative limit of 2 rem/yr (DOE 2005) is less than the NRC limit for 

16 occupational exposures of 5 rem/yr (see 10 CFR Part 20). 

17 The U.S. DOT does not regulate annual occupational exposures. It does recognize that air 

18 crews are exposed to elevated cosmic radiation levels and recommends dose limits to air crew 

19 members from cosmic radiation (DOT 2003). Air passengers are less of a concern because 

20 they do not fly as frequently as air crew members. The recommended limits are a 5-year 

21 effective dose of 2 rem/yr with no more than 5 rem in a single year (DOT 2003). As a result of 

22 this recommendation, a 2-rem/yr MEI dose to truck crews is a reasonable estimate to apply to 

23 shipments of fuel and waste from the LNP site and alternative sites. 

24 Inspectors

25 Radioactive shipments are inspected by Federal or State vehicle inspectors, for example, at 

26 State ports of entry. The Yucca Mountain Final EIS (DOE 2002a) assumed that inspectors 

27 would be exposed for 1 hour at a distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from the shipping containers. 

28 Assuming conservatively that the external dose rate at 2 m (6.6 ft) is at the maximum allowed by 

29 regulations (10 mrem/hr), the dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) is about 14 mrem/hr (Weiner et al. 2006). 

30 Therefore, the dose per shipment is about 14 mrem. This is independent of the location of the 

31 reactor site. Based on this conservative external dose rate and the assumption that the same 

32 person inspects all shipments of fuel and waste to and from the LNP site and alternative sites, 

33 the annual doses to vehicle inspectors were calculated to be about 0.9 rem/yr, based on a 

34 combined total of 66 shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste per year. 

35 This value is about one-half of the 2-rem/yr DOE administrative control level on individual doses 

36 (DOE 2005) and one-fifth of the 5-rem/yr NRC occupational dose limit (see 10 CFR Part 20). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Doses to State inspectors would be doubled for a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, 

2 like the LNP site and the alternative sites, which would bring their annual dose to approximately 

3 the DOE administrative limit. 

4 Residents

5 The analysis assumed that a resident lives adjacent to a highway where a shipment would pass 

6 and would be exposed to all shipments along a particular route. Exposures to residents on a 

7 per-shipment basis were obtained from the NRC staff’s RADTRAN 5.6 output files. These dose 

8 estimates are based on an individual located 100 ft from the shipments that are traveling 

9 15 mph. The potential radiation dose to the maximally exposed resident is about 0.043 mrem/yr 

10 for shipments of fuel and waste to and from the LNP site and alternative sites with a single 

11 AP1000 reactor. This dose would be doubled for a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 

12 reactors, like the LNP site and the alternative sites. 

13 Individuals Stuck in Traffic

14 This scenario addresses potential traffic interruptions that could lead to a person being exposed 

15 to a loaded shipment for 1 hour at a distance of 4 ft. The NRC staff’s analysis assumed this 

16 exposure scenario would occur only one time to any individual, and the dose rate was at the 

17 regulatory limit of 10 mrem/hr at 2 m (6.6 ft) from the shipment, so the dose rate would be 

18 higher at the assumed exposure distance of 4 ft. The dose to the MEI was calculated to be 

19 16 mrem in DOE’s Yucca Mountain Final EIS (DOE 2002b). These doses would not be doubled 

20 for a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, because it was assumed that this scenario 

21 would occur only once to any individual. 

22 Persons at a Truck Service Station

23 This scenario estimates doses to an employee at a service station where all truck shipments to 

24 and from the LNP site and alternative sites are assumed to stop. The NRC staff’s analysis 

25 assumed this person is exposed for 49 minutes at a distance of 52 ft from the loaded shipping 

26 container (DOE 2002b). The exposure time and distance were based on the observations 

27 discussed by Griego et al. (1996). This results in a dose of about 0.34 mrem/shipment and an 

28 annual dose of about 22 mrem/yr for the LNP site and alternative sites, assuming that a single 

29 individual services all unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste shipments to and from 

30 the LNP site and alternative sites with a single AP1000 reactor. This dose would be doubled for 

31 a site with two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, like the LNP site and the alternative sites. 

32 6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents 

33 Accident risks are a combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies 

34 for transportation of unirradiated fuel to the LNP site and alternative sites are expected to be 

35 lower than those used in the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which forms the basis for 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-26 August 2010 

1 Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52, because of improvements in highway safety and security, and an 

2 overall reduction in traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates since WASH-1238 was published. 

3 There is no significant difference in the consequences of transportation accidents severe 

4 enough to result in a release of unirradiated fuel particles to the environment between the 

5 Westinghouse AP1000 and current-generation LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and 

6 packaging are similar to those analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, consistent with the 

7 conclusions of WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), the impacts of accidents during transport of 

8 unirradiated fuel to a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the LNP site and alternative sites are 

9 expected to be negligible. 

10 6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents 

11 Nonradiological impacts are the human health impacts projected to result from traffic accidents 

12 involving shipments of unirradiated fuel to the LNP site and alternative sites; that is, the analysis 

13 does not consider the radiological or hazardous characteristics of the cargo. Nonradiological 

14 impacts include the projected number of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities that could result 

15 from shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site and return shipments of empty containers from 

16 the site. 

17 Nonradiological impacts are calculated using accident, injury, and fatality rates from published 

18 sources. The rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km traveled) are then multiplied by estimated 

19 travel distances for workers and materials. The general formula for calculating nonradiological 

20 impacts is as follows: 

21 Impacts = (unit rate) × (round-trip shipping distance) × (annual number of shipments). 

22 In this formula, impacts are presented in units of the number of accidents, number of injuries, 

23 and number of fatalities per year. Corresponding unit rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km 

24 traveled) are used in the calculations. 

25 Accident, injury, and fatality rates were taken from Table 4 in ANL/ESD/TM-150 State-Level 

26 Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: A Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 

27 1999). Nationwide median rates were used for shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site. The 

28 data are representative of traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates for truck shipments similar to 

29 those to be used to transport unirradiated fuel to the LNP site and alternative sites. In addition, 

30 the DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration evaluated the data underlying the Saricks 

31 and Tompkins (1999) rates, which were taken from the Motor Carrier Management Information 

32 System, and determined that the rates were under-reported. Therefore, the accident, injury, 

33 and fatality rates in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were adjusted using factors derived from data 

34 provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI 2003). The 

35 UMTRI data indicate that accident rates for 1994 to 1996, the same data used by Saricks and 

36 Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 percent. Injury and fatality rates were 

37 under-reported by 16 percent and 36 percent, respectively. As a result, the accident, injury, and 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-27 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, respectively, to account for the 

2 under-reporting. 

3 The nonradiological accident impacts for transporting unirradiated fuel to (and empty shipping 

4 containers from) the LNP site and alternative sites are shown in Table 6-6. The nonradiological 

5 impacts associated with the WASH-1238 reference LWR are also shown for comparison 

6 purposes. Note that there are only small differences between the impacts calculated for an 

7 AP1000 reactor at the LNP site and alternative sites and the reference LWR in WASH-1238 due 

8 entirely to the estimated annual number of shipments. Overall, the impacts are minimal and 

9 there are no substantive differences among the LNP site and alternative sites. The impacts 

10 would be doubled for a site with two AP1000 reactors like the LNP site and the alternative sites. 

11 Table 6-6. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the LNP Site and 

12 Alternative Sites with a Single AP1000 Reactor, Normalized to Reference LWR 

Plant Type

Annual 

Shipments 

Normalized to 

Reference LWR

One-Way 

Shipping 

Distance 

(km)

Annual 

Round-trip 

Distance 

(km)

Annual Impacts

Accidents 

per Year

Injuries 

per Year

Fatalities 

per Year

Reference LWR 

(AEC 1972) 

6.3 3200 4.0 × 104 1.9 × 102 9.3 × 103 5.8 × 104

Reference 

Westinghouse 

AP1000 

5.0 3200 3.2 × 104 1.5 × 102 7.3 × 103 4.6 × 104

LNP 5.0 1166 1.2 × 104

 6.9 × 103 3.8 × 103 3.1 × 104

Crystal River 5.0 1152 1.1 × 104

 6.9 × 103 3.8 × 103 3.1 × 104

Dixie 5.0 1131 1.1 × 104

 6.9 × 103 3.8 × 103 3.1 × 104

Highlands 5.0 1349 1.3 × 104

 7.1 × 103 3.9 × 103 3.3 × 104

Putnam 5.0 1020 1.0 × 104

 6.7 × 103 3.7 × 103 2.9 × 104

13 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

14 The NRC staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting 

15 spent fuel from the LNP site and alternative sites to a spent fuel disposal repository. For the 

16 purposes of these analyses, the NRC staff considered the proposed Yucca Mountain site in 

17 Nevada as a surrogate destination. Currently, NRC has not made a decision on the proposed 

18 geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. However, the NRC staff considers that an estimate of 

19 the impacts of the transportation of spent fuel to a possible repository in Nevada to be a 

20 reasonable bounding estimate of the transportation impacts on a storage or disposal facility 

21 because of the distances involved and the representativeness of the distribution of members of 

22 the public in urban, suburban, and rural areas (i.e., population distributions) along the shipping 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-28 August 2010 

1 routes. Radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of normal operating conditions 

2 and transportation accidents, as well as nonradiological impacts, are discussed in this section. 

3 This NRC staff’s analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in shipping 

4 casks with characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, 

5 cylindrical metal pressure vessels). Due to the large size and weight of spent fuel shipping 

6 casks, each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded on a modified 

7 trailer. These assumptions are consistent with those made in the evaluation of the 

8 environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 

9 (NRC 1999). Because the alternative transportation methods involve rail transportation or 

10 heavy-haul trucks, which would reduce the overall number of spent fuel shipments (NRC 1999), 

11 thereby reducing impacts, these assumptions are conservative. Also, the use of current 

12 shipping cask designs for this analysis results in conservative impact estimates because the 

13 current designs are based on transporting short-cooled spent fuel (approximately 120 days out 

14 of reactor). Future shipping casks would be designed to transport longer-cooled fuel (greater 

15 than 5 years out of reactor) and would require much less shielding to meet external dose 

16 limitations. Therefore, future shipping casks are expected to have higher cargo capacities, thus 

17 reducing the numbers of shipments and associated impacts. 

18 Radiological impacts of transportation of spent fuel were calculated by the NRC staff using the 

19 RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 2006). Routing and population data used in 

20 RADTRAN 5.6 for truck shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and 

21 Michelhaugh 2003). The population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 census. 

22 Nonradiological impacts were calculated using published traffic accident, injury, and fatality data 

23 (Saricks and Tompkins 1999) in addition to route information from TRAGIS (Johnson and 

24 Michelhaugh 2003). Traffic accident rates input to RADTRAN 5.6 and nonradiological impact 

25 calculations were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as discussed in Sections 4.8.3 

26 and 6.2.1.3. 

27 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions 

28 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation 

29 activities in which shipments reach their destination without an accident occurring en route. 

30 Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the 

31 heavily shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Radiation exposures would occur to the following 

32 populations: (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors between the LNP site and 

33 alternative sites and the proposed repository location; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the 

34 same route as a spent fuel shipment; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle 

35 inspections; and (4) transportation crew workers (drivers). For purposes of this analysis, it was 

36 assumed that the destination for the spent fuel shipments is the proposed Yucca Mountain 

37 disposal facility in Nevada. This assumption is conservative, because it tends to maximize the 

38 shipping distance from the LNP site and alternative sites. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-29 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Shipping casks have not been designed for the spent fuel from advanced reactor designs such 

2 as the Westinghouse AP1000. Information in the Early Site Permit Environmental Report 

3 Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003) indicated that advanced LWR fuel 

4 designs would not be significantly different from existing LWR designs; therefore, current 

5 shipping cask designs were used for the analysis of Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel 

6 shipments. The NRC staff assumed that the capacity of a truck shipment of Westinghouse 

7 AP1000 reactor spent fuel was 0.5 MTU/shipment, the same capacity as that used in 

8 WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). In its ER (PEF 2009a), PEF assumed a shipping cask capacity of 

9 0.5 MTU/shipment. 

10 Input to RADTRAN 5.6 includes the total shipping distance between the origin and destination 

11 sites and the population distributions along the routes. This information was obtained by 

12 running the TRAGIS computer code (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003) for highway routes from 

13 the LNP site and alternative sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain facility. The resulting route 

14 characteristics information is shown in Table 6-7. Note that for truck shipments, all of the spent 

15 fuel is assumed to be shipped to the proposed Yucca Mountain facility over designated 

16 highway-route controlled quantity routes. In addition, TRAGIS data were used in RADTRAN 5.6 

17 on a state-by-state basis. This increases precision and could allow the results to be presented 

18 for each state along the route between the LNP site and alternative sites and Yucca Mountain. 

19 Table 6-7. Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the LNP Site and Alternative 

Sites to the Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Disposal Facility(a) 20 

Reactor Site

One-Way Shipping Distance, km Population Density, persons/km2 Stop 

Time per 

Total Rural Suburban Urban Rural Suburban Urban Trip, hr

Levy County 4520.3 3479.8 935.2 105.4 9.9 318.5 2271.4 5.5 

Crystal River 4506.5 3466.0 935.2 105.4 9.9 318.5 2271.4 5.5 

Dixie 4407.8 3439.6 866.5 101.9 9.8 320.3 2268.2 5.5 

Highlands 4867.9 3745.7 1005.0 117.4 9.9 327.6 2243.6 6.0 

Putnam 4529.9 3504.3 915.2 110.6 9.8 327.0 2259.1 5.5 

Source: Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003 

(a) This table presents aggregated route characteristics given in the TRAGIS (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003), 

including estimated distances from the LNP and alternative sites to the nearest TRAGIS highway node. Input 

to the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code was disaggregated to a state-by-state level. 

21 Radiation doses are a function of many parameters, including vehicle speed, traffic count, dose 

22 rate, packaging dimensions, number in the truck crew, stop time, and population density at 

23 stops. A list of the values for these and other parameters and the sources of the information is 

24 provided in Table 6-8. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-30 August 2010 

1 Table 6-8. RADTRAN 5.6 Normal (Incident-Free) Exposure Parameters 

Parameter

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source

Vehicle speed, km/hr 88.49 Based on the average speed in rural areas 

given in DOE (2002a). Conservative 

in-transit speed of 55 mph assumed; 

predominantly interstate highways used. 

Traffic count – Rural, vehicles/hr State-specific State-specific rural, suburban, and urban 

traffic counts are taken from Weiner et al. 

(2006) Traffic count – Suburban, vehicles/hr State-specific 

Traffic count – Urban, vehicles/hr State-specific 

Vehicle occupancy, persons/vehicle 1.5 DOE (2002a) 

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, 

mrem/hr 

14 DOE (2002a, b) – approximate dose rate 

at 1 m that is equivalent to the maximum 

dose rate allowed by Federal regulations 

(i.e., 10 mrem/hr at 2 m from the side of a 

transport vehicle. 

Packaging dimensions, m Length – 5.82 

Diameter – 1.0 

DOE (2002b) 

Packaging dimensions, m Length – 5.82 

Diameter – 1.0 

DOE (2002b) 

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977a), and 

DOE (2002a, b) 

Stop time, hr/trip Route-Specific See Table 6-5 

Population density at stops, 

persons/km2

30,000 Sprung et al. (2000). Nine persons within 

10 m of vehicle. See Figure 6-2. 

Min/max radii of annular area around 

vehicle at stops, m 

1 to 10 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Shielding factor applied to annular 

area surrounding vehicle at stops, 

dimensionless 

1 

(no shielding) 

Sprung et al. (2000) 

Population density surrounding truck 

stops, persons/km2

340 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Min/max radius of annular area 

surrounding truck stop, m 

10 to 800 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Shielding factor applied to annular 

area surrounding truck stop, 

dimensionless 

0.2 Sprung et al. (2000) 

2 For the purposes of this analysis, the transportation crew for spent fuel shipments delivered by 

3 truck is assumed to consist of two drivers. Escort vehicles and drivers were considered, but 

4 they were not included because their distance from the shipping cask would reduce the dose 

5 rates to levels well below the dose rates experienced by the drivers and would be negligible 

6 (DOE 2002b). Stop times for refueling and rest were assumed to occur at the rate of 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 30 minutes per 4 hours of driving time. TRAGIS outputs were used to determine the number of 

2 stops. Doses to the public at truck stops have been significant contributors to the doses 

3 calculated in previous RADTRAN 5.6 analyses. For this analysis, doses to the public at 

4 refueling and rest stops (“stop doses”) are the sum of the doses to individuals located in two 

5 annular rings centered at the stopped vehicle, as illustrated in Figure 6-2. The inner ring 

6 represents persons who may be at the truck stop at the same time as a spent fuel shipment and 

7 extends 1 to 10 m from the edge of the vehicle. The outer ring represents persons who reside 

8 near a truck stop and it extends from 10 to 800 m from the vehicle. This scheme is similar to 

9 that used by Sprung et al. (2000). Population densities and shielding factors were also taken 

10 from Sprung et al. (2000), which were based on the observations of Griego et al. (1996). 

11 

12 Figure 6-2. Illustration of Truck Stop Model 

13 The results of these normal (incident-free) exposure calculations are shown in Table 6-9 for the 

14 LNP site and alternative sites. Population dose estimates are given for workers (i.e., truck crew 

15 members), onlookers (doses to persons at stops and persons on highways exposed to the 

16 spent fuel shipment), and persons along the route (persons living near the highway). 

17 Shipping schedules for spent fuel generated by the proposed new units have not been 

18 determined. The NRC staff determined that it is reasonable to calculate annual doses assuming 

19 the annual number of spent fuel shipments is equivalent to the annual refueling requirements. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-32 August 2010 

1 Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (880 net MW[e]). This 

2 corresponds to an 1100-MW(e) LWR operating at 80-percent capacity. Note that the impacts in 

3 Table 6-9 would be doubled for a site with two AP1000 reactors like the LNP site and the 

4 alternative sites. 

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

6 Shipping Spent Fuel from the LNP Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed High7 Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain 

Site and Reactor Type 

Normalized Impacts, Person-rem/yr(a)

Worker (Crew) Onlookers Along Route

Reference LWR (WASH-1238)(b) 1.2 × 101 3.0 × 101 6.4 × 101

Levy County AP1000(c) 8.2 × 100 2.0 × 101 4.2 × 101

Crystal River AP1000(c) 8.2 × 100

 2.0 × 101 4.2 × 101

Dixie AP1000(c) 8.0 × 100

 2.0 × 101 4.0 × 101

Highlands AP1000(c) 8.9 × 100

 2.2 × 101 4.7 × 101

Putnam AP1000(c) 8.2 × 100

 2.0 × 101 4.3 × 101

Table S–4 Condition 4 × 100 3 × 100

 3 × 100

(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) Based on 60 shipments per year. 

(c) Based on 40 shipments per year after normalizing to the reference LWR. 

8 The small differences in transportation impacts among the LNP site and four alternative sites 

9 evaluated are not substantive and the differences among sites are relatively minor and are less 

10 than the uncertainty in the analytical results. 

11 The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S–4 are as follows: 

12 4 person-rem/reactor-year to transport workers 

13 3 person-rem/reactor-year to general public (onlookers) and members of the public along 

14 the route. 

15 The calculated population doses to the crew and onlookers for the reference LWR and the LNP 

16 and alternative site shipments exceed Table S–4 values. A key reason for the higher population 

17 doses relative to Table S–4 is the longer shipping distances assumed for this COL analysis 

18 (i.e., to a proposed repository in Nevada) than the distances used in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). 

19 WASH-1238 assumed that each spent fuel shipment would travel a distance of 1000 mi, 

20 whereas the shipping distances used in this EIS were about 2700 mi to 3000 mi. If the shorter 

21 distance were used to calculate the impacts for the LNP and alternative sites spent fuel 

22 shipments, the doses would be reduced by about 60 percent. Other important differences are 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-33 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the stop model described above and the additional precision that results from incorporating 

2 state-specific route characteristics and vehicle densities on highways (vehicles per hour). 

3 Where necessary, the NRC staff made conservative assumptions to calculate impacts 

4 associated with the transportation of spent fuel. Some of the key conservative assumptions are 

5 as follows: 

6 Use of the regulatory maximum dose rate (10 mrem/hr at 2 m) in the RADTRAN 5.6

7 calculations. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS prepared by DOE in support of the 

8 application for a geologic repository at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository 

9 (DOE 2002b) would transport spent fuel that has cooled for a minimum of 5 years (see 

10 10 CFR Part 961, Subpart B). Most spent fuel would have cooled for much longer than 

11 5 years before it is shipped to a possible geologic repository. Based on this, shipments from 

12 the LNP site and alternative sites also are expected to be cooled for longer than 5 years. 

13 Consequently, the estimated population doses in Table 6-9 could be further reduced if more 

14 realistic dose rate projections are used. 

15 Use of the shipping cask capacity used in WASH-1238. The WASH-1238 analyses that 

16 form the basis for Table S–4 assumed that spent fuel would be shipped at least 90 days 

17 after discharge from a current LWR. The spent fuel shipping casks described in 

18 WASH-1238 were designed to transport 90-day-cooled fuel, so their shielding and 

19 containment designs must accommodate this highly radioactive cargo. Shipping-cask 

20 capacities assumed in WASH-1238 were approximately 0.5 MTU per truck cask. In the 

21 Yucca Mountain Supplemental EIS (DOE 2008), DOE assumed a 10-year cooling period for 

22 spent fuel to be shipped to the repository. This allowed DOE to increase the assumed 

23 shipping-cask capacity to about 1.8 MTU per truck shipment of un-canistered spent fuel. 

24 The NRC staff believes this is a reasonable projection for future spent fuel truck shipping 

25 cask capacities. If this assumption were to be used in this EIS, the number of shipments of 

26 spent fuel would be reduced by about one-third with a similar reduction in radiological 

27 incident-free impacts. 

28 Use of 30 minutes as the average time at a truck stop in the calculations. Many stops made 

29 for actual spent fuel shipments are of short duration (i.e., 10 minutes) for brief visual 

30 inspections of the cargo (e.g., checking the cask tie-downs). These stops typically occur in 

31 minimally populated areas, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an unpopulated area. 

32 Furthermore, empirical data provided by Griego et al. (1996) indicate that a 30-minute 

33 duration is toward the high end of the stop time distribution. Average stop times observed 

34 by Griego et al. (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes. More realistic stop times would 

35 further reduce the population doses in Table 6-9. 

36 A sensitivity study was performed by the NRC staff to demonstrate the effects of using more 

37 realistic dose rates and stop times on the incident-free population dose calculations. For this 

38 sensitivity study, the dose rate was reduced to 5 mrem/hr, the approximate 50-percent 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-34 August 2010 

1 confidence interval of the dose rate distribution estimated by Sprung et al. (2000) for future 

2 spent fuel shipments. The stop time was reduced to 18 minutes per stop. All other 

3 RADTRAN 5.6 input values were unchanged. The result is that the annual crew doses were 

4 reduced to 4.9 person-rem/yr, or about 60 percent of the annual dose shown in Table 6-9. The 

5 annual onlooker doses were reduced to 5.3 person-rem/yr (about 27 percent) and the annual 

doses to persons along the route were reduced to 1.5 × 101 6 person-rem/yr (about 36 percent). 

7 In its ER (PEF 2009a), PEF describes the results of a RADTRAN 5.6 analysis of the impacts of 

8 incident-free transport of spent fuel to Yucca Mountain. The PEF analysis and this EIS used 

9 similar methods and input parameters. The NRC staff concluded that the results produced by 

10 PEF are similar to those calculated by the NRC staff and reported in this EIS. 

11 Using the linear no-threshold dose response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

12 annual public dose impacts for transporting spent fuel from the LNP or alternative sites to Yucca 

13 Mountain are about 22 person-rem, which is less than the 1754 person-rem value that ICRP 

14 (2007) and NCRP (1995) suggest would most likely result in no excess health effects. This 

dose is very small compared to the estimated 2.5×105 15 person-rem that the same population 

16 along the route from the LNP site to Yucca Mountain would incur annually from exposure to 

17 natural sources of radiation. Note that the estimated population dose along the LNP-to-Yucca18 Mountain route from natural background radiation is different than the natural background dose 

19 calculated by the NRC staff for unirradiated fuel shipments in Section 6.2.1.1 of this EIS 

20 because the route characteristics are different. A generic route and actual highway routes were 

21 used in Section 6.2.1.1 for unirradiated fuel shipments and actual highway routes were used in 

22 this section for spent fuel shipments. 

23 Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and wastes under 

24 normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. 

25 6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents 

26 As discussed previously, the NRC staff used the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code to estimate the 

27 impacts of transportation accidents involving spent fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5.6 considers a 

28 spectrum of postulated transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and 

29 low consequences (e.g., “fender benders”) to those with low frequencies and high 

30 consequences (i.e., accidents in which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical 

31 and thermal conditions). 

