Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed 

GE-Hitachi Global Laser 

Enrichment, LLC Facility in 

Wilmington, North Carolina

Final Report

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1938, Vol. 1 
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402B0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Administration

 Publications Branch 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036B8002

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations 

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed 

GE-Hitachi Global Laser 

Enrichment, LLC Facility in 

Wilmington, North Carolina

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: February 2012

Date Published: February 2012

Office of Federal and State Materials and

 Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1938, Vol. 1

February 2012 iii NUREG-1938

ABSTRACT

On January 30, 2009, General Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) 

submitted an environmental report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a 

license to construct and operate the GLE Global Laser Enrichment Facility. GLE submitted the 

remainder of the license application on June 26, 2009. The proposed GLE Facility would be 

located in the North-Central Sector of the existing GE property near Wilmington, North Carolina. 

The proposed GLE Facility, if licensed, would enrich uranium for use in manufacturing nuclear 

fuel for commercial power reactors. Feed material for the proposed GLE Facility would be 

comprised of non-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6). GLE would employ a laser-based 

enrichment process to enrich uranium to up to 8 percent uranium-235 by weight, with an initial 

planned maximum target production of 6 million separative work units (SWU) per year. GLE 

could begin preconstruction activities prior to the NRC’s licensing decision in 2012. If the 

license is granted, GLE expects to begin facility construction in 2012, and continue construction 

activities through 2020. GLE anticipates commencing initial production in 2014 and reaching 

peak production in 2020. Prior to license expiration in 2052, GLE would seek to renew its 

license to continue operating the facility, or plan for the decontamination and decommissioning 

of the facility per the applicable licensing conditions and NRC regulations. The proposed GLE 

Facility would be licensed in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. 

Specifically, an NRC license under Title 10, “Energy,” of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) Parts 30, 40, and 70 would be required to authorize GLE to possess and use special 

nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material at the proposed GLE Facility site.

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the NRC regulations for 

implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 51). This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts 

of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. This EIS also describes the environment 

potentially affected by GLE’s proposal, presents and compares the potential environmental 

impacts resulting from the proposed action and alternatives, describes GLE’s environmental 

monitoring program and mitigation measures, and evaluates the costs and benefits of the 

proposed action.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This NUREG contains and references information collection requirements that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were 

approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0014, 3150-0017, 

3150-0020, 3150-0021, 3150-0151, 3150-0135, 3150-0009 and 3150-0008.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number.

February 2012 v NUREG-1938

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................... iii

FIGURES............................................................................................................................. xv

TABLES............................................................................................................................... xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... xxv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. xlvii

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 The Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ......................................................... 1-2

1.3.1 Need for Enriched Uranium to Fulfill Electricity Requirements................. 1-6

1.3.2 Need for Domestic Supplies of Enriched Uranium 

for National Energy Security.................................................................... 1-8

1.4 Scope of the Environmental Analysis................................................................... 1-9

1.4.1 Scope of the Proposed Action................................................................. 1-10

1.4.2 Scoping Process and Public Participation Activities ................................ 1-13

1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail........................................................................... 1-13

1.4.4 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................... 1-14

1.4.5 Issues Outside the Scope of the EIS....................................................... 1-14

1.4.6 Draft EIS Public Comment Period and Public Participation Activities....... 1-15

1.4.7 Changes from the Draft EIS .................................................................... 1-16

1.4.8 Related NEPA and Other Relevant Documents ...................................... 1-19

1.5 Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ............................................. 1-20

1.5.1 Federal Laws and Regulations................................................................ 1-20

1.5.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) ..................................... 1-20

1.5.1.2 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), and the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.) .............. 1-21

1.5.1.3 Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).......................................................... 1-21

1.5.1.4 Clean Water Act of 1977 (amending the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1948), as amended 

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).......................................................... 1-21

1.5.1.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

(amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965), 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) ..................................... 1-22

1.5.1.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) ..................................... 1-22
Contents

NUREG-1938 vi February 2012

CONTENTS (Cont.)

1.5.1.7 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.)........................................... 1-22

1.5.1.8 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.)........................................................... 1-23

1.5.1.9 Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.).......................................................... 1-23

1.5.1.10 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)............................................................ 1-23

1.5.1.11 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).......................................................... 1-23

1.5.1.12 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).......................................................... 1-23

1.5.1.13 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).......................................................... 1-24

1.5.1.14 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

as amended (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) ....................................... 1-24

1.5.1.15 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975

(49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).......................................................... 1-24

1.5.1.16 United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization

Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)....................................... 1-24

1.5.1.17 Environmental Standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle 

(40 CFR Part 190, Subpart B) ................................................. 1-25

1.5.2 Applicable Executive Orders ................................................................... 1-25

1.5.3 Applicable State of North Carolina Requirements.................................... 1-25

1.5.4 Permit and Approval Status..................................................................... 1-25

1.5.5 Cooperating Agencies............................................................................. 1-28

1.5.6 Consultations .......................................................................................... 1-28

1.5.6.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation........................ 1-28

1.5.6.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Section 106 Consultation......................................................... 1-32

1.5.6.3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 .............................. 1-33

1.6 Organizations Involved in the Proposed Action.................................................... 1-33

1.7 References .......................................................................................................... 1-34

2 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Location and Description of Proposed Site.............................................. 2-2

2.1.2 Description of the Proposed GLE Facility ................................................ 2-2

2.1.2.1 Primary Facilities..................................................................... 2-3

2.1.2.2 Other Facility Buildings and Supporting Infrastructure ............. 2-7

2.1.2.3 Process Description ................................................................ 2-8

2.1.2.4 Waste Management Systems.................................................. 2-10
Contents

February 2012 vii NUREG-1938

CONTENTS (Cont.)

2.1.2.5 Liquid and Air Effluents ........................................................... 2-12

2.1.3 Depleted Uranium Management.............................................................. 2-13

2.1.3.1 Conversion of Depleted UF6 .................................................... 2-14

2.1.3.2 Disposal of Depleted Uranium................................................. 2-15

2.1.4 Decontamination and Decommissioning ................................................. 2-15

2.1.5 Description and Anticipated Schedule for the Phases 

of the Proposed Action............................................................................ 2-16

2.2 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-19

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ............................................. 2-19

2.3.1 Alternative Sites ...................................................................................... 2-42

2.3.1.1 Alternative Sites Outside of the Wilmington Site...................... 2-42

2.3.1.2 Alternative Locations at the Wilmington Site............................ 2-49

2.3.2 Alternative Sources of Low-Enriched Uranium ........................................ 2-50

2.3.2.1 Re-Activate the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 

Facility at Piketon .................................................................... 2-50

2.3.2.2 Downblending Highly Enriched Uranium ................................. 2-50

2.3.2.3 Purchase Low-Enriched Uranium from Foreign Sources ......... 2-51

2.3.3 Alternative Technologies for Enrichment ................................................. 2-51

2.3.3.1 Electromagnetic Isotope Separation Process .......................... 2-51

2.3.3.2 Liquid Thermal Diffusion.......................................................... 2-51

2.3.3.3 Gaseous Diffusion Process ..................................................... 2-52

2.3.3.4 Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation .................................. 2-52

2.3.3.5 Molecular Laser Isotope Separation ........................................ 2-53

2.3.4 Gas Centrifuge........................................................................................ 2-53

2.4 Staff Recommendation Regarding the Proposed Action ...................................... 2-65

2.5 References .......................................................................................................... 2-65

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Site Location and Description .............................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.1 Proposed GLE Facility Site ..................................................................... 3-2

3.2.2 New Hanover County .............................................................................. 3-4

3.2.3 Brunswick County ................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.4 Pender County ........................................................................................ 3-5

3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources........................................................................... 3-5

3.3.1 Prehistoric............................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period................................................................. 3-5

3.3.1.2 Archaic Period......................................................................... 3-6

3.3.1.3 Woodland Period..................................................................... 3-6

3.3.2 Ethno-Historic ......................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.3 Historic Euro-American ........................................................................... 3-7

3.3.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Proposed GLE Site .......... 3-8

3.4 Visual and Scenic Resources .............................................................................. 3-8
Contents

NUREG-1938 viii February 2012

CONTENTS (Cont.)

3.5 Climatology, Meteorology, and Air Quality ........................................................... 3-11

3.5.1 Regional Climatology .............................................................................. 3-11

3.5.2 Site and Regional Meteorology ............................................................... 3-14

3.5.2.1 Temperature............................................................................ 3-15

3.5.2.2 Precipitation and Relative Humidity ......................................... 3-16

3.5.2.3 Winds, Atmospheric Stability, and Temperature Inversions ..... 3-16

3.5.2.4 Mixing Heights......................................................................... 3-20

3.5.2.5 Severe Weather Conditions..................................................... 3-21

3.5.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 3-22

3.5.3.1 Current Emissions at the Wilmington Site................................ 3-25

3.5.3.2 Current Air Quality Conditions ................................................. 3-27

3.6 Geology, Minerals, and Soil ................................................................................. 3-30

3.6.1 Regional Geology, Structure, and Seismicity........................................... 3-30

3.6.1.1 Regional Earthquakes ............................................................. 3-32

3.6.1.2 Mineral Resources .................................................................. 3-33

3.6.2 Site Geology ........................................................................................... 3-33

3.6.3 Site Soils................................................................................................. 3-34

3.7 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 3-34

3.7.1 Surface Water Features and Quality ....................................................... 3-34

3.7.2 Floodplains.............................................................................................. 3-39

3.7.3 Wetlands................................................................................................. 3-39

3.7.4 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 3-39

3.7.4.1 Site and Regional Hydrogeology ............................................. 3-39

3.7.4.2 Groundwater Use .................................................................... 3-40

3.7.4.3 Groundwater Quality ............................................................... 3-41

3.8 Ecological Resources .......................................................................................... 3-43

3.8.1 Vegetation............................................................................................... 3-43

3.8.1.1 Pine Forest.............................................................................. 3-44

3.8.1.2 Pine-Hardwood Forest ............................................................ 3-46

3.8.1.3 Pine Plantation........................................................................ 3-49

3.8.2 Wetlands................................................................................................. 3-49

3.8.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ............................................................. 3-51

3.8.4 Wildlife .................................................................................................... 3-55

3.8.5 Aquatic Biota........................................................................................... 3-57

3.8.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species.................. 3-58

3.8.6.1 Federally Listed Species ......................................................... 3-58

3.8.6.2 State-Listed Species ............................................................... 3-73

3.9 Noise ................................................................................................................... 3-86

3.10 Transportation...................................................................................................... 3-91

3.10.1 Roads and Highways .............................................................................. 3-91

3.10.2 Rail Network............................................................................................ 3-94

3.10.3 Water ...................................................................................................... 3-94

3.10.4 Air ........................................................................................................... 3-95
Contents

February 2012 ix NUREG-1938

CONTENTS (Cont.)

3.11 Public and Occupational Health ........................................................................... 3-95

3.11.1 Background Radiological Exposure......................................................... 3-95

3.11.1.1 General Background Radiation ............................................... 3-95

3.11.1.2 Radiological Exposure from GNF-A Operations ...................... 3-96

3.11.2 Background Chemical Exposure ............................................................. 3-99

3.11.3 Public Health Studies .............................................................................. 3-101

3.11.3.1 Regulatory Requirements for Public and 

Occupational Exposure ........................................................... 3-101

3.11.3.2 Health Effects from Radiological Exposure.............................. 3-102

3.11.3.3 Health Effects from Chemical Exposure .................................. 3-103

3.11.3.4 Health Study of Mercury Emissions......................................... 3-104

3.11.4 Occupational Injury and Illness Rates ..................................................... 3-104

3.12 Waste Management............................................................................................. 3-105

3.12.1 Current Waste Management Program..................................................... 3-105

3.12.2 Wastewater Treatment............................................................................ 3-105

3.12.2.1 Sanitary Wastewater ............................................................... 3-106

3.12.2.2 Process Wastewater ............................................................... 3-108

3.12.3 Other Liquid Waste ................................................................................. 3-108

3.12.4 Solid Waste............................................................................................. 3-110

3.12.4.1 Municipal Solid Waste and Nonhazardous 

Industrial Wastes..................................................................... 3-110

3.12.4.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste ................................................. 3-110

3.13 Socioeconomics................................................................................................... 3-110

3.13.1 Population Characteristics....................................................................... 3-111

3.13.1.1 Major Population Centers........................................................ 3-111

3.13.1.2 Population Growth Trends....................................................... 3-111

3.13.1.3 Transient and Special Populations .......................................... 3-111

3.13.2 Economic Trends and Characteristics ..................................................... 3-113

3.13.2.1 Employment ............................................................................ 3-113

3.13.2.2 Unemployment........................................................................ 3-113

3.13.2.3 Income .................................................................................... 3-115

3.13.3 Housing Resources and Community and Social Services ....................... 3-115

3.13.3.1 Housing................................................................................... 3-115

3.13.3.2 Schools ................................................................................... 3-118

3.13.3.3 Public Safety ........................................................................... 3-118

3.13.4 Tax Structure and Distribution................................................................. 3-118

3.14 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................... 3-119

3.14.1 Minority Populations................................................................................ 3-120

3.14.2 Low-Income Populations......................................................................... 3-122

3.15 References .......................................................................................................... 3-124
Contents

NUREG-1938 x February 2012

CONTENTS (Cont.)

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Preconstruction Activities and the Proposed Action ............................................. 4-2

4.2.1 Land Use Impacts ................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.1.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-3

4.2.1.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-4

4.2.2 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts................................................. 4-4

4.2.2.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-5

4.2.2.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-6

4.2.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-7

4.2.3 Visual and Scenic Impacts ...................................................................... 4-7

4.2.3.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-7

4.2.3.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-7

4.2.3.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-8

4.2.4 Air Quality Impacts .................................................................................. 4-8

4.2.4.1 Access Road Construction, Land Clearing, and 

Building Construction .............................................................. 4-9

4.2.4.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-16

4.2.4.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-18

4.2.5 Geology and Soil Impacts ....................................................................... 4-20

4.2.5.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-20

4.2.5.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-21

4.2.5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-21

4.2.6 Surface Water Resources Impacts.......................................................... 4-22

4.2.6.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-22

4.2.6.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-24

4.2.6.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-25

4.2.7 Groundwater Resources Impacts ............................................................ 4-27

4.2.7.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-27

4.2.7.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-27

4.2.7.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-28

4.2.8 Ecological Impacts .................................................................................. 4-29

4.2.8.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-30

4.2.8.2 Operations and Maintenance .................................................. 4-48

4.2.8.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-54

4.2.9 Noise Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-57

4.2.9.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-58

4.2.9.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-60

4.2.9.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-61

4.2.10 Transportation Impacts............................................................................ 4-62

4.2.10.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-63
Contents

February 2012 xi NUREG-1938

CONTENTS (Cont.)

4.2.10.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-65

4.2.10.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-71

4.2.11 Public and Occupational Health Impacts from Normal Operations .......... 4-72

4.2.11.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-73

4.2.11.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-76

4.2.11.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-88

4.2.12 Waste Management Impacts................................................................... 4-91

4.2.12.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-92

4.2.12.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-92

4.2.12.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-99

4.2.13 Socioeconomic Impacts .......................................................................... 4-101

4.2.13.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-103

4.2.13.2 Facility Operations................................................................... 4-104

4.2.13.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-106

4.2.14 Environmental Justice Impacts................................................................ 4-106

4.2.15 Accident Impacts..................................................................................... 4-113

4.2.15.1 Accidents Considered ............................................................. 4-113

4.2.15.2 Accident Consequences.......................................................... 4-114

4.2.15.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-117

4.2.16 Separation of Preconstruction and Construction Impacts ........................ 4-118

4.2.17 Impacts from Decontamination and Decommissioning ............................ 4-118

4.2.17.1 Land Use................................................................................. 4-120

4.2.17.2 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................. 4-120

4.2.17.3 Visual and Scenic Resources.................................................. 4-120

4.2.17.4 Air Quality ............................................................................... 4-120

4.2.17.5 Geology and Soils ................................................................... 4-121

4.2.17.6 Water Resources .................................................................... 4-121

4.2.17.7 Ecological Resources.............................................................. 4-121

4.2.17.8 Noise....................................................................................... 4-123

4.2.17.9 Transportation......................................................................... 4-124

4.2.17.10 Public and Occupational Health............................................... 4-124

4.2.17.11 Waste Management ................................................................ 4-125

4.2.17.12 Socioeconomics ...................................................................... 4-125

4.2.17.13 Environmental Justice ............................................................. 4-126

4.2.17.14 Summary................................................................................. 4-126

4.2.18 Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gas Impacts ............................. 4-127

4.2.18.1 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................. 4-127

4.2.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in the United States.... 4-128

4.2.18.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in North Carolina........ 4-129

4.2.18.4 Projected Impacts from the Construction, Operation, 

and Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility on

Carbon Dioxide and Other GHG Emissions............................. 4-129

4.2.18.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4-134
Contents

NUREG-1938 xii February 2012

CONTENTS (Cont.)

4.3 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-134

4.3.1 Land Use................................................................................................. 4-136

4.3.2 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................. 4-137

4.3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-137

4.3.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................... 4-138

4.3.5 Water Resources .................................................................................... 4-139

4.3.6 Ecology ................................................................................................... 4-140

4.3.7 Transportation......................................................................................... 4-142

4.3.8 Public and Occupational Health .............................................................. 4-142

4.3.8.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities............................. 4-142

4.3.8.2 Operations .............................................................................. 4-143

4.3.9 Waste Management ................................................................................ 4-144

4.3.10 Socioeconomics...................................................................................... 4-146

4.3.11 Environmental Justice ............................................................................. 4-147

4.4 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative .................................................................... 4-148

4.4.1 Land Use................................................................................................. 4-148

4.4.2 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................. 4-148

4.4.3 Visual and Scenic Resources.................................................................. 4-148

4.4.4 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-149

4.4.5 Geology and Soils ................................................................................... 4-149

4.4.6 Water Resources .................................................................................... 4-149

4.4.7 Ecological Resources.............................................................................. 4-150

4.4.8 Noise....................................................................................................... 4-150

4.4.9 Transportation......................................................................................... 4-150

4.4.10 Public and Occupational Health .............................................................. 4-150

4.4.11 Waste Management ................................................................................ 4-151

4.4.12 Socioeconomic Impacts .......................................................................... 4-151

4.4.13 Environmental Justice ............................................................................. 4-151

4.4.14 Accident Impacts..................................................................................... 4-152

4.5 References .......................................................................................................... 4-152

5 MITIGATION .................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC ................................................. 5-1

5.3 References .......................................................................................................... 5-18

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS...................... 6-1

6.1 Radiological Measurements and Monitoring Program.......................................... 6-4

6.1.1 Air Monitoring.......................................................................................... 6-4
Contents

February 2012 xiii NUREG-1938

CONTENTS (Cont.)

6.1.2 Direct Radiation Monitoring ..................................................................... 6-5

6.1.3 Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Monitoring................................. 6-6

6.1.4 Surface Water and Sediment Monitoring................................................. 6-7

6.1.5 Groundwater Monitoring.......................................................................... 6-7

6.1.6 Soil Sampling .......................................................................................... 6-8

6.2 Nonradiological Measurements and Monitoring Programs ................................... 6-8

6.2.1 Physiochemical Monitoring...................................................................... 6-8

6.2.1.1 Effluent Monitoring .................................................................. 6-9

6.2.1.2 Stormwater Monitoring ............................................................ 6-10

6.2.2 Ecological Monitoring .............................................................................. 6-10

6.2.3 Industrial Health and Safety Monitoring................................................... 6-10

6.2.4 Cylinder Surveillance and Monitoring ...................................................... 6-10

6.3 Quality Assurance................................................................................................ 6-11

6.4 Reporting ............................................................................................................. 6-11

6.5 References .......................................................................................................... 6-12

7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Action .......................................................... 7-2

7.1.1 Costs of Preconstruction and the Proposed Action.................................. 7-2

7.1.2 Benefits of the Proposed Action .............................................................. 7-9

7.1.3 Summary of the Proposed Action............................................................ 7-10

7.2 Comparative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Action Relative 

to No-Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 7-11

7.2.1 The No-Action Alternative ....................................................................... 7-11

7.2.2 Methodology ........................................................................................... 7-11

7.2.3 Compliance with Policy and Technical Objectives ................................... 7-12

7.2.3.1 Meeting Future Demand.......................................................... 7-12

7.2.3.2 National Energy Security......................................................... 7-12

7.2.3.3 Technology Upgrade............................................................... 7-13

7.2.4 Impacts and Value Analysis .................................................................... 7-14

7.2.5 Summary Regarding the Proposed Action versus 

the No-Action Alternative......................................................................... 7-14

7.3 Overall Cost-Benefit Conclusions......................................................................... 7-14

7.4 References .......................................................................................................... 7-15

8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................ 8-1

8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts...................................................... 8-3

8.2 Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment 

and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity .................... 8-4

8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources...................................... 8-5
Contents

NUREG-1938 xiv February 2012

CONTENTS (Cont.)

8.4 References .......................................................................................................... 8-6

9 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Federal Agencies................................................................................................. 9-1

9.2 Indian Tribes and Organizations .......................................................................... 9-1

9.3 State Agencies..................................................................................................... 9-2

9.4 Local Agencies .................................................................................................... 9-3

10 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Contributors................................... 10-1

10.2 Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) Contributors .......................................... 10-1

APPENDIX A SCOPING FOR THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .............. A-1

APPENDIX B CONSULTATION LETTERS ....................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C RADIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

METHODOLOGY AND IMPACTS............................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, 

AND IMPACTS............................................................................................ D-1

APPENDIX E AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS............................................................................ E-1

APPENDIX F SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODS ................................................ F-1

APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DATA ........................................................... G-1

APPENDIX H PROPRIETARY AND SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION .................... H-1

APPENDIX I GLOSSARY................................................................................................. I-1

APPENDIX J PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT ................................................................................ J-1

APPENDIX K PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS AND TRANSCRIPTS................................. K-1
Contents

February 2012 xv NUREG-1938

FIGURES

1-1 Location of the Proposed GLE Facility...................................................................... 1-3

1-2 Wilmington Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 1-4

1-3 Nuclear Fuel Cycle ................................................................................................... 1-5

2-1 Schematic of the Existing Wilmington Site................................................................ 2-3

2-2 Location of Proposed GLE Facility at the Wilmington Site ........................................ 2-4

2-3 Anticipated Timeline for the Proposed GLE Facility .................................................. 2-17

2-4 GLE Site-Selection Results Summary ...................................................................... 2-44

2-5 Candidate Sites for the Proposed GLE Facility ......................................................... 2-45

2-6 Electromagnetic Isotopic Separation Process........................................................... 2-51

2-7 Liquid Thermal Diffusion Process ............................................................................. 2-52

2-8 Gaseous Diffusion Stage.......................................................................................... 2-52

2-9 Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation Process...................................................... 2-53

2-10 Schematic of a Gas Centrifuge................................................................................. 2-53

3-1 Land Use within 8 kilometers of the Project Area...................................................... 3-3

3-2 South Entrance from Castle Hayne Road to the Wilmington Site.............................. 3-9

3-3 Existing Site Water Tower Viewed from South of I-140............................................. 3-9

3-4 Closest Residence to the Proposed GLE Facility Site Viewed from the 

North Access Road................................................................................................... 3-10

3-5 Wind Rose for the Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport, 2004 to 2008.............. 3-18

3-6 Distribution of Stability Classes for the Wilmington/New Hanover 

County Airport, 1984 to 1992.................................................................................... 3-20

3-7 Mean Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights for the Wilmington Site, 

North Carolina .......................................................................................................... 3-21

3-8 Surface Water Features at the Wilmington Site ........................................................ 3-35
Contents

NUREG-1938 xvi February 2012

FIGURES (Cont.)

3-9 Floodplains at the Wilmington Site............................................................................ 3-40

3-10 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results Relative to State Standards .............. 3-42

3-11 Level IV Ecoregions Located within the Wilmington Site Area .................................. 3-45

3-12 Plant Communities Located within the Wilmington Site ............................................ 3-47

3-13 Age and Management of Pine-Dominated Plant Communities 

on the Wilmington Site.............................................................................................. 3-50

3-14 Wetlands Located within the Wilmington Site ........................................................... 3-52

3-15 Wetlands Located within the Corridor for the Proposed Access Road 

to the Proposed GLE Facility .................................................................................... 3-54

3-16 Locations of Sound Measurements Conducted from October 30 

to November 1, 2007, at the Wilmington Site............................................................ 3-90

3-17 Map of the Wilmington Region.................................................................................. 3-92

3-18 Local Map of the Wilmington Area............................................................................ 3-93

3-19 Percentage Contribution to the Effective Dose in the U.S. Population for 2006 ........ 3-96

3-20 Onsite Ambient Air Monitoring Locations for Gross Alpha 

and Uranium Isotopes .............................................................................................. 3-98

3-21 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Discharge Points 

at the Wilmington Site............................................................................................... 3-107

3-22 Region of Influence for the Proposed GLE Facility ................................................... 3-112

3-23 Census Block Groups within a 6.4-kilometer Radius of the Proposed 

GLE Facility with Minority Populations that Exceed 50 Percent of 

Total Population or Exceed State and County Averages by More than 

20 Percentage Points ............................................................................................... 3-121

3-24 Census Block Groups within a 6.4-kilometer Radius of the Proposed 

GLE Facility with Low-Income Populations that Exceed 50 Percent 

of the Total Population or Exceed State and County Averages by More 

Than 20 Percentage Points ...................................................................................... 3-123

4-1 Planned Projects at the Wilmington Site................................................................... 4-135
Contents

February 2012 xvii NUREG-1938

FIGURES (Cont.)

6-1 GLE Air Monitoring Locations ................................................................................... 6-6

D-1 Schematic of a Type 48Y Cylinder............................................................................ D-10

D-2 Schematic of a Type 30B Cylinder............................................................................ D-11

D-3 Scheme for NUREG-0170 Classification by Accident Severity Category 

for Truck Accidents................................................................................................... D-13

E-1 Wind Rose for the Horticultural Crops Research Station in Castle Hayne, 

North Carolina, 2005–2008 ...................................................................................... E-32

TABLES

1-1 Licensed and Proposed Domestic Sources of Uranium Enrichment ......................... 1-8

1-2 State of North Carolina Environmental Regulations.................................................. 1-26

1-3 Potentially Applicable Permit and Approval Requirements for the 

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility ......... 1-29

2-1 Management of Wastewater Generated by Proposed GLE Facility Operations ........ 2-10

2-2 Management of Solid Waste Generated at Proposed GLE Facility During 

Operations................................................................................................................ 2-12

2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility 

and the No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 2-20

2-4 Candidate Sites Considered for the Proposed GLE Facility ...................................... 2-46

2-5 Ranking Results for the Sites in Morris, Illinois, and Wilmington, North Carolina ...... 2-49

2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology 

and Centrifuge Technology....................................................................................... 2-55

3-1 Explanation of Scenic Quality Rating Criteria............................................................ 3-12

3-2 Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart......................................................... 3-13

3-3 Monthly Average and Daily Extreme Temperatures at the 

Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport, North Carolina......................................... 3-15
Contents

NUREG-1938 xviii February 2012

TABLES (Cont.)

3-4 Monthly Mean and Extreme Precipitation and Snowfall at the 

Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport, North Carolina......................................... 3-17

3-5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and North Carolina State 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants................................................ 3-24

3-6 Annual Point Source Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and VOCs in 

New Hanover County, Neighboring Brunswick and Pender Counties 

for 2007, and at the Wilmington Site for 2004........................................................... 3-26

3-7 Annual Emissions for Large Point Sources in New Hanover County 

and Neighboring Brunswick and Pender Counties for 2007...................................... 3-28

3-8 Annual Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions at the Wilmington Site in 2004........................ 3-29

3-9 Highest Background Concentrations at Monitoring Stations in 

New Hanover County, North Carolina, during the Period 2004 to 2008 .................... 3-31

3-10 Geologic Units at the North–Central Sector of the Wilmington Site........................... 3-32

3-11 Level IV Ecoregions within the Wilmington Site ........................................................ 3-46

3-12 Plant Communities That Occur on the Wilmington Site............................................. 3-48

3-13 Wetlands That Occur on the Wilmington Site............................................................ 3-53

3-14 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species 

Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina ............................................... 3-59

3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina................ 3-74

3-16 Summary of Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public 

Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety............................................ 3-88

3-17 Annual Average Daily Traffic on Major Roads near the Wilmington Site................... 3-94

3-18 Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Established by 10 CFR Part 20........................ 3-102

3-19 Cancer Incidence and Death Rates for All Cancers for 2000 to 2005 ....................... 3-103

3-20 Wastewater Streams Generated by Current Operations 

at the Wilmington Site............................................................................................... 3-106
Contents

February 2012 xix NUREG-1938

TABLES (Cont.)

3-21 Solid and Liquid Wastes Generated by Current Operations 

at the Wilmington Site............................................................................................... 3-109

3-22 Population in the ROI and North Carolina................................................................. 3-113

3-23 ROI Employment in 2006.......................................................................................... 3-114

3-24 ROI Unemployment Rates........................................................................................ 3-115

3-25 ROI and State Personal Income ............................................................................... 3-116

3-26 ROI Housing Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-117

3-27 School District Data for the ROI in 2007 ................................................................... 3-119

3-28 Public Safety Employment in the ROI in 2009 .......................................................... 3-119

3-29 Minority and Low-Income Populations within a 6.4-kilometer 

Radius of the Proposed GLE Site............................................................................. 3-122

4-1 Estimated Air Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and VOCs from Construction 

and Operation of the Proposed GLE Facility............................................................. 4-11

4-2 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with 

Road Construction Activities for the Proposed GLE Facility...................................... 4-13

4-3 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with 

Land-Clearing Activities for the Proposed GLE Facility............................................. 4-14

4-4 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated 

with Building Construction Activities for the Proposed GLE Facility .......................... 4-15

4-5 Impacts on Plant Communities Due to Preconstruction and Construction 

Activities for the Proposed GLE Facility .................................................................... 4-31

4-6 Significance Levels of Potential Impacts on Vegetation, Wetlands, 

and Environmentally Sensitive Areas from the Proposed GLE Facility...................... 4-33

4-7 Significance Levels of Potential Impacts on Wildlife from the 

Proposed GLE Facility.............................................................................................. 4-38

4-8 Significance Levels of Potential Impacts on Aquatic Biota 

from the Proposed GLE Facility................................................................................ 4-40
Contents

NUREG-1938 xx February 2012

TABLES (Cont.)

4-9 Assumed Number of Noise Sources for Use in Sound Propagation Modeling .......... 4-59

4-10 Estimated Cumulative Sound Levels at the Fenceline Receptor 

Nearest to the Wooden Shoe Residential Subdivision .............................................. 4-60

4-11 Estimated Traffic Generated by Construction, Operation, 

and Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility ................................................ 4-64

4-12 Estimated External Dose Rates for Radioactive Material Shipments ........................ 4-68

4-13 Estimated Collective Population Proposed GLE Facility Single Shipment 

Transportation Risks................................................................................................. 4-69

4-14 Estimated Annual Collective Population Proposed GLE Facility Transportation 

Risks ........................................................................................................................ 4-70

4-15 Maximally Exposed Individual Routine Dose from Radioactive 

Material Shipments................................................................................................... 4-71

4-16 Health and Safety Statistics for Estimating Industrial Safety Impacts 

Common to the Workplace and Total Incidents for Preconstruction

and Construction Activities ....................................................................................... 4-74

4-17 Health and Safety Statistics for Estimating Industrial Safety Impacts 

Common to the Workplace and Total Incidents for Facility Operations ..................... 4-77

4-18 Predicted Airborne Concentrations of Uranium and Hydrogen Fluoride from 

the Proposed GLE Facility Stack Releases at Different Receptor Locations............. 4-80

4-19 Proposed GLE Facility Stack/Vent Characteristics, Site Characteristics, and Stack 

Releases Used in Modeling...................................................................................... 4-82

4-20 Annual Effective Dose from Proposed GLE Facility Stack Releases 

at Different Receptor Locations ............................................................................... 4-84

4-21 Estimated Doses for Liquid Effluent Releases from the Proposed GLE Facility ........ 4-87

4-22 Annual CEDE and TEDE for Fuel Cycle Facilities 

within the United States for 2003–2007 .................................................................... 4-89

4-23 Estimated Construction Hazardous Wastes for the Proposed GLE Facility............... 4-93
Contents

February 2012 xxi NUREG-1938

TABLES (Cont.)

4-24 Wastewater Volume Estimates for the Proposed GLE Facility.................................. 4-94

4-25 Operations Waste Estimates for the Proposed GLE Facility ..................................... 4-96

4-26 Effects of the Proposed GLE Facility on ROI Socioeconomics ................................. 4-104

4-27 Selected Health Statistics for Counties near the Proposed GLE Facility ................... 4-112

4-28 Definition of High- and Intermediate-Consequence Events....................................... 4-115

4-29 Summary of Health Effects Resulting from Accidents ............................................... 4-116

4-30 Summary of Anticipated Impacts from Preconstruction and Construction

Activities ................................................................................................................... 4-119

4-31 Annual CO2 Emissions from Access Road Construction, Land Clearing, Building 

Construction, Start-up and Final Construction, and Operation of the Proposed 

GLE Facility.............................................................................................................. 4-131

4-32 Cumulative Wastewater Generation at the Wilmington Site...................................... 4-145

5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE................................................. 5-2

5-2 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC .................................. 5-14

6-1 Summary of GLE Environmental Monitoring Program .............................................. 6-2

6-2 Guidance Documents That Apply to the Radiological Monitoring Program ............... 6-4

7-1 Socioeconomic Benefits Associated with the Proposed GLE Facility........................ 7-9

B-1 Consultations with Government Agencies Related to Threatened and

Endangered Species and Critial Habitats ................................................................. B-1

B-2 NRC Correspondence with American Indian Tribes and Organizations ....................B-107

B-3 Section 106 Correspondence with the North Carolina SHPO 

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ...................................................B-108

B-4 Additional Consultations with Government Agencies................................................B-140

C-1 Radionuclide-Specific Parameters Used in the RESRAD Code 

for Radiological Impact Assessment......................................................................... C-15
Contents

NUREG-1938 xxii February 2012

TABLES (Cont.)

C-2 FMO and GLE Emissions and Site Characteristics Used in Modeling....................... C-15

C-3 Receptor Location for Radiation Dose and Chemical Toxicity Estimation 

from GLE Stack Releases ........................................................................................ C-17

C-4 Agricultural Input Parameters Used in the Radiological Impact Assessment............. C-17

C-5 Radionuclide-Specific Inputs Used in the Radiological Impact Assessment.............. C-18

C-6 Estimated Radionuclide Concentrations in Surface Water 

at Exposure Locations .............................................................................................. C-20

C-7 Estimated Number of People Involved in Different Recreational Activities ................ C-21

C-8 Radionuclide-Specific Parameters Used in the GENII Code 

for Radiological Impact Assessment......................................................................... C-22

C-9 Exposure Parameters for Different Activities............................................................. C-23

C-10 Annual Effective Dose from Proposed GLE Facility Stack Releases

at Different Receptor Locations ................................................................................ C-24

C-11 Predicted Airborne Concentrations of Uranium and HF from the Proposed 

GLE Facility Stack Releases at Different Receptor Locations................................... C-25

C-12 Estimated Doses from Cylinder Storage Pad............................................................ C-26

C-13 Estimated Doses for Liquid Effluent Releases from the Proposed GLE Facility ........ C-27

C-14 Annual CEDE and TEDE for Fuel Cycle Facilities within the 

United States for 2003–2007 .................................................................................... C-29

D-1 Summary Route Data............................................................................................... D-8

D-2 Radioactive Material Shipment Information .............................................................. D-10

D-3 Single-Shipment Radionuclide Inventories ............................................................... D-11

D-4 Fractional Occurrences for Truck Accidents by Severity Category 

and Population Density Zone.................................................................................... D-13

D-5 Estimated Release Fractions for Type A and Type B Packages 

under Various Accident Severity Categories............................................................. D-14
Contents

February 2012 xxiii NUREG-1938

TABLES (Cont.)

D-6 External Dose Rates and Package Sizes Used in RADTRAN .................................. D-15

D-7 General RADTRAN Input Parameters ...................................................................... D-16

E-1 General Assumptions for Estimating Air Emissions Associated 

with Construction and Operation of the Proposed GLE Facility................................. E-10

E-2 Input Parameters Used for Estimating Air Emissions at the Proposed 

GLE Facility: Road Construction Followed by Land Clearing ................................... E-11

E-3 Input Parameters Used for Estimating Air Emissions at the Proposed 

GLE Facility: Building Construction.......................................................................... E-14

E-4 Input Parameters Used for Estimating Air Emissions at the Proposed 

GLE Facility: Start-up and Final Construction .......................................................... E-16

E-5 Input Parameters Used for Estimating Air Emissions at the Proposed 

GLE Facility: Operations.......................................................................................... E-18

E-6 Estimated Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Road Construction and Land Clearing............. E-21

E-7 Estimated Average Annual Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Road Construction .......................................... E-23

E-8 Estimated Average Annual Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Land Clearing.................................................. E-24

E-9 Estimated Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Building Construction ...................................... E-25

E-10 Estimated Average Annual Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Building Construction ...................................... E-26

E-11 Estimated Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Start-up and Final Construction....................... E-27

E-12 Estimated Average Annual Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Start-up and Final Construction....................... E-28

E-13 Estimated Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Operations ...................................................... E-29
Contents

NUREG-1938 xxiv February 2012

TABLES (Cont.)

E-14 Estimated Average Annual Criteria Air Pollutant and VOC Emissions 

at the Proposed GLE Facility During Operations ..................................................... E-30

E-15 Meteorological Data Information Used for AERMET................................................. E-31

G-1 State and County Minority Population Totals ............................................................ G-2

G-2 Census Block Group Minority Population Totals ....................................................... G-3

G-3 State and County Low-Income Population Totals ..................................................... G-4

G-4 Census Block Group Low-Income Population Totals ................................................ G-5

J-1 Draft EIS Commenter Identification and Comment Response Locations ......................J-6
February 2012 xxv NUREG-1938

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 30, 40, and 70, the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering whether to issue a license that 

would allow General Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) to possess and 

use special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material at a proposed laser-based 

uranium enrichment facility near Wilmington, North Carolina. The scope of activities to be 

conducted under the license would include the construction and operation of the proposed GLE 

Facility. GLE submitted its Environmental Report (GLE, 2008) to the NRC on January 30, 2009, 

and the license application was submitted on June 26, 2009. To support its licensing decision 

on the proposed GLE Facility, the NRC’s implementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 for the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require the preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). The development of this EIS is based on the NRC’s review of information 

provided by GLE, the NRC’s independent analyses, and consultation with other Federal 

agencies, American Indian tribes and organizations, State agencies, and local agencies.

The enriched uranium produced at the proposed GLE Facility would be used to manufacture 

nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Enrichment is the process of increasing the 

concentration of the naturally occurring and fissionable uranium-235 isotope. Uranium ore 

usually contains approximately 0.72 percent uranium-235 by weight. To be useful in nuclear 

power plants as fuel for electricity generation, uranium must be enriched to approximately 

3–5 percent uranium-235 by weight.

THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action considered in this EIS is the NRC issuing a license that would allow GLE

to construct, operate, and eventually, decommission (under a separate NRC action) a laserbased uranium enrichment facility on existing GE property near Wilmington, North Carolina. 

The license would authorize GLE to possess and use special nuclear material, source material, 

and byproduct material at the proposed GLE Facility for a period of 40 years. If the license is 

granted, the proposed GLE Facility would be located on the North-Central Sector of the GE 

property.

The proposed GLE Facility would employ a laser-based process to enrich uranium up to 

8 percent uranium-235 by weight (although nuclear power reactors normally require 3–5 percent 

uranium-235 by weight), with an initial planned maximum target production of 6 million 

separative work units (SWU) per year. GLE could begin preconstruction activities at GE’s 

Wilmington Site prior to the NRC licensing decision in 2012. If the license is approved, GLE 

expects to begin facility construction in 2012, and continue through 2020. Initial production

would commence in 2014 and reach peak production in 2020. Prior to license expiration in 

2052, GLE would decide whether or not to renew its operating license, or decontaminate and 

decommission the facility.

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the proposed action is for GLE to construct, operate, and decommission a 

facility to enrich uranium up to 8 percent uranium-235 by weight, with a production capacity of 
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xxvi February 2012

6 million SWU per year, using laser-based technology at the proposed GLE Facility. This facility 

would provide an additional domestic source of low-enriched uranium to be used in commercial 

nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power supplies approximately 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Currently, domestic 

production of low-enriched uranium accounts for approximately 16 percent of U.S. demand. 

The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) is the primary domestic supplier of lowenriched uranium for nuclear fuel in the United States through its operation of an enrichment 

plant near Paducah, Kentucky. Under the Megatons-to-Megawatts Program (which is 

scheduled to expire in 2013), USEC also imports the enriched portion of downblended (diluted) 

weapons-grade uranium from Russia to supply an additional 37 percent of the U.S. demand. 

Foreign suppliers, other than Russia, meet the remaining 47 percent of the current U.S. demand

for low-enriched uranium.

Commencing in 2013, USEC will import, under a new 10-year agreement, low-enriched uranium 

from Russia at levels initially expected to reach (in 2015) approximately one-half the level of the 

Russian downblended, weapons-grade materials. The agreement includes an option to 

increase the quantities to the same level as the Megatons-to-Megawatts Program. USEC will 

deliver a portion of this enriched uranium to U.S. utilities.

The Louisiana Energy Services (LES) National Enrichment Facility (NEF, doing business as 

[d/b/a] URENCO USA) in Lea County, New Mexico, which began initial operations in June 2010, 

may provide additional enrichment services in the future as construction continues and the 

facility reaches capacity. USEC’s American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio, and 

AREVA’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) in Bonneville County, Idaho, may also provide 

additional domestic enrichment services in the future.

The current dependence on a single U.S. supplier and foreign sources for low-enriched uranium 

imposes reliability risks for the nuclear fuel supply to U.S. nuclear power plants. The production 

of enriched uranium at the proposed GLE Facility would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the 

current and projected demand (15–16 million SWU) for enrichment services within the 

United States.

ALTERNATIVES

The NRC considered a reasonable range of alternatives, including the no-action alternative, in 

this EIS. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed. 

Enrichment services would continue to be performed by existing domestic and foreign uranium 

enrichment suppliers. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) and the NEF would continue to

provide enrichment services. The ACP and EREF could also provide enrichment services in the 

future.

GLE considered 22 sites throughout the United States, evaluating them based on various 

technical, safety, economic, and environmental criteria. GLE concluded that the site considered 

in the proposed action met all of the criteria and that none of the other candidate sites were 

obviously superior to the preferred site near Wilmington, North Carolina. The NRC reviewed the 

GLE site selection process and determined that it is rational and objective, and that its results 

are reasonable. Therefore, no other site was evaluated in this EIS.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xxvii NUREG-1938

The NRC considered three alternatives to the proposed action for satisfying domestic 

enrichment needs, including (1) reactivation of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant near 

Piketon, Ohio, (2) downblending of high-enriched uranium, and (3) purchase of low-enriched 

uranium from foreign sources. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study due to 

reliability issues, excessive energy consumption, national energy policy objectives, and national 

energy security concerns. 

The NRC also evaluated several alternative technologies to the laser-based enrichment 

process, including electromagnetic isotope separation, liquid thermal diffusion, gaseous 

diffusion, atomic vapor laser isotope separation, molecular laser isotope separation, and gas 

centrifuge. All of these technologies, except gas centrifuge, were eliminated from detailed study

due to the fact that some technologies are still in development and/or not economically viable. 

The environmental impacts of gas centrifuge technology were qualitatively evaluated, relative to 

those of the proposed laser-based technology. Although gas centrifuge is a technologically and 

economically viable alternative, it is not obviously superior to the laser-based technology that 

GLE has chosen to pursue for the proposed action.

The NRC also evaluated alternative conversion and disposition methods for depleted uranium 

hexafluoride (UF6), including (1) beneficial use of depleted UF6 and (2) conversion at facilities 

other than the new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio, and 

Paducah, Kentucky. For the purposes of this analysis, because the current available inventory 

of depleted uranium exceeds the current and projected demand for the material, the depleted 

UF6 generated by the proposed GLE Facility was considered a waste product, and disposition 

alternatives involving its use as a resource were not evaluated. In addition, existing fuel 

fabrication facilities are currently not interested in depleted UF6, and the cost for the conversion

could not be estimated. Therefore, this alternative was also eliminated from detailed study. 

However, International Isotopes, Inc., submitted a license application to the NRC on 

December 31, 2009, to construct and operate a depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) conversion 

facility near Hobbs, New Mexico. This facility would deconvert depleted UF6 into fluoride 

products (for commercial resale) and depleted uranium oxides (for disposal). On 

February 23, 2010, the NRC accepted the license application for detailed technical review.

NRC EXEMPTION TO CONDUCT CERTAIN PRECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

The NRC has approved an exemption request from GLE to conduct certain preconstruction 

activities prior to NRC’s decision to issue a license for the construction and operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility. The exemption covers the following activities and facilities:

• Clearing of 47 hectares (117 acres) for the proposed GLE Facility;

• Site grading and erosion control;

• Installing a stormwater retention system;

• Constructing main access roadways and guardhouse(s);

• Installing utilities (electricity, potable water, process water, water for fire suppression, 

sanitary sewer, and natural gas);
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xxviii February 2012

• Constructing parking lots and minor roadways; and

• Constructing administrative building(s).

The NRC granted the exemption on May 8, 2009. This exemption authorizes GLE to conduct 

the stated activities, provided that none of the facilities or activities subject to the exemption 

would be components of GLE’s Physical Security Plan or its Standard Practice Procedures Plan 

for the Protection of Classified Matter, or otherwise be subject to NRC review or approval. For 

the purposes of this EIS, these activities are assumed to occur prior to NRC’s decision to grant 

a license to GLE, and therefore, are assumed to occur under both the proposed action and noaction alternatives.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. A standard of 

significance has been established for assessing environmental impacts based on Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for ‘‘significantly’’ (see 40 CFR 1508.27). Since the 

significance and severity of an impact can vary depending on the proposed action, both 

‘‘context’’ and ‘‘intensity’’ as defined in CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1508.27 were considered. 

Context is the environment surrounding the location where action(s) would occur. Intensity 

refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs. Based on this, the NRC 

established three levels of significance for potential impacts: small, moderate, and large. The 

definitions of these three significance levels follow:

• Small impact: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

• Moderate impact: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize,

important attributes of the resource.

• Large impact: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource.

Land Use

Small Impact. The Wilmington Site is owned by GE and zoned for heavy industrial use; 

construction of the proposed GLE Facility would be consistent with current zoning. The project 

area currently consists of mostly mixed-pine forest, and is bordered by existing GE facilities, the 

Northeast Cape Fear River, and residential development. Preconstruction activities would occur 

under the proposed action, removing the undeveloped forest. Construction of the proposed 

GLE Facility would not alter current land use at the Wilmington Site or affect surrounding land 

use.

Operation of the proposed GLE Facility at the Wilmington Site could affect nearby residential 

development. However, facility operations would be consistent with other industrial activities at 

the Wilmington Site. These industrial activities have had no effect on residential development.

Decommissioning would not alter current land use at the Wilmington Site or affect surrounding 

land use.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xxix NUREG-1938

Historical and Cultural Resources

Small to Moderate Impact. The location for the proposed GLE Facility (study area) comprises 

106 hectares (263 acres). Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would have an 

impact on historic and cultural resources. NRC-authorized construction would take place on 

ground previously disturbed by preconstruction. No construction activities are expected to occur 

in the portion of the Wilmington Site where historic and cultural resources are known to exist.

GLE Facility operations would have the potential to affect historic and cultural resources. While 

GLE has no plans to alter the site during operations, there is a high potential for additional 

historic and cultural resources to be discovered during routine maintenance activities. The 

Wilmington Site is located within a region containing high concentrations of historic and cultural 

resources. Operational impacts would depend largely on procedures employed to protect 

historic and cultural resources. The Middle Woodland archaeological site 31NH801 would not 

be affected by facility operations. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

requested that GLE develop procedures to protect site 31NH801. In response, the NRC 

proposed a license condition that would require GLE to consider the potential effects on historic 

and cultural resources from any ground-disturbing activities in unsurveyed areas of the GLE 

Facility site. GLE also developed Common Procedure CP-24-201 to address the unanticipated 

discovery of human remains or artifacts. The SHPO concurred that a determination of “no 

adverse effect” is appropriate with the inclusion of the proposed license condition. Based on 

this information, the NRC determined that the impact level would be SMALL to MODERATE 

given the close proximity of significant historic and cultural resources and high potential for 

additional historic and cultural resource materials to be discovered during routine operations. 

The NRC's determination is based on the license containing the proposed license condition.

Decommissioning impacts on historic and cultural resources are expected to occur primarily 

during ground-disturbing activities; the need to clear previously undisturbed land is not expected 

as a part of decommissioning activities.

Visual and Scenic Resources

Small Impact. The project area has low scenic quality and the environment in the project area is 

not unique for the area. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would include 

clearing vegetation. The proposed GLE Facility would be located adjacent to existing industrial 

facilities and would be consistent with the existing industrial character of the Wilmington Site. 

Likewise, the project area is not in a location that is sensitive to visual intrusions.

Construction activities would be limited to the Wilmington Site. The greatest visual impacts 

would occur from increased truck and worker traffic, but these impacts would be temporary. 

The main project area is surrounded by a vegetation barrier, so construction activities would be 

largely screened. Construction cranes would be visible from greater distances, but this impact 

would be temporary.

The two most visible (i.e., tallest) structures would be the water tower and a portion of the 

operations building referred to as the operations building tower. The operations building tower 

will have front and side profiles of 37 meters (120 feet) by 200 meters (660 feet), and could 

reach up to 49 meters (160 feet) above grade. The proposed water tower is the same height as 

the existing Wilmington Site water tower, the top of which is visible from south of Interstate 140 
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xxx February 2012

(I-140). Although the operations building tower could be 10 meters (30 feet) taller than the 

existing water tower, it would be visible primarily from Castle Hayne Road and the residential 

subdivision to the northeast, because it would be further from I-140 than the existing water 

tower. The water tower, facility, and operations building tower would not represent a major 

alteration of the existing visual environment. Portions of the proposed facility may be visible 

from I-140, and the planting of additional vegetation may minimize visual impacts.

Decommissioning impacts on visual and scenic resources would be minimal and of short 

duration. Temporary visual impacts could result from the use of heavy equipment and the 

increase in worker traffic. Once decommissioning is complete, most of the visual impacts would 

cease. The vegetation screen surrounding the Wilmington Site would make changes 

imperceptible to all but the closest residences. 

Air Quality

Small to Moderate Impact. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would have an 

impact on ambient air quality conditions at the Wilmington Site. Air quality impacts would be the 

highest during preconstruction activities (not a part of the proposed action) and the initial two 

years of GLE Facility construction. Criteria pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

greenhouse gases, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), fugitive dust emissions, and engine 

exhaust emissions would be released during these activities. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) would have a SMALL impact on ambient air 

quality (well below applicable standards). Impacts from lead and ozone-precursor emissions 

from GLE Facility construction are expected to be negligible and would have SMALL impacts on 

surrounding areas.

Total 24-hour concentrations of particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 micrometers 

(PM10) and particulate matter equal to or smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), mostly resulting 

from fugitive dust emissions, are predicted to exceed air quality standards during 

preconstruction and construction phases. Since preconstruction and construction activities 

would last about nine months and two years, respectively, the potential air quality impacts 

during the preconstruction phase would be MODERATE but temporary. Aggressive dust control 

measures would be implemented during the preconstruction and construction phases to reduce 

the impact. 

Because the proposed GLE Facility would not employ any continuous combustion activities 

during operation, emission rates for criteria pollutants and HAPs would be SMALL. Uraniumrelated and/or hydrogen fluoride (HF) stack emissions would be minimal, and emissions from 

diesel fuel handling would be very low. Fugitive dust emissions would be minimal, as most 

working areas and roads would be paved. Potential impacts from GLE Facility operations on 

regional ozone would also be SMALL.

Decontamination activities would mostly occur inside GLE Facility buildings, where emission 

controls would minimize atmospheric releases. Standard dust suppression techniques could be 

employed during the demolition of structures and other hard surface areas to control dust 

emissions. Work areas would be monitored for airborne dust, and a small, temporary shelter or 

tent with portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration could be used to minimize the

release of contaminated dust. The number of workers would be fewer than those required 

during construction or operations, but truck traffic on the North access road would be 
Executive Summary

February 2012 xxxi NUREG-1938

comparable to that experienced during GLE Facility construction. Air emission rates and 

associated air quality impacts of decontamination and decommissioning activities at the 

proposed GLE Facility would be comparable to or less than those experienced during 

construction.

Geology and Soils

Small Impact. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would have an impact on 

soil conditions at the Wilmington Site. Approximately 91 hectares (226 acres) of land would be 

disturbed under the proposed action, including the proposed GLE Facility site, support 

structures, and road construction. Construction vehicles and equipment could leak fuel, oil, or 

grease to site soils. Construction activities would include soil excavation, soil storage and 

removal, and stormwater management. Construction would not impact geologic resources 

because the site lacks significant geologic resources.

Soil disturbance during GLE Facility operations would continue at reduced levels, as some 

construction would continue after start-up. Impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and 

roofs would increase stormwater runoff, increasing erosion potential. Large storm events could 

create erosion along drainages or at culverts, requiring maintenance or drainage system 

improvement. Vehicles and equipment used in unpaved areas during facility operations could 

leak fuel, oil, or grease to site soils. Groundwater pumping is expected to have a minimal effect 

on groundwater levels, and the associated degree of subsidence is expected to be negligible. 

Other geologic hazards (e.g., volcano, tsunami, landslides, radon gas, methane gas, 

subsidence due to mining) to the site are not anticipated.

Foundations, roads, and utility lines would likely be undisturbed during decontamination and 

decommissioning. Erosion may increase, as portions of the site are disturbed by heavy 

equipment.

Surface Water Resources

Small Impact. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would have an impact on 

water quality in streams located on the Wilmington Site. Excavation during construction could 

affect surface water quality. The access road for the proposed GLE Facility would require a 

new stream crossing and possibly change a jurisdictional channel, which could lead to erosion 

and increased sediment load. Construction vehicles and equipment pose the possibility of leaks 

or spills of fuels, oil, or grease, which could run off and impact nearby surface water. However, 

it is unlikely that a minor spill would reach the Northeast Cape Fear River or Prince George 

Creek. Infiltration into site soil would likely reduce or eliminate the potential for runoff.

Process wastewater effluent would be discharged at an existing outfall during GLE Facility 

operations, increasing the site’s process wastewater volume by about 7 percent. Liquid 

radioactive waste would be pretreated to reduce uranium to acceptable levels before transfer to 

the existing wastewater treatment facility. Treatment would produce an effluent similar to 

current process wastewaters. Treated sanitary wastewater effluent would be reused in site 

cooling towers.

No consumption of surface water would occur during GLE Facility operations. Stormwater 

runoff would collect in a State-permitted detention basin before discharge and would be 
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xxxii February 2012

regulated by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Stormwater 

runoff from the UF6 cylinder storage pads would collect in a lined retention pond. If monitoring 

demonstrates a lack of radioactivity, pond effluent would be discharged to the stormwater 

detention basin and ultimately, to the effluent channel. Any increase in turbidity and sediment 

loading to streams as a result of construction would subside during GLE Facility operations. Oil, 

grease, metals, and other automotive-related contaminants would be present in limited 

quantities due to onsite vehicular traffic. Herbicides used in landscaped areas of the Wilmington 

Site would also be present.

GLE Facility process wastewater flow would cease during decontamination and 

decommissioning, but decontamination effluent could be generated. If the Wilmington Site

treatment and industrial reuse facility could not receive sanitary discharge during the 

decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility, portable toilets would be 

required for workers. The collection, treatment, monitoring, and discharge of decontamination 

water would be designed to avoid significant environmental impact. Erosion may increase as 

portions of the site are disturbed by heavy equipment, and BMPs would reduce the impact.

Groundwater Resources

Small Impact. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would have an impact on 

groundwater quality in shallow aquifers at the Wilmington Site. Implementation of best 

management practices (BMPs) during the construction of the proposed GLE Facility would 

reduce the potential for leaks of fuel, oil, and grease to soil and groundwater. The use of 

portable toilets during construction would eliminate sanitary system impacts on groundwater. 

Tanker trucks would provide potable and nonpotable construction water.

During GLE Facility operations, stormwater collected from the UF6 cylinder storage pad is 

expected to have no more than trace amounts of radiological contaminants, and the liner is 

expected to limit infiltration to groundwater. Discharge at site outfalls would be from process 

and sanitary wastewater. Some portion of these effluents may potentially infiltrate the Peedee 

sand aquifer. However, treatment and monitoring are expected to result in no significant 

contaminant concentrations in the effluent channel. The proposed facility will obtain additional 

groundwater for potable purposes from existing production wells at the Wilmington Site. Water 

level data show these wells to be cross-gradient of the overall Wilmington Site, and they do not 

result in significant drawdown. Groundwater will also be needed as a source of process water

for the proposed GLE Facility. A small amount of increased drawdown is expected, without 

significant effect on flow directions, water quality, or availability for offsite users. Diesel tanks at 

the facility would have appropriate leak detection equipment. In addition, a groundwater 

monitoring plan would be developed after the facility is constructed.

The removal of structures, utilities, materials, and products during the decommissioning of the 

proposed GLE Facility is not expected to have an impact on site groundwater resources.

Ecological Resources

Small to Moderate Impact. Under the proposed action, most impacts on ecological resources 

would occur during preconstruction activities and would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Preconstruction impacts on wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and aquatic biota would 

be SMALL. Most construction activities would occur in areas that would have already been 
Executive Summary

February 2012 xxxiii NUREG-1938

disturbed by preconstruction activities. Impacts on vegetation would occur primarily from 

vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, alteration of topography, changes in drainage 

patterns, and soil compaction. Remaining potential impacts on vegetation include decline or 

mortality of trees near the construction boundary, effects related to hydrologic changes, 

deposition of dust and other particulate matter, introduction of invasive plant species, and 

accidental releases of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel spills).

Wetlands could be impacted by alteration of surface water runoff patterns, soil compaction, or 

groundwater flow. No wetlands would be directly impacted by construction of the proposed 

facility, but three jurisdictional wetlands and one isolated wetland occur within the corridor for 

the revised entrance and roadway. It is probable that the isolated wetland would be directly 

impacted, resulting in a wetland loss. However, impacts on, or loss of, this wetland would not 

be significant, given the apparent low value of the wetland under State rating guidelines. 

Indirect impacts on wetlands could occur from increased stormwater runoff, decreased 

groundwater recharge, disconnected hydrologic conductivity, or changes in groundwater or 

surface water flow patterns. Impacts from increased or decreased runoff are expected to be 

negligible.

Except for the probable impact on wetlands, no environmentally sensitive areas would be 

directly impacted by construction. Only minor, localized indirect impacts on environmentally 

sensitive areas may occur from erosion and sedimentation or from changes in drainage 

patterns.

Impacts on wildlife from construction would include habitat disturbance, wildlife disturbance, and 

injury or mortality of wildlife. Habitats within the footprint disturbed by construction would be 

reduced or altered, and construction activities would result in habitat fragmentation. 

Construction would cause a loss of habitat, which could result in a long-term reduction in wildlife 

abundance and richness. Although habitats adjacent to the proposed facility site would mostly 

remain unaffected, wildlife might make less use of these areas due to disturbance (indirect 

habitat loss). Habitat disturbance, including roads, could facilitate the spread and introduction of 

invasive plant species. Wildlife habitat could be adversely affected if invasive vegetation 

became established in the disturbed areas and adjacent offsite habitats. If exposure of wildlife 

to fugitive dust was of sufficient magnitude and duration, the effects could be similar to those on 

humans. A more probable effect would be the dusting of plants, which could make forage less 

palatable. Construction activities could cause wildlife disturbance, including interference with 

behavioral activities. Wildlife could respond in various ways, including attraction, habituation, 

and avoidance. Principal sources of noise would include vehicle traffic and operation of 

machinery. Regular or periodic noise could cause adjacent areas to be less attractive to wildlife 

and result in a long-term reduction in use. Construction activities could result in the direct injury 

or death of certain wildlife species. Wildlife could also be exposed to accidental fuel spills or 

releases of other hazardous materials.

No aquatic habitats are located within the footprint of the areas that will be cleared for the 

proposed facility, and no significant adverse impacts on aquatic biota are expected from 

construction activities.

No impacts would be expected on any Federally listed threatened, endangered, or other special 

status species from construction activities. Similarly, no impacts would be expected on any 

State-listed species.
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xxxiv February 2012

During operation, impacts on vegetation would include moving, hand-cutting, and chemical 

control of vegetation around the proposed facility, support facilities, utility corridors, and access 

road. No effects on vegetation would be expected from the cooling tower or air emissions, 

wastewaters, and solid wastes generated during operation. It is unlikely that radionuclide 

releases would have adverse effects on ecological resources. Facility operation would not 

encroach upon or have any other adverse effect on wetlands. Impervious surfaces generally 

result in increased runoff and reduced infiltration, but routing drainage to the stormwater 

detention and retention basins would minimize the potential for wetland water-level fluctuations. 

No environmentally sensitive areas would be impacted by operations. Potential impacts on 

wildlife from operations would include ongoing habitat disturbance (i.e., reduction, alteration, 

and fragmentation of habitat), and wildlife injury or mortality.

No natural water bodies occur within the immediate area of the proposed facility. During 

operations, aquatic habitats and biota could be affected by continued erosion and sedimentation 

and exposure to contaminants. Increased liquid effluent discharges could increase turbidity and 

sedimentation until the stream channel adjusts. Wastewater would be treated to meet NPDES 

permit requirements, so aquatic biota would not be adversely impacted. The potential exists for 

toxic materials (e.g., fuel, lubricants, and herbicides) to be accidentally introduced into aquatic 

habitats, but an uncontained spill would probably affect only a limited area, and lubricants and 

fuel would not be expected to enter wetlands or waterways (due to soil infiltration and the 

distance from the main work area to drainages). Only trace levels of radiological contamination 

would be released to surface waters during operation, so adverse radiological impacts on 

aquatic biota would not be expected.

No adverse impacts on threatened, endangered, or other special status species would be 

expected from facility operations due to the lack of suitable habitats within the immediate project 

area.

Most decontamination activities would occur inside buildings, so large-scale ecological resource 

impacts are not expected. Removal of facilities could impact vegetation adjacent to the facilities 

and cause offsite erosion and sedimentation. The plant community established where facilities 

are removed would depend on subsequent use of the project area, and revegetation of the 

removed facility areas could increase wildlife habitat diversity. Decommissioning activities are

not expected to directly impact wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. There would be a 

temporary increase in disturbance to wildlife associated with vehicle, equipment, and worker 

activities. Other potential impacts would include the disposal of solid wastes and hazardous 

materials and the remediation of any contaminated soils. After decommissioning is complete, 

there would be no fuel or chemical spills associated with the facility.

Impacts on wildlife from decommissioning are expected to be similar to those experienced 

during construction. Removal of wildlife habitat (primarily landscaped lawns) would have minor 

impacts on wildlife populations. There would be a temporary increase in noise and visual 

disturbance associated with the removal and subsequent restoration of facilities. Removal of 

the impervious areas would decrease runoff and discharge, ceasing impacts on aquatic biota. 

Decommissioning would not directly impact threatened, endangered, or other special status 

species.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xxxv NUREG-1938

Noise

Small to Moderate Impact. Under the proposed action, noise impacts associated with 

preconstruction activities would be short-term and limited to the immediate vicinity of the 

proposed GLE Facility site. During construction, vehicular traffic to and from the proposed

GLE Facility would generate intermittent noise along local roadways. However, the noise 

contribution from these sources would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington 

Site. Major activities would include building construction and equipment installation. Potential 

noise impacts on the nearest subdivision would be moderate but temporary in nature when road 

construction (a preconstruction activity) occurs.

During GLE Facility operations, exterior equipment, such as pumps, heat pumps, transformers, 

and cooling towers, would generate noise. Other sources of noise would include commuter 

vehicular and delivery truck traffic. Noise levels at the fenceline nearest to the Wooden Shoe 

residential subdivision would be below day and night ambient sound levels that correspond to

the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance.

Most decontamination activities would occur inside the GLE Facility buildings. If 

decommissioning includes demolition, heavy construction equipment may be required. 

Salvaged materials and waste/debris would be hauled offsite by truck. Noise from truck traffic 

on site access roads would be comparable to that experienced during construction. Noise

levels at the fenceline from truck traffic on the North access road nearest the Wooden Shoe 

subdivision are expected to be below the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance.

Transportation

Small to Moderate Impact. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would have an 

impact on traffic conditions. These impacts would be short-term and limited to site access roads 

and roads in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. Construction traffic would involve the movement 

of personnel, equipment, and material to and from the proposed GLE Facility site, and the 

removal of construction debris and waste. The number of truck shipments would vary over the 

course of construction. Construction activities are estimated to add an average of 

approximately 35 trucks per day, with a small impact on local traffic. Prior to start-up, an 

average increase of up to 1428 daily trips by construction personnel is anticipated, with the 

heaviest traffic occurring in the immediate vicinity of the site entrance. Impacts on roads in the

vicinity of the Wilmington Site could be SMALL to MODERATE; regional impacts would be 

SMALL. Impacts would be reduced if shift changes do not coincide with peak traffic volume 

periods.

GLE Facility operations would overlap with the construction period for 5–6 years, during which 

time vehicular traffic from commuting operations personnel would be combined with traffic from 

construction workers and shipments. An average of approximately six additional truck 

shipments per day to and from the Wilmington Site would occur during GLE Facility operations. 

The average number of workers (construction and operations personnel) commuting on a daily 

basis during start-up and construction completion is anticipated to be 590, with about 350 

permanent operations personnel employed over the remainder of the operational period. The 

average number of additional daily vehicle trips from facility activities will increase by about 

1239 at the Wilmington Site during the period of construction and operations overlap. Once 

construction is complete, the average number of daily trips associated with operations 
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xxxvi February 2012

personnel is estimated to be approximately 735. The range of additional daily vehicle trips from 

facility operations (735 to 1239) would have a MODERATE impact on the local road network. 

However, the impact on regional traffic flow would be SMALL.

Operations of the proposed GLE Facility would require the shipment (by truck) of various 

radioactive materials to and from the facility. Vehicle-related risks result from a vehicle moving 

from one location to another (independent of cargo characteristics), while cargo-related risk 

refers the risk from the cargo being shipped. In the case of the uranium, cargo-related risks 

would include exposure to ionizing radiation during normal transportation and accident 

conditions, as well as chemical hazards during accident conditions. Less than one latent cancer 

fatality is anticipated for the public and transportation crews from all shipments on an annual 

basis. No latent fatalities from vehicle emissions are anticipated on an annual basis.

Overall annual transportation accident impacts from the proposed action are expected to be 

SMALL. Chemical impacts would be negligible, as past analyses of depleted UF6 shipments 

have shown the estimates of irreversible adverse effects to be approximately 1 to 3 orders of 

magnitude lower than the estimates of public latent cancer fatalities from radiological accident 

exposure. No fatalities are expected from accidents (direct physical trauma) on an annual 

basis.

Initial decommissioning activities during the last year of operations would increase the total 

number of workers. The number of truck shipments to offsite locations during this period is 

expected to be approximately the same as during construction. Local and regional 

transportation impacts would be SMALL after operations cease due to the decrease in workers 

during decommissioning. Radioactive waste from decommissioning would be sent to the 

appropriate storage, treatment, and disposal facilities. Impacts from radioactive waste 

shipments would be SMALL due to the low levels of external radiation and the low number of 

shipments.

Public and Occupational Health

Small Impact. Occupational exposures during preconstruction activities would be minor and 

minimized using work practices and personal protective equipment. Preconstruction activities 

are not expected to cause any exceedances of ambient air quality criteria, with the possible 

exception of short-term criteria for particulate matter from fugitive dust. Occupational exposures 

during construction of the proposed GLE Facility would be minor and minimized using work 

practices and personal protective equipment. Construction activities are not expected to cause 

any exceedances of ambient air quality criteria, with the possible exception of short-term criteria 

for particulate matter from fugitive dust.

Construction activities would not generate radiological contamination but could disturb areas 

previously contaminated by past and current operations. Construction workers could also be 

exposed to emissions from the proposed GLE Facility during the overlap of construction and 

operation. The maximum possible dose would be a small fraction of background radiation 

exposure and less than 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year). Dose to the offsite public 

would be significantly less, as there is no potential for measurable exposure from existing site 

contamination.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xxxvii NUREG-1938

A total of 324 total recordable incidents, 197 lost workday incidents, and less than one fatal 

injury are projected for 38 years of GLE Facility operation. Lasers would normally be operated 

within enclosures and equipped with interlocks to prevent inadvertent worker exposure.

The greatest potential for occupational exposure in the main process building would be from 

connecting and disconnecting UF6 cylinders. Airborne concentrations of HF and uranyl fluoride 

inside facilities are expected to be insignificant, and workers would use ventilation equipment to 

minimize exposures. Concentrations near the release point could be as high as 10 percent of 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit and 

would be limited by ventilation equipment. Large volumes of UF6 would be present as feed and 

product material, but there would be no routine exposures to solid or liquid UF6. Exposure to 

industrial chemicals would be limited by minimizing airborne releases and use of protective 

equipment.

Potential long-term, low-level HF and uranium exposure to the public would be the primary 

offsite chemical exposures of concern. However, only minor quantities of UF6 or HF would 

escape the facility ventilation system, and the quantity of HF passing through the emissions 

control devices would be below levels established in the facility air permit and protective of 

public health. UF6 and HF levels at the site boundary and the location of the nearest resident 

would be lower than onsite levels. HF concentrations at all exposure locations are far below the 

most stringent state or Federal ambient air quality standards for the general public. No criteria 

air pollutants would be produced by the enrichment process.

Facility operation could result in radiation exposure to the public via uranium releases or direct 

external radiation exposure. UF6 gas released in the main process building would pass through 

a ventilation system to minimize external release. Liquid effluents would be treated and 

sampled to limit releases. Direct exposure to the public could occur from onsite uranium and 

transportation both onsite and offsite. Direct radiation and skyshine from airborne releases 

would be undetectable at offsite areas. The NRC public release limits for uranium in air and 

liquid effluents would be met.

Radioactive materials at the proposed GLE Facility would present the possibility for onsite 

members of the public to receive a direct radiation dose. Because of cylinder shielding and the 

distance to receptors, stored cylinders of depleted uranium are expected to have only a minor 

effect on the exposure rate at the site boundary.

Radioactive process wastewater would be collected and sampled before routing to a liquid 

effluent treatment system. Treated liquid effluent would be discharged to the existing final 

process lagoon facility. Water from the lagoon facility would be discharged through a permitted 

outfall to the site effluent channel. Sanitary wastewater would be treated in the existing sanitary 

wastewater treatment facility, and treated effluent would replace cooling tower blowdown. 

Stormwater runoff would drain into a stormwater wet detention basin before discharge. A 

separate holding pond would collect stormwater runoff from the UF6 storage pads, where the 

runoff would be monitored before discharge to the wet detention basin. Discharges from all 

liquid effluent streams would be released into the Wilmington Site effluent channel and flow to 

the Northeast Cape Fear River through Unnamed Tributary #1.

There are no public water intakes on the Northeast Cape Fear River downstream of the 

discharge point, so the only exposure pathways of concern are fish ingestion and those relating 
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xxxviii February 2012

to recreational water use. Calculated doses to a maximally exposed individual and the 

surrounding population from liquid effluent releases are well below 1 millisievert per year.

Decommissioning plans would involve decontamination of structures and selected facilities to 

free-release levels before allowing them to remain in place for future use. Leaving the buildings 

would minimize the number of workers required for decommissioning, which would reduce the 

number of injuries compared to building removal. Occupational injuries would be reduced in 

number in accordance with the reduced effort required for decommissioning. Residual 

contamination would be decontaminated to free-release levels or removed from the site and 

disposed of in a low-level radioactive waste facility.

The annual occupational dose during decontamination and decommissioning is expected to be 

in the range of 0.05–1.5 millisievert (5–150 millirem), which is comparable to the average dose 

from the operating fuel facilities (1.3–1.5 millisievert [130–150 millirem]). Therefore, the 

occupational dose during decontamination and decommissioning would be bounded by potential 

exposures during operations. Similar uranium handling would be involved during operations 

that purge the laser-enrichment lines. Once this decontamination is completed, the remaining 

quantity of UF6 would be residual and significantly less than handled during operations. 

Because systems containing residual UF6 would be opened, decontaminated, and dismantled, 

an active environmental monitoring and dosimetry (external and internal) program would be 

conducted to maintain doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Chemical exposures 

would be similarly limited.

Waste Management

Small Impact. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would occur and generate 

construction-related waste streams. Solid nonhazardous wastes generated during construction 

would be similar to wastes from other industrial construction sites and transported offsite to an 

approved local landfill. Construction activities would generate less than 2 percent of the waste 

that the New Hanover County Landfill receives annually from all other sources. Small quantities 

of organic solvent-based residuals could be used and may require management as hazardous 

waste. Hazardous wastes from construction would be packaged and shipped offsite to licensed 

facilities.

Facility operations would result in the generation of wastewaters that would be treated onsite 

before discharge and solid wastes that would be treated (onsite or offsite) and shipped for 

disposal offsite. Sanitary wastewater would be collected by a sewer system connected to the 

existing Wilmington Site sanitary wastewater treatment facility, increasing the load on the 

existing system by about one-third. Treated sanitary wastewater effluent could be used as 

makeup water in onsite cooling towers. Should discharges to surface waters be necessary, the 

existing NPDES discharge permit would be adequate to cover the additional effluent volume. 

Cooling tower blowdown would be sent to the Wilmington Site’s final process lagoons. 

Radioactive process wastewater from facility operations would be collected and treated to 

remove uranium, other metals, and fluoride. The treated effluent would be discharged to the 

process wastewater aeration basin and final process lagoon facility. Impacts from radiological 

exposure to depleted UF6 in the cylinder storage pad would be SMALL, and impacts from the 

conversion of depleted UF6 generated by the proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xxxix NUREG-1938

The waste management facilities used during operations would also be used during 

decontamination and decommissioning. With the decrease in workers from operations to 

decommissioning, sanitary wastewater treatment volumes would decline. Materials and 

equipment eligible for recycling or nonhazardous disposal would be sampled or surveyed to 

ensure that contaminant levels are below release limits. Buildings and other structures would 

be decontaminated and the debris shipped offsite for disposal. Radioactive material from 

decontamination and contaminated equipment would be packaged and shipped offsite to an 

appropriately licensed disposal facility. Staging and laydown areas would be segregated and 

managed to prevent contamination of the environment and creation of additional wastes.

Socioeconomics

Small Impact. Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would increase the number 

of onsite construction workers and could result in a short-term increase in the demand for rental 

housing and public services in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. Two types of jobs would be 

created by the proposed action: (1) construction and start-up related jobs, which are transient, 

short in duration, and less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operationsrelated jobs in support of the proposed GLE Facility operations, which have the greater potential 

for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts within the socioeconomic region of influence 

(ROI). The ROI covers three counties in North Carolina – Brunswick County, New Hanover 

County, and Pender County. During the peak year of construction (2012), 680 construction 

workers would be at the proposed GLE Facility site and there would be an additional 

3131 indirect jobs created in the ROI. Construction activities would generate $139.8 million in 

income in the ROI, including $1.7 million in State income taxes and $1.2 million in State sales 

taxes. The number of construction workers relocating from outside the region could cause a 

short-term increase in the demand for temporary (rental) housing and services in the ROI.

Facility start-up activities would create 200 new jobs in the ROI. Start-up activities would 

generate $28.0 million in income in the ROI, including $1.3 million in State income taxes and 

$0.92 million in State sales taxes. Again, the number of start-up workers relocating from outside 

the region could cause a short-term increase in the demand for temporary (rental) housing and 

services in the ROI. 

GLE Facility operations would create 350 new jobs in the ROI. GLE Facility operations would 

generate $51.5 million in income in the ROI, including $2.3 million in State income taxes and 

$1.7 million in State sales taxes. The number of operations workers relocating from outside the 

region could affect local housing markets and increase the demand for public services. 

However, the relatively small number of operations workers (161 to 210) estimated to relocate 

to the ROI would limit the impact.

Decontamination and decommissioning activities in the first year would create 50 new jobs at 

the GLE Facility site. Decommissioning would generate $6.1 million in income in the ROI in the 

first year. Facility decommissioning would produce less than $0.3 million in direct State income 

taxes and less than $0.2 million in direct State sales taxes. Decommissioning activities would 

constitute less than 1 percent of total ROI employment in the first year.
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xl February 2012

Environmental Justice

Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would result in impacts on minority and 

low-income populations, mostly consisting of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., 

noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts would be shortterm and limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. 

Increased demand for rental housing could disproportionately affect low-income populations. 

However, due to the short duration of preconstruction activities and the availability of rental 

housing, impacts to minority and low-income populations would be short-term and limited.

The majority of environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL to MODERATE (SMALL for all resource areas during 

decommissioning) and would generally be mitigated. Because impacts to the general 

population within 4 miles of the proposed facility would be SMALL to MODERATE, the various 

phases of facility development are not expected to result in disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts on low-income or minority residents.

Even when environmental impacts are anticipated to be SMALL for the general population, 

some population groups, such as those participating in subsistence hunting and fishing, could

experience disproportionate exposure. However, air and liquid radiological releases from the 

proposed GLE Facility are projected to be extremely low, and exposure through fish 

consumption would be even lower. Preconstruction, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility is not expected to result in disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts to minority, low-income, or subsistence consumption populations.

Accidents

Small Impact. Representative accident scenarios vary in severity from intermediate- to highconsequence events and include accidents initiated by natural phenomena, operator error, and 

equipment failure. Two of the accidents involve criticality and the other three involve the release 

of UF6. If the higher-consequence-criticality accident were to occur, the consequence for a 

worker in close proximity would be high (fatality), but GLE has committed to various preventive 

and mitigating measures to significantly reduce these consequences. Worker health 

consequences are low for scenarios involving the release of UF6. Worker health consequences 

are low to high for scenarios involving HF exposure. Worker health consequences are 

intermediate to high for scenarios involving uranium chemical exposure. Radiological 

consequences to a maximally exposed individual at the Controlled Area Boundary are low for 

the criticality accidents and all UF6 release scenarios. Risk to the offsite public in the direction 

of highest exposure is estimated to be less than one lifetime cancer fatality for all accident 

scenarios. Plant design, passive and active engineered controls, and administrative controls 

would reduce the likelihood of accidents. Therefore, the probability-weighted consequence (or 

risk) from accidents under these conditions is expected to be SMALL. No facility accidents 

would occur after the cessation of operations, so there would be no potential for facility 

accidents during decommissioning.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xli NUREG-1938

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

This EIS also considers the potential environmental impacts of the no-action alternative, which 

are summarized below. Preconstruction activities are assumed to take place under both the 

proposed action and the no-action alternative, regardless of the NRC decision to issue a license 

for the proposed GLE Facility.

Under the no-action alternative, enrichment services would continue to be performed by existing 

domestic and foreign uranium enrichment suppliers. Paducah GDP and the NEF would 

continue to provide enrichment services. The ACP and EREF may also provide enrichment 

services in the future. Impacts from these other domestic enrichment facilities have been 

evaluated in other NRC environmental reviews.

Land Use

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would occur even if the 

proposed GLE Facility is not constructed. Preconstruction would alter the undeveloped forest 

within the Wilmington Site but is not expected to affect surrounding land use. Other uses of the 

land at the Wilmington Site would not be precluded.

Historical and Cultural Resources

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, ground disturbance caused by preconstruction 

activities could impact historic and cultural resources at the Wilmington Site. Since the 

proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, no further 

impacts on historic and cultural resources would occur.

Visual and Scenic Resources

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would include clearing 

vegetation. The vegetation screen along the northern part of the Wilmington Site would not be 

altered by preconstruction activities. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed 

under the no-action alternative, the visual appearance of the Wilmington Site would not change.

Air Quality

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have an impact 

on ambient air quality conditions at the Wilmington Site. Since the proposed GLE Facility would 

not be constructed under the no-action alternative, there would be no further impacts on air 

quality.

Geology and Soils

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have an impact 

on soil conditions at the Wilmington Site. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be 

constructed under the no-action alternative, there would be no further impacts to geologic and 

soils conditions at the site.
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xlii February 2012

Surface Water Resources

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have an impact 

on water quality in streams located on the Wilmington Site. Since the proposed GLE Facility 

would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, there would be no further impacts on

surface water resources on or near the Wilmington Site.

Groundwater Resources

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have an impact 

on groundwater quality in shallow aquifers at the Wilmington Site. Since the proposed GLE 

Facility would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, there would be no further 

impacts on groundwater resources on or near the Wilmington Site.

Ecological Resources

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, most impacts on ecological resources would 

occur during preconstruction activities. Preconstruction impacts on wetlands, environmentally 

sensitive areas, and aquatic biota would be SMALL. Impacts on Federally threatened and 

endangered species and impacts on the Federal species of concern or State-listed species that 

occur within New Hanover County would also be SMALL (i.e., no adverse impacts on these 

species would result from the no-action alternative). Since the proposed GLE Facility would not 

be constructed under the no-action alternative, there would be no further impacts on ecological 

resources on or near the Wilmington Site.

Noise

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, noise impacts associated with preconstruction 

activities would be short-term and limited to the immediate vicinity of the proposed GLE Facility

site. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, 

noise from existing GE operations at the Wilmington Site would remain unchanged.

Transportation

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have an impact 

on traffic conditions. These impacts would be short-term and limited to site access roads and 

roads in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be 

constructed under the no-action alternative, there would be no further traffic-related impacts on 

site access roads and roads in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site.

Public and Occupational Health

Small Impact. Occupational exposures during preconstruction activities would be minor and 

minimized using work practices and personal protective equipment. Preconstruction activities 

are not expected to cause any exceedances of ambient air quality criteria, with the possible 

exception of short-term criteria for particulate matter from fugitive dust. Since the proposed 

GLE Facility would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, public and occupational 

health risks to onsite workers and the general public would remain unchanged.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xliii NUREG-1938

Waste Management

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would occur and 

generate construction-related waste streams. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be 

constructed under the no-action alternative, there would be no additional waste generated at the 

Wilmington Site beyond that generated by existing GE activities.

Socioeconomics

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would increase the 

number of onsite construction workers and could result in a short-term increase in the demand 

for rental housing and public services in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. Since the proposed 

GLE Facility would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, population and 

employment in the ROI would change in accordance with current projections. Activities 

completed prior to the no-action alternative (i.e., preconstruction activities) would not have a 

noticeable effect on county services.

Environmental Justice

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would result in impacts to minority and 

low-income populations, mostly consisting of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., 

noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts would be shortterm and limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. 

Increased demand for rental housing could disproportionately affect low-income populations. 

However, due to the short duration of preconstruction activities and the availability of rental 

housing, impacts to minority and low-income populations would be short-term and limited. 

Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, there 

would be no further impacts to minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the 

Wilmington Site

Based on this information, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health 

and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the 

Wilmington Site as a result of the no-action alternative.

Accidents

Small Impact. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed GLE Facility would not be 

constructed. Therefore, no accidents would result from GLE Facility operations or 

decommissioning.

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

While there are national energy security and fiscal benefits associated with the proposed action, 

and local socioeconomic benefits in the ROI in which the proposed GLE Facility would be 

located, there are also direct costs associated with the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning phases of the proposed action, as well as impacts associated with the 

proposed action on various resource areas. However, these impacts are estimated to be small 

in magnitude and small in comparison to the local and national benefits of the proposed action. 
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xliv February 2012

In addition, many of the impacts on environmental resources associated with the proposed 

action relate to preconstruction activities at the proposed site, and would also occur under the 

no-action alternative. The principal socioeconomic impact or benefit of the proposed GLE 

Facility would be an increase in employment and income in the ROI. Although the majority of 

the costs, and most of the socioeconomic impacts, of the various phases of GLE Facility 

development would occur in the ROI, there would be economic, fiscal, and, in particular, energy 

security benefits, which would occur at both the local and national levels.

Employment created in the ROI in the peak construction year (2012) is estimated at 3811 direct 

and indirect jobs, and State income tax revenues would be approximately $0.5 million per year 

during construction. During the GLE operations phase (2020 to 2051), 732 direct and indirect 

jobs would be created. During this period, the State would benefit from $2.3 million annually in 

income taxes and $8.7 million annually in property taxes. Although it can be assumed that 

some portion of State sales and income taxes paid would be returned to the ROI under 

revenue-sharing arrangements between each county and State government, the exact amount 

that would be received by each county cannot be determined. Although there are economic and 

fiscal benefits associated with the proposed action in the ROI, these beneficial impacts are 

expected to be SMALL.

The direct costs associated with the proposed action may be categorized by the following lifecycle stages: construction, facility operation, depleted uranium disposal, and decommissioning. 

In addition to the costs of the proposed action, costs would be incurred for preconstruction 

activities under both the proposed action and no-action alternatives. In addition to monetary 

costs, the proposed action would result in impacts on various resource areas, which are 

summarized above. For all resource areas, the impact of the proposed action is estimated to be 

SMALL or SMALL to MODERATE.

The proposed action would result in the annual production, in peak years, of six million SWU of 

enriched uranium, which would augment the supply of enriched uranium and, along with other 

planned new enrichment facilities, would meet the national energy security need for increased 

domestic supplies of enriched uranium. Thus, the proposed action would generate national and 

regional benefits and costs. The national benefit would be an increase in domestic supplies of 

enriched uranium that would assist the national energy security need. The regional benefits 

would be increased employment, economic activity, and tax revenues in the ROI. Costs 

associated with the proposed project are, for the most part, limited to the resource areas in the 

ROI.

COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed. However, 

preconstruction activities, such as land clearing, grading, and construction of support structures, 

would occur on the proposed site. These activities could affect some resource areas, including 

historic and cultural resources, air quality, ecological resources, noise, and transportation. 

Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed, no further impacts on these resource 

areas would occur as a result of the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the

costs and benefits of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed GLE Facility

would not occur. Denying the license would result in no further land disturbance or activity 

related to the proposed action at the Wilmington Site; therefore, no further impacts would occur 

for any resource area.
Executive Summary

February 2012 xlv NUREG-1938

Under the no-action alternative, the Paducah GDP in Paducah, Kentucky, would remain the 

primary source of domestically generated low-enriched uranium for U.S. commercial nuclear 

power plants (supplying 16 percent of U.S. demand). The NEF in Lea County, New Mexico

(d/b/a URENCO USA), which is operational but still under construction, the ACP, and the EREF 

may provide enrichment services in the future. Foreign enrichment sources from the 

downblending of highly enriched uranium under the Megatons-to-Megawatts Program and other 

foreign sources would be expected to continue to supply approximately 84 percent of the U.S. 

demand.

Under the proposed action (construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the 

proposed GLE Facility), there would be SMALL impacts on land use, visual and scenic 

resources, geology and soils, water resources, socioeconomic conditions, minority and lowincome populations, public and occupational health, and waste management. The proposed 

action would have SMALL to MODERATE adverse impacts on historic and cultural resources, 

air quality, ecological resources, noise, and transportation; these impacts would be largely 

attributable to preconstruction activities. Impacts from the most serious accidents that might 

occur under the proposed action are expected to be SMALL. If constructed, the proposed GLE 

Facility would provide additional domestic uranium enrichment capacity.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This EIS also considers cumulative impacts that could result from the proposed action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (Federal, non-Federal, 

or private). Identified activities include planned facilities and new processes at the Wilmington 

Site, as well as offsite industrial development. Two projects for the Wilmington Site include the 

recently constructed Advanced Technology Center II complex and the planned Tooling 

Development Center. Offsite projects include the Carolinas Cement Company manufacturing 

plant, the River Bluffs residential development, and the North Carolina International Terminal.

Impacts from preconstruction activities for the proposed GLE Facility are addressed as 

cumulative impacts in this EIS, as these actions are not part of the proposed action. In this 

sense, preconstruction activities would be considered past activities for the purposes of 

cumulative impacts. These impacts are presented alongside similar impacts from construction 

of the facility that are included in the proposed action. With the exception of socioeconomic 

impacts (i.e., local job creation), cumulative impacts associated with the no-action alternative 

would generally be less than those for the proposed action, except in terms of local job creation.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Preconstruction activities and the proposed action would result in unavoidable adverse impacts 

on the environment. These impacts would generally be small, and would, in most cases, be 

mitigated. The disturbed area would be cleared of vegetation and would lead to the 

displacement of some local wildlife populations. There would be temporary impacts from the 

construction of new facilities, including increased fugitive dust, increased potential for soil 

erosion and stormwater pollution, and increased vehicle traffic and emissions. Water 

consumption from onsite wells during the proposed action would be relatively small and the risk 

for significant adverse impacts on neighboring residential wells or public supply wells is 

expected to be small. During operations, workers and members of the public could be exposed 

to radiation and chemicals.
Executive Summary

NUREG-1938 xlvi February 2012

This EIS defines short-term uses as generally affecting the present quality of life for the public 

(i.e., the 40-year license period for the proposed GLE Facility); and long-term productivity as 

affecting the quality of life for future generations on the basis of environmental sustainability. 

Preconstruction and the proposed action would necessitate short-term commitments of 

resources and would permanently commit certain other resources (such as energy and water). 

The short-term use of resources would result in potential long-term socioeconomic benefits to 

the local area and the region.

Workers, the public, and the environment would be exposed to increased amounts of hazardous 

and radioactive materials over the short term from operations of the proposed GLE Facility. 

Construction and operation would require a long-term commitment of terrestrial resources, such 

as land, water, and energy. Short-term impacts would be minimized by the application of 

appropriate mitigation measures. Upon the closure of the proposed GLE Facility, GLE would 

decontaminate and decommission the buildings and equipment and restore them for 

unrestricted use. Continued employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during the 

proposed action would directly benefit the local, regional, and State economies.

Irreversible commitment of resources refers to resources that are destroyed and cannot be 

restored, whereas an irretrievable commitment of resources refers to material resources that 

once used cannot be recycled or restored for other uses by practical means. The proposed 

action would include the commitment of land, water, energy, raw materials, and other natural 

and human-generated resources. Following decommissioning, the land occupied by the 

proposed facility would likely remain industrial beyond license termination. Water required 

during preconstruction and the proposed action would be obtained from existing wells at the 

Wilmington Site and would be replenished through natural mechanisms. Wastewaters would be 

treated to meet applicable standards and released to local receiving surface waters. Energy 

used in the form of electricity, natural gas, and diesel fuel would be supplied through existing 

systems in the Wilmington area. The specific types of construction materials and the quantities 

of energy and materials used cannot be determined until final facility design is completed, but it 

is not expected that these quantities would strain the availability of these resources.

Even though the land used to construct the proposed GLE Facility would be returned to other 

productive uses after the facility is decommissioned, there would be some irreversible 

commitment of land at offsite locations used to dispose of solid wastes generated by the facility. 

In addition, wastes generated during the conversion of depleted UF6 produced by the facility 

and the depleted uranium oxide conversion product from the conversion of depleted UF6 would 

be disposed at an offsite location. Land used for disposal of these materials would represent an 

irreversible commitment of land. No solid wastes or depleted uranium oxide conversion product 

originating from the proposed GLE Facility would be disposed of at the Wilmington Site. When 

the facility is decommissioned, some building materials would be recycled and reused. Other 

materials would be disposed of in a licensed and approved offsite location, and the amount of 

land used to dispose of these materials would be an irretrievable land resource.

During operation of the proposed GLE Facility, natural UF6 would be used as feed material, 

requiring the mining of uranium and several other operational steps in the uranium fuel cycle. 

This use of uranium would be an irretrievable resource commitment.
February 2012 xlvii NUREG-1938

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AADT annual average daily traffic

AAL Acceptable Ambient Level

ac acre

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACP American Centrifuge Plant

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

ADT average daily vehicle trips

AE/SCO Aircraft Engines/Services Components Operation

AEA Atomic Energy Act

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level

AERMOD AMS/EPA Regulatory MODel 

AES AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

AMA American Medical Association

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AQRV air quality-related value

ASA Acoustical Society of America

ATC II Advanced Technology Center

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

AVLIS atomic vapor laser isotope separation

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMP best management practice

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

C Celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CAB Controlled Area Boundary

CAL/EPA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

CAMA Coastal Area Management Act

CaOH lime

CAS Chemical Abstracts Service

CAST Horticultural Crops Research Station (Castle Hayne, NC)

CBA cost-benefit analysis

cDCE cis-1,2 dichloroethylene

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CaF2 calcium fluoride

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

Ci Curie
Acronyms and Abbreviations

NUREG-1938 xlviii February 2012

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

CO carbon monoxide

COL combined license

COLA combined license application

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

CPC Center for Plant Conservation

CSC Coastal Services Center

CWA Clean Water Act

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

d/b/a doing business as

dbh diameter at breast height

DC design certification

DCE dichloroethylene

DCF dose conversion factor

DCM Division of Coastal Management

DCP dry conversion process

DDE deep dose equivalent

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DFP decommissioning funding plan

DMT Dundalk Marine Terminal

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

DNL day-night average noise level

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of Interior

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DU depleted uranium

DUF4 depleted uranium tetrafluoride

DUF6 depleted uranium hexafluoride

DWQ Division of Water Quality

EA environmental assessment

EAC Early Action Compact

EF Enhanced Fujita

EHS Environmental, Health, and Safety

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS environmental impact statement

EMF electromagnetic field

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER Environmental Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations

February 2012 xlix NUREG-1938

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

EREF Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESI Environmental Services, Inc.

F Fahrenheit; Fujita

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCO Fuel Components Operation

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLM Federal Land Manager

FMO/FMOX Fuel Manufacturing Operation

FPLTF Final Process Lagoon Treatment Facility

FR Federal Register

ft foot/feet

FTE full-time equivalent

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

g gram

gal gallon

GDP Gaseous Diffusion Plant

GE General Electric

GEH General Electric-Hitachi

GHG greenhouse gas

GLE GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC

GNEP Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

GNF-A Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas

gpd gallons per day

GWh gigawatt-hour

GWP global warming potential

H2O water vapor

ha hectare

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HDDV heavy-duty diesel vehicle

HEGA high-efficiency gas absorption

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air

HEU highly enriched uranium

HF hydrogen fluoride or hydrofluoric acid

HFC hydrofluorocarbon

HFC-23 trifluoromethane

HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

HNO3 nitric acid

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

HWS Hazardous Waste Section 

Hz hertz
Acronyms and Abbreviations

NUREG-1938 l February 2012

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

I Interstate

ICRP International Commission of Radiological Protection

IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health

IHSB Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch 

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

in. inch(es)

IROF item relied upon for safety

ISA integrated safety analysis

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

kHz kilohertz

km kilometer

l liter

lb pound

LCF latent cancer fatality

LDGV light-duty gasoline vehicle 

Ldn day-night maximum average sound level

Leq equivalent sound level

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level

LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative

LES Louisiana Energy Services, LLC

LEU low-enriched uranium

LLRW low-level radioactive waste

lpd liters per day

LSA low specific activity

m meter

MDC minimum detectable concentration

MEI maximally exposed individual

mg milligram

mi mile(s)

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

MLIS molecular laser isotope separation

MMt million metric tons

MNA monitored natural attenuation

MOX mixed oxide fuel

mph miles per hour

mrem millirem

m/s meters per second

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSL mean sea level

mSv millisievert

MSW municipal solid waste

MT/yr metric tons per year

MWe megawatt electric
Acronyms and Abbreviations

February 2012 li NUREG-1938

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

MWh megawatt-hour

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NaOH sodium hydroxide

NC North Carolina

NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code

NCDAQ North Carolina Division of Air Quality

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

NCDEHNR North Carolina Department of Health, Environment, and Natural Resources

NCDMF North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries

NCDOL North Carolina Department of Labor

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

NCGS North Carolina General Statutes

NCIT North Carolina International Terminal

NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program

NCOSBM North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

NEF National Enrichment Facility

NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference

NEMA National Electric Manufacturers Association

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERC North American Reliability Corporation

NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NHC National Hurricane Center

NHPA National Institute for Occupational Safety

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLCD92 National Land Cover Data 1992 archives

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSS Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards

NMTOC nonmethane total organic compound

NMVOC nonmethane volatile organic compound

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxide, oxide of nitrogen

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent

NOV Notice of Violation

NPCR National Program of Cancer Registries

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Acronyms and Abbreviations

NUREG-1938 lii February 2012

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSSL National Severe Storms Laboratory

NWS National Weather Service

O3 ozone

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSTV onsite transfer vehicle

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

Pb lead

PFC perfluorocarbon

PM particulate matter

PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter

PM10 particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter

PMT Portsmouth Marine Terminal

ppm parts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PWR pressurized water reactor

RAI Request for Additional Information

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCW red-cockaded woodpecker 

rem roentgen equivalent man

RLETS Radiological Liquid Waste Treatment System

ROI region of influence

ROW right-of-way

RPS North Carolina Radiation Protection Section

RSL Regional Screening Level

RTI Research Triangle Institute

RVP Reid vapor pressure

SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards

SAM Social Accounting Matrix

SCONC State Climate Office of North Carolina

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r)

SILEX separation of isotopes by laser excitation

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxide

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Acronyms and Abbreviations

February 2012 liii NUREG-1938

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)

SUV sport-utility vehicle

Sv Sievert

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

SWU separative work unit

TAP toxic air pollutant

TCE trichloroethylene

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

Tg teragram

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility

TSP total suspended particulates

TSS total suspended solids

TWA time-weighted average

U3O8 triuranium octaoxide

UO2 uranium dioxide

UO2F2 uranyl fluoride

UF6 uranium hexafluoride

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEC United States Enrichment Corporation

USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UV ultraviolet

VC vinyl chloride

VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOC volatile organic compound

VRM visual resource management

WFSC Wilmington Field Services Center

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

g microgram

m micrometer

February 2012 1-1 NUREG-1938

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) in response to an application submitted by General Electric-Hitachi Global 

Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE), for a license that would allow the construction and operation of a 

laser-based uranium enrichment facility near Wilmington, North Carolina (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). 

The proposed facility is called the Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) Facility. GLE submitted its 

Environmental Report on January 30, 2009 (GLE, 2008a) and its license application on 

June 26, 2009 (GLE, 2009a).

The NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

prepared this EIS as required by Title 10, “Energy,” Part 51, of the U.S. Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In particular, 10 CFR 51.20 (b)(10) states that issuance of a 

license for a uranium enrichment facility requires the NRC to prepare an EIS or a supplement to 

an EIS. NRC’s regulations under 10 CFR Part 51 implement the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (Public Law 91-190). The Act requires 

Federal agencies to assess the potential impacts of their actions affecting the quality of the 

human environment.

1.2 The Proposed Action

The proposed action is the NRC issuing a license that would allow GLE to construct and

operate, and eventually, decommission (under a separate NRC licensing action) a laser-based 

uranium enrichment facility near Wilmington, North Carolina. If the NRC issues a license to 

GLE under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, the license would authorize GLE to possess 

and use special nuclear material, source material, and by-product material at the proposed GLE 

Facility for a period of 40 years, in accordance with the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Parts 70, 

40, and 30, respectively. The scope of activities to be conducted under the license would 

include the construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility.

The applicant has proposed to build the proposed GLE Facility on existing General Electric 

Company (GE) property near Wilmington, North Carolina. Two of GE’s principal manufacturing 

operations – the Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas (GNF-A) Fuel Manufacturing Operation (FMO) 

facility and the GE Aircraft Engines/Services Components Operation (AE/SCO) facility – are 

located at the Wilmington Site. The proposed GLE Facility would be constructed in the NorthCentral Sector of the site. Some of the existing infrastructure at the site, such as the waste 

treatment facilities, would also be used by the proposed facility. 

Preconstruction and construction of the proposed GLE Facility would take place from 2012 to 

2020, with commencement of facility operations in 2014.

1 A 4-year start-up period would run 

concurrently with construction activities, with the facility expected to reach full production 

capacity in 2020. Decommissioning or potential license renewal activities would begin in 

advance of scheduled license expiration (anticipated to be 2052). GLE intends that the 

 

1

As described in Section 1.4.1, certain activities, referred to as ”preconstruction” activities in this 

document, are explicitly excluded from the definition of construction in 10 CFR 51.4. Preconstruction 

activities are not considered a part of the proposed action. 
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-2 February 2012

proposed GLE Facility help fulfill needs for domestic enriched uranium capacity for nuclear 

electrical generation requirements and contribute to national energy security, as well as 

contribute to deployment of advanced uranium enrichment technologies (GLE, 2008a). This 

purpose and need are discussed in greater detail in Section 1.3.

Natural uranium ore usually contains approximately 99.3 percent uranium-238 and 0.72 weight 

percent uranium-235. In order to be used in fuel for nuclear power plants in the United States, 

the percentage of uranium-235 must be increased to 3–5 weight percent. Enrichment is the

process of increasing the percentage of the naturally occurring and fissile uranium-235 isotope 

and decreasing the percentage of uranium-238. Enrichment is one of the steps of the nuclear 

fuel cycle (Figure 1-3). 

Through its license application, GLE is seeking NRC authorization to produce enriched uranium 

up to 8 percent by weight of uranium-235. Although there is currently no demand for 

enrichment greater than 5 weight percent, GLE believes that there is potential for future demand 

to change (GLE, 2009j). Enriched uranium from the proposed GLE Facility would be used in 

commercial nuclear power plants and is called low-enriched uranium (LEU). Uranium used in 

military reactors and nuclear weapons has a much greater percentage of uranium-235 by weight 

and is called high-enriched uranium (HEU). 

GLE has requested a license for a production capacity of 6 million separative work units (SWU)2

per year. A SWU represents the level of effort or energy required to raise the concentration of 

uranium-235 to a specified level.

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

As discussed in Section 1.2, the proposed action is for GLE to construct and operate, and

eventually, decommission a commercial facility to enrich uranium up to 8 percent by weight of 

uranium-235, with an initial planned maximum target annual production capacity of 6 million 

SWU. The proposed facility would use the GLE laser-based technology and would be 

constructed on the existing GE property near Wilmington, North Carolina. The proposed action 

is intended to provide an additional domestic source of low-enriched uranium to be used in

commercial nuclear power plants.

In this EIS, the need for the proposed GLE Facility is organized by:

• the need for enriched uranium to fulfill electricity generation requirements

• the need for domestic supplies of enriched uranium for national energy security

 

2

A separative work unit (SWU) is a unit of measurement used in the nuclear industry, pertaining to the 

process of enriching uranium for use as fuel for nuclear power plants. It describes the effort needed to 

separate uranium-235 and uranium-238 atoms in natural uranium to create a final product that is richer 

in uranium-235 atoms. For 114 kilograms (251 pounds) of natural uranium, it takes about 70 SWU to 

produce 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of uranium enriched to 5 percent uranium-235. It takes on the 

order of 100,000 SWU of enriched uranium to fuel a typical 1000-megawatt commercial nuclear 

reactor for a year (USEC, 2009).
Introduction

February 2012 1-3 NUREG-1938

Figure 1-1 Location of the Proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008a)
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-4 February 2012

Figure 1-2 Wilmington Site and Vicinity (GLE, 2008a)
Introduction

February 2012 1-5 NUREG-1938

Note: Reprocessing of high-level waste is currently not done in the United States. Neither a reprocessing facility nor 

a Federal waste repository is currently approved (licensed) in the United States, and spent fuel is in interim storage. 

Figure 1-3 Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NRC, 2008)
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-6 February 2012

How Much Is a Megawatt?

One megawatt roughly provides enough 

electricity for the demand of 400 to 900 homes. 

The actual number is based on the season, 

time of day, region of the country, power plant 

capacity factors, and other factors.

Source: Bellemare, 2003.

The purpose of the proposed action is to fulfill these needs. The following sections discuss 

these needs and how each is addressed by the proposed action.

1.3.1 Need for Enriched Uranium to Fulfill Electricity Requirements

Enriched uranium from the proposed GLE Facility would be used in U.S. commercial nuclear 

power plants. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), these plants currently 

supply approximately 20 percent of the nation’s electricity requirements (EIA, 2010). As future 

demand for electricity increases, the need for enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power plants is 

also expected to increase (EIA, 2010).

For the case based on established policies 

and current trends (the reference case), the 

EIA estimates that nuclear capacity in the 

United States will increase from 

100,600 megawatts in 2008 to 

112,900 megawatts by 2035, including 

4000 megawatts of expansion at existing 

plants and 8400 megawatts of new capacity 

(EIA, 2010). The EIA also estimates that 

nuclear generation in the United States will

increase from 806 billion kilowatt hours in 

2008 to between 882 and 951 billion kilowatt hours in 2035, depending on the low- or highgrowth scenarios.

The NRC expects to license the next generation of nuclear power plants using 10 CFR Part 52. 

Part 52 governs the issuance of standard design certifications, early site permits (ESPs), and 

combined licenses (COLs) for nuclear power plants. Since 2007, the NRC has received 17 new 

reactor COL and ESP applications and expects 3 new submittals in 2012. Two COL application 

reviews have recently been completed by the NRC. If the Commission determines that 

licensing requirements have been met, the agency could issue the first COLs as early as in the 

first half of 2012.

The EIA forecasts of nuclear generating capacity, combined with applications from the industry 

for construction and operation of new plants, suggest a continuing, if not increasing, demand for 

enriched uranium. The EIA forecasts that the annual demand for enrichment services may vary 

between 12.9 million and 15.7 million SWU from 2006 through 2025 (EIA, 2003).

The demand for enriched uranium in the United States is currently being fulfilled by three main 

categories of supply:

• Domestic production of enriched uranium provides about 16 percent of U.S. demand

(EIA, 2011). The primary uranium enrichment facility currently operating in the 

United States is the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) in Paducah, Kentucky, 

operated by USEC Inc.’s subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corporation. USEC’s 

former Portsmouth GDP in Piketon, Ohio, ceased production in May 2001, and will no longer 

produce enriched uranium. The plant has been placed in cold shutdown (a condition 

whereby the plant is undergoing preparation for decommissioning and decontamination)

(DOE, 2010a) and the first buildings have been de-leased back to the U.S. Department of 
Introduction

February 2012 1-7 NUREG-1938

Energy (DOE) for decommissioning (NRC, 2010a). In October 2011, the Certificate of 

Compliance for Portsmouth GDP was terminated by NRC (NRC, 2011c). The National 

Enrichment Facility (NEF) in Lea County, New Mexico, operated by Louisiana Energy 

Services LLC (LES), began initial operations in June 2010. The NEF’s full, NRC-licensed 

capacity of approximately 3 million SWU per year will not be achieved until after 2012. An 

expansion to 5.9 million SWU per year is being considered by LES (Urenco, 2008), but an 

application for the expansion has not yet been submitted to the NRC.

• The Megatons-to-Megawatts Program provides about 37 percent of U.S. demand

(EIA, 2011). Under this program, the United States Enrichment Corporation implements the 

1993 government-to-government agreement between the United States and Russia that 

calls for Russia to convert 500 metric tons (550 tons) of HEU from dismantled nuclear 

warheads into LEU (DOE, 2010b). This is equivalent to about 20,000 nuclear warheads. 

The United States Enrichment Corporation purchases the enriched portion of the 

“downblended” material, tests it to make sure it meets specifications, adjusts the enrichment 

level if needed, and then sells it to its electric utility customers for fuel in commercial nuclear 

power plants. All program activities in the United States now take place at the Paducah 

plant (NRC, 2006a). Between 2005 and 2009, under the Megatons to Megawatts program, 

USEC supplied an average of approximately 5.5 million SWU to U.S. customers 

(USEC, 2010). This program is scheduled to expire by 2013 (DOE, 2010b). 

• Other foreign sources provide about 47 percent of U.S. demand. Other countries that 

produce and export enriched uranium to the United States include China, France, Germany, 

the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (EIA, 2011).

The current 5-year average U.S. demand for enriched uranium is approximately 14 million SWU

per year (EIA, 2011). As noted, recent forecasts indicate that this demand could reach 15 to 

16 million SWU by 2025, depending on the rate of nuclear generation growth in the 

United States (EIA, 2003). Currently, about 84 percent (37 percent from the Megatons-toMegawatts Program plus 47 percent from other foreign sources) of U.S. demand is supplied by 

foreign sources.

As discussed, the Megatons-to-Megawatts Program is set to end in 2013. In March 2011, 

USEC Inc., signed an agreement with a Russian corporation, JSC “Techsnabexport” (TENEX), 

for LEU to be supplied to USEC from Russian commercial enrichment activities (USEC, 2011a). 

Under the terms of the agreement, the supply of LEU to USEC will begin in 2013, with the 

expectation that by 2015, the level of supplied LEU will be approximately one-half the current 

level supplied under the Megatons-to-Megawatts Program. The level of supplied LEU could 

eventually meet that supplied under the Megatons-to-Megawatts Program under options in the 

agreement. Deliveries under the agreement are expected to continue through 2022 

(USEC, 2011a; USEC, 2011b.)

In 2007, DOE projected that gaseous diffusion enrichment operations in the United States would

cease in 2012 due to the higher cost of aging facilities (DOE, 2007). The Megatons-toMegawatts Program is scheduled to expire by 2013 (DOE, 2010b). As noted above, these two 

sources meet about half (53 percent) of the current U.S. demand for LEU. LEU supplied 

through USEC Inc.’s new contract with TENEX would likely meet a reduced portion of this 

current U.S. demand.
Introduction 

NUREG-1938 1-8 February 2012 

To help fill the anticipated supply deficit, other potential future domestic sources of supply have 

emerged in recent years. In addition to the NEF, the NRC has issued licenses to USEC Inc., to 

construct and operate the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio (NRC, 2005a; 

NRC, 2006a), and AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (AES), to construct and operate the Eagle 

Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) in Bonneville County, Idaho (AES, 2008; NRC, 2011b). All 

three of these facilities are based on the gaseous centrifuge technology. When the ACP was 

licensed, it was expected to produce 3.5 million SWU annually. However, USEC, Inc., 

subsequently indicated that it expects performance improvements will lead to peak production of 

3.8 million SWU (USEC, 2007). The EREF is licensed to produce up to 6.6 million SWU per 

year.All three of these facilities are based on the gaseous centrifuge technology. 

If all of the enrichment facilities and the proposed GLE Facility are constructed and operated at 

their maximum rated or anticipated production limits and the Paducah GDP is shut down, the 

total projected domestic enrichment capacity in the United States would equal 22.3 million SWU 

annually. Based on the projected need for LEU by existing domestic reactors and proposed 

new reactors, this enrichment capacity would exceed the projected annual demand 

(approximately 16 million SWU) by about 6 million SWU. However, given the uncertainties in 

future development and/or potential expansion of the proposed projects, this projected level of 

extra capacity would provide needed assurance that enriched uranium would be reliably 

available when needed for domestic nuclear power production. These three facilities and the 

proposed facility are summarized in Table 1-1.

1.3.2 Need for Domestic Supplies of Enriched Uranium for National Energy Security 

As discussed previously, approximately 84 percent of U.S. demand for enriched uranium comes 

from foreign sources, with the remaining 16 percent originating from domestic production 

primarily from the Paducah GDP, and to a lesser extent, from the NEF. This situation creates a 

reliability risk in U.S. domestic enrichment capacity. Any disruption in the supply of enriched 

Table 1-1 Licensed and Proposed Domestic Sources of Uranium Enrichment 

Facility Location Owner Production Capacity 

(million SWU/year)

Current Status

National Enrichment 

Facility (NEF)

Lea County, 

New Mexico

Louisiana Energy 

Services, LLC (LES)

3.0aLicensed June 23, 2006; 

operating since 

June 2010 and still 

under construction

American Centrifuge 

Plant (ACP)

Piketon, Ohio USEC, Inc. 3.8 Licensed April 13, 2007

Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility 

(EREF)

Bonneville 

County, Idaho

AREVA Enrichment 

Services, LLC (AES)

6.6 Licensed 

October 12, 2011

Global Laser 

Enrichment Facility 

(GLE)

Wilmington, 

North Carolina

General ElectricHitachi Global Laser 

Enrichment, LLC

6.0 Application submitted

June 26, 2009; under 

review

a

The NRC expects to receive a request to increase licensed NEF production to 5.9 million SWUs.
Introduction

February 2012 1-9 NUREG-1938

uranium for domestic commercial nuclear reactors could have a detrimental impact on national 

energy security because nuclear reactors supply approximately 20 percent of the nation’s 

electricity requirements. The proposed GLE Facility could play an important role in assuring the 

nation’s ability to maintain a reliable and economical domestic source of enriched uranium. 

In a letter to NRC regarding general policy issues raised by the LES license application, DOE 

stated that uranium enrichment is a critical step in the production of nuclear fuel and noted the 

decline in domestic enrichment capacity (DOE, 2002). In its 2002 letter, DOE also referenced 

comments made by the U.S. Department of State indicating that “Maintaining a reliable and 

economical U.S. uranium enrichment industry is an important U.S. energy security objective” 

(DOE, 2002). DOE reaffirmed this position during congressional hearings in June 2010, stating 

that it (DOE) has made available $4 billion in loan guarantees for the deployment of advanced

enrichment technology in the United States in order to increase the domestic uranium 

enrichment market (DOE, 2010c; U.S. Congress, 2010). The proposed GLE Facility could 

contribute to the attainment of national energy security policy objectives by providing an 

additional domestic source of enriched uranium. This additional capacity would lessen 

U.S. dependence on foreign sources of enriched uranium.

At present, gaseous diffusion is the primary technology in commercial use in the United States. 

Gaseous diffusion technology has relatively large resource requirements that make it less 

attractive than gas centrifuge technology, from both an economic and environmental 

perspective (NRC, 2006a). Gas centrifuge technology, which is used at the NEF, and to be 

used at the ACP and EREF, is known to be more efficient and substantially less energyintensive than gaseous diffusion technology. The GLE laser-based technology that would be 

deployed at the proposed GLE Facility is still under development, newer than gas centrifuge 

technology and, according to GLE, offers certain advantages over both the gaseous diffusion 

and gas centrifuge processes (GLE, 2008a). For example, GEH considers laser-based 

technology to have lower operating costs and lower capital costs than either the gaseous 

diffusion or the gas centrifuge technology. GLE further projects the GLE laser-based 

technology to have advantages of two earlier-generation laser-excitation technologies in terms 

of anticipated high separation factors, low energy intensity, low cooling water requirements, 

small footprint, and low capital and operating costs (GLE, 2008a). Section 2.3.3 provides 

information about earlier-generation laser-excitation technologies, as well as competing 

technologies.

1.4 Scope of the Environmental Analysis 

To fulfill its responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC has prepared this EIS to analyze the potential 

environmental impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts) of the proposed GLE 

Facility as well as reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The scope of this EIS 

includes consideration of both radiological and nonradiological (including chemical) impacts 

associated with the proposed action and the reasonable alternatives. In addition, this EIS 

identifies resource uses, monitoring, potential mitigation measures, unavoidable adverse 

environmental impacts, the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and longterm productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

The development of this EIS was based on (1) the NRC’s review of the GLE license application 

(GLE, 2009a) and its supporting Environmental Report (GLE, 2008a), Environmental Report 

supplements (GLE, 2009b; GLE, 2009c), responses to Requests for Additional Information 
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-10 February 2012

(RAI) (GLE, 2009d–i), and supplemental information (GLE, 2011; GLE, 2012); (2) the NRC’s 

independent verification and analyses; (3) public and agency comments received during the 

scoping and the Draft EIS public comment periods; and (4) the NRC’s consultations with other 

Federal agencies, Native American Tribes, and State and local government agencies. In 

addition, the development of this EIS was closely coordinated with the NRC’s Safety Evaluation 

Report (SER). The SER documents the results of the NRC’s safety review.

1.4.1 Scope of the Proposed Action

For the purposes of this EIS, the scope of the proposed action consists of the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility. Therefore, all activities 

associated with these actions must be considered. A distinction between preconstruction and 

facility construction is made because of an exemption request submitted by GLE as discussed 

below. Preconstruction activities consist of land clearing and access road construction; facility 

construction consists of erecting buildings and structures concerned with uranium enrichment.

Operation activities include those involved in the enrichment of uranium (shipment, receipt, 

storage, and processing of natural uranium and storage and shipment of enriched and depleted 

uranium). Decommissioning activities include those involved in facility shutdown, such as 

equipment and building decontamination for disposal or reuse, as well as management and 

disposal of depleted uranium.

On December 8, 2008, GLE submitted a request for exemption (GLE, 2008b) from specific NRC 

requirements governing “Commencement of Construction” as specified under 10 CFR 70.4, 

70.23(a)(7), 30.4, 30.33(a)(5), 40.4, and 40.32(e). This exemption was approved by the NRC 

on May 8, 2009 (NRC, 2009c). The exemption allows GLE to proceed with certain activities that 

are considered outside of NRC regulatory purview (they are not related to radiological health 

and safety or the common defense and security) without an NRC license to construct and

operate the proposed GLE Facility. These activities, discussed further in Section 2.1.5, are 

referred to as “preconstruction” activities, because they are not considered construction 

activities as defined in NRC regulations. See 10 CFR 51.4 (defining “construction”),

10 CFR 70.4 (defining “commencement of construction”), and the NRC final rule on Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licensees in the Federal Register (76 FR 56951). 

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.4 states, in relevant part, that “construction” does not include the 

following activities:

i. Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes;

ii. Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other 

preconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability 

of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection of 

environmental values;

iii. Preparation of a site for construction of a facility, including clearing of the site, grading, 

installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and 

construction of temporary roads and borrow areas; 
Introduction

February 2012 1-11 NUREG-1938

iv. Erection of fences and other access control measures;

v. Excavation;

vi. Erection of support buildings (such as construction equipment storage sheds, 

warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading 

facilities, and office buildings) for use in connection with the construction of the facility; 

vii. Building of service facilities, such as paved roads, parking lots, railroad spurs, exterior 

utility and lighting systems, potable water systems, sanitary sewerage treatment 

facilities, and transmission lines;

viii. Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring 

at other than the final, in-place location at the facility;

ix. Manufacture of a nuclear power reactor under a manufacturing license under Subpart F 

of Part 52 of this chapter to be installed at the proposed site and to be part of the 

proposed facility; or

x. With respect to production or utilization facilities, other than testing facilities and nuclear 

power plants, required to be licensed under Section 104.a or Section 104.c of the Act, 

the erection of buildings which will be used for activities other than operation of a facility 

and which may also be used to house a facility (e.g., the construction of a college 

laboratory building with space for installation of a training reactor).

As indicated in (iii) of the list above, site preparation is one component of preconstruction. As 

used in this document, the term “site preparation” includes the items specifically listed in (iii) 

above (i.e., clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other 

environmental mitigation measures, and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas).

The NRC’s decision to grant the exemption request to GLE was based on the NRC finding that 

the request to perform certain preconstruction activities is authorized by law, will not endanger 

life or property or common defense and security, and is in the public interest (NRC, 2009b). 

The exemption covered the following activities and facilities:

• clearing of approximately 40 hectares (100 acres)

3

• site grading and erosion control

• stormwater retention ponds 

• main access roadways and guardhouses 

 

3 Due to minor adjustments in the facility layout, the proposed GLE Facility is currently estimated to 

encompass approximately 47 ha (117 ac). For consistency within this EIS and with the GLE 

Environmental Report (GLE, 2008), it continues to be referred to as the approximately 40-ha (100-ac) 

proposed GLE Facility. However, the impact analyses performed in this EIS consider the larger area. 

In addition to the 47-ha site footprint, the GLE study area includes 106 ha (263 ac), of which 91 ha 

(226 ac) would be disturbed through clearing and grading.
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-12 February 2012

• utilities

• parking lots

• administrative buildings not used to process, handle, or store classified information 

The authorization to conduct the listed activities or construct the listed facilities prior to the NRC 

licensing decision was based on the condition that none of the facilities or activities subject to 

the exemption will be, at a later date, a component of GLE’s Physical Security Plan or its 

Standard Practice Procedures Plan for the Protection of Classified Matter or otherwise subject 

to NRC review or approval. Approval of the exemption request does not indicate that a 

licensing decision has been made by the NRC. Preconstruction activities would be completed 

by GLE with the risk that a license may not be issued.

GLE indicated that the activities it undertakes under the exemption request may include all of 

the above-listed activities (GLE, 2009d). GLE also indicated that the actual work to be 

completed and the schedule are uncertain at this time, due to various business factors. In its 

RAI response, GLE stated that some of the activities could be up to 75 percent complete, 

whereas others may be only 10 percent complete by the time the NRC decides whether or not 

to grant a license. Thus, although the activities covered by the NRC’s May 8, 2009, exemption 

(NRC, 2009c) are referred to in this document as “preconstruction” activities, some of these 

activities may continue after the commencement of construction, if a license is issued. In 

addition, GLE indicated that if for any reason the proposed GLE Facility project does not reach 

fruition, the decision to continue to develop the area referred to as the 40-hectare (100-acre) 

proposed GLE Facility would be made by GE senior management. GE may continue to develop 

the land to construct administrative facilities (i.e., office space) if there is a future expansion of 

the Wilmington Site workforce. If the land would not be used in the immediate future following 

the decision to cancel the proposed GLE Facility project, GE would consider replanting all or a 

portion of the area with native trees, in accordance with then-current Wilmington Site forest 

management activities (GLE, 2009d). 

The activities authorized under the exemption are expected to occur whether or not the license 

is granted. As a result, the NRC does not consider these activities as part of the proposed 

action or the no action alternative. However, because they are related to the construction of the 

proposed GLE Facility, the NRC analyzed their impacts in Chapter 4 as part of the impacts 

considered under “Preconstruction and Construction.” However, the staff also attempted, to the 

extent possible, to separate the impacts from site preparation and construction activities into 

those that would occur as a result of preconstruction activities and those that would occur as a 

result of construction activities as defined in 10 CFR 70.4 and 10 CFR 51.4. In 

September 2011, the Commission amended the regulations by revising the provisions

applicable to the licensing and approval processes for byproduct, source, and special nuclear

materials licenses, as well as irradiators (see 76 FR 56951). The changes clarified the 

definitions of ‘‘construction’’ and ‘‘commencement of construction’’ with respect to materials

licensing actions conducted under the NRC’s regulations. The staff also considered all of the 

impacts that would be expected to occur under preconstruction and construction in evaluating 

the cumulative impacts of the proposed action.
Introduction

February 2012 1-13 NUREG-1938

In addition to construction, the scope of the proposed action also includes the activities 

associated with the operation and decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE 

Facility. These impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.

1.4.2 Scoping Process and Public Participation Activities 

The NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 contain requirements for conducting a scoping process 

prior to the preparation of an EIS. Scoping was used to help identify the relevant issues to be 

discussed in detail and to help identify issues that are beyond the scope of this EIS, which do 

not warrant a detailed discussion, or are not directly relevant to the assessment of potential 

impacts from the proposed action.

On April 9, 2009, the NRC published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register 

(74 FR 16237) to prepare an EIS for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the 

proposed GLE Facility and to conduct the scoping process for the EIS. The NOI summarized 

the NRC’s plans to prepare the EIS and presented background information on the proposed 

GLE Facility. For the scoping process, the NOI invited comments on the proposed action and 

announced a public scoping meeting to be held concerning the project.

On July 14 17, 2008, and May 18 20, 2009, the NRC met with State and local officials and 

toured the proposed GLE Facility site. On July 17, 2008, the NRC held a public information 

meeting to provide background information about the NRC’s safety and environmental review 

processes and to notify the public to the upcoming public scoping period. On May 19, 2009, the 

NRC held two public scoping meetings in Wilmington, North Carolina. During the scoping 

meetings, a number of individuals provided oral comments to the NRC concerning the proposed 

GLE Facility and the development of the EIS. In addition, the NRC received written comments 

during the public scoping period that was to end on June 8, 2009. The NRC subsequently 

extended the scoping period to August 31, 2009, to allow members of the public to examine 

GLE’s license application, which was submitted on June 26, 2009. The NRC reviewed and 

identified substantive scoping comments (both oral and written). These comments were then 

consolidated and categorized by topical areas.

After the scoping period, the NRC issued the Environmental Scoping Summary Report: 

Proposed GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina in 

November 2009 (see Appendix A). The report identifies categories of issues to be analyzed in 

detail and issues determined to be beyond the scope of the EIS.

1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail

As stated in the NOI, the NRC identified issues to be studied in detail as they relate to 

implementation of the proposed action. The public identified additional issues during the 

subsequent public scoping process. Issues identified by the NRC and the public that could 

have short- or long-term impacts from the potential construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility include:

• need for the facility • air quality 

• compliance with applicable regulations • noise 

• alternatives • historic and cultural resources

• decommissioning • visual and scenic resources
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-14 February 2012

• cumulative impacts • socioeconomic impacts

• land use • public and occupational health

• transportation • waste management

• accidents • depleted uranium disposition

• geology and soils • environmental justice

• water resources • costs and benefits

• ecological resources • resource commitments

1.4.4 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study

No issues were eliminated from detailed study as a result of the public scoping process. 

However, some issues are analyzed in detail in the NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report and are 

only summarized in the EIS. For example, within the area of safety and security, the Safety 

Evaluation Report analyzes the probabilities and consequences of various accidents at the 

proposed GLE Facility, as well as measures to prevent those accidents and mitigate their 

effects. This EIS does not go into the same level of detail, but summarizes, in Section 4.2.15, 

the accident analysis from the Safety Evaluation Report for the purpose of assessing the 

potential environmental impacts of accidents. Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail 

are discussed in Section 2.3.