32 Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The 

33 radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were from Early Site Permit Environmental Report 

34 Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003) and are the same as those presented in 

35 PEF’s ER (PEF 2009a). The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

36 (INEEL) report (INEEL 2003) includes 140 radionuclides for Westinghouse AP1000 reactor 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-35 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 spent fuel. The NRC staff conducted a screening analysis to select the dominant contributors to 

2 accident risks to simplify the RADTRAN 5.6 calculations. The screening identified the 

3 radionuclides that would contribute more than 99.999 percent of the dose from inhalation of 

4 radionuclides released following a transportation accident. Spent fuel inventories used in the 

5 NRC staff analysis are listed in Table 6-10. 

6 Table 6-10. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for the 

Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor(a,b) 7 

Radionuclide Ci/MTU Bq/MTU

Pu-241 6.96 × 104 2.57 × 1015

Pu-238 6.07 × 103 2.24 × 1014

Cm-244 7.75 × 103

 2.87 × 1014

Am-241 7.27 × 102

 2.69 × 1013

Pu-240 5.43 × 102

 2.01 × 1013

Pu-239 2.55 × 102

 9.44 × 1012

Sr-90 6.19 × 104

 2.29 × 1015

Cs-137 9.31 × 104

 3.44 × 1015

Am-243 3.34 × 101

 1.24 × 1012

Cm-243 3.07 × 101

 1.13 × 1012

Am-242m 1.31 × 101

 4.85 × 1011

Ru-106 1.55 × 104

 5.72 × 1014

Eu-154 9.13 × 103

 3.38 × 1014

Cs-134 4.80 × 104

 1.78 × 1015

Ce-144 8.87 × 103

 3.28 × 1014

Sb-125 3.83 × 103

 1.42 × 1014

Pu-242 1.82 × 100

 6.72 × 1010

Cm-242 2.83 × 101

 1.05 × 1012

Pm-147 1.76 × 104

 6.52 × 1014

Cm-245 1.21 × 100

 4.46 × 1010

Y-90 6.19 × 104

 2.29 × 1015

Eu-155 4.62 × 103

 1.71 × 1014

Co-60(b) 1.20 × 102

 4.40 × 1012

Source: INEEL 2003 except where otherwise indicated. 

(a) Divide becquerel/metric ton uranium (Bq/MTU) by 3.7 × 1010 to 

obtain curies/MTU. 

(b) Cobalt-60 is the key radionuclide constituent of fuel assembly 

crud. The inventory was derived using data given by Sprung 

et al. (2000). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-36 August 2010 

1 The list includes all of the radionuclides that were included in the analysis conducted by Sprung 

2 et al. (2000). However, INEEL (2003) did not provide radionuclide source terms for radioactive 

3 material deposited on the external surfaces of LWR spent fuel rods (commonly called “crud”). 

4 Because crud is deposited from corrosion products generated elsewhere in the reactor cooling 

5 system and the complete reactor design and operating parameters are uncertain, the quantities 

6 and characteristics of crud deposited on Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel are not 

7 available at this time. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel transportation accident 

8 impacts were calculated by the NRC staff assuming that the cobalt-60 inventory in the form of 

9 crud is 4.4 TBq/MTU (120 Ci/MTU), based on information provided by Sprung et al. (2000). 

10 PEF also included the impacts of crud in its spent fuel transportation impact analysis 

11 (PEF 2009a). 

12 Robust shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the radiation shielding and 

13 accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must be certified 

14 Type B packaging systems, meaning they must withstand a series of severe postulated accident 

15 conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding capability. These casks also are 

16 designed with fissile material controls to ensure that the spent fuel remains subcritical under 

17 normal and accident conditions. According to Sprung et al. (2000), the probability of 

18 encountering accident conditions that would lead to shipping cask failure is less than 

19 0.01 percent (i.e., more than 99.99 percent of all accidents would result in no release of 

20 radioactive material from the shipping cask). The NRC staff assumed that shipping casks 

21 approved for transportation of Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel would provide 

22 equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the spent fuel cargo. 

23 Accident frequencies are calculated in RADTRAN 5.6 using user-specified accident rates and 

24 conditional shipping cask failure probabilities. State-specific accident rates were taken from 

25 Saricks and Tompkins (1999) and used in the RADTRAN 5.6 calculations. The state-specific 

26 accident rates were then adjusted to account for under-reporting, as described in 

27 Section 6.2.1.3. Conditional shipping cask failure probabilities (that is, the probability of cask 

28 failure as a function of the mechanical and thermal conditions applied in an accident) were 

29 taken from Sprung et al. (2000). 

30 The RADTRAN 5.6 accident risk calculations were performed using the radionuclide inventories 

31 (Ci/MTU) in Table 6-10 multiplied by the shipping cask capacity (0.5 MTU). The resulting risk 

32 estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent fuel shipments (shipments/yr) to 

33 derive estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel shipments from the LNP 

34 site and alternative sites to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As was done 

35 for routine exposures, the NRC staff assumed that the numbers of shipments of spent fuel per 

36 year are equivalent to the annual discharge quantities. 

37 For this assessment, release fractions for current-generation LWR fuel designs (Sprung et al. 

38 2000) were used to approximate the impacts from the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-37 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 shipments. This assumes that the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel 

2 coatings) behave similarly to current LWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal 

3 conditions. 

4 The NRC staff used RADTRAN 5.6 to calculate the population dose from the released 

radioactive material from four of five possible exposure pathways.(a) 5 These pathways areas 

6 follows: 

7 external dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material (cloudshine). 

8 external dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume 

9 (groundshine). The NRC staff’s analysis included the radiation exposure from this pathway 

10 even though the area surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated and 

11 decontaminated, thus preventing long-term exposures from this pathway. 

12 internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants (inhalation). 

13 internal dose from resuspension of radioactive materials that were deposited on the ground 

14 (resuspension). The NRC staff’s analysis included the radiation exposures from this 

15 pathway even though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a potential 

16 accidental release would prevent long-term exposures. 

17 Table 6-11 presents the environmental consequences of transportation accidents when shipping 

18 spent fuel from the LNP site and alternative sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. 

19 The shipping distances and population distribution information for the routes were the same as 

20 those used for the normal “incident-free” conditions (see Section 6.2.2.1). The results are 

21 normalized to the WASH-1238 reference reactor (880-MW[e] net electrical generation, 

22 1100-MW[e] reactor operating at 80-percent capacity) to provide a common basis for 

23 comparison to the impacts listed in Table S–4. Although there are slight differences in impacts 

24 among alternative sites, none of the alternative sites would be clearly favored over the LNP site. 

25 The impacts would be doubled for two AP1000 reactors at the LNP site or alternative sites. The 

26 transportation accident impact analysis conducted by PEF (PEF 2009a) used methods and data 

27 that are similar to those used in this EIS. Differences are insignificant in terms of the overall 

28 results. 

29 Using the linear no-threshold dose response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

30 annual collective public dose estimate for transporting spent fuel from the LNP and alternative 

sites to Yucca Mountain is less than 1 × 104 31 person-rem, which is less than the 1754 person32 rem value that ICRP (2007) and NCRP (1995) suggest would most likely result in zero excess 

33 health effects. The collective population dose from natural background radiation to the 

 

(a) Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered because the NRC staff 

assumed evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a postulated transportation 

accident. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-38 August 2010 

1 population along the representative routes from the LNP and alternative sites to Yucca 

Mountain would be about 2.5 × 105 2 person-rem. Therefore, the radiation doses from 

3 transporting spent fuel to Yucca Mountain are minimal compared to the collective population 

4 dose to the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. 

5 Table 6-11. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for an AP1000 Reactor at 

6 the LNP Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference 1100-MW(e) LWR 

7 Net Electrical Generation 

Site, Reactor Type 

Normalized Population Impacts, 

Person-rem/yr(a)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238)(b) 1.4 × 104

Levy County AP1000(c) 9.2 × 105

Crystal River AP1000(c) 9.2 × 105

Dixie AP1000(c) 9.1 × 105

Highlands AP1000(c) 9.4 × 105

Putnam AP1000(c) 9.2 × 105

(a) Divide person-rem/yr by 100 to obtain person-Sv/yr. 

(b) Based on 60 shipments per year. 

(c) Based on 40 shipments per year after normalizing to the reference LWR. 

8 6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent Fuel Shipments 

9 The general approach used to calculate the nonradiological impacts of spent fuel shipments is 

10 the same as that used for unirradiated fuel shipments. State-by-state shipping distances were 

11 obtained from the TRAGIS output file and combined with the annual number of shipments and 

12 accident, injury, and fatality rates by state from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) to calculate 

13 nonradiological impacts. In addition, the accident, injury, and fatality rates from Saricks and 

14 Tompkins (1999) were adjusted to account for under-reporting (see Section 6.2.1.3). The 

15 results are shown in Table 6-12 for a single AP1000 reactor. The impacts would be doubled for 

16 a site with two AP1000 reactors like the LNP site and the alternative sites. Overall, the impacts 

17 are minimal and there are no substantive differences among the alternative sites.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-39 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Table 6-12. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the LNP Site and 

3 Alternative Sites to Yucca Mountain for a Single AP1000 Reactor, Normalized to 

4 Reference LWR 

Site 

One-Way Shipping 

Distance, km

Nonradiological Impacts, per year

Accidents Injuries Fatalities

Levy County 4520.3 1.5 × 101 8.7 × 102 6.2 × 103

Crystal River 4506.5 1.5 × 101 8.7 × 102 6.2 × 103

Dixie 4407.8 1.4 × 101

 8.7 × 102 6.1 × 103

Highland 4867.9 1.5 × 101

 8.9 × 102 6.6 × 103

Putnam 4529.9 1.5 × 101

 8.7 × 102 6.2 × 103

Note: The number of shipments of spent fuel assumed in the calculations is 40/yr after normalizing to 

the reference LWR. 

5 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste 

6 This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting radioactive waste other than 

7 spent fuel from the LNP site and alternative sites. The environmental conditions listed in 

8 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to shipments of radioactive waste are as follows: 

9 Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be packaged and in solid form. 

10 Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be shipped from the reactor by truck or railcar. 

11 The weight limitation of 33,100 kg (73,000 lb) per truck and 90.7 MT (100 T) per cask per 

12 railcar would be met. 

13 Traffic density would be less than the condition of one truck shipment per day or three 

14 railcars per month. 

15 Radioactive waste other than spent fuel from the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is expected to 

16 be capable of being shipped in compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions. Table 6-13 

17 presents estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste shipment numbers for a 

18 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the LNP site normalized to the reference 1100-MW(e) LWR 

19 defined in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). The expected annual waste volumes and waste shipments 

20 for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor were less than the 1100-MW(e) reference reactor that 

21 was the basis for Table S–4. The maximum projected waste-generation rates for the 

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor (5717 ft3 22 per year is the maximum estimated rate given by 

23 Westinghouse (2008) could exceed the reference LWR waste-generation rate. However, 

24 projections of the rate of waste generation are uncertain and are a function of PEF’s radioactive 

25 waste-management practices. Therefore, waste-generation rates for the proposed LNP 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-40 August 2010 

1 reactors are anticipated to be much closer to the expected rate, shown in Table 6-13, than the 

2 maximum rate. 

3 Table 6-13. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the LNP Site and Alternative Sites 

4 for a Single AP1000 Reactor 

Reactor Type

Waste-Generation 

Information

Annual 

Waste 

Volume, 

m3

/yr per 

Unit

Electrical 

Output, 

MW(e) per 

Unit

Normalized 

Rate, m3

/1100 

MW(e) Unit (880 

MW[e] Net)(a)

Shipments/

1100 MW(e) 

(880 MW[e] Net) 

Electrical 

Output(b)

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238) 

3800 ft3/yr per unit 108 1100 108 46 

Levy County 

Westinghouse 

AP1000, expected 

1964 ft3/yr per unit(c) 56 1115(c) 47 21 

Conversions: 1 m3

 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 L (0.21 m3). 

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste-generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output 

are 80 percent for the reference LWR (AEC 1972) and 93 percent for the proposed LNP Westinghouse 

AP1000 (PEF 2009a). Waste generation for the Westinghouse AP1000 is normalized to 880 MW(e) net 

electrical output (1100-MW[e] unit with an 80-percent capacity factor). 

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste 

shipment capacity of 2.34 m3

 (82.6 ft3 per shipment [108 m3/yr divided by 46 shipments/yr]). 

(c) This value was taken from the PEF ER (PEF 2009a). 

5 The sum of the daily shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste is well 

6 below the one-truck-shipment-per-day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4, for a 

7 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor located at the LNP site and alternative sites. Doubling the 

8 shipment estimates to account for empty return shipments of fuel and waste is included in the 

9 results. An additional doubling to account for a second reactor at the LNP site or alternative 

10 sites is also less than the one-shipment-per-day condition. 

11 Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste under 

12 normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. 

13 The nonradiological impacts of radioactive waste shipments were calculated using the same 

14 general approach used for unirradiated and spent fuel shipments. For this EIS, the shipping 

15 distance was assumed to be 500 mi one way (AEC 1972). Because the actual destination is 

16 uncertain, national median accident, injury, and fatality rates were used in the calculations 

17 (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). These rates were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as 

18 described in Section 6.2.1.3. The results are presented in Table 6-14. As shown, the 

19 calculated nonradiological impacts for transportation of radioactive waste other than spent fuel 

20 from the LNP site and alternative sites to waste disposal facilities are less than the impacts 

21 calculated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-41 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 6-14. Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the LNP Site and 

2 Alternative Sites with a Single AP1000 Reactor 

Shipments 

per Year

One-Way 

Distance, km

Accidents 

per Year

Injuries 

per Year

Fatalities 

per Year

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238) 

46 800 3.4 × 102 1.7 × 102 1.1 × 103

LNP and Alternative Sites, 

Westinghouse AP1000 

21 800 1.6 × 102 7.8 × 103 4.9 × 104

Note: The shipments and impacts have been normalized to the reference LWR. 

3 6.2.4 Conclusions for Transportation

4 The NRC staff performed an independent confirmatory analysis of the impacts under normal 

5 operating and accident conditions of transporting fuel and wastes to and from a Westinghouse 

6 AP1000 reactor to be located at the LNP site. Four alternative sites also were evaluated, 

7 including Crystal River, Dixie, Highlands, and Putnam (PEF 2009a). To make comparisons to 

8 Table S–4, the environmental impacts were adjusted (i.e., normalized) to the environmental 

9 impacts associated with the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) by multiplying the 

10 AP1000 reactor impact estimates by the ratio of the total electric output for the reference reactor 

11 to the electric output of the proposed reactor. 

12 Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate impacts, the NRC staff 

13 does not expect the actual environmental effects to exceed those calculated in this EIS. Thus, 

14 the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and 

15 radioactive wastes to and from the LNP site and alternative sites would be SMALL, and would 

16 be consistent with the environmental impacts associated with the transportation of fuel and 

17 radioactive wastes to and from current-generation reactors presented in Table S–4 of 

18 10 CFR 51.52. 

19 The NRC staff notes that on March 3, 2010, DOE (2010) submitted a motion to the Atomic 

20 Safety and Licensing Board to withdraw with prejudice its application for a permanent geologic 

21 repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the NRC staff 

22 concludes that transportation impacts are roughly proportional to the distance from the reactor 

23 site to the repository site, in this case Florida to Nevada. The distance from the LNP site or any 

24 of the alternative sites to any new planned repository in the contiguous United States would be 

25 no more than double the distance from the LNP site or alternative sites to Yucca Mountain. 

26 Doubling the environmental impact estimates from the transportation of spent reactor fuel, as 

27 presented in this section, would provide a reasonable bounding estimate of the impacts to meet 

28 the needs of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-42 August 2010 

1 et seq). The NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of these doubled estimates 

2 would still be SMALL. 

3 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts 

4 At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, NRC regulations require that the facility 

5 undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the safe removal of a facility from service and 

6 the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The 

7 regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.75.

8 An applicant for a COL is required to certify that sufficient funds will be available to ensure 

9 radiological decommissioning at the end of power operations. As part of its COL application for 

10 the proposed Units 1 and 2 on the LNP site, PEF included a Decommissioning Funding 

11 Assurance Report (PEF 2009c). PEF would establish an external sinking funds account to 

12 accumulate funds for decommissioning. 

13 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor 

14 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental 

15 Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement I, Regarding the 

16 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (GEIS-DECOM), NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 

17 (NRC 2002). Environmental impacts of the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB 

18 decommissioning methods are evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. A COL applicant is not required 

19 to identify a decommissioning method at the time of the COL application. The NRC staff’s 

20 evaluation of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in the GEIS-DECOM 

21 identifies a range of impacts for each environmental issue for a range of different reactor 

22 designs. The NRC staff concludes that the construction methods that would be used for the 

23 advanced boiling water reactor are not sufficiently different from the construction methods used 

24 for the current plants to significantly affect the impacts evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. 

25 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts discussed in the GEIS-DECOM remain 

26 bounding for reactors deployed after 2002, including the AP1000 reactor. 

27 The GEIS-DECOM does not specifically address the carbon footprint of decommissioning 

28 activities. However, it does list the decommissioning activities and states that the 

29 decommissioning workforce would be expected to be smaller than the operational workforce 

30 and that the decontamination and demolition activities could take up to 10 years to complete. 

31 Finally, it discusses SAFSTOR, in which decontamination and dismantlement are delayed for a 

32 number of years. Given this information, the NRC staff estimated the CO2 footprint of 

decommissioning to be of the order of 6.3 × 104 33 MT without SAFSTOR. This footprint is about 

34 equally split between decommissioning workforce transportation and equipment usage. The 

35 details of the NRC staff’s estimate are presented in Appendix I. A 40-yr SAFSTOR period 

36 would increase the footprint of decommissioning by about 40 percent. These CO2 footprints are 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-43 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 roughly three orders of magnitude lower than the CO2 footprint presented in Section 6.1.3 for 

2 the uranium fuel cycle. 

3 The NRC staff relies upon the bases established in the GEIS-DECOM and concludes the 

4 following: 

5 1. Doses to the public would be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which 

6 decommissioning method considered in GEIS-DECOM is used. 

7 2. Occupational doses would be well below applicable regulatory standards during the license 

8 term. 

9 3. The quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes generated would be comparable 

10 or less than the amounts of solid waste generated by reactors licensed before 2002. 

11 4. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible at the end of the 

12 operating term. 

13 5. Measures are readily available to avoid potential significant water-quality impacts from 

14 erosion or spills. The liquid radioactive waste system design includes features to limit 

15 release of radioactive material to the environment, such as pipe chases and tank collection 

16 basins. These features will minimize the amount of radioactive material in spills and leakage 

17 that would have to be addressed at decommissioning. 

18 6. Ecological impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible. 

19 7. Socioeconomic impacts would be short-term and could be offset by decreases in population 

20 and economic diversification. 

21 On the basis of the GEIS-DECOM and the evaluation of air quality impacts from greenhouse 

22 gas emissions above, the NRC staff concludes that, as long as the regulatory requirements on 

23 decommissioning activities to limit the impacts of decommissioning are met, the 

24 decommissioning activities would result in a SMALL impact. 

25 6.4 References 

26 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

27 Protection against Radiation.” 

28 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

29 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

30 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

31 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-44 August 2010 

1 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

2 Transportation of Radioactive Material.” 

3 10 CFR Part 961. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy. Part 961, “Standard Contract 

4 for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Waste.” 

5 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

6 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

7 49 CFR 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers8 General Requirements for Shipments and Packaging.” 

9 61 FR 65120. December 10, 1996. “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of 

10 Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

11 73 FR 59551. October 9, 2008. “Waste Confidence Decision Update.” Federal Register. 

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

13 73 FR 72370. November 28, 2008. “Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary 

14 Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation and Waste Confidence Decision 

15 Update: Extension of Comment Period” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

16 Commission. 

17 Baltimore Gas & Electric v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1983. United States 

18 Reports, Vol 460, p.1034. 

19 Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended. 42 USC 15801 et seq. 

20 Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. “Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model 

21 Input Parameters for Truck Stops.” Conference Proceedings - Waste Management 96, 

22 CONF-960212-44, Tucson, Arizona. 

23 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit 

24 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File 

25 Number 3747, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

26 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007. “The 2007 

27 Recommendations of the ICRP.” ICRP Publication No. 103. Annals of the ICRP 37(2-4). 

28 Johnson P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2003. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic 

29 Information System (TRAGIS) User’s Manual. ORNL/NTRC-006, Rev. 0, Oak Ridge National 

30 Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-45 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. 

2 National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C. 

3 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1995. Principles and 

4 Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. Report No. 121, NCRP Publications, 

5 Bethesda, Maryland. 

6 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

7 Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland. 

8 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

9 National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

10 Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low 

11 Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, 

12 Washington, D.C. 

13 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, as amended. 22 USC 3201, et seq. 

14 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

15 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, 

16 St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 

17 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from John Elnitsky, PEF, to NRC, dated 

18 December 4, 2009, regarding Response to Request for Additional Information Letter No. 073 

19 Related to Solid Waste Management System. Accession No. ML093450353. 

20 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

21 Application, Part 1, General and Financial Information. Revision 1, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

22 Accession No. ML092860285. 

23 Saricks, C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

24 Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

25 Illinois. 

26 Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills, 

27 K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of 

28 Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

29 Washington, D.C. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1941 6-46 August 2010 

1 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the 

2 Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI 2003-6, Center 

3 for National Truck Statistics University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann 

4 Arbor, Michigan. Available at http://umtri.umich.edu/content/UMTRI_2003_6.pdf. 

5 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

6 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel 

8 Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C. 

9 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997. Integrated Database Report—1996: U.S. Spent 

10 Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics. 

11 DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 13, Washington, D.C. 

12 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk 

13 Assessment. DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. 

14 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a 

15 Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

16 at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

17 Management, Washington, D.C. 

18 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. DOE Standard Radiation Control. 

19 DOE-STD-1098-99, Washington, D.C. 

20 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

21 for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 

22 Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250F-S1, Washington, D.C. 

23 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. “Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All 

24 Sectors)” in Electric Power Monthly. August 2009. Available at 

25 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html. Accession No. ML101820644. 

26 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. “U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw.” 

27 Docket No. 63-001. March 03, 2010. Accession No. ML100621397. 

28 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. What Aircrews Should Know About Their 

29 Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. DOT/FAA/AM-3/16, Federal Aviation 

30 Administration, Washington, D.C. 

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

32 Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008, U.S. EPA # 430-R-10-006, Washington, D.C. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

August 2010 6-47 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

2 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1 to WASH-1238, 

3 NUREG-75/038, Washington, D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

5 and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to 

6 WASH-1248), Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Final Environmental Statement on 

8 Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1, 

9 Washington, D.C. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Public Comments and Task Force 

11 Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management 

12 Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), 

13 Washington, D.C. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

15 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

17 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

19 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

20 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

22 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition. NUREG-0800, 

23 Washington, D.C.

24 Weiner ,R.F., D.M. Osborn, G.S. Mills, D. Hinojosa, T.L. Heames, and D.J. Orcutt. 2006. 

25 RadCat 2.3 User Guide. SAND2006-6315, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 

26 New Mexico. 

27 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

28 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession 

29 No. ML083230868. 

August 2010 7-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 7.0 Cumulative Impacts 

2 The review team, composed of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and U.S. 

3 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) staff, evaluated the potential impacts of construction and 

4 operation of two new nuclear units at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) site proposed by Progress 

5 Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) in its application for combined construction permits and operating 

6 licenses (COLs) (PEF 2009a). In doing so, the review team considered potential cumulative 

7 impacts on resources that could be affected by the combination of construction, preconstruction, 

8 and operation of two Westinghouse Electric Company LCC AP1000 pressurized water reactors 

9 at the LNP site, and other past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

10 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321, et seq.), 

11 requires Federal agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of proposed actions under their 

12 review. Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with the 

13 proposed action are compounded with temporary or permanent effects associated with past, 

14 present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. For purposes of this analysis, past actions 

15 are those prior to the receipt of the COL application. Present actions are those related to 

16 resources from the time of the COL application until the start of NRC-authorized construction of 

17 the proposed new units. Future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through the 

18 building and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, including decommissioning. The review 

19 team considered cumulative effects of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 with past, present, and 

20 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area over which these actions could 

21 contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of resource considered and is 

22 described below for each resource area. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, 

23 but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time on the same resources. 

24 In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, impacts have 

25 been analyzed and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, 

26 or LARGE) has been assigned by the review team to each impact category, as presented in 

27 Chapter 1. The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are 

28 combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the general 

29 area surrounding the LNP site that would affect the same resources affected by the proposed 

30 new units, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

31 actions. These combined impacts are defined as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include 

32 individually minor but collectively potentially significant actions taking place over a period of 

33 time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or 

34 LARGE cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on 

35 the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL 

36 individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource 

37 decline. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-2 August 2010 

1 The description of the affected environment in Chapter 2 serves as the baseline for the 

2 cumulative impacts analysis, including the effects of past actions. The incremental impacts 

3 related to the construction activities requiring NRC authorization (10 CFR 50.10(a)) are 

4 described and characterized in Chapter 4 and those related to operations are described and 

5 characterized in Chapter 5. These impacts are summarized for each resource area in the 

6 sections that follow. The level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for 

7 each resource area. 

8 This chapter includes an overall cumulative impact assessment for each resource area. The 

9 specific resources that could be affected by the incremental effects of the proposed action and 

10 other actions in the same geographic area were assessed. This assessment includes the 

11 impacts of construction and operations for the proposed new units as described in Chapters 4 

12 and 5; impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; impacts of fuel cycle, 

13 transportation, and decommissioning as described in Chapter 6; and impacts of past, present 

14 and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could affect 

15 the same resources as the proposed action. 