1.4.5 Issues Outside the Scope of the EIS

The following issues raised during the scoping process have been determined to be outside the 

scope of the EIS (see Appendix A):

• nonproliferation

• GE’s pursuit of boiling water reactors

• terrorism

The term “Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement” is used in the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954 (AEA) as amended, in the context of U.S. agreements for cooperation with a foreign nation 

under Sections 123 and 131 of the AEA. Pursuant to those provisions, the NRC participated in 

the Nuclear Proliferation Assessment that allowed the Silex technology to be transferred from 

Australia to the U.S. under the “Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of 

America and Australia Concerning Technology for the Separation of Isotopes of Uranium by 

Laser Excitation.” 

Separately, the AEA grants the NRC broad regulatory latitude to protect public health and 

safety, common defense and security in its domestic licensing activities. NRC safety 

regulations regarding information, physical security, and material control adequately address 

non-proliferation concerns as part of a comprehensive regulatory infrastructure and an 

integrated set of activities. These regulations and activities are directed against activities that 

are inimical to the public health and safety and common defense and security, including the 

unauthorized disclosure of information and technology and the diversion of nuclear materials. 

Key NRC regulations in this area (10 CFR Parts 73, 74, and 95) provide comprehensive 

requirements governing the control of, and access to, information, physical security of materials 

and facilities, and material control and accounting. As appropriate, the NRC may supplement 
Introduction

February 2012 1-15 NUREG-1938

these requirements by order consistent with its statutory obligation under the AEA to protect the 

common defense and security and public health and safety. While the AEA does not prescribe 

that NRC explicitly consider nuclear proliferation as a prerequisite to domestic licensing, the 

NRC's security requirements related to information and material control address nonproliferation 

concerns. 

In a matter regarding the Louisiana Energy Services Facility (LES), the Commission noted the 

Supreme Court’s decision (Department of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004)) 

that NEPA requires a “reasonably close causal relationship” between the alleged environmental 

effect and the alleged cause, and found that nuclear nonproliferation issues “span a host of 

factors far removed from” and “far afield from our decision whether to license the facility...” 

(NRC, 2005b). Following LES, the Commission, in USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), 

reiterated that position. The Commission held that nuclear nonproliferation issues are outside of 

the scope NRC’s environmental analysis because they do not have a close causal relationship 

with an NRC licensing decision and instead are “dependent upon the actions and decisions of 

the President, Congress, international organizations, and officials of other nations,” are “issues 

of international policy unrelated to the NRC’s licensing criteria ...” (NRC, 2006b). 

Given the NRC’s comprehensive regulatory framework, ongoing oversight, and active 

inter-agency cooperation, it is the NRC’s current view that a nuclear nonproliferation 

assessment is not necessary to ensure the protection of the common defense and security.

NRC regulations require that information submitted as part of a license application be complete 

and accurate in all material respects (e.g., see 10 CFR 70.9). The general business interests of 

an applicant are not an issue the NRC addresses in an EIS. Rather, the NRC evaluates the 

submitted application based on its merits and performs an independent verification of the 

proposal in the application. Therefore, GE’s pursuit of boiling water reactors is not within the 

scope of the EIS.

Similar to the nuclear proliferation issues, the Commission has ruled in a series of adjudicatory 

decisions that NEPA does not require the NRC to consider the environmental impacts from 

hypothetical terrorist attacks. See Amergen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station), CLI-07-8, 65 NRC 124 (NRC, 2007). The Commission position rests on Supreme 

Court NEPA decisions that require a showing of a close causal relationship—analogous to the 

“proximate cause” requirement in tort law—between agency action and environmental 

consequences that require NEPA analysis. The Commission has found that there is no such 

relationship between NRC licensing actions and terrorism. The Federal courts are split on the 

issue, with the Third Circuit upholding the Commission’s view, and the Ninth Circuit disagreeing 

with it. Hence, for facilities located in the Ninth Circuit, the NRC does perform a NEPA-terrorism 

review. As stated above, the Commission has ruled that for facilities such as GLE that are not 

located in the Ninth Circuit, the NRC will not perform a NEPA-terrorism review.

1.4.6 Draft EIS Public Comment Period and Public Participation Activities

The NRC issued the Draft EIS for public review and comment on June 25, 2010, and 

announced its availability on that date in the Federal Register (75 FR 36447) in accordance with 

10 CFR 51.73, 51.74, and 51.117. The official public comment period on the Draft EIS began 

with publication of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability in the Federal
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-16 February 2012

Register on June 25, 2010 (75 FR 36386). The 45-day public comment period ended on 

August 9, 2010.

During the public comment period, the NRC held two public comment meetings in Wilmington, 

North Carolina, on July 22, 2010. The NRC posted meeting notices for these meetings in the 

NRC’s public involvement website. Oral comments on the Draft EIS were presented by eight 

individuals at the meetings. A court reporter recorded the oral comments and other meeting 

proceedings and prepared a written transcript for each meeting. In addition to oral comments 

received at the public meetings, the NRC received written comments on the Draft EIS during the 

public meetings, and written comments by postal mail and emails during the public comment 

period. The public meeting transcripts and written comments are part of the public record for 

the proposed GLE project.

All comments received by the NRC on the Draft EIS were reviewed and considered by the NRC 

in developing the Final EIS. In Appendix J of this EIS, these comments are presented in groups 

by topic and summarized, and the NRC’s responses to the comments are provided. The NRC 

made the public comment meeting transcripts part of the public record, contained in the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Members of the public 

can access ADAMS at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this website, the 

transcripts and other comment documents can be accessed. The meeting transcripts, along 

with all written comments, are presented in Appendix K. The meeting transcripts are also 

available in the NRC’s public website for the proposed GLE project, at http://www.nrc.gov/

materials/fuel-cycle-fac/laser.html#3. Other comment documents were added to ADAMS as 

they were received by the NRC.

In general, the issues identified in the comments were similar to those raised during the EIS 

scoping process (see Section 1.4.2 and Appendix A). The comments received during the 

Draft EIS public comment period were on a number of issues and resource areas addressed in 

the EIS. As discussed in Section 1.4.5, issues that are related to safety, security, and 

nonproliferation are not within the scope of the EIS. Other safety issues are addressed in the 

NRC’s SER.

1.4.7 Changes from the Draft EIS

The majority of changes to the Draft EIS that the NRC made in preparing the Final EIS were 

minor corrections and a number of updates and clarifications. Among these changes, based on 

recent project developments or certain comments on the Draft EIS (see Appendix J), updated or 

additional information has been included in the EIS in some of the resource area sections and 

other sections and appendices, to provide more current or complete information and/or 

analyses. The impacts assessed and the NRC’s findings and conclusions remain unchanged 

for all resource areas.

The most noteworthy of the changes from the Draft EIS are identified below:

Chapter 1 Introduction

• Information regarding the proposed GLE project schedule has been updated in Section 1.2.
Introduction

February 2012 1-17 NUREG-1938

• Information relating to purpose and need for the proposed action has been added and 

updated in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.

• Information relating to the scope of the proposed action has been updated in Section 1.4.1.

• Additional information explaining why nonproliferation and terrorism are not within the scope 

of the EIS has been added to Section 1.4.5.

• Information on the Draft EIS public comment period and associated public participation 

activities, and on comments received on the Draft EIS, has been added (Section 1.4.6).

• Information regarding the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act has been added to Section 1.5.1.

• Information regarding the outcome of Endangered Species Act and National Historic 

Preservation Act consultations has been added to Section 1.5.6.

• Information on applicable State of North Carolina requirements has been added to 

Table 1-2, and information regarding State construction and operating permit requirements 

has been updated in Table 1-3.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

• Information regarding the proposed GLE project schedule has been updated in Sections 2.1 

and 2.1.5.

• Information regarding the status of conversion facilities for depleted uranium hexafluoride 

has been updated in Section 2.1.5.1.

• Information on potential impacts of the proposed GLE project has been updated in 

Tables 2-3 and 2-6.

• Information in Section 2.2 regarding the no-action alternative has been updated.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

• Information regarding current socioeconomic conditions in Section 3.13 has been updated.

• Information regarding NRC’s Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental 

Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040) was added to 

Section 3.14.

• Information in Resource Dependencies and Vulnerabilities of Minority and Low-Income 

Populations was moved from Section 3.14.3 to Section 4.2.14.

Chapter 4 Environmental Impacts and Chapter 5 Mitigation

• Information regarding the proposed GLE project schedule has been updated in Sections 4.1, 

4.2.4, 4.2.10, and 4.2.13..
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-18 February 2012

• Section 4.2.2.2 was updated to include the proposed license condition requiring GLE to 

consider the potential effects on historic and cultural resources from any ground-disturbing 

activities. Information regarding the outcome of the National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 consultation has been added to the text. 

• Results of the air quality impacts analysis have been updated in Section 4.2.4.1, and air 

quality impacts from road construction and land clearing have been split into two different 

tables.

• Assumptions about the projected duration of road construction and land clearing have been 

updated in Sections 4.2.4.1, 4.2.9.1, and 4.2.9.3.

• Information regarding water quality impacts has been added to Section 4.2.7.2.

• Information explaining the NRC’s environmental justice impact analysis has been added to 

Section 4.2.14.

• The summary of impacts discussion in Section 4.2.14 has been updated.

• Information in Resource Dependencies and Vulnerabilities of Minority and Low-Income 

Populations was moved from Section 3.14.3 to Section 4.2.14.

• Results of the transportation impacts analysis have been updated in Section 4.2.10.1 and 

Table 4-11.

• Information regarding on-site traffic has been updated in Section 4.2.18.4.

Chapter 7

• Information regarding the proposed GLE project schedule and resulting changes in the costbenefit analysis has been updated in Section 7.1.

• Information relating to purpose and need for the proposed action has been updated in 

Section 7.2.

• Section 7.1 of the draft EIS (“The No-Action Alternative”) was incorporated into Section 7.2 

“Comparative Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Action Relative to the No-Action 

Alternative.”

• The impact summaries for each resource area were updated in Section 7.1.1.

Chapter 8

• Information regarding the proposed GLE project schedule has been updated.

Appendix B Consultation Letters

• Additional consultation letters have been added to Sections B.1, B.2, and B.3.
Introduction

February 2012 1-19 NUREG-1938

Appendix E Air Quality Analysis

• Information regarding the proposed GLE project schedule has been updated in the 

introduction, Section E.1, and Table E-1.

• Assumptions about the projected duration of road construction and land clearing have been 

updated in Section E.1.

• Results of the air quality impacts analysis have been updated in Tables E-7 through E-12, 

and air quality impacts from road construction and land clearing have been split into two 

different tables.

1.4.8 Related NEPA and Other Relevant Documents

The following NEPA documents were reviewed as part of the development of this EIS.

• Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, 

Ohio, Final Report, NUREG-1834, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April, 2006. This EIS analyzes the potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning 

of a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility at the existing DOE reservation in Piketon, 

Ohio. Its description of the purpose of and need for the proposed action, as well as its 

review of alternatives to the proposed action, are highly relevant to the proposed GLE 

Facility analysis. The environmental impacts discussed for the proposed ACP are also 

relevant to the impact analysis for the proposed GLE Facility, especially the analysis of 

cumulative impacts associated with the management of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6)

generated by the ACP, NEF, EREF, and the proposed GLE Facility, as well as the existing 

DOE inventory of depleted UF6.

• Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed National Enrichment Facility in Lea 

County, New Mexico, Final Report, NUREG-1790, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 2005. This EIS analyzes the 

potential environmental impacts of the proposed siting, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, New Mexico. 

Its description of the purpose of and need for the proposed action, as well as its review of 

alternatives to the proposed action, are highly relevant to the proposed GLE Facility 

analysis. The environmental impacts discussed for the proposed NEF are also relevant to 

the impact analysis for the proposed GLE Facility, especially the analysis of cumulative 

impacts associated with the management of depleted UF6 generated by the ACP, NEF, 

EREF, and the proposed GLE Facility, as well as the existing DOE inventory of 

depleted UF6.

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of a Depleted 

Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Site, DOE/EIS-0360, 

Oak Ridge Operations, Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, 

June, 2004. This site-specific EIS analyzes the impacts associated with the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of a depleted UF6 conversion facility at the Portsmouth, 

Ohio, site. The EIS also evaluates the impacts of transporting cylinders (depleted UF6, 

enriched uranium, and empty) that used to be stored at the East Tennessee Technology 
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-20 February 2012

Park near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to Portsmouth. Transportation of depleted UF6

conversion products and waste materials to a disposal facility, transportation and sale of the 

hydrogen fluoride produced as a conversion co-product; and neutralization of hydrogen 

fluoride to calcium fluoride and its sale or disposal in the event that the hydrogen fluoride 

product is not sold are also evaluated. The results presented in the EIS are relevant to the 

management, use, and potential impacts associated with the depleted UF6 that would be 

generated at the proposed GLE Facility and the cumulative impacts of depleted UF6 from 

the ACP, NEF, EREF, and the proposed GLE Facility, as well as the existing DOE inventory 

of depleted UF6.

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of a Depleted 

Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky, Site, DOE/EIS-0359, 

Oak Ridge Operations, Office of Environmental Management, U.S Department of Energy,

June, 2004. This site-specific EIS is very similar to the EIS for the Portsmouth, Ohio, site, 

except that the conversion facility is at the Paducah, Kentucky, site. 

• Environmental Assessment: Disposition of Russian Federation Titled Natural Uranium.

DOE/EA-1290, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of 

Energy, June 1999. This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzed the environmental 

impacts of transporting natural UF6 from the gaseous diffusion plants to the Russian 

Federation. Transportation by rail and truck within the United States were considered. The 

EA addresses both incident-free transportation and transportation accidents. The results 

presented in this EA are relevant to the transportation of UF6 for the proposed GLE Facility.

• Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the LongTerm Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, DOE/EIS-0269, Office of 

Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, April 1999. This EIS 

analyzes strategies for the long-term management of the depleted UF6 inventory that was 

stored at three DOE sites near Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee at the time the EIS was prepared. This EIS also analyzes the potential

environmental consequences of implementing each alternative strategy for the period 1999

through 2039. The results presented in this EIS are relevant to the management, use, and 

potential impacts associated with the depleted UF6 that would be generated at the proposed 

GLE Facility and the cumulative impacts of depleted UF6 from the ACP, NEF, EREF, and 

the proposed GLE Facility, as well as the existing DOE inventory of depleted UF6.

1.5 Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

This section provides a summary assessment of the major environmental requirements, 

agreements, Executive Orders, and permits relevant to the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility.

1.5.1 Federal Laws and Regulations

1.5.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes national environmental policy and 

goals for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment to ensure for all 

Americans a safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing environment. 
Introduction

February 2012 1-21 NUREG-1938

The Act provides a process for implementing these specific goals within the Federal agencies 

responsible for the action. This EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA requirements 

and NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 51) for implementing NEPA.

1.5.1.2 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), and the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.)

The Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 

(Title 42, Section 5801 et seq. of the United States Code [42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.]) give the NRC 

the licensing and regulatory authority for nuclear energy uses within the commercial sector. If 

the license application for the proposed GLE Facility is approved, the NRC would license and 

regulate the possession, use, storage, and transfer of special nuclear, source, and by-product 

materials to protect public health and safety as stipulated in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. 

1.5.1.3 Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes regulations to ensure air quality and authorizes individual 

States to manage permits. The CAA requires (1) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards as necessary to protect the public 

health, with an adequate margin of safety, from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a 

regulated pollutant (42 U.S.C. 7409 et seq.); (2) the establishment of national standards of 

performance for new or modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants (42 U.S.C. 7411); 

(3) specific emission increases to be evaluated so as to prevent a significant deterioration in air 

quality (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.); and (4) specific standards for releases of hazardous air 

pollutants (including radionuclides) (42 U.S.C. 7412). These standards are implemented 

through plans developed by each State and approved by the EPA. The CAA requires sources 

to meet standards and obtain permits to satisfy those standards. The North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Air Quality 

implements the CAA in the State. Construction and operating permits are required for the 

proposed GLE Facility but emissions during operation will not rise to the CAA’s major source 

threshold.

1.5.1.4 Clean Water Act of 1977 (amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 

1948), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the EPA to set national effluent limitations and water 

quality standards and establishes a regulatory program for enforcement. Specifically, 

Section 402(a) of the Act establishes water quality standards for contaminants in surface 

waters. The CWA requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

before discharging any point source pollutant into surface waters of the United States. The 

NPDES permit program contains a program applicable to discharges of stormwater to waters of 

the United States from construction and industrial operations. Section 404 of the CWA 

authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to issue permits for the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. The Section 401 water quality 

certification and NPDES provisions of the CWA have been delegated to the NCDENR Division 

of Water Quality. The proposed GLE Facility will require a Section 404 permit. Existing NPDES 

permits for Wilmington Site operations will require modification to incorporate the proposed GLE 

Facility; a new NPDES permit for construction of the facility will be required. 
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-22 February 2012

1.5.1.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (amending the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1965), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.)

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, requires the EPA to 

define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for its transportation, treatment, 

storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in hazardous waste activities. 

Section 3006 (42 U.S.C. 6926) allows States to establish and administer these permit programs 

with EPA approval; the NCDENR Division of Waste Management has received that approval. 

EPA regulations implementing RCRA are found in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 283. Regulations 

imposed on a generator or on a treatment, storage, and/or disposal facility vary according to the 

type and quantity of material or waste generated, treated, stored, and/or disposed. The method 

of treatment, storage, and/or disposal also affects the extent and complexity of the 

requirements. A RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal permit will not be required for the 

proposed GLE Facility due to the amount of hazardous waste generated and the stated plans 

for the wastes to be shipped to a RCRA-permitted facility within the 90-day accumulation period. 

A hazardous waste generator number will be required.

1.5.1.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.)

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 amended the AEA to specify that the 

Federal Government is responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by its 

activities and that States are responsible for disposal of other low-level radioactive waste

(LLRW). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 provides for and encourages 

interstate compacts to carry out the State responsibilities. The LLRW generated at the 

proposed GLE Facility is Class-A waste; this class has the lowest concentration of radioactive 

material and poses the least potential hazard of the LLRW classes. Plans call for shipment of 

the LLRW to the EnergySolutions disposal facility in Clive, Utah.

1.5.1.7 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 

(42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.) (also known as Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA] Title III)

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, which is the major 

amendment to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9601), establishes the requirements for Federal, State, and local governments; 

Indian tribes; and industry regarding emergency planning and “Community Right-to-Know” 

reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The “Community Right-to-Know” provisions 

increase the public’s knowledge and access to information about chemicals at individual 

facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities working with 

facilities can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the 

environment. The Act requires emergency planning and notice to communities and government 

agencies concerning the presence and release of specific chemicals. The EPA implements this 

Act under regulations found in 40 CFR Parts 355, 370, and 372. The Act requires the proposed 

GLE Facility to provide the State Emergency Planning Committee and local fire departments 

with information on the storage and use of chemicals above certain threshold levels and comply 

with toxic chemical reporting requirements if thresholds for chemical releases are exceeded.
Introduction

February 2012 1-23 NUREG-1938

1.5.1.8 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.)

The Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted to protect the quality of public water supplies and 

sources of drinking water through establishing minimum national standards for public water 

supply systems. The Act includes the Sole Source Aquifer Program and provisions for the 

protection of public drinking water systems. The NCDENR Division of Environmental Health, 

Public Water Supply Section enforces the Safe Drinking Water Act. The proposed GLE Facility 

would use groundwater for industrial process water and drinking water from wells on the 

Wilmington Site. North Carolina requires the registration of water withdrawals above certain 

thresholds; the Wilmington Site registers its withdrawals with the State.

1.5.1.9 Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)

The Noise Control Act delegates the responsibility of noise control to State and local 

governments. Commercial facilities are required to comply with Federal, State, interstate, and 

local requirements regarding noise control. New Hanover County enacted a noise ordinance 

pursuant to the authority granted it by a North Carolina law. The noise ordinance established 

decibel levels for areas zoned nonresidential with which the proposed GLE Facility must 

comply.

1.5.1.10 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)

The National Historic Preservation Act was enacted to create a national historic preservation 

program, including the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP). Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The ACHP regulations implementing 

Section 106 of the Act are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations call for public 

involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, as well as consultation with American 

Indian Tribes and State Historic Preservation Officers. The NRC has completed the 

Section 106 consultation process (see Section 1.5.6.2 and Appendix B).

1.5.1.11 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered 

and threatened species and to restore those species and their critical habitats. Section 7 of the 

Act requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior or the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce to 

determine whether endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be 

in the vicinity of the proposed action, and to determine whether the proposed Federal action 

may affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC has completed the ESA consultation 

process (see Section 1.5.6.1 and Appendix B).

1.5.1.12 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) provides for management of the nation's coastal 

resources and balances economic development with environmental conservation. It 

encourages States and tribes to voluntarily preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, 

restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, 

beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those 
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-24 February 2012

habitats. The Act makes federal financial assistance available to any coastal State, tribe, or 

territory that is willing to develop and implement a comprehensive coastal management 

program. The CZMA is implemented by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

through the state’s Coastal Area Management Act. The consistency determination required by 

the CZMA and the Coastal Area Management Act is conducted prior to obtaining a Federal 

permit or license.

1.5.1.13 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization 

Act of 2006, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act provides 

for a national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the 

United States. The purposes of the program are to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished 

stocks, ensure conservation, facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and realize 

the full potential of the nation's fishery resources. The Act establishes regional fishery 

management councils which can develop fishery management plans; North Carolina is a 

member of the South Atlantic Council.

1.5.1.14 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)

The Occupational Safety and Health Act establishes standards to enhance safe and healthy 

working conditions in places of employment throughout the United States. The Act is 

administered and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a 

U.S. Department of Labor agency. The identification, classification, and regulation of potential 

occupational carcinogens are found in 29 U.S.C. 1910.101, while the standards pertaining to 

hazardous materials are listed in 29 U.S.C. 1910.120. The Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration regulates mitigation requirements and mandates proper training and equipment 

for workers. North Carolina is one of the States that manages its own occupational safety and 

health program through the North Carolina Department of Labor (NCDOL). The proposed GLE 

Facility would be required to comply with these regulations. The NCDOL would also regulate 

laser safety at the proposed GLE Facility.

1.5.1.15 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act regulates transportation of hazardous material 

(including radioactive material) in and between States. According to the Act, States may 

regulate the transport of hazardous material as long as they are consistent with the Act or the 

U.S. Department of Transportation regulations provided in 49 CFR Parts 171 through 177. 

49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I, contains other regulations regarding packaging for transportation of 

radionuclides. The transport of radioactive materials to and from the proposed GLE Facility 

would be required to comply with these regulations.

1.5.1.16 United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act of 1996

(42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)

The United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act establishes a disposal option for 

depleted uranium if it is determined to be low-level radioactive waste; the NRC made that 

determination in 2005. The Act allows any person licensed by the NRC to operate a uranium 

enrichment facility to request that the U.S. Department of Energy accept for disposal as low-
Introduction

February 2012 1-25 NUREG-1938

level radioactive waste depleted uranium it generated. GLE thus has the option of requesting 

that its depleted uranium be accepted by the Department of Energy for disposal.

1.5.1.17 Environmental Standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle (40 CFR Part 190, 

Subpart B)

These regulations establish maximum doses to the body or organs of members of the public as 

a result of operational normal releases from uranium fuel cycle activities, including uranium 

enrichment. These regulations were promulgated by the EPA under the authority of the AEA, 

as amended, and have been incorporated by reference in the NRC regulations in 

10 CFR 20.1301(e). The proposed GLE Facility would be required to comply with these 

regulations for releases from normal operations.

1.5.2 Applicable Executive Orders

• Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs Federal agencies to establish 

procedures to ensure that the potential effects of flood hazards and floodplain management 

are considered for any action undertaken in a floodplain and that floodplain impacts be 

avoided to the extent practicable.

• Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs Federal agencies to avoid new 

construction in wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative and unless the proposed 

action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that might result from 

such use.

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) calls for Federal agencies to address 

environmental justice in minority and low-income populations, and directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. In response to this Executive Order, the NRC issued a final policy statement 

on the “Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing 

Actions” (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004) and environmental justice procedures to be 

followed in NEPA documents prepared by the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards (NRC, 2003). 

1.5.3 Applicable State of North Carolina Requirements

Certain environmental requirements, including some discussed earlier, have been delegated to 

State authorities for implementation, enforcement, or oversight. Table 1-2 lists the State of 

North Carolina environmental requirements. 

1.5.4 Permit and Approval Status

Several construction and operating permits must be prepared and submitted, and regulatory

approval and/or permits must be received prior to construction or operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility. Table 1-3 lists the Federal, State, and local permits that may be required and their 

present status. 
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-26 February 2012

Table 1-2 State of North Carolina Environmental Regulations

Law/Regulation Citation Requirements

Air Pollution Control 

Requirements

15A North Carolina 

Administrative Code (NCAC) 

02D, authorized by North 

Carolina General Statutes

(NCGS) 143, Article 21B, 

Air Pollution Controla

Establishes a system for classifying 

air pollution sources which the 

Environmental Management 

Commission uses to classify air 

pollution sources it believes to be of 

sufficient importance to justify 

classification or control.

Air Quality Permit Procedures 15A NCAC 02Q, authorized 

by NCGS 143, Article 21B, 

Air Pollution Control

Establishes the requirements and 

procedures for applying for 

construction and operation air 

quality permits and exceptions to 

them; incorporates 40 CFR 

Parts 61 to 80 by reference.

Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation Section

07 NCAC 04R, authorized 

by multiple NCGS

Establishes the role of the State 

Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO), the procedures for 

archaeological review, and the 

process for making nominations to 

the NRHP.

Coastal Management 15A NCAC 07, authorized 

by NCGS 113A, Article 7, 

Coastal Area Management

Requires a permit before 

undertaking any development in 

any area of environmental concern. 

Establishes a cooperative program 

of coastal area management 

between local and State 

governments. 

Discharges to Isolated 

Wetlands and Isolated Waters

15A NCAC 02H.1300, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources

Defines the terms “discharge” and 

“isolated wetlands” and requires an 

Individual Permit or a Certificate of 

Coverage to operate under a 

General Permit for any regulated 

discharges to isolated wetlands.

Endangered and Threatened 

Species

15A NCAC 10I , authorized 

by NCGS 113, Article 24, 

Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Wildlife Species 

of Special Concern

Bans open seasons for taking any 

of the species listed as endangered 

or threatened; establishes permit 

protocols for taking or possessing 

an endangered, threatened, or 

special concern species. 

Hazardous Waste 

Management

15A NCAC 13A, authorized 

by NCGS 130A, Article 9, 

Solid Waste Management

Establishes the general 

requirements for the State’s 

hazardous waste management 

program and permit program; 

adopts applicable RCRA 

regulations by reference.
Introduction

February 2012 1-27 NUREG-1938

Table 1-2 State of North Carolina Environmental Regulations (Cont.)

Law/Regulation Citation Requirements

Hazardous Waste Permit 

Program

15A NCAC 13A.0113, 

authorized by NCGS 130A, 

Article 9, Solid Waste 

Management

Establishes the procedures and 

requirements for hazardous waste 

permits; incorporates 40 CFR 270.1 

through 270.6 by reference.

Historic Sites Regulation 07 NCAC 04N authorized by 

NCGS 121, Article 1, 

General Provisions

Itemizes activities banned from 

state historic site properties unless 

specifically authorized via a written 

work order or permit; describes the 

permit process.

Human Skeletal Remains NCGS 70, Article 3, 

Unmarked Human Burial 

and Human Skeletal 

Remains Protection Act

Requires cessation of activities 

disturbing unmarked human burials 

or human skeletal remains when 

they are encountered as a result of 

construction until authorization to 

resume the activity is received 

either from the county medical 

examiner or the State 

Archaeologist.

Noise New Hanover County Code 

of Ordinances, Chapter 23, 

Article II, authorized by 

GS 153A-133, Noise 

Regulation 

Establishes the lawful decibel 

levels and corresponding time 

periods for non-residentially zoned 

districts. 

Point Source Discharges to 

the Surface Waters

15A NCAC 02H.0100, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources

Provides the requirements and 

procedures for application and 

issuance of State NPDES permits 

for discharges from outlets, point 

sources, or disposal systems 

discharging to the surface waters of 

the State.

Solid Waste Management 

Permits

15A NCAC 13B.0200, 

authorized by NCGS 130A, 

Article 9, Solid Waste 

Management

Requires disposal of solid waste in 

solid waste management facilities 

permitted for such activity.

Surface Water and Wetland 

Standards

15A NCAC 02B, authorized 

by NCGS 143, Article 21, 

Water and Air Resources

Establishes the rules for the series 

of State classifications and water 

quality standards applicable to 

surface waters and wetlands. 
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-28 February 2012

Table 1-2 State of North Carolina Environmental Regulations (Cont.)

Law/Regulation Citation Requirements

Waste Not Discharged to 

Surface Waters

15A NCAC 02T, authorized 

by NCGS 143, Article 21, 

Water and Air Resources, 

and NCGS 130A, Article 11, 

Wastewater Systems

Establishes the requirements and 

procedures for application and 

issuance of permits for systems 

such as sewer systems, disposal 

systems, and treatment works that 

do not discharge to surface waters 

of the State.

Water Quality Certification 15A NCAC 02H.0500, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources

Outlines the application and review 

procedures for activities requiring 

water quality certifications because 

they involve discharges into 

navigable waters. 

Water Use Registration and 

Allocation

15A NCAC 02E, authorized 

by NCGS 143, Article 21, 

Water and Air Resources

Establishes the requirements and 

procedures for registering water 

withdrawals above certain 

thresholds and periodic updates of 

the registration. 

Well Abandonment 15A NCAC 02C.0113, 

authorized by NCGS 87, 

Article 7, North Carolina 

Well Construction Act

Establishes the applicable 

procedures when monitoring wells 

are abandoned.

a

15A = Title; NCAC = North Carolina Administrative Code; 02 = Chapter; D = Subtitle. The number following 

NCGS is the chapter number.

1.5.5 Cooperating Agencies

No Federal, State, or local agencies are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS.

1.5.6 Consultations

As a Federal agency, the NRC is required to comply with the consultation requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934.

1.5.6.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered 

and threatened species and to restore those species and their critical habitats. Section 7 of the 

Act requires consultation with the FWS of the U.S. Department of the Interior or the NMFS of 

the U.S. Department of Commerce to determine whether endangered and threatened species or 

their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action, and to determine 

whether the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitat. On 

May 1, 2009, the NRC sent a letter to the FWS Raleigh Field Office describing the proposed 

action and requesting a list of threatened and endangered species and critical habitats that 

could potentially be affected by the proposed action (NRC, 2009b). A similar letter was sent to 

the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (NRC, 2009d).
Introduction

February 2012 1-29 NUREG-1938

Table 1-3 Potentially Applicable Permit and Approval Requirements for the 

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility

License, Permit, or 

Other Required 

Approval

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status

Federal

Rules of General 

Applicability to Domestic 

Licensing of By-product 

Material, Domestic 

Licensing of Source 

Material, and Domestic 

Licensing of Special 

Nuclear Material

NRC 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 

and 70, authorized by 

the AEA

The proposed GLE Facility 

must obtain a license to 

possess and use source 

material, special nuclear 

material, and by-product 

material; an application for 

the required license has been 

submitted.

Section 404 Permit USACE 40 CFR Part 230, 

authorized by the CWA 

The discharge of dredged or 

fill material into the waters of 

the United States would be 

associated with the proposed 

GLE Facility; an application 

for the permit allowing such 

discharge will be made. 

Endangered Species Act 

Consultation

FWS 50 CFR Part 402, 

authorized by the ESA

Consultation is complete (see 

Appendix B).

National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Consultation

ACHP 36 CFR Part 800, 

authorized by the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Consultation is complete (see 

Appendix B).

State

Construction and 

Operating Permit 

NCDENR 

Division of Air 

Quality

15A NCAC 02Q.0300, 

Construction and 

Operation Permits; 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21B, Air Pollution 

Control

Air emissions from the 

construction phase of the 

proposed GLE Facility would 

be moderate but temporary in 

nature; air emissions from 

facility operations are not 

expected to meet thresholds 

that would require a CAA 

major source permit. 

Application will be made for a 

construction and operating 

permit.
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-30 February 2012

Table 1-3 Potentially Applicable Permit and Approval Requirements for the 

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility (Cont.)

License, Permit, or 

Other Required 

Approval

Responsible

Agency Authority Relevance and Status

State

Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification

NCDENR 

Division of 

Water Quality

15A NCAC 02H.0500, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources

The NRC has not received a 

Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification. The proposed 

GLE Facility will require a 

CWA Section 404 permit, 

which is dependent on 

issuance of a water quality 

certification; the certification 

will be sought.

NPDES Individual 

Permit for Construction 

Stormwater 

Management

NCDENR 

Division of 

Water Quality

15A NCAC 2H.0100, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources

Stormwater discharge would 

be associated with 

construction of the proposed 

GLE Facility; an application 

will be made for an NPDES 

permit.

NPDES Individual 

Permit for Stormwater 

Management 

(Operations)

NCDENR 

Division of 

Water Quality

15A NCAC 2H.0100, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources

The existing Wilmington Site 

permit, NCS000022, will be 

modified to accommodate 

anticipated increased 

stormwater discharge 

associated with operation of 

the proposed GLE Facility.

NPDES Individual 

Permit for Industrial and 

Sanitary Waste 

Treatment

NCDENR 

Division of 

Water Quality

15A NCAC 02T.0100, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources

The existing Wilmington Site 

final process lagoon and 

sanitary wastewater treatment 

facilities would be used to 

process wastewater and 

sanitary wastewater from the 

proposed GLE Facility. The 

existing Wilmington Site 

permit, NC0001228, will be 

modified.

Isolated Wetlands 

Permit 

NCDENR 

Division of 

Water Quality

15 NAC 02H.1300, 

authorized by NCGS 143, 

Article 21, Water and Air 

Resources 

A permit will be requested if 

impacts on isolated wetlands 

would result from construction 

or operations as apparent 

from the final facility design. 
Introduction

February 2012 1-31 NUREG-1938

Table 1-3 Potentially Applicable Permit and Approval Requirements for the 

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility (Cont.)

License, Permit, or 

Other Required 

Approval

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status

State

Hazardous Waste 

Generator Identification 

Number

NCDENR 

Division of 

Waste 

Management 

15A NCAC 13A.0107(a), 

authorized by 

NCGS 130A, Article 9, 

Solid Waste Management

The proposed GLE Facility 

will produce hazardous waste 

at volumes requiring a 

generator identification 

number; application for the 

number will be made unless 

the proposed GLE Facility is 

determined to be contiguous 

with the existing GNF-A 

facility and can operate under 

the same number.

Coastal Area 

Management Act 

Certification

NCDENR 

Division of 

Coastal 

Management

15A NCAC 7, authorized 

by NCGS 113A, Article 7, 

Coastal Area 

Management

The NRC has not received a 

CZMA consistency 

certification.

Driveway and Right-ofWay PermitsNorth Carolina 

Department of 

Transportation

19A NCAC 02B.0602, 

authorized by NCGS 136, 

Article 6D, Controlled 

Access Facilities

An entrance off NC 133 

(Castle Hayne road) to the 

proposed GLE Facility is 

planned and would require a 

driveway permit; the permit 

will be requested.

Local Agencies

Tree Removal Permit or 

Letter of Exemption

New Hanover 

County

Zoning Ordinance, 

Article VI, Supplementary 

District Regulations

If the final design for the 

proposed GLE Facility 

requires the removal of 

significant or regulated trees, 

a tree removal permit or a 

letter of exemption from the 

County Zoning Administrator 

will be required; if required, it 

will be requested.

Land-Disturbing Permit New Hanover 

County

Chapter 23, Article VI, 

Erosion and 

Sedimentation

The proposed GLE Facility 

would disturb more than 

0.4 ha (1 ac) of land, thereby 

triggering the need for an 

approved erosion and 

sedimentation control plan 

and permit; a permit will be 

requested.
Introduction

NUREG-1938 1-32 February 2012

Table 1-3 Potentially Applicable Permit and Approval Requirements for the 

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility (Cont.)

License, Permit, or 

Other Required 

Approval

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status

Local Agencies

Stormwater Permit New Hanover 

County

Chapter 23, Article VII, 

Stormwater Management

The proposed GLE Facility 

must comply with the county 

stormwater ordinance; the 

permit will be requested.

Floodplain Development 

Permit 

New Hanover 

County

Chapter 29, Article II, 

Flood Hazard Reduction

If the final facility design 

includes development of the 

proposed GLE Facility within 

areas of special flood hazard 

lying within the regulatory 

jurisdiction of the county, a 

permit may be required.

By letter dated June 8, 2009, the FWS Raleigh Field Office indicated that nine listed species are 

present in New Hanover County and that several of the species may occur in the area of the 

Wilmington Site (FWS, 2009). The FWS indicated that it wanted those species to be considered 

in the EIS, and this letter was discussed in a teleconference with FWS on August 26, 2009. By 

letter dated August 10, 2010, the FWS Raleigh Field Office submitted comments on the draft 

EIS and concluded that “the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied” 

(FWS, 2010). By e-mail sent August 3, 2009, the NMFS provided information on the protected 

species under its purview that may occur in the area of the Wilmington Site (NOAA, 2009).

The NRC determined that there would be no effect on protected species under the purview of 

NMFS (NRC, 2010b). By e-mail sent April 20, 2011, the NMFS indicated that no-effect 

determinations made by Federal agencies do not require ESA consultation with (or concurrence 

by) NMFS (NOAA, 2011).

1.5.6.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106 Consultation

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted to create a national historic 

preservation program, including the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Section 106 requires Federal agencies to 

take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The ACHP regulations 

implementing Section 106 of the Act are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations call for 

public involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, including American Indian tribes 

and other interested members of the public, as applicable. In response to an April 29, 2009, 

letter from the NRC (NRC, 2009a), the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 

confirmed via a letter dated June 2, 2009, that an archeological site was eligible for listing on the 

NRHP (NCDCR, 2009). On September 2, 2009, the NRC sent letters to 16 American Indian 

tribes inquiring if the tribes believed the site under consideration had any traditional cultural or 

religious significance (see Section 9.2 for a list of the tribes that were contacted, and 
Introduction

February 2012 1-33 NUREG-1938

Appendix B for copies of the communications). None of the tribes indicated that they had any 

concerns. On March 28, 2011, the NRC informed the North Carolina SHPO that a license 

condition addressing the consideration of significant historic and cultural resources on the GLE 

property would be part of the license issued to GLE, if it were issued (NRC, 2011a). The SHPO 

responded on April 5, 2011, stating that with inclusion of the license condition, a determination 

of no adverse effect is appropriate for the proposed project (NCDCR, 2011).

1.5.6.3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

The consultation component of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that “whenever 

the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be impounded, 

diverted, the channel deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or 

modified for any purpose whatever, including navigation and drainage, by any department or 

agency of the United States, or by any public or private agency under Federal permit or license, 

such department or agency first shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the 

wildlife resources of the particular State wherein the impoundment, diversion, or other control 

facility is to be constructed, with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing 

loss of and damage to such resources as well as providing for the development and 

improvement thereof in connection with such water-resource development.” Because the 

proposed action does not involve such modifications to a stream or other body of water, the 

NRC is not implementing consultations under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The NRC 

has completed consultation with the FWS and the State agency that exercises administrative 

control over the wildlife resources under the ESA, as noted in Section 1.5.6.1.

1.6 Organizations Involved in the Proposed Action

Two organizations have specific roles in the implementation of the proposed action:

GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (abbreviated as GLE for the purposes of this 

EIS) is the NRC license applicant. If the license is granted, GLE would be the holder of 

an NRC license for the possession and use of special nuclear, source, and by-product 

material at the proposed GLE Facility. GLE would be responsible for constructing, 

operating, and decommissioning the proposed facility in compliance with that license 

and applicable NRC regulations. 

GLE is a Delaware limited liability company. It currently is the only subsidiary of majority 

owner GE-Hitachi (GEH) Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, a global supplier of nuclear 

energy-related equipment and services. GEH, also a Delaware limited liability company, 

is a wholly owned subsidiary of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Holdings LLC (Holdings). 

Holdings is a subsidiary of majority owner GENE Holding LLC (GENE), a Delaware 

limited liability company wholly owned by GE, a U.S. corporation, and of minority owner 

Hitachi America, Ltd., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi Ltd., a Japanese 

corporation. Cameco Enrichment Holdings, LLC (“Cameco Enrichment”), has a 

24 percent ownership interest in GLE, and GENE owns 13.5 percent of GLE. Cameco 

Enrichment is a Delaware limited liability company wholly owned by Cameco 

U.S. Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation, which is in turn wholly owned by Cameco 

Corporation, a Canadian corporation (GLE, 2009a). The foreign ownership, control, and 

influence issue is beyond the scope of this EIS but will be addressed by the NRC.
Introduction 

NUREG-1938 1-34 February 2012 

The NRC is the licensing agency. The NRC has the responsibility to evaluate the license 

application for compliance with the NRC regulations associated with uranium enrichment 

facilities. These include standards for protection against radiation in 10 CFR Part 20 and 

requirements in 10 CFR Parts 70, 40, and 30 that would authorize GLE to possess and use 

special nuclear material, source material, and by-product material, respectively, at the proposed 

GLE Facility. The NRC is responsible for regulating activities performed within the proposed 

GLE Facility through its licensing review process and subsequent inspection program. To fulfill 

the NRC responsibilities under NEPA, the environmental impacts of the proposed action are 

evaluated in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 and documented in this EIS. 

1.7 References 

(AES, 2008) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, 

Application for a Uranium Enrichment Facility License under 10 CFR 70, ‘Domestic Licensing 

of Special Nuclear Material.’ ” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090300656. 

(Bellemare, 2003) Bellemare, B. “What Is a Megawatt?” UtiliPoint International Inc. June 24. 

<http://www.utilipoint.com/2003/06/what-is-a-megawatt/> (Accessed January 23, 2012).

(DOE, 2002) U.S. Department of Energy. Letter from W.J. Magwood, IV (U.S. Department of 

Energy) to M.J. Virgilio (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), dated July 25. “Subject: DOE 

Comments on General Policy Issues Raised by Louisiana Energy Services (LES) in Preparation 

for Enrichment Plant License Application.” ADAMS Accession No. ML022350130. 

(DOE, 2007) U.S. Department of Energy. “Uranium Enrichment Decontamination & 

Decommissioning Fund 2007 Report to Congress.” ADAMS Accession No. ML103490664. 

(DOE, 2010a) U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office. “Portsmouth 

Plant History.” January. <http://www.pppo.energy.gov/port_history.html> (Accessed 

January 28, 2010). 

(DOE, 2010b) U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. “Highly 

Enriched Uranium Disposition.” <http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/ 

materialremovaldisposition/highlyenricheduraniumdisposition> (Accessed January 28, 2010). 

(DOE 2010c) U.S. Department of Energy. Loan Programs Office. Press Release: “DOE Offers 

Conditional Loan Guarantee for Front End Nuclear Facility in Idaho.” May 20. 

<https://lpo.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/052010.pdf> (Accessed February 6, 2012). 

(EIA, 2003) Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. “U.S. Nuclear Fuel 

Cycle Projections 2000-2025.” January. ADAMS Accession No. ML101790059. 

(EIA, 2010) Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. “Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035.” DOE/EIA-0383(2010). April. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML103480627. 

(EIA, 2011) Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. “Uranium 

Marketing Annual Report.” May. <http://www.eia.gov/FTPROOT/nuclear/umar2010.pdf> 

(Accessed February 6, 2012).
Introduction

February 2012 1-35 NUREG-1938 

(FWS, 2009) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter from H. Hall (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated June 8. “Subject: Docket No. 70-

7016; General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Facility, New Hanover County, North 

Carolina.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091700024. 

(FWS, 2010) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter from H. Hall (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

to K. Hsueh (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated August 10. “Subject: Comments on 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed GE-Hitachi Global Laser 

Enrichment (GLE) LLC Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML102420377. 

(GLE, 2008a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the 

GLE Commercial Facility, Revision 0.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573. 

(GLE, 2008b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from T.G. Orr (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to M. Weber (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

December 8. “Subject: Request for Exemption from 10 CFR §§70.4 and 70.23(a)(7) 

Requirements Governing ‘Commencement of Construction’.” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML090350201. 

(GLE, 2009a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from T.G. Orr (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to M. Weber (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

June 26. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC License Application Submittal.” 

ADAMS Accession No. ML091870998. 

(GLE, 2009b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Global Laser Enrichment 

Environmental Report Supplement 1 – Early Construction.” July. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092100528. 

(GLE, 2009c) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Global Laser Enrichment 

Environmental Report Supplement 2.” November. ADAMS Accession No. ML093240935. 

(GLE, 2009d) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 5. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response to Request for 

Additional Information Related to NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093170517. 

(GLE, 2009e) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 5. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response to Request for 

Additional Information (Security-Related Information) Related to NRC Review of GLE 

Environmental Report.” ADAMS Accession No. ML093200138.

(GLE, 2009f) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 11. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response (#2) to Request for 

Additional Information Related to NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” ADAMS

Accession No. ML093220060. 
Introduction 

NUREG-1938 1-36 February 2012 

(GLE, 2009g) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 11. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response (#2 Proprietary 

Information) to Request for Additional Information Related to NRC Review of GLE 

Environmental Report.” ADAMS Accession No. ML093220067. 

(GLE, 2009h) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from J. Olivier (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 23. “Subject: Submittal of Corrected Response to RAI 4-1-A.” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML093270378.

(GLE, 2009i) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from J. Olivier (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 24. “Subject: Submittal of Air Quality Responses from October 7, 2009 Request for 

Additional Information.” ADAMS Accession Nos. ML093280887 and ML093280889. 

(GLE, 2009j) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A.E. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to B. Smith (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

December 28. “Subject: Response to Request for Additional Information Dated November 19, 

2009 for Global Laser Enrichment License Application – Public Responses.” ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML093620823 and ML093620841. 

(GLE, 2011) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from J. Olivier (GE-Hitachi Global 

Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated January 17. 

“Subject: Response to Questions from Telecon Held on January 5, 2011, Regarding the Global 

Laser Enrichment Environmental Report.” ADAMS Accession No. ML110460567. 

(GLE, 2012) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Personal communication from J. Olivier 

(GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 

dated February 6. "Subject: Transportation Table 4.2.1." ADAMS Accession 

No. ML120440072. 

(NCDCR, 2009) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation 

Office. Letter from P. Sandbeck (State Historic Preservation Office) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) dated June 2. “Subject: Initiation of the National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 106 Process for General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Proposed 

Uranium Enrichment Facility, New Hanover County, ER 07-2157.” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML091630258. 

(NCDCR, 2011) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation 

Office. Letter from R. Gledhill-Earley (State Historic Preservation Office) to K. Hsueh 

(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated April 5. “Re: General Electric-Hitachi LaserBased Uranium Enrichment Facility near Wilmington, Docket 70-7016, New Hanover County, 

ER 07-2157.” ADAMS Accession No. ML110950680. 

(NOAA, 2009) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Personal communication from A. Herndon (NOAA Fisheries) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) dated August 3. “NOAA Fisheries Protected Species Information.” 

ADAMS Accession No. ML092170775. 
Introduction

February 2012 1-37 NUREG-1938 

(NOAA, 2011) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Personal communication from A. Herndon (NOAA Fisheries) to J. Cushing 

(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated April 20. “NRC’s Determination Re: the General 

Electric-Hitachi Laser-Based Uranium Enrichment.” ADAMS Accession No. ML111110808. 

(NRC, 2003) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG-1748. August. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1748/sr1748.pdf> 

(Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(NRC, 2005a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico.” NUREG-1790. June. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1790/> (Accessed March 26, 

2009).

(NRC, 2005b) “Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.” CLI-05-28. November. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML053250203. 

(NRC, 2006a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, Final Report.” NUREG-1834. April. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1834/> (Accessed 

March 26, 2009). 

(NRC, 2006b) “USEC Inc.” CLI-06-10. April. ADAMS Accession No. ML060930763. 

(NRC, 2007) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Amergen Energy Company LLC” 

CLI-07-08. February. ADAMS Accession No. ML070570511. 

(NRC, 2008) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Stages of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.” 

November 21. <http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/stages-fuel-cycle.html> (Accessed 

August 18, 2009). 

(NRC, 2009a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to P. Sandbeck (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office) 

dated April 29. “Subject: Initiation of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

Process for General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Uranium Enrichment Facility 

(State Historic Preservation Office Tracking Number ER 07-2157).” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML91100104. 

(NRC, 2009b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to P. Benjamin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) dated May 1. “Subject: 

Request for Information Regarding Endangered Species and Critical Habitats for General 

Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Proposed Uranium Enrichment Facility in New 

Hanover County, North Carolina.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091100107. 

(NRC, 2009c) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from D.H. Dorman (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to A.E. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC) dated 

May 8. “Subject: Approval of GE-Hitachi Exemption Request Related to Commencement of 

Construction.” ADAMS Accession No. ML083510647. 
Introduction 

NUREG-1938 1-38 February 2012 

(NRC, 2009d) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to D. Bernhart (NOAA Fisheries) dated June 18. “Subject: Request 

for Information Regarding Endangered or Threatened Species and Critical Habitat Relevant to 

the Proposed General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) Commercial Facility.” 

ADAMS Accession No. ML091660481. 

(NRC, 2010a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from M. Bailey (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to S.A. Toelle (United States Enrichment Corporation) dated 

September 9. “Subject: Approval of Certificate Amendment Request Regarding Deletion of 

Technical Safety Requirements for Facilities at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

(TAC No. L32746).” ADAMS Accession No. ML102250346. 

(NRC, 2010b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from K. Hsueh (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to D. Bernhart (NOAA Fisheries) dated June 17. “Subject: Notification 

of the Issuance of and Request for Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed General Electric-Hitachi Laser-Based Uranium Enrichment Facility Near 

Wilmington, North Carolina.” ADAMS Accession No. ML101260503. 

(NRC, 2011a) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from K. Hsueh (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to R. Gledhill-Earley (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office) 

dated March 28. “Subject: General Electric-Hitachi Laser-Based Uranium Enrichment Facility 

Near Wilmington, North Carolina (State Historic Preservation Office Tracking Number 

ER 07-2157).” ADAMS Accession No. ML 110840685. 

(NRC, 2011b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from A. Hsia (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to S. Shakir (AREVA Enrichment Services LLC) dated October 12, 

“Subject: License for the AREVA Enrichment Services Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility.” 

ADAMS Accession No. ML111650384. 

(NRC, 2011c) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from J. Kinneman (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to R. Van Namen (United States Enrichment Corporation) dated 

October 12. ‘‘Subject: Part 76 Certificate of Compliance Termination for the United States 

Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (TAC No. L32771).’’ ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11257A078. 

(Urenco, 2008) URENCO. Press Release: “National Enrichment Facility Expansion.” 

December 12. <http://www.urenco.com/content/169/National-Enrichment-Facilityexpansion.aspx> (Accessed February 1, 2010). 

(U.S. Congress, 2010) U.S. Congress. Hearing Transcripts from Hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States 

Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session on S. 679, S. 3251, S.2900, 

S. 3396, S. 3233, S. 3460. June 15, 2010.

(USEC, 2007) USEC, Inc. News Release: “USEC Updates Cost Estimate and Schedule for 

American Centrifuge Plant.” February 12. <http://www.usec.com/news/usec-updates-costestimate-and-schedule-american-centrifuge-plant> (Accessed February 6, 2012). 
Introduction

February 2012 1-39 NUREG-1938 

(USEC, 2009) USEC, Inc. “What’s a SWU?” <http://www.usec.com/whatisaswu.htm> 

Document no longer available online. 

(USEC, 2010) USEC, Inc. “Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities 

Exchange act of 1934 for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009.” March 1. 

<http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzcxMTE0fENoaWxk 

SUQ9MzY4MDY0fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1> (Accessed June 4, 2010). 

(USEC, 2011a) USEC, Inc. News Release: “USEC’s Supply Agreement with TENEX Takes 

Effect.” December 21. <http://www.usec.com/news/usec%E2%80%99s-supply-agreementtenex-takes-effect> (Accessed January 31, 2012). 

(USEC, 2011b) USEC, Inc. News Release: “Megatons to Megawatts Eliminates Material for 

17,000 Nuclear Warheads.” August 24. <http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawattseliminates-material-17000-nuclear-warheads> (Accessed January 31, 2012). 

February 2012 2-1 NUREG-1938

2 ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and compares the proposed action and alternatives. As discussed in 

Chapter 1, the proposed action is for General Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment, 

LLC (GLE) to construct, operate, and decommission a laser-based uranium enrichment facility 

near Wilmington, North Carolina. To allow the proposed action, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) would need to grant GLE a license to possess and use special nuclear 

material, source material, and byproduct material at the proposed Global Laser Enrichment 

Facility. The NRC also evaluated the no-action alternative in this EIS. Under the no-action 

alternative, GLE would not construct, operate, or decommission the proposed GLE Facility. 

Therefore, the no-action alternative provides a basis for evaluating and comparing the potential 

impacts of the proposed action. In addition to the proposed action and alternatives to the 

proposed action, alternatives for the disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) resulting 

from enrichment operations over the lifetime of the proposed GLE Facility are also analyzed.

Section 2.1 presents technical details of the proposed action and connected actions, including 

descriptions of the proposed site, laser enrichment technology, facilities to be constructed, and 

the activities at the proposed GLE Facility. The activities are grouped under preconstruction 

and construction, operation, and decontamination and decommissioning. Section 2.2 describes 

the no-action alternative and provides a comparison of predicted environmental impacts for the 

proposed action and no-action alternatives. Section 2.3 discusses alternatives to the proposed 

action that were considered but not analyzed in detail, including alternative sites, enrichment 

technologies other than the proposed laser technology, and use of alternate sources of enriched 

uranium. Gas centrifuge technology is discussed in Section 2.3.4, along with a comparison of 

the potential impacts of the laser-based and gas centrifuge technologies. The chapter 

concludes with a recommendation from the NRC regarding the proposed action (Section 2.4).

2.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action is for GLE to construct, operate, and decommission a laser-based uranium 

enrichment facility near Wilmington, North Carolina. To allow the proposed action, NRC would 

need to grant GLE a license to possess and use special nuclear material, source material, and 

byproduct material. The initial NRC license, if granted, would be for a period of 40 years, after 

which GLE would request renewal of the license or begin decommissioning of the facility. GLE 

could begin preconstruction activities prior to the licensing decision in 2012, under an exemption 

granted by NRC (see Section 1.4.1). If granted, GLE would begin construction of the proposed 

GLE Facility (anticipated in 2012), commence commercial enrichment operations in 2014, and 

increase to the initial maximum target production capacity of 6 million separative work units 

(SWU) by 2020, at an enrichment of up to 8 percent uranium-235 by weight. Although there is 

currently no demand for enrichment greater than 5 percent, GLE believes that there is potential 

for future demand to change (GLE, 2009c).

Section 2.1.1 describes the location of the proposed site. The proposed facility and GLE’s 

laser-based enrichment process are described in Section 2.1.2 and the management options for 

management of the depleted UF6 tails generated at the proposed facility are reviewed in 

Section 2.1.3. Section 2.1.4 describes the anticipated decontamination and decommissioning 

activities at the proposed facility and Section 2.1.5 provides the projected timelines for the three 

phases of the proposed action.
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-2 February 2012

2.1.1 Location and Description of Proposed Site

The GE property, on which the proposed GLE Facility would be sited, is located in an 

unincorporated area of New Hanover County, North Carolina, the most populated of three

counties that comprise the Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area. The site is located 

approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) north of Wilmington, North Carolina, and is hereafter 

referred to as the Wilmington Site. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the location of the Wilmington Site 

in relation to the surrounding counties and municipalities.

The Wilmington Site consists of approximately 656 hectares (1621 acres), and GE owns an 

additional 10 hectares (24 acres) to the east of the site. Figure 2-1 shows the Wilmington Site 

and the location of GE’s existing principal manufacturing facilities (namely, the Global Nuclear 

Fuel-Americas [GNF-A] Fuel Manufacturing Operation [FMO] facility and the GE Aircraft 

Engines/Services Components Operation [AE/SCO] facility). The land to the west of the 

Wilmington Site (across the Northeast Cape Fear River) is dominated by industrial use, and the 

area to the north and northwest is privately owned and used for timber management and private 

hunting. The areas to east and south of the site are dominated by residential development. 

The southeast corner of the site borders Interstate 140 (I-140) (GLE, 2008).

The proposed GLE Facility would occupy approximately 40 hectares (100 acres) of the NorthCentral Site Sector. A North access road would be built along the northeast portion of the 

Eastern Site Sector to connect the proposed GLE Facility to NC Route 133, using existing site 

road service where practical (Figure 2-2).

The nearest major population center is Skippers Corner, approximately 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) 

northeast of the site boundary on NC Route 133 (Castle Hayne Road). The distance from the 

proposed GLE Facility to the nearest member of the public (i.e., actual permanent residence) is 

about 1352 meters (0.84 mile). The environmental characteristics of the proposed site and 

surrounding areas are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this EIS.

The Wilmington Site is served by two of southeastern North Carolina’s major highway systems: 

Interstate 40 (I-40) (“Outer Loop Freeway”) and U.S. Route 17 (see Figure 1-2). The site can be 

accessed by two access roads (south access road and north access road) from Castle Hayne 

Road (NC Route 133) just north of the junction of I-140 and Castle Hayne Road (GLE, 2008).

The Wilmington Site does not have rail access (and GLE does not anticipate the use of freight 

rail for shipping needs), but freight service to the region is provided by CSX Transportation, Inc.; 

the primary rail service foci are the Port of Wilmington and Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point 

(MOTSU). 

2.1.2 Description of the Proposed GLE Facility

Figure 2-2 shows the location of the GLE study area, which includes the proposed GLE Facility 

site and the areas that would be disturbed by preconstruction and construction activities. The 

proposed facility would comprise various buildings and areas that house systems and 

equipment necessary to support the uranium enrichment process. These buildings and areas 

would include the operations building and UF6 storage areas. UF6 would be stored temporarily 

onsite as normal feed material to the enrichment process and as depleted UF6 and enriched 
Alternatives

February 2012 2-3 NUREG-1938

Figure 2-1 Schematic of the Existing Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008)

product UF6 after the enrichment process. There would be other ancillary and support buildings 

and areas onsite.

Primary facilities are those critical to the enrichment process, while secondary facilities provide 

indirect support to the process. These facilities are described in Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2, 

respectively. These sections are followed by summary descriptions of the laser-based 

enrichment process proposed by GLE (Section 2.1.2.3), Waste Management Systems 

(Section 2.1.2.4), and Liquid and Air Effluents (Section 2.1.2.5).

2.1.2.1 Primary Facilities

The primary facilities include an operations building and six cylinder storage pads where 

licensed material would be used or stored; these are considered to be key facilities in support of 

the uranium enrichment process. The primary facilities are located or would be constructed 

adjacent to each other in the North-Central Site Sector. Technical details regarding primary 

facilities are presented in Appendix H. This information is considered proprietary and contains 

security-related information and will not be disclosed in this EIS.
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-4 February 2012

Figure 2-2 Location of Proposed GLE Facility at the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2009b)

Operations Building

The primary purpose of the operations building would be to house the laser equipment and

support systems necessary to perform the actual enrichment process. The Operations Building 

would include the following process and support areas:

• Cylinder Shipping and Receiving Area

• UF6 Feed and Vaporization Area

• Product Withdrawal Area

• Tails Withdrawal Area

• Cascade/Gas Handling Area

• Blending Area

• Sampling Area

• Radioactive Waste Area
Alternatives

February 2012 2-5 NUREG-1938

• Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Area

• Decontamination/Maintenance Area

• Laboratory Area

• Laser Area

The functional descriptions of these areas are summarized below, based on the information 

provided in Chapter 1 of the License Application (GLE, 2009a).

Cylinder Shipping and Receiving Area

The operations performed in this area would include:

• receipt of feed UF6 cylinders from offsite

• weighing the feed cylinders and performing other material control functions

• providing interim storage of feed, product, and depleted UF6 cylinders

• preparing the product and full depleted UF6, and empty cylinders for transfer to other 

locations onsite such as the UF6 Cylinder Pads or offsite

Feed and Vaporization Area

The UF6 Feed and Vaporization Area would contain the necessary equipment to perform the 

following operations:

• receive UF6 feed cylinders from the Cylinder Shipping and Receiving Area

• vaporize the UF6 contained within the feed cylinders

• feed the vaporized UF6 to the feed header between the Vaporization Area and 

the Cascade/Gas Handling Area within the Operations Building

The UF6 feed rates to the feed header would be maintained within the design basis temperature 

and pressure range. The residual UF6 from the emptied feed cylinders (known as heels) would 

be sufficiently recovered to meet U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) offsite cylinder 

shipping requirements for empty cylinders.

Product Withdrawal Area

In the Product Withdrawal Area, the empty to-be-filled cylinders would be received from interim 

storage within the Cylinder Shipping and Receipt Area and would be filled with the enriched UF6

product.
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-6 February 2012

Tails Withdrawal Area

This area would be used to receive empty cylinders from interim storage within the Cylinder 

Shipping and Storage Area, and fill them with the tails (depleted UF6) for interim storage and 

later disposition.

Cascade/Gas Handling Area

The Cascade/Gas Handling Area is where the enrichment process would occur. The UF6 gas 

would be exposed to laser-emitted light and two process streams are generated; one enriched 

in uranium-235 and one depleted in uranium-235. The enriched stream would go to the Product 

Withdrawal Area and the depleted stream would be sent to the Tails Withdrawal Area.

Blending Area

The Blending Area is where the product cylinders that meet the customer specifications would 

be filled. This would be accomplished by mixing the right quantities of enriched product at 

different enrichment levels to produce the exact enrichment level required by customers. The 

76- or 122-centimeter (30- or 48-inch) cylinders that would contain the original product (called 

donor cylinders) would be received from interim storage within the Cylinder Shipping and 

Receiving Area. The UF6 within the donor cylinders would be vaporized and fed into the 

receiver cylinders that would be sent to customers.

Sampling Area

In the Sampling Area, the receiver cylinders would be sampled to assure that the enrichment 

level of UF6 in the filled cylinders meets the customer specifications. The cylinders would be 

heated and the UF6 would be liquefied before samples were taken. This would be the only 

place in the proposed GLE Facility where conversion of solid UF6 to liquid UF6 would take place.

Liquid and Solid Radioactive Waste Areas

The various processes and operations that would take place in the proposed GLE Facility would 

likely generate quantities of radiologically contaminated, potentially contaminated, and 

non-contaminated liquid and solid waste streams. The equipment and processes used to 

temporarily store, treat as appropriate, and prepare for offsite shipment of liquid and solid 

wastes are described in Section 2.1.2.4. Section 2.1.2.5 discusses the systems used to control 

liquid emissions from the proposed GLE Facility.