16 The review team visited the LNP site in December 2008. The team then used the information 

17 provided in the ER, responses to Requests for Additional Information, information from other 

18 Federal and State agencies, and information gathered during the LNP site visit to evaluate the 

19 cumulative impacts of building and operating a nuclear facility at the proposed site. To inform 

20 the cumulative analysis, the review team researched the U.S. Environmental Protection 

21 Agency’s (EPA) databases for recent EISs within Florida, used an EPA database for permits for 

22 water discharges in the area to identify water-use projects, and used the www.recovery.gov 

23 website to identify projects in the geographic area funded by the American Recovery and 

24 Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). Other actions and projects that were identified 

25 during this review and considered in the review team’s independent analysis of the cumulative 

26 effects are described in Table 7-1. Distances listed in Table 7-1 are from the planned 

27 powerblock location except as otherwise noted. 

28 7.1 Land-Use Impacts 

29 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 serves as a baseline for the 

30 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.1, the NRC 

31 staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction on land use would be SMALL 

32 and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.1, the review team 

33 concludes that the impacts of operations on land use would also be SMALL and no further 

34 mitigation would be warranted. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-4 August 2010 

Table 7-1. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Inglis Lock bypass 

channel spillway 

hydropower project 

2-MW hydroelectric project at 

the existing Inglis Lock bypass 

spillway. The project would 

include construction of an 

intake structure, intake and 

discharge channels, turbines, 

and a transmission line. 

About 4 mi 

south-southwest 

of the LNP site 

Proposed. An application 

has been submitted to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Inglis 2009). 

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. 

Collocated with 

US-19 in the 

vicinity of the 

LNP site 

Completion expected by 

2011 (FERC 2009; 

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 eastern 

border of the 

site is about 2 

mi west of the 

LNP 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 2009c). 

Holcim Mine Limestone quarry About 7 mi 

southwest of the 

LNP site 

Operational (FDEP 1997) 

Inglis Quarry Limestone quarry About 6 mi 

southwest of the 

LNP site 

Operational (EPA 2010a) 

Crystal River 

Quarries – Red 

Level 

Limestone quarry About 7 mi 

south of the 

LNP site 

Operational (EPA 2010b) 

Crystal River 

Quarries – Lecanto 

Limestone quarry About 19 mi 

south-southeast 

of the LNP site 

Operational (EPA 2010c) 

Gulf Hammock 

Quarry 

Limestone quarry About 12 mi 

north of the LNP 

site 

Operational (EPA 2010d) 

1 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

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 

south of the 

LNP 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). 

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

Goethe State Forest A 53,398-ac forest managed by 

Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (FDACS) for timber 

management, wildlife 

management, outdoor 

recreation, and ecological 

restoration (FDACS 2010). 

Adjacent to the 

northeastern 

boundary of the 

LNP site 

Development likely limited in 

this area (PEF 2009a) 

Other parks, forests, 

and reserves 

Numerous State and national 

parks, forests, reserves, and 

other recreational areas, 

including: Inglis Island Trail, 

Inglis Lock Recreation Area, 

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 the 

50-mi region 

Development likely limited in 

these areas (PEF 2009a) 

2 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-6 August 2010 

1 Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Crystal River 

Mariculture Center 

Multi-species marine hatchery About 7 mi 

southwest of the 

LNP site 

adjacent to 

CREC. 

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 

Minor water 

dischargers and 

wastewatertreatment plants 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (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. 

2 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Future urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings, such as the proposed 

Port District near Inglis; roads, 

bridges, and rail, such as the 

Suncoast toll road expansion; 

and the U.S. Highway 19 

(US-19) bridge and highway 

expansions; construction of 

water- and/or wastewatertreatment and distribution 

facilities and associated 

pipelines, as described in local 

land-use planning documents. 

There is a low potential for 

increased urbanization within 

Levy and Citrus Counties 

because population growth is 

expected to be less than 

2 percent per year (see 

Table 2-16) 

About 6 mi 

southwest of the 

LNP site and 

throughout 

region. 

Construction would occur in 

the future, as described in 

local land-use planning 

documents (FTE 2010; 

FDOT 2010a, b; Citrus 

County 2009)a

. 

The review team is aware of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. To 

date, information associated with impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources is preliminary and inconclusive. 

Although not included in this EIS, the review team will consider information associated with the oil spill for the LNP 

project as it becomes available.

2 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in Section 4.1 and 

3 they were determined to be MODERATE and would be mitigated as described in Section 4.1. 

4 In addition to land-use impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the 

5 cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

6 that could contribute to cumulative impacts. For this cumulative impacts analysis, the 

7 geographic area of interest is the area within the 15-mi radius of the LNP site and the 

8 transmission-line corridors. The review team determined that a 15-mi radius would represent 

9 the area that would be directly affected because it includes the primary communities (such as 

10 Inglis, Crystal River, Yankeetown, and Dunnellon) that would be affected by the proposed 

11 project. 

12 Historically, Levy County was known for mining and timber operations. Much of the LNP site 

13 was used for intensive pine tree production and harvesting operations. The natural vegetation 

14 and land surface were significantly altered by these operations, which resulted in a series of 

Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 CREC discharge canal to replace the group of helper cooling towers that are currently located 

2 on the north bank (USACE 2010). The review team expects that land-use impacts associated 

3 with these projects would be minimal. 

4 As described in Table 2-1, approximately 180 mi of entirely new transmission-line corridors 

5 would be built to support proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, although new corridors would be located 

6 adjacent to existing utility corridors to the extent practicable. New transmission lines would 

7 convert 547 ac of “Hardwood – Conifer Mix”, 247 ac of “Coniferous Plantation,” and 192 ac of 

8 “Cypress” land uses, among others, to utility land use, and would pass through undisturbed 

9 areas. Increased urbanization, especially long linear projects such as new or expanded roads 

10 or pipelines, would also contribute to the loss of open or forested areas and increase 

11 fragmentation of habitats along or near the transmission lines. Due to the extent of new 

12 transmission lines that would be built, the review team expects the corridors would have a 

13 noticeable impact on the local area. 

14 Future urbanization in the review area could contribute to additional decreases in open areas, 

15 forests, and wetlands and generally result in some increase in residential and industrialized 

16 areas. Currently, only about 12 percent of the region around the LNP site is in residential land 

17 use. Local land-use planning documents describe future construction of residential and 

18 commercial buildings, although such development would likely be limited because the predicted 

19 growth rate in the area is approximately 2 percent (see Table 2-16). The Florida Department of 

20 Transportation currently plans to expand the US-19 bridge and the Suncoast toll road. Florida 

21 Gas Transmission Company (FGT) proposes to expand its liquefied natural gas pipeline 

22 collocated with US-19, near the LNP site. These projects would have limited impacts on land 

23 use because a small incremental amount of land would be converted to a new land use, and it 

24 would be adjacent to the current roads or pipelines. Development would likely be limited in the 

25 nearby Goethe State Forest and other parks and recreational areas. Therefore, the incremental 

26 impacts associated with increased urbanization would be minimal. 

27 Global climate change could increase temperature and reduce precipitation, which could result 

28 in reduced crop yields and livestock productivity (GCRP 2009), and may change portions of 

29 agricultural and ranching land uses in the geographic area of interest. In addition, global climate 

30 change could increase sea level and storm surges in the geographic area of interest (GCRP 

31 2009), thereby changing land use through inundation and loss of coastal wetlands and other 

32 low-lying areas. However, existing State and national forests, parks, reserves, and managed 

33 areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas to the extent that they are not affected 

34 by sea-level rise. Because other projects listed in Table 7-1 that are within the geographic area 

35 of interest would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies and would 

36 occur in dispersed locations, the review team considers their contribution to the cumulative land37 use impacts to be relatively minor and manageable. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-10 August 2010 

1 Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts 

2 associated with construction, preconstruction, and operations of the proposed LNP and other 

3 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the geographic area of interest would be 

4 MODERATE. The land-use impacts would be sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 

5 important attributes of the land resource. The incremental land-use impacts associated with the 

6 transmission-line corridors for the project and the Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine in 

7 combination with the LNP site are the principal contributors to the MODERATE characterization 

8 of cumulative land-use impacts. Transmission-line corridors would pass through undisturbed 

9 lands, including wetlands, and PEF and the State of Florida have identified mitigation measures 

10 to be taken. Because the NRC does not authorize the building of transmission lines, the NRC 

11 staff concludes that the incremental impacts of NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL. 

12 7.2 Water Use and Quality 

13 This section analyzes the cumulative impacts of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, and other 

14 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on water use and water quality. 

15 7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts 

16 This section describes cumulative water-use impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

17 operations of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

18 projects. 

19 7.2.1.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts 

20 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as a baseline for the 

21 cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the 

22 impacts from NRC-authorized construction on surface-water use would be SMALL, and no 

23 further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed by the State of Florida 

24 Conditions of Certification. As described in Section 5.2, the review team concludes that the 

25 impacts of operations on surface-water use would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

26 would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed by the State of Florida Conditions of 

27 Certification. 

28 The combined surface-water-use impacts from construction and preconstruction are described 

29 in Section 4.2.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

30 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, 

31 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect surface-water use, 

32 including the potential impacts of global climate change, as discussed above. For this analysis, 

33 the geographic area of interest is strongly influenced by the site’s proximity to the Gulf of 

34 Mexico, which could theoretically provide a virtually unlimited water source. To examine 

35 cumulative surface-water-use impacts, this analysis includes the area within 20 mi of the LNP 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 site, which would be expected to encompass the area affected by the proposed units and other 

2 area water users in this region of the Florida Gulf Coast. The 20-mi region is partially located 

3 within Levy, Citrus, and Marion counties. Within this region, past, present, and foreseeable 

4 future actions that contribute to cumulative impacts include the existing CREC units, a planned 

5 uprate of CREC Unit 3, potential decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2, existing and 

6 proposed mines, and proposed transportation projects (see Table 7-1). 

7 The LNP site is located in Levy County. A portion of Levy County is under the jurisdiction of the 

8 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) while the rest is under the 

9 Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD). The SRWMD water-supply plan, 

10 which was expected to be available in spring 2010, remains under development. According to 

11 the 2010 draft Regional Water Supply Plan prepared by the SWFWMD (2010), the 

12 Withlacoochee River is the only major river in the Northern Planning Region of the district where 

13 the LNP site is located. Although minimum flow for the Withlacoochee River has not yet been 

14 established, the SWFWMD (2010) stated that in the future, established minimum flows will 

15 provide some bound on the water supply from the river during low-flow conditions. In a 

16 preliminary study conducted by the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority in 

17 cooperation with the SWFWMD, the agencies concluded that an additional 93 Mgd of surface 

18 water supply may potentially be available from the river. Currently, minor withdrawals totaling 

19 0.5 Mgd are permitted from the Withlacochee and the Rainbow rivers (SWFWMD 2010). The 

20 proposed LNP units would not withdraw surface waters from the Withlacoochee River, the 

21 Suwannee River, or their tributaries. Because the Gulf of Mexico is a virtually unlimited source, 

22 historical water use impact on it from recreation and industry (e.g., CREC power plant units) is 

23 undetectable. Mining activities in Levy, Citrus, and Marion counties used 1.8 Mgd in 2005 and 

24 are expected to use 4 Mgd by 2030 (SWFWMD 2010). These mining uses include surface and 

25 groundwater. 

26 The LNP units would withdraw water from the CFBC, which is connected to the Gulf of Mexico. 

27 The CFBC receives freshwater inflows from the Old Withlacoochee River (OWR, a remnant arm 

28 of the Withlacoochee River) and groundwater springs in addition to tidal exchanges of saltwater 

29 from the Gulf of Mexico. The review team determined that the consumptive use of surface 

30 water for operation of the proposed units (no surface water use is planned for construction and 

31 preconstruction activities) would remain undetectable relative to the volume of water in the Gulf 

32 of Mexico and minor within the 20-mi area surrounding the LNP site. The predominant surface33 water user within this area is CREC, and its withdrawals have an insignificant effect on surface 

34 water availability from the Gulf of Mexico. PEF has proposed to install a new helper cooling 

35 tower on the south bank of the CREC discharge canal to replace the group of helper cooling 

36 towers that are currently located on the north bank (USACE 2010). During critical summer 

37 months, similar to the existing group of helper cooling towers, the new helper cooling tower 

38 would withdraw discharged cooling water from CREC units and the discharged blowdown water 

39 from the LNP units and cool it before discharging the water back into the CREC discharge 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-12 August 2010 

1 canal. The helper cooling tower would cool the waters in the CREC discharge canal sufficiently 

2 to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) maximum temperature 

3 limit. Because the helper cooling tower would only be required to cool the discharged water a 

4 few degrees, and because it would operate only a few months during the year, the consumptive 

5 use of the new helper tower is expected to be minimal. 

6 Another proposed project in the area, is the development of the Inglis Lock bypass channel 

7 spillway hydropower project. There would be minor water use during building and installation of 

8 the hydropower project. The review team determined that water use during building and 

9 installation would be temporary and would therefore not result in a cumulative impact on water 

10 availability in the area. The project would not result in consumptive use of surface water during 

11 its operation and therefore would not have a cumulative impact on water availability in the 

12 geographic area of interest. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 7-1 are considered in 

13 the analysis included in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 or would have little or no impact on surface- water 

14 use. 

15 For this water-use analysis, the review team considered forecasted changes to temperature and 

16 precipitation for southwest Florida. For the State of Florida, the projected range of change in 

17 temperature from “present day” (1993–2008) to the period encompassing the licensing action 

18 (i.e., 2040 to 2059) is reported in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) report to 

19 be between 1 to 4°F (GCRP 2009). While the GCRP has not incrementally forecasted the 

20 change in precipitation by decade to align with the licensing action, the projected change in 

21 precipitation from the “recent past” (1961–1979) to the period 2080 to 2099 is a decrease of 

22 between 20 to 25 percent in spring and an increase of between 15 to 20 percent in the fall 

23 (GCRP 2009). Declines in aquifer water levels may continue throughout Florida, as the aquifers 

24 are relied on in response to changes in precipitation and the growth in demand for freshwater 

25 (GCRP 2009). Such changes in climate could result in adaptations to both surface-water and 

26 groundwater management practices and policies that are unknown at this time. 

27 Global climate change could result in changes in seasonal precipitation and increased 

28 temperatures. These forecasted changes have the potential to reduce surface runoff and 

29 increase evapotranspiration. Changes in climate during the life of proposed Units 1 and 2, 

30 described above, could result in either an increase or decrease in the amount of runoff; 

31 however, the divergence in model projections for the southeastern United States precludes a 

32 definitive estimate (GCRP 2009). While the changes that are attributed to climate change in 

33 these studies are not insignificant, the review team did not identify climate change related 

34 effects at the local and watershed scale under the currently unknown adaptations to water35 management policies that would alter its assessment that the impacts to the surface water 

36 resource would be minor. Also based on this compilation, it is reasonably foreseeable that sea 

37 level rise may exceed 3 ft by the end of the century due to global climate change (GCRP 2009). 

38 The increase in sea level relative to the CFBC and the Withlacoochee River, potentially coupled 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 with reduced streamflow (also due to global climate change), could result in the salt water front 

2 in the CFBC and the Withlacoochee River moving upstream. 

3 The review team determined that the consumptive use of water from the operation of LNP Units 

4 1 and 2 and all other consumptive uses (existing or likely future uses) would not alter the 

5 volume of water in the Gulf of Mexico and would not noticeably alter the surface water resource 

6 within 20 miles of the LNP site. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

7 cumulative impacts on surface water from construction, preconstruction, and operations of two 

8 new nuclear units and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would be 

9 SMALL, and no mitigation would be warranted. As stated above, the review team also 

10 considered global climate change-related effects on the surface water resource. While these 

11 changes from global climate change may not be insignificant, the review team has not identified 

12 climate change-related effects at the local and watershed scale under the currently unknown 

13 adaptations to water-management policies that would alter the conclusions presented above. 

14 7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts 

15 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

16 baseline for the cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in 

17 Section 4.2, the impacts from NRC-authorized construction on groundwater use would be 

18 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed by the 

19 State of Florida Conditions of Certification. As described in Section 5.2, the review team 

20 concludes that the impacts of operations on groundwater use would also be SMALL, and no 

21 further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed by the State of Florida 

22 Conditions of Certification. 

23 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in Section 4.2 and 

24 were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

25 and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably 

26 foreseeable future actions that could affect groundwater use, including potential effects of global 

27 climate change. For this analysis, a geographic area of interest has been identified which 

28 extends 20 mi from the LNP site. This 20-mi region is sufficiently large to characterize potential 

29 cumulative groundwater use impacts. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.2, groundwater in the 

30 Upper Floridan aquifer at the Levy site moves west-southwest from areas of higher hydraulic 

31 head east of the site to discharge to local springs and offshore springs in the Gulf of Mexico. 

32 The surficial and the Upper Floridan aquifers could be affected by water withdrawal for 

33 construction, preconstruction, and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. 

34 The geographic area of interest described above is located within two Florida water 

35 management districts – the SWFWMD and the SRWMD. Within the SWFWMD, the 

36 geographical area of interest falls in the Northern Planning Region of the district. The 

37 SWFWMD has monitored the groundwater resources in the Northern Planning Region since the 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-14 August 2010 

1 passage of the 1972 Florida Water Resources Act including the initiation of the water resources 

2 assessment project in the late 1980s which continues today (SWFWMD 2010). The 

3 assessment led to modifications to the district’s permitting rules. The Northern planning region 

4 has recently experienced population growth and development leading to larger groundwater 

5 withdrawals. The average (non-drought) water demand in the Northern Planning Region in 

6 2005 was 82 Mgd and is projected to increase to 106 Mgd in 2010 and 154 Mgd in 2030 

7 (SWFWMD 2010). The SWFWMD has estimated that during 2010-2030, potential water 

8 availability in the Northern Planning Region could be 240 Mgd (SWFWMD 2010). However, this 

9 estimated water availability includes contributions from unused permitted and available 

10 unpermitted surface waters from the Withlacoochee River, reclaimed water, desalination of 

11 seawater, and conservation measures (SWFWMD 2010). The projected 2030 water demand 

12 cannot be met solely by groundwater from the Upper Floridan aquifer. The review team 

13 concludes that groundwater has historically been extensively used in the region and therefore 

14 has noticeably altered the resources. The alteration on groundwater resources from historical 

15 use is also evident from the careful planning and permitting process the SWFWMD uses to 

16 ensure that impacts to the resource is minimized. 

17 Near-term alterations of the groundwater supply due to projected use of 1.58 Mgd of 

18 groundwater for LNP operations are expected to be minor, based on the results of predictive 

19 simulations, and on conditions imposed for certification by the State of Florida that limit the 

20 allowable drawdown caused by pumping from the LNP wellfield (see Section 5.2.2.2). Projected 

21 future groundwater usage by all permitted users within the boundary of the local-scale 

22 groundwater flow model, based on population projections from the 2000 U.S. census, is 

23 discussed in Section 2.3.2.2. The increase in usage is projected to be relatively small (from 

24 3.51 Mgd in 2001 to 10.3 Mgd in 2078; see Section 2.3.2.2) compared to the estimated water 

25 balance for the local-scale groundwater flow model domain (208 Mgd; see Section 5.2.2.2). 

26 Therefore, the review team determined that cumulative impacts of both the proposed LNP 

27 project and other current and future permitted groundwater users are also expected to be minor. 

28 The SWFWMD has determined that the groundwater use at the proposed LNP site would be 

29 limited and would not significantly affect future planning in the region (FDEP 2010a). 

30 Agriculture and other activities (e.g., existing mining activities at the Inglis Rock Quarry) have 

31 historically used groundwater in the region of interest. FDEP and SWFWMD have developed a 

32 proactive groundwater management program to preserve and manage groundwater resources. 

33 Other potential cumulative impacts include changes in the groundwater system associated with 

34 climate change (see discussion in Section 7.2.1.1 above) and the proposed Tarmac King Road 

35 Limestone Mine. 

36 The Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine is proposed to be located about 2 mi west of the LNP 

37 site. Tarmac has applied for permits to begin site development in 2011, with operations 

38 beginning in 2013. The Tarmac Mine site would be 9400 ac in area of which 2700 ac, 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 consisting of wetlands and uplands, would be mined. A 900-ac area would be set aside for 

2 wetlands and 4500 ac would be donated to the State of Florida for preservation. This limestone 

3 mine is expected to use less than 1 Mgd of water (PEF 2009a), which is comparable to LNP 

4 operational usage. Currently, the USACE is preparing a DEIS for the Tarmac Mine that would 

5 evaluate the impacts of water use associated with the Tarmac Mine project. Although no 

6 specific evaluation of the impacts of water use at the Tarmac mine on groundwater levels and 

7 wetlands was performed for the LNP Units 1 and 2 DEIS, the review team determined that the 

8 effects of water use at the Tarmac Mine site on the groundwater resource would be of the same 

9 order of magnitude as those predicted for the LNP wellfield located on the LNP site because 

10 both projects would withdrawal a comparable amount of groundwater. As discussed in Section 

11 5.2.2.2, a modeling evaluation indicated that average LNP operational groundwater use (1.58 

12 Mgd) represents only a small percentage (0.8 percent) of the total water flux (208 Mgd) moving 

13 through the groundwater model domain. Assuming similar geohydrologic conditions at the 

14 Tarmac site, the review team determined that the proposed water use would also be a relatively 

15 small amount of the flux moving through the groundwater system. 

16 The projected groundwater usage associated with normal LNP operation and temporary 

17 increases in withdrawal rate associated with maximum daily operation are small relative to the 

18 groundwater resource. Since no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions with 

19 significant impacts were identified, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on the 

20 groundwater resource from preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed LNP 

21 units, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, including the potential of 

22 decreased precipitation and increased temperatures due to global climate change, would be 

23 SMALL, and mitigation beyond the conditions imposed for certification by the State of Florida 

24 discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 would not be warranted. Global climate change could result in 

25 alteration of the groundwater resource in the geographic area of interest by varying the recharge 

26 to the aquifers, changing the use of agricultural chemicals, and affecting land use patterns. 

27 While the changes in groundwater resource that are indirectly attributable to climate change 

28 may not be insignificant, the review team did not identify climate change related effects at the 

29 local and regional scale under the currently unknown adaptations to water-management policies 

30 that would alter its conclusion regarding groundwater use. 

31 7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts 

32 This section describes cumulative water-quality impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

33 operations of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

34 projects. 

35 7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts 

36 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

37 baseline for the cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-16 August 2010 

1 Section 4.2, the impacts from NRC-authorized construction on surface-water quality would be 

2 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed by the 

3 State of Florida Conditions of Certification. As described in Section 5.2, the review team 

4 concludes that the impacts of operations on surface-water quality would also be SMALL, and no 

5 further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed by the State of Florida 

6 Conditions of Certification. 

7 The combined surface-water-quality impacts from construction and preconstruction are 

8 described in Section 4.2.3.1 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

9 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, 

10 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect surface-water quality. For 

11 the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water, the review team analyzed impacts to the 

12 CFBC between Lake Rousseau and the Gulf of Mexico and the area within 20 mi of the LNP 

13 site because this is the area that would exhibit effects from cumulative impacts. The 20-mi 

14 region is partially located within Levy, Citrus, and Marion counties. Within this region, past, 

15 present, and foreseeable future actions that contribute to cumulative impact include the existing 

16 CREC units, a planned uprate of CREC Unit 3, potential decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 

17 2, existing and proposed mines, and proposed transportation projects (see Table 7-1). The 

18 discharges from the CREC and existing projects are permitted by existing NPDES permits. The 

19 potential discharges from other proposed projects would also be permitted under NPDES 

20 permits and best management practices would be used to minimize runoff that may adversely 

21 affect water quality of receiving waters in the region. 

22 As stated in Section 2.3.3.1 of the EIS, there are some waterbodies near the LNP site that are 

23 listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies (FDEP 2010c). Historical point and non24 point source discharges have affected the water quality of streams and rivers near the LNP site. 

25 Lake Rousseau and the lower Withlacoochee River appear on the draft 2010 303(d) List as 

26 impaired waterbodies because of the presence of mercury in fish tissue (FDEP 2010c). The 

27 State of Florida has a Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program to help protect and restore 

28 the quality of waters. In addition, the State of Florida also designates waterbodies as 

29 Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) and special waters to which pollutant discharges are 

30 generally prohibited. The lower Withlacoochee River near the LNP site is an OFW. Lake 

31 Rousseau and the CFBC are not designated as OFWs. LNP Units 1 and 2 would not discharge 

32 to the lower Withlacoochee River or the CFBC. The other existing and reasonably foreseeable 

33 projects mentioned above would either not discharge to these waterbodies or their discharges 

34 would be controlled by FDEP under State and Federal regulations. As stated above, the State 

35 of Florida, under the TMDL program, helps protect and restore the quality of impaired waters. 

36 Therefore, the review team determined that the cumulative impacts from existing, proposed, and 

37 reasonably foreseeable future action on these waterbodies would be noticeable but not 

38 destabilizing. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 As described in EIS Section 5.2.3.1, the review team independently used the Finite Volume 

2 Coastal Ocean Model (MEDM 2010, Chen et al. 2003, 2004) to estimate the water-quality 

3 parameters of the discharge plume in the Gulf of Mexico. Table 5-1 lists the four configurations 

4 that resulted in eight simulated scenarios, one each for summer and winter conditions for each 

5 configuration. The cumulative impact on the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of the CREC 

6 discharge canal is a result of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

7 These projects include the cooling-water discharge from CREC Units 1 through 5, uprate to Unit 

8 3, and the blowdown discharge from the closed-loop cooling system of LNP Units 1 and 2. The 

9 review team also evaluated the impacts of the uprate to CREC Unit 3 and the potential future 

10 shutdown of CREC Units 1 and 2 on the water quality parameters, temperature and salinity, of 

11 the Gulf near the discharge point. 

12 Based on the water-quality simulations described above, the review team determined that both 

13 during summer and winter, the combined discharge of CREC Units 1 through 5 including the 

14 uprate of Unit 3 and the blowdown discharge from LNP Units 1 and 2, would result in a thermal 

15 plume with a noticeably large area with increase in ambient Gulf water temperature of up to 5oC. 

16 Therefore, the review team concluded that the cumulative impacts of the combined discharges 

17 from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on water temperatures in the 

18 Gulf would be noticeable. Based on the simulations described above, the review team also 

19 determined that both during summer and winter, the combined discharge would result in salinity 

20 increase of about 1 psu over ambient salinity of Gulf waters. Therefore, the review team 

21 concluded that the cumulative impacts of the combined discharges from past, present, and 

22 reasonably foreseeable future projects on the salinity in the Gulf would be noticeable. The 

23 incremental impact from LNP Units 1 and 2 on water quality would be minor. Other chemical 

24 releases are permitted by the NPDES process that also requires the respective projects to 

25 monitor these releases to ensure compliance. 

26 PEF has proposed to install a new helper cooling tower on the south bank of the CREC 

27 discharge canal to replace the group of helper cooling towers that are currently located on the 

28 north bank (USACE 2010). During critical summer months, similar to the existing group of 

29 helper cooling towers, the new helper cooling tower would withdraw discharged cooling water 

30 from CREC units and the discharged blowdown water from the LNP units and cool it before 

31 discharging the water back into the CREC discharge canal. The helper cooling tower would 

32 cool the waters in the CREC discharge canal sufficiently to meet the NPDES maximum 

33 temperature limit. Because the helper cooling tower would only be required to cool the 

34 discharged water a few degrees and because it would operate only a few months during the 

35 year, the new helper tower is expected to only minimally change the water quality in the Gulf of 

36 Mexico. 

37 The review team also simulated water quality parameters if CREC Units 1 and 2 were to shut 

38 down and only CREC Units 3 through 5 (including the uprated Unit 3) and LNP Units 1 and 2 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-18 August 2010 

1 were to remain in operation, as described as a condition by the State of Florida’s Conditions of 

2 Certification (FDEP 2010a). Based on simulations described above, the review team 

3 determined that the plume in the Gulf would be significantly smaller because the cooling water 

4 discharge of the once-through cooling systems of CREC Units 1 and 2 would cease. However, 

5 increased water temperature in the smaller plume would still be noticeable compared to ambient 

6 water temperature. The salinity in the smaller plume, however, would increase slightly because 

7 the operating units have closed-cycle cooling systems that use 1.5 cycles of concentration. The 

8 maximum increase in salinity would be about 1.5 psu over ambient salinity in the Gulf. 

9 Therefore, the review team concluded that the cumulative impacts of the combined discharges, 

10 if CREC Units 1 and 2 were to shut down, on water temperature and salinity in the Gulf would 

11 be noticeable. As stated above, the review team concluded that the contribution of LNP Units 1 

12 and 2 to the noticeable cumulative impact would be minimal. 

13 As stated in Section 2.3.1.1, it is reasonably foreseeable that sea-level rise may exceed 3 ft by 

14 the end of the century due to global climate change (GCRP 2009). The increase in sea level 

15 could result in the saltwater front moving farther inland in the CFBC. As stated above, global 

16 climate change could result in changed precipitation and increased temperatures in the vicinity 

17 of the proposed plant. These forecasted changes have the potential to reduce surface runoff, 

18 increase evapotranspiration, change cropping patterns, and alter nutrient loadings to runoff. 

19 The changes may result in alteration of the surface-water quality in the region. 

20 As stated above, global climate change could result in decreased precipitation and increased 

21 temperatures in the geographic area of interest (GCRP 2009). These forecasted changes have 

22 the potential to reduce surface runoff, increase evapotranspiration, change cropping patterns, 

23 and alter nutrient loadings to runoff. The changes may result in alteration to the surface-water 

24 quality in the region. 

25 Other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic area of interest that 

26 could contribute to cumulative impacts on surface-water quality include the operation of CREC, 

27 Units 1-5, the renewal of the license for Unit 3, a proposed power uprate for Unit 3, and the 

28 possible closure of two CREC coal-fired units. The areal extent of the influence of these 

29 facilities on water quality would be noticeable in the Gulf’s nearshore marine environment, but 

30 not destabilizing to the resource. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

31 cumulative surface-water-quality impacts would be MODERATE. The contribution of LNP Units 

32 1 and 2 to these impacts is minor. Therefore, the incremental impacts from NRC-authorized 

33 activities, would be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in Chapters 4 and 5 

34 would be warranted. While the effects on water quality from global climate change related to 

35 changes in sea level, precipitation, and temperature described above in the region may not be 

36 insignificant, the review team has not identified climate-change related effects at the local and 

37 watershed scale under the currently unknown adaptations to water-management policies that 

38 would alter the conclusions presented above. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts 

2 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as a baseline for the 

3 cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the 

4 impacts from NRC-authorized construction on groundwater quality would be SMALL, and no 

5 further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.2, the review team concludes 

6 that the impacts of operations on groundwater quality would also be SMALL, and no further 

7 mitigation would be warranted. 

8 The combined groundwater-quality impacts from construction and preconstruction of the 

9 proposed LNP units are described in Section 4.2.3.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In 

10 addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

11 analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect 

12 groundwater quality, including the potential impacts of global climate change. For this analysis, 

13 a geographic area of interest has been identified which extends 20 mi from the LNP site. 

14 Because the extent of the zone of influence of the possible groundwater wells is less than 2 

15 miles, this 20-mi region is sufficiently large to characterize potential cumulative groundwater16 quality impacts. 

17 The FDEP Conditions of Certification would require a cleanup of any spills that may occur at the 

18 LNP site. Therefore, any impacts on the quality of the aquifer that exists beneath the site from 

19 activities associated with construction, preconstruction and operation of the proposed units 

20 would not affect this resource regionally. 

21 Land-use changes, agriculture, and other activities (e.g., existing mining activities at the Inglis 

22 Rock Quarry) have historically used groundwater in the region of interest. FDEP and SWFWMD 

23 have developed a proactive groundwater-management program to preserve and manage 

24 groundwater resources including groundwater quality (Fla. Admin. Code 62-520). Based on the 

25 importance of the underlying aquifer, projects are required by the FDEP to control and prevent 

26 effluent discharges to the groundwater (Fla. Admin. Code 62-520). Best management practices 

27 would be used at current and proposed mining projects to ensure that the adverse effects to 

28 groundwater quality are minimized. 

29 Global climate change can result in a rise in sea level (GCRP 2009) that may induce saltwater 

30 intrusion in the surficial and Floridan aquifers. Projected changes in the climate for the region 

31 during the life of the proposed LNP units include an increase in average temperature and a 

32 decrease in precipitation. These changes are likely to result in changes to agriculture including 

33 crops, pests, and the associated changes in application of nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides 

34 that may reach groundwater. As a result, groundwater quality may be altered by the infiltration 

35 of chemicals. Under the geohydrologic and operational conditions present at the LNP site, 

36 operational groundwater-quality impacts would be minor. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-20 August 2010 

1 Based on the fact that no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions with significant 

2 impacts on groundwater quality were identified, the review team concludes that cumulative 

3 impacts on the quality of the groundwater resource would be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

4 beyond that described in Chapters 4 and 5 would be warranted. While the changes in 

5 groundwater quality that are indirectly attributable to climate change may not be insignificant, 

6 the review team did not identify climate change related effects at the local and regional scale 

7 under the currently unknown adaptations to water-management policies that would alter its 

8 conclusion regarding groundwater quality above. 

9 7.3 Ecology 

10 This section addresses the cumulative impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecological resources 

11 as a result of activities associated with the proposed LNP project and other past, present, and 

12 reasonably foreseeable future activities within the geographic area of interest for each resource. 

13 7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts 

14 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.1 provides the baseline for the 

15 cumulative impacts assessments for terrestrial ecological resources, including wetlands and 

16 important species. As described in Section 4.3.1, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from 

17 NRC-authorized construction on terrestrial resources would be SMALL, and additional mitigation 

18 beyond that already proposed would not be warranted. As described in Section 5.3.1, the 

19 impacts of operations on terrestrial resources would be SMALL to MODERATE, and additional 

20 mitigation beyond that already proposed is not expected to be warranted. The conclusion in 

21 Section 5.3.1 is primarily based upon the uncertainty that exists regarding the potential effects 

22 of groundwater withdrawal on wetlands and associated biota. 

23 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.3.1 

24 and determined to be MODERATE. The conclusion in Section 4.3.1 is primarily based upon the 

25 extent of impacts on wetlands, wildlife, and Federally and State-listed species. In addition to the 

26 impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers 

27 other past, present, and future actions that could affect terrestrial resources. For the cumulative 

28 analysis of terrestrial ecology, the geographic area of interest is considered to encompass the 

29 20-mi radius around the LNP site, plus the corridors associated with the proposed transmission 

30 lines and other offsite linear features (as defined in Chapter 2). Corridors range in width from 

31 approximately 300 ft to 1 mi wide. The geographic area of interest is expected to encompass 

32 the locations of possible development projects potentially capable of substantially influencing 

33 terrestrial ecological resources on and close to the LNP project. This area generally coincides 

34 with those defined for hydrology and aquatic ecology, both of which are closely interrelated with 

35 the terrestrial ecology of this coastal setting. This area includes watersheds providing direct 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 runoff from the LNP site to the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the lower watersheds of the 

2 Withlacoochee and Waccasassa river basins. 

3 7.3.1.1 Wildlife and Habitats 

4 The geographic area of interest is located primarily in the Gulf Coastal Flatwoods ecoregion, 

5 although portions of the corridors associated with the proposed transmission lines cross into the 

6 Southwest Florida Flatwoods and the Central Florida Ridges and Uplands ecoregions (EPA 

7 2010c). Prior to European settlement, much of the geographic area of interest consisted of 

8 mature pine flatwoods interspersed with bottomland hardwood forests, cypress swamps, 

9 freshwater marshes and drier uplands. Today, most of the landscape has been altered by past 

10 actions such as forestry, farming, livestock grazing, and sparsely distributed urbanization. It 

11 remains largely rural in character, consisting of scattered small towns and large tracts of 

12 privately-owned forest and agricultural land, as well as local, State, and Federally-owned 

13 forestland parks and wetlands. 

14 Past terrestrial and wetland habitat losses in the geographic area of interest have occurred 

15 primarily from urbanization (e.g., residences, commercial development, roads, and utility 

16 development), agricultural practices (including commercial forest management), mining, 

17 construction of the CFBC, and development of the CREC. Extensive areas of habitat have 

18 already been altered for forest management, agriculture, mining, and low density residential 

19 development. Development and operation of power plants at the CREC, which began in the 

20 1960s, have contributed cumulatively to many of the same types of impacts on terrestrial 

21 ecological resources as those associated with the proposed LNP project. The cumulative 

22 impacts resulting from CREC operation would continue for the geographic area of interest. 

23 Habitat degradation in the geographic area of interest has already resulted from the conversion 

24 of natural landscapes to intensively managed forests, pastureland and other agricultural uses, 

25 rural residential development, and other developments causing fragmentation of the landscape. 

26 This cumulative loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat have already contributed to 

27 declines in wildlife populations and biodiversity within the area. In addition, decreased 

28 precipitation, sea-level rise, more frequent storm surges, increased intensity of coastal storms, 

29 and increased temperatures resulting from global climate change may already be contributing to 

30 wetland losses and exacerbating the ongoing trend (GCRP 2009). 

31 The geographical area of interest, includes portions of State forests, parks, reserves, wildlife32 management areas and other conservation areas. Most of the Goethe State Forest is managed 

33 for timber, wildlife, outdoor recreation and ecological restoration. Lake Rousseau contains 

34 shoreline habitats of high value to shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds. Lands acquired 

35 to construct the CFBC are now managed as the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway to 

36 conserve natural resources and provide recreation. Other sensitive terrestrial ecological 

37 resources include the Waccasassa Bay Preserve State Park, Crystal River Preserve State Park, 

38 wetlands associated with the lower Withlacoochee and Waccasassa rivers, various springs 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-22 August 2010 

1 (e.g., Big King Spring, Little King Spring) and other sensitive streams and habitats (see Figure 

2 2-16). Wetlands are abundant in low-lying areas, and the proposed transmission line and other 

3 offsite corridors traverse streams, lakes, and riparian zones. This interspersion of wetlands, 

4 lakes, and protected uplands support a wide variety of wildlife and plants. 

5 The impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from site preparation, development and 

6 operation of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 and associated transmission lines are described in 

7 Sections 4.3.1 and 5.3.1. As noted in Section 4.3.1.1, including Table 4-4, preconstruction and 

8 construction impacts on the LNP site would result in the permanent and temporary loss of about 

9 777 ac of habitat, including approximately 403 ac of wetlands. As noted in Section 4.3.1.2, 

10 including Table 4-7, roughly 2037 ac of additional habitat would be disturbed to build the 

11 associated transmission lines and other offsite facilities, including about 370 additional ac of 

12 wetlands. PEF has committed to mitigating for the loss or impairment of functions in all 

13 wetlands affected by the LNP project (see Section 4.3.1.7). 

14 Development of other projects, such as the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, the 

15 proposed new helper cooling tower at CREC Unit 3, the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel Spillway 

16 Hydropower Project, the proposed expansion of the FGT pipeline, the proposed US 18 bridge 

17 upgrade, the proposed Sun Coast Toll Road extension, as well as anticipated continued 

18 urbanization and increased outdoor recreation would cumulatively contribute to losses of 

19 wetlands and other terrestrial habitats. For example, at the proposed Tarmac King Road 

20 Limestone Mine, about 2700 ac of wetlands and uplands would be mined, with an additional 

21 1300 ac disturbed to site a quarry processing plant, roads and other infrastructure. Total 

22 wetland impacts are estimated at 1140 ac (BRA 2010). Tarmac plans to mitigate for wetland 

23 impacts by conducting a variety of conservation measures on a 4500-ac site adjacent to the 

24 proposed mine that would be protected through a conservation easement. The construction of 

25 the new helper cooling tower at CREC Unit 3 would result in the discharge of fill within 

26 approximately 1.3 ac of wetlands. Wildlife that occupies areas near where site clearing and 

27 wetland filling activities occur could be adversely affected as a consequence of habitat loss, and 

28 competition for remaining resources. Some wildlife would perish or be displaced during land 

29 clearing. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be at 

30 greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds and larger mammals, 

31 many of which would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed lands adjacent to 

32 areas of activity, such as parks and managed areas described in Table 7-1, could provide 

33 habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

34 resources could affect population levels. 

35 Global climate change may also result in loss of habitat. Sea-level rise resulting from climate 

36 change along the Gulf Coast of Florida could accelerate the loss of wetlands and estuaries, thus 

37 eliminating breeding and foraging habitat for wildlife (Ning et al. 2003; GCRP 2009). Global 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-23 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 climate change could also cause shifts in species ranges and migratory corridors as well as 

2 changes in ecological processes (GCRP 2009). 

3 Long linear projects that cross forested habitats; such as the proposed transmission line 

4 corridors, expansion of the FGT pipeline, and extension of the Sun Coast Toll Road, would also 

5 cumulatively contribute to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation is of particular concern 

6 for forested habitats, whose fragmentation decreases the amount of interior forested habitat 

7 required for certain species such as many warblers, vireos, and woodpeckers. The clearing of 

8 new utility rights-of-way could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit early 

9 successional habitat or use forest edge environments, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

10 virginianus), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), and 

11 gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo 

12 jamaicensis), may exploit new hunting grounds provided by the new forest openings. Forested 

13 wetlands within the rights-of-way would be converted to, and maintained in, an herbaceous or 

14 scrub-shrub condition that could provide improved foraging habitat for waterfowl and wading 

15 birds. 

16 Salt deposition from cooling-tower drift would occur at the LNP and would continue under 

17 normal operation of the CREC. Damage to vegetation and habitats from salt drift under current 

18 operation was documented to be minimal (see Section 5.3.1), and the requirement for salt drift 

19 monitoring was terminated by the FDEP in 1996 (PEF 2009d). Thermal mitigation for the 

20 proposed power uprate at CREC Unit 3 would involve building a new supplemental mechanical 

21 draft cooling tower at the CREC. This would increase the potential for cumulative salt-drift 

22 impact at the CREC. Based upon prior monitoring conducted at the CREC site, damage to 

23 vegetation and habitats from the anticipated increase in salt drift would be expected to be minor. 

24 The impacts of cooling-tower drift for existing power plants were evaluated by the NRC (1996, 

1999) (a) 25 in NUREG-1437 and found to be of minor significance for nuclear power plants in 

26 general, including those with various numbers and types of cooling towers. Because the LNP 

27 project cooling towers would be about 9 mi northeast of the CREC cooling towers, no overlap is 

28 expected between their respective cooling-tower plumes. Of 18 operating nuclear power plants 

29 where the effects of cooling-tower drift on vegetation were investigated by NRC to support 

30 anticipated operating license renewals, vegetation damage attributable to the drift was observed 

31 in a maximum area of about 20 ac (NRC 1996). Areas of vegetation damage attributable to 

32 overlapping plumes of salt drift from power plants 9 mi away are therefore unlikely. The license 

33 renewal GEIS (NRC 1996) indicates that the effects of increased humidity, ground-level fogging, 

34 and icing are similarly localized and that areas of overlapping effect from sources 9 mi distant 

35 would be unlikely. No other cooling towers associated with current or proposed energy projects 

36 lie within the geographic area of interest (Table 7-1). Consequently, potential cumulative 

 

(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.
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-24 August 2010 

1 impacts from cooling-tower plumes (salt deposition, fogging, and icing) would be minimal, 

2 limited to the CREC and LNP sites, and not expected to noticeably affect terrestrial resources. 

3 The geographic area of interest lies within a branch of the Eastern Atlantic Flyway that crosses 

4 northern and central Florida, a migration route used by neotropical migrants and other birds 

5 (FWS 2010; Birdnature.com 2009). Cooling towers, other tall structures, and nighttime lights 

6 associated with the continued and proposed operations at the CREC and the proposed LNP 

7 project may present increased risks for collision and mortality for migrating birds. The CREC 

8 currently maintains two natural draft cooling towers, a four-bank low-profile mechanical draft 

9 cooling tower, and four tall stacks that support four coal-fired units. An additional low-profile 

10 mechanical draft “helper” cooling tower is planned at the CREC under the proposed CREC Unit 

11 3 power uprate. The low height of the mechanical draft cooling tower at the CREC and the 

12 towers planned for the LNP site (about 56 ft above grade); however, are similar to other 

13 buildings at or proposed for the sites, and would not be expected to present a significant 

14 collision hazard for birds. Existing and future communication towers and other tall structures 

15 within the geographic area of interest could also present potential collision hazards to migrating 

16 birds. Although bird mortality resulting from disorientation and collisions with nighttime lighted 

17 structures has been documented, it would not be expected to represent a significant source of 

18 mortality and would have a minimal effect on populations. 

19 Wildlife would be subjected to impacts from increased noise and traffic from the new LNP plant, 

20 Tarmac mine, expansion of the Sun Coast Toll Road, expansion of US 19, expansion of the 

21 FGT pipeline, as well as ongoing regional development. As discussed in Chapter 5, noise 

22 modeling predicts no perceptible to very slight increases in noise from LNP operations at the 

23 site boundary. Except in areas immediately adjacent to major noise sources, expected noise 

24 levels would be below the 80- to 85-dBA threshold at which birds and red foxes (a surrogate for 

25 small and medium-sized mammals) are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Therefore, 

26 disturbance to wildlife from noise would be localized and should have minimal impact on overall 

27 population health. Noise from the operation of the Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine would 

28 include blasting once every week or two to loosen rock, noise associated with excavation and 

29 processing, and truck traffic in and out of the mine (Tarmac America 2010). Noise and 

30 vibrations from blasting and other operations would be required to be at or below limits imposed 

31 by the State of Florida. Noise levels would increase at the CREC with the addition of a new 

32 cooling tower to support the proposed CREC Unit 3 power uprate. Nevertheless, operational 

33 noise at the CREC site at levels that could substantially affect wildlife would not be expected 

34 beyond the site boundary (PEF 2007). Additional traffic on highways and roads would 

35 contribute to an incremental increase in traffic-related wildlife mortalities. It is estimated that 

36 about 500 trucks a day would leave the proposed site at the height of mining activity (Tarmac 

37 America 2010). These impacts from increased traffic would not be expected to noticeably 

38 reduce regional wildlife populations. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Operation of new transmission lines and corridors present increased risks for avian collision and 

2 electrocution beyond the risk posed by existing transmission lines. Siting new lines in or 

3 alongside existing corridors can reduce the potential for avian mortality by limiting the number of 

4 rights-of-way birds need to cross, and hence opportunities for collision. The proposed 

5 collocation of more than 90 percent of the new LNP transmission lines with existing PEF 

6 transmission-line corridors (PEF 2009d) would reduce the potential for additional avian collision 

7 and electrocution. No new transmission lines are proposed under the proposed operating 

8 license extension or power uprate for CREC Unit 3. Vegetation control within transmission-line 

9 corridors can have both adverse and beneficial effects on wildlife. While periodic vegetation 

10 control can result in incidental wildlife mortality, species that inhabit early successional habitat 

11 (including emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands) or use edge environments would benefit from 

12 the maintenance of these habitat conditions. These planned transmission-line operation and 

13 maintenance practices would be expected to have only minimal cumulative effects on wildlife, 

14 whether adverse or beneficial. 

15 In the State of Florida’s Conditions for the LNP Site Certification, CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil16 fuel plants) would be decommissioned assuming LNP Units 1 and 2 are licensed, constructed, 

17 and begin operation in a timely manner (FDEP 2010a). This decommissioning would be 

18 expected to provide only minimal beneficial impacts on terrestrial resources because the area 

19 would likely remain industrial. 

20 7.3.1.2 Important Species 

21 Important terrestrial species meeting the NRC criteria are identified and discussed in 

22 Sections 2.4.1.3 and 2.4.1.4. Future urban, industrial and utility development, new 

23 transmission-line corridors, and the effects of future changes in climate may potentially affect 

24 important species that occur near the LNP project primarily by decreasing or degrading the 

25 available habitat for these species. As described above, habitat loss may occur through loss of 

26 upland and wetland habitats from urban or agricultural development, quarries, sea-level rise, 

27 increasing salinity of estuarine areas, and inundation or filling of wetland habitats. Sea-level rise 

28 resulting from climate change along the Gulf Coast of Florida could accelerate the loss of 

29 wetlands and estuaries, thus eliminating breeding and foraging habitat for commercial, game, 

30 and threatened and endangered wildlife (Ning et al. 2003; GCRP 2009). Loss or alteration of 

31 habitats could affect many of the Federally and State-listed plant species that may occur near 

32 the LNP project (see Table 2-8). 

33 Populations of a number of Federally and State-listed birds use tidal marshes and estuaries 

34 along the Florida Gulf Coast in the area near the LNP project. Examples, among others noted 

35 in Table 2-8, include Scott’s seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus), piping plover 

36 (Charadrius melodus), and American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus), as well as several 

37 wading bird species. Threats posed to these species include the loss or degradation of foraging 

38 habitat and the loss of breeding habitat as a result of sea level rise and increased salinity 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-26 August 2010 

1 caused by climate change. Nesting habitat for the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) along 

2 the Florida Gulf Coast might also be altered or inundated by sea level rise due to changing 

3 climate. 

4 Numerous other Federally and State-listed birds may occur within or adjacent to the 

5 predominantly inland areas near the LNP project (see Table 2-8). Wading birds such as the 

6 wood stork, little blue heron, and white ibis would be affected by development activities that alter 

7 or destroy wetland and marsh habitats where birds nest or forage. Examples of such 

8 development include activities associated with the LNP, the helper cooling tower at CREC Unit 

9 3, the Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, increased urbanization, etc). Activities that generate 

10 noise such as mining or operation of heavy machinery could affect or disturb rookeries where 

11 these birds breed. Removal of mature pine forest could degrade breeding and foraging habitat 

12 for red-cockaded woodpeckers, and clearing oak scrub habitats could affect Florida scrub jay. 

13 Federally and State-listed reptiles and amphibians could be affected by projects involving land14 clearing (such as development of LNP, the helper cooling tower at CREC Unit 3, the Tarmac 

15 King Road Limestone Mine, increased urbanization, etc), habitat loss or fragmentation (such as 

16 new transmission line corridors or expansion of US 19, Sun Coast Toll Road, or the FGT 

17 pipeline), wetland fill or degradation, and increased vehicle traffic on roads and right-of-ways. 