HVAC Equipment Areas

Various heating and ventilation systems throughout the operations building would be used to 

control the environmental conditions such as the pressure, temperature, humidity, and airflow in 

different parts of the building to meet requirements for personnel, process equipment, and 

supporting systems and utilities. The systems used to control atmospheric air emissions are 

discussed in Section 2.1.2.5.
Alternatives

February 2012 2-7 NUREG-1938

Decontamination/Maintenance Area

The Decontamination/Maintenance Area would provide a place for personnel to remove 

contamination from, and make repairs to, equipment and process components used in various 

parts of the GLE Facility.

Laboratory Area

The Laboratory Area would contain the various onsite laboratories used to analyze the samples 

taken at the proposed GLE Facility. The analyses performed would include wet chemistry and 

safety and regulatory testing and analysis.

Laser Area

All necessary equipment needed to operate the laser systems that are part of the GLE laserbased enrichment technology would be located in this area.

UF6 Cylinder Pads

There would be three UF6 Cylinder Pads at the proposed GLE Facility:

• The Product Pad, which would occupy approximately 4462 square meters (48,000 square 

feet) and be used to store enriched product in 76-centimeter (30-inch) cylinders.

• The In-Process Pad, which would occupy approximately 12,084 square meters 

(130,000 square feet) and be used to store feed material and cylinders emptied on site (with 

or without heels).

• The Tails Pad, which would occupy approximately 43,224 square meters (465,000 square 

feet) and be designed to store 122-centimeter (48-inch) cylinders containing tails (depleted 

UF6). This pad would be sized to accommodate the tails cylinders resulting from 10 years of 

facility operation (9000 cylinders).

All of the pads would be constructed to provide for rainwater drainage to the edges of the pads. 

Saddles would be used to store the cylinders and, except for the tails cylinders, the cylinders 

would not typically be stacked. Stormwater collected from the cylinder pads would be directed 

to a new holding pond specifically constructed for the cylinder pads and then to a new onsite 

wet detention basin.

2.1.2.2 Other Facility Buildings and Supporting Infrastructure

New facility buildings and supporting infrastructure would include three administrative buildings, 

waste storage buildings, an electrical substation, backup diesel generators, potable and process 

water systems, a holding pond for cylinder storage pad stormwater, a stormwater wet detention 

basin, parking areas, and roads.

The new potable and process water supply lines to the GLE Facility would be connected to the 

existing Wilmington Site water supply infrastructure. Sanitary waste, process wastewater, and 

treated liquid radiological wastewater that would be generated at the proposed GLE Commercial 
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-8 February 2012

Facility would be routed to the existing facilities at the Wilmington Site via underground lines for 

final processing and disposition. In particular, the sanitary wastewaters would be routed to the 

existing Site Sanitary Waste Water Treatment Facility, and the process and treated wastewaters 

would be sent to the existing Final Process Lagoon Treatment Facility.

Two detention basins (one new and one existing) would receive stormwater runoff from the GLE 

Facility. An existing collection basin on the Wilmington Site would receive the majority of the 

runoff from the GLE Facility, including the Operations Building. The remaining runoff, including 

runoff from the UF6 Cylinder Pads, would drain to a new GLE site wet detention basin.

In addition, there would be a new water tower and a firewater retention basin located on the 

proposed GLE Facility site. The water in the tower would be used for process water at the 

proposed GLE Facility, but it would be designed to always maintain a reserved level for 

firefighting. The firewater retention basin and associated diesel-powered firewater pumps would 

be designed as a backup source for fire protection systems.

The proposed GLE Facility would be served by two main roads on the Wilmington Site. The first 

road would connect the proposed GLE Facility to Castle Hayne Road and would serve as the 

main entrance to the facility. The other road would lead to the GNF-A Fuel Manufacturing 

Operation (FMO) Facility and would be used mainly for transport of enriched product to the 

FMO facility for fuel manufacturing.

2.1.2.3 Process Description

The proposed GLE Facility would employ the Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation 

(SILEX) process, a third-generation laser-based technology for enriching natural uranium that 

was developed by Silex Systems Ltd, in partnership with GLE (and formerly, the 

U.S. Enrichment Corporation [USEC]). Isotopes of the same element, though chemically 

identical, have different electronic energies and absorb different colors of laser light. The 

isotopes of most elements can be separated by a laser-based process if they can be vaporized 

efficiently into individual atoms. In laser excitation enrichment, UF6 vapor is illuminated with a 

tuned laser of a specific wavelength that is absorbed only by uranium-235 atoms while leaving 

other isotopes unaffected.

Given below is an overview of the GLE laser-based enrichment process. A more detailed 

description of the process is provided in the license application (GLE, 2009a). However, the 

technical details of the GLE laser-based enrichment process are proprietary, subject to export 

control, and in many cases, may also fall into the categories of security-related, safeguards, or 

classified information, to which access is limited by U.S. laws and regulations. As such, the 

details of this process are not contained in this EIS.

The proposed GLE Facility is designed to separate a feed stream of UF6 containing the naturally 

occurring proportions of uranium isotopes (approximately 0.7 percent uranium-235, 99.3 percent 

uranium-238, and 0.0055 percent uranium-234) into a product stream (enriched in the 

uranium-235 isotope) and a tails stream (depleted in the uranium-235 isotope). Except for the 

actual step in the enrichment process that involves the use of lasers, the processes that would 

be used for receipt and handling of the feedstock and the enriched and depleted UF6 streams 

are very similar to those used at other enrichment facilities. The cylinders that would be used 

for transportation and storage of UF6 are industry-standard containers. The proposed GLE 
Alternatives

February 2012 2-9 NUREG-1938

Facility is designed to produce an enriched UF6 stream that is up to 8 percent uranium-235 with 

a nominal capacity of 6 million SWU per year.

The four major processing steps involved in enriching the natural UF6 at the proposed GLE 

Facility would be (1) UF6 Feed and Vaporization, (2) Cascade/Gas Handling, (3) Product 

Withdrawal, and (4) Tails Withdrawal.

The UF6 Feed Vaporization System would provide a continuous supply of gaseous UF6 from the 

feed cylinders to the Cascade/Gas Handling Area (where the enrichment takes place). 

Approximately nine hundred 122-centimeter (48-inch) cylinders would be processed annually. 

Feed cylinders would be loaded into solid feed stations; vented for removal of light gases 

(primarily air and hydrogen fluoride); and heated to sublime the UF6 (converting it directly from 

solid to gas phase without going through the liquid phase). The light gases and UF6 gas 

generated during feed purification would be routed to the Feed Purification Subsystem, where 

the UF6 would be desublimed (converted directly from gas to solid phase without passing though 

the liquid phase). The Feed Purification Subsystem would remove any light gases such as air 

and hydrogen fluoride from UF6 prior to introduction into the Cascade/Gas Handling Area.

After purification, UF6 from the solid feed stations would be routed to the Cascade/Gas Handling 

Area. The UF6 in gaseous form would be exposed to laser-emitted light and separated into two 

streams (one enriched in uranium-235 and one depleted in uranium-235). Enriched UF6 from 

the Cascade/Gas Handling Area would be transported to the Product Withdrawal Area, where it 

would be placed in the product cylinders and desublimed. The heat from desublimation of the 

UF6 would be removed by air. Filling of product cylinders would be monitored, and filled 

cylinders would be transferred to the Sampling Area for sampling and sent to the Blending Area 

or put into interim storage on the Product Pad.

The enriched UF6 in product cylinders forwarded to the Blending Area would be vaporized and 

pumped into receiver cylinders. During this process, the enrichment level of UF6 put into the 

receiver cylinders would be carefully controlled to meet the customer specifications as well as 

transportation standards.

As a final step, the receiver cylinders would be sent back to the Sampling Area, where the UF6

would be liquefied to create a homogenous mixture of UF6 and would be sampled to make sure 

that it meets the applicable requirements. A cylinder to be sampled would be moved into an 

autoclave with heating and cooling capability, where the UF6 in the cylinder would be liquefied 

by electrically heated air, to homogenize the liquefied UF6, and a representative sample of the 

contents would be taken. The UF6 in the cylinder would then be solidified in the autoclave using 

cold air before removing the cylinder from the autoclave. The autoclaves would be designed to 

contain a UF6 release in the autoclave.

Depleted UF6 from the Cascade/Gas Handling Area would be transported to the Tails 

Withdrawal Area, where it would be placed in the tails cylinders and desublimed. The heat of 

desublimation of the UF6 would be removed by air. Filling of tails cylinders would be monitored, 

and filled cylinders would be transferred to the Tails Pad.
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-10 February 2012

2.1.2.4 Waste Management Systems

This section describes the systems used to treat and disposition the liquid and solid wastes 

generated at the proposed GLE Facility. The quantities of waste generated and the waste 

management impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.12.

Liquid Wastes

GLE provided a summary of the systems and operations that would be used to manage the 

wastewater generated at the proposed GLE Facility, as shown in Table 2-1 (GLE, 2009a). 

Liquid radioactive wastes generated in the Operations Building would be collected in closeddrain systems that discharge to an accumulator tank. Subsequently, the liquid would be treated 

in the Radiological Liquid Waste Treatment System (RLETS) at the proposed GLE Facility to 

remove uranium through precipitation and fluoride through evaporation. The resulting solids 

would be dried and disposed of as low-level radioactive waste (LLRW).

The treated wastewaters from the RLETS would meet discharge requirements in 

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B (GLE, 2009c), before discharge to the Final Process Lagoon 

Table 2-1 Management of Wastewater Generated by Proposed GLE Facility Operations

Wastewater Type Onsite Waste Management Offsite Waste 

Treatment/Disposal

Process liquid 

radiological waste 

Wastewaters collected in closed drain 

system connected to Radiological 

Liquid Waste Treatment System 

(RLETS). Treated radiological waste 

effluent is discharged to existing 

Wilmington Site process wastewater 

aeration basin and Final Process 

Lagoon Treatment Facility (FPLTF). 

Treated effluent from the 

Wilmington Site FPLTF is 

discharged at National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES)-permitted Outfall 001 

to the onsite effluent channel. 

Cooling tower blowdown Blowdown is pumped from cooling 

tower to existing Wilmington Site 

FPLTF.

Treated effluent from the 

Wilmington Site FPLTF is 

discharged at NPDES-permitted 

Outfall 001 to the onsite effluent 

channel.

Sanitary waste Sanitary waste is collected in sewer 

system connected to existing 

Wilmington Site Sanitary Wastewater 

Treatment Plant. Waste stream is 

treated by activated sludge aeration 

process.

Treated effluent from the 

Wilmington Site Sanitary 

Wastewater Treatment Plant is 

discharged at NPDES-permitted 

Outfall 002 to the onsite effluent 

channel.

Stormwater Stormwater runoff is collected in 

drainage conduits and channels 

flowing to onsite retention basins. 

Stormwater from onsite retention 

basins is discharged per 

requirements of NPDES storm 

water permit. 

Source: GLE, 2009a
Alternatives

February 2012 2-11 NUREG-1938

Treatment Facility (FPLTF). The FPLTF is an existing facility at the Wilmington Site that is 

currently used to treat liquid effluents from existing industrial operations. It would also be used 

to treat the effluents from the proposed GLE Facility. The treated effluent from the FPLTF is 

currently discharged via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-permitted 

Outfall 001 to the Wilmington Site effluent channel, where it is combined with stormwater, 

discharging groundwater, and treated sanitary wastewater effluent. The effluent channel flows 

to the Unnamed Tributary #1, which drains to the Northeast Cape Fear River. GLE has stated 

that these operations would continue in the same mode when the proposed GLE Facility 

becomes operational.

A new cooling tower would be constructed for the proposed GLE Facility. The cooling tower 

would use a closed-loop system that does not contact any uranium materials or uraniumcontaminated wastewater streams. To minimize the amount of dissolved solids and other 

impurities in the circulating water, a portion of the circulating water from the cooling tower loop 

(called blowdown) would be regularly removed from the cooling tower loop and discharged to 

the existing Wilmington Site FPLTF. Fresh water or treated sanitary wastewater effluent would 

be added to the cooling tower loop to make up for the water loss. 

The sanitary wastes generated at the proposed GLE Facility would be collected in a sewer 

system connected to the existing Wilmington Site Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility 

(WWTF), which employs an Activated Sludge Aeration Process. The treated effluent from the 

WWTF could be reused as makeup water in cooling towers at the Wilmington Site or discharged 

at NPDES-permitted Outfall 002 to the onsite effluent channel.

Stormwater runoff from outdoor impervious surfaces within the GLE Facility site would be 

collected in drainage conduits and channels flowing into detention basins used for collection of 

runoff. The detention basins would be routed to one of the unnamed tributaries on the 

Wilmington Site that flow into the Northeast Cape Fear River. Stormwater collected from the 

cylinder storage pads would be directed to a new holding pond and from there to a new wet 

detention basin on the proposed GLE Facility site.

Solid Wastes

Solid wastes that would be generated by the proposed GLE Facility include municipal solid 

waste, nonhazardous industrial wastes, wastes designated as Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes, and LLRW. No high-level radioactive wastes would 

be generated by the proposed GLE Facility operations. GLE provided a summary of the 

methods used to manage these wastes onsite and for offsite treatment and disposal, as shown 

in Table 2-2 (GLE, 2009a).

The municipal solid waste would be collected and placed in rolloff-type containers. A 

commercial refuse collection service would regularly collect the filled containers and transport 

the waste to a RCRA-permitted Subtitle D landfill for disposal. The nonhazardous industrial 

waste, such as spent coolant and used filter media, would be collected and temporarily stored in 

containers appropriate for the waste type. Depending on their composition, these wastes would 

either be shipped directly to a permitted RCRA Subpart D landfill for treatment and burial, or 

routed to other approved facilities for reuse, reclamation, or treatment. The RCRA hazardous 

waste would be collected, packaged in DOT-approved shipping containers, and temporarily 

stored onsite for shipment to a RCRA-permitted Subtitle C treatment, storage, and disposal 
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-12 February 2012

Table 2-2 Management of Solid Waste Generated at Proposed GLE Facility During 

Operations

Solid Waste Source Onsite Waste Management Offsite Waste 

Treatment/Disposal

Municipal solid waste (MSW) Collected and temporarily stored 

in rolloff containers 

Filled rolloff containers are 

transported by commercial 

refuse collection service to an 

approved disposal site

Non-hazardous wastes from 

operations equipment cleaning 

and maintenance activities that 

are recyclable or not accepted 

by MSW landfill

Collected and temporarily stored 

in containers

Filled containers are 

transported by truck to an 

approved disposal sitea

Wastes designated RCRA 

hazardous wastes

Collected and temporarily stored 

in containers

Filled containers are 

transported by truck to an 

approved disposal siteb

Laboratory waste from UF6 feed 

sampling and analysis 

Collected and temporarily stored 

in containers

Either transported by truck to 

an approved disposal site or 

transported to an approved 

uranium recovery vendor

Combustible used or spent 

uranium-contaminated materials 

Collected and temporarily stored 

in containers 

Either transported by truck to 

an approved disposal site or 

transported to an approved 

uranium recovery vendor

Non-combustible used or spent 

uranium-contaminated materials 

Collected and temporarily stored 

in boxes 

Filled boxes are transported by 

truck to an approved disposal 

sitec

Liquid Radiological Waste 

Treatment System filtrate/sludge 

Collected and temporarily stored 

in metal cans

Filled cans are transported by 

truck to an approved disposal 

site 

a

Licensed RCRA Subpart D landfill.

b

Licensed RCRA Subpart C Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF).

c

Licensed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.

Source: GLE, 2009a

facility. LLRW would be collected in containers and shipped by truck to an approved disposal 

facility.

2.1.2.5 Liquid and Air Effluents

This section discusses the potential liquid and air effluents from the proposed GLE Facility. The 

impacts associated with these effluents are discussed in Section 4.2.11.

Liquid Effluents

Uranium enrichment operations performed at the proposed GLE Facility would generate 

process wastewater that would contain small concentrations of uranium and fluoride. This 
Alternatives

February 2012 2-13 NUREG-1938

wastewater would be generated from decontamination operations, cleaning wash water, and 

laboratory wastes, and is collectively referred to as liquid radioactive waste. 

The process wastewater would be treated to remove the uranium and the fluoride. The treated 

wastewater would meet the discharge requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, before 

discharge to the existing Wilmington Site FPLTF (GLE, 2009c). This facility currently receives 

Wilmington Site process wastewater, including the treated effluent from the GNF-A FMO Facility 

Radiological Waste Treatment System. The treated effluent from the FPLTF is discharged via 

NPDES-permitted Outfall 001 to the Wilmington Site effluent channel, where it is combined with 

stormwater, discharging groundwater, and treated sanitary wastewater effluent. The effluent 

channel flows to the Unnamed Tributary #1, which flows into the Northeast Cape Fear River.

As discussed in Section 2.1.2.4 and in Table 2-1, there would be three other liquid effluents 

from the proposed GLE Facility. These effluents would not contain radioactive constituents. 

The cooling tower blowdown effluent would be discharged to the effluent channel at Outfall 001 

along with the process wastewater from the FPLTF. Treated sanitary wastewater would either 

be reused as makeup water for cooling towers or released to the effluent channel at Outfall 002. 

The stormwater overflow from the onsite wet detention basins would be discharged to one of the 

unnamed tributaries to the Cape Fear River.

Air Effluents

Because the laser-based enrichment process proposed by GLE is a closed process, no routine 

venting of process gases would occur during operations. However, some short-term gaseous 

releases could occur inside the Operations Building during certain operations, such as the 

connection/disconnection of UF6 cylinders to process equipment and process equipment 

maintenance. These gaseous releases would be routed through the building’s ventilation 

system. 

The ventilation system air stream would pass through a series of emissions-control devices, 

consisting of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and high-efficiency gas absorption 

(HEGA) filters. The exhaust air stream from these emission controls would be vented to the 

atmosphere and would meet the discharge requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B 

(GLE, 2009c). 

2.1.3 Depleted Uranium Management

The term “depleted uranium” refers to any chemical form of uranium (e.g., UF6 and U3O8) that 

contains uranium-235 in concentrations less than the 0.7 percent found in natural uranium. As 

discussed in Section 2.1.2.3, the uranium enrichment process would generate a depleted UF6

stream (also called tails). In contrast to the uranium in the enriched UF6 produced by the 

enrichment facility, the uranium in the depleted UF6 stream would be depleted in uranium-235 

isotope of uranium. At full production, the proposed GLE Facility would generate 900 full 

122-centimeter (48-inch) cylinders of depleted UF6 per year. Initially, the depleted UF6 would be 

stored on the Tails Storage Pad (GLE, 2009a). Each 122-centimeter (48-inch) cylinder would 

hold approximately 12.5 metric tons (13.8 tons), which means that at full production, the site 

would generate approximately 11,250 metric tons (12,375 tons) of depleted UF6 every year. 

During the operation of the facility, it could store up to 9000 cylinders (10 years’ worth of 

generation) of depleted UF6 (GLE, 2009a). GLE would own the depleted UF6 and maintain the 
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-14 February 2012

cylinders while they are in storage. 

Maintenance activities would include periodic 

inspections for corrosion, valve leakage, or 

distortion of the cylinder shape, and touch-up 

painting as required. Problem cylinders 

would be removed from storage and the 

material transferred to another storage 

cylinder. The proposed storage area would 

be kept neat and free of debris, and all 

stormwater or other runoff would be routed to 

the onsite holding pond for monitoring and 

evaporation.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(DNFSB) has reported that long-term storage 

of depleted UF6 in the UF6 form represents a 

potential chemical hazard if not properly 

managed (DNFSB, 1995). For this reason, 

the strategic management of depleted 

uranium includes the conversion of depleted 

UF6 stock to a more stable uranium oxide 

(e.g., triuranium octaoxide [U3O8]) form for 

long-term management (OECD, 2001). The 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also 

evaluated multiple disposition options for 

depleted UF6 and agreed that conversion to U3O8 was preferable for long-term storage and 

disposal of the depleted uranium in its oxide form, due to the chemical stability of U3O8

(DOE, 2000). Therefore, the disposal option considered in the EIS is the conversion of the 

depleted UF6 to U3O8 at either a DOE-owned or commercial conversion facility followed by 

disposal as U3O8. Direct disposal of depleted UF6 was ruled out because of its chemical 

reactivity (DOE, 1999).

2.1.3.1 Conversion of Depleted UF6

Section 3113 of the 1996 USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-11), states that DOE “shall 

accept for disposal low-level radioactive waste, including depleted uranium if it were ultimately 

determined to be low-level radioactive waste, generated by ... any person licensed by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate a uranium enrichment facility under [Sections 53, 

63, and 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, and 2243)].” As a result, 

unless GLE finds a beneficial use for its inventory of depleted UF6 generated at the proposed 

GLE Facility or makes alternate arrangements for conversion to another chemical form 

elsewhere, GLE would send it to DOE for conversion to the oxide form for disposal. On 

January 18, 2005, the Commission issued its ruling that depleted uranium is considered a form 

of low-level radioactive waste (NRC, 2005a). The Commission also stated that, pursuant to 

Section 3113 of the USEC Privatization Act, disposal by DOE at an approved facility represents 

a ‘plausible strategy’ for the disposition of depleted uranium tails (NRC, 2005a).

DOE has constructed two conversion plants to convert the depleted UF6 now in storage at 

Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, to depleted uranium oxide (primarily U3O8) and 

Waste Classification of Depleted 

Uranium

Depleted uranium is different from most lowlevel radioactive waste in that it consists mostly 

of long-lived isotopes of uranium, with small 

quantities of thorium-234 and protactinium-234. 

Depleted uranium is source material as defined 

in 10 CFR Part 40, and, if treated as a waste, it 

falls under the definition of low-level radioactive 

waste per 10 CFR 61.2. The Commission 

affirmed that depleted uranium is properly 

considered a form of low-level radioactive waste 

in Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National 

Enrichment Facility), CLI-05-5, 61 NRC 22 

(January 18, 2005). This means that depleted 

uranium could be disposed of in a licensed lowlevel radioactive waste facility if the licensing 

requirements for land disposal of radioactive 

waste as indicated in 10 CFR Part 61 are met.

Sources: NRC, 1991; NRC, 2005b.
Alternatives

February 2012 2-15 NUREG-1938

hydrofluoric acid. Both plants completed operational testing and were fully operational in

September 2011 (Sparks, 2011; BWCS, 2011). GLE would transport the depleted UF6

generated by the proposed GLE Facility to either of these new facilities and pay DOE to convert 

and dispose of the material. The proposed GLE Facility would generate approximately 

450,000 metric tons (495,000 tons) in total over its 40-year operating lifetime. The depleted UF6

would be processed in a DOE-operated conversion facility and then shipped offsite for disposal. 

In addition to the DOE disposition option for depleted UF6, one or more NRC-licensed 

commercial depleted UF6 conversion facilities may become available during the proposed 

GLE Facility’s operational lifetime. At least one private entity (International Isotopes, Inc.) has 

announced plans to construct and operate a new depleted UF6 conversion facility in Hobbs, 

New Mexico (GLE, 2008). International Isotopes submitted a license application on 

December 31, 2009, and the NRC is currently reviewing this application (NRC, 2010a). If a 

commercial facility performs the conversion to U3O8, DOE is still obligated to accept the U3O8 for

disposal if requested by GLE, per Section 3113 of the USEC Privatization Act.

2.1.3.2 Disposal of Depleted Uranium

The Commission stated that transfer of depleted uranium tails to DOE for disposal represents a 

plausible alternative for disposition, and that depleted uranium is considered a form of low-level 

waste (NRC, 2005a). Disposal of U3O8 at a commercial low-level waste disposal facility would 

also be a viable option, if the commercial waste disposal facility could satisfy the requirements 

of 10 CFR Part 61.

2.1.4 Decontamination and Decommissioning 

At the end of useful plant life, the proposed GLE Facility would be decontaminated and 

decommissioned in accordance with applicable NRC license termination requirements. 

Decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would be funded in 

accordance with the Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP) for the proposed GLE Facility 

(GLE, 2008). The DFP, prepared by GLE in accordance with 10 CFR 70.25(a), provides 

information required by 10 CFR 70.25(e) regarding GLE’s plans for funding the 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility and the disposal of depleted uranium tails 

generated as a result of plant operations. Funding would be provided by GLE in accordance 

with NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 70 and guidance in NUREG-1757 (NRC, 2003).

The intent of decommissioning is to return the proposed GLE Facility site to a state that meets 

NRC requirements for release for unrestricted use after decontamination and decommissioning 

is completed (GLE, 2008). It is anticipated that at the end of the useful life of the plant, some of 

the support buildings and outdoor areas would already meet NRC requirements for unrestricted 

use in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Any buildings, outdoor areas, or equipment that do 

not already meet the NRC requirements at the time the GLE Facility ceases operations would 

be decontaminated and decommissioned in accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR 70.38.

Decontamination and decommissioning activities for the proposed GLE Facility are anticipated 

to occur approximately 40 years in the future, and therefore, only a general description of the 

activities that would be conducted for the proposed GLE Facility can be developed for this EIS. 

The proposed facility would follow NRC decommissioning requirements in 10 CFR 70.38.
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-16 February 2012

The NRC anticipates that decontamination and decommissioning will involve the following 

activities:

• installation of decontamination facilities

• purging of process systems and equipment

• dismantling and removal of facilities and equipment

• decontamination and destruction of confidential materials

• decontamination of equipment, facilities, and structures

• survey and spot decontamination of outdoor areas

• removal and sale of any salvaged materials

• removal and disposal of wastes

• management and disposal of depleted uranium

• final radiation survey to confirm that the release criteria have been met

2.1.5 Description and Anticipated Schedule for the Phases of the Proposed Action

As discussed previously, the proposed action would be conducted in three phases starting with 

(1) preconstruction and construction, (2) facility operation, and (3) decontamination and 

decommissioning. Each of these phases is described briefly and the anticipated schedule of 

activities under each phase is provided below. 

Depleted UF6 Conversion Process

Depleted UF6 conversion is a continuous process in which depleted UF6 is vaporized and 

converted to U3O8 by reaction with steam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit. 

The hydrogen is generated using anhydrous ammonia, although an option of using natural 

gas is being investigated. Nitrogen is also used as an inert purging gas and is released to the 

atmosphere through the building stack as part of the clean off-gas stream. The depleted U3O8

powder is collected and packaged for disposition. The process equipment would be arranged 

in parallel lines. Each line would consist of two autoclaves, two conversion units, a 

hydrofluoric acid recovery system, and process off-gas scrubbers. The Paducah facility would 

have four parallel conversion lines. Equipment would also be installed to collect the 

hydrofluoric acid co-product and process it into any combination of several marketable 

products. A backup hydrofluoric acid neutralization system would be provided to convert up to 

100 percent of the hydrofluoric acid to calcium fluoride for storage and/or sale in the future, if 

necessary.

Sources: DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b.
Alternatives

February 2012 2-17 NUREG-1938

As discussed in Section 1.4.1, NRC has approved an exemption request from GLE for GLE to 

conduct certain preconstruction activities prior to NRC issuing a license to GLE for the 

construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility (NRC, 2009a). Pre-construction 

activities covered by the exemption include the following activities and facilities: 

• clearing of approximately 40 hectares (100 acres) for the proposed GLE Facility 

(e.g., removal of trees and vegetation)

• site grading and erosion control (e.g., leveling, installation of physical barriers, and 

construction of drainages and culverts)

• installing stormwater retention system (e.g., including a holding pond for the cylinder storage 

pads, wet detention basin, and associated drainage ditches)

• constructing main access roadways and guardhouse(s) (e.g., North access road)

• installing utilities (electricity, potable water, process water, water for fire suppression, 

sanitary sewer, and natural gas) (e.g., aboveground electrical lines, electrical substation, 

wastewater lift stations, and new water tower)

• constructing parking lots and minor roadways (e.g., employee and visitor parking lot and 

connections to site access roads)

• constructing administrative building(s) (e.g., office space and personnel Entry Control 

Facility)

GLE anticipates that it could begin preconstruction activities in 2012 (Figure 2-3), and NRC’s 

licensing decision is anticipated to take place by June 2012. If the license is granted, GLE could 

begin the actual construction activities at that time. As discussed in Section 1.4.1, GLE has 

indicated that the schedule for preconstruction activities is uncertain at this time (NRC, 2010c). 

Therefore, some of the preconstruction activities could still be ongoing after the construction 

Figure 2-3 Anticipated Timeline for the Proposed GLE Facility1

 

1

Start and end dates of project phases, as shown, are approximate.
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-18 February 2012

starts. However, for the purposes of the analyses in this EIS (and as indicated in Figure 2-3), it 

has been assumed that the preconstruction phase of the project would be completed before the 

construction phase begins (anticipated to be in 2012).

GLE anticipates that the construction would take place over an approximately 7- to 8-year 

period starting in 2012 and would be completed by 2020. This would include construction of the 

Operations Building, cylinder storage pads, holding pond for cylinder storage pad stormwater 

runoff, wet detention basin, and security buffer area. Construction would be phased in such a 

way that the operations would begin in 2014, while the rest of the facility is being constructed. 

When the construction is fully completed (in 2020), the facility would begin operating at its rated 

capacity of 6 million SWU per year.

GLE is seeking a license for the proposed facility for a period of 40 years. Assuming it is 

granted in 2012, the license would expire in 2052. Prior to 2052, GLE would decide to either 

seek a new license to continue to operate the facility or plan for the decontamination and 

decommissioning of the facility per the applicable licensing conditions and NRC rules and 

regulations. As discussed in Section 2.1.4, decontamination and decommissioning activities 

would entail installation of decontamination facilities; purging of process systems and 

equipment; dismantling and removal of facilities and equipment; decontamination and 

destruction of confidential materials; decontamination of equipment, facilities, and structures; 

survey and spot decontamination of outdoor areas; removal and sale of any salvaged materials; 

removal and disposal of wastes; management and disposal of depleted uranium; and final 

radiation survey to confirm that the release criteria have been met. 

During operations, GLE intends to use natural uranium in the form of UF6 for the proposed 

GLE Facility. The UF6 would be transported to the plant in 122-centimeter (48-inch) cylinders 

that are designed, fabricated, packaged and shipped in accordance with American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.1, “Uranium Hexafluoride-Packaging for Transport”

(ANSI, 1990). Feed cylinders are expected to be transported to the site by truck. It is 

anticipated that approximately 900 shipments of feed cylinders per year would arrive at the 

proposed GLE Facility. Expected feed suppliers include the Cameco Corporation (Port Hope, 

Ontario, Canada), Honeywell Specialty Chemical Plant (Metropolis, Illinois), and possibly foreign 

sources (through ports at Baltimore, Maryland, and Portsmouth, Virginia).

The uranium enrichment process as described in Section 2.1.2.3 would occur within the 

Operations Building. Enrichment would normally be 3–5 percent by weight of uranium-235, 

although GLE’s license application indicates GLE seeks authorization to produce enriched 

uranium up to 8 percent by weight of uranium-235 (GLE, 2008).

Filled customer product cylinders (Type 30B) would be transported to customers (nuclear fuel 

fabrication facilities), while empty feed cylinders would be returned to the customers for refilling. 

All cylinders would be prepared for shipment and shipped in accordance with the applicable 

NRC and DOT regulations. 

All product cylinders shipped from the proposed GLE Facility would be transported by truck. 

These cylinders would be designed, fabricated, and shipped in accordance with the ANSI

standard for packaging and transporting UF6 cylinders, ANSI N14.1. An average product 

shipment frequency of 6 cylinders per day is anticipated at full production capacity, with an 
Alternatives

February 2012 2-19 NUREG-1938

annual total of approximately 2100 shipments. Some of these cylinders would be transported to 

the FMO on the Wilmington Site for fabrication into nuclear fuel.

All wastes generated by the GLE facility would be treated onsite or shipped offsite for treatment 

and/or disposal. The non-hazardous solid wastes would be disposed of in a local landfill or 

shipped to an offsite treatment and disposal or reuse facility. The low-level radioactive waste 

would be collected in appropriate containers and shipped by truck to a licensed disposal facility

(EnergySolutions) in Clive, Utah. RCRA waste would be appropriately packaged and 

temporarily stored onsite for quarterly shipment (with RCRA waste generated by existing site 

facilities) to a RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility (Heritage Environmental 

Services) in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Approximately 900 Type 48Y or 48G cylinders of depleted UF6 tails are expected to be 

generated by the GLE Facility per year during full operation. There are no plans for onsite 

processing or disposal of depleted UF6, so the cylinders would be stored on the Tails Storage 

Pad and monitored until they are ready to be shipped offsite. The planned storage pad will have

sufficient capacity to store 9000 double-stacked cylinders, with approximately 24 hectares 

(60 acres) available for expansion of storage capacity. However, GLE anticipates the 

availability of at least one offsite UF6 disposition option, enabling the offsite shipment of 

depleted UF6 cylinders prior to reaching the 9000-cylinder capacity. Should the 9000-cylinder 

capacity be reached during facility operation, GLE would evaluate available options, including 

expansion of onsite storage capacity. 

2.2 No-Action Alternative

Under this alternative, GLE would not construct the proposed GLE Facility at the Wilmington 

Site. It is assumed that preconstruction activities would take place regardless of the decision to 

issue a license for the proposed GLE Facility under both the proposed action and the no-action 

alternative.

Enrichment services would continue to be performed by existing domestic and foreign uranium 

enrichment suppliers. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) and the National 

Enrichment Facility (NEF) in Lea County, New Mexico, would continue to supply enrichment 

services. Both the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio; and Eagle Rock 

Enrichment Facility (EREF) in Bonneville County, Idaho, may also provide enrichment services 

in the future. Impacts from these other domestic enrichment facilities have been evaluated in 

other NRC environmental reviews.

Table 2-3 summarizes and compares the environmental impacts for the proposed action and 

the no-action alternative.

The comparison is intended primarily to highlight the differences between the two alternatives 

after preconstruction activities have occurred.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

As required by NEPA and NRC regulations, the NRC has considered other alternatives to the 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility, and the disposition 
NUREG-1938

2-20 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action 

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Land Use SMALL. The project area is owned by GE and zoned for heavy 

industrial use. The project area consists of mostly mixed pine 

forest and is bordered by existing GE facilities, the Northeast 

Cape Fear River, and residential development. Preconstruction 

activities would occur under the proposed action, removing the 

undeveloped forest. Construction of the proposed GLE Facility 

would not alter current land use at the Wilmington Site or affect 

surrounding land use.

Operation of a uranium enrichment facility would affect land use 

and could affect nearby residential developments. However, 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility is consistent with other

industrial use of the Wilmington Site. These industrial activities 

have had no effect on residential development.

Decommissioning would not alter current land use at the 

Wilmington Site or affect surrounding land use.

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

the proposed GLE Facility is not cons

Preconstruction would alter the undev

the Wilmington Site but would not affe

use. 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources

SMALL to MODERATE. The location for the proposed GLE 

Facility (study area) comprises 106 hectares (263 acres).

Preconstruction activities would have an impact on historic and 

cultural resources. NRC-authorized construction would take place 

on ground previously disturbed by preconstruction. No 

construction activities are expected to occur in the portion of the 

Wilmington Site where historic and cultural resources are known 

to exist.

GLE Facility operations have the potential to affect historic and 

cultural resources. While GLE has no plans to alter the site during 

operations, there is a high potential for additional historic and 

cultural resources to be discovered during routine maintenance 

activities. The Wilmington Site is located within a region 

containing high concentrations of historic and cultural resources. 

Operational impacts would depend largely on procedures

employed to protect historic and cultural resources. The Middle

Woodland archaeological site 31NH801 would not be affected by

SMALL. Ground disturbance caused 

activities could affect historic and cult

Wilmington Site. Since the proposed 

not be constructed, there would be no 

historic and cultural resources.
February 2012

2-21 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Historic and Cultural 

Resources (Cont.)

facility operations. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) requested that GLE develop procedures to protect

site 31NH801. In response, the NRC proposed a license condition 

requiring GLE to consider the potential effects on historic and 

cultural resources from any ground-disturbing activities in 

unsurveyed areas of the GLE Facility site. GLE also developed 

Common Procedure CP-24-201 to address the unanticipated 

discovery of human remains or artifacts. The SHPO concurred 

that a determination of “no adverse effect” is appropriate with the 

inclusion of the proposed license condition. Based on this 

information, the NRC determined that the impact level would be 

SMALL to MODERATE given the close proximity of significant 

historic and cultural resources and high potential for additional 

historic and cultural resource materials to be discovered during 

routine operations. The NRC's determination is based on the 

license containing the proposed license condition.

Decommissioning impacts on historic and cultural resources are 

expected to occur primarily during ground-disturbing activities; the 

need to clear previously undisturbed land is not expected as a part 

of decommissioning activities.

Visual and Scenic 

Resources

SMALL. The project area has low scenic quality and the 

environment in the project area is not unique for the area. 

Preconstruction activities would include clearing vegetation. 

The proposed GLE Facility would be located adjacent to existing 

industrial facilities and would be consistent with the existing 

industrial character of the Wilmington Site. Likewise, the project 

area is not in a location that is sensitive to visual intrusions.

Construction activities would be limited to the Wilmington Site. 

The greatest visual impacts would result from increased truck and 

worker traffic, but these impacts would be temporary. The main 

project area is surrounded by a vegetation barrier, so construction 

activities would be largely screened. Construction cranes would 

be visible from greater distances, but this impact would be 

temporary.

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

vegetation. Since the proposed GLE 

be constructed, the visual appearanc

Site would not change because the v

along the northern part of the site wo
NUREG-1938

2-22 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Visual and Scenic 

Resources (Cont.)

The two most visible (i.e., tallest) structures would be the water 

tower and a portion of the operations building referred to as the

operations building tower. The operations building tower will have 

front and side profiles of 37 m (120 ft) by 200 m (660 ft), and could 

reach up to 49 m (160 ft) above grade. The proposed water tower 

is the same height as the existing Wilmington Site water tower, the 

top of which is visible from south of Interstate 140 (I-140). 

Although the operations building tower could be 10 m (30 ft) taller 

than the existing water tower, it would be visible primarily from 

Castle Hayne Road and the residential subdivision to the 

northeast, because it would be farther from I-140 than the existing 

water tower. The water tower, facility, and operations building 

tower would not represent a major alteration of the existing visual 

environment. Portions of the proposed facility may be visible from 

I-140, and the planting of additional vegetation may minimize 

visual impacts.

Decommissioning impacts on visual and scenic resources would 

be minimal and of short duration. Temporary visual impacts could 

result from the use of heavy equipment and the increase in worker 

traffic. Once decommissioning is complete, most of the visual 

impacts would cease. The vegetation screen surrounding the 

Wilmington Site would make changes imperceptable to all but the 

closest residences.

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE. Preconstruction activities would have an 

impact on ambient air quality conditions at the Wilmington Site. 

Air quality impacts would be the highest during preconstruction 

activities (not a part of the proposed action) and the initial 2 years 

of GLE Facility construction. Criteria pollutants, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), greenhouse gases, hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs), fugitive dust emissions, and engine exhaust emissions 

would be released during these activities. Emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) 

would have a SMALL impact on ambient air quality (well below 

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

on ambient air quality conditions at th

Since the proposed GLE Facility wou

constructed, there would be no furthe

quality.
February 2012

2-23 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Air Quality (Cont.) applicable standards). Lead emissions are expected to be 

negligible and potential carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would 

also be SMALL.

Total 24-hour concentrations of particulate matter equal to or 

smaller than 10 μm (PM10) and particulate matter equal to or 

smaller than 2.5 μm (PM2.5), mostly resulting from fugitive dust 

emissions, are predicted to exceed air quality standards during 

preconstruction and construction phases. Since preconstruction 

and construction activities would last about 9 months and 2 years, 

respectively, the potential air quality impacts during the 

preconstruction phase are expected to be MODERATE. 

Aggressive dust control measures would be implemented during 

the preconstruction and construction phases to reduce the impact.

Because the proposed GLE Facility will not employ any 

continuous combustion activities during operation, criteria pollutant 

and HAPs emission rates would be SMALL. Uranium-related 

and/or hydrogen fluoride (HF) stack emissions would be minimal, 

and emissions from diesel fuel handling would be very low. 

Fugitive dust emissions would be minimal, as most working areas 

and roads would be paved. Potential impacts from GLE Facility 

operations on regional ozone would also be SMALL.

Decontamination activities would mostly occur inside GLE Facility 

buildings, where emission controls would minimize atmospheric 

releases. Standard dust suppression techniques could be 

employed during the demolition of structures and other hard 

surface areas to control dust emissions. Work areas would be 

monitored for airborne dust, and a small, temporary shelter or tent 

with portable HEPA filtration may be used to minimize the release 

of contaminated dust. The number of workers would be fewer 

than those required during construction or operations, but truck 

traffic on the North access road would be comparable to that
NUREG-1938

2-24 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Air Quality (Cont.) experienced during construction. Air emission rates and 

associated air quality impacts of decontamination and 

decommissioning activities at the proposed GLE Facility would be 

comparable to or less than those during construction.

Geology and Soil 

Resources

SMALL. Preconstruction activities would have an impact on soil 

conditions at the Wilmington Site. Approximately 91 ha (226 ac) 

of land would be disturbed under the proposed action, including 

the proposed GLE Facility site, support structures, and road 

construction. Construction vehicles and equipment could leak 

fuel, oil, or grease to site soils. Construction activities would 

include soil excavation, soil storage and removal, and stormwater 

management. Construction would not affect geologic resources 

because the site lacks significant geologic resources.

Soil disturbance during GLE Facility operations would continue at 

reduced levels, as some construction projects are ongoing, while 

others would be completed. Impervious surfaces such as roads, 

parking lots, and roofs would increase stormwater runoff, 

increasing the erosion potential. Large storm events could create 

erosion along drainages or at culverts, requiring maintenance or 

drainage system improvement. Vehicles and equipment used in 

unpaved areas during facility operations could leak fuel, oil, or 

grease to site soils. Groundwater pumping is expected to have a 

minimal effect on groundwater levels, and the associated degree 

of subsidence is expected to be negligible. Other geologic 

hazards (volcano, tsunami, landslides, radon gas, methane gas, 

subsidence due to mining) to the site are not anticipated. 

Foundations, roads, and utility lines would likely be undisturbed 

during decontamination and decommissioning. Erosion may 

increase, as portions of the site are disturbed by heavy equipment.

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

on soil conditions at the Wilmington S

proposed GLE Facility would not be c

would be no further impacts on geolo

conditions at the site
February 2012

2-25 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Surface Water 

Resources

SMALL. Preconstruction activities would have an impact on water 

quality in streams located on the Wilmington Site. Excavation 

during construction could impact surface water quality. The 

access road for the proposed GLE Facility would require a new 

stream crossing and possibly change a jurisdictional channel, 

which could lead to erosion and increased sediment load. 

Construction vehicles and equipment pose the possibility of leaks 

or spills of fuels, oil, or grease, which could run off and affect

nearby surface water. However, it is unlikely that a minor spill 

would reach the Northeast Cape Fear River or Prince George 

Creek. Infiltration into site soil would likely reduce or eliminate the 

potential for runoff.

Process wastewater effluent would be discharged at an existing 

outfall during GLE Facility operations, increasing the site’s process 

wastewater volume by about 7 percent. Liquid radioactive waste 

would be pretreated to reduce uranium to acceptable levels before 

transfer to the existing wastewater treatment facility. Treatment 

would produce an effluent similar to current process wastewaters. 

Treated sanitary wastewater effluent would be reused in site 

cooling towers.

No consumption of surface water would occur during GLE Facility 

operations. Stormwater runoff would collect in a State-permitted 

detention basin before discharge and would be regulated by a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

Stormwater runoff from the UF6 cylinder storage pads would 

collect in a lined retention pond. If monitoring demonstrates a lack 

of radioactivity, pond effluent would be discharged to the 

stormwater detention basin and ultimately, to the effluent channel. 

Any increase in turbidity and sediment loading to streams as a 

result of construction would subside during GLE Facility 

operations. Oil, grease, metals, and other automotive-related 

contaminants would be present in limited quantities due to onsite 

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

on water quality in streams located on 

Site. Since the proposed GLE Facilit

constructed, there would be no furthe

water resources on or near the Wilmi
NUREG-1938

2-26 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Surface Water 

Resources (Cont.)

vehicular traffic. Herbicides used in landscaped areas of the 

Wilmington Site would also be present.

GLE Facility process wastewater flow would cease during 

decontamination and decommissioning, but decontamination 

effluent could be generated. If the Wilmington Site treatment and 

industrial reuse facility could not receive sanitary discharge during 

the decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed 

GLE Facility, portable toilets would be required for workers. The 

collection, treatment, monitoring, and discharge of 

decontamination water would be designed to avoid significant 

environmental impact. Erosion may increase as portions of the 

site are disturbed by heavy equipment, and BMPs would reduce 

the impact.

Groundwater 

Resources

SMALL. Preconstruction activities would have an impact on 

shallow aquifers at the Wilmington Site. Implementation of best 

management practices (BMPs) during the construction of the 

proposed GLE Facility would reduce the potential for leaks of fuel, 

oil, and grease to soil and groundwater. The use of portable 

toilets during construction would eliminate sanitary system impacts 

on groundwater. Tanker trucks would provide potable and 

nonpotable construction water.

During GLE Facility operations, stormwater collected from the UF6

cylinder storage pad is expected to have no more than trace 

amounts of radiological contaminants, and the liner is expected to 

limit infiltration to groundwater. Discharge at site outfalls would be 

from process and sanitary wastewater. Some portion of these 

effluents may potentially infiltrate the Peedee sand aquifer. 

However, treatment and monitoring are expected to result in no 

significant contaminant concentrations in the effluent channel. 

The proposed facility will obtain additional groundwater for potable 

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

on shallow aquifers at the Wilmington 

proposed GLE Facility would not be c

would be no further impacts on groun

or near the Wilmington Site.
February 2012

2-27 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Groundwater 

Resources (Cont.)

purposes from existing production wells at the Wilmington Site. 

Water level data show these wells to be cross-gradient of the 

overall Wilmington Site, and they do not result in significant 

drawdown. Groundwater will also be needed as a source of 

process water for the proposed GLE Facility. A small amount of 

increased drawdown is expected, without significant effect on flow 

directions, water quality, or availability for offsite users. Diesel 

tanks at the facility would have appropriate leak detection 

equipment. In addition, a groundwater monitoring plan would be 

developed after the facility is constructed.

The removal of structures, utilities, materials, and products during 

the decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility is not expected 

to have an impact on site groundwater resources.

Ecological 

Resources

SMALL to MODERATE. Most impacts on ecological resources 

would occur during preconstruction. Most construction activities 

would occur in areas that would have already been disturbed by 

preconstruction activities. Impacts on vegetation would occur 

primarily from vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, alteration 

of topography, changes in drainage patterns, and soil compaction. 

Remaining potential impacts on vegetation include decline or 

mortality of trees near the construction boundary, effects related to 

hydrologic changes, deposition of dust and other particulate 

matter, introduction of invasive plant species, and accidental 

releases of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel spills).

Wetlands could be impacted by alteration of surface water runoff 

patterns, soil compaction, or groundwater flow. No wetlands 

would be directly affected by construction of the proposed facility, 

but three jurisdictional wetlands and one isolated wetland occur 

within the corridor for the revised entrance and roadway. It is 

probable that the isolated wetland would be directly affected, 

resulting in a wetland loss. However, impacts on, or loss of, this 

wetland would not be significant, given the apparent low value of 

SMALL. Most impacts on ecological 

occur during preconstruction. Precon

wetlands, environmentally sensitive a

biota would be SMALL. Impacts on F

and endangered species and impacts 

species of concern or State-listed spe

within New Hanover County would als

no adverse impacts on these species 

the no-action alternative). Since the p

Facility would not be constructed, the

further impacts on ecological resourc

Wilmington Site.
NUREG-1938

2-28 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Ecological 

Resources (Cont.)

the wetland under State rating guidelines. Indirect impacts on 

wetlands could result from increased stormwater runoff, 

decreased groundwater recharge, disconnected hydrologic 

conductivity, or changes in groundwater or surface water flow 

patterns. Impacts from increased or decreased runoff are 

expected to be negligible.

Except for the probable impact on wetlands, no environmentally 

sensitive areas would be directly affected by construction. Only 

minor, localized indirect impacts on environmentally sensitive 

areas may occur from erosion and sedimentation or from changes 

in drainage patterns.

Impacts on wildlife from construction would include habitat 

disturbance, wildlife disturbance, and injury or mortality of wildlife. 

Habitats within the footprint disturbed by construction would be 

reduced or altered, and construction activities would result in 

habitat fragmentation. Construction would cause a loss of habitat, 

which could result in a long-term reduction in wildlife abundance 

and richness. Although habitats adjacent to the proposed facility 

site would mostly remain unaffected, wildlife might make less use 

of these areas due to disturbance (indirect habitat loss). Habitat 

disturbance, including roads, could facilitate the spread and 

introduction of invasive plant species. Wildlife habitat could be 

adversely affected if invasive vegetation became established in 

the disturbed areas and adjacent offsite habitats. If exposure of 

wildlife to fugitive dust was of sufficient magnitude and duration, 

the effects could be similar to those on humans. A more probable 

effect would be the dusting of plants, which could make forage 

less palatable. Construction activities could cause wildlife 

disturbance, including interference with behavioral activities. 

Wildlife could respond in various ways, including attraction, 

habituation, and avoidance. Principal sources of noise would 

include vehicle traffic and operation of machinery. Regular or 

periodic noise could cause adjacent areas to be less attractive to 
February 2012

2-29 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Ecological 

Resources (Cont.)

wildlife and result in a long-term reduction in use. Construction 

activities could result in the direct injury or death of certain wildlife 

species. Wildlife could also be exposed to accidental fuel spills or 

releases of other hazardous materials.

No aquatic habitats are located within the footprint of the areas 

that will be cleared for the proposed facility, and no significant 

adverse impacts on aquatic biota are expected from construction 

activities.

No impacts would be expected on any Federally listed threatened, 

endangered, or other special status species from construction 

activities. Similarly, no impacts would be expected on any Statelisted species.

During operation, impacts on vegetation would include moving, 

hand-cutting, and chemical control of vegetation around the 

proposed facility, support facilities, utility corridors, and access 

road. No effects on vegetation would be expected from the 

cooling tower or air emissions, wastewaters, and solid wastes 

generated during operation. It is unlikely that radionuclide 

releases would have adverse effects on ecological resources. 

Facility operation would not encroach upon or have any other 

adverse effect on wetlands. Impervious surfaces generally result 

in increased runoff and reduced infiltration, but routing drainage to 

the stormwater detention and retention basins would minimize the 

potential for wetland water-level fluctuations. No environmentally 

sensitive areas would be affected by operations. Potential 

impacts on wildlife from operations would include ongoing habitat 

disturbance (i.e., reduction, alteration, and fragmentation of 

habitat), and wildlife injury or mortality.

No natural water bodies occur within the immediate area of the 

proposed facility. During operations, aquatic habitats and biota 

could be affected by continued erosion and sedimentation and 
NUREG-1938

2-30 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Ecological 

Resources (Cont.)

exposure to contaminants. Increased liquid effluent discharges 

could increase turbidity and sedimentation until the stream 

channel adjusts. Wastewater would be treated to meet NPDES 

permit requirements, so aquatic biota would not be adversely 

affected. The potential exists for toxic materials (e.g., fuel, 

lubricants, and herbicides) to be accidentally introduced into 

aquatic habitats, but an uncontained spill would probably affect 

only a limited area, and lubricants and fuel would not be expected 

to enter wetlands or waterways (due to soil infiltration and the 

distance from the main work area to drainages). Only trace levels 

of radiological contamination would be released to surface waters 

during operation, so adverse radiological impacts on aquatic biota 

would not be expected.

No adverse impacts on threatened, endangered, or other special 

status species would be expected from facility operations due to 

the lack of suitable habitats within the immediate project area.

Most decontamination activities would occur inside buildings, so 

large-scale ecological resource impacts are not expected. 

Removal of facilities could affect vegetation adjacent to the 

facilities and cause offsite erosion and sedimentation. The plant 

community established where facilities are removed would depend 

on subsequent use of the project area, and revegetation of the 

removed facility areas could increase wildlife habitat diversity. 

Decommissioning activities are not expected to directly affect

wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. There would be a 

temporary increase in disturbance to wildlife associated with 

vehicle, equipment, and worker activities. Other potential impacts 

would include the disposal of solid wastes and hazardous 

materials and the remediation of any contaminated soils. After 

decommissioning is complete, there would be no fuel or chemical 

spills associated with the facility.
February 2012

2-31 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Ecological 

Resources (Cont.)

Impacts on wildlife from decommissioning are expected to be 

similar to those experienced during construction. Removal of 

wildlife habitat (primarily landscaped lawns) would have minor 

impacts on wildlife populations. There would be a temporary 

increase in noise and visual disturbance associated with the 

removal and subsequent restoration of facilities. Removal of the 

impervious areas would decrease runoff and discharge, ceasing 

impacts on aquatic biota. Decommissioning would not directly 

affect threatened, endangered, or other special status species.

Noise SMALL to MODERATE. Noise impacts associated with 

preconstruction activities would be short-term and limited to the 

immediate vicinity of the proposed GLE Facility. During 

construction, vehicular traffic to and from the proposed GLE 

Facility would generate intermittent noise along local roadways. 

However, the noise contribution from these sources would be 

limited to the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington Site. Major 

activities would include building construction and equipment 

installation. Potential noise impacts on the nearest subdivision 

would be moderate but temporary in nature when road 

construction (a preconstruction activity) occurs.

During GLE Facility operations, exterior equipment, such as 

pumps, heat pumps, transformers, and cooling towers would 

generate noise. Other sources of noise would include commuter 

vehicular and delivery truck traffic. Noise levels at the fenceline 

nearest to the Wooden Shoe residential subdivision would be 

below day and night ambient sound levels in compliance with the 

New Hanover County Noise Ordinance.

Most decontamination activities would occur inside the GLE 

Facility buildings. If decommissioning includes demolition, heavy 

construction equipment may be required. Salvaged materials and 

waste/debris would be hauled offsite by truck. Noise from truck 

traffic on site access roads would be comparable to that during 

construction. Noise levels at the fenceline from truck traffic on the 

North access road nearest the Wooden Shoe subdivision are

expected to be below the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance.

SMALL. Noise impacts associated w

activities would be short-term and lim

immediate vicinity of the proposed GL

the proposed GLE Facility would not 

noise from the existing GE operations 

Site would remain unchanged.
NUREG-1938

2-32 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Transportation SMALL to MODERATE. Preconstruction activities would have an 

impact on traffic conditions. These impacts would be short-term 

and limited to site access roads and roads in the vicinity of the 

Wilmington Site. Construction traffic involves the movement of 

personnel, equipment, and material to and from the proposed GLE 

Facility site, and the removal of construction debris and waste. 

The number of truck shipments will vary over the course of 

construction. Construction activities are estimated to add an 

average of approximately 35 trucks per day, with a small impact 

on local traffic. Prior to start up, an average increase of up to 

1428 daily trips by construction personnel is anticipated, with the 

heaviest traffic occurring in the immediate vicinity of the site 

entrance. Impacts on roads in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site 

could be SMALL to MODERATE; regional impacts are expected to 

be SMALL. Impacts would be reduced if shift changes did not 

coincide with peak traffic volume times.

GLE Facility operations would overlap with the construction period 

for 5–6 years, during which time vehicular traffic from commuting 

operations personnel would be combined with traffic from 

construction workers and shipments. An average of 

approximately six additional truck shipments per day to and from 

the Wilmington Site would occur during GLE Facility operations. 

The average number of workers (construction and operations 

personnel) commuting on a daily basis during start up and 

construction completion is anticipated to be 590, with about 350 

permanent operations personnel employed over the remainder of 

the operational period. The average number of additional daily 

vehicle trips from facility activities will increase by about 1239 at 

the Wilmington Site during joint construction and operations 

activities. Once construction is complete, the average number of 

daily trips associated with operations personnel is estimated to be 

approximately 735. The range of additional daily vehicle trips from

facility operations (735 to 1239) would have a MODERATE impact 

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

on traffic conditions. These impacts w

and limited to site access roads and r

of the Wilmington Site. Since the pro

would not be constructed, there would 

transportation impacts related to the p

Facility in the vicinity of the Wilmingto
February 2012

2-33 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Transportation

(Cont.)

on the local road network. However, the impact on regional traffic 

flow is expected to be SMALL.

Operations of the proposed GLE Facility will require the shipment 

(by truck) of various radioactive materials to and from the facility. 

Vehicle-related risks result from a vehicle moving from one 

location to another (independent of cargo characteristics), while 

cargo-related risk refers the risk from cargo being shipped. In the 

case of the uranium, cargo-related risks include exposure to 

ionizing radiation during normal transportation and accident 

conditions, as well as chemical hazards during accident 

conditions. Less than one latent cancer fatality is anticipated for 

the public and transportation crews from all shipments on an 

annual basis. No latent fatalities from vehicle emissions are 

anticipated on an annual basis.

Overall annual transportation accident impacts from the proposed 

action are expected to be SMALL. Chemical impacts would be 

negligible, as past analyses of depleted UF6 shipments have 

shown the estimates of irreversible adverse effects to be 

approximately 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than the estimates 

of public latent cancer fatalities from radiological accident 

exposure. No fatalities are expected from accidents (direct 

physical trauma) on an annual basis.

Initial decommissioning activities during the last year of operations 

would increase the total number of workers. The number of truck 

shipments to offsite locations during this period is expected to be 

approximately the same as during construction. Local and 

regional transportation impacts would be SMALL after operations 

cease due to the decrease in workers during decommissioning. 

Radioactive waste from decommissioning would be sent to the 

appropriate storage, treatment, and disposal facilities. Impacts 

from radioactive waste shipments would be SMALL due to the low 

levels of external radiation and the low number of shipments.
NUREG-1938

2-34 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Public and 

Occupational Health

SMALL. Occupational exposures during preconstruction would be 

minor and minimized using work practices and personal protective 

equipment. Preconstruction activities are not expected to cause 

any exceedances of ambient air quality criteria, with the possible 

exception of short-term criteria for particulate matter from fugitive 

dust. Occupational exposures during construction would be minor 

and minimized using work practices and personal protective 

equipment. Preconstruction activities are not expected to cause 

any exceedances of ambient air quality criteria, with the possible 

exception of short-term criteria for particulate matter from fugitive 

dust.

Construction activities would not generate radiological 

contamination but could disturb areas previously contaminated by 

past and current operations. Construction workers could also be 

exposed to emissions from the proposed GLE Facility during the 

overlap of construction and operation. The maximum possible 

dose would be a small fraction of background radiation exposure 

and less than 1 mSv per year (100 mrem per year). Dose to the 

offsite public would be significantly less, as there is no potential for 

measurable exposure from existing site contamination.

A total of 324 total recordable incidents, 197 lost workday 

incidents, and less than one fatal injury are projected for 38 years 

of GLE Facility operation. Lasers would normally be operated 

within enclosures and equipped with interlocks to prevent 

inadvertent worker exposure.

The greatest potential for occupational exposure in the main 

process building would be from connecting and disconnecting UF6

cylinders. Airborne concentrations of HF and uranyl fluoride inside 

facilities are expected to be insignificant, and workers would use 

ventilation equipment to minimize exposures. Concentrations 

near the release point could be as high as 10 percent of the 

SMALL. Occupational exposures dur

would be minor and minimized using 

personal protective equipment. Preco

are not expected to cause any excee

air quality criteria, with the possible e

term criteria for particulate matter from 

Since the proposed GLE Facility wou

constructed, public and occupational 

workers and the public would remain 
February 2012

2-35 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Public and 

Occupational Health

(Cont.)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

Permissible Exposure Limit and would be limited by ventilation 

equipment. Large volumes of UF6 would be present as feed and 

product material, but there would be no routine exposures to solid 

or liquid UF6. Exposure to industrial chemicals would be limited by 

minimizing airborne releases and use of protective equipment.

Potential long-term, low-level HF and uranium exposure to the 

public would be the primary offsite chemical exposures of concern. 

However, only minor quantities of UF6 or HF would escape the 

facility ventilation system, and the quantity of HF passing through 

the emissions control devices would be below levels established in 

the facility air permit and protective of public health. UF6 and HF 

levels at the site boundary and the location of the nearest resident 

would be lower than onsite levels. HF concentrations at all 

exposure locations are far below the most stringent state or 

Federal ambient air quality standards for the general public. No 

criteria air pollutants would be produced by the enrichment 

process.

Facility operation could result in radiation exposure to the public 

via uranium releases or direct external radiation exposure. UF6

gas released in the main process building would pass through a 

ventilation system to minimize external release. Liquid effluents 

would be treated and sampled to limit releases. Direct exposure 

to the public could occur from onsite uranium and transportation 

both onsite and offsite. Direct radiation and skyshine from 

airborne releases would be undetectable at offsite areas. The 

NRC public release limits for uranium in air and liquid effluents 

would be met.

Radioactive materials at the proposed GLE Facility would present 

the possibility for onsite members of the public to receive a direct 

radiation dose. Because of cylinder shielding and the distance to 
NUREG-1938

2-36 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Public and 

Occupational Health

(Cont.)

receptors, stored cylinders of depleted uranium are expected to 

have only a minor effect on the exposure rate at the site boundary.

Radioactive process wastewater would be collected and sampled 

before routing to a liquid effluent treatment system. Treated liquid 

effluent would be discharged to the existing final process lagoon 

facility. Water from the lagoon facility would be discharged 

through a permitted outfall to the site effluent channel. Sanitary 

wastewater would be treated in the existing sanitary wastewater 

treatment facility, and treated effluent would replace cooling tower 

blowdown. Stormwater runoff would drain into a stormwater wet 

detention basin before discharge. A separate holding pond would 

collect stormwater runoff from the UF6 storage pads, where the 

runoff would be monitored before discharge to the wet detention 

basin. Discharges from all liquid effluent streams would be 

released into the Wilmington Site effluent channel and flow to the 

Northeast Cape Fear River through Unnamed Tributary #1.

There are no public water intakes on the Northeast Cape Fear 

River downstream of the discharge point, so the only exposure 

pathways of concern are fish ingestion and those relating to 

recreational water use. Calculated doses to a maximally exposed 

individual and the surrounding population from liquid effluent 

releases are well below 1 millisievert per year.

Decommissioning plans would involve decontamination of 

structures and selected facilities to free-release levels before 

allowing them to remain in place for future use. Leaving the 

buildings would minimize the number of workers required for 

decommissioning, which would reduce the number of injuries 

compared to building removal. Occupational injuries would be 

reduced in number in accordance with the reduced effort required 

for decommissioning. Residual contamination would be 

decontaminated to free-release levels or removed from the site 

and disposed of in a low-level radioactive waste facility.
February 2012

2-37 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Public and 

Occupational Health

(Cont.)

The annual occupational dose during decontamination and 

decommissioning is expected to be in the range of 0.05–1.5 mSv

millisievert (5–150 mrem), which is comparable to the average 

dose from the operating fuel facilities (1.3–1.5 mSv

[130–150 mrem]). Therefore, the occupational dose during 

decontamination and decommissioning would be bounded by 

potential exposures during operations. Similar uranium handling 

would be involved during operations that purge the laserenrichment lines. Once this decontamination is completed, the 

remaining quantity of UF6 would be residual and significantly less 

than handled during operations. Because systems containing 

residual UF6 would be opened, decontaminated, and dismantled, 

an active environmental monitoring and dosimetry (external and 

internal) program would be conducted to maintain doses As Low 

As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). Chemical exposures would 

be similarly limited.