18 Species that may occur near the LNP site wherever suitable habitat is present include the 

19 gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus), sand skink (Neoseps 

20 reynoldsi), short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon 

21 corais) and gopher frog (Rana capito) (Table 2-8). The Eastern indigo snake, Florida pine 

22 snake, and gopher frog are often commensal with the gopher tortoise, using the tortoise burrow 

23 systems for shelter. These species could be displaced and would likely suffer increased 

24 mortality. The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), listed as threatened under the 

25 ESA (due to similarity of appearance to the American crocodile, Crocodylus acutus) is found in 

26 areas near the LNP site, but is considered to have fully recovered (52 FR 21059). Although 

27 trends and conditions, such as urbanization, industrialization, and global climate change, could 

28 affect the American alligator’s habitat and local distribution, none of the identified present or 

29 future projects is expected to affect this recovered species. 

30 Four State-listed mammals are identified from areas near the LNP site: the Florida mouse 

31 (Podomys floridanus), Homosassa shrew (Sorex longirostris eionis), Sherman’s fox squirrel 

32 (Sciurus niger shermani), and Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus). All could be 

33 affected by the loss or degradation of suitable habitat by development (such as development of 

34 LNP, the helper cooling tower at CREC Unit 3, the Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, etc.). 

35 The Florida mouse is often commensal with the gopher tortoise, seeking shelter in tortoise 

36 burrow systems. The less mobile Florida mouse and Homosassa shrew would be at greater 

37 risk of incurring mortality during land clearing, while black bear and Sherman’s fox squirrel 

38 would be displaced to adjacent communities. Habitat fragmentation could adversely impact 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-27 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida black bear, which require expansive tracts of forest and wetlands to persist. Persistence 

2 of such species in this area could eventually depend on proper management of the remaining 

3 large tracts of protected land. 

4 The creation and maintenance of new utility corridors, including those for LNP transmission 

5 lines, the FGT pipeline, and expansion of US 19 and the Sun Coast Toll Road, would be 

6 beneficial for some important species that use early successional habitat or edge environments, 

7 such as white-tailed deer, bobwhite quail, gopher tortoise, and Florida burrowing owl. Local 

8 populations of game species may be temporarily affected by development activities. During 

9 land clearing activities habitat may be lost, and game species could be displaced during clearing 

10 and grading. However, because many game species are habitat generalists, they are expected 

11 to adapt readily to changed landscape conditions. Vegetation control and other maintenance 

12 practices within transmission-line rights-of-way could be harmful to gopher tortoises if protective 

13 measures are not taken in areas occupied by this species. 

14 New transmission-line and other utility corridors would contribute to habitat fragmentation, which 

15 could reduce habitat for species that require large unfragmented tracts of suitable habitat such 

16 as red-cockaded woodpeckers, Florida black bear and eastern indigo snakes. Building new 

17 transmission lines and corridors would also present an increased mortality risk from avian 

18 collision and electrocution for large important species such as bald eagles, Florida sandhill 

19 cranes, herons and egrets. Large structures, transmission lines and nighttime lights associated 

20 with future projects may also pose a mortality hazard for protected species that use the branch 

21 of the Eastern Atlantic Flyway that crosses northern and central Florida (FWS 2010; 

22 Birdnature.com 2009). Although these potential collision hazards generally have little effect on 

23 population levels for common bird species, impacts on less common bird species may be more 

24 substantial. Because none of the potentially affected bird species are endemic to the 

25 geographic area of interest, it is unlikely that the collision impacts would pose a risk to the 

26 overall survival of any avian species, including the less common species. 

27 As many as 76 species of Federally and State-listed plants may occur near the LNP site 

28 wherever suitable habitat is present (Table 2-8). Proposed projects that involve clearing and 

29 grading could remove individuals of listed plants if suitable habitats are disturbed, especially 

30 species requiring forest habitats. However, creation of new utility corridors could provide new 

31 habitat for some listed plants favoring herbaceous and scrub instead of forest cover if 

32 vegetation-maintenance practices are adapted to benefit any populations that establish. 

33 7.3.1.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts on the Terrestrial Ecosystem 

34 Cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information 

35 provided by PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation. Past, present, and reasonably 

36 foreseeable future activities exist in the geographic area of interest that could affect terrestrial 

37 ecological resources in ways similar to the proposed LNP project. Development and expansion 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-28 August 2010 

1 of transmission-line corridors and infrastructure to support proposed future projects would likely 

2 affect wildlife and may be detrimental to native upland and wetland habitats. Loss of wildlife 

3 habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, impacts on important species, and increased loss of 

4 wetlands and other habitats from continued development, such as new roads and pipelines, and 

5 as a consequence of climate change are unavoidable and would continue to occur. Alteration 

6 or loss of habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, and increased risk of avian collision and 

7 electrocution within a branch of the Eastern Atlantic Flyway would contribute to the cumulative 

8 impacts. Based on this analysis, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts from 

9 construction, preconstruction, and operations of the proposed LNP units and from other past, 

10 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on wildlife, important species and their 

11 habitats would noticeably alter, but not likely destabilize, terrestrial ecological resources in the 

12 surrounding landscape. 

13 The review team therefore concludes that the cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources from 

14 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic area of interest 

15 would be MODERATE. This determination is based primarily upon the extent of expected 

16 wetland loss, fragmentation of wetland and upland forest habitats, and continued widespread 

17 manipulation of habitats for commercial forest management. The incremental impacts from 

18 NRC-authorized construction and operation activities would be SMALL to MODERATE, 

19 primarily due to the possible effects of groundwater withdrawal on nearby wetlands and 

20 associated biota. Although incremental impacts on terrestrial resources could be noticeable 

21 near the LNP project, these impacts would not be expected to broadly destabilize the overall 

22 ecology of the regional landscape. 

23 7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts 

24 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.2 serves as a baseline for the 

25 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.3.2, the NRC 

26 staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities on aquatic biota 

27 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. Similarly, as described in 

28 Section 5.3.2, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on aquatic biota would 

29 be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

30 The combined impacts on aquatic resources from construction and preconstruction were 

31 described in Section 4.3.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

32 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, 

33 present, and future actions that could affect aquatic ecology. For this analysis, the geographic 

34 area of interest is the waterbodies connected to the proposed LNP site and offsite facilities, the 

35 entire CFBC, Lake Rousseau, the Inglis Lock bypass channel, the OWR, the CREC intake and 

36 discharge, and the Levy and Citrus Counties offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The 

37 proposed transmission-line corridors are also included in the geographic area of interest. Other 

38 nearby watersheds, such as the Waccasassa River basin, do not affect water quality or biota in 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-29 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the waterbodies associated with LNP activities and are therefore not considered in the 

2 cumulative impacts analysis. 

3 Other actions in the vicinity that have present and reasonably foreseeable future potential 

4 impacts on the CFBC and Gulf of Mexico offshore of the CREC include continued operation of 

5 the existing CREC, the proposed power uprate of CREC Unit 3, current operation of the Inglis 

6 Quarry, widening of the US-19 bridge across the CFBC, a proposed hydropower project on the 

7 Inglis Lock bypass channel spillway, the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, 

8 decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2, development of a Port District along the CFBC, and 

9 natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in precipitation or 

10 temperature and the resulting response of the aquatic community). 

11 Historically, the construction and operation of CREC Units 1–5 have had some impact on 

12 fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, which PEF mitigates by hatchery supplementation. The Crystal 

13 River Mariculture Center began operation October 1991, with red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), 

14 spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), and pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) among 

15 the primary species cultured. Other species such as pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), pigfish 

16 (Orthopristis chrysoptera), stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), and blue crab (Callinectes 

17 sapidus) are also cultured and released in the Gulf of Mexico (PEF 2009e). Between 1999 and 

18 2005, 8 loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta), 38 green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), 

19 1 hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and 92 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys 

20 kempii) have been collected at CREC (Eaton et al. 2008). PEF currently has an incidental take 

21 permit from NMFS that allows an incidental live take of up to 75 sea turtles annually, 3 annual 

22 causal sea turtle mortalities, and a reporting requirement for non-causal related mortalities of 

23 8 or more within a 12-month period (NMFS 2002). PEF has an ongoing program to monitor the 

24 intake canal for the presence of sea turtles, perform rescues for stranded individuals, provide 

25 rehabilitation, and release resources when possible. In 2000, NRC found no significant impact 

26 on marine turtles from the operation of CREC Unit 3 (NMFS 2002). 

27 The current CFBC was constructed starting in 1964, but was never completed as a cross28 Florida canal and was officially deauthorized in 1991 (Noll and Tegeder 2003). The western 

29 portion of the completed CFBC extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the Inglis Lock at Lake 

30 Rousseau, and is typical of a tidal canal with marine and estuarine characteristics. Currently, 

31 portions of the CFBC are managed as a protected greenbelt corridor as part of the Marjorie 

32 Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway (Noll and Tegeder 2003). 

33 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within the CFBC may also include activities or events 

34 that are distinct from the LNP site. Activities related to construction of the hydropower system 

35 on the Inglis Lock bypass channel could temporarily affect the downstream migration of fish 

36 from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River, but would not affect the CFBC or OWR. The 

37 US-19 bridge expansion would not include in-water construction, and impacts on the CFBC 

38 would likely be mitigated through best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-30 August 2010 

1 stormwater runoff during bridge construction. The Inglis Quarry is located on the north side of 

2 the CFBC. Drainage ditches, associated with the quarry are separated from the CFBC by a 

3 containment berm (SDI 2008). Barge traffic within the CFBC is likely to be limited to LNP 

4 module transportation, and should have minimal impact on aquatic resources as discussed in 

5 Section 4.3.2. The proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine expansion may affect 

6 groundwater discharge to the lower Withlacoochee River as discussed in Section 7.2.1.2. As 

7 described in Section 4.2.1, the probable impact on overall reduction in groundwater flux due to 

8 the establishment of this mine through the region is expected to be small. The CREC Unit 3 

9 power uprate is not expected to have any construction-related impacts except for those related 

10 to the construction of additional mechanical draft cooling towers on the CREC site on land that 

11 has been previously disturbed. Any onsite potential construction-related impacts would be 

12 mitigated through the use of BMPs. The contribution of LNP construction-related impacts to 

13 impacts related to other nearby construction activities would be minor. Impacts from 

14 construction of LNP would be temporary and minor, largely mitigated, and mainly confined to 

15 the site. Therefore, the staff concludes that the overall contribution of LNP construction to 

16 cumulative losses of aquatic organisms in the region would be minor. 

17 For operations, the review team considered the potential cumulative impacts on the Gulf of 

18 Mexico and CFBC related to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and also 

19 thermal and chemical releases from both CREC and LNP. Water withdrawn for operation of 

20 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would require a net intake of 190 cfs (122 Mgd). The source of the 

21 190 cfs, under low flow conditions, would be 50 cfs from leakage of Lake Rousseau water 

22 through the Inglis Lock and freshwater springs, emanating in the CFBC in the vicinity of the 

23 intake structure; 70 cfs from the discharge of Lake Rousseau water at the Inglis Dam that would 

24 enter the CFBC via the OWR; and an inflow of 70 cfs that would come from the Gulf of Mexico. 

25 Currently, CREC Units 1–5 withdraw over 15 times more water from the Gulf of Mexico for 

26 operations than the required 190 cfs for LNP Units 1 and 2. The proposed CREC Unit 3 uprate 

27 would not increase station water intake flow for CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 (PEF 2007). The 

28 additional waste heat generated as a result of the CREC Unit 3 power uprate would be 

29 dissipated to the atmosphere by the additional mechanical draft cooling tower planned for 

30 construction at the CREC site. 

31 The review team considered the potential incremental cumulative impacts of impingement and 

32 entrainment of aquatic organisms related to operation of LNP 1 and 2 along with continued 

33 operation of CREC Units 1–5. As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the proposed closed-cycle cooling 

34 system with mechanical draft cooling towers for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would not be 

35 expected to result in a discernable impact on populations of aquatic organisms inhabiting 

36 Crystal Bay and Withlacoochee Bay areas of the Gulf of Mexico as a result of impingement or 

37 entrainment. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The review team is aware that the possibility exists that CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil-fuel plants) 

2 which contribute significantly to the overall impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms 

3 at CREC, would be decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin operation. This significant 

4 reduction in intake withdrawal volume (greater than 48 percent) at CREC would reduce the 

5 cumulative impact of impingement and entrainment related to operation of CREC on aquatic 

6 organisms in the Gulf of Mexico, and may result in a net positive impact on local fisheries. 

7 The operation of the proposed Inglis hydropower project would involve the use of bar racks to 

8 prevent debris and organisms larger than 2 in. from traveling through the turbine (Inglis 2008). 

9 Any potential impacts from the Inglis hydropower project are isolated from the impacts on the 

10 CFBC because the Inglis Lock bypass channel and Withlacoochee River are not hydraulically 

11 connected to the CFBC. The construction and operation of the hydroelectric facility would have 

12 no effect on populations of aquatic organisms inhabiting the CFBC. Therefore, the Inglis 

13 hydroelectric project would have no detectable incremental cumulative impact on aquatic 

14 resources affected by the building and operation of LNP. 

15 The review team also considered the potential cumulative impacts of thermal discharges. The 

16 operation of all five units at CREC with the uprate of CREC Unit 3, and without the LNP Units 1 

17 and 2 discharge would result in no thermal increase with the operation of a new helper cooling 

18 tower to augment the current modular helper cooling towers (PEF 2007). The review team is 

19 aware that the possibility exists that CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil-fuel plants) which contribute to 

20 the discharge flow, would be decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin operation. The 

21 staff conducted a thermal analysis of two cases involving the discharge from CREC. 

22 The first case evaluated the thermal discharge from all five units at CREC, the power uprate 

23 from CREC Unit 3 and the blowdown from LNP Units 1 and 2. A second analysis involved 

24 CREC Units 3 through 5, the Unit 3 power uprate, blowdown from LNP 1 and 2 and CREC 

25 Units 1 and 2 permanently shutdown. The thermal analyses for these two cases are presented 

26 in Section 5.2.3.1. 

27 The first scenario concludes that resulting changes in discharges at CREC would be minimal for 

28 thermal and chemical impacts with a slight increase in discharge plume size. The addition of 

29 the LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would result in an increased discharge volume of 87.93 Mgd, 

30 but no significant increase in thermal plume temperature or salinity over current conditions, as 

31 discussed in Section 5.3.2.1. 

32 The second scenario, with CREC Units 1 and 2 not operating, CREC Units 3 through 5 

33 operating, CREC Unit 3 with the power uprate, and LNP Units 1 and 2 operating, would result in 

34 a discharge plume much decreased in size when compared to the first scenario. CREC Units 1 

35 and 2 currently contribute 918 Mgd total discharge to the Gulf of Mexico during summer 

36 operations. This accounts for greater than 45 percent of the total CREC discharge (PEF 

37 2009b). The predicted thermal plume would decrease during both summer and winter 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-32 August 2010 

1 conditions as a result from the decreased discharge plume. Salinity increases would occur 

2 under both summer and winter conditions due to increased cycles of concentration with CREC 

3 Units 1 and 2 non-operational, but are less than 1.0 psu. 

4 Both scenarios represent a noticeable temperature and salinity change in the immediate Gulf of 

5 Mexico waters compared to the same region prior to CREC operations from a cumulative point 

6 of view (as discussed in Section 7.2.2.1). However, habitats and aquatic organisms in this area 

7 have adapted to the salinity and temperature changes so that the incremental impacts of LNP 1 

8 and 2 discharge, CREC uprate of Unit 3, and decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2 would 

9 likely not be noticeable. 

10 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts from chemical releases, including 

11 increases in total dissolved solids in the combined CREC and LNP discharge. CREC Units 1–5 

12 are in compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as Clean Water 

13 Act) (33 USC 1251, et seq.) Section 316(a) (thermal discharges) impacts from cooling-water 

14 systems. Chemical releases from the existing unit(s) currently comply with the FDEP NPDES 

15 permitting requirements, and compliance with the Unit 3 uprate, and decommissioning of CREC 

16 Units 1 and 2 is expected to continue and would be monitored in the future. The FDEP will take 

17 cumulative chemical releases from the existing and proposed unit(s), as well as from other 

18 industrial sites discharging to the Gulf of Mexico into consideration before approving a NPDES 

19 permit for the proposed unit(s). Given the lack of other discharges into the immediate area of 

20 the CREC discharge, it is likely that the cumulative impacts from LNP discharge combined with 

21 the discharge from CREC Units 1 through 5 with and without operation of CREC Units 1 and 2 

22 would be minimal. 

23 Nutrients introduced to groundwater from natural or manmade events such as fires may affect 

24 nutrient loading in surface waters. Nutrients would be discharged to groundwater through 

25 infiltration of surface waters located as stormwater-detention ponds on the LNP site and are not 

26 expected to affect offsite waterbodies such as the Withlacoochee River or Lake Rousseau. 

27 Furthermore appropriate stewardship of the site by the applicant is expected to significantly 

28 reduce the potential for uncontrolled fires involving onsite vegetation. 

29 Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

30 nuclear facility can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

31 include shoreline development, such as the proposed Port District, for commercial, industrial, 

32 and residential waterfront development along the CFBC to the west of US-19 (Citrus County 

33 2009), increased water needs, and increased discharge of effluents into the Gulf of Mexico or 

34 the CFBC. The review team is also aware of the potential for global climate change affecting 

35 aquatic resources. The impact of global climate change on aquatic organisms and habitat in the 

36 geographic area of interest is not precisely known. Global climate change could result in sea 

37 level rise and may cause regional increases in the frequency of severe weather, decreases in 

38 annual precipitation and increases in average temperature (GCRP 2009). Such changes in 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-33 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 climate could alter aquatic community composition on or near the CREC site through changes in 

2 species diversity, abundance and distribution. Elevated water temperatures, droughts, and 

3 severe weather phenomena may adversely affect or severely reduce aquatic habitat, but 

4 specific predictions on aquatic habitat changes in this region due to global climate change are 

5 inconclusive at this time. The level of impact resulting from these events would depend on the 

6 intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic communities. Aquatic ecosystem 

7 responses to these events are difficult to predict. Although trends and conditions, such as 

8 urbanization, industrialization, and global climate change, could affect aquatic species habitats, 

9 none of the identified present or future projects is expected to adversely affect aquatic species 

10 in the geographic area of interest. 

11 Cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information 

12 provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review. As noted above, the review team 

13 found the cumulative impacts from both construction and operation to be minimal. Due to the 

14 minimal nature of these impacts, when combined, the review team concludes that cumulative 

15 impacts on aquatic biota from the construction, preconstruction, and operation of LNP Units 1 

16 and 2 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL. 

17 7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

18 The evaluation of cumulative impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice is described 

19 in the following sections. 

20 7.4.1 Socioeconomics 

21 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5 serves as a baseline for the 

22 cumulative impacts assessment in these resource areas. As described in Section 4.4, the NRC 

23 staff concluded that the socioeconomic impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities would 

24 be SMALL with exceptions discussed as follows. The NRC staff found that specific community 

25 public services were either at capacity or otherwise limited in some areas and concluded that 

26 the impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities would include MODERATE impacts on 

27 Inglis and Dunnellon police and emergency services and Levy County fire-protection services 

28 and MODERATE impacts on schools serving Inglis, Yankeetown, and Dunnellon during peak 

29 employment years. Aesthetic impacts near the LNP site would be SMALL, although localized 

30 MODERATE impacts would be felt along newly cleared transmission-line corridors. The review 

31 team anticipates SMALL impacts from NRC-authorized construction and preconstruction of the 

32 LNP on the existing road network, with the exception of the intersection of US-19 and the 

33 construction driveway where impacts would be MODERATE and intermittent. 

34 As described in Section 5.4, the review team determined that the physical and demographic 

35 effects of plant operations would be SMALL. Economic and tax impacts would be SMALL and 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-34 August 2010 

1 beneficial except for Levy County where tax impacts would be LARGE and beneficial. Impacts 

2 on infrastructure, transportation, and community services would be SMALL except for short-term 

3 MODERATE impacts on police and emergency services in Inglis and Dunnellon; fire-protection 

4 services in Levy County; and schools serving Inglis, Yankeetown, and Dunnellon. The review 

5 team determined that in the long term once local funding has been adjusted, all of these 

6 MODERATE impacts would reduce to SMALL. Aesthetic impacts near the LNP site would be 

7 SMALL, although localized MODERATE impacts would be felt along transmission-line corridors. 

8 The impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 are cumulative by nature. The combined impacts 

9 from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.4 and were determined to be 

10 the same as described above for NRC-authorized activities. In addition to socioeconomic 

11 impacts from preconstruction, construction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers 

12 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to 

13 cumulative socioeconomic impacts. For this cumulative impacts analysis, the geographic area 

14 of interest is considered to be the region (i.e., the 50-mi radius around the LNP site). The 

15 review team determined the region includes the primary communities and three counties – 

16 Marion, Levy, and Citrus – that make up the Economic Impact Area (EIA) that would be most 

17 affected by the proposed project. 

18 For more than a century, the LNP site has been used for forest plantation. Most of the LNP site 

19 would be preserved in its present forested condition with forest surrounding the industrial area. 

20 The closest residential properties are located 1.6 mi northwest and 1.7 mi west-southwest of the 

21 site. There are no sensitive populations near the LNP site. The nearest recreational resources 

22 are Goethe State Forest, the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida Greenway, Inglis Island Trail, 

23 Inglis Lock Recreation Area, and the CFBC. 

24 In 2000, approximately 2 percent of the resident population of the region lived within 10 mi of 

25 the proposed LNP site. The remaining 98 percent lived between 10 mi and 50 mi of the 

26 proposed site. The resident population within 10 mi of the proposed site is concentrated in and 

27 around the communities of Yankeetown, to the west-southwest of the proposed site; Inglis, to 

28 the southwest; and Dunnellon, to the east. Within the wider region, the resident population is 

29 concentrated around the cities of Gainesville, to the north-northeast; Crystal River, to the south; 

30 and Ocala, to the east-northeast. In the EIA, Levy County is the least populated and most rural, 

31 followed by Citrus County, which gained population and urban development following 

32 construction of the CREC. Marion County is the most populated and least rural. All school 

33 districts in the EIA reported trends in school enrollments that indicated increasing populations of 

34 retired persons in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and all projected a continuation of that trend 

35 before the economic downturn of 2008–2009. 

36 Projects and plans that have contributed to existing conditions around the LNP site, in the EIA, 

37 and in the region include those listed in Table 7-2. They have affected demography, economy, 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-35 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 and community infrastructure in the region as it exists today. The table presents some likely 

2 effects based on the review team’s understanding of similar projects and on information 

3 Table 7-2. Contributions of Past Projects to Current Conditions

Project Likely Contributions Present Socioeconomic Conditions 

CREC • In-migrating construction and operations workers affecting demography, employment, 

and associated revenues from direct and indirect jobs, as well as demand for housing 

and community infrastructure – noticeable and character-changing impact in Citrus 

County evidenced in new planned residential developments, increased school 

capacity over time, and interviewees’ comments that Citrus County had been like 

Levy County before the CREC was built. 

• Property tax revenues enabling development of community infrastructure. 

Construction of CFBC • Typical short-term impacts of large construction project – minor effects on 

demography; minor beneficial effects on employment and associated revenues. 

Improvements to Federal, 

State, and county roads 

• Typical short-term impacts of medium- and large-construction projects – minor effects 

on demography; minor beneficial effects on employment and associated revenues. 

• Improved access to jobs and community infrastructure for residents and visitors – 

minor effect on demography; minor beneficial effects on employment and associated 

revenues. 

Water- and/or 

wastewater-treatment and 

distribution facilities 

• Enabling increased and more dense residential development – minor to noticeable 

effects on demography. 

County comprehensive 

plans 

• Preserving rural quality of life by design – noticeable effect on demography. 

4 provided during interviews with local officials. The information in the table suggests that county 

5 comprehensive plans have had a noticeable impact on current conditions region-wide by 

6 controlling the nature of development and residential settlement. Construction of the CREC 

7 also had a noticeable impact, particularly in Citrus County where conditions now are reportedly 

8 much different from what they were before the facility was constructed (NRC 2009). As 

9 indicated, these effects are reflected in current capacities and conditions presented in 

10 Section 2.5. 

11 Within the region, the two reasonably foreseeable projects shown on Table 7-1 with the greatest 

12 potential to affect cumulative socioeconomic impacts would be the Tarmac King Road 

13 Limestone Mine during preconstruction and construction of LNP and the closure of two of the 

14 four coal-fired units at CREC during operation of LNP. The other projects involve continuation 

15 of restricted development in existing parkland and open space, little or no change in current 

16 levels of employment at existing establishments, or new development consistent with controls in 

17 existing county comprehensive plans. The review team believes the effects of these projects 

18 have been included in population and demand projections in the county comprehensive plans 

19 and in other public agency planning processes. 

20 Tarmac has applied for permits to begin construction of the King Road Limestone Mine in 2010 

21 with operations beginning in 2012. Tarmac estimates that at the height of mining activity, about 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-36 August 2010 

1 500 trucks would leave the mine site daily and enter US-19 (Tarmac America 2010). The 

2 potential impacts from this increased traffic, coupled with traffic from the LNP site, were 

3 considered in Sections 4.4 and 5.4 and were considered minor except during the highest traffic 

4 periods, such as shift changes, when road congestion would create noticeable, intermittent 

5 impacts. 