Waste Management SMALL. Preconstruction activities would occur and generate 

construction-related waste streams. Solid nonhazardous wastes 

generated during construction would be similar to wastes from 

other industrial construction sites and transported offsite to an 

approved local landfill. Construction activities would generate less 

than 2 percent of the waste that the New Hanover County Landfill 

receives annually from all other sources. Small quantities of 

organic solvent-based residuals could be used and may require 

management as hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes from 

construction would be packaged and shipped offsite to licensed 

facilities.

Facility operations would result in the generation of wastewaters 

that would be treated onsite before discharge and solid wastes 

that would be treated (onsite or offsite) and shipped for disposal 

offsite. Sanitary wastewater would be collected by a sewer 

system connected to the existing Wilmington Site sanitary 

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

generate construction-related waste s

proposed GLE Facility would not be c

would be no additional waste generat

Site beyond the waste generated by e

activities.
NUREG-1938

2-38 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Waste Management

(Cont.)

wastewater treatment facility, increasing the load on the existing 

system by about one-third. Treated sanitary wastewater effluent 

could be used as makeup water in onsite cooling towers. Should 

discharges to surface waters be necessary, the existing NPDES 

discharge permit would be adequate to cover the additional 

effluent volume. Cooling tower blowdown would be sent to the 

Wilmington Site’s final process lagoons. Radioactive process 

wastewater from facility operations would be collected and treated 

to remove uranium, other metals, and fluoride. The treated 

effluent would be discharged to the process wastewater aeration 

basin and final process lagoon facility. Impacts from radiological 

exposure to depleted UF6 in the cylinder storage pad would be 

SMALL, and impacts from the conversion of depleted UF6

generated by the proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL.

The waste management facilities used during operations would 

also be used during decontamination and decommissioning. With 

the decrease in workers from operations to decommissioning, 

sanitary wastewater treatment volumes would decline. Materials 

and equipment eligible for recycling or nonhazardous disposal 

would be sampled or surveyed to ensure that contaminant levels 

are below release limits. Buildings and other structures would be 

decontaminated and the debris shipped offsite for disposal. 

Radioactive material from decontamination and contaminated 

equipment would be packaged and shipped offsite to an 

appropriately licensed disposal facility. Staging and laydown 

areas would be segregated and managed to prevent 

contamination of the environment and creation of additional 

wastes.
February 2012

2-39 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Socioeconomics SMALL. Preconstruction activities would increase the number of 

onsite construction workers resulting in a short-term increase in 

the demand for rental housing and public services in the vicinity of 

the Wilmington Site. Two types of jobs would be created by the 

proposed action: (1) construction and start-up related jobs, which 

are transient, short in duration, and less likely to have a long-term 

socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related jobs in support of 

the proposed GLE Facility operations, which have the greater 

potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts within 

the socioeconomic region of influence (ROI). The ROI covers 

three counties in North Carolina – Brunswick County, New 

Hanover County, and Pender County. During the peak year of 

construction (2012), 680 construction workers would be at the 

proposed GLE Facility site and there would be an additional 

3131 indirect jobs created in the ROI. Construction activities 

would generate $139.8 million in income in the ROI, including 

$1.7 million in State income taxes and $1.2 million in State sales 

taxes. The number of construction workers relocating from 

outside the region could cause a short-term increase in the 

demand for temporary (rental) housing and services in the ROI.

Facility start-up activities would create 200 new jobs in the ROI. 

Start-up activities would generate $28.0 million in income in the 

ROI, including $1.3 million in State income taxes and $0.92 million 

in State sales taxes. Again, the number of start-up workers

relocating from outside the region could cause a short-term 

increase in the demand for temporary (rental) housing and 

services in the ROI.

GLE Facility operations would create 350 new jobs in the ROI and 

would generate $51.5 million in income in the ROI, including $2.3

million in State income taxes and $1.7 million in State sales taxes. 

The number of GLE Facility operations workers relocating from 

outside the region could affect local housing markets and increase 

the demand for public services. However, the relatively small 

SMALL. Preconstruction activities wo

number of onsite construction worker

short-term increase in the demand fo

public services in the vicinity of the W

Since the proposed GLE Facility wou

constructed, population and employm

would change in accordance with cur
NUREG-1938

2-40 February 2012

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Socioeconomics

(Cont.)

number of operations workers (161 to 210) estimated to relocate 

to the ROI would limit the impact.

Decontamination and decommissioning activities in the first year 

would create 50 new jobs at the GLE Facility site. 

Decommissioning would generate $6.1 million in income in the 

ROI in the first year. Facility decommissioning would produce less 

than $0.3 million in direct State income taxes and less than $0.2 

million in direct State sales taxes. Decommissioning activities 

would constitute less than 1 percent of total ROI employment in 

the first year.

Environmental 

Justice

Under the proposed action, preconstruction activities would result 

in impacts on minority and low-income populations, mostly 

consisting of environmental and socioeconomic effects

(e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). 

Noise and dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite 

activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic 

during shift changes. Increased demand for rental housing could 

disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, due to 

the short duration of preconstruction activities and the availability 

of rental housing, impacts to minority and low-income populations 

would be short-term and limited. The majority of environmental 

impacts associated with the construction and operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL to MODERATE (SMALL 

for all resource areas during decommissioning) and would 

generally be mitigated. Because impacts to the general 

population within 4 miles of the proposed facility would be SMALL 

to MODERATE, the various phases of facility development are not 

expected to result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts 

on low-income or minority residents. 

Even when environmental impacts are anticipated to be SMALL 

for the general population, some population groups, such as those 

Potential impacts on minority and low

from preconstruction activities would 

environmental and socioeconomic eff

dust, traffic, employment, and housin

and dust impacts would be short-term 

onsite activities. Minority and low-inc

residing along site access roads coul

increased commuter vehicle traffic du

Increased demand for rental housing 

preconstruction could disproportionat

income populations. However, due to 

of the preconstruction activities and th

rental housing, impacts on minority a

populations would be short-term and 

proposed GLE Facility would not be c

would be no further impacts on minor

populations residing in the vicinity of t
February 2012

2-41 NUREG-1938

Table 2-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Proposed GLE Facility and the No-Action Alt

Affected 

Environment

Proposed Action:

GLE would construct, operate, and decommission the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

No-Action Alternat

The proposed GLE Facility would n

Environmental 

Justice (Cont.)

participating in subsistence hunting and fishing could experience 

disproportionate exposure. However, air and liquid radiological 

releases from the proposed GLE Facility are projected to be 

extremely low, and exposure through fish consumption would be 

even lower. Preconstruction, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility is not expected to 

result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority, 

low-income, or subsistence consumption populations.

The no-action alternative would not h

disproportionately high and adverse h

environmental effects on minority and 

populations residing in the vicinity of t

Accidents SMALL. Representative accident scenarios vary in severity from 

intermediate- to high-consequence events and include accidents 

initiated by natural phenomena, operator error, and equipment 

failure. Two of the accidents involve criticality and the other three 

involve the release of UF6. If the higher consequence criticality 

accident were to occur, the consequence for a worker in close 

proximity would be high (fatality), but GLE has committed to 

various preventive and mitigating measures to significantly reduce 

these consequences. Worker radiological health consequences 

are low for scenarios involving the release of UF6. Worker health 

consequences are low to high for scenarios involving HF 

exposure, and intermediate to high for scenarios involving uranium 

chemical exposure. Radiological consequences to a maximally 

exposed individual at the Controlled Area Boundary are low for the 

criticality accidents and all UF6 release scenarios. Chemical 

consequences at the Controlled Area Boundary are low to 

intermediate for uranium and HF exposure scenarios. Risk to the 

offsite public in the direction of highest exposure is estimated to be 

less than one lifetime cancer fatality for all accident scenarios.

Plant design, passive and active engineered controls, and 

administrative controls would reduce the likelihood of accidents. 

Therefore, the probability-weighted consequence (or risk) from 

accidents under these conditions is expected to be SMALL. No 

facility accidents would occur after the cessation of operations, so 

there would be no potential for facility accidents during 

decommissioning.

SMALL. The proposed GLE Facility w

constructed, so there would be no po

accidents during decommissioning.
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-42 February 2012

of UF6. The range of alternatives was determined by considering the underlying purpose and 

need for the proposed action. Specifically, the range of alternatives was determined by 

considering other ways to provide enriched uranium to fulfill electricity generation requirements 

and provide reliable and economic domestic supplies of enriched uranium for national energy 

security. This analysis led to the following set of alternatives:

• alternative sites outside of the Wilmington Site

• alternative sites within the Wilmington Site

• alternative sources of low-enriched uranium

• alternative technologies available for uranium enrichment

These alternatives – with the exception of gas centrifuge – were considered but eliminated from 

further analysis due to economic, environmental, national security, or technological maturity. 

The following sections discuss these alternatives and the reasons the NRC eliminated them 

from further consideration. The gas centrifuge alternative is discussed in Section 2.3.4.

2.3.1 Alternative Sites

This section discusses GLE’s site-selection process, identifies the candidate sites for the 

proposed GLE Facility, and discusses the criteria used in the selection process. GLE undertook 

a site-selection process to identify viable locations for the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008), 

which yielded one alternate candidate site (Morris, Illinois) in addition to the proposed site. The 

details of these two sites are discussed below.

Since many environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced through proper site 

selection, the NRC reviewed the GLE site-selection process to determine if a site considered by 

GLE was obviously superior to the proposed site in Wilmington, North Carolina (NRC, 2002). 

The NRC has determined that the process used by GLE is rational and objective, and that its 

results are reasonable. None of the candidate sites was obviously superior to the GLE 

preferred site in Wilmington, North Carolina.

2.3.1.1 Alternative Sites Outside of the Wilmington Site

GLE considered two approaches for the examination of alternate candidate sites: (1) the 

purchase of undeveloped land (i.e., an undisturbed “greenfield” site) and (2) colocation at an 

existing nuclear facility site or at a site that has been previously considered for a nuclear facility 

(including sites where planning and construction of a nuclear facility were halted). Due to the 

environmental advantages, and for commercial reasons (including scheduling considerations), 

GLE focused on the second approach (GLE, 2008). These advantages include previous 

selection as environmentally suitable sites (and possibly superior, as compared to others in the 

surrounding region), vetting as reasonable candidates through previous site studies and 

regulatory licensing proceedings, community support, and existing nuclear operations 

infrastructure (GLE, 2008). The availability of existing infrastructure likely reduces the amount 

of land disturbance and the resulting environmental impacts.
Alternatives

February 2012 2-43 NUREG-1938

GLE Site-Selection Process

GLE evaluated 22 sites throughout the eastern United States. The site-selection process, used 

to locate a suitable site for construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE 

Facility, was based on various technical, safety, economic, and environmental factors. A multiattribute utility-analysis methodology was used for site selection that incorporated all of these 

factors to assess the relative benefits of a site with multiple, often competing, objectives or 

criteria. Figure 2-4 shows the site-selection process used by GLE and the results from the 

application of the process (GLE, 2008).

The GLE multi-step site-selection process consisted of:

• identification of candidate sites

• initial screening

• coarse screening

• site-reconnaissance visits

• fine screening

• qualitative cost-benefit analysis

Because most of the fuel-cycle facilities and ports of entry for feed material are located in the 

eastern United States or Ontario, Canada, and because the material would be transported by 

truck within the borders of the United States, GLE chose its region of interest for the purposes of 

site selection to be the area inside a 600-mi radius that encompasses the locations of the 

operating fuel-cycle facilities in the eastern United States (Figure 2-5). It follows, for GLE’s 

analysis, that the Richland, Washington, facility was excluded due to its distant location.

The 22 candidate sites considered by GLE are listed in Table 2-4. Initial screening included 

evaluation of “Go/No Go” criteria, including the impacts and hazards from seismic zones, 

proximity to Quaternary fault zones, and flood potential. This initial screening resulted in 

elimination of three sites from further consideration, all due to their location within a seismic 

hazard zone: Westinghouse Electric Company (Columbia, South Carolina); Honeywell 

Specialty Chemicals/ConverDyn (Metropolis, Illinois); and the DOE site in Paducah, Kentucky

(GLE, 2008).

Coarse screening criteria – also “Go/No Go” – included sufficient land availability, government 

ownership, potential litigation or political opposition, and Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund or RCRA Corrective Action 

status. Government-owned sites were eliminated due to anticipated delays in the potential 

acquisition of public property, and CERCLA Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action sites were 

similarly eliminated due to anticipated difficulties with land purchase and transfer (GLE, 2008). 

Worker safety would also present an issue for these sites, due to the presence of hazardous 

substances. Application of the coarse screening criteria resulted in the elimination of 16 sites; 

one due to insufficient land availability, ten due to government ownership, four due to potential 

litigation or political opposition, and four due to CERCLA Superfund or RCRA Corrective Action 

status (three of which are also government-owned).
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-44 February 2012

Figure 2-4 GLE Site-Selection Results Summary (GLE, 2008)
Alternatives

February 2012 2-45 NUREG-1938

Figure 2-5 Candidate Sites for the Proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008)

At the conclusion of the coarse screening evaluation, three sites remained: the GE site in 

Wilmington, North Carolina (the proposed site); the GE-owned site in Morris, Illinois; and the 

Duke Energy site in Cherokee, South Carolina.

As indicated in Figure 2-3, GLE evaluated the three remaining sites in a subsequent sitereconnaissance step. The GLE team visited all three sites to identify potential issues that 

contributed to the “Go/No Go” decision. Among the factors considered were additional planned 

land use, physical layout of existing facilities and infrastructure, current and future plans at the 

site, and potential complications related to properties adjacent to the site. Based on these 

considerations, GLE determined that Duke Energy’s plans for the Cherokee site (specifically, 

the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant) were not compatible with GLE’s 

plans and needs for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of an enrichment facility. 

Therefore, the Cherokee site was eliminated from further consideration.

GLE evaluated the final two candidate sites (the Wilmington Site and the 889-acre [356 hectare] 

Morris site), including multi-attribute decision analysis based on a set of fine screening criteria 

and a cost-benefit analysis. The fine screening criteria were grouped around four general 

clusters as shown below. Weighting factors were derived by a panel of experts considering a 

set of subcriteria for each of the four clusters. These subcriteria are listed below under each 

cluster. In most cases, the subcriteria are further subdivided into finer criteria. For example, the 
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-46 February 2012

Table 2-4 Candidate Sites Considered for the Proposed GLE Facility

Site Name

Existing 

Nuclear 

Facility

Description Owner/Operator

Bailly, IN No The site had a construction permit to build 

a nuclear power plant, which was 

cancelled in 1981. After long delays and 

growing local opposition, the Northern 

Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSC) 

ended the controversy by canceling plans 

to build the nuclear plant at the Bailly Site.

Northern Indiana Public 

Service Company 

(NIPSC)

Barnwell, SC Yes Low-level waste disposal facility. State of South Carolina/

Energy Solutions

Bellefonte, AL Yes Uncompleted nuclear power plant (in the 

Final Environmental Assessment, the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), in 

2006, reported that it approved the 

cancellation of the BLN construction 

project pending NRC notification). The 

BLN plant site now is under consideration 

as the location of an advanced boiling 

water reactor. In October 2007, TVA 

submitted a combined license application 

for proposed Bellefonte Nuclear Station 

Units 3 and 4.

Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Cherokee, SC No The site had a construction permit under 

review, which was cancelled 1982–1983. 

In December 2007, Duke Energy filed a 

combined license application for proposed 

Units 1 and 2 at the William States Lee III 

Nuclear Site (formerly called the Cherokee 

Site).

Duke Energy

Clinch River 

Industrial Site, TN

No Clinch River Breeder Reactor project was 

cancelled in 1983. The 687-ha (1700-ac) 

area is adjacent to the Clinch River, 

approximately 21 km (13 mi) west of Oak 

Ridge, and is partially developed and for 

sale by the TVA.

Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Columbia, SC Yes Active uranium fuel-fabrication facility. Westinghouse Electric 

Company

Erwin, TN Yes Active uranium fuel-fabrication facility. Nuclear Fuel Services, 

Inc.

Forked River, NJ No The site had a construction permit, which 

was cancelled in 1980. The 266-ha 

(657-ac) area is adjacent to the Oyster 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(OCNGS).

AmerGen Energy 

Company, LLC
Alternatives

February 2012 2-47 NUREG-1938

Table 2-4 Candidate Sites Considered for the Proposed GLE Facility (Cont.)

Site Name

Existing 

Nuclear 

Facility

Description Owner/Operator

Hartsville, TN No The site had a construction permit, which 

was cancelled in 1982–1984. In August 

2003, Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. 

(LES) ended efforts to build a uraniumenrichment facility in Tennessee (zoning 

approval issues due to local opposition to 

proposed facility).

Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Lynchburg, VA Yes Active uranium fuel-fabrication facilities. 

The Mount Athos site consists of the 

following facilities: the BWXT Nuclear 

Products Division (NPD) and AREVA NP. 

The NPD is a manufacturer of nuclear 

components for government agencies and 

the DOE. In addition, the NPD operates a 

uranium-recovery facility and a uraniumdownblending facility.

AREVA NP, Inc./BWX 

Technologies, Inc.

Marble Hill, IN No The site had a construction permit, which 

was cancelled in 1985 due to cost 

overrun. In 1998, PSI Energy sold the 

property to Debbie and Dean Ford, who 

sold some buildings to a Michigan 

company in 2005.

Debbie and Dean Ford

Metropolis, IL Yes Active uranium hexafluoride production 

(conversion) facility. 10-year license 

renewal was issued in May 2007.

Honeywell Specialty 

Chemicals/ConverDyn

Midland, MI No The site had a construction permit, which 

was cancelled in 1986. The unfinished 

Midland Nuclear Power Plant was 

converted to a combined-cycle, naturalgas-fired cogeneration facility.

MCV Power Partners, 

Inc.

Morris, IL Yes Spent-fuel storage facility. Near Dresden 

Reactors.

GE Company

Oak Ridge, TN Yes Nuclear research facility. DOE

Paducah, KY Yes Gaseous-diffusion plant. DOE/U.S. Enrichment 

Corporation

Phipps Bend, TN No The site had a construction permit, which 

was cancelled in 1982. The reactor was 

demolished.

Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Portsmouth/Piketon, 

OH

Yes Existing gaseous-diffusion plant; gas 

centrifuge plant under construction.

DOE
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-48 February 2012

Table 2-4 Candidate Sites Considered for the Proposed GLE Facility (Cont.)

Site Name

Existing 

Nuclear 

Facility

Description Owner/Operator

Savannah River, SC Yes Nuclear materials processing center. DOE

Sterling, NY No The site had a construction permit, which 

was cancelled in 1980. Adjacent to 

operational nuclear power plant 

(FitzPatrick, Oswego, NY). Cayuga 

County purchased the property in 1994 

and opened the Sterling Nature Center.

Cayuga County

Wilmington, NC Yes Active uranium fuel-fabrication facility. GE Company

Yellow Creek, MS No The site had a construction permit, which 

was cancelled in 1984.

Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Source: GLE, 2008.

subcriterion listed as water resources under the “Impacts to the Environment” cluster was 

divided into physical surface water impacts, water quality impacts, and water quantity impacts 

(GLE, 2008). 

1. Impacts to the Environment (weighting factor = 0.27)

• public health and safety

• socioeconomic impacts

• ecology

• water resources

• air quality

• noise

• historic and archeological sites

• visual impacts

2. Impacts to the Facility (weighting factor = 0.25)

• geologic hazards

• colocated or nearby hazardous land uses

• meteorology and climatology

• wildfires

3. Impacts to Time and Cost (weighting factor = 0.24)

• contamination

• existing infrastructure

• colocation

• site physical characteristics

• site development

4. Employment and Stakeholders (weighting factor = 0.24)

• stakeholder support

• labor force
Alternatives

February 2012 2-49 NUREG-1938

Using site-specific data, GLE ranked the two sites based on the above criteria and weighting 

factors. The results of this evaluation are discussed below and shown in Table 2-5. The 

Wilmington Site ranked more favorably in the “Impacts to the Environment,” “Impacts to Time 

and Cost,” and “Employment and Stakeholders” clusters, whereas the Morris site ranked more 

favorably in the “Impacts to Facility” category (GLE, 2008). Overall, the weighted scores for the 

Wilmington and Morris sites were 0.525 and 0.475, respectively.

GLE performed a qualitative cost-benefit analysis between the two sites, which indicated that 

the net benefits of locating the proposed GLE Facility at the Wilmington Site were slightly higher 

than those associated with locating the same facility at the Morris site (GLE, 2008). GLE 

determined that its costs would be somewhat less at the Wilmington Site than at the Morris site. 

This was due to lower labor cost in the Wilmington area and the fact that the colocated 

GE/GNF-A conversion and fuel fabrication facility would be one of the primary customers of the 

proposed GLE Facility, thus reducing transportation costs (GLE, 2008).

Based on the above assessment, the NRC has determined that the GLE site selection process 

has a rational, objective structure and is reasonable. None of the candidate sites was obviously 

superior to the GLE preferred site in Wilmington, North Carolina; therefore, no other site was 

selected for further analysis.

2.3.1.2 Alternative Locations at the Wilmington Site

GLE evaluated alternative locations at the Wilmington Site in North Carolina and selected the 

proposed location because, compared to other potential onsite locations, the proposed site 

would result in fewer environmental impacts. GLE concluded that the proposed site would 

result in fewer impacts to the floodplain of the North Cape Fear River (Figure 3-9). The 

proposed site also minimizes impacts on or avoids surface water features, wetlands, and rare 

ecological resources (Figure 3-8 and Section 3.8). Of the remaining site areas, GLE found the 

proposed location to be most suitable for accommodating the footprint (construction and 

laydown areas) of the proposed GLE Facility (Figure 2-2). Most of the Eastern Site Sector is 

populated by existing development. The NRC reviewed the alternative locations at the 

Wilmington Site and concurred that the proposed facility site would result in the fewer impacts to 

wetlands, streams, and ecological resources.

Table 2-5 Ranking Results for the Sites in Morris, Illinois, and

Wilmington, North Carolina

Criterion Morris, IL, Site Wilmington, NC, Site

Intermediate Unweighted Scores:

Impacts to Environment 0.484 0.516

Impacts to the Facility 0.592 0.408

Impacts to Time and Cost 0.378 0.622

Employment and Stakeholders 0.439 0.561

Final Weighted Score 0.475 0.525
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-50 February 2012

2.3.2 Alternative Sources of Low-Enriched Uranium

The NRC examined three alternatives to fulfill U.S. domestic enrichment needs (as summarized 

below). These alternatives were eliminated from further consideration for reasons summarized 

below.

2.3.2.1 Re-Activate the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Facility at Piketon

In 2001, USEC closed the Portsmouth GDP in Piketon, Ohio, to reduce operating costs 

(DOE, 2003). USEC cited long-term financial benefits, more attractive power price 

arrangements, operational flexibility for power adjustments, and a history of reliable operations 

as reasons for choosing to continue operations at the Paducah GDP. In a June 2000 press 

release, USEC explained that it “clearly could not continue to operate two production facilities.” 

Key business factors in USEC’s decision to reduce operations to a single production plant 

included long-term and short-term power costs, operational performance and reliability, design 

and material condition of the plants, risks associated with meeting customer orders on time, and 

other factors relating to assay levels, financial results, and new technology issues 

(USEC, 2000).

The NRC does not believe that there has been any significant change in the factors that were 

considered by USEC in its decision to cease uranium enrichment at the Portsmouth GDP. The 

staff’s view is based on the following factors:

• the gaseous diffusion technology is substantially more energy-intensive than other 

enrichment technologies, and the higher energy consumption results in larger indirect 

impacts, especially those impacts that are attributable to significantly higher electricity 

usage (e.g., air emissions from coal-fired electricity generation plants) (DOE, 1995).

• the age of the existing plant also calls into question its overall reliability.

• DOE has awarded a contract to decommission the plant (DOE, 2010) and the first 

buildings have been de-leased back to DOE for decommissioning (NRC, 2010b). 

Additionally, in October 2011, the Certificate of Compliance for Portsmouth GDP was 

terminated by NRC (NRC, 2011b).

Therefore, this proposed alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

2.3.2.2 Downblending Highly Enriched Uranium

Under this alternative, a domestic uranium enrichment plant would not be constructed to replace 

existing production. Instead, an equivalent amount of SWU would be obtained from 

downblending highly enriched uranium from either United States or Russian nuclear warheads. 

This alternative was eliminated because U.S. reliance on foreign sources of enrichment 

services, as an alternative to the proposed action, would not meet the national energy policy 

objective of a “viable, competitive, domestic uranium enrichment industry for the foreseeable 

future” (DOE, 2000). Also, it does not meet the need for a reliable source of enriched uranium, 

as discussed in Section 1.3. Furthermore, the Megatons to Megawatts downblending 

agreement is set to expire in 2013.
Alternatives

February 2012 2-51 NUREG-1938

2.3.2.3 Purchase Low-Enriched Uranium from Foreign Sources

There are several potential sources of enrichment services worldwide. However, U.S. reliance 

on foreign sources of enrichment services, as an alternative to the proposed action, would not 

meet the national energy policy objective of a “viable, competitive, domestic uranium enrichment 

industry for the foreseeable future” (DOE, 2000). For this reason, the NRC does not consider 

that this alternative meets the need for the proposed action, and therefore, has eliminated it 

from further study.

2.3.3 Alternative Technologies for Enrichment

A number of different processes have been invented for enriching uranium; only three (gaseous 

diffusion, gas centrifuge, and laser excitation) are considered candidates for commercial use, 

and of those, only the gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuge technologies have been deployed 

for large-scale industrial use. Other technologies – namely, electromagnetic isotope separation, 

liquid thermal diffusion, and early-generation laser enrichment – have proven too costly to 

operate, remain at the research and laboratory developmental scale, or in the case of laserenrichment have been superseded by a more advanced technology. All of these technologies 

are discussed below.

2.3.3.1 Electromagnetic Isotope Separation Process

Figure 2-6 shows a sketch of the electromagnetic isotope separation process. In this process, a 

monoenergetic beam of ions of normal uranium travels between the poles of a magnet. The 

magnetic field causes the beam to split into several streams according to the mass of the 

isotope. Each isotope has a different radius of curvature and follows a slightly different path. 

Collection cups at the ends of the semicircular trajectories catch the homogenous streams. 

Because the energy requirements for this process proved very high – in excess of 3000 kilowatt 

hours per SWU – and production was very slow (Heilbron et al., 1981), electromagnetic isotope 

separation was not considered viable and has been removed from further consideration.

2.3.3.2 Liquid Thermal Diffusion

Figure 2-7 is a diagram of the liquid thermal diffusion process, which was investigated in the 

1940s. It is based on the concept that a temperature gradient across a thin layer of liquid or gas 

causes thermal diffusion that separates isotopes of 

differing masses. When a thin, vertical column is 

cooled on one side and heated on the other, thermal 

convection currents are generated and the material 

flows upward along the heated side and downward 

along the cooled side. Under these conditions, the 

lighter UF6 molecules diffuse toward the warmer 

surface and heavier UF6 molecules concentrate near 

the cooler side. The combination of this thermal 

diffusion and the thermal convection currents causes 

the lighter uranium-235 molecules to concentrate on 

top of the thin column while the heavier uranium-238 

goes to the bottom. Taller columns produce better 

separation. Eventually, a facility using this process 

Figure 2-6 Electromagnetic Isotopic 

Separation Process (Milani, 2005)
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-52 February 2012

was designed and constructed at Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, but it was closed after about a year of 

operation because of cost and maintenance 

concerns (Settle, 2004). Based on high operating 

costs and high maintenance requirements, the liquid 

thermal diffusion process has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

2.3.3.3 Gaseous Diffusion Process

The gaseous diffusion process is based on molecular 

effusion, a process that occurs whenever a gas is 

separated from a vacuum by a porous barrier. The 

gas flows from the high-pressure side to the lowpressure side. The rate of effusion of a gas through 

a porous barrier is inversely proportional to the 

square root of its mass. Thus, lighter molecules pass 

through the barrier faster than heavier ones. 

Figure 2-8 is a diagram of a single gas diffusion 

stage. The gaseous diffusion process consists of 

thousands of individual stages connected in series to 

multiply the separation factor.

Gaseous diffusion is the only enrichment 

technology in commercial use in the United States, 

but it has relatively large resource requirements. 

The Paducah GDP contains 1760 enrichment 

stages and is designed to produce UF6 enriched 

up to 5.5 percent uranium-235. The design 

capacity of the Paducah GDP is approximately 

8 million SWU per year, but it has never operated 

at greater than 5.5 million SWU. Paducah 

consumes approximately 2200 kilowatt hours per 

kilogram of SWU (DOE, 2000). DOE anticipates 

“the inevitable cessation of all domestic gaseous 

diffusion enrichment operations” due to the higher 

cost of aging diffusion facilities (DOE, 2001). Therefore, GDP has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

2.3.3.4 Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation

The Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) process, shown in Figure 2-9, is based on 

the circumstance that different isotopes of the same element, though chemically identical, have 

different electronic energies and absorb different colors of laser light. The isotopes of most 

elements can be separated by a laser-based process, if they can be efficiently vaporized into 

individual atoms or molecules. In AVLIS, uranium metal is vaporized, and the vapor stream is 

illuminated with a laser light of a specific wavelength that is absorbed only by uranium-235. The 

laser selectively adds enough energy to ionize or remove an electron from uranium-235 atoms, 

Figure 2-7 Liquid Thermal Diffusion 

Process (NRC, 2005b)

Figure 2-8 Gaseous Diffusion Stage 

(NRC, 2009b)
Alternatives

February 2012 2-53 NUREG-1938

while leaving the other isotopes unaffected. The 

ionized uranium-235 atoms are then collected on 

negatively charged surfaces inside the separator unit. 

The collected material (enriched product) is 

condensed as a liquid on the charged surfaces and 

then drains to a caster, where it solidifies as metal 

nuggets.

The high separation factor in AVLIS means fewer 

stages to achieve a given enrichment, lower energy 

consumption, and smaller waste volume. However, 

budget constraints compelled USEC to discontinue 

development of the U.S. AVLIS program in 1999 

(USEC, 1999). Because development of the AVLIS process was not continued, and the 

technology has been superseded by the laser-based technology proposed by GLE, it has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

2.3.3.5 Molecular Laser Isotope Separation

Like AVLIS, the Molecular Laser Isotope Separation (MLIS) process uses a tuned laser to excite 

uranium-235 molecules in the UF6 feed gas. A second laser then dissociates excited molecules 

into UF5 and free fluorine atoms. The enriched UF5

then precipitates and is filtered as a powder from the 

feed gas. Each stage of enrichment requires 

conversion of enriched UF5 back to UF6. The 

advantages of MLIS include low power consumption 

and the use of UF6 as a process gas. However, it is 

less efficient and up to four times more energyintensive than AVLIS. Therefore, all countries except 

Japan have discontinued development of MLIS. 

Because development of the MLIS process was not 

continued, and the technology has been superseded 

by the laser-based technology proposed by GLE, it 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

2.3.4 Gas Centrifuge

Figure 2-10 shows the basic components of the gas 

centrifuge enrichment process, which is a secondgeneration mechanical technology. A centrifuge 

consists of a large rotating cylinder (rotor) with piping 

to feed UF6 gas into the centrifuge, and then withdraw 

enriched and depleted UF6 gas streams. The rotor 

spins at high speed inside a protective casing, which 

maintains a vacuum around the rotor and provides 

physical containment of the rotor in the event of a 

major machine failure (NRC, 2006).

Figure 2-9 Atomic Vapor Laser 

Isotope Separation Process 

(Hargrove, 2000)

Figure 2-10 Schematic of a Gas 

Centrifuge (NRC, 2009b)
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-54 February 2012

The enrichment level achieved by a single centrifuge is not sufficient to obtain the desired 

concentration of uranium-235 in a single step; therefore, a number of centrifuges are connected 

in series to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope. Additionally, a single 

centrifuge (or series of centrifuges) cannot process a sufficient volume for commercial 

production, which makes it necessary to connect multiple centrifuges in parallel to increase the 

volume flow rate. The arrangement of centrifuges connected in series to achieve higher 

enrichment and in parallel for increased volume is known as a “cascade” (NRC, 2006).

As discussed in Section 2.2, three other commercial entities are pursuing the gas centrifuge 

technology for enrichment of uranium in the United States. GLE has selected the laser-based 

technology and eliminated the gas centrifuge technology from consideration based on the 

reasons described in Section 1.3.3. These reasons relate primarily to GLE’s belief that the 

proposed technology will result in lower cost and smaller environmental impacts when 

compared to the gas centrifuge technology (GLE, 2008).

The NRC recognizes that the gas centrifuge technology is commercially viable and is a 

reasonable alternative to the proposed laser-based technology. The impacts associated with 

the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a gas centrifuge enrichment facility were 

analyzed by NRC in three previous EISs (NRC, 2005b; NRC, 2006; NRC, 2011a). In those 

EISs, the NRC concluded that the impacts associated with the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the NEF in Lea County, New Mexico; the ACP in Piketon, Ohio; and the 

EREF in Bonneville County, Idaho; were acceptable for licensing those facilities, unless safety 

issues mandated otherwise. Based on NRC’s safety and environmental reviews, all of these

facilities were granted licenses.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to analyze and disclose the 

impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Therefore, 

NRC has provided a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of gas centrifuge and 

laser technologies (see comparison in Table 2-6). The comparison is necessarily qualitative 

because, in order to compare the two technologies in a quantitative sense, comparable designs 

at the same site and with the same throughput would be required. There is no comparable 

design for a gas centrifuge facility at the Wilmington Site.

The sources of information used by NRC to generate Table 2-6 include Table 2-3 (which 

includes a more detailed summary of impacts for each resource area for the proposed GLE 

Facility) and the environmental reports submitted by GLE (GLE, 2008) and AREVA 

(AES, 2009). This information is relevant because the EREF and the proposed GLE Facility 

have about the same output (design capacities of 6.6 million SWU per year and 6 million SWU 

per year, respectively). The NRC also used information from the NEF and ACP environmental 

reviews (LES, 2005; USEC, 2005; NRC, 2005b; NRC, 2006), along with professional judgment, 

in preparing the comparison table. Comparing the environmental impacts of different facilities 

with different designs and different throughputs built at different sites that have varying degrees 

of pre-existing infrastructure carries a high level of uncertainty. As a result, Table 2-6 is 

intended to identify potential differences in environmental impacts that may occur if an 

enrichment facility based on the gas centrifuge technology were to be constructed, operated, 

and decommissioned at GE’s Wilmington, North Carolina, site instead of the proposed laserbased technology.
February 2012

2-55 NUREG-1938

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Land Use The fenced-in area would be approximately 40 ha (100 ac). The 

disturbed area (roads, parking lots, utilities, etc.) would be 

approximately 91 ha (226 ac). Construction would affect land use 

patterns within the proposed facility footprint, but would not alter the 

overall current land use at the Wilmington Site or affect surrounding 

land use. Facility operations would be consistent with other industrial 

activities at the Wilmington Site. Decommissioning would not alter the 

use of the property or land use on adjacent properties.

The area occupied by a gas centrifuge 

with the same production capacity wou

greater than the area occupied by the 

proposed GLE Facility. It is not clear w

the increase in area would be. Similar 

proposed action, construction would a

land use patterns, but would not alter t

overall current land use at the Wilming

Site or affect surrounding land use. Ba

on a review of the designs and area 

requirements of plants that use the ga

centrifuge technology, it appears that t

area required for a centrifuge plant at t

Wilmington Site could be 2–3 times lar

than the area occupied by the propose

Facility. Similarly, the disturbed area f

construction and decommissioning of a 

centrifuge plant could be approximatel

times greater. Facility operations wou

consistent with existing activities at the 

Wilmington Site.

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources

Most impacts would occur prior to construction. While there is 

potential for ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas, no 

construction activities are expected to occur in the portion of the 

Wilmington Site where historic and cultural resources are known to 

exist.

GLE Facility operation has the potential to affect historic and cultural 

resources, but impacts are not expected. While GLE has no plans to 

alter the site during operations, there is a high potential for additional 

historic and cultural resources to be discovered during routine 

maintenance activities. GLE has developed procedures for 

addressing unanticipated discovery of human remains or artifacts. 

The consideration of historic and cultural resources would be made a 

Most impacts would occur prior to 

construction. However, because of the 

footprint and larger disturbed area for 

centrifuge facility, the potential for imp

significant resources due to constructio

would be greater. The determination o

adverse impacts (and the differences 

between the two technologies) would l

depend on where on the Wilmington S

facility would be constructed, operated

decommissioned, and if any significan

historic and cultural resources would b

present.
NUREG-1938

2-56 February 2012

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources

(Cont.)

condition of the license, if issued. The North Carolina SHPO 

concurred that inclusion of the license condition would appropriately 

consider significant historic and cultural resources during operation. 

During decommissioning, impacts on historic and cultural resources 

would occur primarily during ground-disturbing activities.

Visual and 

Scenic 

Resources

The project area, which is adjacent to existing industrial 

developments, has low scenic quality and the environment in the 

project area is not unique for the area. During construction, the 

greatest visual impacts (from increased vehicle traffic) would be 

temporary. During operation, the two most visible structures would 

not represent a major alteration of the existing visual environment. 

Decommissioning impacts on visual and scenic resources would be 

minimal and of short duration (use of heavy equipment and increase 

in worker traffic). Once decommissioning is complete, most of the 

visual impacts would cease.

Impacts on the visual and scenic resou

during the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the two facilities w

be similar.

Air Quality Potential air quality impacts from construction activities would be 

highest during the initial 3-year period and would primarily include 

fugitive dust and engine exhaust emissions. Potential impacts of SO2, 

NO2, and CO emissions would be well below applicable standards, 

and construction activities would have small impacts on ambient air 

quality for criteria pollutants. Because continuous combustion 

activities will not be employed during operation, criteria pollutant and 

HAP emission rates would be small. Uranium and HF emissions 

would be minimal. Decontamination and decommissioning activities 

would be comparable to or less than those during construction in 

terms of air emission rates and associated air quality impacts.

The same types of emissions to air 

(e.g., emissions from construction equ

vehicular traffic, emergency diesel 

generators, and fossil fuel heating 

equipment) are expected regardless o

facility would be constructed. Howeve

because of the larger footprint of the g

centrifuge facility, the impacts during 

construction would be expected to be 

for the centrifuge facility assuming the 

construction period would be the same 

laser facility. On the other hand, durin

operations, the emissions (e.g., uraniu

HF) and impacts would be expected to 

similar and negligibly small with either 
February 2012

2-57 NUREG-1938

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Air Quality

(Cont.)

technology. Decontamination and 

decommissioning activities would be 

comparable to or less than those durin

construction in terms of air emission ra

and associated air quality impacts.

Geology and 

Soil Resources

Approximately 91 ha (226 ac) of land would be disturbed. 

Construction would not impact site geologic resources. Vehicles and 

equipment could leak fuel, oil, or grease to site soils during 

construction, operation, and decommissioning. Roads, parking lots, 

and roofs would create impervious surfaces and increase runoff, 

increasing the erosion potential. Foundations, roads, and utility lines 

would likely be undisturbed during decommissioning. Erosion may 

increase, as portions of the site are disturbed by heavy equipment.

The types of impacts on site soils 

(e.g., impacts of spills from vehicles an

equipment and runoff from impervious 

surfaces) would be similar. Because o

larger land area requirements and 

consequently greater disturbance of so

the centrifuge technology, the impacts 

geology and soil resources would also 

expected to be larger during construct

operation, and decommissioning.

Surface Water 

Resources

Excavation during construction could lead to short-term soil erosion 

with impacts on surface water quality. Vehicles and equipment pose 

the possibility of leaks or spills of fuels, oil, or grease, which could run 

off and impact nearby surface water, but infiltration into site soil would 

likely eliminate runoff. Process wastewater discharge would increase 

site process wastewater volume. Liquid radioactive waste would be 

treated before transfer to the existing wastewater treatment facility. 

Treated sanitary effluent would be reused in site cooling towers. No 

consumption of surface water would occur during operation. 

Stormwater runoff would collect in a wet detention basin before 

regulated discharge to the site effluent channel. Stormwater runoff 

from the UF6 cylinder storage pads would collect in a lined holding

pond prior to monitoring and discharge to the stormwater wet 

detention basin. Facility process wastewater flow would cease during 

decontamination and decommissioning, but decontamination effluent 

could be generated. Erosion may increase as portions of the site are 

disturbed by heavy equipment, and BMPs would reduce the impact.

The types of impacts from construction 

(e.g., short-term erosion, runoff of spill

vehicles) and operations (e.g., dischar

process wastewater, treated liquid rad

waste, and treated sanitary wastewate

expected to be similar to the impacts f

construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of a laser-based fac

Although there may be differences bet

the liquid effluent emissions of the two 

of facilities when they are built in differ

locations, significant differences in the 

construction or operational impacts on 

surface water resources would not be 

expected if the two facilities are assum

be constructed on the Wilmington Site
NUREG-1938

2-58 February 2012

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Groundwater 

Resources

Construction equipment poses the potential for leaks of fuel, oil, and 

grease to groundwater. Potable and nonpotable construction water 

requirements would be met by transport of offsite water by tanker 

truck. Stormwater collected from the UF6 cylinder storage pad would 

be expected to have no more than trace amounts of radiological 

contaminants, and the lined holding pond would limit infiltration to 

groundwater. A portion of discharged liquid effluents may infiltrate the 

Peedee sand aquifer. No significant contaminant concentrations are 

expected in the effluent channel. Additional groundwater will be 

obtained from existing production wells for process water and potable 

purposes. A small amount of drawdown would be expected, without 

significant effect on flow directions, water quality, or availability for 

offsite users. The removal of structures, utilities, materials, and 

products during the decommissioning is not expected to have an 

impact on site groundwater resources.

The impacts on groundwater resource

during construction and decommission

(e.g., the potential for construction equ

leaks, water use) would be about the s

with either technology. Similarly, the ty

impacts on groundwater resources tha

occur during operations are expected t

similar (e.g., stormwater from cylinder 

infiltration of discharged liquid effluents

groundwater use). However, the oper

water requirements of a gas centrifuge 

with the same production capacity app

be greater than those of the proposed 

Facility. Because the groundwater use 

during operations could be greater by 

much as a factor of four for a gas cent

facility on the Wilmington Site, the imp

groundwater are expected to be larger

Ecological 

Resources

Most impacts would occur prior to construction. Construction could 

impact ecological resources (including vegetation), although most 

construction would occur in areas previously disturbed by 

preconstruction activities. No wetlands or environmentally sensitive 

areas would be directly impacted by construction, but wetlands occur 

in the roadway corridor (possibly resulting in wetland loss). Minor, 

localized indirect impacts on wetlands and environmentally sensitive 

areas may occur. No aquatic habitats are located within the areas 

that will be cleared, and no significant adverse impacts on aquatic 

biota are expected. Construction activities (and noise) would result in 

wildlife injury/mortality, wildlife disturbance, and a loss of habitat. 

Habitat disturbance could facilitate the spread and introduction of 

invasive plant species. No population-level impacts would be 

expected on any Federally listed threatened, endangered, or other 

special status species, or on any State-listed species.

Most impacts would occur prior to 

construction. The types of impacts fro

construction (e.g., potential wetland lo

wildlife injury/mortality, impacts of nois

wildlife, habitat disturbance) and opera

(e.g., habitat disturbance, wildlife injury 

mortality, impacts on aquatic habitat by 

erosion, sedimentation, and exposure 

contaminants) are expected to be simi

the impacts of a laser-based facility. 

However, because of the larger footpri

larger disturbed area for a gas centrifu

facility with the same production capac

impacts on ecological resources are 

estimated to be proportionately larger. 
February 2012

2-59 NUREG-1938

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Ecological 

Resources

(Cont.)

No operational effects on vegetation would be expected from the 

cooling tower, air emissions, wastewaters, or solid wastes. Operation 

would not adversely affect wetlands or environmentally sensitive 

areas. Potential impacts on wildlife would include ongoing habitat 

disturbance and wildlife injury/mortality. Aquatic habitats and biota 

could be affected by erosion, sedimentation, and exposure to 

contaminants, but aquatic biota would not be adversely impacted by 

treated effluents or trace contamination released to surface waters. 

No adverse impacts on threatened, endangered, or other special 

status species would be expected from operations.

Impacts on wildlife from decommissioning would be similar to those 

occurring during construction. Removal of wildlife habitat would have 

negligible impacts on wildlife populations.

impacts (and relative differences betw

two technologies) would depend on wh

the Wilmington Site the facility would b

constructed or expanded during opera

and the existence of ecological resour

the affected areas.

Noise During construction, vehicular traffic would generate intermittent noise 

that would be limited to the immediate vicinity and minor in 

comparison to other continuous sources. Potential construction noise 

impacts on the adjacent residential subdivision are anticipated to be 

moderate, but temporary. During operation, noise sources would be 

primarily enclosed within buildings, and other sources would include 

vehicular traffic. Noise levels at the site boundary closest to the 

adjacent residential subdivision are estimated to be below the day 

and night equivalent sound level in compliance with the local noise 

ordinance and EPA noise guidelines. Most decontamination activities 

would occur inside structures. Noise from truck traffic on site access 

roads would be comparable to that during construction.

Noise sources during construction 

(e.g., vehicular traffic, construction 

equipment) and operations (e.g., vehic

traffic, sources within buildings) would 

similar to noise sources during constru

operation, and decommissioning of a l

based facility. Noise impacts during 

construction would be temporary and c

be mitigated for either technology. Sim

noise impacts during operations would 

expected to differ significantly, regardl

which technology would be employed.
NUREG-1938

2-60 February 2012

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Transportation The number and type of truck shipments will vary during construction, 

with the heaviest traffic occurring near the site entrance. Operations 

would overlap construction for 5–6 years, during which commuting 

operations personnel would add to increased local traffic from 

construction workers and shipments. Remaining operations would 

involve traffic from personnel, visitors, and incoming and outgoing 

truck shipments. The range of additional daily vehicle trips from 

operation would have a similar effect on the local road network as the 

increase due to construction traffic.

Operations would require the shipment of radioactive materials to and 

from the facility. Cargo-related risks include exposure to ionizing 

radiation during normal transportation and accident conditions, as well 

as chemical hazards during accident conditions. Less than one latent 

cancer fatality (annually) would be anticipated for the public and

transportation crews from all shipments. No latent fatalities from

vehicle emissions would be anticipated, annually. No fatalities are 

expected from accidents (direct physical trauma), annually.

Initial decommissioning activities during the last year of operations 

would increase the total number of workers. The number of truck 

shipments to offsite locations during this period is anticipated to be 

approximately the same as during construction.

The types of transportation impacts fro

construction (e.g., traffic from construc

equipment, material shipments, and 

commuting construction workers) and 

operations (e.g., impacts of radioactive 

material shipments, traffic due to comm

operational workers) would be expecte

similar for both types of facilities. Diffe

in transportation requirements for mate

and labor during construction, operatio

and decommissioning for the two type

facilities are not significant. Therefore

transportation impacts would be expec

be similar during construction, operatio

decommissioning.

Public and 

Occupational 

Health

Occupational exposures during construction would be minor, as 

construction would not be expected to cause any exceedances of 

ambient air quality criteria (with the possible exception of fugitive 

dust). Construction activities could disturb previously contaminated 

areas, and construction workers could be exposed to emissions 

during the overlap of construction and operation. The maximum 

possible dose would be a small fraction of background radiation 

exposure. Dose to the offsite public would be significantly less, as 

they have no potential for measurable exposure from existing site 

contamination.

The types of impacts from construction 

(e.g., fugitive dust exposure, exposure 

disruption of previously contaminate a

exposures during the overlap of constr

and operations) and operations (e.g., w

place injuries, potential UF6 exposure, 

potential public exposure to air and liq

effluent releases) are expected to be s

except that there would be no potentia

worker injury due to laser accidents. 

Although the estimated air emissions f

operation of a gas centrifuge facility co
February 2012

2-61 NUREG-1938

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Public and 

Occupational 

Health (Cont.)

A total of 324 total recordable incidents, 197 lost workday incidents, 

and less than one fatal injury are projected for 38 years of operation. 

Lasers would be operated within enclosures, equipped with interlocks 

to prevent inadvertent exposure.

The greatest potential for occupational exposure would be from UF6

cylinders, although airborne concentrations of HF and uranyl fluoride 

inside the facility are expected to be insignificant. The estimated HF 

and uranium concentrations at onsite locations would be orders of 

magnitude below safe levels, and UF6 and HF levels at the site

boundary (and the nearest resident) would be even lower. Operation 

could result in exposure to the public via uranium releases or direct

external radiation exposure. UF6 would pass through a ventilation

system to minimize external release and liquid effluents would be 

treated and sampled to limit releases. Radioactive materials would

present the potential for onsite members of the public to receive a 

direct radiation dose, but measurements from existing sources 

indicate no readings above background at the site boundary. 

Skyshine from airborne releases would be undetectable at offsite 

areas. The maximum dose to a member of a public from liquid

effluent releases would occur just south of the site boundary and 

would be well below the applicable regulatory limit.

The annual occupational dose during decontamination and 

decommissioning is expected to be in the range of 0.05 millisievert 

(5–150 millirem). Occupational dose during decontamination and 

decommissioning would be bounded by potential exposures during 

operations.

5–10 times higher than those of the pr

GLE Facility, the releases would be sm

enough that the impacts on public and 

occupational health from either techno

would be well below all applicable regu

limits and standards. No difference in 

rate or total number of occupational in

and injuries would be expected, given 

similar-sized workforce. Therefore, the 

impacts on the public and occupationa

would be about the same with either 

technology during construction, operat

and decommissioning.
NUREG-1938

2-62 February 2012

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Waste 

Management

Solid nonhazardous wastes generated during construction would be 

similar to wastes from other industrial construction sites. Construction 

activities would generate less than 2 percent of the waste that the 

local landfill receives annually. Hazardous wastes from construction 

would be packaged and shipped offsite to licensed facilities. 

Operations would generate wastewaters that would be treated onsite 

prior to discharge and solid wastes that would be treated (onsite or 

offsite) and shipped offsite for disposal. Sanitary wastewater would 

be treated at the existing site treatment facility, increasing the load by 

about one-third. Treated sanitary wastewater effluent could be used 

as makeup water in onsite cooling towers, and cooling tower 

blowdown would be sent to the existing final process lagoon facility. 

The existing discharge permit would be adequate to cover the 

additional effluent discharge to surface waters. Radioactive process 

wastewater would be collected and treated to remove uranium, 

metals, and fluoride. Treated effluent would be discharged to the final 

process lagoon facility.

The waste management facilities used during operations would be 

used during decontamination and decommissioning. With the 

decrease in workers from operations to decommissioning, sanitary 

wastewater treatment volumes would decline. Buildings and other 

structures would be decontaminated and the debris shipped offsite for 

disposal. Radioactive material from decontamination and 

contaminated equipment would be packaged and shipped offsite to an 

appropriately licensed facility.

The types of waste generated during 

construction (e.g., hazardous and non

hazardous solid waste), operations 

(e.g., solid waste, process wastewater

sanitary wastewater), and decommissi

(e.g., building debris) would be expect

be treated and disposed of similarly fo

types of facilities. Because of the larg

footprint of the gas centrifuge facility, t

quantities of waste generated during 

construction and decommissioning wo

likely be somewhat greater for gas cen

than for laser technology. However, th

amount of waste generated by a gas 

centrifuge facility during operations is 

estimated to be considerably less than 

proposed GLE Facility. The potential 

difference could be on the order of a fa

two for LLW and hazardous waste, an

factor of five or six for solid nonradioactive/nonhazardous waste.
February 2012

2-63 NUREG-1938

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Socioeconomics Construction activities in the peak year would employ

680 construction workers at the facility site and an additional 

3131 indirect jobs in the region of influence (ROI). Construction 

activities would generate $139.8 million in income in the ROI in 2012, 

$1.7 million in State income taxes, and $1.2 million in State sales 

taxes. Start-up activities would employ 200 workers and an additional 

218 indirect jobs in the ROI. Start-up would generate approximately 

$28.0 million in income in the ROI in 2014, approximately $1.3 million 

in State income taxes, and approximately $0.9 million in State sales 

taxes. Operations would employ 350 new jobs and an additional 

382 indirect jobs in the ROI. Operations in 2020 would generate

approximately $51.5 million in income in the ROI, $2.3 million in State 

income taxes, $8.7 million in property taxes, and $1.7 million in State 

sales taxes. Corporate income taxes would also be collected by the 

State during the operating period, totaling approximately $52.7 million 

annually. The number of construction workers relocating from outside 

the region could cause a short-term increase in demand for temporary 

housing and services in the ROI. However, the relatively small 

number of operations workers estimated to relocate to the ROI would 

limit the impact.

Decontamination and decommissioning activities in the first year 

would create 50 new jobs. Decommissioning would generate 

$6.1 million in income in the ROI in the first year. Facility 

decommissioning would produce less than $0.3 million in direct State

income taxes and less than $0.2 million in direct State sales taxes. 

Decommissioning activities would constitute less than 1 percent of 

total ROI employment in the first year.

The estimated direct employment num

for construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of a gas centrifuge f

are expected to be about the same as 

proposed GLE Facility. Consequently

socioeconomic impacts in the region d

construction, operation, and 

decommissioning would be expected t

similar.
NUREG-1938

2-64 February 2012

Table 2-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the GLE Laser-Based Technology and Centrifu

(Cont.)

Resource Area Laser-Based Technology (proposed action) Gas Centrifuge Technology

Environmental 

Justice

Although potential impacts could be SMALL to MODERATE in a 

number of resource areas during construction, operation, and 

decommissioning, the impacts are not expected to be 

disproportionately high or adverse for minority or low-income 

populations. The majority of environmental impacts would be 

mitigated and any remaining environmental impacts would primarily 

affect residents in the immediate vicinity. The neighborhood 

immediately surrounding the site includes a mix of minority and 

nonminority residents, as well as a mix of low-income and more 

affluent residents. Because impacts on the general population are 

SMALL to MODERATE, and because the greatest impact would be

expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (and in an area with a mix 

of ethnicities and income levels), construction, operation, and 

decommissioning are not expected to result in disproportionately high 

or adverse impacts on low-income or minority residents.

Even when environmental impacts are anticipated to be SMALL for 

the general population, some population groups, such as those 

participating in subsistence hunting and fishing could experience 

disproportionate exposure. However, air and liquid radiological 

releases are projected to be extremely low, and indirect exposure 

through fish consumption would be even lower.

The types of potential environmental ju

concerns for a gas centrifuge facility w

expected to be the same as the potent

environmental justice impacts of a lase

based facility. Because of the mix of 

residents in the area surrounding the 

Wilmington Site, and because impacts 

each resource area are expected to be 

SMALL to MODERATE, there would n

any expected environmental justice im

of the gas centrifuge technology, if em

at the Wilmington Site, during construc

operation, or decommissioning.

Accidents The consequence of a criticality accident would be high for a worker 

in close proximity. Worker radiological health consequences are low 

for scenarios involving the release of UF6. Worker health 

consequences are low to high for scenarios involving HF exposure, 

and intermediate to high for scenarios involving uranium chemical 

exposure. Radiological consequences to a maximally exposed 

individual at the Controlled Area Boundary are low for the criticality 

accidents and for all UF6 release scenarios. Chemical consequences 

at the Controlled Area Boundary are low to intermediate for uranium 

and HF exposure scenarios. Risk to the offsite public in the direction 

of highest exposure would be less than one lifetime cancer fatality for 

all accident scenarios.

The potential for criticality accidents an

release of UF6 are expected to be sim

both types of facilities. The conseque

accidents taking place in a gas centrifu

facility for workers and for offsite mem

the public are not expected to differ 

significantly from those of the propose

Facility. Consequently, the accident im

in the region are expected to be simila
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-65 February 2012 

The impacts presented in Table 2-6 are based on the assumption that an exemption request 

would be granted if a gas centrifuge facility were to be constructed at the Wilmington Site, 

similar to the exemption request granted for the proposed GLE Facility. Therefore, most 

construction would take place on ground previously disturbed by preconstruction activities. 

2.4 Staff Recommendation Regarding the Proposed Action 

After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing alternatives, the NRC, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation regarding the proposed 

action. 

The NRC recommends that, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the proposed license be 

issued to GLE. In this regard, the NRC has concluded that environmental impacts are generally 

SMALL, and taken in combination with the applicable environmental monitoring program 

described in Chapter 6 and the proposed mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 5, would 

eliminate or substantially lessen any potential adverse environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

The NRC has concluded the overall benefits of the proposed GLE Facility outweigh the 

environmental disadvantages and costs based on consideration of the following: 

• The need for an additional, economical, domestic source of enrichment services; and 

• The environmental impacts from the proposed action are generally SMALL, although they 

could be as high as MODERATE in the areas of historic and cultural resources, air quality, 

ecological resources, noise, and transportation. 

2.5 References 

(AES, 2009) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility 

Environmental Report.” April. 

(ANSI, 1990) American National Standards Institute. (ANSI) N14.1, “Uranium HexafluoridePackaging for Transport ANSI N14.1 Standard for Packaging of Uranium Hexafluoride for 

Transport,” 1971, 1982, 1987, and 1990 Editions. 49 CFR 171.7; 173.417; 173.420. . 

(BWCS, 2011) Babcock & Wilcox Conversion Services, LLC. News Release: “Depeleted 

Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Fully Operational at the Portsmouth and Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Sites.” October 20. <http://www.pppo.energy.gov/pdf/pppo_news/ 

EM%20Update%20fully%20operational%2010-20-11.pdf> (Accessed December 1, 2011). 

(DNFSB, 1995) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. “Integrity of Uranium Hexafluoride 

Cylinders.” Technical Report DNFSB/TECH-4. May 5.

(DOE, 1995) U.S. Department of Energy. “Electricity Generation and Environmental 

Externalities: Case Studies.” DOE/EIA-0598. Energy Information Administration, Office of 

Coal, Nuclear Electric, and Alternative Fuels, Coal and Electric Analysis Branch. September. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/external/external.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-66 February 2012 

(DOE, 1999) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium 

Hexafluoride.” DOE/EIS-0269. Volume 1. Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. 

Washington, D.C. April. <http://web.evs.anl.gov/uranium/documents/nepacomp/peis/ 

index.cfm> (Accessed February 10, 2012). 

(DOE, 2000) U.S. Department of Energy. “Report to Congress on Maintenance of Viable 

Domestic Uranium, Conversion and Enrichment Industries.” December.

(DOE, 2001) U.S. Department of Energy. “Effect of U.S./Russia Highly Enriched Uranium 

Agreement.” December. <http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/HEUAgreement2001.pdf> (Accessed 

March 29, 2009). 

(DOE, 2003) U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services. 

“Cold Standby Program at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.” DOE-0634. Audit Report. 

December. <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/igprod/documents/ 

CalendarYear2003/ig-0634.pdf> (Accessed April 28, 2010). 

(DOE, 2004a) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

Paducah, Kentucky Site.” DOE/EIS-0359. June. <http://www.gc.doe.gov/nepa/downloads/eis0359-final-environmental-impact-statement> (Accessed January 26, 2012). 

(DOE, 2004b) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

Portsmouth, Ohio, Site.” DOE/EIS-0360. June. <http://www.gc.doe.gov/nepa/downloads/eis0360-final-environmental-impact-statement> (Accessed January 26, 2012). 

(DOE, 2010) U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office. “DOE Awards 

Cleanup Contract for Portsmouth Decontamination and Decommissioning.” August 16. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML103500151. 

(GLE, 2008) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the GLE 

Facility.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573.

(GLE, 2009a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

LLC Commercial Facility, Wilmington, North Carolina: License Application April 2009.” April 30. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML091871003.

(GLE, 2009b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Global Laser Enrichment 

Environmental Report Supplement 2.” November. ADAMS Accession No. ML093240935.

(GLE, 2009c) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A.E. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to B. Smith (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

December 28. “Subject: Response to Request for Additional Information Dated 

November 19, 2009 for Global Laser Enrichment License Application – Public Responses.” 

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML093620823 and ML093620841. 
Alternatives

February 2012 2-67 NUREG-1938 

(Hargrove, 2000) Hargrove, S. “Laser Technology Follows in Lawrence’s Footsteps.” Science 

and Technology Review. May 2000. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

<http://www.llnl.gov/str/Hargrove.html> (Accessed March 31, 2009). 

(Heilbron et al., 1981) Heilbron, J.L., et al. “Lawrence and His Laboratory: Nuclear Science at 

Berkeley 1931–1961.” University of California, Office for History of Science and Technology. 

September. 

(LES, 2005) Louisiana Energy Services. “National Enrichment Facility Environmental Report.” 

Revision 4. NRC Docket No. 70-3103. April. <http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cyclefac/licapp-envir-rpts.html> (Accessed February 4, 2010). 

(Milani, 2005) Milani, K. “The Scientific History of the Atomic Bomb.” Hibbing Community 

College. <http://www.hcc.mnscu.edu/chem/abomb/page_id_4755.html> (Accessed 

December 3, 2009). 

(NRC, 1991) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Issue “Disposition of Depleted 

Uranium Tails from Enrichment Plants.” SECY-91-019. January 25. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML052920628. 

(NRC, 2002) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Denial of Petition for Rulemaking to 

Eliminate Review of Alternative Sites, Alternative Energy Sources, and Need for Power in 

Nuclear Power Reactor Siting and Licensing Reviews (PRM-52-2).” SECY-02-0175. 

September 27. ADAMS Accession No. ML022200469. 

(NRC, 2003) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning 

Guidance, Volume 3, Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness.” NUREG-1757. 

September. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/v3/ 

sr1757v3.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(NRC, 2005a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Memorandum and Order.” CLI-05-05. 

NRC Docket No. 70-3103. January 18. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/orders/2005/2005-05cli.html> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(NRC, 2005b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico.” NUREG-1790. June. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1790/> (Accessed 

March 26, 2009). 

(NRC, 2006) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, Final Report.” NUREG-1834. April. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1834/> (Accessed 

March 26, 2009). 

(NRC, 2009a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from D.H. Dorman (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to A.E. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC) dated 

May 8. “Subject: Approval of GE-Hitachi Exemption Request Related to Commencement of 

Construction.” ADAMS Accession No. ML083510647. 
Alternatives

NUREG-1938 2-68 February 2012 

(NRC, 2009b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Enrichment Processes.” 

<http://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/photo-gallery/20080922-013.jpg> (Accessed 

August 20, 2009). 

(NRC, 2010a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. News Release: “NRC to Hold Public 

Meeting Jan. 14 in Hobbs, N.M., to Discuss License Review of Proposed Uranium 

De-Conversion Plant.” ADAMS Accession No. ML100040480. 

(NRC, 2010b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from M. Bailey (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to S.A. Toelle (United States Enrichment Corporation) dated 

September 9. “Subject: Approval of Certificate Amendment Request Regarding Deletion of 

Technical Safety Requirements for Facilities at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (TAC 

NO. L32746).” ADAMS Accession No. ML102250346. 

(NRC, 2010c) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Memorandum from J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to D. Skeen (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 9. “Subject: September 3, 2010, Teleconference Summary: Regarding the 

Proposed General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Facility.” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML103060397. 

(NRC, 2011a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho, Final Report.” 

NUREG-1945. February. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1945/> 

(Accessed March 3, 2011).

(NRC, 2011b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from J. Kinneman (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to R. Van Namen (United States Enrichment Corporation) dated 

October 12. “Subject: Part 76 Certificate of Compliance Termination for the United States 

Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (TAC No. L32771).” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11257A078. 

(OECD, 2001) Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. “Management of 

Depleted Uranium.” A joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International 

Atomic Energy Agency. 

(Settle, 2004) Settle, F. “Nuclear Chemistry, Uranium Enrichment.” Kennesaw State University. 

<http://chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-07.html> (Accessed March 31, 2009). 

(Sparks, 2011) Personal communication from K. Sparks (Performance Results Corporation) to 

H. Avci (Argonne National Laboratory). March 24. ADAMS Accession No. ML110840038. 

(USEC, 1999) United States Enrichment Corporation. News Release: “USEC Inc. Suspends 

AVLIS Technology Development.” June 9, 1999. <http://www.usec.com/NewsRoom/ 

NewsReleases/USECInc/1999/1999-06-09-USEC-Inc-Suspends-AVLIS.htm> (Accessed 

December 3, 2009). ADAMS Accession No. ML101790149. 
Alternatives

February 2012 2-69 NUREG-1938 

(USEC, 2000) United States Enrichment Corporation. News Release: “USEC to Cease 

Uranium Enrichment at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Facility in June 2001.” June 21, 2000. 

<http://www.usec.com/NewsRoom/NewsReleases/USECInc/2000/2000-06-21-USEC-ToCease-Uranium.htm> (Accessed December 3, 2009). ADAMS Accession No. ML101790160. 

(USEC, 2005) USEC Inc. “Environmental Report for the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, 

Ohio.” Revision 6. NRC Docket No. 70-7004. November. <http://www.nrc.gov/materials/ 

fuel-cycle-fac/usec-american-cent-plant-lic-app.html> (Accessed February 4, 2010). 

February 2012 3-1 NUREG-1938

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the existing conditions at and near the site of the proposed General 

Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina 

(Figure 2-1), prior to the proposed action and before any preconstruction activities are 

performed. After an initial overview of the site location and activities, information is presented 

on surrounding land use; historic and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; 

climatology, meteorology, and air quality; geology, minerals, and soils; water resources; 

ecological resources; noise levels; transportation systems; public and occupational health 

conditions; current waste generation and management practices; socioeconomic conditions; 

and environmental justice considerations. This information forms the basis for assessing the 

potential impacts (see Chapter 4) of the proposed action.

3.1 Site Location and Description

The proposed GLE Facility would be located approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) north of the 

City of Wilmington in New Hanover County, North Carolina, on the General Electric Company 

(GE)/Global Nuclear Fuel – Americas (GNF-A), property also referred to as the Wilmington Site 

(Section 2.1.1). The site is bordered on the east by North Carolina Highway 133 (NC 133) 

(Castle Hayne Road), on the southeastern corner by U.S. Interstate Highway 140 (I-140), on the 

southwestern perimeter by the Northeast Cape Fear River, and for most of the north and south 

property lines by undeveloped forestlands. A small segment of the north property line borders a 

residential subdivision. The Wilmington International Airport is located approximately 

5.2 kilometers (3.5 miles) southeast of the Wilmington Site (Figure 1-2). 

The Wilmington Site occupies approximately 656 hectares (1621 acres). The proposed GLE 

Facility site comprises 106 hectares (263 acres) of the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2009c). It 

includes approximately 40 hectares (100 acres) for the proposed GLE Facility in the NorthCentral Site Sector, approximately 5 hectares (13 acres) for support structures to the east, and 

approximately 12 hectares (29 acres) for the North access road (Figure 2-2). 

Nuclear fuel assemblies for commercial light water-cooled nuclear power reactors are currently 

fabricated at the Wilmington Site. The fuel manufacturing complex includes the Fuel 

Manufacturing Operation (FMO/FMOX) buildings, the Dry Conversion Process (DCP) building, 

the Waste Treatment Facility, process basins, and other support facilities. Other existing 

facilities on the Wilmington Site include the GE Aircraft Engines/Service Component Operation 

(AE/SCO) facility, the Fuel Components Operation (FCO) facility, and the Wilmington Field 

Services Center (WFSC). Nonradioactive reactor components are manufactured in the SCO 

facility, and nonradioactive components for reactor fuel assemblies are manufactured in the 

FCO facility. In the WFSC, equipment used at reactor sites is cleaned and refurbished. Fuel 

manufacturing operations are not conducted at the AE facility. The existing facilities are located 

in the eastern portion of the Wilmington Site (Figure 2-1).

The proposed GLE Facility would occupy approximately 40 hectares (100 acres) within the main 

portion of the site (see Figure 2-2), and would include the main GLE operations building, several 

administrative and other facility-support buildings, a parking lot, natural and depleted uranium 

hexafluoride (UF6) storage areas, and maintained landscaped areas. The proposed 

GLE Facility would be connected to NC 133 and existing GNF-A facilities either by improving 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-2 February 2012

the existing roads or by building` a new road segment within the proposed GLE Facility site 

(GLE, 2008).

3.2 Land Use

This section describes the land uses on and near the proposed GLE Facility site. The 

discussion covers the region within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility site, 

which includes New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender Counties.

3.2.1 Proposed GLE Facility Site

The location of the proposed GLE Facility is part of the 656-hectare (1,621-acre) Wilmington 

Site, which is owned by GE. The proposed GLE Facility site is undeveloped and is currently 

covered by mixed pine forest. The western boundary of the Wilmington Site is the Northeast 

Cape Fear River. The southern boundary is I-140. Residential developments are found to the 

northeast and south of the Wilmington Site. The closest residence to the proposed GLE Facility 

site is northeast of the proposed facility on Dekker Road in the Wooden Shoe Subdivision. East 

of the Wilmington Site across Castle Hayne Road is the North Carolina State University 

Horticultural Crops Research Station, which has existed in this location since 1947. Several 

mobile homes are located north of the Wilmington Site along Castle Hayne Road. None of the 

Wilmington Site is designated prime farmland. No properties listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) are located within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility 

site.

The proposed GLE Facility site is located in an unincorporated portion of New Hanover County, 

North Carolina. The proposed GLE Facility site is 10.4 kilometers (6.5 miles) north of 

Wilmington, North Carolina, and on the eastern bank of the Northeast Cape Fear River. The 

zoning of the proposed GLE Facility site is under the jurisdiction of the New Hanover County 

Planning Board and is zoned I-2, heavy industrial zone (New Hanover County, 2009b). This 

zoning class is the least restrictive, in that it allows the widest range of land uses. Examples of 

current industries within this zoning are the BASF Corporation and the Elementis Chromium 

manufacturing plants, and the L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant to the west. Several sand and 

gravel quarries are northeast of the proposed GLE Facility site, including the Martin Marietta 

Materials operation, which is a crushed stone mining and processing facility. The area to the 

southwest is also zoned I-2 (Figure 3-1). The area immediately to the south of the proposed 

GLE Facility site is zoned PD, planned development district. This designates an area with 

mixed uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, office, and institutional. The entire 

area north of the proposed GLE Facility site is zoned RA, rural agriculture, which allows for lowdensity residential with an emphasis on farming and open space. The areas to the east and 

southeast are zoned R-20, which indicates low-density residential (New Hanover County, 

2009b).

Several residential developments are proposed in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. These 

include a 600-lot residential development called Rose Hill Plantation south of the Wilmington 

Site, which would include a nursing home. Other proposals are for the Sunset Reach 53-lot 

residential development, the Blue Clay Farms development of 1800 units, and Parson’s Mill with 

300 lots for residential development (New Hanover County, 2009c). In addition, a new

elementary school and middle school are in the process of being completed in the Castle Hayne 

community to the northeast of the proposed GLE Facility site (Figure 1-1).
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-3 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-1 Land Use within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the Project Area
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-4 February 2012

To implement the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), North Carolina passed a 

Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) in 1974 that requires coastal counties to develop land 

use plans. New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington chose to develop a joint land use 

plan. The Wilmington New Hanover County Joint Coastal Area Management Plan 2006 

Update was approved in May 2006 by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. This 

update identifies the proposed GLE Facility site as a Wetland Resource Protection Area, with 

the eastern portion of the proposed GLE Facility site in an Aquifer Resource Protection Area 

(City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, 2006). The purpose of the Wetland Resource 

Protection Area is to minimize the loss or degradation of wetlands. The Aquifer Resource 

Protection Area is intended to protect areas from diminished recharge of the aquifer and to 

prevent contamination of the aquifer. The area north and northwest of the proposed GLE 

Facility site was designated a Conservation Area by the 2006 Wilmington New Hanover Plan. 

The purpose of the conservation class is to provide long-term management and protection of 

significant natural resources, taking into consideration the rights of property owners.

3.2.2 New Hanover County

New Hanover County is a coastal county in southeastern North Carolina. The county is 

bordered on the east and south by the Atlantic Ocean, on the southwest by Brunswick County, 

and on the north by Pender County. The Cape Fear River forms the boundary between New 

Hanover and Brunswick Counties. The proposed GLE Facility site is located in the 

northwestern corner of New Hanover County. The largest municipality in the county is 

Wilmington, which has a population of 97,135 (City of Wilmington and New Hanover 

County, 2006) and serves as the county seat. The next three largest communities are Carolina 

Beach (population 4701; 31 kilometers [19 miles] from the proposed GLE Facility site), Kure 

Beach (population 1507; 32 kilometers [20 miles] from the proposed GLE Facility site), and 

Wrightsville Beach (population 2593; 18 kilometers [11 miles] from the proposed GLE Facility 

site) (USCB, 2000). 

Land cover in New Hanover County is primarily developed land (35 percent), followed by 

wetlands (26 percent), forest (16 percent), and grassland/cultivated fields (15 percent). The 

remaining 8 percent is comprised of open water (EPA, 2001).

Four State-designated use areas are within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility 

site. Two of these areas are the Cape Fear River Wetlands Game Land and the Sutton Lake 

Game Land, which are leased by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission from 

Progress Energy. These areas are managed for the benefit of hunters. The other two areas 

are the North Chase Bottomlands Preserve and the Cape Fear Royal Tracts, which are 

maintained by the North Carolina Land Trust (Figure 3-1). The land trust manages its properties 

to retain their natural qualities.

3.2.3 Brunswick County

Brunswick County is located west of the proposed GLE Facility site. The county’s population in 

2000 was 73,141 (Brunswick County, 2006). The county’s population concentrates in the 

eastern portion of the county along the Cape Fear River and along the Atlantic shoreline to the 

south. The major municipalities in Brunswick County are Oak Island (population 6571; 

51 kilometers [31 miles] from the proposed GLE Facility site), Southport (population 2351; 

47 kilometers [29 miles] from the proposed GLE Facility site), Leland (population 1938; 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-5 NUREG-1938

13 kilometers [8 miles] from the proposed GLE Facility site), and Boiling Spring Lakes 

(population 3866; 37 kilometers [23 miles] from the proposed GLE Facility site) (USCB, 2000). 

The county seat is Bolivia. The county has developed a CAMA plan that was approved in 2007. 

Several of the municipalities in the county have chosen to develop their own CAMA plans, 

including Bald Head Island, Calabash, Caswell Beach, Holden Beach, Shallotte, Southport, 

Sunset Beach, and Varnamtown (NCDENR, 2010).

Land cover in Brunswick County is primarily forest (35 percent), wetlands (32 percent), and 

grassland/cultivated fields (23 percent). The remaining land cover is split between development 

(8 percent) and open water (2 percent) (EPA, 2001).

3.2.4 Pender County

Pender County is located north of the proposed GLE Facility site and covers roughly 241 square 

kilometers (93 square miles). The total population is 48,724. Development in Pender County is 

concentrated in the center of the county along I-40 and in the southeast along the coast. The 

county seat for Pender County is Burgaw (23 kilometers [14 miles] from the Wilmington Site). 

The closest Pender County municipality is St. Helena (19 kilometers [11.8 miles] to the 

Wilmington Site). The portion of Pender County nearest the Wilmington Site is zoned as 

conservation area, rural, and rural clusters (Pender County, 2006).

The land cover in Pender County is primarily wetlands (41 percent), forests (27 percent), and 

grassland/cultivated fields (27 percent). The remaining land covers are development 

(4 percent) and open water (1 percent) (EPA, 2001).

3.3 Historic and Cultural Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and cultural resources at 

the proposed GLE Facility and in the surrounding area.

3.3.1 Prehistoric

Prehistory in North America ranges from roughly 10,000 B.C. to A.D. 1500. Prehistory is 

divided into several periods that are marked by changes in technology (e.g., projectile point 

shapes, pottery types) and changes in subsistence patterns, which often reflect wider changes 

in the environment. The following is a description of the various prehistoric periods found in 

southeastern North America. 

3.3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period

The Paleo-Indian period (10,000 B.C. to 8000 B.C.) contains the first confirmed evidence of 

people in southeastern North America. The Paleo-Indian period is poorly understood. The 

Paleo-Indian period was a time of climatic change and of glacial retreat. Large mammals that 

were adapted to the colder climate were plentiful but in decline. The overall climate was cooler 

than today, with ocean levels more than 61 meters (200 feet) lower because of the water 

trapped in the glaciers. Intact evidence of these early people in North America is scarce. It is 

theorized that much of the evidence of human activity from this period is now submerged under 

the ocean. Human activity tended to concentrate in coastal regions. The coastal shoreline 

during the Paleo-Indian period was much farther out than the modern coast. Once the glaciers 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-6 February 2012

retreated, sea levels rose and inundated the sites. On the basis of variations observed in 

projectile point types, there appears to have been some societal shift as the Paleo-Indian period 

progressed. All projectile points found in the Paleo-Indian period are of the spear or lance type 

and include the Clovis, Cumberland, Suwanee, Simpson, Dalton, and Hardaway point types 

(ESI, 2008).

3.3.1.2 Archaic Period

The Archaic period (8000 B.C. to 1000 B.C.) covers the period following the end of the glacial 

retreat. During this period, the climate began stabilizing, modern flora and fauna were 

developing, and populations across North America were increasing. Subsistence strategies 

expanded to include capturing smaller game, such as rabbits, than was seen in the big game 

hunting cultures of the Paleo-Indian period. A greater reliance on gathering nuts and seeds also 

is evident during the Archaic period. These adaptations suggest a more intensive use of the 

landscape, which may have been a result of greater population sizes. These adaptations are 

significant since the Paleo-Indian cultures were largely homogeneous across North America.

The Archaic period is divided into Early, Middle, and Late periods. The Early Archaic period 

(8000 B.C. to 6000 B.C.) saw the continuation of the trends established during the Paleo-Indian 

period. Glacial retreat, sea level rise, and a moderating of the climate are all indicative of the 

Early Archaic period. A change in projectile points and other stone (lithic) artifacts led to the 

defining of an Archaic period. A significant climatic shift to drier and warmer weather 

accompanies the Middle Archaic period (6000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.). In North Carolina, there 

appears to have been a shift away from the subsistence use of the higher elevations of the 

Appalachians and Piedmont region to the lower coastal plain and major river valleys 

(ESI, 2008). The first widespread evidence of shellfish use is noted during the Middle Archaic 

period. Regional adaptations become evident during the Middle Archaic period. The modern 

climate develops in the Late Archaic period (3000 B.C. to 1000 B.C.). Temperatures moderate 

and rainfall increases during the Late Archaic period. Ocean levels stabilized and wetlands 

increased significantly (ESI, 2008). The first ceramics appear toward the latter half of the Late 

Archaic period. Evidence of long-distance trade also is evident in the Late Archaic period. Site 

types include villages, short-term use sites, resource procurement camps, and cemeteries.

3.3.1.3 Woodland Period

The Woodland period (1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000) in Eastern North America is usually associated 

with three major technological innovations – horticulture, pottery, and the bow and arrow. Along 

with the development of horticulture comes a more sedentary way of life. In the Southeastern 

portion of North America, reliance on horticulture came late in the Woodland period, roughly 

around A.D. 200 to A.D. 400 and was not widespread until around A.D. 1000 (ESI, 2008). 

Pottery use began in the Late Archaic period but became widespread during the Woodland 

period. Pottery styles are used to differentiate between the Early, Middle, and Late Woodland 

periods in the region. Another defining factor for the Woodland period was burial practices. 

Burials become more elaborate during the Woodland period and involve mounds and in some 

cases ceramic ossuaries. Most Native groups encountered by Europeans practiced Woodland 

cultural patterns (Claggett, 1996). 

A group known as the Mississippian Culture (A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1650) was also found in North 

Carolina in the late prehistoric period. Mississippian cultural groups engaged in many of the 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-7 NUREG-1938

practices associated with the Woodland period; however, there is evidence for a higher level of 

social and political hierarchy. Mississippian cultural groups were living in North Carolina 

alongside Woodland peoples.

3.3.2 Ethno-Historic

Information on the native populations preceding European contact is poor for several reasons. 

Native groups from this part of North Carolina left or were removed shortly after European 

contact. Early European records provide an inaccurate description of the native groups that 

were encountered. Through research and archaeological excavation, some information is 

available. The groups living in south-central North Carolina fell between two well-defined 

cultural traditions, those of the southeast and the northeast. Cultural traditions in the region 

appear to be consistent with Woodland cultures. Mississippian influences are possible but are 

not easily identifiable in the archaeological record. Excavation in the Cape Fear River area 

suggests that there may be ties to the Piedmont region and the tribes that resided there (Russ 

and Postlewaite, 2008). Modern tribal organizations that claim ancestral ties to North Carolina 

include the Indians of Persons County, Haliwa-Saponi, Coharie, Cumberland County 

Association of Indian People, Lumbee, Waccamaw-Siouan, Guilford Native American 

Association, Metrolina Native American Association, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

(NCCIA, 2004).

3.3.3 Historic Euro-American

European presence in the North American southeast began in 1524 when Giovanni da 

Verrazzano traveled along the coast of what would become North Carolina. Spanish and 

English exploration of the area continued throughout the latter half of the 16th century. The 

English attempted to establish a colony on Roanoke Island in 1587; the colony failed within 

3 years. The first successful European settlement in the region was the English colony of 

Jamestown in 1607. The first settlement on the Cape Fear River came in the 1660s by English 

settlers; however, the settlement only lasted a few years. Permanent settlement on the Cape 

Fear River did not occur until the eighteenth century. The town of Brunswick was established at 

the mouth of the Cape Fear River in 1726. New Hanover County was created in 1729. In the 

1730s, the town of Newton was settled at the juncture of the Northeast and Cape Fear Rivers. 

In 1740, the town of Newton was incorporated as Wilmington. Once Wilmington was 

established, the town of Brunswick deteriorated and was eventually abandoned after 1781. 

Wilmington became an important town for supplying the shipping trade. During the American 

Revolution, the British commander Lord Cornwallis occupied Wilmington for three weeks in 

1781. After the revolution, an agrarian economy based on plantations flourished along the 

Cape Fear River. Wilmington became one of the major ports along the eastern seaboard. 

Railroads were built to the city in the 1840s. Wilmington served as a key part of the 

Confederate supply line during the American Civil War. Fort Fisher protected the port, but 

Union troops took it in the winter of 1864 to 1865. Union troops took possession of Wilmington 

in February 1865. After the Civil War, Wilmington became a major textile port. Several textile 

factories operated in Wilmington. In the twentieth century, the economy diversified further to 

include large shipyards. The shipyards expanded during World War II (ESI, 2008).

The region containing the proposed GLE Facility site was once part of the Rose Hill plantation, 

which was first established in 1736. Other nearby plantations included Castle Hayne, The 

Hermitage, Point Pleasant, Rocky Run, and Rock Hill. The first major structure built at the 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-8 February 2012

plantation was constructed in 1769. Indications are that the plantation focused mainly on rice 

production. The property remained intact until after the American Civil War. With the abolition 

of slavery, the property was eventually sold off in 20-hectare (50-acre) plots. The land was 

owned by Gore Estate Corporation in the 1920s and is currently owned by GE (ESI, 2008).

3.3.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Proposed GLE Site

There are 799 archaeological sites recorded in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Fifteen 

archaeological sites and one shipwreck are within 500 meters (1640 feet) of the proposed GLE 

Facility site. Archaeological surveys conducted in 1978 and 1994 examined areas in the vicinity 

of the proposed GLE Facility site and identified numerous prehistoric archaeological sites. The 

1978 research conducted by Wilde-Ramsing identified numerous archaeological sites; however, 

the methods used during the survey make the findings difficult to verify (Wilde-Ramsing, 1978). 

The 1994 survey (Klein et al., 1994) was undertaken for the construction of a Wilmington 

Bypass and reinvestigated some of the sites identified in 1978 that are in close proximity to the 

proposed GLE Facility site. The 1994 survey identified a cluster of Middle Woodland 

archaeological sites that the authors recommended as an archaeological district (Klein et al., 

1994). The district, which consists of 11 sites, is partially located on the Wilmington Site. 

Archaeological surveys conducted for the proposed action identified three archaeological sites 

(ESI, 2008). The surveys relied on a combination of pedestrian investigation of exposed soils 

and shovel testing at 30-meter (100-foot) intervals with 15-meter (50-foot) intervals used for 

archaeological site investigations. The three discovered sites, 31NH800, 31NH801, and 

31NH804, are the remains of two historic-age sites and a prehistoric site. Site 31NH800 

appears to be the remains of a farmstead, consisting of artifacts from the eighteenth to 

twentieth centuries. Site 31NH801 is the remains of a Middle Woodland prehistoric site. 

Artifacts recovered from the site include ceramics, lithic tools, and animal bone fragments. Site 

31NH804 is a historic site dating to the late 19th to mid-20th century. In consultation with the 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), it was determined that sites 31NH800 

and 31NH804 are not eligible for listing on the NRHP, while site 31NH801 is eligible for listing.

3.4 Visual and Scenic Resources

Visual impacts occur when contrasts are introduced into the existing environment. 

Consideration when determining visual or scenic effects from a project are its proximity to 

viewing locations and the number of people expected to view the project. The proposed GLE 

Facility site is within the boundaries of GE’s existing Wilmington Site. The existing GE facilities 

(GNF-A FMO and GE AE/SCO) are most visible from the east and southeast near the 

I-140/Castle Hayne Road interchange. Figure 3-2 shows one of the two entrances to the 

Wilmington Site (North Entrance) from Castle Hayne Road just north of the I-140 interchange. 

The tallest existing site feature is a water tower that is 39.6 meters (130 feet) tall (Figures 3-2 

and 3-3). The closest residences are located northeast of the site and back to Sledge Road, 

which forms the northeastern boundary of the Wilmington Site (Figure 2-1). Existing vegetation 

largely blocks the view to Sledge Road from these locations (Figure 3-4). At the closest visible 

point, features of the site that are perceivable can only be seen from the rear of the residences. 

The GE facilities are not visible from Dekker Road. A stand of pine trees lies between Sledge 

Road and the main portion of the existing Wilmington Site and largely screens the existing 

facilities from these residences.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-9 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-2 South Entrance from Castle Hayne Road to the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008)

Figure 3-3 Existing Site Water Tower Viewed from South of I-140 (GLE, 2008)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-10 February 2012

Figure 3-4 Closest Residence to the Proposed GLE Facility Site Viewed 

from the North Access Road (GLE, 2008)

The proposed GLE Facility would be located to the west-northwest of the existing GE Facilities 

on the Wilmington Site. The facility would be visible from the residences along the south side of 

Dekker Road and from I-140 to the south. The entrance to the facility would be visible along 

Castle Hayne Road. However, the bulk of the proposed GLE Facility would be blocked from 

view by existing site structures.

The topography of the Wilmington Site is relatively flat. The area gently slopes down toward the 

Cape Fear River. The existing site is visually screened on the north and west by a pine 

plantation. Since the trees are evergreens, there is no seasonal variation in the visual screen 

surrounding the site. However, the understory does change in the winter months.

To the west of the Wilmington Site lies the Northeast Cape Fear River. The L.V. Sutton Steam 

Electric Plant is on the western bank of the Northeast Cape Fear River across from the site. 

Portions of the power plant are visible from the river. The existing Wilmington Site is not visible 

from the Cape Fear River because of vegetation and the change in elevation.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 

developed a process for considering visual resources (BLM, 2009). While the BLM’s Visual 

Resource Management system is officially only applicable to BLM land, it provides a useful 

framework for considering visual resources. The BLM process involves conducting an inventory 

of the visual landscape to determine the sensitivity of the location to visual intrusions, the scenic 

qualities of a location, and the distance from which the location would be viewed. Sensitivity 

refers to the public’s concern or expectation for scenic quality. Sensitivity is based on the types 

of users that would view the location (e.g., recreational users, commuters, and workers), the 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-11 NUREG-1938

amount of use, public interest, and adjacent land uses. Scenic quality is a subjective rating of 

the visual setting. The scenic quality criteria applied to a landscape are presented and 

described in Table 3-1. Examples of how to apply the criteria are presented in Table 3-2. 

Distance considerations are a factor primarily when considering large vistas. It is not expected 

that any portion of the proposed GLE Facility would be perceivable beyond 8 kilometers 

(5 miles) (BLM, 2009).

Sensitivity is the main factor to be considered, because it addresses the expectation for pristine 

environments. The Wilmington Site is located in an industrialized area and is adjacent to a 

power plant, existing manufacturing facilities, and quarries. The expectation for a pristine 

natural viewshed would be low for such an area. Most users of the area would be commuters 

and workers, neither of which would be very sensitive to alterations to the visual quality of the 

area. The closest recreational users would be those using the Northeast Cape Fear River. 

Because of the vegetation cover and sloping topography, the proposed GLE Facility site would

not visible from the river. The users most affected would be homeowners along Dekker Road. 

While the changes would be most evident for these residential viewers, they represent a very 

small fraction of users. The sensitivity of the proposed GLE Facility site is low.

The scenic quality of the area is determined through application of the scenic quality rating 

criteria, which include landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural 

modification. These criteria are explained in Table 3-1. Table 3-2 explains how numerical 

ratings are assigned for each criterion. For the proposed GLE Facility site, the landform is 

gently sloping river floodplain that does not contain any dramatic elements (Rating = 1). The 

vegetation is uniformly pine trees with leafy understory (Rating = 1). The closest water to the 

proposed GLE Facility site is the Northeast Cape Fear River. However, the river is not visible 

from the proposed GLE Facility site because of slope and vegetation cover (Rating = 0). The 

color range in the proposed GLE Facility site is uniform and consists entirely of evergreen trees 

(Rating = 1). Adjacent scenery is similar to that found in the proposed GLE Facility site and 

does not influence the visual quality (Rating = 0). There are no rare features associated with 

the proposed GLE Facility site; it is consistent with much of the surrounding region (Rating = 1). 

Cultural modifications would alter the view but are consistent with what is found in the 

surrounding area (Rating = −2). The overall scenic quality rating (i.e., the sum of the ratings for 

each criterion) is 2, which would make the scenic quality a C or lower. This rating, which is the 

lowest relative scenic quality rating, indicates that the project area has little scenic quality 

compared to other locations in the region. The sum would need to be 12 or more for a scenic 

quality rating of B, and 19 or more for a scenic quality rating of A.

3.5 Climatology, Meteorology, and Air Quality

This section describes the climatology, meteorology, and air quality in the area surrounding the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. This information provides general 

background conditions and would be used as baseline conditions for the potential impact 

analysis under various alternatives in Chapter 4.

3.5.1 Regional Climatology

With a 2042-meter (6700-foot) range in elevation and 483-kilometer (300-mile) range in distance 

from the ocean, North Carolina experiences one of the most diverse climates of any eastern 
NUREG-1938

3-12 February 2012

Table 3-1 Explanation of Scenic Quality Rating Criteria

Landform Topography becomes more interesting as it gets steeper or more massive, or more severe

sculptured. Outstanding landforms may be monumental, as the Grand Canyon, the Sawto

Range in Idaho, the Wrangell Mountain Range in Alaska, or they may be exceedingly artis

certain badlands, pinnacles, arches, and other extraordinary formations.

Vegetation Give primary consideration to the variety of patterns, forms, and textures created by plant l

short-lived displays when they are known to be recurring or spectacular. Consider also sm

vegetational features which add striking and intriguing detail elements to the landscape (e.

windbeaten trees and joshua trees).

Water That ingredient which adds movement or serenity to a scene. The degree to which water d

scene is the primary consideration in selecting the rating score.

Color Consider the overall color(s) of the basic components of the landscape (e.g., soil, rock, veg

they appear during seasons or periods of high use. Key factors to use when rating “color” 

contrast, and harmony.

Adjacent Scenery Degree to which scenery outside the scenery unit being rated enhances the overall impres

scenery within the rating unit. The distance which adjacent scenery will influence scenery 

unit will normally range from 0 to 8 kilometers (0 to 5 miles), depending upon the character

topography, the vegetative cover, and other such factors. This factor is generally applied t

would normally rate very low in score, but the influence of the adjacent unit would enhance 

quality and raise the score.

Scarcity This factor provides an opportunity to give added importance to one or all of the scenic fea

appear to be relatively unique or rare within one physiographic region. There may also be 

separate evaluation of each of the key factors does not give a true picture of the overall sc

area. Often it is a number of not so spectacular elements in the proper combination that p

most pleasing and memorable scenery – the scarcity factor can be used to recognize this t

give it the added emphasis it needs.

Cultural Modifications Cultural modifications in the landform/water, vegetation, and addition of structures should b

and may detract from the scenery in the form of a negative intrusion or complement or imp

quality of a unit. Rate accordingly.

Source: BLM, 2009.
February 2012

3-13 NUREG-1938

Table 3-2 Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart

Key Factors Rating Criteria and Score

Landform High vertical relief as expressed in 

prominent cliffs, spires, or massive rock 

outcrops, or severe surface variation or 

highly eroded formations including major 

badlands or dune systems; or detail features 

dominant and exceptionally striking and 

intriguing such as glaciers. (5)

Steep canyons, mesas, buttes, 

cinder cones, and drumlins; or 

interesting erosional patterns or 

variety in size and shape of 

landforms; or detail features which 

are interesting though not dominant 

or exceptional. (3)

Low rolling h

flat valley bo

no interestin

features. (1)

Vegetation A variety of vegetative types as expressed in 

interesting forms, textures, and patterns. (5)

Some variety of vegetation, but only 

one or two major types. (3)

Little or no v

in vegetation

Water Clear and clean appearing, still, or 

cascading white water, any of which are a 

dominant factor in the landscape. (5)

Flowing, or still, but not dominant in 

the landscape. (3)

Absent, or p

noticeable. 

Color Rich color combinations, variety or vivid 

color; or pleasing contrasts in the soil, rock, 

vegetation, water or snow fields. (5)

Some intensity or variety in colors 

and contrast of the soil, rock and 

vegetation, but not a dominant 

scenic element. (3)

Subtle color 

contrast, or i

mute tones. 

Adjacent 

Scenery

Adjacent scenery greatly enhances visual 

quality. (5)

Adjacent scenery moderately 

enhances overall visual quality. (3)

Adjacent sce

no influence 

quality. (0)

Scarcity One of a kind; or unusually memorable, or 

very rare within region. Consistent chance 

for exceptional wildlife or wildflower viewing, 

etc. (5+)

Distinctive, though somewhat similar 

to others within the region. (3)

Interesting w

but fairly com

region. (1)

Cultural 

Modification

Modifications add favorably to visual variety 

while promoting visual harmony. (2)

Modifications add little or no visual 

variety to the area, and introduce no 

discordant elements. (0)

Modifications 

are very disc

promote stro

(-4)

Source: BLM, 2009.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-14 February 2012

State (NCDC, 2009a). The climate of North Carolina varies from the Atlantic Coast in the east 

to the Appalachian Range in the west. The mountain range in the west often blocks cold 

temperatures and storms from the Midwest and Canada. Most of the State has a humid 

subtropical climate (Cfa) by Koppen climate classification, except higher elevations in the west 

(University of Idaho, 2009).

Warm and humid maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico flows into North Carolina during 

all seasons, while cold and dry continental polar air masses from Canada penetrate into the 

area but rarely in summer (Robinson, 2005). These air masses, the jet stream and its 

accompanying polar front and the Bermuda High pressure system, influence the weather 

system in North Carolina, depending on their relative positions and intensities. In the summer, 

the jet stream is situated near the United States Canadian border, while the Bermuda High is 

mostly centered over Bermuda. Accordingly, North Carolina is more affected by the Bermuda 

High than the polar front. In some summers, the Bermuda High expands or moves westward 

and sits on the Coastal Plain, causing drought there. In the winter, the Bermuda High weakens 

as it shrinks south and east. This allows the jet stream to push far south well into the eastcentral United States, which causes the polar front to move into a position to directly influence 

weather in the Carolinas with deep lows and extensive frontal systems. In addition, the warm 

Gulf Stream and cold Labrador Current play a pivotal role in the weather of coastal 

North Carolina (NCDC, 2009a). The confluence of two opposite currents at the north of the 

Outer Banks of North Carolina produces a wide variety of weather, including the development of 

major storms, which cause rains along the coast and inland areas as well. At the Outer Banks, 

the Labrador Current passes between the Gulf Stream lying 80 kilometers (50 miles) offshore 

and the coast, which offsets most of the general warming effect that the Gulf Stream might 

otherwise have on coastal temperatures.

The proposed GLE Facility would be located in the tidewater section of southeastern 

North Carolina, near the Atlantic Ocean, which is located about 16 kilometers (10 miles) to the 

southeast. Because of its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the area experiences an unusually 

mild climate and small diurnal and seasonal temperature ranges, compared with a continental 

type of climate at a comparable latitude. In general, the summers are quite warm and humid 

with rare excessive heat. During the winter, numerous polar air masses can penetrate the 

Atlantic Coast and result in abrupt drops in temperatures (NCDC, 2009b). However, these cold 

outbreaks are considerably moderated by long trajectories from the source regions, the effects 

of passing over the Appalachian Range, and the moderating effects of the ocean air in the area. 

Accordingly, most winters in the area are short and quite mild.

3.5.2 Site and Regional Meteorology

Real-time meteorological data (e.g., wind speed and direction, barometric pressure) are 

collected by GNF-A at a level of 6.1 meters (20 feet) for emergency response purposes, but 

these data are not recorded. In view of the longer period of record available at the 

Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport, the NRC used that data to assess the meteorological 

and climatological conditions representative of the general region surrounding the proposed 

GLE Facility. The airport is located approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) southeast of the 

proposed GLE Facility. The general topography of the Wilmington area is flat, with little to no 

change in elevation. 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-15 NUREG-1938

3.5.2.1 Temperature

Table 3-3 presents monthly average and daily extreme temperatures at the Wilmington/New 

Hanover County Airport, North Carolina. Compared with farther inland stations, temperatures 

around the proposed GLE Facility are moderate because of proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. For 

the 1971 to 2000 period, the annual average temperature was 17.7 Celsius (63.8 Fahrenheit), 

ranging from 11.9 to 23.3 Celsius (53.5 Fahrenheit to 74.0 Fahrenheit) (NCDC, 2009b). 

January is the coldest month, averaging 7.8 Celsius (46.1 Fahrenheit) with temperature 

ranging from 2.1 Celsius to 13.5 Celsius (35.8 Fahrenheit to 56.3 Fahrenheit), and July is 

the warmest month, averaging 27.3 Celsius (81.1 Fahrenheit) with temperature ranging from 

22.4 Celsius to 32.2 Celsius (72.3 Fahrenheit to 89.9 Fahrenheit). During the last 57 years, 

the lowest temperature, 17.8 Celsius (0 Fahrenheit), was reached in December 1989, and 

the highest, 40.0 Celsius (104 Fahrenheit), in June 1952. About 46.3 days have a maximum 

temperature greater than or equal to 32.2 Celsius (90 Fahrenheit), while 39.3 days have a 

minimum temperature less than or equal to 0 Celsius (32 Fahrenheit).

Table 3-3 Monthly Average and Daily Extreme Temperaturesat the 

Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport, North Carolina

Monthly Averagesa Daily Extremesb

Mean Minimum Maximum Lowest Minimum Highest Maximum

Month Celsius 

( Fahrenheit)

Celsius 

( Fahrenheit)

Celsius 

( Fahrenheit)

Celsius 

( Fahrenheit) Year Celsius ( Fahrenheit) Year

Jan. 7.8 (46.1) 2.1 (35.8) 13.5 (56.3) -15.0 ( 5) 1985 27.8 ( 82) 1975

Feb. 9.2 (48.5) 3.1 (37.5) 15.3 (59.5) -11.7 (11) 1996 29.4 ( 85) 1962

Mar. 12.8 (55.0) 6.5 (43.7) 19.0 (66.2) -12.8 ( 9) 1980 31.7 ( 89) 1974

Apr. 17.1 (62.7) 10.7 (51.2) 23.4 (74.1) -1.7 (29) 2007 35.0 ( 95) 1967

May 21.2 (70.2) 15.4 (59.8) 27.0 (80.6) 3.3 (38) 1989 36.7 ( 98) 1953

June 25.0 (77.0) 19.8 (67.6) 30.2 (86.4) 8.9 (48) 1983 40.0 (104) 1952

July 27.3 (81.1) 22.4 (72.3) 32.2 (89.9) 12.8 (55) 1988 38.9 (102) 1977

Aug. 26.5 (79.7) 21.7 (71.0) 31.3 (88.3) 12.8 (55) 2004 39.4 (103) 1999

Sept. 23.9 (75.0) 18.8 (65.9) 28.9 (84.1) 6.7 (44) 1981 36.7 ( 98) 1975

Oct. 18.2 (64.8) 12.2 (53.9) 24.2 (75.6) -2.8 (27) 1962 35.0 ( 95) 1986

Nov. 13.6 (56.5) 7.3 (45.1) 19.9 (67.8) -6.7 (20) 1970 30.6 ( 87) 1974

Dec. 9.4 (48.9) 3.4 (38.1) 15.3 (59.6) -17.8 ( 0) 1989 27.8 ( 82) 1998

Annual 17.7 (63.8) 11.9 (53.5) 23.3 (74.0) -17.8 ( 0)

Dec. 

1989 40.0 (104)

June 

1952

a

1971 to 2000 climate normals.

b Period of record is 57 years (1952 to 2008).

Source: NCDC, 2009b.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-16 February 2012

3.5.2.2 Precipitation and Relative Humidity

Generally, precipitation in North Carolina is relatively ample in most parts of the State (greater 

than 102 centimeters [40 inches]). The mean annual precipitation is heaviest in the 

southeastern corner of the State, which includes the proposed GLE Facility, and gradually 

decreases toward the north and west. Table 3-4 presents summaries of monthly mean and 

extreme precipitation and snowfall at the Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport. Annual 

precipitation averages about 145.0 centimeters (57.07 inches) (NCDC, 2009b). Precipitation in 

the area is well distributed throughout the year; it is driest in April and wettest in July. By 

season, precipitation is the highest in summer, accounting for about 36 percent of the annual 

total, and precipitation is comparable in other seasons. Summer rainfall is associated primarily 

with thunderstorms, and is therefore usually of a short duration, but often heavy and unevenly 

distributed. Minimum and maximum monthly precipitations are 0.4 centimeters (0.16 inches) 

and 59.5 centimeters (23.41 inches), respectively. The highest 24-hour precipitation was 

37.7 centimeters (14.84 inches) in September 1999. Measurable precipitation of 

0.025 centimeters (0.01 inches) or more occurred about one-third of the time (118.1 days 

per year). 

Appreciable wintry precipitation, such as snow, sleet, or freezing rain, is a rarity and, when it 

occurs, remains on the ground for a short time. Light snow typically occurs from December 

through March, and the annual average snowfall in the area is about 5.3 centimeters 

(2.1 inches). The greatest amounts of snow reported in a single month and in a 24-hour period 

were 38.9 centimeters (15.3 inches) in December 1989, and 29.7 centimeters (11.7 inches) in 

February 1973, respectively (NCDC, 2009b).

Because of the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, Wilmington experiences higher relative humidity 

and smaller monthly variations than farther-inland locations at a comparable latitude. The 

annual average relative humidity is about 74 percent, with the lowest monthly average of 

68 percent in April and the highest monthly average of 80 percent in August (NCDC, 2009b). 

During the day, the lowest annual-average relative humidity of 57 percent occurs in the early 

afternoon and the highest of 85 percent in the early morning and the middle of the night.

3.5.2.3 Winds, Atmospheric Stability, and Temperature Inversions

Figure 3-5 presents a wind rose at the 10-meter (33-foot) level of Wilmington/New Hanover 

County Airport based on 2004 to 2008 wind data. The average annual wind speed is about 

3.4 meters per second (7.6 miles per hour), and calm winds (less than 0.5 meters per second 

[1.1 miles per hour]) are recorded about 18 percent of the time (NCDC, 2009c). Albeit not 

prominent, the prevailing wind direction is from the southwest (about 9.7 percent of the time) 

and secondarily from the north-northeast (9.0 percent) and south-southwest (8.8 percent). Wind 

speed tends to be highest in spring and lowest in summer (NCDC, 2009c). Occurrences of 

calm winds are lowest (about 12 percent frequency) in spring and high (about 20 percent 

frequency) in all other seasons. In general, southwesterly winds prevail in winter through 

summer, while northerly winds prevail in fall. The southwesterly winds are strongly influenced 

by general synoptic-scale1 wind patterns of the Bermuda High. In contrast, northerly winds 

reflect the influences of penetrating polar air masses and changes in global circulation 

(Robinson, 2005).

 

1

The synoptic scale is the scale of high- or low-pressure systems in the lower atmosphere as seen on 

weather maps; typically with a horizontal scale on the order of 1000 kilometers (620 miles) or more.
February 2012

3-17 NUREG-1938

Table 3-4 Monthly Mean and Extreme Precipitation and Snowfall at the 

Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport, North Carolina

Precipitation Snowfall

Mean

a Minimumb Maximumb Maximum 24-hourb Meana Maximumb M

Month cm (in.) cm (in.) Year cm (in.) Year cm (in.) Year cm (in.) cm (in.) Year 

Jan. 11.5 (4.52) 1.7 (0.68) 2001 26.0 (10.22) 1991 7.8 (3.08) 1982 1.5 (0.6) 15.5 (6.1) 2000 

Feb. 9.3 (3.66) 2.6 (1.01) 1976 28.5 (11.22) 1998 12.7 (5.00) 1998 1.3 (0.5) 31.8 (12.5) 1973 

Mar. 10.7 (4.22) 2.4 (0.93) 1967 21.0 (8.27) 1994 12.2 (4.81) 1994 1.0 (0.4) 16.8 (6.6) 1980 

Apr. 7.5 (2.94) 0.4 (0.16) 1995 20.9 (8.21) 1961 8.9 (3.52) 1961 0.0 Trace 1996 

May 11.2 (4.40) 2.4 (0.95) 1987 23.2 (9.12) 1956 12.8 (5.02) 1999 0.0 Trace 1998 

June 13.6 (5.36) 2.3 (0.89) 1984 32.7 (12.87) 1962 19.6 (7.73) 1966 0.0 Trace 1995 

July 19.4 (7.62) 4.2 (1.65) 1961 38.4 (15.12) 1966 16.7 (6.58) 1988 0.0 0.0 NA

c

Aug. 18.6 (7.31) 4.2 (1.66) 1968 47.8 (18.83) 2006 24.3 (9.56) 2006 0.0 0.0 NA 

Sept. 17.2 (6.79) 1.8 (0.70) 1986 59.5 (23.41) 1999 37.7 (14.84) 1999 0.0 0.0 NA 

Oct. 8.2 (3.21) 0.4 (0.17) 1953 38.3 (15.07) 2005 20.7 (8.15) 2005 0.0 0.0 NA 

Nov. 8.3 (3.26) 1.2 (0.49) 1973 20.0 (7.87) 1972 12.2 (4.82) 1969 0.0 Trace 1976 

Dec. 9.6 (3.78) 1.2 (0.48) 1955 17.9 (7.06) 1989 9.9 (3.88) 1980 1.5 (0.6) 38.9 (15.3) 1989 

Annual 145.0 (57.07) 0.4 (0.16)

Apr. 

1995 59.5 (23.41)

Sep. 

1999 37.7 (14.84)

Sep. 

1999 5.3 (2.1) 38.9 (15.3)

Dec. 

1989 

a

1971 to 2000 climate normals.

b Period of record is 57 years (1952 to 2008).

c NA = not applicable.

Source: NCDC, 2009b.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-18 February 2012

Figure 3-5 Wind Rose (10-meter [33-foot] level) for the Wilmington/New Hanover 

County Airport, 2004 to 2008 (NCDC, 2009c)
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-19 NUREG-1938

Atmospheric stability affects the extent to which gases or particulates are dispersed. Vertical 

motions and pollution dispersion are enhanced in an unstable atmosphere, while suppressed in 

a stable atmosphere. Stability is usually classified by Pasquill stability, ranging from Class A 

through F (Turner and Schulze, 2007), which depends on solar insolation (the amount of solar 

radiation energy received by a given area in a given time), wind speed, and cloud cover. Class 

A stability (most unstable) conditions occur in low winds with high incoming levels of solar 

radiation typically during the daytime. Class E stability (slightly stable) and Class F stability 

(moderately stable) conditions arise on clear nights with little wind. Class D stability (neutral) 

conditions occur with higher wind speeds and/or greater cloud cover, irrespective of day or 

night. Figure 3-6 presents the frequency distribution of stability classes for a 9-year period 

(1984 to 1992) at the Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport (EPA, 2009a). The neutral 

(Class D) condition is most prevalent, which accounts for about 43.2 percent of the time. The 

unstable conditions (Class A to Class C) occur approximately 20.1 percent of the time, while the 

stable conditions (Class E and Class F) occur about 36.7 percent of the time.

Normally, the temperature in the atmosphere decreases with height above the ground. A 

temperature inversion occurs when there is an increase in temperature with height above the 

ground. An inversion suppresses convection, which can lead to air pollutants being trapped 

close to the ground, thereby causing possible adverse health effects. The length of time an 

inversion lasts (its persistence) is an important factor for determining its impact on air 

dispersion. One type of inversion is “surface inversion,” which is due primarily to a loss of longwave radiation near the surface and common on any night, and strong and deep around sunrise 

and in winter. On the basis of Class E and Class F stability,2surface inversion occurs frequently 

in the Wilmington area, about 36.7 percent of the time. After sunrise, the temperature surface 

inversion breaks up due to the sun’s heating the ground on a time scale of hours. 

Another type of inversion is the “subsidence inversion,” which can develop aloft as a result of air 

gradually sinking over a wide area and being warmed by adiabatic compression, usually 

associated with subtropical high-pressure systems. Subsidence inversions are principal causes 

of air stagnation, which is characterized by poor ventilation due to persistent light and calm 

winds, and by the presence of inversions. Stagnant air could accumulate air pollutants and 

cause poor air quality over a wide area for a prolonged period, resulting in what is called an “air 

pollution episode.” An air pollution episode may adversely affect the health of individuals at 

higher risk (e.g., the young, elderly, or those with respiratory or cardiovascular diseases). The 

Wilmington area has a mean of 10 to 20 air stagnation days per year and of 2 to 4 air stagnation 

episodes per year (Wang and Angell, 1999). On average, stagnation episodes last about 

5 days.

 

2

The Pasquill stability classes presented here are based on solar insolation, wind speed, and cloud 

cover, not temperature gradients at two different heights. Temperature gradients are −0.5 to 

1.5° Celsius (−0.9 to 2.7° Fahrenheit) per 100 meters (328 feet) for Class E and >1.5° Celsius 

(2.7° Fahrenheit) per 100 meters (328 feet) for Class F. Accordingly, the frequency of surface 

inversion presented here, defined as temperature increase with height (i.e., >0° Celsius 

(0° Fahrenheit) per 100 meters [328 feet]), might be overestimated.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-20 February 2012

Figure 3-6 Distribution of Stability Classes for the Wilmington/New Hanover County 

Airport, 1984 to 1992 (EPA, 2009a)

3.5.2.4 Mixing Heights

The mixing height is defined as the height above the ground surface through which relatively 

vigorous vertical mixing occurs, primarily through the action of atmospheric turbulence. All other 

parameters being equal, ground-level (at the surface) concentrations of emitted pollutants under 

low mixing height will be relatively high because pollutants are prevented from dispersing 

upward. Mixing heights commonly go through large diurnal variations because of solar heating 

during the day and surface cooling at night. Mixing heights are generally lowest late at night or 

early morning and highest during mid to late afternoon. At the locations near large water bodies 

(e.g., Wilmington), diurnal and seasonal mixing heights show little difference, compared with 

considerable differences at inland stations because of the moderating effects of the large water 

bodies. Seasonal variations of morning mixing heights are generally not large. However, 

afternoon mixing heights display a large seasonal variation, and mixing heights in summer are 

typically higher than those in winter.

Mixing heights are not measured directly but calculated approximately from routine surface and 

upper air observations. Holzworth (1972) developed mean seasonal and annual mixing heights 

throughout the contiguous United States by using 1960 to 1964 observation data. No sitespecific mixing height data are available for the Wilmington Site. Thus, mean seasonal and 

annual data were taken from the isopleths of mixing heights in Holzworth (1972). As shown in 

Figure 3-7, the mean annual morning and afternoon mixing heights for the Wilmington Site are 

approximately 540 meters (1770 feet) and 1160 meters (3810 feet), respectively. As mentioned 

previously, because of the moderating effects of the Atlantic Ocean, seasonal variations in 

mixing heights are small, and differences between morning and afternoon mixing heights are 

not considerable compared with farther inland stations.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-21 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-7 Mean Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights for the Wilmington Site, 

North Carolina (Holzworth, 1972)

3.5.2.5 Severe Weather Conditions

In common with most Atlantic coastal localities, the area is subject to the effects of coastal 

tropical storms and occasional hurricanes causing high winds, above-normal tides, heavy rains, 

and even tornadoes (NCDC, 2009b). In addition, thunderstorms in the area are associated with 

large-scale synoptic fronts approaching from the north and west. Thunderstorms are the most 

active during the summer months, occurring about 1 out of 3 days from June through August. 

The Wilmington area experiences about 4 days per year of damaging severe thunderstorms 

with straight winds greater than 50 knots (26 meters per second [58 miles per hour]) 

(NSSL, 2009). Another hazard of thunderstorms is lightning, which can strike up to 

16 kilometers (10 miles) away from the rain of a thunderstorm. Some lightning strikes have 

caused either numerous injuries, including fatalities, or property damage such as disruption of 

electric circuits and wildfires. From 1996 through 2005, the Wilmington area experienced about 

four to eight lightning flashes per square kilometer per year (NOAA, 2009). 

Tornadoes are rare in the area surrounding the proposed GLE Facility, and are less frequent 

and destructive than those in the “tornado alley” of the central United States. For the period 

1950 to 2008, 1126 tornadoes were reported in North Carolina, with an average of 

19.1 tornadoes per year (NCDC, 2009d). For the same period, a total of 16 tornadoes with an 

average of 0.3 tornadoes per year were reported in New Hanover County. Six of the 

16 tornadoes that hit New Hanover County occurred during a 2-year period (1998 to 1999). 

However, most tornadoes occurring in New Hanover County between 1950 and 2008 were 

900

1350 1300

1100 1160

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual

Mixing Height (m)

520 560 580

500 540

0

250

500

750

1000

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual

Mixing Height (m)

Morning

Afternoon
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-22 February 2012

relatively weak; that is, all F0 or F1, except one F23on the Fujita tornado scale,4and caused 

five injuries and no fatalities in total.

Most hurricanes form over warm ocean waters near the equator and usually travel west and 

slightly north while strengthening. Many storms curve to the northeast near the Florida 

peninsula. Hurricanes are sustained and strengthened by energy from warm waters (water 

temperature higher than 27 Celsius [80 Fahrenheit]). Because of the proximity of New 

Hanover County to the Gulf Stream, this area has a high potential for hurricanes advancing from 

the tropics to sustain or intensify their strengths. Hurricanes come close enough to affect 

North Carolina about twice in an average year (NCDC, 2009a). Most storms that hit most or 

part of the State do little damage, but some storms are powerful enough to cause extreme 

damage and loss of life. Coastal properties occasionally suffer severe damage from associated 

high tides. The area of New Hanover County could expect the following return periods for each 

category of hurricanes passing within 75 nautical miles (139 kilometers [86 miles]): Category 1,5

10 years; Category 2, 24 years; Category 3, 43 years; Category 4, 96 years; and Category 5, 

250 years (NHC, 2009). Between 1950 and 2007, many tropical storms have passed within 

75 nautical miles of the proposed GLE Facility and 15 of them were classified as hurricanes 

(CSC, 2009). Ten hurricanes made landfall along the stretch of the coastline within 

75 nautical miles (139 kilometers [86 miles]) of the proposed GLE Facility. The strongest of the 

10 hurricanes recorded since 1950 were Category 3 storms Hazel (1954) and Fran (1996), 

which caused mass destruction along the coast. Category 4 Hurricane Helene (1958) was 

within 75 nautical miles (139 kilometers [86 miles]) but did not make landfall and moved 

northeastward along the Atlantic Coast. Hurricane Diana (1984) approached offshore of New 

Hanover County as a Category 4 hurricane but made landfall as a Category 1 hurricane after 

making one full turn offshore; it was then downgraded to a tropical storm while advancing 

inland. The southern coastline in North Carolina was affected by more hurricanes than any 

other State bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico between 1996 and 1999.

3.5.3 Air Quality

Regulations governing air pollution sources at the Wilmington Site have been promulgated by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) per the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). These 

regulations are implemented through several EPA programs. The North Carolina Division of Air 

 

3

An F2 tornado was reported in neighboring Brunswick County on June 13, 1962, but its location is 

within the New Hanover County (NCDC 2009d).

4

The Fujita tornado scale is classified with the fastest 0.40-km (0.25-mi) wind speeds: 18 32 m/s 

(40 72 mph) for F0 (gale); 33 50 m/s (73 112 mph) for F1 (moderate); 51 70 m/s (113 157 mph) for 

F2 (significant); 71 92 m/s (158 207 mph) for F3 (severe); 93 116 m/s (208 260 mph) for F4 

(devastating); and 117 142 m/s (261 318 mph) for F5 (incredible). The new Enhanced Fujita (EF) 

scale based on 3-second wind gusts was implemented on February 1, 2007. Since that date, all 

tornadoes in the United States have been rated by using EF categories. Similar to the original Fujita 

scale, the ratings are from EF0 to EF5. However, historical tornadoes recorded on or before 

January 31, 2007, are still categorized with the original Fujita scale.

5 Maximum sustained surface (peak 1-minute wind at 10-m [33-ft] level) wind speeds are 33 42 m/s 

(74 95 mph) for Category 1, 43 49 m/s (96 110 mph) for Category 2, 50 58 m/s (111 130 mph) for 

Category 3, 59 69 m/s (131 155 mph) for Category 4, and greater than 69 m/s (155 mph) for 

Category 5.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-23 NUREG-1938

Quality (NCDAQ) under the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

(NCDENR) has authority, as delegated by the EPA, to administer these regulatory programs in 

the State. The major programs are summarized below.

The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants: 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate 

matter (PM; PM10 and PM2.5),6and lead (Pb), as shown in Table 3-5 (EPA, 2010a). Primary 

NAAQS specify maximum ambient (outdoor air) concentration levels of the criteria pollutants 

with the aim of protecting public health with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary NAAQS 

specify maximum concentration levels with the aim of protecting public welfare, including 

protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

The NAAQS specify different averaging times as well as maximum concentrations. Some of the 

NAAQS for averaging times of 24 hours or less allow the standard values to be exceeded a 

limited number of times per year; others specify other procedures for determining compliance. 

North Carolina has its own State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) (Title 15A, Chapter 2, 

Subchapter D of the North Carolina Administrative Code [15A North Carolina (NC) 

Administrative Code 02D.0401-410]), which are almost the same as the NAAQS, as shown in 

Table 3-5. Currently, the State has the standard for total suspended particulates (TSP), which 

used to be one of the criteria pollutants but was replaced by PM10 in 1987. If a State has no 

standard corresponding to one of the NAAQS, the NAAQS apply.

An area where air quality is above NAAQS levels is called a nonattainment area. Previously, 

nonattainment areas where air quality has improved to meet the NAAQS were redesignated 

maintenance areas, subject to an air quality maintenance plan. None of the coastal counties in 

North Carolina, including New Hanover County (where the proposed GLE Facility will be 

located) and two neighboring counties, are nonattainment or maintenance areas for criteria 

pollutants (EPA, 2009b). Several inland counties are nonattainment areas for 8-hour O3 and 

PM2.5, and maintenance areas for CO.

In areas with pollutant levels below the NAAQS (i.e., attainment areas), the Federal Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program places limits on the total increase in ambient 

pollutant levels above established baseline levels for SO2, NO2, and PM10 (40 CFR 51.166). 

This prohibits “polluting up to the limits” specified in the NAAQS for these pollutants. Under 

these regulations, the allowable increases are smallest in Class I areas (e.g., national parks and 

wilderness areas). The rest of the country is subject to larger Class II increments. Most areas, 

including the proposed GLE Facility and its vicinity, are classified as Class II areas. EPA 

typically recommends that the permitting authority notify the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

when a proposed PSD source would locate within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of a Class I area 

(EPA, 2010b). If the source’s emissions are considerably large (subjective), EPA recommends 

that sources beyond 100 kilometers (62 miles) be brought to the attention of the FLMs. The 

FLMs then become responsible for demonstrating that the source’s emissions could have an 

 

6

Particulate matter (PM) is dust, smoke, and other solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. The size 

of the particulate is important and is measured in micrometers ( m). A micrometer is 1 millionth of a 

meter (0.000039 in.). PM10 is PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 m and can 

reach the lower sections of the respiratory system. PM2.5 is PM with an aerodynamic diameter less 

than or equal to 2.5 m and is small enough to penetrate deep into the lower, most sensitive parts of 

the lung.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-24 February 2012

Table 3-5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and North Carolina 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) for Criteria Pollutants

NAAQSb

North Carolina SAAQS

Pollutanta Averaging Time Value Typec

SO2 3-hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 g/m3) S 1300 g/m3(0.5 ppm)

24-hour 0.14 ppm P 365 g/m3(0.14 ppm)

Annual 0.03 ppm P 80 g/m3(0.03 ppm)

NO2 1-hour 0.100 ppmd P NSe

Annual 0.053 ppm (100 g/m3) P, S 0.053 ppm (100 g/m3)

CO 1-hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) P 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) P 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

O3 1-hour 0.12 ppmf P, S NS

8-hour 0.075 ppm (2008 standard) P, S 0.075 ppm

8-hour 0.08 ppm (1997 standard)g P, S NS

TSP 24-hour NS NS 150 g/m3

Annual (geometric) NS NS 75 g/m3

PM10 24-hour 150 g/m3 P, S 150 g/m3

PM2.5 24-hour 35 g/m3 P, S 35 g/m3

Annual 15.0 g/m3 P, S 15.0 g/m3

Lead Rolling 3-month 0.15 g/m3 h P, S 0.15 g/m3

Calendar quarter 1.5 g/m3 P, S NS

a CO = carbon monoxide, NO2 = nitrogen dioxide, O3 = ozone, PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤ 2.5 m, 

PM10 = particulate matter ≤ 10 m, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, and TSP = total suspended particulates.

b NAAQS, other than those for NO2, O3, PM10, and PM2.5 and those based on annual averages, are not to be 

exceeded more than once per year. The 1-hour NO2 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at any monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm. The 

1 hour O3 standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above the standard is ≤1. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each 

year does not exceed the standard. The 24-hour PM10 standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year on 

average over 3 years. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area does not exceed the standard. The 

annual PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean concentrations from 

single or multiple community-oriented monitors does not exceed the standard. Refer to Title 40, Part 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 50) for detailed information on attainment determination and reference 

method for monitoring.

c P = primary standard whose limits were set to protect public health; S = secondary standard whose limits were set 

to protect public welfare.

d Effective April 12, 2010.

e NS = no standard exists.

f As of June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the 1-hour O3 standard in all areas except 8-hour O3 nonattainment Early 

Action Compact (EAC) areas.

g

The 1997 standard – and the implementation rules for that standard – will remain in place for implementation 

purposes as the EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 O3 standard to the 2008 O3

standard.

h Effective January 12, 2009.

Sources: EPA, 2010a; 15A NC Administrative Code 02D.0401-410.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-25 NUREG-1938

adverse effect on air quality-related values (AQRVs), such as scenic, cultural, biological, and 

recreational resources (EPA, 2010b). The nearest Class I areas are the Swanquarter 

Wilderness Area in North Carolina and Cape Romain Wilderness Area in South Carolina, both 

of which are beyond 177 kilometers (110 miles) from the proposed facility (40 CFR 81.422 and 

40 CFR 81.426) (FWS, 1998).

Section 112 of the CAA specified a list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), also called air toxics. 

Unlike criteria air pollutants, no Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for 

air toxics. Rather, the EPA has issued National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPs) requiring control of sources of these pollutants. These standards are 

based on a technology, rather than a health-based approach, but still require an assessment of 

the residual health risk remaining after the controls are in place.

North Carolina has its own “risk-based” regulatory program, independent of the Federal 

program, designed to protect the public health by limiting emissions of toxic air pollutants 

(TAPs). Many chemicals on the State TAPs list overlap with those on the Federal hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) list, but the State includes additional substances not on the Federal list. As 

part of its program, North Carolina has also developed Acceptable Ambient Levels (AALs) for 

97 TAPs, “above which the substance may be considered to have an adverse effect on human 

health” (15A NC Administrative Code 02D.1104). In contrast to the NAAQS, which are applied 

to outdoor air throughout the country, the AALs are applied on a much smaller scale. North 

Carolina’s AALs are used in air permitting to ensure that TAPs from new or modified facilities do 

not cause or contribute beyond the premises (adjacent property boundaries) to any significant 

concentration levels that may adversely affect human health, on a case-by-case basis. 

Generally, monitoring for TAPs is limited to specific areas and specific pollutants.

3.5.3.1 Current Emissions at the Wilmington Site

Air quality permits are legally binding documents that include enforceable conditions with which 

the source owner/operator must comply. As discussed in Section 3.5.3, depending on the air 

regulatory program, the State has both independent authority and authority delegated from the 

EPA to issue these permits. The NCDAQ issues the permits to source owners/operators for the 

construction and operation of air emission sources in the State. Construction permits ensure 

that proposed projects can meet air pollution standards before construction. Operating permits

set emission limits and establish monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. For 

air permitting purposes, a source is classified as one of three categories: “major,” “synthetic 

minor,” and “small.” A facility that has the potential to emit 91 metric tons (100 tons) or more per 

year for one or more of the criteria pollutants, or 9.1 metric tons (10 tons) or more per year of 

any of the listed HAPs, or 23 metric tons (25 tons) or more per year of an aggregate total of 

HAPs is defined as a “major” source. Major sources are subject to Title V of the Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), which standardizes air quality permits and the permitting process 

across the United States. A “synthetic minor” (or “conditional major”) source has the potential 

for exceeding major source emission thresholds but is the one that avoids major source 

requirements by accepting permit conditions that limit emissions below major source thresholds. 