6 The closure of two of the four coal-fired units at CREC that is expected to occur after the 

7 proposed two units at the LNP site are operating (FDEP 2010a), would potentially extend 

8 employment for some of the construction workers temporarily, moderating the impact of the loss 

9 of operations jobs at CREC. In the longer term, the closure-related employment and income 

10 losses would magnify the differential between peak construction and long-term employment in 

11 the EIA and the associated population loss and decrease in demand on infrastructure and 

12 community services. To some extent, these effects would be offset by employment and 

13 population gains associated with operation of LNP, although more jobs would be lost at the 

14 coal-fired units than gained at LNP. Assuming no offset, the percentage employment and 

15 associated population lost would be less than 1 percent of employment and population in the 

16 EIA, a loss that the review team determined would be noticeable only in the most directly 

17 affected communities. In addition, Citrus County would see a potential loss in tax revenue paid 

18 by PEF for the coal-fired units at CREC that would not be offset by taxes paid by PEF for the 

19 LNP units, because these taxes would be paid to Levy County. Because Citrus County would 

20 still receive tax revenue from PEF for the remaining nuclear unit and two coal units at CREC, 

21 the review team determined that the lost revenue would be minor and not sufficient to alter 

22 Citrus County’s ability to provide infrastructure and community services to its population. 

23 Based on the preceding analysis, the review team found that the reduction of tax revenue 

24 associated with the possible closure of two of the four CREC coal-fired units could noticeably 

25 alter the economy for Citrus County. The review team did not indentify other projects that would 

26 significantly contribute to cumulative socioeconomic effects beyond those identified in 

27 Chapters 4 and 5. Thus, the team determined that cumulative socioeconomic effects of the 

28 LNP project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL with 

29 the following exceptions: there would be MODERATE short-term adverse effects on police, 

30 emergency service, fire-protection services, and schools in specific local communities during 

31 peak construction and preconstruction employment years, and SMALL with a MODERATE and 

32 intermittent impact on one transportation corridor. The short-term adverse effects would be 

33 expected to become SMALL once local funding has been adjusted after a few years of LNP 

34 operation. Levy County would see long-term LARGE beneficial tax impacts after LNP begins 

35 operation. Citrus County would see SMALL adverse tax impacts after coal-fired units at CREC 

36 are closed. There would be long-term MODERATE aesthetic impacts along transmission-line 

37 corridors. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-37 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Based on the preceding conclusions and because NRC-authorized construction and operations 

2 activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the 

3 cumulative impacts of NRC-authorized construction and operations activities would be SMALL 

4 (with the noted exceptions). The review team’s finding of MODERATE adverse impacts during 

5 the building of LNP was based on the fact that specific community public services were either at 

6 capacity or otherwise limited. Consequently, any increase in demand for services would result 

7 in a noticeable impact. As discussed, the review team expects these impacts would reduce to 

8 SMALL during operation of LNP. The NRC staff found that the cumulative LARGE beneficial tax 

9 impact on Levy County would be due to NRC-authorized construction, while the cumulative 

10 SMALL adverse tax impact on Citrus County would not be due to NRC-authorized activities. 

11 7.4.2 Environmental Justice 

12 The description of the affected environment in Sections 2.5 and 2.6 serves as a baseline for the 

13 cumulative impacts assessment of environmental justice impacts. The combined physical and 

14 socioeconomic impacts from construction and preconstruction and from operations are 

15 summarized in Sections 4.5.4 and 5.5.4. Adverse physical and socioeconomic impacts were 

16 determined to be SMALL for most elements and MODERATE in the short term for education 

17 and police, emergency, and fire-protection services in certain locations, and SMALL for all 

18 elements in the longer term, once local funding has been adjusted. As discussed in Sections 

19 4.5 and 5.5, the review team concluded that no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on 

20 minority and low-income populations would result from NRC-authorized construction activities or 

21 from operation of LNP. Therefore, environmental justice impacts would be SMALL. 

22 In addition to environmental justice impacts from preconstruction, construction, and operation of 

23 LNP, the cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

24 actions that could contribute to cumulative environmental justice impacts. For this cumulative 

25 analysis, the general geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region described 

26 in Section 2.5.1. 

27 As shown in Figure 2-26, all census block groups with minority and low-income populations that 

28 meet the criteria discussed in Section 2.6 are located 10 mi or farther away from the LNP site. 

29 The closest minority populations (both aggregate and African-American) are in Citrus County 

30 between Citrus Springs and Dunnellon, approximately 10 mi from the site. The closest low31 income populations, near Otter Creek in Levy County, are almost 20 mi from the site. There are 

32 concentrations of block groups with African-American populations around the communities of 

33 Otter Creek, Usher, Chiefland, and Williston in Levy County between 20 and 30 mi from the site; 

34 around Ocala in Marion County, about 30 mi from the site; around Gainesville in Alachua County, 

35 about 45 mi from the site; and in the northwest corner of Sumter County, between 20 and 30 mi 

36 from the site. (Note: These are linear distances from the LNP site center; driving distances to all 

37 communities are greater). There are concentrations of block groups with low-income populations 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-38 August 2010 

1 that overlap with African-American populations around Otter Creek, Usher, and Chiefland in Levy 

2 County and around Ocala (Marion County) and Gainesville (Alachua County). 

3 As discussed in Section 7.4.1 for socioeconomic cumulative impacts, the two reasonably 

4 foreseeable projects shown on Table 7-1 with the greatest potential to affect cumulative 

5 environmental justice impacts within the region would be the Tarmac King Road Limestone 

6 Mine during preconstruction and construction of LNP and the closure of coal-fired units at CREC 

7 during operation of LNP. The other projects involve continuation of restricted development in 

8 existing parkland and open space, little or no change in current levels of employment at existing 

9 establishments, or new development consistent with controls in existing county comprehensive 

10 plans. The review team believes the effects of these projects have been included in population 

11 and demand projections in the county comprehensive plans and in other public agency planning 

12 processes. 

13 As explained in Section 7.4.1, the potential impacts from increased traffic associated with the 

14 new limestone mine, coupled with traffic from the LNP site, were considered in Sections 4.4 and 

15 5.4 and, as mentioned, were considered minor except during shift changes with no 

16 disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations. 

17 After construction, the region would experience reduced direct construction employment and 

18 related indirect jobs. This reduction would be somewhat offset by the introduction of new 

19 operations workers at the new units. The planned closure of two of the four coal-fired units at 

20 CREC that is expected to occur after the proposed two nuclear power units are operating would 

21 slightly increase the differential between peak construction and long-term employment. In 

22 addition, Citrus County would see a loss in tax revenue paid by PEF for the two coal-fired units 

23 at CREC; however, the review team determined the loss in revenue would not be destabilizing 

24 given the new revenue from the two nuclear units and other remaining revenue sources. If the 

25 operating license for the existing nuclear unit at CREC were not renewed (it is currently valid 

26 through midnight December 3, 2016) and the unit closed, the loss of employment, income, and 

27 tax revenues would be larger. The review team found no evidence that these socioeconomic 

28 impacts would have a disproportionately high and adverse affect on low-income or minority 

29 populations in the region. The review team also found no evidence that impacts described in 

30 the other sections of this chapter (i.e., impacts to land use, water use and quality, ecology, 

31 historic and cultural resources, air quality, health; and impacts of waste, postulated accidents, 

32 fuel cycle transportation and decommissioning) would have a disproportionately high and 

33 adverse affect on minority or low-income populations in the region. 

34 Based on the analysis above, the review team determined that cumulative environmental justice 

35 impacts of preconstruction, construction, and operation of LNP and other past, present, and 

36 reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL and that the environmental justice impacts 

37 impacts from NRC-authorized activities in combination with the other projects described in 

38 Table 7-1 would be SMALL. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-39 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources 

2 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.7 serves as a baseline for the 

3 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.6, impacts on 

4 cultural resources from NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

5 would be warranted. As described in Section 5.6, the review team concludes that the impacts 

6 on cultural resources from operations are SMALL. Mitigation may be warranted only in the 

7 event of an unanticipated discovery during any ground-disturbing activities associated with 

8 construction or maintenance of the operating facility. These actions would be determined by 

9 PEF in consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). PEF’s cultural 

10 resource management procedures would be followed if it encountered cultural resources during 

11 building and operation (PEF 2008c). 

12 The combined impacts from preconstruction and construction are described in Section 4.6 and 

13 were determined to be SMALL. If preconstruction activities associated with the transmission 

14 lines result in significant alterations to the known cultural resources in the transmission-line 

15 corridors, then the impact could be greater. The known cultural resources located in the 

16 transmission-line corridors are described in Section 2.7.2.4 and consist of one National Register 

17 of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible site (8SM128) and two sites having confirmed or potential 

18 human remains (8SM10 and 8SM84). In addition to the impacts from construction, 

19 preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and 

20 reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect historic and cultural resources. The 

21 geographic area of interest for this assessment of potential cumulative impacts includes the 

22 direct and indirect Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) for cultural resources at the LNP site, which 

23 are defined in Section 2.7, and the transmission-line corridors. The cumulative impacts 

24 assessment considers the eligibility of historical properties for listing in the NRHP (National 

25 Register). Coordination with the SHPO provided information on cultural resources and potential 

26 impacts on cultural resources with respect to other past, present, and reasonably forseeable 

27 future actions in the geographic area of interest. 

28 The cultural background for the LNP site is described in Section 2.7.1. Historically, several 

29 groups of American Indians lived in Florida, many of which became extinct or merged with other 

30 groups due to non-American Indian encroachment by explorers and settlers by the mid-1700s. 

31 The largest groups were the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. 

32 Conflict between settlers and the Seminoles was defined by warfare and slave raids until the 

33 mid-19th century, by which time conflict and disease had contributed to the near-extinction of 

34 the Seminoles. By 1858, at the end of the third Seminole War, only 200 Seminoles remained. 

35 Nine forts were reportedly established in Levy County as part of the conflict with Native 

36 Americans in the region with the Second and Third Seminole Wars. During the Civil War, the 

37 Cedar Key port was occupied by both northern and southern troops. The town nearest to the 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-40 August 2010 

1 LNP project area was first recorded as Black Dirt in 1860. Over the next 30 years, its name 

2 changed from Black Dirt to Blind Horse, then to Inglis. 

3 Projects within the geographic area of interest that may have a potential cumulative impact on 

4 cultural resources include Goethe State Forest and future urbanization such as the expansion or 

5 creation of roads or pipelines near or intersecting the proposed transmission lines. 

6 Development in the Goethe State Forest is unlikely; however such projects could affect cultural 

7 resources if ground-disturbing activities occur or if new above-ground structures affect the visual 

8 APE. As described in Section 2.7, there are known cultural resources in the transmission-line 

9 corridors. Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads or the FGT pipeline project may 

10 intersect the proposed transmission-line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be 

11 avoided by long linear projects, impacts on cultural resources would be minimal. If activities 

12 associated with building the transmission lines or road or pipeline expansion projects result in 

13 significant alterations (both physical alteration and visual intrusion) of cultural resources in the 

14 transmission-line corridors, then cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be greater. 

15 Cultural resources are nonrenewable. Therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

16 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s 

17 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative cultural resources 

18 impact from preconstruction, construction, and operation of two units at the LNP site, and other 

19 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL. 

20 7.6 Air Quality 

21 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.9 serves as a baseline for the 

22 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.7, the impacts 

23 of NRC-authorized construction activities on air quality impacts would be SMALL, and no further 

24 mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.7, the review team concludes that the 

25 impacts of operations on air quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

26 warranted. 

27 7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants 

28 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in Section 4.7 and 

29 were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from preconstruction, construction, 

30 and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

31 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts on air quality. For this 

32 cumulative analysis of criteria pollutants, the geographic area of interest is considered to be 

33 Levy County within the West Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

34 (40 CFR 81.96). As set forth in 40 CFR 81.310, air quality attainment status for Levy County 

35 reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant sources in the region. Levy 

36 County is in attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-41 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The air quality impacts of site development for LNP Units 1 and 2 would be local and temporary. 

2 Generally, the distance from building activities to the site boundary would be sufficient to avoid 

3 significant air quality impacts. Permitted air emission sources at the proposed LNP site include 

4 the cooling towers. The emissions of particulate matter from the two cooling towers would 

5 exceed 100 T/yr, making these towers a major source of particulate matter. A Florida Air 

6 Quality Permit has been prepared and submitted to the State under PEF’s Florida Site 

7 Certification Application (PEF 2008b). Of the projects listed in Table 7-1, the operation of the 

8 Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine is the only project with the potential to have significant 

9 impacts on air quality. The primary pollutant from the quarry is fugitive dust emissions (Florida 

10 Air Quality Permit 0750089-001-AC), and the level of dust emission would be regulated by the 

11 State (FDEP 2008). Other industrial projects listed in Table 7-1 would have de minimis impacts. 

12 Given that these other projects all have institutional controls and the LNP site is influenced by 

13 coastal wind patterns, it is unlikely that there would be a degradation of air quality of Levy 

14 County. 

15 7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

16 As discussed in the state of the science report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research 

17 Program (GCRP), it is the “... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global 

18 warming, and in turn, climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy. 

19 The vast majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, about 87 percent, come from energy 

20 production and use...” Approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions are the result 

21 of generating electricity and heat (GCRP 2009). This assessment is focused on greenhouse 

22 gas emissions. 

23 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with building, operating, and decommissioning a nuclear 

24 power plant are addressed in Sections 4.7, 5.7.1, 5.10.3, 6.1.3, and Appendix I. The review 

25 team has concluded that the atmospheric impacts of the emissions associated with each aspect 

26 of building, operating, and decommissioning a single nuclear plant are minimal. The review 

27 team also concluded that the impacts of the combined emissions for the full plant life cycle are 

28 minimal. 

29 The cumulative impacts of a single source or combination of greenhouse gas emission sources 

30 must be placed in geographic context, as follows: 

31 • The environmental impact is global rather than local or regional. 

32 • The effect is not particularly sensitive to the location of the release point. 

33 • The magnitude of individual greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no matter 

34 how large compared to other sources, is small when compared to the total mass of 

35 greenhouse gases resident in the atmosphere. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-42 August 2010 

1 • The total number and variety of greenhouse gas emission sources is extremely large and 

2 ubiquitous. 

3 These points are illustrated in Table 7-3. 

4 Table 7-3. Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates 

Source 

Metric Tons 

per Year 

Global Emissions 28,000,000,000(a)

United States 6,000,000,000(a)

1000 MW Nuclear Power Plant (including fuel cycle, 90 percent capacity factor) 400,000(b)

1000 MW Nuclear Power Plant (operations only, 90 percent capacity factor) 5000(b)

Average U.S. Passenger Vehicle(c) 5 

(a) EPA 2009. 

(b) Appendix I. 

(c) FHWA 2006. 

5 Assuming that LNP becomes operational in a timely manner, the coal-fired Units 1 and 2 at the 

6 CREC would be shut down by 2020 (FDEP 2010a). This action would lead to a reduction in the 

7 amount greenhouse gas emissions associated with the operation of these two coal-fired units 

8 and emissions associated with the coal fuel cycle. 

9 Evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of a global 

10 climate model. The previously referenced GCRP (2009) report provides a synthesis of the 

11 results of numerous climate-modeling studies. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

12 impacts of greenhouse emissions around the world as presented in the report are the 

13 appropriate basis for its evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts set forth in the 

14 GCRP report (GCRP 2009), the review team concludes that the national and worldwide 

15 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable. The review team further 

16 concludes that the cumulative impacts would be noticeable with or without the greenhouse gas 

17 emissions (including the possible reduction of emissions associated with the shutdown of Units 

18 1 and 2 at the CREC) of the proposed project. 

19 Consequently, the review team recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon 

20 dioxide, from individual stationary sources and cumulatively from multiple sources can 

21 contribute to climate change, and the carbon footprint is a relevant factor in evaluating energy 

22 alternatives. Section 9.2.5 contains a comparison of carbon footprints of the viable energy 

23 alternatives. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-43 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 7.6.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts 

2 Cumulative impacts on air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

3 PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

4 foreseeable activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants and 

5 global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The cumulative 

6 impacts on criteria pollutants from emissions of effluents from the LNP site and other projects 

7 would not be noticeable. With the exception of the particulate emissions from the cooling 

8 towers (which require a permit from the State of Florida), the LNP and other projects listed in 

9 Table 7-1 would have de minimis impacts. The national and worldwide cumulative impacts of 

10 greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

11 impacts would be noticeable with or without the greenhouse gas emissions from the LNP site. 

12 The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 

13 foreseeable future actions on air quality resources in the geographic areas of interest would be 

14 SMALL to MODERATE. The incremental contribution of impacts on air quality resources from 

15 building and operating proposed Units 1 and 2 would be SMALL. The incremental contribution 

16 of impacts on air quality resources from the NRC-authorized activities would also be SMALL. 

17 7.7 Nonradiological Health 

18 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.10 serves as a baseline for 

19 nonradiological health. As described in Section 4.8, the nonradiological health effects 

20 associated with building would include noise, criteria air pollutant and dust emissions from 

21 construction equipment, occupational injuries, and increased air emissions and traffic accidents 

22 associated with transporting workers and construction materials to and from the site. As 

23 discussed in Section 4.8.4, the NRC staff has concluded that the nonradiological health impacts 

24 from NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

25 warranted other than that described in PEF’s ER. 

26 Nonradiological health impacts from LNP operation would include potential growth of 

27 thermophilic etiological agents in the cooling system, noise from the LNP and cooling-water 

28 intake pump, increased air emissions and traffic accidents, occupational injuries, and acute and 

29 chronic exposures to EMF from the transmission lines. As described in Section 5.8, the 

30 nonradiological health impacts from operation of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would also be 

31 SMALL and warrant no further mitigation. 

32 The review team has concluded that the combined nonradiological health impacts from 

33 construction and preconstruction would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

34 warranted other than that described in the ER (PEF 2009a). In addition to the impacts from 

35 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, 

36 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-44 August 2010 

1 on nonradiological health (Table 7-1). For most of the nonradiological health impacts of facility 

2 construction and operation (air emissions, noise, occupational injuries), cumulative effects may 

3 occur only in areas very close to the LNP site. Occupational injuries would occur only on the 

4 LNP construction site, and there would thus be no potential for cumulative impacts with other 

5 projects. 

6 For cumulative impacts associated with transmission-line corridors, the geographic area of 

7 interest is the transmission system associated with proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 (as described 

8 in Section 2.2.2). None of the present or future projects appears likely to have cumulative 

9 impacts on acute or chronic EMF exposure in or near the transmission-line corridors. 

10 The review team considered the cumulative impacts associated with harmful thermophilic 

11 microorganisms in nearby waterbodies. The thermal contribution of LNP blowdown to the 

12 CREC discharge from Units 1 through 5, and assuming the Unit 3 power uprate, would be minor 

13 and would not increase the incidence of illness due to thermophilic microorganisms. The review 

14 team is aware that the total heat discharge from the CREC would be reduced if the two older 

15 coal-fired plants at the CREC are decommissioned, as required by the FDEP Conditions of 

16 Certification, assuming LNP Units 1 and 2 are licensed, constructed, and begin operations in a 

17 timely manner (FDEP 2010a). The operation of the proposed Inglis Lock project would not 

18 affect water temperature. Thus, the combined impact on thermophilic etiologic agents from 

19 LNP, CREC, and the proposed Inglis Lock project would be minimal. 

20 Impacts of criteria air pollutants and fugitive dust during building and construction and noise 

21 from construction and operation have been assessed as minimal for the nearest offsite 

22 receptors located 1.6 and 1.7 mi from the center of the project site (see Sections 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 

23 and 5.8.2). Cumulative noise and air emission impacts from all but one of the current and future 

24 projects identified in Table 7-1 were considered to be minor because of the distance separating 

25 them from the LNP site. That one project is the Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, which is 

26 approximately 2 mi to the west of the site. The combined noise or dust emission impacts from 

27 the LNP and the mine could possibly affect residents adversely. Combined impacts would most 

28 likely occur during LNP building activities. After the LNP begins operation, noise and particulate 

29 impacts from the LNP are predicted to be minimal, and the combined noise and air emission 

30 impacts from the LNP and the Tarmac Mine would be intermittent and minimal overall. 

31 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health. 

32 Information regarding the state of knowledge in this area (GCRP 2009) has been reviewed in 

33 the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region during the life of 

34 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 include an increase in average temperature and a decrease in 

35 precipitation in the area of interest accompanied by an increase in severe weather events. 

36 Potential impacts of climate change that have been identified include the following: 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-45 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 • reduced cooling system efficiency at the LNP (and other power-generation facilities), which 

2 would result in increased temperature of the cooling-tower discharge water and possible 

3 increased growth of thermophilic, etiological agents 

4 • increased incidence of diseases transmitted by food, water, and insects following heavy 

5 downpours and severe storms 

6 • increased severity of water pollution associated with sediments, fertilizers, herbicides, 

7 pesticides, and thermal pollution caused by projected heavier rainfall intensity and longer 

8 periods of drought. 

9 Potential increases in temperature and incidence of disease are of particular concern owing to 

10 the rapid growth of elderly population in Florida that may be particularly susceptible to these 

11 effects. While the effects of future climate change identified in these studies are not 

12 insignificant, their relationship to LNP operations is not clear, and the review team did not 

13 identify anything that would alter its conclusion regarding the presence of etiological agents or 

14 change in the incidence of waterborne diseases. While operation of the LNP might result in 

15 local increases in etiological agent growth, it is not clear that the operation of LNP would 

16 increase health risks owing to the strong controls on exposure to microbes (see Section 5.8.1). 

17 Estimates of cumulative impacts on nonradiological health are based on information provided by 

18 PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation of impacts resulting from the building and 

19 operation of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, along with a review of potential impacts from 

20 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects located near the LNP site, CREC 

21 discharge, and the transmission-line corridor. The review team determined that the impacts 

22 from future projects that could affect nonradiological health impacts, including continued 

23 operations at CREC, the CREC Unit 3 uprate, and potential closure of two CREC coal-fired 

24 plants when the LNP Units 1 and 2 become operational, and global climate change, would be 

25 minimal. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the LNP and other past, present and foreseeable 

26 future projects on public and worker nonradiological health would be SMALL, and mitigation 

27 beyond what is discussed in Sections 4.8 and 5.8 would not be warranted. 

28 7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 

29 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.11 serves as a baseline for the 

30 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.9, the NRC 

31 staff concludes that the radiological impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be 

32 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.9, the NRC 

33 staff concludes that the radiological impacts from operations would be SMALL, and no further 

34 mitigation would be warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-46 August 2010 

1 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in Section 4.9 and 

2 were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

3 and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably 

4 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. For the 

5 purposes of this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the area within the 50-mi radius of 

6 the LNP site. Historically, the NRC has used the 50-mi radius as a standard bounding the 

7 geographic area to evaluate population doses from routine releases from nuclear power plants. 

8 The geographic area of interest includes CREC Unit 3. Also within the 50-mi radius of the site, 

9 there are likely to be hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive materials. 

10 As stated in Section 2.11, PEF has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring program 

11 (REMP) around CREC-3 since 1977. The program measures radiation and radioactive 

12 materials from all sources, including existing CREC Unit 3, hospitals, and industrial facilities. 

13 The staff review of the REMP reports found no indication of radiological consequence 

14 associated with the operation of CREC Unit 3. 

15 As described in Section 4.9, the estimate of dose to construction workers during the building of 

16 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 is well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem) 

17 designed to protect the public health. The estimate of doses to construction workers building 

18 proposed LNP Unit 2 includes Unit 1 as a source of exposure. As described in Section 5.9, the 

19 public and occupational doses predicted from the proposed operation of two new units at the 

20 LNP site are well below regulatory limits and standards. In addition, the dose to the maximally 

21 exposed individual from the LNP site and CREC Unit 3 (including any increased doses from the 

22 planned 20-percent power uprate) would be well within the regulatory standard of 40 CFR 

23 Part 190. Also, based on results of the CREC Unit 3 REMP and estimates of doses to biota 

24 given in Chapter 5.9, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impact on biota 

25 would not be significant. The results of the REMP indicate that effluents and direct radiation 

26 from area hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive materials do not contribute 

27 measurably to the cumulative dose. 

28 Currently, there are no other new nuclear facilities planned within 50 mi of the LNP site. The 

29 NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the State of Florida would regulate or control 

30 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 and any other reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region 

31 that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

32 that the cumulative radiological impacts of operating the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, along 

33 with the existing CREC Unit 3 and the influence of other manmade sources of radiation nearby, 

34 would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-47 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 7.9 Nonradiological Waste 

2 Cumulative impacts on water and air from nonradiological waste are discussed in Sections 7.2 

3 and 7.6, respectively. The cumulative impacts of nonradioactive waste destined for land-based 

4 treatment and disposal are primarily related to the available capacity of area treatment and 

5 disposal facilities and the amount of waste generated by the proposed project and other 

6 reasonably foreseeable projects. 

7 During construction, offsite land-based waste treatment and disposal would be minimized by 

8 production and delivery of modular plant units, by segregation of recyclable materials, and by 

9 management of vegetative waste on site. Building activities would generate small quantities of 

10 construction debris, and the construction workforce would produce small quantities of municipal 

11 solid waste (MSW). Projects listed in Table 7-1 would generally either not coincide with the 

12 construction of the proposed LNP project (e.g., CREC Unit 3 uprate and potential closure of two 

13 CREC fossil fuel units) or would produce waste streams of a different nature (e.g., mining and 

14 park projects). 