The “small” (or “minor”) source has no potential for exceeding major source emission 

thresholds.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-26 February 2012

Currently, the Wilmington Site has two active “synthetic minor” operating permits. 

Permit 1161R19 was issued to GE to operate air emission sources associated with the AE 

operations and one air emission source related to the SCO (NCDAQ, 2004a). The primary 

emission is PM10 from metal cleaning systems. Permit 1756R17 was issued to GNF-A to 

operate air emission sources associated with the FMO facility and the FCO (NCDAQ, 2004b). 

Primary emission sources include a natural gas-fired chambered incinerator for combustible 

LLRW, three natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil-fired boilers, and one emergency and two loadshedding generators burning diesel fuel.

Table 3-6 presents annual point source emissions of criteria pollutants and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) for New Hanover County, neighboring Brunswick and Pender Counties, and 

for the Wilmington Site (NCDAQ, 2009a-d). Annual point source emissions for New Hanover 

County are the highest among the three counties, about 2 to 7 times higher than for Brunswick 

County. Pender County, with the lowest population among the three counties and no major 

industries, has negligible point source emissions. Point source emissions from current 

operations at the Wilmington Site are well below the major source threshold of 91 metric tons 

(100 tons) per year for one or more of the criteria pollutants, and are insignificant compared with 

the annual total emissions in New Hanover County and the three counties combined.

Table 3-6 Annual Point Source Emissions of Criteria 

Pollutants and VOCs in New Hanover County, Neighboring 

Brunswick and Pender Counties for 2007, and at the 

Wilmington Site for 2004

Annual Emission Rates (tons/yr)a

Pollutant Brunswick 

County

New Hanover 

County

Pender 

County

Wilmington 

Siteb

SO2 7407 26,055 NAc0.2

NOx 2612 7170 NA 7

CO 6299 12,156 NA 3.5

VOC 1426 2371 NA 0.4

TSP 292 1790 6.4 0.4

PM10 201 1328 2.6 0.4

PM2.5 134 782 NA 0.1

a

To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.9072.

b

Point source emissions reported to and accepted by NCDAQ for compliance 

with current site permits.

c NA = not available.

Source: NCDAQ, 2009a-d.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-27 NUREG-1938

Annual emissions in 2007 for large point sources with any one of the criteria pollutants and/or 

VOCs of greater than 91 metric tons (100 tons) per year in New Hanover County and 

neighboring Brunswick and Pender Counties are presented in Table 3-7. Many large point 

source emitters are in operation in Wilmington, New Hanover County, while no large emitters 

exist in Pender County. A coal-fired electric plant owned by Carolina Power and Light Company 

in Wilmington, New Hanover County, accounts for more than half of the three-county total point 

source emissions of SO2, NOx, and all PMs (TSP, PM10, and PM2.5). Invista, S.a.r.l., a 

manufacturer of industrial organic chemicals, is a primary contributor to emissions of CO and 

VOCs and a secondary contributor to emissions of all PMs. Invista, S.a.r.l. is also a secondary 

contributor to SO2, along with a coal-fired cogeneration plant in Southport, Brunswick County, 

owned by EPCOR USA. DAK Americas LLC, a manufacturer of organic fibers in Leland, 

Brunswick County, is a secondary contributor to NOx, CO, and VOC emissions.

As shown in Table 3-8, nitric acid, at 178 kilograms (393 pounds), was the highest among the 

air toxics emitted from the Wilmington Site in 2004, followed by ammonia at 108 kilograms 

(237 pounds). The Wilmington Site also emitted about 27 kilograms (60 pounds) of total 

fluorides and 15 kilograms (32 pounds) of hydrogen fluoride. Total air toxic emissions from the 

Wilmington Site in 2004 were about 546 kilograms (1203 pounds). Accordingly, toxic emissions 

from the Wilmington Site are well below the major source thresholds of 9.1 metric tons per year 

(10 tons per year) for a single HAP and 23 metric tons (25 tons per year) for any combination of 

listed HAPs.

No total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data are available at the county level in 

North Carolina. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks in North Carolina are presented in 

Section 4.2.18.4.

Facilities in North Carolina are encouraged by the NCDAQ to report their GHG emissions 

voluntarily. No facilities in New Hanover County have voluntarily reported their GHG emissions 

to date. On October 30, 2009, the EPA promulgated the Mandatory Greenhouse Gases 

(GHGs) Reporting Rule (74 FR 56260). This rule mandates the reporting of annual GHG 

emissions for over 10,000 facilities that account for 85 percent of the national GHG emissions. 

The rule, which became effective on December 29, 2009, focuses on large emitters of GHGs, 

including power generation facilities, and other industrial entities. Facilities that emit GHGs from 

certain sources – such as the production of cement, aluminum, and lime – are required to 

comply with the rule regardless of emission rate. Other GHG sources must be reported only if

the facility's GHG emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(CO2e). Combustion units are included in the sources which must report if aggregate emissions 

exceed this level. At this time, no action other than reporting must be taken.

3.5.3.2 Current Air Quality Conditions

Currently, three State monitoring sites as part of the North Carolina Ambient Monitoring 

Program are operating in New Hanover County; no monitoring sites are in operation in 

neighboring Brunswick and Pender Counties. Three criteria pollutants (O3, PM10,

7

and PM2.5) 

 

7

The NCDAQ began manual one-in-six-day PM10 monitoring at the Castle Hayne site in February 2008 

to provide the necessary PM10 data for PSD modeling associated with industrial expansion in the 

coastal area, because it shut down the PM10 monitoring site in Jacksonville, Onslow County, on 

December 31, 2007.
NUREG-1938

3-28 February 2012

Table 3-7 Annual Emissions for Large Point Sources in New Hanover County and Neighboring B

Pender Counties for 2007 (tons)

a,b,c

Facility Name County City SO2 NOx CO VOC TSP PM10 PM2.5 Indu

DAK Americas LLC Brunswick Leland 3254 1409 5955 1112 121 76 49.4 2824 – 

noncel

EPCOR USA 

North Carolina LLC –

Southport Plant

Brunswick Southport 4113 1144 266 15.2 73.5 72.7 50.7 4911 – 

Technical Coating 

International, Inc.

Brunswick Leland NR

d

0.3 0 170 0 0 0 3089 – 

NEC

e

Carolina Power and 

Light Company 

New Hanover Wilmington 20,393 5358 343 40.5 1161 827 445 4911 – 

Corning Incorporated New Hanover Wilmington 0.1 213 3.7 62.8 16.7 9.1 NR 3229 – 

blown g

Elementis Chromium New Hanover Castle Hayne 534 414 14.6 55.1 140 103 75.4 2819 – 

inorgan

Invista, S.a.r.l. New Hanover Wilmington 4107 924 11,701 1151 326 285 196 2869 – 

chemic

MeadWestvaco 

Packaging Systems, 

LLC

New Hanover Wilmington NR 1 0.8 664 0.2 0.2 0.2 2671 – 

laminat

a Presented large point sources with any one of the criteria pollutants and/or VOCs of greater than 100 tons per year.

b None of the point sources in Pender County generate emissions of any one of the criteria pollutants and/or VOCs of greater than 100 tons per y

c

To convert tons to metric tons, multiply by 0.9072.

d NR = not reported.

e NEC = not elsewhere classified.

Source: NCDAQ, 2009a-d.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-29 NUREG-1938

Table 3-8 Annual Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions 

at the Wilmington Site in 2004

Annual Emissions

Pollutanta CASb Code kg lb

Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 0.5 1.1

Acrolein 107-02-8 0.05 0.1

Ammonia (as NH3) 7664-41-7 108 237

Benzene 71-43-2 0.7 1.5

Butadiene, 1,3- 106-99-0 0.05 0.1

Chromic acid (VI) (component of SolCR6 and 

CRC)

7738-94-5 0.001 0.002

Chromium (VI) soluble chromate compounds 

(component of CRC)

SolCR6 0.001 0.002

Chromium — all/total (includes chromium (VI) 

categories, metal and others)

CRC 0 0

Fluorides (sum of all fluoride compounds as mass 

of F ion)

16984-48-8 27 60

Formaldehyde 50-00-0 3.2 7

Hydrogen chloride (hydrochloric acid) 7647-01-0 2.7 6

Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid as mass of 

HF) (component of 16984488/fluorides)

7664-39-3 15 32

MEK (methyl ethyl ketone, 2-butanone) 78-93-3 0.5 1

Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) 

(component of 83329/POMTV)

101-68-8 0.05 0.1

Nitric acid 7697-37-2 178 393

Polycyclic organic matter (includes PAH, dioxins, 

etc., NC & AP 42 historic)

POM 0.1 0.3

Polycyclic organic matter (specific compounds 

from OAQPS for Title V)

83329/POMTV 0.05 0.1

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 1.8 4

Toluene 108-88-3 1.4 3

Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- 79-00-5 29 63

Xylene (mixed isomers) 1330-20-7 0.2 0.4

Total 546 

(0.60 tons)

1,203

a SolCR6 = soluble chromium (VI) compounds; CRC = total chromium compounds; POMTV = polycyclic 

organic matter for Title V; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; AP 42 = EPA emission factor database; 

QAQPS = EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

b Chemical Abstracts Service.

Source: NCDAQ, 2009a-d.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-30 February 2012

are currently measured at Castle Hayne station located about 10 kilometers (6 miles) northeast 

of the Wilmington Site, while only SO2 is measured at the New Hanover County monitoring 

station located about 10 kilometers (6 miles) south of the Wilmington Site. The Battleship 

monitoring station, located about 10 kilometers (6 miles) south of the Wilmington Site, began 

collecting HAPs/TAPs in 2004. The Oleander & College monitoring station, located about 

13 kilometers (8 miles) south–southeast of the Wilmington Site, was shut down in 2005 because 

consistently low CO concentrations (well below the NAAQS) had been collected. Currently, the 

NCDAQ is monitoring NO2 at two urban centers in North Carolina (Charlotte and WinstonSalem), but is not monitoring lead in the statewide compliance monitoring network because of 

consistently low readings Statewide. 

Table 3-9 gives the highest background concentrations for SO2, CO, O3, PM10, and PM2.5 

collected at monitoring stations in New Hanover County, along with ambient air quality 

standards (EPA, 2009c). Because New Hanover County is in attainment for criteria pollutants 

(see Section 3.5.3), ambient air quality is considered relatively good. Monitoring data for SO2, 

CO, and PM10 are well below the applicable standards (less than or equal to 30 percent of the 

standard), while data for 1-hour O3 and PM2.5 levels are around 70 percent of their respective 

standards.7 However, monitoring data for 8-hour O3, which is of regional concern, has ranged 

from 84 to 100 percent of the standard.

3.6 Geology, Minerals, and Soil

This section describes regional and local geology and soils, seismicity, geologic hazards, and 

mineral resources. Detailed safety analyses relative to seismicity are not presented within this 

EIS, but rather, are part of the NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

3.6.1 Regional Geology, Structure, and Seismicity

The Wilmington Site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. Generally, 

this low-relief province has a subsurface that is composed of unconsolidated sediments (layers 

of sand, silt, marl, and clay) and limestone that rest on a crystalline basement. The sediments 

dip and thicken toward the east.

Site stratigraphy comprises Quaternary sediments over Cretaceous sediments over crystalline 

basement rock (Table 3-10). Detailed surficial mapping is not available, but examples of the 

types of uppermost Quaternary deposits include beach, sand dune, tidal marsh, swamp, and 

alluvium. Because of nearshore depositional environments and changing sea level, the 

unconsolidated sediments are variable areally and vertically. The Cretaceous formations at the 

site are considered to include the Peedee, Black Creek, and Cape Fear formations. The 

Peedee is a silty, fine to very fine-grained sand with traces of oyster shells and pyrite 

(Lautier, 1998). It overlies the Black Creek formation, which is approximately 300 feet of 

 

7

The highest 24-hour PM2.5 concentration recorded in 2008 was 41.6 g/m3, primarily due to a forest 

fire. PM monitors were removed in April 2008 and never started back (NCDAQ, 2009b). Only 

16 measurements were made in 2008, and thus, this value falls in the 98th percentile concentration. 

This reading, considered to be an exceptional event, is not a representative 98th percentile 

concentration for 2008. The second-highest concentration recorded in 2008 was 15.2 g/m3, which is 

well below the standard of 35 g/m3.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-31 NUREG-1938

Table 3-9 Highest Background Concentrations at Monitoring Stations 

in New Hanover County, North Carolina, during the Period 2004 to 2008

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

NAAQS/

SAAQS

Monitored Background Concentrationsa

Data Format 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

SO2 3-hour 0.5 ppm 2nd maximum 0.072

(14%)b

0.061

(12%)

0.065

(13%)

0.082

(16%)

0.069

(14%)

24-hour 0.14 ppm 2nd maximum 0.022

(16%)

0.022

(16%)

0.030

(21%)

0.027

(19%)

0.028

(20%)

Annual 0.03 ppm Annual average 0.005

(17%)

0.003

(10%)

0.005

(17%)

0.006

(20%)

0.006

(20%)

CO 1-hour 35 ppm 2nd maximum 3.3c

(9.4%)

NAd NA NA NA

8-hour 9 ppm 2nd maximum 2.3c

(26%)

NA NA NA NA

O3 1-hour 0.12 ppm 2nd maximum 0.081

(68%)

0.088

(73%)

0.085

(71%)

0.083

(69%)

0.082

(68%)

8-hour 0.075 ppm 4th highest 

daily maximum

0.070

(93%)

0.075

(100%)

0.072

(96%)

0.071

(95%)

0.063

(84%)

PM10 24-hour 150 g/m32nd maximum NA NA NA NA 20e

(13%)

PM2.5 24-hour 35 g/m398th percentile 22.8

(65%)

25.0

(71%)

25.8

(74%)

25.4

(73%)

41.6e,f

(119%)

Annual 15.0 g/m3Annual average 10.5

(70%)

10.3

(69%)

9.8

(65%)

9.0

(60%)

10.4e

(69%)

a

The NCDAQ monitors NO2 at two urban centers (Charlotte and Winston-Salem), for which the highest annual 

average concentration is 0.015 ppm, about 28 percent of the NAAQS of 0.053 ppm. However, the NCDAQ does 

not monitor Pb in the State of North Carolina because statewide attainment with applicable ambient air quality 

standards has been demonstrated.

b

Values in parentheses are monitored concentrations as a percentage of NAAQS or SAAQS.

c CO monitoring was discontinued from 2005 due to consistently low CO concentrations.

d NA = no measurement data are available.

e

Because of a prolonged fire, the PM monitors were removed in April 2008 and never restarted (NCDAQ, 2009e). 

On the basis of monitoring data in Wilmington for the 1998 to 2002 period, the highest background 24-hour and 

annual average concentrations were 45 and 20 g/m3, respectively.

f

This concentration is the highest (also falls in the 98th percentile) out of only 16 measurements recorded in 2008. 

This reading, which was primarily caused by a forest fire and considered to be an exceptional event, is not the 

representative 98th percentile in 2008. The second highest in 2008 was 15.2 g/m3.

Source: EPA, 2009c.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-32 February 2012

Table 3-10 Geologic Units at the North–Central Sector of the Wilmington Site

alternating beds of fine-grained sands and clays with organic matter (Harden et al., 2003). 

Clayey sand lenses are present that contain shells, glauconite, and organic material. In the 

lower portion of the formation, kaolinitic clay and cross-bedded sand, silty clay, channel sands, 

and laminated beds of sand and clay of a nonmarine river-delta environment are present. The 

Cape Fear formation comprises about 400 feet of clays interbedded with clayey sand to sandy 

clay. These materials were deposited in shallow seas and in deltaic and estuarine settings. 

The basement rock elevation is approximately 1050 feet below ground surface (bgs) 

(Harden et al., 2003).

3.6.1.1 Regional Earthquakes

North Carolina does not have concentrated seismic zones; however, in neighboring states are 

the Middleton Place-Summerville Seismic Zone (near Charleston, South Carolina), the Eastern 

Tennessee Seismic Zone, the Giles County (Virginia) Seismic Zone, and the Central Virginia 

Seismic Zone (Dart et al., 2010; Tarr and Wheeler, 2006). North Carolina's historical 

earthquakes have taken place in the western portion of the State (Petersen et al. 2008). 

In the seismic zones of nearby states, some historical and recent earthquakes of significance 

have taken place. An August 23, 2011, earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 occurred more than 

400 kilometers (250 miles) north of the Wilmington Site near the town of Mineral, Virginia 

(USGS, 2011), in the Central Virginia Seismic Zone. According to the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) ShakeMaps for this earthquake, little or no ground shaking was felt in Wilmington from 

this earthquake (USGS, 2011). Other historical earthquakes in this zone include a magnitude 

4.5 earthquake in 2003, with no detection in the Wilmington area (Tarr and Wheeler, 2006). An 

event of magnitude 5.6 occurred in western Virginia's Giles County Seismic Zone in 1897, also 

with no detection in the Wilmington area (Tarr and Wheeler, 2006). A magnitude 6.7 

earthquake took place in 1886 at Charleston, South Carolina (Dart et al., 2010). This 

earthquake had Modified Mercalli Intensity in the Wilmington area of VI (slight damage) to VII 

(damage negligible to considerable, depending on construction and design) (Dart et al., 2010). 

Formation Geologic 

Age Description

Approx. 

Thickness 

(ft)a

Approx. 

Depth 

to Top 

(ft)

Surficial sediments Quaternary Beach, sand dune, tidal marsh, 

swamp, and alluvial deposits

10–30 0

Peedee Cretaceous Mainly silty fine-grained sand 330 10–30

Black Creek Cretaceous Mainly alternating fine-grained 

sand and clay, clay lenses, 

variable sands

300 350

Cape Fear Cretaceous Clay interbedded with clayey 

sand and sandy clay

400 650

Crystalline basement Pre-Mesozoic Igneous and metamorphic rocks Large 1050

a

To convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.305.

Sources: Lautier, 1998; Harden et al., 2003.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-33 NUREG-1938

The GLE site vicinity does not have a significant seismic hazard. Crone and Wheeler (2000) 

assessed the Cape Fear Arch, a regional structural feature, approximately located along the 

Cape Fear River, and noted the lack of evidence for Quaternary faulting. The peak acceleration 

at the site is 3–4 percent of gravity (Frankel et al., 2005), which is relatively low. 

Because of the geologic and seismic setting of the site and its low relief, natural hazards such 

as volcanism and landslides are not considered to be credible. 

Tsunamis are uncommon along the eastern coast of the United States. A database maintained 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, 2011) lists all possible 

tsunamis along the eastern seaboard since colonial times. These have included six definite 

tsunami events (with a maximum tsunami runup water height of 0.68 meter [2.2 feet] occurring 

in Atlantic City, New Jersey in 1929, due to a Newfoundland earthquake); three probable 

tsunami events (one having a maximum size of 3.6 meters [11.8 feet] occurring in Boothbay 

Harbor, Maine in 2008, though the origins are unclear and likely not due to seismic activity); and 

five questionable tsunami events (one having a maximum size of 3 meters [9.8 feet] occurring at 

Bernard, Maine, in 1926, though that was likely due to a local landslide). For the probable and 

questionable categories, the second-highest runup water heights were significantly less than 

those at these particular Maine locations. No tsunami runup locations were listed for North 

Carolina, but two were noted in South Carolina. These included an 1886 event at the Cooper 

River at Charleston resulting from the Charleston earthquake (unspecified runup water height),

and a 1929 event at Charleston due to the Newfoundland earthquake (definite tsunami with 

runup water height of 0.12 meter [0.4 feet], compared to 0.68 meter [2.2 feet] in Atlantic City, as 

noted above)..

3.6.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Regional mineral resources include sand and gravel, clay, limestone, phosphate, and peat. The 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) notes the location of several active or former sandpits, a clay 

pit, and a quarry for crushed stone within 10 miles of the site (USGS, 2005). Fluorine and 

titanium operations occur outside of northern New Hanover County. At the site area, mineral 

resources have not been extracted, and significant economic value is not likely.

3.6.2 Site Geology

Across the Wilmington Site, Quaternary sediments blanket the surface. These deposits vary in 

texture and include silty fine sands, silty fine clayey sands, fine sandy silts, and fine sandy clays. 

The Peedee clay is present in the eastern portion of the proposed GLE site, while the underlying 

Peedee sands are present across the Wilmington Site. A total of ten soil borings were drilled in 

1980 and 2007 at or near the North–Central Site Sector to provide preliminary geotechnical 

information for a proposed landfill and for foundation design, respectively (GLE, 2008). The 

depths of the borings were roughly 35 to 60 feet. These drilling data indicate that the Peedee 

Clay has been eroded (GLE, 2008). Here, the Peedee Formation’s sandy material is found at a 

depth of roughly 10 to 30 ft. Farther to the west, at the Northwest Site Sector, a drilling program 

showed that no clay is present to a depth of at least 60 feet (RTI, 1997).

Carbonate bedrock is present elsewhere in New Hanover County and in adjoining Pender and 

Brunswick Counties (NCGS, 2007). In a karst terrain, dissolution of carbonate bedrock such as 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-34 February 2012

limestone leads to sinkholes and ground collapse. The site, however, is not underlain by the 

limestone formations that are susceptible to karst (NCGS, 2007; Lautier, 1998; GLE, 2008).

3.6.3 Site Soils

Soils in the region have developed on the recent Quaternary sediments. The North-Central Site 

Sector, as well as most of the Wilmington Site, has soils of the Meggett-Johnston-Dorovan 

association. Typical characteristics are very poorly drained, very little slope, high flooding 

frequency due to poor drainage, and moderate permeability (GLE, 2008). Most of the NorthCentral Site Sector is mapped as the Murville fine sand and the Leon sand soil types. The 

Murville is formed in sandy marine and fluvial sediments on broad interstream uplands or in 

interstream areas. Slopes are less than 2 percent, drainage is very poor, and permeability is 

high in the surface layer and moderately high in the subsoils. The seasonal high water table is 

at or near the surface. The soil is strongly to extremely acidic. The Leon sand is found in 

various settings, including uplands and stream terraces. It is deep, with high permeability at the 

surface, moderate to moderately high permeability in the subsoil, and very high permeability at 

depth. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface.

Differential settlement of foundations occurs in clayey soils with particular properties. The 

potential for differential settlement at the proposed construction site is not a concern because of 

the sandy soils.

Section 3.7.4.3 provides information on historical releases to site groundwater at various 

facilities at the Wilmington Site. These have included historical VOCs, calcium fluoride, 

uranium, nitrate, and metals. Remediation has been conducted or is being conducted in 

response to these contaminants. Residual contaminants are presumably present in the 

unsaturated or saturated site soils.

3.7 Water Resources

This section discusses both surface water and groundwater, including descriptions of the 

resources, their use, and natural and anthropogenic quality issues.

3.7.1 Surface Water Features and Quality

The Wilmington Site is in the Northeast Cape Fear River subbasin of the Cape Fear River basin. 

The Northeast Cape Fear River is the nearest named surface water body to the Wilmington 

Site. It forms the southwestern border of the Wilmington property, where it is 600 to 1300 feet 

wide. The river is tidally influenced (Weaver and Pope, 2001). Flow measurements of the river 

in the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington Site are unavailable. The nearest flow monitoring 

stations for the Northeast Cape Fear River are upstream from the Wilmington Site. At Burgaw 

(approximately 18 miles north of the site), limited data provide an average flow of 620 cubic feet 

per second in 2005 (USGS, 2010a). Farther upstream at Chinquapin (approximately 34 miles 

north of the site), data from 1941 to 2009 indicate an annual average flow of 712 cubic feet per 

second (USGS, 2010b). The 2005 average, for comparison with the Burgaw data, was 

423 cubic feet per second. The Northeast Cape Fear River basin comprises more than 

1740 square miles, while the overall Cape Fear River basin covers 9090 square miles and is the 

largest watershed in North Carolina (Weaver and Pope, 2001). There are no dams (other than 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-35 NUREG-1938

the site dam on the effluent channel), reservoirs, or surface water intakes within the Northeast 

Cape Fear watershed.

Surface water is used in the region for various purposes; the predominant use is 

nonconsumptive cooling water for thermoelectric power generation. In New Hanover, Pender, 

and Brunswick Counties, there are no public supply intakes; however, the Wilmington area is 

served by an intake on the Cape Fear River in Bladen County. In New Hanover, Pender, and 

Brunswick Counties, the dominant surface water uses are irrigation and industry (USGS, 2009). 

Groundwater is the water source for domestic, municipal, and industrial users.

The site is drained by several small streams and an effluent channel (Figure 3-8). The effluent 

channel begins in the Eastern Site Sector and flows to the site dam west and then connects to 

an unnamed perennial tributary to the Northeast Cape Fear River. Another tributary to the 

same river drains portions of the western and northwestern site sectors. Two unnamed streams 

flow north from the property to Prince George Creek, a tributary to the Northeast Cape Fear 

River. One of these originates in the Eastern Site Sector and receives site stormwater; the 

other has headwaters just north of the Northwestern Site Sector.

The effluent channel receives treated process wastewater effluent subject to NPDES water 

quality standards. It also receives stormwater runoff from the developed Eastern Site Sector.

Other onsite natural surface water bodies include three ephemeral woodland ponds. Created 

features include two active final process lagoons, their associated aeration basin, four inactive 

Figure 3-8 Surface Water Features at the Wilmington Site (Modified from GLE, 2008)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-36 February 2012

wastewater treatment facility lagoons, one firewater pond, and two stormwater wet detention 

basins.

The process lagoons and aeration basin are for the treatment of process wastewater from the 

FMO facility. Adjustment of wastewater pH causes precipitation of chemicals and the resulting 

floc is disposed of as low-level waste. The lagoons are periodically dredged and inspected. 

The water discharged from the lagoons is cooled to ambient air temperature prior to discharge 

to Outfall 001 (Figure 3-20).

Dredging of stormwater ponds and the effluent channel are not covered under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) because they are created features for industrial purposes. Large trees along the 

banks of the effluent channel suggest that dredging is not frequent and has not taken place for 

many years.

The wastewater lagoons are being decommissioned because wastewater is being reused at the 

facility, as described later in this section.

The State classifies surface waters and wetlands to specify the required types of protection 

(15A NC Administrative Code 2B.0101). The Northeast Cape Fear River near the Wilmington 

Site is State-designated as Class C swamp water. A Class C designation means that the water 

is protected for secondary recreation (boating, but not swimming), fishing, and wildlife. The 

supplemental classification “swamp water” describes water of low velocity, low pH, and low 

dissolved oxygen. The tributaries draining the site are also considered Class C swamp water. 

The lower portions of these tributaries, as well as the Northeast Cape Fear River near the site, 

are tidally influenced and therefore contain some saltwater. The balance of fresh and saltwater 

is dynamic and dependent on the tide and the flow of freshwater from upstream.

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) maintains two monitoring stations along 

the Northeast Cape Fear River. One station is about 17 miles upstream of the Wilmington Site; 

another is 6 miles downstream. The GLE Environmental Report (GLE, 2008; Table 3.4-6) 

contains tabulated summaries of water quality monitoring results from these stations. Results 

include the chloride mean and maximum values exceeding the evaluation limit at the 

downstream location, the copper and zinc maximum values exceeding the evaluation limit at 

both the upstream and downstream locations, the iron maximum value exceeding the evaluation 

limit at the upstream location, the minimum pH below the evaluation limit at the downstream 

location, and the minimum dissolved oxygen below the evaluation limit at both the upstream and 

downstream locations. A third station is located at the GE dock near the Wilmington Site’s 

south border, less than 2500 feet downstream of the tributary fed by the effluent channel. This 

station is monitored by the Lower Cape Fear River Program, a collaborative effort among 

academia, government, industry, and the public. The GLE Environmental Report (GLE, 2008; 

Table 3.4-7) contains a tabulated summary of water quality monitoring results from this station. 

Of the water quality parameters listed, the minimum dissolved oxygen is the only one outside 

the evaluation limit. 

GE monitors water quality, gross alpha, gross beta, and uranium concentrations in the effluent 

channel at the site dam, the Northeast Cape Fear River significantly upstream of the Wilmington 

Site (at a location consistent with the upstream NCDWQ station), and the Northeast Cape Fear 

River at the GE dock. These three surface water stations are also monitored by the North 

Carolina Radiation Protection Section (NCRPS) through monthly sampling. Summary data from 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-37 NUREG-1938

1997 to 2006 are presented for water quality parameters, total uranium, gross alpha, and gross 

beta (GLE, 2008; Tables 3.4-8 and 3.4-9).

Non-radiological results include the copper mean and maximum values exceeding the 

evaluation limit at both the upstream location and the GE dock, the fecal coliform maximum 

exceeding the evaluation limit at the upstream location, and the dissolved oxygen minimum 

value below the evaluation limit at both the upstream location and the GE dock. Evaluation 

limits are not applied to the site dam data because it is an industrial waterway not subject to 

15A NC Administrative Code 02B.0211. Although a segment of the Northeast Cape Fear River 

(ending approximately 8.5 miles upstream of the Wilmington Site) is listed by the State as 

mercury-impaired, the segment of the river contiguous to and immediately downstream of the 

Site is not listed as mercury-impaired. GEH does not monitor the effluent channel or the 

Northeast Cape Fear River for mercury.

Radiological results at the site dam include mean total uranium concentration of 

0.024 milligrams per liter, maximum total uranium concentration of 0.13 milligrams per liter, 

mean gross alpha of 49.9 picocuries per liter, maximum gross alpha of 329 picocuries per liter, 

mean gross beta of 58.7 picocuries per liter, and maximum gross beta of 330 picocuries per 

liter. State standards are annual averages of 15 picocuries per liter for gross alpha and 50 

picocuries per liter for gross beta (15A NC Administrative Code 02B.0211); however, these 

standards do not apply to an industrial waterway such as the effluent channel. Results on the 

upstream and downstream river stations are significantly lower and often below detection limits, 

and the annual averages are below the standards for gross alpha and gross beta. NCRPS data 

with detailed monthly summary tables for 2000, 2002, and 2006 were obtained for comparison 

with GE and NCRPS results for gross alpha and gross beta (NCDENR, 2009b). These 

comparisons showed NCRPS results to be generally higher than the GE results, and the 

difference in many cases was significant. No NCRPS data were available for total uranium. 

North Carolina does not have a water quality standard for uranium in 15A NC Administrative 

Code 02B.0211.

The Wilmington Site has two National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits: one for wastewaters (process and sanitary) and another for stormwater. 

The process and sanitary wastewater permit (Klimek, 2004) expired February 28, 2009. The 

Wilmington Site operates under a renewal draft permit (NCDENR, 2009d), which allows the Site 

to continue operating under the conditions of the previous permit. A renewal draft permit is an 

interim permit issued by the State that allows a permittee to operate under the previous permit 

(the terms of which may be modified by the State) until the final draft permit is issued. The 

permit addresses two outfalls. Outfall 001 (Figure 3-20) is for process wastewater. It is 

monitored prior to discharge to the effluent channel for various parameters and has limitations 

on total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen, fluoride, cyanide, pH, metals (total cadmium, 

lead, chromium, copper, nickel, silver, zinc), oil and grease, and total toxic organics. The permit 

lists a number of equipment systems that contribute flow to the outfall, including treatment 

tanks, lime slurry system, hydrofluoric acid equipment, etc. The permitted maximum flow at the 

outfall is 1.8 million gallons per day. Outfall 002 (Figure 3-20) was used for treated domestic 

(sanitary) wastewater until April 2008. Permit limitations included biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD), TSS, and fecal coliform, and a maximum allowed flow of 75,000 gallons per day 

(Klimek, 2004). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-38 February 2012

The current sanitary wastewater treatment facility is a new system that does not release 

effluent. The Wilmington Site obtained a permit for the construction and operation of a 

75,000-gallons-per-day reverse osmosis water treatment facility to treat the wastewater prior to 

reuse (Klimek, 2007a). This system’s treated sanitary effluent is routed to the FMO facility for 

industrial process use and to Wilmington Site cooling towers (for the SCO heating, ventilation 

and air-conditioning, the FCO facility, and the FMO facility). Effluent limits for both monthly 

average and daily maximum values include turbidity, nitrogen, BOD, TSS, and fecal coliform.

The NCDWQ web site does not list NPDES-related Notices of Violation (NOVs) at facilities. At 

the site audit, representatives described the history of NOVs for discharges. From 

approximately 1995 to 1997, the site received several NOVs for BOD. GLE had two reporting 

violations (one for weekly ammonia, one for weekly coliform) but could not provide written 

documentation from the State regarding these occurrences (GLE, 2009a). None of the NOVs 

have recurred.

The effluent channel receives effluent from the final process lagoons, which receive alkaline 

water from the alkaline cleaners used in processing at the FCO facility (GLE, 2009a). The 

optimum pH of the lagoons is 8 to 10 to facilitate the settling of solids. The permit for the 

process wastewater limits pH to a minimum of 6.0 and a maximum of 9.0 at Outfall 001 

upstream of the site dam (Klimek, 2004). The adjustment is made using sulfuric acid prior to 

release at the outfall (GLE, 2009a). The site dam has a monitoring station for pH. A gate can 

be closed to stop flow through the dam if there is an alarm caused by pH outside the range of 

6 to 9. GE data for 1997 to 2006 include statistics for 874 pH samples: a minimum pH of 6.10, 

a maximum pH of 12.50, and an average pH of 7.31 determined by using the hydrogen ion 

concentrations (GLE, 2008). In the last 10 years, the dam has had no reportable pH excursions 

(GLE, 2009a). The pH may exceed the range of 6 to 9 for 60 minutes in one event or 7.2 hours 

in a month (Klimak, 2004). If the pH alarm at the dam sounds, GLE implements a procedure to 

investigate (GLE, 2009a). An operator closes the dam within five minutes and manually checks 

the pH at the outfall with pH paper and a handheld pH meter. If the pH is not within the 

allowable range, the operator closes the final process lagoons and the pH is retested within 

60 minutes. If the pH were still not within the allowable range, the cause would be investigated 

and a remediation plan would be developed to adjust the pH. The pH alarms have been 

attributed to an error with the probe at the dam or the system has recovered within 60 minutes.

Overflow at a closed dam could occur if the effluent channel receives more than 8.6 million 

gallons of water, which would be expected with a 25-year storm event (GLE, 2009b). During dry 

conditions, the retention capacity at the dam would allow time for pH adjustments. Dilution of 

out-of-specification pH would occur during large rainfall events.

The NPDES stormwater permit (Klimek, 2007b) requires a stormwater pollution prevention plan, 

with components that include a description of site operations such as storage and waste 

disposal, a list of spills or leaks in the prior 3 years, secondary containment information, a 

description of best management practices with regard to controlling pollutants in stormwater 

discharge, and a spill prevention and response plan. The Wilmington Site has three stormwater 

outfalls: two discharge to the Northeast Cape Fear River (Figure 3-20), and one discharges to 

the Prince George Creek. Semiannual sampling is required during a storm event, with analysis 

for lead, oil and grease, pH, and TSS. The 2007 results were within the allowable ranges, with 

the exception of a TSS value that was driven high because of construction activities. Quarterly 

stormwater sampling took place during 2003 and included analyses for ammonia, combined 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-39 NUREG-1938

nitrite and nitrate, fluoride, uranium (up to 9.9 picocuries per liter), dichloroethylene (DCE), 

trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride (VC) (GLE, 2008). The VOCs were at very low or 

nondetectable levels. In the current stormwater permit (Klimek, 2007b), uranium has been 

dropped as a monitoring requirement.

3.7.2 Floodplains

The North-Central Site Sector, the location of the proposed GLE Facility, is above the 100-year 

and 500-year floodplains of the Northeast Cape Fear River (Figure 3-9). Employees at the 

Wilmington Site did not observe flooding in 1999 during Hurricane Floyd (GLE, 2008).

3.7.3 Wetlands

Several small wetlands have been identified (GLE, 2008) and were visited during the site audit. 

Section 3.8.2 describes these features in detail.

3.7.4 Groundwater

3.7.4.1 Site and Regional Hydrogeology

The geologic units discussed in Section 3.6 comprise the aquifers and aquitards of the site 

vicinity. Table 3-10 gives the thicknesses and approximate contact elevations. The discussion 

below focuses on the Quaternary sediments and the Peedee and Black Creek aquifers because 

they represent the near-surface flow system and because fresh water is present in the 

Quaternary and portions of the Peedee.

The unconfined surficial aquifer consists of the Quaternary sediments, which vary greatly in 

texture and permeability over short lateral or vertical distances. Well yields are limited and 

usually are sufficient only for domestic wells. The aquifer’s groundwater is generally fresh, 

away from coastal barrier islands (Lautier, 1998). Regional hydraulic conductivity 

measurements range between 18.2 and 607 feet per day, with an average of 130 feet per day 

(Lautier, 1998).

The Peedee aquifer is an important regional water source and is the water source for the 

Wilmington Site (see Section 3.7.4.2). Its hydraulic conductivity varies spatially but is generally 

high. Regional hydraulic conductivity measurements range between 1.02 and 243 feet per day 

with an average of 38.26 feet per day (Lautier, 1998). Its groundwater is generally transitional 

between freshwater and saltwater, though at the Wilmington Site, the shallow Peedee 

groundwater is fresh. Recharge may occur from the surficial aquifer and as upward leakage 

from the Black Creek aquifer (Harden et al., 2003). In the eastern portion of the Wilmington 

Site, the overlying Peedee clay is of variable thickness and functions as a semiconfining unit, 

but it thins to the west. Site drilling logs (GLE, 2008) indicate that the Peedee clay is not 

present at the proposed GLE site. 

The underlying Black Creek aquifer at the site is nonpotable because of saltwater content, and 

is therefore not relied on as a water resource in the Wilmington Site vicinity. A confining unit of 

clay, silt, and thin sand beds separates the Black Creek aquifer from the overlying Peedee 

aquifer. Below the Black Creek formation is the Cape Fear formation, which contains upper and 

lower aquifers. Both are nonpotable due to salt content.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-40 February 2012

Figure 3-9 Floodplains at the Wilmington Site (Modified from GLE, 2008)

At the proposed GLE Facility site, the surficial aquifer discharges to surface water bodies, 

including streams, drainage canals, and swamps. It also leaks groundwater into the underlying 

upper Peedee aquifer. Potentiometric mapping of the surficial aquifer (GLE, 2008) indicates a 

water table mound centered on the north-central site sector, with shallow groundwater 

discharging directly toward the surrounding low areas in all directions. Flow to the east 

eventually diverts to the north or south. Water levels generally fluctuate over a range of several 

feet in response to seasonal changes or precipitation events.

Water level data from the upper portion of the Peedee sand at the proposed GLE site support 

flow patterns similar to those of the surficial aquifer. A mound is present at the north-central site 

sector, with flow toward the surface water bodies on the north, west, and south. To the east, 

however, flow is captured by remediation/containment wells and process water wells in the 

central GLE property (GLE, 2008).

3.7.4.2 Groundwater Use

Much of the regional groundwater withdrawal for public systems and private users is from the 

Peedee aquifer.

For potable water supply, the Wilmington Site has three production wells completed in the 

Peedee aquifer. They are located east of the site and NC 133 (Castle Hayne Road) on a 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-41 NUREG-1938

separate GE property. The average pumping rate from this system is approximately 

47,000 gallons per day (GLE, 2008). In comparison, the rate of groundwater usage for public 

supply in New Hanover County in 2000 was nearly 8 million gallons per day, while the overall 

groundwater withdrawal was about 17 million gallons per day, with the main categories of public 

supply, domestic wells, industrial wells, and irrigation (USGS, 2009). Much of the regional 

groundwater withdrawal is from the Peedee aquifer.

Approximately 15 extraction wells and two sumps are at the site. They are located within the 

eastern site sector and are used for remediation, specifically hydraulic containment. Extracted 

groundwater is treated and used as the process water at Wilmington facilities, with an average 

pumping rate of approximately 565,000 gallons per day (GLE, 2008).

Together, the potable and remedial/process pumping systems withdraw a combined 

612,000 gallons per day of groundwater. Nonagricultural users of more than 100,000 gallons 

per day of groundwater are required to register with the North Carolina Environmental 

Management Commission, and to update their registrations every 5 years thereafter, under 

North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.22H. GE operations have been registered under this 

program (GLE, 2008). 

3.7.4.3 Groundwater Quality

Natural groundwater quality varies with location and depth. While the surficial and Peedee 

aquifers are generally of good quality in the Wilmington region, the lower portion of the Peedee 

in eastern areas has a high chloride concentration because of saltwater intrusion and is 

consequently nonpotable (Lautier, 1998). The deeper Black Creek aquifer and underlying units 

are generally nonpotable due to saltwater intrusion.

Groundwater monitoring takes place at the Wilmington Site to assess groundwater 

contamination, which may be any combination of organic, inorganic, radiological, or water 

quality parameters. Figure 3-10 shows the locations of monitoring areas and wells. The GLE 

Environmental Report provides a tabular summary of monitoring results based on historical site 

databases and identifies exceedances, which have included chromium, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, 

various organic compounds, gross alpha, and high pH (GLE, 2008; Tables 3.4-3, 3.4-4, and 

3.4-5). The State standards are also included in these tables. The impacted groundwater does 

not flow offsite, given proper functioning of the groundwater extraction systems that provide 

hydraulic containment and route the extracted water to site industrial uses.

Groundwater impacts are present at several distinct areas of the Wilmington Site, as described 

below. These areas are shown in Figure 3-10. The Northwest Site Area is located in the 

Northwest Site Sector, adjacent to the northwestern edge of the current proposed GLE site. It 

was a lubricant disposal area, and its groundwater contains TCE and its breakdown products, 

cis-1,2 dichloroethylene (cDCE), and VC. Calcium fluoride, which typically contains traces of 

uranium, was stored here. Excavation of contaminated soil took place in 1996 (RTI, 2008a). A 

corrective action plan for the groundwater proposed monitored natural attenuation (MNA) on the 

basis of a lack of downgradient receptors, sampling results, and model calculations 

(RTI, 1999a). Fluoride and uranium are included in the MNA assessment. Concentrations were 

stable or decreasing for TCE, cDCE, VC, uranium, and fluoride as of 2007 (RTI, 2008a).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-42 February 2012

Figure 3-10 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results Relative to State Standards

(Modified from GLE, 2008)

The other monitored locations are in the Eastern Site Sector (Figure 2-1). The Waste 

Treatment Area has nitrate impacts in the surficial and Peedee aquifers (RTI, 1999b). The 

facility is no longer used for storing nitrate-containing liquids. Monitoring has not indicated 

impact from fluoride or uranium. MNA is taking place, and the nitrate plume is stable in extent.

The FCO Cleanroom Area is monitored to address a release of acid process solutions. A 

breach in an acid tank containment was identified and repaired in September 1996 

(RTI, 1998b). Shallow wells were installed and monitored from January to May 1997, and, 

following a dry period, monitoring continued in January 1998. Excavation and offsite disposal of 

72 cubic feet of soil took place in 1999 (GLE, 2009b). The affected area is beneath the active 

FCO building, and monitoring is focused on pH, fluoride, nitrate, and five indicator metals 

(chromium, zirconium, tin, nickel, and copper).

The Aeration Basin/Process Lagoon Area is an active treatment facility for process wastewater. 

Shallow groundwater in this area has occasionally shown shallow inorganic and radiological 

impacts. GNF-A performs groundwater monitoring in this area as a condition of NRC Materials 

License SNM-1097 (GLE, 2008). 

The FMO/FMOX Facility Area has been affected by a 1991 release of process liquid. Well 

installation and groundwater sampling took place immediately, and the fluoride and nitrate 

values were above the standard in all wells (NCDEHNR, 1991b). Uranium was also detected, 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-43 NUREG-1938

with a maximum of 387 parts per million. Soil excavation took place, and a sump system (the 

Horizontal Collection System) was installed to remove groundwater from the shallow surficial 

aquifer. Another sump (SD-1SW) was installed in a former storm drain to collect shallow 

groundwater. Groundwater monitoring has taken place since 1992 in the shallow surficial 

aquifer, deep surficial aquifer, and Peedee sand aquifer. Exceedances have included fluoride, 

nitrate, and uranium in the upper surficial aquifer beyond the perimeter of the FMOX building 

(RTI, 1998a).

In 1991, the State issued an NOV regarding TCE and other organic compounds present in site 

water wells at levels above the standard (NCDEHNR, 1991a). The wells included five processwater extraction wells and nine monitoring wells. In the NOV, the North Carolina Department of 

Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) required determination and 

elimination of the source of contamination, assessment of the extent of contamination, and 

submission of a remedial action plan. In 2009, the State transferred the GE site to its Inactive 

Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List, a list of sites where uncontrolled disposal, spills, or 

releases of hazardous substances have been identified (NCDENR, 2009c). Listed sites are 

required to take action to control the contaminated discharge and mitigate hazards. Many other 

monitoring wells are located in or near the eastern site sector and are used to monitor VOC 

concentrations from various historic releases of solvents (RTI, 1992; RTI, 1994; RTI, 1996). 

VOCs across the entire Wilmington Site are addressed in comprehensive annual reports 

updating the ongoing site investigation (e.g., RTI, 2008b). In general, the concentrations of 

VOCs have been stable or decreasing; this is attributed to natural attenuation (RTI, 2008b).

3.8 Ecological Resources

This section describes the terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic ecological resources in the area of 

the proposed GLE Facility, with emphasis on the components that could be affected by the 

construction and operation of the facility, ancillary facilities, and the onsite access road to the 

facility. Particular attention is given to species protected by the Federal government under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as species and habitats of special concern listed by the 

State of North Carolina. Unless otherwise cited, the information presented in this section has 

been adapted from the GLE Environmental Report (GLE, 2008), with additional information 

supplied by GLE (GLE, 2009b; GLE, 2009c). To the extent practicable, the information was 

verified independently by the NRC through a review of references provided by GLE; a site visit 

to observe habitats at the Wilmington Site; discussions with GLE and their consultants; and use 

of geographic information tools. Ecological field surveys were conducted during 6 days in 

July 2007, 4 days in September 2007, and from September 1 through September 30, 2009, to 

identify biotic communities and characterize the natural and anthropogenic communities on the 

Wilmington Site. The emphasis of the field surveys was on the area that encompasses the 

proposed GLE Facility and the area for the revised entrance and roadway (GLE, 2008, 2009c).

3.8.1 Vegetation

Ecoregions are designed to provide a spatial framework for the research, assessment, 

management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components (EPA, 2007a). An 

ecoregion is an area having a general similarity in ecosystems and is characterized by the 

spatial patterning and composition of biotic and abiotic features, including vegetation, wildlife, 

geology, physiography (patterns of terrain or land forms), climate, soils, land use, and 

hydrology, such that within an ecoregion, there is a similarity in the type, quality, and quantity of 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-44 February 2012

environmental resources present (EPA, 2007b). The Wilmington Site is located within the 

Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Level III Ecoregion. This ecoregion is characterized by low-level 

flat plains with many swamps, marshes, and estuaries. The ecoregion’s forest cover was once 

dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), but is now dominated by loblolly pine (P. taeda) 

and some shortleaf pine (P. echinata), with patches of oaks (Quercus spp.), sweetgum 

(Liquidamber styraciflora), and cypress (Taxodium spp.) near major streams. Pine plantations 

are common, and there are some areas of cropland.

The Wilmington Site is located within the border of two Level IV ecoregions.8 The eastern 

portion of the Wilmington Site, including most of the existing facilities, is located within the 

Carolina Flatwoods Level IV Ecoregion; while the western portion of the site, including the 

proposed GLE Facility, is located within the Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces Level IV 

Ecoregion (Figure 3-11). Table 3-11 summarizes the vegetation and the land use and land 

cover within these Level IV ecoregions.

Three general vegetation cover types dominate the Wilmington Site: (1) upland forested 

vegetation (mostly in sandy, well-drained to excessively well-drained soils that are never or 

rarely flooded for any significant period of time); (2) wetland vegetation (mostly in soils saturated 

at all times or for a significantly long period of time throughout the year); and (3) anthropogenic 

vegetation (occurring under various hydrologic regimes and soils with the type of vegetation 

cover primarily resulting from human occupation or intervention) (DuMond, 1984). The 

anthropogenic vegetation cover type occurs within the operations area, utility corridors, along 

roadsides, and also includes pine plantations.

Plant community mapping of the Wilmington Site was conducted on the basis of true-color 

orthophotography and field surveys conducted in July and September 2007 (GLE, 2008). 

Thirteen plant communities, including eight natural and five anthropogenically influenced 

communities, were identified on the Wilmington Site (Figure 3-12). Table 3-12 summarizes 

information on these communities. The proposed GLE Facility would be located within areas 

now occupied by pine forest, pine-hardwood forest, and pine plantation communities. These 

communities are described in more detail below. The ages of these pine-dominated plant 

communities are shown in Figure 3-13.

3.8.1.1 Pine Forest

Pine forest communities primarily occur within the north-central portion of the Wilmington Site, 

and within the upland area surrounded by the old oxbow of the Northeast Cape Fear River in 

the western portion of the site. Several small stands of pine forest are also scattered throughout 

the rest of the Wilmington Site. Most pine forest stands on the Wilmington Site, including those 

within and immediately adjacent to the proposed GLE Facility site, vary from less than 20 years 

old to 20 to 29 years old (Figure 3-13). A total of 123 hectares (304 acres) of pine forest occur 

on the Wilmington Site. Canopy species include loblolly, longleaf, and/or pond pines (Pinus

serotina). Subcanopy species can include sweetgum, white oak (Quercus alba), southern red 

oak (Q. falcata), water oak (Q. nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly bay (Gordonia

 

8

Level IV ecoregions are further subdivisions of a Level III ecoregion. Level IV ecoregions are based 

on physiography, geology, soils, climate, potential natural vegetation, land use, and land cover 

differences within a Level III ecoregion (Omernik et al., 2000).
February 2012

3-45 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-11 Level IV Ecoregions Located within the Wilmington Site Area (Griffith et al., 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-46 February 2012

Table 3-11 Level IV Ecoregions within the Wilmington Site

Level IV Ecoregion Potential Natural Vegetation Land Use and Land Cover

Carolina Flatwoods Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and 

Carolina wiregrass (Aristida stricta); 

xeric sandhill scrub (longleaf pine, 

turkey oak [Quercus laevis], and 

Carolina wiregrass); pond pine 

(P. serotina) forest and woodland; 

some oak-hickory and mixed forest.

Pine plantations, mixed forest; 

forested wetlands; cropland (cotton, 

corn, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, 

tobacco, and blueberries); 

production of hogs, broiler 

chickens, and turkeys; some public 

lands; and wildlife habitat.

Mid-Atlantic Floodplains 

and Low Terraces

Southern floodplain forests, including 

cypress-gum swamps (water-tupelo 

[Nyssa aquatica], swamp tupelo 

[N. biflora], bald cypress [Taxodium

distichum], and pond cypress 

[T. ascendens]) and bottomland 

hardwood forests (bottomland oaks, 

red maple [Acer rubrum], sweetgum 

[Liquidambar styraciflua], green ash 

[Fraxinus pensylvanica], and 

bitternut hickory [Carya cordiformis]).

Forested wetlands, deciduous 

forests, and some croplands on 

larger terraces.

Source: Griffith et al., 2002.

lasianthus), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). Shrub 

species include coast pepper-bush (Clethra alnifolia), red bay (Persea borbonia), sweetbay 

magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), southern bayberry (Morella cerifera), sassafras (Sassafras

albidum), horsesugar (Symplocos tinctoria), farkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), and southern 

highbush blueberry (V. formosum). A number of vines also occur within the pine forest. These 

include Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and eastern poison-ivy (Toxicodendron

radicans). The herbaceous layer includes slender spikegrass (Chasmanthium laxum), ebony 

spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), bracken fern 

(Pteridium aquilinum), and narrowleaf silk grass (Pityopsis graminifolia var. graminifolia).

3.8.1.2 Pine-Hardwood Forest

The pine-hardwood forest community is similar to the pine forest community except that 

hardwood trees tend to co-dominate. Pine-hardwood forests occur in the north-central and 

south-central portions of the Wilmington Site. Scattered stands also occur in the eastern portion 

of the site. The pine-hardwood forest stands located within and immediately adjacent to the 

proposed GLE Facility site are approximately 20 to 29 years of age (Figure 3-13). The age of 

the other pine-hardwood forest stands on the Wilmington Site (e.g., in the south-central portion 

of the site) are not known (GLE, 2009b). A total of 93 hectares (231 acres) of pine-hardwood 

forests occur on the Wilmington Site. Sweet-gum, tulip tree, water oak, post oak (Quercus

stellata), white oak, red maple, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and southern red oak are gradually 

replacing many of the pines within the forest canopy. Vine and herbaceous species are similar 

to those found in the pine forest communities.
February 2012

3-47 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-12 Plant Communities Located within the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008)
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-48 February 2012

Table 3-12 Plant Communities That Occur on the Wilmington Site

Plant Community

Acresa

(% of 

Site)

Characteristic Plant Species

Natural Communities

Longleaf pine/scrub 

forest

39

(2.4)

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)

Pine forest 304

(18.7)

Loblolly pine (P. taeda), longleaf pine, and pond pine 

(P. serotina)

Pine-hardwood forest 231

(14.3)

Pines: loblolly pine, longleaf pine, and pond pine

Hardwoods: sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip tree 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), water oak (Quercus nigra), post oak 

(Q. stellata), white oak (Q. alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), 

blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and southern red oak (Q. falcata)

Hardwood forest 10

(0.6)

Sweetgum, water oak (Q. nigra), and southern red oak

Alluvial forest 4

(0.2)

Red maple and sweetgum

Pocosin/bay forest 52

(3.2)

Loblolly pine and scattered pond pine intermixed with red bay 

(Persea borbonia), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), 

blackgum sand, pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), and 

laurel oak (Q. hemisphaerica), with an isolated stand of Atlantic 

white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)

Swamp forest 325

(20.0)

Loblolly pine, tulip tree, blackgum, pumpkin ash (Fraxinus

profunda), red maple, sweetgum, and pond cypress

Ephemeral pond 4

(0.3)

New Jersey blueberry (Vaccinium caesariense), swamp titi 

(Cyrilla racemiflora), red bay, red maple, and blackgum among 

other species

Anthropogenically Influenced Communities

Pine plantation 312

(19.2)

Loblolly pine and longleaf pine

Field 2

(0.1)

Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum)

Canal corridor 19

(1.2)

Various woody and herbaceous species, including Bahia grass, 

prickly Florida blackberry (Rubus argutus), Chinese bushclover 

(Lespedeza cuneata), northern dewberry (R. flagellaris), 

winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), broom-sedge (Andropogon

virginicus), small dog-fennel thoroughwort (Eupatorium

capillifolium), black willow (Salix nigra), Carolina willow 

(S. caroliniana), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), common reed 

(Phragmites australis), and loblolly pine

Power line corridor 16

(1.0)

Primarily shrub and herbaceous species that occur in adjacent 

plant communities
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-49 NUREG-1938

Wetlands

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface water or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 

that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions (EPA, 2009f).

Table 3-12 Plant Communities That Occur on the Wilmington Site (Cont.) 

Plant Community

Acresa

(% of 

Site)

Characteristic Plant Species

Operations area 303

(18.6)

Mowed areas of Bahia grass and centipede grass (Eremochloa

ophiuroides) with ornamental and planted trees and shrubs

Total: 1621

(100.0)

a

To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.4047.

Source: GLE, 2008.

3.8.1.3 Pine Plantation

Pine plantations on the Wilmington Site consist of loblolly or longleaf pines that are planted in 

rows. These plant communities are maintained by manual thinning and prescribed burns to 

clear understory plants. The 126 hectares (312 acres) of pine plantations occur in large stands 

throughout the Wilmington Site. Most pine plantation stands on the Wilmington Site, including 

those within and immediately adjacent to the proposed GLE Facility site, vary from less than 

20 years old to 20 to 29 years old (Figure 3-13). Sweetgum, red maple, water oak, red bay, 

loblolly bay, and sweetbay magnolia can also be present in the early stages of development of 

the pine plantation stands. These species become components of the understory as the 

plantation ages. Common shrub species include inkberry (Ilex glabra), American French 

mulberry (Callicarpa americana), fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa), southern bayberry, and 

switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea ssp. tecta). Herbaceous species include broomsedge 

(Andropogon virginicus), American burnweed (Erechtites hieracifolia var. hieracifolia), small 

dog-fennel thoroughwort (Eupatorium capillifolium), flat-top fragrant goldenrod (Euthamia

graminifolia var. graminifolia), and eastern milkpea (Galactia regularis).

3.8.2 Wetlands

Wetlands on the Wilmington Site are 

extremely varied and include a number of 

wetland types such as marshes, pocosins, 

and forested wetlands (swamps). Wetland 

areas are typically inundated or have 

saturated soils for a portion of the growing 

season and support plant communities that 

are adapted to saturated soil conditions. 

Streambeds and mudflats are among the 

wetland areas that may not be vegetated 

(Cowardin et al., 1979). While surface flows provide the water source for some wetlands, 

others, such as springs and seeps, are supported by groundwater discharge. Wetlands are 

often associated with perennial water sources, such as springs, perennial segments of streams, 

or lakes and ponds. However, some wetlands have seasonal or intermittent sources of water.
NUREG-1938

3-50 February 2012

Figure 3-13 Age and Management of Pine-Dominated Plant Communities on the Wilmington Site 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-51 NUREG-1938

Wetlands can perform one or more of the following functions: groundwater recharge and 

discharge, flood storage and desynchronization, shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive 

forces, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, food chain support, and fish and 

wildlife habitat (Whigham and Brinson, 1990).

Figure 3-14 shows the wetlands that occur on the Wilmington Site; Table 3-13 provides the 

acreages and descriptions of these wetlands. Nearly 308 hectares (760 acres) of wetlands 

occur within the Wilmington Site. More than 121 hectares (298 acres) of the forested wetlands 

within the North-Central and Eastern Site Sectors (where the proposed GLE Facility, ancillary 

facilities, and north access road would be located) were drained prior to 1963 (GLE, 2008). This 

area (shown as “PFO4Bd” in Figure 3-14) no longer meets the conditions necessary to be 

classified for regulatory purposes as a wetland (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and 

hydrological conditions that provide a temporary to permanent source of water to cause soil 

saturation) (EPA, 2009d).

Several jurisdictional and isolated wetlands (wetlands with and without connections to surface 

waters, respectively) occur within the corridor for the proposed access road to the proposed 

GLE Facility (Figure 3-15). These would include jurisdictional wetlands WD, WF, and WG and 

isolated wetland WA. Wetland WD is a forested wetland that abuts Unnamed Tributary #1 to 

Prince George Creek. Only 0.0008 hectare (0.002 acre) of wetland WD occurs within the 

proposed access road corridor (GLE, 2009c). Wetland WF is an herbaceous wetland located in 

the upstream reach of Unnamed Tributary #1 to Prince George Creek. About 0.012 hectare 

(0.03 acre) of this wetland occurs within the access road corridor (GLE, 2009c). Wetland WG is 

a forested wetland that occurs along Jurisdictional Channel #2. About 0.08 hectare (0.02 acre) 

of this wetland occurs within the access road corridor (GLE, 2009c). Isolated wetland WA is a 

forested wetland that is contained entirely within the proposed access road corridor. The area 

of the wetland is 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) (GLE, 2008).

3.8.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally sensitive areas9include conservation areas or other areas of ecological 

importance. Areas of outstanding natural significance in New Hanover County have been 

inventoried by LeBlond and Grant (2003). These are areas within the county that contain the 

best examples of natural habitats and/or are locations where rare biota or rare natural 

communities occur.

The southwestern portion of the Wilmington Site, which does not include the proposed 

GLE Facility site, occurs within the Northeast Cape Fear River Floodplain. The Northeast Cape 

Fear River Floodplain is considered to be a natural area of national significance. This means 

that the area is considered to contain examples of natural communities, rare plant or animal 

populations, or other significant ecological features that are among the highest quality or best 

 

9 While environmentally sensitive areas do not have an official definition, they can be defined basically 

as natural features such as habitats or rare species that may be protected by government regulation. 

Jennings and Reganold (1989) defined environmentally sensitive areas as landscape elements or 

places that are crucial to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, and other 

natural resources, especially as they relate to human health, safety, and welfare, both at a local and 

regional context.
NUREG-1938

3-52 February 2012

Figure 3-14 Wetlands Located within the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008)
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-53 NUREG-1938

Table 3-13 Wetlands That Occur on the Wilmington Site

Wetland 

Typea

Area 

(acres)b Wetland Characteristics

PFO1/2F 235.3 Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved 

deciduous, semipermanently flooded

PFO1/4A 64.8 Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved 

evergreen, temporarily flooded

PFO1C 7.4 Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded

PFO1Cdc24.0 Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, 

partially drained/ditched

PFO4/1A 61.4 Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen/broad-leaved 

deciduous, temporarily flooded

PFO4Bdc274.4 Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen, saturated, partially 

drained/ditched

PSS1/4A 1.9 Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved 

evergreen, temporarily flooded

PSS1/4B 26.9 Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved 

evergreen, saturated

PSS1A 0.1 Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded

PSS4/1B 32.9 Palustrine, scrub-shrub, needle-leaved evergreen/broad-leaved 

deciduous, saturated

PUB3Hx 0.5 Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, mixohaline, permanently flooded, 

excavated

PUBGxc13.3 Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently flooded, excavated

PUBKr 15.4 Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, artificially flooded, artificial 

substrate

Total: 758.3

a Refer to Figure 3-14 for wetland locations.

b

To convert ac to ha, multiply by 0.4047.

c

Limited wetland hydrology remains in the area.

Sources: GLE, 2008; FWS, 1990.
NUREG-1938

3-54 February 2012

Figure 3-15 Wetlands Located within the Corridor for the Proposed Access Road to the Prop

Facility (GLE, 2009c)
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-55 NUREG-1938

examples of their kind in the nation (LeBlond and Grant, 2003). The Northeast Cape Fear River 

Floodplain natural area is located along the Northeast Cape Fear River from its confluence with 

Smith Creek in New Hanover County to its confluence with Holly Shelter Creek in Pender 

County. It encompasses 10,392 hectares (25,679 acres), 3572 hectares (8827 acres) of which 

are within New Hanover County. It is one of the nation’s best examples of a tidal cypress-gum 

swamp community (LeBlond and Grant, 2003).

Most of the Northeast Cape Fear River, including the reach along the southwestern portion of 

the Wilmington Site, is considered a primary nursery area for shellfish and fish (NCDMF, 2006). 

Primary nursery areas are located in the upper portions of creeks and bays and are usually 

shallow with soft muddy substrates and are surrounded by marshes and other wetlands. The 

low salinity and abundance of food items make these areas ideal for young fish and shellfish. 