15 During operation, PEF estimates that the LNP would generate an average of 1617 T of 

16 nonradioactive, nonhazardous, solid waste annually (PEF 2008b), equivalent to less than 

17 0.3 percent of the 573,000 T of MSW managed in Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties in 2008 

18 (FDEP 2009). As of 2006, Florida had 50 MSW landfills and 11 waste-to-energy plants, with 

19 additional landfill capacity being added (Biocycle 2008). Therefore, such impacts would be 

20 minimal. 

21 PEF anticipates that LNP would be classified as a conditionally exempt small quantity generator 

22 (CESQG) or a small quantity generator (SQG) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

23 Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) (42 USC 6901, et seq.). CESQGs and SQGs combined 

24 generate only 7 percent of the hazardous waste produced in Florida. No known capacity 

25 constraints exist for the treatment or disposal of hazardous wastes either within Florida or for 

26 the nation as a whole (FDEP 2007). 

27 Of the projects listed in Table 7-1, only the renewal and uprate of CREC Unit 3 and the hospitals 

28 and industrial facilities that use radioactive material have the potential to generate mixed waste. 

29 None of the considered projects are expected to generate mixed waste in significant quantities 

30 above current rates, and therefore cumulative impacts would be minimal. 

31 Based on the quantity of nonradioactive and mixed waste projected during LNP operation and 

32 the available treatment and disposal capacity, the review team concludes that cumulative 

33 impacts of nonradioactive and mixed waste would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would 

34 not be warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-48 August 2010 

1 7.10 Postulated Accidents 

2 As described in Section 5.11.4, the staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts 

3 (risk) from a postulated accident from the operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be 

4 SMALL. Section 5.11 considers both design-basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. 

5 As described in Section 5.11.1, the staff concludes that the environmental consequences of 

6 DBAs at the LNP site would be SMALL for an AP1000 reactor. DBAs are addressed specifically 

7 to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. The 

8 consequences of DBAs are bounded by the consequences of severe accidents. 

9 As described in Section 5.11.2, the NRC staff concludes that the severe-accident probability10 weighted consequences (i.e., risks) of an AP1000 reactor at the LNP site are SMALL compared 

11 to risks to which the population is generally exposed, and no further mitigation would be 

12 warranted. The cumulative analysis considers risk from potential severe accidents at all other 

13 existing and proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase risks at any 

14 location within 50 mi of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. The 50-mi radius was selected to 

15 cover any potential risk overlaps from two or more nuclear plants. The only existing reactor 

16 within the geographic area of interest is CREC Unit 3. 

17 Tables 5-18 and 5-19 in Section 5.11.2 provide comparisons of estimated risk for the proposed 

18 AP1000 units at the LNP site and current-generation reactors. The estimated population dose 

19 risk for the proposed AP1000 units at the LNP site is well below the mean and median value for 

20 current-generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent 

21 cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For the 

22 existing plant within the geographic area of interest, namely CREC Unit 3, the Commission has 

23 determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL 

24 (10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). The planned 20-percent power uprate at CREC Unit 3 will 

25 only be approved by the NRC if the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents 

26 would continue to meet NRC’s regulatory requirements. Therefore, the impact would continue 

27 to be SMALL. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe 

28 accidents at any location within 50 mi of the LNP likely would be SMALL, and no further 

29 mitigation would be warranted. 

30 7.11 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

31 The cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, radiological and nonradiological aspects of 

32 transportation, and facility decommissioning for the proposed site are described below. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-49 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 7.11.1 Fuel Cycle 

2 As described in Section 6.1, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of the fuel cycle due to 

3 operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be SMALL. Fuel-cycle impacts would occur not 

4 only at the LNP site, but would also be scattered among other locations in the United States or, 

5 in the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in other countries. 

6 In addition to fuel-cycle impacts from proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, this cumulative analysis 

7 considers fuel-cycle impacts from the existing CREC Unit 3, including the planned extended 

8 power uprate of 20 percent. There are no other nuclear power plants within 50 mi of the LNP 

9 site. The fuel-cycle impacts of CREC Unit 3 would be less than that of LNP Units 1 and 2. In 

10 accordance with 10 CFR 51.51(a), the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be acceptable 

11 for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. As discussed in Section 6.1, advances in reactors since 

12 the development of Table S–3 in 10 CFR 51.51 would reduce environmental impacts relative to 

13 the operating reference reactor. For example, a number of fuel-management improvements 

14 have been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel 

15 and separative work (enrichment) requirements. In Section 6.1, the NRC staff multiplied the 

16 values in Table S–3 by a factor of 2.6, to scale the impacts up from the 1000-MW(e) LWR 

17 model to address the fuel cycle impacts of LNP Units 1 and 2. Adding the fuel-cycle impacts 

18 from CREC Unit 3 would increase the scaling to no more than a factor of four. Therefore, the 

19 NRC staff considers the cumulative fuel-cycle impacts related to LNP Units 1 and 2 to be 

20 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

21 7.11.2 Transportation 

22 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5.2.3 serves as a baseline for the 

23 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Sections 4.8.3 and 5.8.6, 

24 the review team concludes that impacts of transporting personnel and nonradiological materials 

25 to and from the LNP site would be SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, 

26 construction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and 

27 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. 

28 For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the LNP site. 

29 Nonradiological transportation impacts are related to the additional traffic on the regional and 

30 local highway networks leading to and from the LNP site. Additional traffic would result from 

31 shipments of construction materials and movements of construction personnel to and from the 

32 site. The additional traffic increases the risk of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities. A review 

33 of the projects listed in Table 7-1 indicates that other projects in the region could potentially 

34 increase nonradiological impacts. The most significant cumulative nonradiological impacts in 

35 the vicinity of the LNP site would result from major construction projects, including the 

36 decommissioning of the fossil fuel units at the CREC, the Inglis Lock bypass channel spillway 

37 hydropower project, nearby mining projects, and highway improvement projects. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-50 August 2010 

1 The approval by the State of Florida of the LNP requires the decommissioning of two of the four 

2 fossil fuel units at the CREC by December 31, 2020, contingent upon completion of the first fuel 

3 cycle at LNP Unit 2 and timely licensing and construction of the LNP (FDEP 2010a). Because 

4 decommissioning of the fossil fuel units is contingent upon completion of the first fuel cycle at 

5 LNP Unit 2, it is unlikely that interactions would occur between construction traffic at the LNP 

6 site and traffic from decommissioning activities at the CREC. The Tarmac King Road 

7 Limestone Mine likely would begin operations before construction at the LNP site. Bridge 

8 construction on US-19 and the FGT pipeline would be completed by fall 2010 and by 2011, 

9 respectively, which is before construction would commence at the LNP site. The US-19 

10 expansion from Homosassa Springs to Crystal River would be completed by 2014 and would 

11 overlap with LNP construction for 2 years. 

12 The operating facilities with potential for cumulative nonradiological impacts include the CREC 

13 with the two remaining fossil fuel units and the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant, the Inglis 

14 Rock Quarry, the Crystal River Mariculture Center, and other aquaculture facilities. Traffic flow 

15 to and from operating facilities in the region would be of lesser importance because fewer 

16 workers and material shipments are needed to support operating facilities than major 

17 construction projects. 

18 The Goethe State Forest and numerous parks, forests, reserves, and recreational areas are 

19 within 50 mi of the LNP site. Development is likely limited in these areas and potential park 

20 improvements generally are of smaller scope and have lower resource and personnel 

21 requirements than construction at a new nuclear power plant. Therefore, park improvements 

22 are not likely to result in a measurable cumulative impact. 

23 In Sections 4.8.3 and 5.8.6, the review team concluded that the impacts of transporting 

24 construction material and construction and operations personnel to and from the LNP site would 

25 be a small fraction of the existing nonradiological impacts in Levy County, Florida. Based on the 

26 magnitude of nuclear power plant construction relative to the other construction activities 

27 already listed and the potential closure of the two fossil fuel units at the CREC, which would 

28 result in less employee traffic and fewer coal deliveries, the review team concludes the 

29 cumulative nonradiological transportation impacts of constructing and operating the proposed 

30 new reactors at the LNP site and other past, present and reasonably forseeable future impacts 

31 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

32 As described in Section 6.2, the NRC staff concludes that impacts of transporting unirradiated 

33 fuel to the LNP site and irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from the LNP site would be 

34 SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, construction, and operations, the 

35 cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

36 that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. For this analysis, the geographic 

37 area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the LNP site. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-51 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Historically, the radiological impacts on the public and environment associated with 

2 transportation of radioactive materials in the 50-mi region surrounding the LNP site have been 

3 associated with shipments of fuel and waste to and from the existing CREC Unit 3 located about 

4 9 mi from the LNP site. Radiological impacts of transporting radioactive materials would occur 

5 along the routes leading to and from the LNP site and CREC Unit 3, and fuel fabrication facilities 

6 and waste disposal sites located in other parts of the United States. No other major activities 

7 with the potential for cumulative radiological impacts were identified in the geographic area of 

8 interest. Based on Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52, the impacts of transporting unirradiated fuel to 

9 CREC Unit 3 and irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from CREC Unit 3 would be minimal. 

10 When combined with the impacts of transporting unirradiated fuel to the LNP site and irradiated 

11 fuel and radioactive waste from the LNP site, the cumulative impacts of transporting unirradiated 

12 fuel to the LNP site and CREC Unit 3 and irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from the LNP 

13 site and CREC Unit 3 would also be minimal. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

14 impacts in the region surrounding the LNP site are also a small fraction of the impacts from 

15 natural background radiation. 

16 Advances in reactor technology and operations since the development of Table S-4 would 

17 reduce environmental impacts relative to the values in Table S-4; therefore, the values in 

18 Table S-4 remain bounding. For example, improvements in fuel management have been 

19 adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and reduce fuel requirements. 

20 This leads to fewer unirradiated fuel and spent fuel shipments than the 1000-MW(e) reference 

21 reactor discussed in 10 CFR 51.52. In addition, advances in shipping cask designs to increase 

22 their capabilities would result in fewer shipments of spent fuel to offsite storage or disposal 

23 facilities. This would reduce the cumulative impacts of transporting unirradiated fuel to the LNP 

24 site and CREC Unit 3 and irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from the LNP site and CREC 

25 Unit 3. 

26 Therefore, the NRC staff considers the cumulative radiological and nonradiological 

27 transportation impacts of operating the proposed new reactors at the LNP site to be SMALL, 

28 and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

29 7.11.3 Decommissioning 

30 As discussed in Section 6.3, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed 

31 LNP Units 1 and 2 are expected to be SMALL because the licensee would have to comply with 

32 decommissioning regulatory requirements. 

33 In this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is within a 50-mi radius of the LNP 

34 site. In addition to proposed Units 1 and 2, the only other nuclear power plant within this 

35 geographic area of interest is the existing CREC Unit 3. The impacts of decommissioning 

36 nuclear power plants are bounded by the assessment in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, 

37 Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. In that 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-52 August 2010 

1 document, the NRC found the impacts on radiation dose to workers and the public, waste 

2 management, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomics to be SMALL 

3 (NRC 2002). In addition, the NRC staff concluded that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions 

4 on air quality during decommissioning would be SMALL. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of 

5 decommissioning the LNP site and CREC Unit 3 would be SMALL, and further mitigation would 

6 not be warranted. 

7 7.12 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations 

8 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction, 

9 preconstruction, and operation of two nuclear units at the Levy County site together with other 

10 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The specific resources that could be 

11 affected by the incremental effects of the proposed action when considered with other actions 

12 listed in Table 7-1 in the same geographic area were assessed. This assessment included the 

13 impacts of construction and operation for the proposed new units as described in Chapters 4 

14 and 5; impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; impacts of fuel cycle, 

15 transportation, and decommissioning as described in Chapter 6; and impacts of past, present, 

16 and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could affect the 

17 same resources affected by the proposed action. 

18 Table 7-4 summarizes the cumulative impacts by resource area. The cumulative impacts for 

19 the majority of resource areas would be SMALL, although there could be MODERATE or 

20 LARGE impacts for some resources as discussed below. 

21 MODERATE cumulative impacts on land use in the geographic area of interest would result 

22 from new transmission lines constructed to connect LNP Units 1 and 2 to the grid and the 

23 Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, in combination with construction, preconstruction and 

24 operation of the LNP Units 1 and 2. The incremental impact from NRC-authorized activities on 

25 land use would be SMALL because the affects to land use from constructing and operating 

26 Units 1 and 2 would be minimal. Cumulative impacts to surface water quality would be 

27 MODERATE, primarily due to the combined discharges from the operation of CREC Units 1-5, 

28 the proposed uprate at Unit 3, and operations at LNP. The incremental impacts from NRC29 authorized activities at LNP would be SMALL. 

30 Cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecological resources would be MODERATE as a result of 

31 increased habitat fragmentation, impacts on important species, and loss of wetlands. The 

32 incremental impact from NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL to MODERATE, primarily 

33 due to the possible effects of groundwater withdrawal on wetlands and associated biota. 

34 Although incremental impacts on terrestrial resources could be noticeable near the LNP project, 

35 these impacts would not be expected to destabilize the overall ecology of the regional 

36 landscape. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-53 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 7-4. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

2 Proposed Units 1 and 2 

Resource Category Impact level 

Land-Use MODERATE 

Water-Related 

 Water Use – Surface Water SMALL 

 Water Use – Groundwater SMALL 

 Water Quality – Surface Water MODERATE 

 Water Quality – Groundwater SMALL 

Ecology 

 Terrestrial Ecosystems MODERATE 

 Aquatic Ecosystems SMALL 

Socioeconomic 

 Physical Impacts SMALL 

 Demography SMALL 

 Taxes SMALL (adverse) to LARGE (beneficial) 

Economy SMALL (beneficial) 

 Housing SMALL 

Transportation SMALL to MODERATE 

 Public Services and Education SMALL to MODERATE 

 Aesthetics MODERATE 

Recreation SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL 

Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE 

Nonradiological Health SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL 

Nonradiological Waste SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL 

Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning SMALL 

3 For socioeconomics, the construction of the NRC-authorized increment would result in 

4 MODERATE short-term adverse effects on police, emergency service, fire protection, and 

5 schools in specific local communities during peak construction and preconstruction employment 

6 years. These effects would be expected to become SMALL once local funding has been 

7 adjusted after a few years of LNP operation. Cumulative impacts on taxes and economy would 

8 be MODERATE to LARGE and beneficial. In Levy County, the cumulative impacts would be 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-54 August 2010 

1 LARGE and beneficial once both Units 1 and 2 are operational. MODERATE adverse impacts 

2 to local aesthetics would occur along new transmission-line corridors. MODERATE adverse 

3 transportation impacts could also occur during periods in which peak operations of the Tarmac 

4 King Road Limestone Mine coincide with shift changes at LNP. 

5 For air quality, the cumulative impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE primarily due to 

6 national and world-wide impacts of greenhouse gases emissions. The incremental impacts from 

7 NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL because such impacts would be minimal. 

8 7.13 References 

9 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 50. “Domestic Licensing of 

10 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

11 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

12 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

13 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 52. “Licenses, 

14 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

15 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81 

16 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

17 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190 

18 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

19 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

20 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

21 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

22 Policy Statement.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

23 52 FR 21059. June 4, 1987. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 

24 of the American Alligator to Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance Throughout the 

25 Remainder of Its Range.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

26 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Public Law 111-5. 

27 Birdnature.com. 2009. North American Migration Flyways. Accessed 

28 March 9, 2009 at http://www.birdnature.com/flyways.html. 

29 Biocycle. 2008. “The State Of Garbage In America.” Biocycle 49(12). 22. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-55 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Biological Research Associates (BRA). 2010. Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine Estimated 

2 USACE Wetland Impacts Levy County, FL. Accessed February 27, 2010at 

3 http://www.kingroadeis.com/COEImpacts.pdf. 

4 CensusScope. 2010. Levy County Population Growth, 1960-2000. Census 2000 analyzed by 

5 the Social Science Data Network. Accessed on April 30, 2010 at 

6 http://www.censusscope.org/us/s12/c17/chart_popl.html. 

7 Chen, C., H. Liu, and R.C. Beardsley. 2003. “An Unstructured Finite Volume, Three8 Dimensional, Primitive Equation Ocean Model: Application to Coastal Ocean and Estuaries.” 

9 J. Atm. & Oceanic Tech. 20:159-186. 

10 Chen, C., Robert C. Beardsley, and Geoffrey Coweles. 2004. An Unstructured Grid, Finite11 Volume Coastal Ocean Model-FVCOM User Manual. School of Marine Science and 

12 Technology, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (SMAST/UMASSD) Technical 

13 Report-04-0601, pp183. 

14 Citrus County. 2009. Commission Sends Port District Category for Review. Board of County 

15 Commissioners press release. Accessed February 9, 2010 at 

16 http://www.citruscountyfl.org/press_release_results.jsp?PRESSKEY=482. 

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 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

22 re FGT Phase VIII Expansion Project under CP09-17. Published September 2009. Available at 

23 http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20090918-4001. Accession No. 

24 ML101830254. 

25 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Statistics 2005 (Table Vm-1). Office 

26 of Highway Policy Information, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 

27 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also referred to as Clean Water Act). 33 USC 

28 1251, et seq. 

29 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-520. 2009. Chapter 62-520, “Ground Water Classes, Standards, 

30 and Exemptions.” Florida Administrative Code Annotated. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-56 August 2010 

1 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 2010. Goethe State 

2 Forest. FDACS Division of Forestry, Dunnellon, Florida. Accessed on February 5, 2010 at 

3 http://www.fl-dof.com/state_forests/goethe.html. 

4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1997. Environmental Resource 

5 Permit No. 092952179, Crystal River Limestone Quarry. Issued to Holnam, Inc. June 9, 1997. 

6 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2007. Hazardous Waste 

7 Management Needs Assessment Report. Report to the Governor and Legislature. Florida 

8 Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste 

9 Management Section. Available at 

10 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/hazardous/2007HazardousWast

11 eManagementNeedsAssessmentReport.pdf. 

12 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2008. Tarmac America, LLC. 

13 Permit/Cert Number: 0750089-001-AC, Initial Air Construction Permit. Jacksonville, Florida. 

14 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009. Solid Waste Management in 

15 Florida 2008 Annual Report, Appendix A, Table 4A-1. Available at 

16 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/08_data.htm. 

17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Levy Nuclear Power Plant 

18 Units 1 & 2 Progress Energy Florida PA08-51B Conditions of Certification Plant and Associated 

19 Facilities and Transmission Lines. Tallahassee, Florida. Modified February 23, 2010. Available 

20 at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa08_51_2010_B.pdf. 

21 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010b. Marjorie Harris Carr Cross 

22 Florida Greenway – History. Accessed on February 29, 2010 at 

23 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/history.htm. 

24 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010c. Cycle 2, Group 4 

25 Withlacoochee River Basin Draft Verified List Hydrologic Units: Withlacoochee River. Available 

26 at 

27 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group4/cycle2/verified/withl

28 a-verified-c2-drft.pdf. 

29 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2010a. Public Information Office – Citrus 

30 County Construction – December 16, 2009 – US 19 from West Cornflower Dr. to West Foss 

31 Grove Path. Accessed February 5, 2010 at 

32 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/construc/district7pio/citrus.shtm. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-57 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2010b. Office of Work Program – Five Year 

2 Work Program, 2010-2014 AD, All in State – Citrus County – Description: Us 19 (Sr 55) From 

3 W Jump Court To W Fort Island Trail. Accessed February 9, 2010 at 

4 http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/...mRept.ASPX?RF=WP&CD=02&CT=A&PG=I&FY=FALSE|FALSE|

5 FALSE|FALSE|FALSE|FALSE&ITM=405822~2&RP=ITEM. 

6 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2010. Crystal River Mariculture 

7 Center. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

8 Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida. Accessed February 5, 2010 at 

9 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=10469. 

10 Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise (FTE). 2010. Suncoast Parkway 2. Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, 

11 Ocoee, Florida. Available at http://www.suncoast2online.com/index.php. 

12 Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

13 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 

14 Inglis Hydropower, LLC. (Inglis). 2008. Draft License Application for Hydropower License 

15 Application, FERC Project, No. 12783. Draft License Application Inglis Bypass Channel 

16 Spillway, Inglis Hydropower Project, No. 12783, Inglis, Florida. Inglis Hydropower, LLC., Dover, 

17 Florida. 

18 Inglis Hydropower, LLC. (Inglis). 2009. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

19 Application for License for a Minor Water Power Project, Inglis Hydropower Project, No. 12783. 

20 Inglis Hydropower, LLC., Dover, Florida. 

21 Marine Ecosystem Dynamics Modeling (MEDM). 2010. The Unstructured Grid Finite Volume 

22 Coastal Ocean Model (FVCOM). School of Marine Science and Technology, University of 

23 Massachusetts-Dartmouth (SMAST/UMASSD). Available at 

24 http://fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/FVCOM/index.html. 

25 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

26 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

27 Consultation Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, 

28 St. Petersburg, Florida. 

29 Ning, Z.H., R. E.Turner, T. Doyle and K.K. Abdollahi. 2003. Preparing for a Changing Climate: 

30 The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change - Gulf Coast Region. Summary 

31 Report. Gulf Coast Climate Change Assessment Council and Louisiana State University 

32 Graphic Services. Accessed March 2, 2010 at 

33 http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/gulfcoast/gulfcoast-brief.pdf. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-58 August 2010 

1 Noll, S. and M.D. Tegeder. 2003. From Exploitation to Conservation: A History of the Marjorie 

2 Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

3 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/pdf/History_Report.pdf. 

4 Panhandle Energy. 2010. FGT Phase VIII Expansion Project Description. Accessed May 10, 

5 2010 at http://www.panhandleenergy.com/phaseviii.asp. 

6 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2007. Site Certification Application Crystal River Unit 3 

7 Power Uprate Project, Crystal River Florida. St. Petersburg, Florida. 

8 Progress Energy Florida (PEF). 2008a. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License 

9 Renewal Stage, Crystal River Unit 3; Progress Energy. Accession No. ML090080731. 

10 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008b. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Site 

11 Certification Application, Volumes 1 through 9. St. Petersburg, Florida. Including Amendments 

12 and Supplemental Information. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/apps.htm#ppn1. 

13 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008c. Archaeological and Cultural Resources. 

14 EVC-SUBS -00105, Rev. 1, Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. ML090760294. 

15 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

16 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1. 

17 Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 

18 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated July 

19 29, 2009, regarding Response to Request Supplemental Request for Additional Information 

20 Regarding the Environmental Review – Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2. Accession No. ML092150337. 

21 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

22 March 27, 2009, regarding Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

23 Environmental Review. Accession No. ML091320050. 

24 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009d. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated June 

25 12, 2009, regarding Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

26 the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML091740483. 

27 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) 2009e. Strong Foundation – Bright Future, 2009 Corporate 

28 Responsibility Report. Accessed July 21, 2009 athttp://www.progress29 energy.com/aboutus/crr/NaturalResrc.asp. 

30 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-59 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 SDI Environmental Services, Inc. (SDI). 2008. Inglis Quarry Work Plan Study and Groundwater 

2 Modeling. Prepared for Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC. SDI Project No. CEF-010. 

3 SDI Environmental Services, Inc., Tampa, Florida. 

4 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2010. 2010 Regional Water 

5 Supply Plan, Northern Planning Region. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 

6 Brooksville, Florida. Available at 

7 http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/RWSP/drafts/NPR-Public-Draft-4_20_10.pdf. 

8 Tarmac America. 2010. King Road Mine. Available at 

9 http://www.kingroadmine.com/index.html. 

10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine 

11 Environmental Impact Statement, Public Scoping Meetings. Pensacola, Florida. 

12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Public Notice. Crystal River – Power Uprate 

13 Permit Application No. SAJ-2010-0019 (IP-TSH). May 25, 2010. Jacksonville District, Corps of 

14 Engineers, Pensacola Field Office, Florida. Accessed June 30, 2010 at: 

15 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/publicnotices_Florida.htm. 

16 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2010. Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant, 

17 Florida. Accessed February 4, 2010 at 

18 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/crystal.html. Accession No. 

19 ML101830272. 

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas 

21 Emissions, Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Available at 

22 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. Accession No. ML100221499. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Facility Detail Report, CEMEX, Inc. Inglis 

24 Quarry. Accessed on 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. Facility Detail Report, Crystal River 

28 Limestone Quarry. Accessed on 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. Facility Detail Report, Crystal River 

32 Quarries – Lecanto Facility Report. Accessed on April 29, 2010 at 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1941 7-60 August 2010 

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. Facility Detail Report, Florida Rock 

4 Industries – Gulf H. Accessed on 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. Query Results – Anderson Materials, 

8 Inc. - Chie. Accessed March 20, 2010 at 

9 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_web.report?PGM_SYS_ID=FLG110369. Accession No. 

10 ML101830301. 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010f. Query Results – Bell Concrete. 

12 Accessed March 20, 2010 at 

13 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_web.report?PGM_SYS_ID=FLG110370. Accession No. 

14 ML101830302. 

15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. Atlantic Flyway. Accessed May 12, 2010 at 

16 http://www.pacificflyway.gov/Documents/Atlantic_map.pdf. Accession No. ML101930596. 

17 U. S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

18 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press, New 

19 York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts20 report.pdf. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

22 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

24 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. 

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

26 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 

27 2, Washington, D.C. 

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Socioeconomic Field Notes for 

29 August 20-21, 2007 and December 2-3, 2008 Visits to Levy County and Surrounding 

30 Communities. Accession No. ML091290001. 
Cumulative Impacts 

August 2010 7-61 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Crystal River – License Renewal 

2 Application. Accessed July 1, 2010 at 

3 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/crystal-river.html. 

August 2010 8-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 8.0 Need for Power 

2 Chapter 8 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) NUREG-1555, Environmental 

3 Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000) guides the NRC staff’s review and analysis of the 

4 need for power for a proposed nuclear power plant. The guidance states the following: 

5 Affected states or regions continue to prepare need-for-power evaluations for 

6 proposed energy facilities. The NRC will review the evaluation for the proposed 

7 facility and determine if it is (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

8 confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty. If the State’s or 

9 region’s need-for-power evaluation is found acceptable, no additional 

10 independent review by NRC is needed, and the State’s analysis can be the basis 

11 for ESRPs 8.2 through 8.4 (NRC 2000). 

12 In a 2003 response to a petition for rulemaking (68 FR 55905), the NRC concluded that “...need 

13 for power must be addressed in connection with new power plant construction so that the NRC 

14 may weigh the likely benefits (e.g., electrical power) against the environmental impacts of 

15 constructing and operating a nuclear power reactor.” The NRC also stated in its response to the 

16 petition discussed above that (1) the NRC does not supplant the States, which have traditionally 

17 been responsible for assessing the need for power-generating facilities, their economic 

18 feasibility, and regulating rates and services; and (2) the NRC has acknowledged the primacy of 

19 State regulatory decisions regarding future energy options (68 FR 55905). Consequently, the 

20 review team’s role with regard to a need for power review is to identify whether an 

21 independently derived needs determination meets the four acceptability criteria, and, if it does, 

22 report that independently derived determination’s conclusions. No independent assessment of 

23 the relevant service area’s need for power is necessary or within the scope of the review team’s 

24 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, requirements. 

25 The purpose and need for the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) project identified in Section 1.3 is to 

26 generate 2200 MW(e) baseload power to meet the need for power within Progress Energy 

27 Florida, Inc.’s (PEF’s) service territory. In 2008, the State of Florida through its Public Service 

28 Commission (FPSC) concluded that by 2016, PEF would need at least as much additional 

29 generating capacity as would be available from the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 to meet its 

30 customer’s demand and its own reserve margin requirements (FPSC 2008). The following 

31 sections discuss the need for power in the context of FPSC’s determination. 

32 8.1 Description of the Power System 

33 In Florida, investor-owned utilities such as PEF are regulated by a public service commission 

34 and serve a well-defined service territory. The State of Florida, through the FPSC, regulates 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1941 8-2 August 2010 

1 PEF rates, electric service and grid reliability, and the planning and implementation of 

2 generation and transmission resources to serve loads within the PEF service territory. 

3 In the case of the proposed LNP, PEF obtained a “Determination of Need” from the FPSC, 

4 based on Final Order PSC-08-0518-FOF-EI and dated August 12, 2008 (FPSC 2008). In its 

5 decision, FPSC provides its full reasoning, based on PEF’s petition and FPSC’s own analysis, 

6 for making its determination. For the purposes of this environmental impact statement (EIS), 

7 the NRC staff identified FPSC’s determination of need as an independently derived needs 

8 determination that was (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to confirmation, and 

9 (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty. Therefore, the review team relied upon that FPSC 

10 Determination of Need for the remainder of this section of the EIS.

11 The remainder of this section characterizes the institutional and physical characteristics of the 

12 PEF system, and the review team’s basis for relying on FPSC’s determination of need. Section 

13 8.1.1 reviews the current power system, including geographic considerations, and regional 

14 characteristics. Section 8.1.2 provides an assessment of the FPSC’s analytical processes in 

15 the context of the Agency’s four acceptability criteria. It discusses the specific criteria FPSC 

16 used to make its determination. Section 8.2 discusses some of the key factors affecting the 

17 demand for electricity and provides a table from the PEF Environmental Report (ER) showing 

18 the PEF/FPSC analysis of future demand. Section 8.3 describes the PEF/FPSC assessment of 

19 the supply of electricity, projected out to 2017 along with a table from the ER showing the 

20 PEF/FPSC analysis of the future supply of electricity. Section 8.4 reports the FPSC’s 

21 conclusions regarding the determination of the need for power as proposed by the applicant and 

22 verified by the FPSC evaluation. 

23 8.1.1 Description of the PEF System 

24 

25 PEF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Progress Energy, an investor-owned diversified energy 

26 company operating power generating 21,000 MW of electrical generating capacity at 32 

27 locations in Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. PEF’s electrical generating 

28 technologies and fuel sources include hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas. 

29 PEF serves an area of about 20,000 square miles in 35 of 67 Florida counties, including the 

30 cities of Orlando, St. Petersburg, and Clearwater (see Figure 8-1 for a map of PEF’s service 

31 area counties). The Region of Influence (ROI) for the proposed action is this 35 county area. 

32 The ROI is within the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC), an administrative sub33 region of the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation (NERC). The FRCC includes 

34 investor owned utilities, cooperative utilities, municipal utilities, federal power agencies, power 

35 marketers and independent power producers and was created to ensure the reliability and 

36 adequacy of current and future bulk electricity supply in Florida and the US. The entire FRCC 

37 region is within the Eastern Interconnection. 

38 PEF is part of an interconnected power network that enables power exchange between utilities. 

39 The PEF transmission system includes 5000 mi of transmission lines in Florida, including about 
Need For Power 

August 2010 8-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 8-1. The PEF Service Territory (PEF 2009a) 

3 18,000 mi of overhead distribution conductors and 13,000 mi of underground cable (PEF 

4 2009c). As of December 31, 2008, PEF had total summer capacity resources of approximately 

5 11,197 MW, consisting of installed capacity of 9289 MW (excluding Crystal River Unit 3 joint 

6 ownership) and 1908 MW of firm purchased power (PEF 2009a).PEF provided electricity 

7 service to over 1.6 million customers in Florida in 2006, including retail sales to about 350 

8 communities and wholesale sales to about 21 Florida municipalities, utilities, and power 

9 agencies (PEF 2009a). Table 8-1 illustrates recent trends in electricity sales by customer class 

10 based on the 2009 Databook (PEF2009b). Although total sales have been relatively stable over 

11 the recent past, sales to the wholesale market have increased in share by 50 percent in this 

12 period, presenting kilowatt-hour sales growth of greater than 56 percent. In the ER (PEF 

13 2009c), PEF explained that it relies on two measures of reliability in its resource planning. First, 

14 a deterministic measure known as “reserve margin” is used to reflect PEF’s ability to meet its 

15 forecasted seasonal peak load with firm capacity. The reserve margin is the percentage of a 

16 utility’s total available capacity that must be available for service (firm), over and above the 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1941 8-4 August 2010 

1 Table 8-1. Shares of Electricity Sales by PEF Customer Class 

Customer Class 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Residential(a) 45.7 44.3 44.8 45.8 44.0 42.8

Commercial(a) 27.2 26.9 26.9 27.4 26.9 26.9

Industrial(a) 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.5 8.4 8.4

Other(a) 7.0 7.0 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.3

Wholesale(a) 10.2 11.7 12.3 10.4 13.1 15.0

Unbilled(a) 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3

Total (millions of kWh) 42,512 43,653 44,436 43,731 45,300 45,190

Source: PEF 2009b 

(a) Percent of PEF customer class

2 system peak load, as insurance against forced outages and other planned or unplanned events 

3 that could cause outages. PEF uses a 20-percent minimum reserve margin criterion in its 

4 resource-supply planning. 

5 PEF uses another measure of reliability termed “loss of load probability” that reflects the 

6 probability that a company will be unable to meet its load throughout the year. This measure is 

7 a utility industry standard reflecting the maximum of 1 day in 10 years loss of load probability. 

8 PEF finds that the reserve margin criterion is triggered before the loss of load probability 

9 criterion in its resource planning methodology. 

10 8.1.2 Evaluation of the FPSC Analytical Process 

11 In accordance with NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), the review team found that the analytical 

12 process and need for power evaluation performed the FPSC met the four NRC criteria for being 

13 (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting 

14 uncertainty. The following details how the four NRC criteria were met. 

15 8.1.2.1 Systematic 

16 The review team found that FPSC used a systematic process for determining the need for the 

17 LNP project. Regulatory provisions in Florida state that on an annual basis PEF must provide 

18 the most up-to-date forecast and expected resource portfolio, respective of all known current 

19 conditions. PEF accomplishes this through an iterative process for load forecasting, which is 

20 updated and reviewed annually as directed by the State through the FPSC. Load forecasts use 

21 utility industry best practices and methodological approaches to determine the utility’s need for 

22 power and the most cost-effective strategies to meet its regulatory obligations. In its 

23 Determination of Need proceedings, the FPSC staff and other witnesses indicated that PEF’s 
Need For Power 

August 2010 8-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 forecasts were reasonable for planning purposes and that PEF had provided a reliable and 

2 appropriate basis for assessing the need for LNP Units 1 and 2. The FPSC opinion is stated 

3 below: 

4 FPSC “reviewed PEF’s forecast assumptions, regression models, and the projected system 

5 peak demands and find that they are appropriate for use in this docket. The forecast 

6 assumptions were drawn from independent sources, which we have relied upon in prior 

7 cases. The regression models used to calculate the projected peak demand conform to 

8 accepted economic and statistical practices. Finally, although slower customer growth could 

9 reduce peak demand, the projected peak demands produced by the models used by PEF 

10 appear to be a reasonable extension of historical trends.” (FPSC 2008) 

11 Therefore, the regulatory provisions in combination with FPSC’s Determination of Need 

12 proceedings demonstrate to the review team that a systematic process was applied for 

13 determining the need for the LNP project. 

14 8.1.2.2 Comprehensive 

15 The review team finds that FPSC’s analysis of issues affecting the need for power in the PEF 

16 service territory is comprehensive. The factors analyzed by FPSC include electric system 

17 reliability, the need for baseload capacity specifically, the bases for forecasts and cost 

18 assumptions and whether viable alternatives exist. PEF’s peak demand and energy forecasts 

19 incorporate key influencing factors, such as economic and demographic trends, weather, and 

20 implemented load-reduction programs such as new energy efficiency and Demand Side 

21 Management programs (DSM). Forecasts included each sector of the economy, and separate 

22 forecasts were developed to determine both short- and long-term demand. Power-supply 

23 forecasts included a comprehensive evaluation of present and planned generating capabilities 

24 as well as present and planned power purchases and sales in the service territory. PEF 

25 identified all existing generators by fuel type, planned expansions, new construction, and 

26 potential closure over the relevant time period, all of which FPSC found reasonable. All 

27 analyses are performed with forecasting and statistical modeling and methodological 

28 approaches appropriate for the power industry. 

29 8.1.2.2 Subject to Confirmation 

30 The NRC staff found that the process, models, and estimations used in the FPSC Determination 

31 of Need are subjected to a rigorous confirmation process by expert witnesses and the general 

32 public. These proceedings and relevant findings are all documented in the Final Order issued 

33 by the FPSC (FPSC 2008). The FPSC performed an independent analysis of the PEF 

34 assertions made in its application and affirmed the forecasting methods and results. The NRC 

35 staff reviewed the FPSC conclusions and did not identify any areas where PEF or FPSC 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1941 8-6 August 2010 

1 remained unconfirmed or contradictory. Also, the NRC staff did not find conflicting conclusions 

2 from other independent sources, such as NERC‘s long-term reliability assessment. 

3 The FPSC review process also takes into account the need for a reliable power system, fuel 

4 diversity, dependable supply of electricity, base-load power generating capacity, adequate 

5 electricity at reasonable cost, and if the project is the most cost-effective option (FPSC 2008). 

6 These factors are outside the authority of the NRC review, but demonstrate the standards of the 

7 FPSC Determination of Need review process. 

8 8.1.2.4 Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty 

9 The review team also finds that the FPSC Determination of Need was based upon a forecasting 

10 methodology that incorporated uncertainty by the use of alternative scenario analysis and 

11 probabilistic modeling of the electrical system, which are standard industry practices. FPSC 

12 relied upon PEF analyses that tested the validity of its overall forecast by analyzing the impact 

13 of alternative load forecasts (high, medium, and low). In addition, FPSC quantified uncertainty 

14 in the load forecast by evaluating the resource portfolios against variations in future sensitivities, 

15 such as fuel and construction costs, load forecasts, environmental laws and regulations, and 

16 risk. For example, PEF introduced the potential impact of climate legislation and customer17 owned generation, such as photovoltaic systems in manufactured homes, on the project. Also, 

18 PEF discussed the potential impact of a reduced demand forecast from poor economic 

19 conditions. FPSC deemed these considerations reasonable in their analysis. In doing so, PEF 

20 developed resource portfolios that quantify the long-term cost to customers under varying 

21 potential sensitivities while understanding the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of various 

22 resource configurations. 

23 8.2 Determination of Demand 

24 PEF performs demand forecasts in order to provide continuous service to its regulated service 

25 area, meet its contractual commitments to wholesale customers, and to contribute to the 

26 reliability of the FRCC region. Forecasts are based on expected growth population and other 

27 economic factors. These analyses are contained in PEF’s annual Integrated Resource Plan 

28 (IRP) and became the basis for PEF’s petition to the State of Florida for a Determination of 

29 Need for the proposed project. This process is governed by Section 403.519 of the Florida 

30 Statutes and by Rule 25-22.080 of Florida Administrative Code. The FPSC reviewed PEF’s 

31 petition for a Determination of Need, which was submitted on March 11, 2008; and the resulting 

32 Final Order granting the petition was issued by the FPSC on August 12, 2008 (FPSC 2008). 

33 8.2.1 Factors in the FPSC Determination of Need 

34 This section discusses key factors affecting the future demand for electricity that FPSC used for 

35 the issuance of its Determination of Need Final Order. The FPSC provides an independent 
Need For Power 

August 2010 8-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 review of the PEF forecasts and other assertions to draw its own conclusions regarding the PEF 

2 case that a need exists for both proposed units at the LNP site. Each section below describes a 

3 specific factor FPSC considered in granting its Determination of Need. 

4 8.2.1.1 Growth in Demand 

5 The principal factor affecting the change in demand for electricity over time is the change in the 

6 number and type of customers needing that power. Electrical demand and energy usage in 

7 Florida are unique because residential customers make up the largest part of the customer 

8 base--comprising over 88 percent of Florida’s electricity customers and consuming 53 percent 

9 of the state’s total generating capacity. In developing their annual IRPs, PEF used population 

10 projections produced by the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the 

11 University of Florida to estimate growth in their customer base. PEF also applied standard State 

12 and national economic assumptions on growth that were produced by the independent group 

13 Economy.Com for Florida forecasts. PEF also projected growth in the demand for electricity 

14 based upon demand sectors. PEF determined that Florida has grown recently by about a third 

15 of a million new residents each year and by about a third of a million jobs. Consequently, PEF 

16 anticipates future growth of about 1.8 percent per year on average between the present and 

17 2017. This is lower than the historic 2.2 percent growth rate of the last ten years, which is 

18 indicative of slower population growth, based on the latest projection from the University of 

19 Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research, and less favorable economic conditions. 

20 Florida’s industrial demand for electricity amounts to about 11 percent of the total generating 

21 capacity in the state. For industrial demand, PEF identified four major customers that accounted 

22 for 28 percent of the industrial demand in 2007—all in the phosphate mining sector, which 

23 produces agricultural fertilizers. The supply and demand for agricultural products are a function 

24 of, among other factors, foreign competition, global agricultural industry conditions, international 

25 finance factors, and foreign trade. Industrial load and energy consumption at the PEF-served 

26 mining or chemical processing sites depend heavily on plant operations, which are heavily 

27 influenced by these global as well as other local conditions. PEF estimates that, barring any 

28 major unforeseen contractions in industry (reductions in production or closures of plants), that 

29 industry-related energy consumption would increase in the near term, as a new mine operation 

30 is expected to open. A significant risk to this projection lies in the volatile price of energy 

31 (i.e., natural gas), which is a major cost of both mining and producing phosphoric fertilizers 

32 (PEF 2009a). 

33 8.2.1.2 Electric System Reliability 

34 One of the most important functions of an electrical generating unit is to contribute to the 

35 protection of the overall electricity distribution system by producing more electricity than its 

36 service area demands. This is done as a hedge against unforeseen emergencies that could 

37 disrupt the delivery of electricity. This excess production is commonly called a “reserve margin,” 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1941 8-8 August 2010 

1 and PEF applies a 20 percent reserve margin to all of its demand projections (PEF 2009a). 

2 FPSC reviewed PEF’s assertion that without the proposed action, PEF would be unable to 

3 maintain its minimum reserve margin planning requirement beginning in 2016. FPSC found no 

4 issue with PEF forecast assumptions, regression models, and projected system peak demands 

5 provided for this petition and affirmed PEF’s reliance on the 20-percent reserve margin. Table 

6 8-2 presents PEF’s reserve margin analysis (PEF 2009a). 

7 Table 8-2. PEF Reserve Margin Forecast by Case 

Year 

PEF Reserve Margin (percent)(a)

Without 

 LNP Units 

1 and 2 With LNP Unit 1 

 With LNP Units 

1 and 2 

2015 23.0 23.0 23.0 

2016 15.4 25.3 25.3 

2017 13.4 23.2 33.0 

2018 11.5 21.2 30.8 

2019 9.7 19.1 28.6 

2020 7.9 17.2 26.5 

2021 6.2 15.4 24.6 

Source: PEF 2009b 

(a) PEF’s targeted reserve margin equals 20 percent. 

8 Expert witnesses testified to the FPSC that while reserve margins would climb to 33 percent in 

9 2017, they would return to about 20 percent by 2023 under the proposed action. As a result, 

10 the FPSC found PEF had demonstrated that new capacity will be needed by 2016 to maintain 

11 its 20-percent reserve margin and the proposed action would satisfy PEF’s capacity needs 

12 through 2023 (FPSC 2008). 

13 8.2.1.3 Demand Side Management and Energy Efficiency 

14 DSM and energy efficiency (EE) measures for the production of electricity are a significant 

15 factor in the growth of electricity demand. PEF described an active DSM program in its 2008 

16 Ten Year Site Plan and included it in its IRP and petition for a Determination of Need to the 

17 FPSC. According to PEF, about 389,000 customers participated in the Energy Management 

18 program by the end of 2007 and succeeded in reducing the demand for electricity by about 

19 760,500 kW of winter demand; about 273,000 customers participated to reduce summer 

20 demand by about 290,000 kW. Other PEF energy efficiency programs include: aggressive 

21 customer education programs, home energy audits, financial incentives, rate incentives, and 

22 commercial reduction strategies. Through their energy-efficiency programs, PEF customers 

23 have saved more than $750 million in energy costs over the last 25 years, roughly equivalent to 

24 the electricity demand of Orlando for two years (about 10 billion kWh) (PEF 2009a). 
Need For Power 

August 2010 8-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 8.2.2 PEF’s Demand for Electricity 

2 This section reproduces the expected demand for electricity (Table 8-3) developed by PEF for 

3 its petition for a Determination of Need and ER Chapter 8, Need For Power. These data 

4 became the basis for the FPSC’s 2009 issuance of a Determination of Need upon which the 

5 review team relied for this section of the EIS. 

6 Table 8-3. PEF’s Expected Demand for Electricity 2008 - 2017 

Year 

Additions Subtractions Net Firm 

Wholesale Retail DSM and EE Other Demand 

2008 1343 9304 1113 110 9424 

2009 1191 9551 1166 125 9451 

2010 1265 9762 1213 125 9689 

2011 1282 9990 1274 125 9873 

2012 1439 10,220 1339 125 10,195 

2013 1464 10,449 1394 125 10,393 

2014 1463 10,670 1440 125 10,568 

2015 1475 10,886 1460 125 10,776 

2016 1491 11,087 1492 125 10,961 

2017 1510 11,287 1522 125 11,150 

Source: PEF 2009a 

7 8.3 Determination of Supply 

8 FPSC reported in its Determination of Need, that as of June 2006, PEF’s generation capacity 

9 profile in Florida was approximately as follows: 43 percent coal generated, 30 percent natural 

10 gas generated, and 14 percent nuclear. The other 13 percent is a mixture of purchased power 

11 from alternative fuels (such as solar, hydro, wood waste, solid waste, and biomass), and oil 

12 generated plants (FPSC 2008). 

13 For its power supply and capacity forecasts, PEF considered its present and planned generating 

14 capabilities (including planed uprates, closures of facilities, and additional new power generation 

15 facilities), present and planned purchases of power from generators outside the service region, 

16 and its sales of power to consumers outside the service region. In its analysis of potential 

17 competitors to the proposed project, PEF also considered other projects, market purchases, and 

18 customer-owned generation, including power from renewable energy sources, especially 

19 photovoltaic systems. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1941 8-10 August 2010 

1 FPSC used PEF’s 2016 supply of electricity forecast, which is 13,736 MW without Levy 1 and 2. 

2 PEF believes that by 2016, it will need 509 MW to meet its 20 percent reserve margin target. 

3 By 2017 (the projected start of operation for Levy 2; Levy 1 is projected to begin operation in 

4 2016), PEF determined (and FPSC concurred) that the 2200 MW generated by the proposed 

5 project would increase PEF’s reserve margin to 33 percent. PEF estimates this would satisfy its 

6 reserve margin requirements until about 2023 (FPSC 2008). Table 8-4 below shows the 

7 installed and forecasted installed capacity from 2009-2017. 

8 Table 8-4. Forecasted Installed Capacity at Summer Peak (MW) 

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Total Installed Capacity(a) 9859 9890 9900 10035 11065 11065 11065 11961 13053 

Firm Capacity Import(b) 1467 1592 1680 1989 1879 1748 1748 1336 1336 

Firm Capacity Export 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Qualifying Facilities 173 173 323 439 439 439 439 439 439 

Total Capacity Available(c) 11499 11655 11903 12463 13383 13252 13252 13736 14828 

Source: PEF 2009c 

(a) Total installed capacity does not include the 143 MW to Southern Company from Intercession City.

(b) FIRM capacity import includes cogeneration, utility and independent power producers, and short-term purchase 

contracts.

(c) 2016 total capacity includes Levy 1 coming online. 2017 total capacity indicates Levy 2 also coming online.

9 8.4 Conclusions 

10 The review team finds that the FPSC Determination of Need process was rigorous, subject to 

11 public review and oversight, and should lend great weight to the NRC’s conclusions. In its 

12 determination, FPSC made projections to 2016 that indicate there is a need for at least an 

13 additional 2200 MW(e) of baseload electricity generation to meet system needs and to provide 

14 for an adequate reserve margin. Because their review process met the NRC’s four criteria for 

15 reliability, the review team finds no reason to challenge the PSNC conclusions. 

16 8.5 References 

17 68 FR 55905. September 29, 2003. “Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for 

18 Rulemaking.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

19 Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). 2008. “Final Order Granting Petition for 

20 Determination of Need for Proposed Nuclear Power Plants.” Final Order PSC-08-0518-FOF-EI, 

21 Docket no. 080148-EI dated August 12, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2009 at 

22 http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/orders/SingleDisplay.aspx?OrderNumber=PSC-08-

23 0518&Method=ByNumber. 
Need For Power 

August 2010 8-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 29 Florida Statutes 403.519. 2009. Florida Statute, Title 29, Public Health, Chapter 403, 

2 Environmental Control, Part 2, Electrical Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting, Section 

3 519, “Exclusive Forum for Determination of Need.” Accessed April 29, 2009 at 

4 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&UR

5 L=Ch0403/SEC519.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh00403-%3ESection%20519#0403.519 

6 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 25-22. 1981. Chapter 25-22, “Rules Governing Practice and 

7 Procedure,” Section 080 – Electrical Power Plant Permitting Procedures. Florida Administrative 

8 Code Annotated.

9 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Ten-Year Site Plan, 

10 2009-2018. Submitted to: Florida Public Service Commission. Accessed April 22, 2009 at 

11 http://www.psc.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/electricgas/2009ProgressEnergyFloridaTYSP.pdf. 

12 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Progress Energy Data Book. Accessed May 6, 

13 2009 at http://www.progress-energy.com/investors/overview/databook/index.asp. 

14 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

15 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, 

16 St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental 

18 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 

19 revisions. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1941 Vol. 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

August

YEAR

2010

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant

Units 1 and 2

Draft Report for Comment

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix A

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as above

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Nos. 52-029, 52-030

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by Progress Energy

Florida (PEF) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for combined licenses (COLs) for Units 1 and 2 at the

proposed Levy Nuclear Plant site in Levy County, Florida. This EIS includes the review team's analysis that considers and

weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action and mitigation measures for reducing and avoiding adverse impacts 

The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation to the Commission, considering the environmental aspects of the proposed action,

is that the COLs be issued. The recommendation is based on (1) the COL application; (2) consultation with Federal, State,

Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the review team's independent review; (4) the consideration of public scoping comments; and (5)

the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in PEF's Environmental Report

and this EIS.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Levy Nuclear Plant, LNP

Draft Environmental impact Statement, DEIS, EIS

National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, 

COL, combines licenses, environmental review

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001