Many commercial fishing activities (e.g., use of trawl nets, seine nets, dredges, or any 

mechanical means used to collect clams and oyster) are prohibited in primary nursery areas 

(NCDMF, 2009). Areas designated as primary nursery areas by the North Carolina Division of 

Marine Fisheries would also be considered to be essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat are 

defined as those waters and substrate necessary for Federally managed marine and 

anadromous fish species and Federally managed shellfish species for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 

16 U.S.C. 1801 Section 3).

On a more localized scale, environmentally sensitive area features can include floodplains, 

wetlands, unstable soils, and steep slopes. The 100-year floodplain within the Wilmington Site 

occurs along the Northeast Cape Fear River, while the 500-year floodplain occurs within the 

forested wetland areas in the western portion of the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008). Wetlands on 

the Wilmington Site are discussed in Section 3.8.2. About 30 hectares (74 acres) of unstable 

soils occur on the Wilmington Site, all at or within the vicinity of four former borrow pits. One of 

the areas of unstable soils occurs in the northwestern portion of the Wilmington Site, while the 

other three areas are located within the south–central and southern portion of the site 

(GLE, 2008). Gradients greater than 10 percent are considered steep slopes. Most areas of 

steep slopes on the Wilmington Site are contained along the remnant oxbow of the Northeast 

Cape Fear River and along the banks of existing stream banks and the effluent channel. Some 

steep slopes also occur in the area of the former borrow pits. 

Except for drained forested wetlands, none of these sensitive area features occur within the

proposed GLE Facility area. Small wetland areas that occur within the corridor for the access 

road were discussed in Section 3.8.2.

3.8.4 Wildlife

Although the Wilmington Site has been subjected to varying degrees of environmental 

disturbances from silviculture, agriculture, industrial operations, residential developments, and 

roads, the habitats within the Wilmington Site and surrounding areas support a relatively high 

diversity of wildlife species. Nearly 370 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians 

potentially occur on the Wilmington Site. Wildlife species that could occur within the proposed 

GLE Facility area are primarily those that inhabit forested habitats.

About 40 mammal species could occur in the area. These include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus

virginianus), American black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-56 February 2012

cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), marsh 

rabbit (S. palustris), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and striped skunk (Mephitis

mephitis). In addition, a number of bat, shrew, and small rodent (e.g., mice and voles) species 

are likely to occur in the proposed GLE Facility area. These would include the short-tailed 

shrew (Blarina brevicauda), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (L. cinereus), golden 

mouse (Ochrotomys nuttallii), and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum).

More than 100 bird species could occur within the proposed GLE Facility area. Widespread and 

common species include wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), northern bobwhite (Colinus

virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), northern 

cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), eastern towhee (Pipilo

erythrophthalmus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), bluegray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and Carolina wren 

(Thryothorus ludovicianus). No sites on or near the Wilmington Site are recognized as 

Important Bird Areas (National Audubon Society, 2009a).10

Nearly 40 reptile species could occur within the habitat types found in the proposed GLE Facility 

area. Included among these would be the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), green anole 

(Anolis carolinensis), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), six-lined racerunner (Aspidoscelis

sexlineata), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula getula), racer (Coluber constrictor), and 

red-bellied snake (Storeria occipitomaculata). Several species of rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.) 

and the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) could also occur within the upland forested habitats 

of the proposed GLE Facility area. Fewer than 10 amphibian species would be expected to 

occur within the proposed GLE Facility area. These could include the redback salamander 

(Plethodon cinereus), Fowler’s toad (Bufo fowleri), southern toad (B. terrestris), and several 

species of treefrogs (Hyla spp.). These reptile and amphibian species could occur within 

suitable habitat types throughout the Wilmington Site.

The developed portions (operations area) of the Wilmington Site include buildings, parking lots, 

infrastructure, and landscaped areas. Nevertheless, a number of wildlife species occur in these 

areas. However, the densities of most wildlife species are higher in undeveloped areas than in 

developed areas. Exceptions include species such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus), 

house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), house mouse (Mus

musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). Other common bird species within the 

operations area include the killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), American crow (Corvus

brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus

migratorius), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Other mammal species include Virginia 

opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail, striped skunk, and raccoon. Generally, it 

would be expected that wildlife use of the operational areas would primarily be for foraging, 

while the least frequent type of use would be for reproductive activities. 

 

10 Important Bird Areas are sites that provide essential habitat for one or more species of birds that are 

species of conservation concern, species with restricted ranges, species that are vulnerable because 

their populations are concentrated in one general habitat type or biome, or species (or groups of 

similar species) that are vulnerable because they occur at high densities because of congregatory 

behavior (National Audubon Society, 2009b).
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-57 NUREG-1938

3.8.5 Aquatic Biota

The Northeast Cape Fear River (at River Mile 6.1 to 6.7 [river kilometer 9.8 to 10.7]) borders the 

southwestern portion of the Wilmington Site. Aquatic habitats within the Wilmington Site include 

Unnamed Tributary #1 to the Northeast Cape Fear River, an industrial effluent channel that 

flows into Unnamed Tributary #1, Unnamed Tributary #2 to the Northeast Cape Fear River, 

several other smaller tributaries to the Northeast Cape Fear River, and an Unnamed 

Tributary #1 to Prince George Creek. An Unnamed Tributary #2 to Prince George Creek occurs 

just north of the Wilmington Site and receives drainage from the northern portion of the site. 

The lower portions of the tributaries to the Northeast Cape Fear River, as well as the Northeast 

Cape Fear River in the area of the Wilmington Site, are tidally influenced. Water quality 

characteristics of these water bodies are discussed in Section 3.7.1.

In addition to the onsite streams, several impoundments and ponds on the Wilmington Site 

provide aquatic habitat. These include two active final process lagoons and their associated 

aeration basin (which are part of the Wilmington Site’s treatment system for process 

wastewater), four inactive wastewater treatment facility lagoons, one firefighting water supply 

pond, two stormwater wet detention basins, and three ephemeral woodland ponds. These 

impoundments and ponds would provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates, waterfowl and 

shorebirds, and amphibians. No aquatic habitats occur within the area proposed for the 

GLE Facility. More detailed information on the surface waters of the Wilmington Site were 

presented in Section 3.7.

Nearly 110 species of freshwater, marine, and migratory fish are reported from the Northeast 

Cape Fear River. About 40 fish species plus sunfish hybrids have been collected from the 

Northeast Cape Fear River near the Wilmington Site (NCWRC, 2007). About 50 of the species 

from the Northeast Cape Fear River are considered freshwater species. These include gars, 

suckers, minnows, catfish, sunfish, bass, crappie, perch, and darters. The anadromous species 

(species that migrate to freshwaters to spawn) include the blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), 

hickory shad (A. mediocris), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), American shad (A. sapidissima), 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); the American 

eel (Anguilla rostrata) is the only catadromous species (species that migrate to marine waters to 

spawn). The Federally endangered shortnose sturgeon is discussed in more detail in 

Section 3.8.6.1. The blueback herring spawns in Prince George Creek, while the American shad 

and striped bass use the creek as nursery grounds. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) 

and American eel are also present in the area of Prince George Creek (NOAA, 2002).

During periods of drought and elevated salinities, the fish community in the Northeast Cape 

Fear River near the Wilmington Site could shift to more estuarine species (NCWRC, 2007). 

About 50 marine and estuarine fish species ascend into the Northeast Cape Fear River. These 

include the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), gobies, striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and pipefish. 

Marine and estuarine gamefish include the tarpon (Megalops atlanticus), crevalle jack (Caranx

hippos), common snook (Centropomus undecimalis), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), 

black drum (Pogonias cromis), and red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). 

Commercial and recreational fishing occur in the Northeast Cape Fear River, although most 

commercial fishing occurs downstream of the Wilmington Site (e.g., in the Cape Fear River 

Estuary). Commercial fishing for American shad and striped bass occurs in the Northeast Cape 

Fear River near the Wilmington Site, while recreational fishing occurs for these species plus 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-58 February 2012

blueback herring, hickory shad, alewife, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), 

pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), warmouth (L. gulosus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), 

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (I. furcatus), chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin 

pickerel (E. americanus), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) (Ashley and Rachels, 2005). 

Sport fishing within the Cape Fear River Basin also occurs for the introduced spotted bass 

(M. punctulatus) and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) (Ashley and Rachels, 2005).

No major studies of fish species within the Wilmington Site have been conducted. During the 

onsite biological surveys for the Environmental Report, the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia

halbrooki) and a blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) were observed in the Unnamed Tributary #1 to 

the Northeast Cape Fear River (GLE, 2008). In addition to being an important nursery area for 

a number of fish species, the Northeast Cape Fear River is also used as a nursery area by 

shrimp, blue crabs, and other shellfish.

The Federally endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), a marine mammal, may 

also occur within the Northeast Cape Fear River and the lower portions of its tributaries near the 

Wilmington Site. Information on the West Indian manatee is presented in Section 3.8.6.1.

The major factor limiting fisheries resources within the Cape Fear River Basin is the impedance 

to fish migrations by locks and dams. Additional factors include degraded water quality, 

sedimentation and turbidity, and loss of wetlands and riparian areas resulting from agricultural 

and forestry operations, increased development, unstable shorelines, and road construction 

(Ashley and Rachels, 2005).

3.8.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species

Because of the diversity of species, habitats, and other influences (e.g., convergence of inland 

sandhill habitat with coastal areas), a large number of rare plants and animals are native to 

New Hanover County (LeBlond and Grant, 2003). The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are responsible for listing aquatic and 

terrestrial species as threatened and endangered at the Federal level, as delegated by the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 573, et seq.). NRC consultations with 

the FWS and NMFS have been conducted and completed to comply with Section 7 of the 

ESA.11 The State of North Carolina lists additional species that are regionally threatened, 

endangered, or rare. The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission within the Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources has regulatory authority over animals (except insects), 

while the Plant Conservation Program within the North Carolina Department of Agriculture has 

regulatory authority over plants and insects.

3.8.6.1 Federally Listed Species

Nine Federally threatened or endangered species known to occur in New Hanover County 

(FWS, 2009a). No critical habitat for any of the nine species occurs in the area of the 

Wilmington Site (FWS, 2009a). In addition to the threatened and endangered species, a 

number of Federal species of concern occur within New Hanover County. Table 3-14 lists the 

 

11 Letters of consultation can be found in Appendix B.
February 2012

3-59 NUREG-1938

Table 3-14 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Reporte

from New Hanover County, North Carolina

Scientific Name Common Name

a Status 

Federal/State

b

Record 

Status

c Habitat

Plants

Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach amaranth T/T Current Upper beaches, foredunes, overw

flats and sand/shell replenishmen

and dredge spoils.

Amorpha georgiana var. 

confusa

Georgia indigobush FSC/T Historic Dry savannas and riverbanks. 

Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch FSC/T Historic Longleaf pine/scrub oak woodland

Dionaea muscipula Venus’ flytrap FSC/SR-L Current Bogs and perennially wet areas. 

Hypericum adpressum Creeping St. John’swortFSC/NL Historic Shores, shallow waters of freshwa

ponds.

Litsea aestivalis Pondspice FSC/SR-T Current Margins of swamps, cypress pond

and sandhill depression ponds.

Ludwigia ravenii Raven’s seedbox FSC/SR-T Historic Swamps, bogs, ponds. 

Lysimachia

asperulaefolia

Roughleaf loosestrife E/E Current Edges between longleaf pine upla

and pond pine pocosins on moist 

seasonally saturated sands or 

shallow organic soils overlying sa

Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant orchid FSC/SR-T Historic Pine savannas, scrub oaks. 

Ptilimnium ahlesii Carolina bishopweed FSC/SR-L Current Tidal freshwater marshes. 

Rhynchospora pleiantha Brown beakrush FSC/T Current Sands and peat of pond shores a

moist pine savannas.

Sagittaria graminea var. 

weatherbiana

Grassleaf arrowhead FSC/SR-T Current Swamps. 
NUREG-1938

3-60 February 20112

Table 3-14 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Reporte

from New Hanover County, North Carolina (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name

a Status 

Federal/State

b

Record 

Status

c Habitat

Sideroxylon tenax Tough bumelia FSC/SR-P Historic Maritime forests and scrub. 

Solidago verna Spring-flowering 

goldenrod

FSC/T Current Pine savannas, pocosins, pine 

barrens, open woods, fields, dry 

bogs, and disturbed roadsides.

Solidago villosicarpa Coastal goldenrod FSC/E Historic Mesic, hardwood forests with den

canopies and sparse understories 

and areas of disturbance.

Stylisma pickeringii var. 

pickeringii

Pickering’s morninggloryFSC/E Current Scrub habitats with sandy soils, 

minimal litter accumulation, spars

ground cover, and little canopy co

of scattered scrubby oaks and pin

Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley’s meadowrue E/E Historic Wet savannas. 

Thalictrum macrostylum Small-leaf meadowrue FSC/SR-L Current Bogs, wet woods, and cliffs. 

Trichostema sp. 1 Dune blue curls FSC/SR-L Current Maritime grasslands behind 

foredunes, maritime scrub.

Invertebrates

Agrotis buchholzi Buchholz’s dart moth FSC/NL Current Pine plains. 

Atrytone arogos arogos Eastern arogos 

skipper

FSC/SR Obscure Savannas, open pinewoods, and 

other relatively undisturbed 

grasslands.

Atrytonopsis loammi Loammi skipper FSC/SR Obscure Barrier islands. 

Helisoma eucosmium Greenfield ramshorn 

snail

FSC/E Historic Shallow creek beds, marshes, and 

swamps.
February 2012

3-61 NUREG-1938

Table 3-14 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Reporte

from New Hanover County, North Carolina (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name

a Status 

Federal/State

b

Record 

Status

c Habitat

Planorbella magnifica Magnificent rams-horn FSC/E Historic Ponds. 

Problema bulenta Rare skipper FSC/SR Current Brackish water marshes, abandon

rice paddies.

Triodopsis soelneri Cape Fear threetooth FSC/T Current Savannas, flatwoods, and swamp

Fishes

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E/E Current Downstream reaches of large rive

and Atlantic coastal waters. It pre

deep water with soft substrate and 

vegetated bottoms.

Anguilla rostrata American eel FSC/NL Current Matures in fresh or brackish wate

spawns in the Sargasso Sea.

Amphibians

Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog FSC/T Current Sandhills, pine and turkey oak 

woodlands; breeds in wetlands an

temporary ponds.

Reptiles

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A)/T Current Freshwater swamps and marshes

but can also be found in rivers, lak

and other bodies of water.

Caretta caretta Loggerhead T/T Current Open seas. 

Chelonia mydas Green turtle T/T Current Open seas. 

Heterodon simus Southern hog-nosed 

snake

FSC/SC Current Mature pine forests and sandhills. 
NUREG-1938

3-62 February 20112

Table 3-14 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Reporte

from New Hanover County, North Carolina (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name

a Status 

Federal/State

b

Record 

Status

c Habitat

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic glass lizard FSC/SC Historic Sandhills, pine and turkey oak 

woodlands.

Pituophis melanoleucus

melanoleucus

Northern pinesnake FSC/SC Current Woodlands. 

Birds

Charadrius melodus Piping plover T/T Current Nests in barrier island beaches; 

sandy beach shoals used during 

migration and winter.

Passerina ciris ciris Eastern painted 

bunting

FSC/SR Current Woodlands. 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded 

woodpecker

E/E Current Open stands of mature pine trees 

>60 years old for nesting and 

roosting; pine and pine/hardwood 

stands >30 years old for foraging.

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s bigeared batFSC/T Current Riparian woodlands, hardwood 

forests.

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis FSC/SC Current Nests in snags and hollow trees in 

conifer and hardwood forests. 

Forages in riparian areas and 

uplands.

Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E/E Current Shallow coastal bays, lagoons, 

estuaries, and inland rivers. 

Footnotes on following page.
February 2012

3-63 NUREG-1938

Table 3-14 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Reporte

from New Hanover County, North Carolina (Cont.) 

a Common names follow those used in NatureServe, 2009. 

b

E = endangered; FSC = Federal species of concern; SC = special concern; SR = significantly rare; SR-L = significantly rare – lim

SR-P = significantly rare – peripheral; SR-T = significantly rare – throughout; T = threatened; T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity 

NL = not listed.

c Current: the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years; Historic: the species was last observed in the co

50 years ago; Obscure: the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.

d WS = Wilmington Site, GLEF = proposed GLE Facility site.

Sources: Buchanan and Finnegan, 2008; FWS, 2009a; Jordan, 1998; LeGrand et al., 2008; NatureServe, 2009; NCDENR, 2001

Patrick et al., 1995; GLE, 2008; FWS, 2008a; 2003a,b.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-64 February 2012

Federally threatened or endangered species and species of special concern that are known to 

occur or likely to occur within New Hanover County, along with their State status (as 

applicable).While several listed species exist or may exist in the Wilmington Site area, no listed 

species have been reported from the area proposed for the GLE Facility.

The following definitions are applicable to the species categories for listing under the ESA 

(FWS, 2008d):

• Endangered: any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.

• Threatened: any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant part of its range.

• Threatened due to similarity of appearance: a taxon that is threatened due to similarity of 

appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as 

“threatened due to similarity of appearance” are not biologically endangered or threatened 

and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.

• Proposed for listing: species that have been formally proposed for listing by the FWS or 

NMFS by notice in the Federal Register.

8

• Candidate: species for which the FWS or NMFS has sufficient information on their biological 

status and threats to propose them as threatened or endangered under the ESA but for 

which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority 

listing actions. 

• Federal species of concern: species under consideration for listing, for which there is 

insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be 

listed in the future, and many of these species were formally recognized as Category 2 (C2) 

candidate species.9

• Critical habitat: specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the 

time it is listed, on which are found physical or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or 

protection. Except when designated, critical habitat does not include the entire geographical 

area that can be occupied by the threatened, endangered, or other special status species.

 

8 Within one year of a listing proposal, the FWS or NMFS must take one of three possible courses of 

action: (1) finalize the listing rule (as proposed or revised); (2) withdraw the proposal if the biological 

information on hand does not support the listing; or (3) extend the proposal for up to an additional 

six months because, at the end of one year, there is substantial disagreement within the scientific 

community concerning the biological appropriateness of the listing. After the extension, the FWS or 

NMFS must decide whether to list the species on the basis of the best scientific information available.

9 Category 2 (C2) species are species for which information in the possession of the FWS indicated that 

proposing to list the species as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which 

persuasive evidence on biological vulnerability and threat was not available to support the listing. 

Thus, the FWS concluded that these species might be threatened or endangered, but more 

information was necessary before a final conclusion could be reached.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-65 NUREG-1938

Among the Federally listed threatened or endangered species that occur within New Hanover 

County, the seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), Cooley’s meadowrue (Thalictrum

cooleyi), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) do not occur within the Wilmington Site area. The following paragraphs 

describe the Federally listed threatened or endangered species and Federal species of concern 

that exist or may exist in the Wilmington Site area. Unless otherwise referenced, the 

information on each species is adapted from NatureServe (2009), with species status provided 

by Buchanan and Finnegan (2008) for plants and LeGrand et al. (2008) for animals.

Plants

Carolina bishopweed (Ptilimnium ahlesii)

The Carolina bishopweed, an erect annual herb, is a Federal species of concern and is 

considered to be “significantly rare–limited” by the State10. The plant inhabits freshwater tidal 

marshes (Weakley, 2008). Threats to the Carolina bishopweed include invasion by common 

reed (Phragmites australis) and water pollution (NatureServe, 2009; Weakley, 2008). No 

occurrences of the Carolina bishopweed have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of 

the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Coastal goldenrod (Solidago villosicarpa)

The coastal goldenrod, a perennial herb, is a Federal species of concern and is State listed as 

endangered. It occurs in a wide variety of wooded habitats, occurring in areas associated with 

natural or human-caused disturbance (CPC, 2008a). Canopy closure is a threat to the coastal 

goldenrod. Invasive species also present a minor threat to the species. An occurrence was 

recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the northern boundary of the Wilmington Site, but 

more than that distance from the proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009e). Habitat 

potentially suitable for the coastal goldenrod occurs in the pine-hardwood forests in the northcentral and south-central portions of the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008).

Grassleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria graminea var. weatherbiana)

The grassleaf arrowhead is a Federal species of concern and is considered “significantly rare–

throughout” by the State. It is a perennial herb that inhabits shallow water and wet shores of 

ponds, marshes, and ditches. Threats to the species include drainage and other habitat 

modification that causes excessive drying of wetland habitat (Burns and Cusick, 1983). No 

occurrences of the grassleaf arrowhead have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of 

the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Pickering’s morning-glory (Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii)

The Pickering’s morning-glory (also known as Pickering’s dawnflower) is a Federal species of 

concern and is State-listed as endangered. The species is a perennial, creeping vine that 

occurs in dry to extremely dry, nutrient-poor, well-drained, coarse sandy soils. Tree cover, 

ground cover, and litter accumulation are generally sparse (Patrick et al., 1995). It generally 

forms large mats or clumps in dry, barren, deep sand areas such as the edge of Carolina bays 

 

10 The North Carolina status definitions are provided at the end of Section 3.8.6.2.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-66 February 2012

and relic riverine dunes (CPC, 2008b; Weakley, 2008). Preferred locations include frequently 

burned or clear-cut areas with little or no competing vegetation (CPC, 2008b). Threats to the 

Pickering’s morning-glory include habitat loss and modification and disruption of natural fire 

regimes. There is a 1958 occurrence record for the Pickering’s morning-glory within 

3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009e). The Operations 

Area in the northwestern portion of the Wilmington Site contains deep sands that are 

periodically disturbed and may provide suitable habitat for the Pickering’s morning-glory 

(GLE, 2008).

Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis)

Pondspice is a Federal species of concern and is considered “significantly rare–throughout” by 

the State. It is a deciduous shrub that inhabits the margins of swamps; cypress ponds; low wet 

woodlands; and sandhill depressions on wet, sandy or peaty, acidic soils. It may form thickets 

and be locally abundant. Pondspice is threatened by hydrological alterations (e.g., ditching and 

draining of wetland habitat and lowering of the water table) and suppression of natural fire 

regimes. It may be potentially threatened by red bay (or laurel wilt) disease, an emerging fungal 

disease for which the pondspice is a documented host. There is a 1977 occurrence record for 

the pondspice within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area around the 

perimeter of an ephemeral pond within the north-central portion of the Wilmington Site 

(GLE, 2008; NCDENR, 2009e). However, hydrological conditions of this pond have been 

altered and do not appear to support recruitment of the species. During field surveys for the 

Environmental Report, the existing plants appeared stressed (GLE, 2008). The location of the 

proposed GLE Facility is more than 150 meters (500 feet) southeast of the ephemeral pond 

(GLE, 2008).

Raven’s seedbox (Ludwigia ravenii)

Raven’s seedbox, a perennial herb, is a Federal species of concern and is considered 

“significantly rare–throughout” by the State. It is an obligate wetland species that inhabits open, 

wet, peaty areas such as ditches and the margins of swamps, ponds, and bogs. Threats to the 

Raven’s seedbox include excavation and deepening of ditches, road widening and paving, and 

herbicide use. The Raven’s seedbox does not have any occurrence record within 

3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Roughleaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)

The roughleaf loosestrife, an erect perennial herb, is both Federally and State-listed as 

endangered. It occurs in grass-shrub ecotones (transition areas between two habitats that can 

contain characteristic species from both) adjacent to longleaf pine/scrub oak, pine savanna, 

flatwoods, and pond pine pocosins (evergreen shrub bogs). It prefers full sunlight and is shade 

intolerant (CPC, 2008c; NCDENR, 2001). It grows on moist, seasonally saturated sands or 

shallow organic soils overlying sands. The roughleaf loosestrife has been found in roadside 

depressions, firebreaks, seeps, and power rights-of-way (ROWs) (NCDENR, 2001). The 

roughleaf loosestrife flowers from mid-May through June, with fruits present from July through 

October. Habitats within which the species occur are fire-maintained. Threats to the roughleaf 

loosestrife include drainage and development of habitat, land conversion, and suppression of 

natural fire regimes (CPC, 2008c). Suppression of naturally occurring fires within ecotones 

allows shrubs to increase in density and height, which eliminates the open edges required by 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-67 NUREG-1938

the species (FWS, 2009a). No occurrences for the roughleaf loosestrife have been recorded 

within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e). Some areas of 

pocosin habitats that support the species have been drained from the Wilmington Site. Also, 

fire regimes necessary for maintaining the species habitat do not occur on the site (GLE, 2008).

Sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii)

The sandhills milkvetch, an erect perennial herb, is a Federal species of concern and is Statelisted as threatened. It inhabits longleaf pine/scrub oak woodlands. It grows best in disturbed 

or fire-prone open understory areas (e.g., xeric to dry-mesic, nutrient poor soils, thickets, field 

edges, and road banks). Threats to the sandhills milkvetch include suppression of natural fire 

regimes, land conversion, and habitat fragmentation. There is a 1946 occurrence record for the 

sandhills milkvetch southwest of the Wilmington Site near the intersection of US 421 and I-140, 

which is within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility site (NCDENR, 2009e; 

GLE, 2008). The longleaf pine/scrub forest in the northwestern portion of the Wilmington Site 

and the pine plantation in the north-central portion of the site could provide suitable habitat for 

the species.

Small-leaf meadowrue (Thalictrum macrostylum)

The small-leaf meadowrue, an erect herb, is a Federal species of concern and is considered 

“significantly rare–limited” by the State. Habitat for the species includes swampy woodlands, 

slopes, and limestone cliffs. Threats to the small-leaf meadowrue include land use alteration, 

habitat fragmentation, silviculture practices, and changes in hydrology. No occurrences of the 

small-leaf meadowrue have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENR, 2009e).

Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna)

The spring-flowering goldenrod, an erect perennial herb, is a Federal species of concern and is 

State listed as threatened. It inhabits a wide variety of habitats such as pine savannas, 

pocosins, pine barrens, open woods, fields, dry bogs, and disturbed roadsides (CPC, 2008d). 

Threats to the spring-flowering goldenrod include alteration and destruction of habitat for 

development, pine plantations, and agriculture. No occurrences of the spring-flowering 

goldenrod have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site 

(NCNENR, 2009). Pocosin/bay and pine forests potentially provide limited habitat for the 

spring-flowering goldenrod on the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008).

Venus’ flytrap (Dionaea muscipula)

The Venus’ flytrap, an insectivorous herb, is a Federal species of concern and is considered 

“significantly rare–limited” by the State. It inhabits bogs and perennially wet areas, often located 

between longleaf pine savannas and pocosins (shrub bogs) on the coastal plains of the 

Carolinas (Floridata, 2003). Threats to the Venus’ flytrap include habitat conversion and 

suppression of natural fire regimes. Some collecting from natural populations can also affect 

the species. Two occurrences of the Venus’ flytrap have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the Wilmington Site, one of which is also within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009e). Suitable habitat for the Venus’ flytrap occurs 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-68 February 2012

within the western portion of the Wilmington Site, where pine forest and pocosin habitats are 

adjacent to each other. 

Invertebrates

Cape Fear threetooth (Triodopsis soelneri)

The Cape Fear threetooth is a Federal species of concern and is listed as threatened by the 

State. It is a terrestrial snail that occurs on logs and under litter in swamps and under trash in 

pine woods (Hubricht, 1985). The main threat to the species is presumed to be habitat loss. No 

occurrences of the Cape Fear threetooth have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of 

the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Eastern arogos skipper (Atrytone arogos arogos)

The eastern arogos skipper is a Federal species of concern, and the butterfly is considered 

“significantly rare” by the State. It inhabits native grasslands and savannas. Individuals are 

capable of dispersing several miles. The known North Carolina site for the species contains 

habitats that are mesic to boggy, sometimes ecotonal, pinebarrens reedgrass (Calamovilfa

brevipilis) savanna. The pinebarrens reedgrass is a foodplant for eastern arogos skipper larvae. 

Adults obtain nectar from a variety of flowers. Threats to the eastern arogos skipper include 

habitat loss and fragmentation and fire (including prescribed burns). No occurrences of the 

eastern arogos skipper have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington

Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Greenfield ramshorn snail (Helisoma eucosmium)

The Greenfield ramshorn snail is a Federal species of concern and is listed as endangered by 

the State. Within New Hanover County, this freshwater snail is only known from Greenfield 

Lake in Wilmington. It is also known from Town Creek in Brunswick County and from the 

Wisconsin River in the northeastern portion of the State. Specimens from Town Creek 

inhabited densely vegetated areas in water less than 3 meters (10 feet) deep. Threats to the 

species include habitat degradation and, possibly, invasive plant species. No occurrences of 

the Greenfield ramshorn snail have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Rare skipper (Problema bulenta)

The rare skipper is a Federal species of concern and the butterfly is considered “significantly 

rare” by the State. Although nonmigratory, the rare skipper is a strong flier that can fly over 

forests or fly up to 0.5 kilometer (0.3 mile) to find nectar. They inhabit marshes along tidal 

rivers. Adults are usually viewed while feeding on the nectar of roadside flowers. Threats to the 

rare skipper include habitat loss and, probably, biocides used to control mosquitoes. No 

occurrences of the rare skipper have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-69 NUREG-1938

Fishes

American eel (Anguilla rostrata)

The American eel is a Federal species of concern but has no State listing status. It spawns in 

the Sargasso Sea and matures in fresh or brackish waters (estuaries, rivers, streams, ponds, 

and lakes), spending 4 to 10 years in these habitats until they return to sea to spawn 

(FWS, 2009b). Upstream migration can occur from March through October, while downstream 

migration begins in summer or fall. Threats to the American eel include barriers to migration, 

habitat loss and alteration, turbine mortalities, overfishing, and pollution. No occurrences of the 

American eel have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENRP, 2009e). However, the American eel is expected to occur in the Northeast Cape 

Fear River near the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2008c). The river’s tributaries on the site could 

also provide suitable habitat for the American eel.

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

The shortnose sturgeon is both Federally and State-listed as endangered. Federal protection of 

the species is under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. The shortnose sturgeon inhabits the lower 

reaches of large rivers and Atlantic coastal waters. It primarily occurs in brackish and salt 

waters of lower coastal river reaches and river estuaries. Shortnose sturgeon seldom venture 

into the Atlantic Ocean (Ozier et al., 1999). The shortnose sturgeon ascends into the 

freshwaters of larger coastal rivers to spawn. Spawning occurs from April through June in swift 

waters over gravel or coarse substrates such as submerged logs (NCDENR, 2001; 

Ozier et al., 1999). Juveniles may remain in rivers for up to 5 years before migrating to 

estuarine waters (NCDENR, 2001). Larvae and juveniles may prefer deep river channels. The 

shortnose sturgeon feeds upon invertebrates and aquatic plants (FWS, 2003a). It is very rare in 

the Cape Fear River drainage. The absence of juvenile shortnose sturgeon within the Cape 

Fear River drainage indicates that the species may not be spawning because of blockage of 

upstream migration by adults at Lock and Dam 1 at River Mile 60 (river kilometer 96). In other

river systems, spawning takes place 100 to 300 kilometers (62 to 186 miles) upstream of the 

mouth of the river (Moser and Ross, 1995). Threats to the shortnose sturgeon include habitat 

alteration, barriers to upstream movement, pollution, and overfishing (including poaching) 

(NCDENR, 2001). They are also susceptible to gill nets set for striped bass and American shad 

(Moser and Ross, 1995). There is a 1993 occurrence record for the shortnose sturgeon within 

3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e). It may occur in the Northeast 

Cape Fear River and the lower portions of its unnamed tributaries that occur on the Wilmington 

Site. It does not ascend into smaller tributaries such as the Prince George Creek 

(NOAA, 2002).

Amphibians

Carolina gopher frog (Rana capito capito)

The Carolina gopher frog is a Federal species of concern and is listed as threatened by the 

State. Adults inhabit primarily xeric uplands, especially longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhill 

associations. They also occur in xeric to mesic longleaf pine flatwoods, sand pine scrub, and 

xeric oak hammocks. Burrows of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) and rodents are 

used for shelter. They will also hide in sewers, under logs, and in or under stumps. Breeding 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-70 February 2012

habitat includes ephemeral to semipermanent graminoid (grass or grass-like) dominated 

wetlands that lack large predatory fishes. Breeding generally occurs between mid-January and 

April. The larval period lasts about four months; individual adults spend less than four weeks in 

breeding ponds. Threats to Carolina gopher frogs include habitat loss and degradation caused 

by logging and fire suppression, introduction of predatory fishes into breeding ponds, and 

declines in gopher tortoises. No occurrences of the Carolina gopher frog have been recorded 

within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Reptiles

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)

The American alligator is Federally listed as threatened because its appearance is similar to the 

American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus); it is State listed as threatened. From a Federal 

perspective, the American alligator is not biologically threatened and does not have protection 

under the ESA (FWS, 2009a). It inhabits slow-moving coastal rivers, canals, lakes, 

impoundments, marshes, cypress ponds, and estuaries. Its tolerance to salinity increases with 

age (NCDENR, 2001). The minimum home range averages 1255 hectares (3100 acres) for 

males and 8 hectares (21 acres) for females (NCDENR, 2001). Past threats to the American 

alligator included overharvest and habitat loss (FWS, 2008c). Current threats include loss and 

degradation of habitat due to recreational use and development. The American alligator has 

been recorded from various localities near the Wilmington Site, including the Prince George 

Creek at its confluence with its Unnamed Tributary #1; the Northeast Cape Fear River at its 

confluence with Prince George Creek upstream of the Wilmington Site in Turkey Creek, Morgan 

Creek, and Long Creek; and south of the Wilmington Site in Ness Creek (GLE, 2008). 

Occurrences of the American alligator have been reported within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009e). At the Wilmington Site, potential breeding 

habitat occurs along the Northeast Cape Fear River and its tributaries, and small alligators may 

occur within the streams and swamp forest habitats of the site.

Mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus)

The mimic glass lizard, a legless lizard, is a Federal and a State species of concern. It inhabits 

longleaf pine savannas and conifer and mixed woodlands where it burrows in the soil or inhabits 

fallen logs and woody debris. Threats to the mimic glass lizard include habitat loss, conversion 

of preferred habitat to pine plantations, and road mortality. No occurrences of the mimic glass 

lizard have been reported within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENR, 2009e).

Northern pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus)

The northern pinesnake is a Federal and a State species of concern. It inhabits xeric pine forest 

uplands. Threats to the northern pinesnake include logging, habitat modification and 

fragmentation, and direct mortality by humans (e.g., deliberate killing and road mortality). A pre1927 occurrence record exists for the northern pine snake within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009e).
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-71 NUREG-1938

Southern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon simus)

The southern hog-nosed snake is a Federal and a State species of concern. It inhabits mature 

pine forests and sandhill habitats (Jordan, 1998) and spends most of its time buried in soil. It 

primarily eats toads, but also preys on frogs, lizards, and small mammals. Habitat loss is the 

primary threat to the southern hog-nosed snake (Jordan, 1998). Sightings of the southern hognosed snake have been made southwest of the Wilmington Site between the Northeast Cape 

Fear River and the Cape Fear River (GLE, 2008). No occurrences of the southern hog-nosed 

snake have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENR, 2009e). Within the Wilmington Site, the snake could occur within the pine forests, 

longleaf pine/scrub forests, hardwood forests, and fields. The xeric, sandy soils in the 

northwestern portion of the site may also be suitable habitat.

Birds

Eastern painted bunting (Passerina ciris ciris)

The eastern painted bunting is a Federal species of concern and is considered “significantly 

rare” by the State. Habitat includes partly opened areas with scattered trees and brush, riparian 

thickets and brush, weedy and shrubby areas, woodland edges, yards, and gardens. Salt 

marsh/forest edges are preferred over interior forests. Eggs are laid in March through July 

(mostly May through June) in bushes or vine tangles at heights of 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) or 

at greater heights in thick Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) in trees. It winters in Mexico. 

The major threat to the eastern painted bunting is loss of breeding habitat. No occurrences of 

the eastern painted bunting have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009e).

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

The red-cockaded woodpecker is both Federally and State-listed as endangered. No critical 

habitat has been designated for the species (FWS, 2008b). Coastal Plain longleaf pine forests 

maintained by frequent fires probably supported the highest population levels 

(Ozier et al., 1999). It requires open stands of mature pine (more than 60 years old) for nesting 

and roosting habitat. Nesting and roosting occur in cavities of live trees that range in age from 

63 to more than 300 years old for longleaf pine, or 62 to more than 200 years old for loblolly and 

other pines. An aggregate (cluster) of 1 to 20 cavity trees is used on an area of 1 to 24 hectares 

(3 to 60 acres) (FWS, 2003b; NatureServe, 2009). The red-cockaded woodpecker generally 

chooses trees that are infected with red heart disease, which is caused by a fungus (Phellinus

pini) that attacks the heartwood (the older, nonliving central wood of a tree), thereby making it 

softer and pithy, which aids in the bird being able to excavate the cavity. Suitable habitat 

surrounding a cluster of cavity trees contains open, park-like conditions. Often, the breeding 

pair and up to nine “helpers” (usually four or less) form a family unit called a group. The helpers 

assist in incubating the eggs, feeding nestlings and fledglings, and defending territories. Each 

member of a group usually has an exclusive roost cavity. Egg-laying generally occurs between 

April and early May. A group may not nest every year. Incubation lasts 10 to 12 days, and 

nestlings remain in the nest for nearly a month.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-72 February 2012

The diet of red-cockaded woodpeckers primarily consists of invertebrates found on and within 

pine bark (Ozier et al., 1999). Stands of pine or mixed pines and hardwoods that are more than 

30 years old are used for foraging. A group requires at least 32 to 51 hectares (80 to 125 acres) 

of foraging habitat. The territory for a group averages about 81 hectares (200 acres) but can 

range from 24 to 243 hectares (60 to more than 600 acres) (FWS, 2003b). Most suitable 

nesting habitat in the southeastern United States occurs on public lands. Threats to the 

red-cockaded woodpecker include habitat loss and fragmentation, short-term timber rotation 

(e.g., <45 years), fire suppression (and subsequent encroachment of hardwood midstory trees 

that reach the heights of the cavity entrance), and competition for cavity space. When foraging 

habitat is cleared, groups may have difficulty raising young. Juveniles dispersing from isolated 

clusters of cavity trees seldom encounter suitable habitat, and much less other individuals. 

Once a breeding female dies, it is highly unlikely that a replacement will immigrate to the group 

(Ozier et al., 1999).

An active red-cockaded woodpecker group occurs within 8 kilometers (5 miles) northeast of the 

Wilmington Site. It is located just north of the Northeast Cape Fear River along NC 117 in 

Pender County (GLE, 2008). Several occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker have been 

recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the western border of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENR, 2009e). No cavity trees were observed on the Wilmington Site during field surveys 

conducted in support of the Environmental Report (GLE, 2008). The forested habitats on the 

Wilmington Site meet the minimum area requirements needed for foraging habitat. However, 

the lack of mature forests would limit the value of the Wilmington Site as foraging habitat. Only 

the longleaf pine/scrub plant community located in the northwest corner of the Wilmington Site 

is estimated to be over 40 years of age (Figures 3-12 and 3-13). Thinning of forested areas has 

increased habitat potentially suitable for the red-cockaded woodpecker on the Wilmington Site 

(GLE, 2009c). The Sledge Forest, a property containing more than 1619 hectares (4000 acres) 

of high-quality forest directly adjacent to and north of the Wilmington Site, does contain loblolly 

and longleaf pine trees that are more than 300 years old. This area would be suitable as 

nesting and roosting habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. It is possible that woodpeckers 

that forage in the Sledge Forest could occasionally forage within the western forested portion of 

the Wilmington Site.

Mammals

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)

The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is a Federal and a State species of concern. The species 

occurs in forested areas. Summer roosts include hollow trees, loose bark, or abandoned 

buildings in or near wooded areas. Bridges are also used as day roosts and as maternity 

roosts. Foraging habitat is primarily among the canopies of mature upland and lowland forests 

(Ozier et al., 1999). While most bats become active before dark, the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat 

does not emerge from its roost until it is completely dark (Ozier et al., 1999). In the Coastal 

Plain, they are assumed to use hollow trees during cold weather and possibly as winter roosts. 

It roosts singly, in small clusters, or in groups of more than 100 individuals. During the nursing 

season, males are generally solitary. The species is considered nonmigratory, having only 

short-distance movements between summer and winter roosting sites. Threats to the species 

include habitat loss (e.g., forest destruction, removal of hollow trees, removal of abandoned 

buildings, and vandalism or destruction of mines and caves), insecticide applications, and 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-73 NUREG-1938

disturbance at roost sites. There is a pre-2006 occurrence record for the Rafinesque’s bigeared bat within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009e).

Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius)

The southeastern myotis bat is a Federal and a State species of concern. It nests in caves, 

buildings, and snags and hollow trees of pine and hardwood forests; and it primarily forages in 

riparian areas, but also in various upland habitats. Threats to the southeastern myotis include 

human disturbance and physical alteration of caves used for hibernacula and maternity sites. 

Clearing and draining of bottomland hardwood forest wetlands also have reduced summer 

roosting and foraging habitat. There is a 1986 occurrence record for the southeastern myotis 

within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area from floodplains north of the 

Wilmington Site near the confluence of the Northeast Cape Fear River and Prince George 

Creek (NCDENR, 2009e; GLE, 2008). The riparian habitats and pine and hardwood forests on 

the Wilmington Site provide suitable foraging and breeding habitat for the southeastern myotis. 

It may also forage in the Operations Area and transmission line ROWs.

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)

The West Indian manatee is both Federally and State-listed as endangered. It inhabits shallow 

coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and rivers. The manatee usually inhabits waters with a depth 

of 1 to 6 meters (3.3 to 20 feet) (FWS, 2009a; NatureServe, 2009). Much of their time is spent 

submerged or partly submerged. Manatees feed on aquatic vegetation. It is a seasonal 

inhabitant of North Carolina, being present mainly from June through October. They migrate 

south (e.g., to Florida) when water temperatures fall below about 21 Celsius (70 Fahrenheit). 

Manatees often return to the same winter and summer habitats every year (Ozier et al., 1999). 

Threats to the West Indian manatee include collisions with boats, habitat loss and degradation, 

entrapment and/or crushing in water control structures, entanglement in fishing gear, hunting 

and fishing, red tide poisoning, and exposure to cold temperatures. No occurrences of the West 

Indian manatee have been recorded within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENR, 2009e). However, the Northeast Cape Fear River and some of its tributaries in the 

area of the Wilmington Site may provide suitable habitat for the manatee (FWS, 2009a).

3.8.6.2 State-Listed Species

In addition to the Federally threatened or endangered species and Federal species of concern 

identified in Table 3-14, there are additional State-rare species that are known to occur within 

New Hanover County (Buchanan and Finnegan, 2008; LeGrand et al., 2008). These are 

identified in Table 3-15.11 Some of these species may occur on or near the Wilmington Site. 

Continued declines in some of these species could be expected in the future, which may lead to 

their becoming upgraded to State threatened or endangered or possibly as Federally listed 

species.

 

11 County distributions for “watch list” animal species were not provided by LeGrand et al., 2008; 

therefore, these species are not included in Table 3-15. The State status of the Federally threatened 

or endangered species and Federal species of concern is provided in Table 3-15. These species are 

also discussed in Section 3.8.6.1.
NUREG-1938

3-74 February 2012

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Lichens

Cladonia evansii Powder-puff lichen W Sandhills (primarily near the coast), usually 

associated with sand live oak.

Liverworts

Cephalozia connivens var.

bifida

A liverwort SR-T* Moist riverbanks. 

Metzgeria uncigera A liverwort W* On bark in maritime forests or on rhododendron i

mountain forests.

Mosses

Fissidens elegans A plume moss W* Sandy and clayey soils along roadsides and 

streams, on trees or stumps.

Weissia muehlenbergiana A moss W* Soil among grasses, roadsides. 

Vascular Plants

Adiatium capillus-veneris Venus hair fern E Coquina limestone (marl) outcrops, adventitious o

mortar of old stone walls.

Agalinis aphylla Scale-leaf gerardia W* Wet savannas and sandhills streambed pocosin 

ecotones.

Agalinis linifolia Flaxleaf gerardia W Savannas, clay-based carolina bays, depression 

ponds, and other open habitats.

Agalinis virgata Branched gerardia SR-P Savannas and depression pond shores. 

Anthaenantia rufa Purple silkyscale W* Savannas. 

Aristida condensata Big three-awn grass SR-P Bay rims with xeric pine-oak scrub. 
February 2012

3-75 NUREG-1938

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Asclepias pedicellata Savanna milkweed SR-P Dry savannas and moist flatwoods. 

Baccharis angustifolia Saltwater false-willow W Brackish marshes, sandhill seeps, and other ope

wet areas.

Bacopa caroliniana Blue water-hyssop SR-P* Shallow ponds, marshes, natural lakes, and tidal 

creeks.

Bacopa innominata Tropical water-hyssop SR-P* Tidal freshwater marshes. 

Bartonia paniculata ssp.

paniculata

Twining screwstem W Wet savannas, sandhill seeps, and other open w

areas.

Boltonia asteroides White doll’s-daisy SR-O Clay-based Carolina bays, marshes, and savann

Burmannia biflora Northern bluethreads W Limesinks, cypress savannas, and sandhill seeps

Calamovifa brevipilis Pinebarren sandreed W Savannas and sandhill seeps. 

Cardamine longi Long’s bittercress SR-T Tidal marshes and tidal cypress-gum forests. 

Carex chapmanii Chapman’s sedge W* Moist bottomlands and slopes, perhaps associate

with marl.

Carex mitchelliana Mitchell’s sedge W Swampy woodlands and forests. 

Carex decomposita Cypress knee sedge SR-T* Beaver ponds and old millponds. 

Carex vericosa Warty sedge SR-P* Savannas and pinelands. 

Cirsium lecontei Le Conte’s thistle SR-P* Savannas. 

Cladium mariscoides Twig-rush SR-O Bogs, fens, brackish marshes, and sandhill seepa

bogs.

Chrysopogon pauciflorus Goldenbeard W* Sandhills. 
NUREG-1938

3-76 February 2012

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Chrysopsis trichophylla Naked golden-aster W Xeric sandhills and sandhill scrub. 

Cleistes bifaria Small spreading pogonia W Savannas, dry meadows. 

Coelorachis rugosa Wrinkled jointgrass W Limesink ponds, clay-based Carolina bays, and w

savannas.

Corallorhiza odontorhiza Autumn coral-root W* Harwood forests. 

Corallorhiza visteriana Spring coral-root SR-O Nutrient-rich forests, especially over limestone, 

mafic rocks, or shell-rich sands.

Crinum americanum Swamp-lily SR-P* Tidal swamp forests and tidal marshes. 

Crocanthemum carolinianum Carolina sunrose SR-P Sandhills, pinelands, and dry savannas. 

Crocanthemum georgianum Georgia sunrose SR-P Maritime forests. 

Crocanthemum nashii Florida scrub frostweed E Coastal fringe sandhill. 

Cyperus distans A flatsedge W* Marshes. 

Cyperus lecontei Leconte’s flatsedge SR-P* Limesink ponds. 

Cyperus tetragonus Four-angled flatsedge SR-P+ Maritime forests and barrier island grasslands. 

Dicanthelium aciculare spp. 

neuranthum

Nerved witch grass SR-D Maritime wet grasslands. 

Dicanthelium sp. 9 A witch grass SR-L* Wet streamhead pocosin openings, including utili

clearings.

Dichanthelium erectifolium Erectleaf witch grass W Pond shores. 

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern woodfern W* Acid swamps. 

Eleocharis equisetoides Horsetail spikerush W* Limesink ponds. 
February 2012

3-77 NUREG-1938

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Eleocharis melanocarpa Blackfruit spikerush W Clay-based Carolina ponds. 

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins’ spikerush SR-P Limesink ponds, clay-based Carolina bays, peatburn lakes, millponds, beaver ponds, and artificia

lakes.

Eleocharis tricostata Three-angle spikerush W Bogs and savannas. 

Epidendrum magnoliae Green fly orchid SR-P Epiphytic on trees in blackwater river swamps. 

Erythrina herbacea Coralbean SR-P Maritime forests. 

Eupatorium leptophyllum Limesink dog-fennel SR-P Limesink ponds and clay-based Carolina bays. 

Gaylussacia nana Confederate huckleberry E Coastal fringe sandhill. 

Gelsemium rankinii Swamp jessamine SR-P Floodplains of blackwater rivers and streams. 

Habenaria repens Water-spider orchid W* Stagnant blackwater pools and impoundments. 

Helenium pinnatifidum Dissected sneezeweed SR-P* Savannas and open, wet, and mucky sites. 

Hibiscus aculeatus Comfortroot SR-P Bay forests, sand ridges, and roadsides. 

Hypericum fasciculatum Peelbark St. John’s-wort SR-L* Beaver ponds, low pinelands, and pools. 

Ilex cassine var. cassine Dahoon W Blackwater swamps and pocosins. 

Iresine rhizomatosa Rootstock bloodleaf W Low, wet places, interdune swales, damp woods, 

edges of brackish marshes.

Lachnocaulon minus Brown bogbutton SR-P Depression ponds and ditches. 

Liatris secunda Sandhill blazing-star W Sandhills. 

Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina grasswort T Freshwater marshes, pools, and tidal marshes. 

Lophiola aurea Golden-crest E Very wet, mucky habitats in pine savannas. 
NUREG-1938

3-78 February 2012

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Ludwigia alata Winged seedbox SR-P* Interdune ponds and marshes. 

Ludwigia lanceolata Lanceleaf seedbox SR-P Interdune ponds and open wet areas. 

Ludwigia linifolia Flaxleaf seedbox SR-P Limestone ponds. 

Ludwigia sphaerocarpa Globe-fruit seedbox SR-P Bogs, pools, and lake shores. 

Ludwigia suffruticosa Shrubby seedbox SR-P Limesink ponds and clay-based Carolina bays. 

Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia W* Mainland forests with maritime influence. 

Nuphar sagittifolia Narrowleaf cowlily W Blackwater streams, rivers, and lakes. 

Oenothera riparia Riverbank eveningprimroseSR-L Tidal marshes. 

Panicum tenerum Southeastern panic 

grass

W Wet savannas, sandhill seeps, and limesink pond

Parietaria floridana Florida pellitory W* Shell middens, disturbed sites, and maritime fore

Paspalum praecox Early crown grass W Limesink ponds and savannas. 

Parietaria praetermissa Large-seed pellitory SR-P* Shell middens, disturbed sites, and maritime fore

Peltandra sagittifolia Spoonflower SR-P Pocosins and other wet, peaty sites. 

Persea borbonia Red bay W Sandy upland soils in maritime forests. 

Physalis lanceolata Sandhill ground cherry W* Sandhills. 

Phytolacca rigida Maritime pokeweed W Dunes, edges of brackish or salt marshes. 

Platanthera nivea Snowy orchid E Wet savannas. 

Polygala hookeri Hooker’s milkwort SR-D Savannas. 
February 2012

3-79 NUREG-1938

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Polygonum glaucum Seabeach knotwood SR-T* Ocean and sound beaches. 

Ptelea trifoliata Wafer-ash W* Rich woods, cliffs, and rock exposures mainly ove

mafic or calcareous rocks.

Ptilimnium costatum Ribbed bishop-weed SR-P Tidal swamps or marshes. 

Rhexia cubensis West Indies meadowbeautyW Limesink ponds. 

Rhynchospora careyana Carey’s beaksedge W Limesink ponds, and clay-based Carolina bays. 

Rhynchospora inundata Narrowfruit beaksedge W Limesink ponds, and clay-based Carolina bays. 

Rhynchospora pallida Pale beaksedge W Savannas, sandhill seeps, and pocosins. 

Rhynchospora scirpoides Long-beak baldsedge W Beaver ponds, limesink ponds, and wet savannas

Rhynchospora tracyi Tracy’s beaksedge SR-P Clay-based carolina bays, and limesink ponds. 

Sabatia dodecandra Large marsh pink W* Tidal, brackish, and freshwater marshes. 

Sagittaria isoetiformis Quillwort arrowhead SR-P Limesink ponds, clay-based Carolina bays, beave

ponds, and natural lakes.

Salvia azurea Azure sage SR-P* Sandhills. 

Schizachyrium littorale Seaside little bluestem W Coastal dunes and maritime dry grasslands. 

Schoenoplectus americanus Olney threesquare W Tidal marshes. 

Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush W* Tidal marshes. 

Scleria georgiana Georgia nutrush W Savannas. 

Scleria reticularis Netted nutrush SR-O Clay-based carolina bays and limesink ponds. 

Sesuvium portulacastrum Shoreline sea-purslane SR-P Ocean beaches. 
NUREG-1938

3-80 February 2012

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Sideroxylon lycioides Buckthorn bumelia W Maritime forests, bluffs, or forests over calcareou

mafic rocks.

Solidago tortifolia Twisted-leaf goldenrod SR-P* Dry savannas and mesic flats. 

Spiranthes laciniata Lace-lip ladies’-tresses SR-P Moist wet habitats. 

Symphyotrichum elliottii Elliot’s aster W* Freshwater or brackish marshes. 

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow hatpins W* Ditches, pocosin ecotones, and savannas. 

Trifolium carolinianum Carolina clover SR-O* Savannas and sandy open areas. 

Typha domingensis Southern cattail W* Brackish marshes. 

Utricularia cornuta Horned bladderwort SR-P* Bogs and limestone ponds. 

Utricularia olicacea Dwarf bladderwort T Limesink ponds and beaver ponds. 

Verbena scabra Sandpaper vervain W* Marsh edges and shell middens. 

Vigna luteola Wild cowpea W* Marsh edges and wet open areas. 

Viola villosa Carolina violet W* Moist places, especially pocosin edges. 

Xyris smalliana Small’s yellow-eyedgrassW Pineland pools, limesink ponds, and shores. 

Yucca aloifolia Aloe yucca W Dunes. 

Yucca gloriosa Moundlily yucca SR-P Dunes. 

Zizania aquatica Wild rice W Freshwater marshes. 

Invertebrates

Amblyscirtes alternata Dusky roadside-skipper SR+ Open pine woods and savannas. 
February 2012

3-81 NUREG-1938

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Anodonta couperiana Barrel floater E* Ponds or slow-flowing streams in soft substrates. 

Calephelis virginiensis Little metalmark SR Savannas and pine flatwoods. 

Catocala amestris Three-staff underwing SR Sand ridges and flatwoods with leadplant. 

Catocala jair Jair underwing SR Xeric pine-oak sandhills. 

Catocala marmorata Marbled underwing SR Swamp forests with swamp cottonwood. 

Catocala messalina Messalina underwing SR Maritime forests and mesic sandhills. 

Cerma cora A bird-dropping moth SR Levee forests with hawthorn. 

Chaetaglaea fergusoni A noctuid moth SR Sandhills. 

Cyclophora sp. 1 (culicaria) Sand-myrtle geometer SR Flatwoods with sand-myrtle. 

Datana ranaeceps A hand-maid moth SR Recently burned flatwoods and sandhills. 

Doryodes sp. 1 A noctuid moth SR Savannas, flatwoods, and sandhills. 

Drasteria graphica Graphic moth SR Maritime shrub thickets. 

Elliptio marsupiobesa Cape Fear spike SC Low-gradient creeks in variable substrates. 

Eupithecia peckorum An inchworm moth SR Sandhills and flatwoods. 

Heterocampa varia A prominent moth SR Xeric pine-oak sandhills. 

Lithophane laceyi A pinion moth SR Swamp forests. 

Lynceus gracilicornis Graceful clam shrimp SC Temporary ponds, pools, and ditches. 

Metarranthis sp. 1 An new inchworm moth SR Pocosins. 

Papilio cresphontes Giant swallowtail SR Primarily coastal in maritime forests or thickets. 

Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish SR Rivers, ponds, ditches, and borrow pits. 
NUREG-1938

3-82 February 2012

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Ptichodis bistrigata Southern ptichodis SR Xeric sandhills. 

Satyrium favonius favonius Southern oak hairstreak SR Maritime forests along the southern coast. 

Schizura apicalis Plain schizura SR Dry woodlands or scrub. 

Trichosilia manifesta An owlet moth SR Xeric oak woodlands. 

Zale declarans An owlet moth SR Maritime forests with live oak. 

Fishes

Fundulus luciae Spotfin killifish SR Ponds and pools along the coast. 

Heterandria formosa Least killifish SC Streams and lakes near Wilmington. 

Amphibians

Ambystoma mabeei Mabee’s salamander SR* Savannas, wet woods, and swamps. 

Pseudacris ornata Ornate chorus frog SR* Swamps, savannas, and wooded ponds and poo

Reptiles

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern diamondback 

rattlesnake

E Pine flatwoods, savannas, and pine-oak sandhills

Deirochelys reticularia Chicken turtle SR Quiet waters of ponds, ditches, and sluggish 

streams.

Malaclemys terrapin

centrata

Carolina diamondback 

terrapin

SC Salt or brackish marshes, estuaries. 

Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip SR Dry and sandy woods, mainly in pine/oak sandhil

Micrurus fulvius Eastern coral snake E Pine-oak sandhills, sandy flatwoods, and maritim

forests.
February 2012

3-83 NUREG-1938

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Regina rigida Glossy crayfish snake SR* Marshes, cypress ponds, and other wetlands. 

Seminatrix pygaea Black swamp snake SR Lush vegetation of ponds, ditches, or sluggish 

streams.

Sistrurus miliarius Pigmy rattlesnake SC Pine flatwoods, pine/oak sandhills, other pine/oak 

forests.

Birds

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s plover SC Beaches, island-end flats, and estuarine islands. 

Columbina passerina Common ground-dove SR Dunes, sandy fields, and margins of marine wood

and thickets.

Egretta aerulea Little blue heron SC Forests or thickets on maritime islands. 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron SC Forests or thickets on maritime islands. 

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher SC Estuaries, oyster beds, and mudflats. 

Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern SC Fresh or brackish marshes. 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike SC Fields and pastures. 

Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail SC Brackish marshes, rarely freshwater marshes. 

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican SR Maritime islands. 

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis SC Forests or thickets on maritime islands. 

Rynchops niger Black skimmer SC Sand flats on maritime islands. 

Sterna hirundo Common tern SC Sand flats on maritime islands. 

Sternula antillarum Least tern SC Beaches, sand flats, and open dunes. 
NUREG-1938

3-84 February 2012

Table 3-15 State Rare Species Reported from New Hanover County, North Carolina

a

(Co

Scientific Name Common Name

State 

Status

b Habitat

Mammals

Condylura cristata pop. 1 Star-nosed mole –

coastal plain population

SC* Moist meadows, bogs, swamps, and bottomlands

Lasiurus intermedius Northern yellow bat SC Roosts in Spanish moss and other thick vegetatio

near water, often in longleaf pine habitats.

Neotoma floridana floridana Eastern woodrat –

coastal plain population

T Forests, mainly in moist areas. 

Sciurus niger Eastern fox squirrel SR-G Open forests, mainly longleaf pine/scrub oak. 

a

Excludes endangered, threatened, and special concern species previously listed in Table 3-14.

b

E = endangered; G = game animal that by law cannot be listed for State protection as endangered, threatened, or special conce

concern; SR = significantly rare; SR-D = significantly rare – disjunct; SR-L = significantly rare – limited; SR-O = significantly rare – 

SR-P = significantly rare – peripheral; SR-T = significantly rare – throughout; T = threatened; W = watch list; * = recorded occurre

extirpated, have not been found in recent surveys, or have not been surveyed recently enough to be confident that it is still presen

obscure or undatable.

c WS = Wilmington Site, GLEF = proposed GLE Facility site.

d

† = there is an occurrence record for the species within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site.

Sources: Buchanan and Finnegan, 2008; LeGrand et al., 2008; NCDENR, 2009e.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-85 NUREG-1938

The following definitions are applicable for the State listed species (Buchanan and 

Finnegan, 2008; LeGrand et al., 2008):

• Endangered plant: any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a 

viable component of the State’s flora is determined to be in jeopardy. Endangered plants 

may not be removed from the wild except when a permit is obtained for research, 

propagation, or rescue that will enhance the survival of the species. 

• Endangered animal: any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued 

existence as a viable component of the State’s fauna is determined by the North Carolina 

Wildlife Resource Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to 

be an “endangered species” pursuant to the ESA. 

• Threatened plant: any resident species of plant that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Threatened plants may not be removed from the wild except when a permit is obtained for 

research, propagation, or rescue that will enhance the survival of the species.

• Threatened animal: any native or once-native species of wild animal that is likely to become 

an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the ESA.

• Special concern plant: any species of plant that requires monitoring but which may be 

collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Plant Protection 

and Conservation Act.

• Special concern animal: any native or once-native species of wild animal that is determined 

by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under 

regulation.

• Significantly rare plant: any plant species not listed by the North Carolina Plant 

Conservation Program as endangered, threatened, or special concern species, which is rare 

in North Carolina, generally with 1 to 100 populations in the State, frequently substantially 

reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or 

disease).

• Significantly rare animal: any wild animal species not listed by the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission as an endangered, threatened, or special concern species, but 

which exists in the State in small numbers and has been determined by the North Carolina 

Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.

• Watch list: any plant or animal species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in 

the State but not warranting active monitoring at this time.

Qualifying categories are also applied to some of the species that are considered significantly 

rare, as follows: disjunct – the species in North Carolina is separated from its main range in a 

different part of the country or world; limited – the range of the species is limited to North 

Carolina and adjacent states and the species may have only 20 to 50 populations in North 

Carolina, but fewer than 100 populations rangewide; other – the range is sporadic or cannot be 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-86 February 2012

described by other significantly rare categories; peripheral – the species is at the periphery, or 

edge, of its range in North Carolina; and throughout – the species is rare throughout its entire 

range (i.e., fewer than 100 populations in total)

3.9 Noise

Any pressure variation that the human ear can detect is considered sound; noise is unwanted 

sound. Sound is described in terms of amplitude (perceived as loudness) and frequency 

(perceived as pitch). Sound pressure levels are typically measured on a logarithmic decibel 

(dB) scale. To account for human sensitivity to frequencies of sound (i.e., humans are less 

sensitive to lower and higher frequencies and most sensitive to sounds between 1 and 

5 kilohertz), A-weighting (denoted by dBA), which is correlated with a human’s subjective 

reaction to sound, is widely used (ASA, 1983; ASA, 1985). To account for variations of sound 

with time, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is employed. Leq is the continuous sound 

level during a specific time period that would contain the same total energy as the actual timevarying sound. For example, Leq (24) is the 24-hour equivalent continuous sound level. In 

addition, human responses to noise differ depending on the time of the day (e.g., there is more 

annoyance over noise during nighttime hours due to low background levels). The day-night 

average sound level (Ldn or DNL) provides an average of the level over a 24-hour period after 

the addition of 10 dB to noise during nighttime hours (from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for the 

greater sensitivity of most people to it. Day-night average sound level is widely used for 

community noise and airport noise assessments. Generally, a 3-dB change is considered a just 

noticeable difference, and a 10-dB increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness 

and almost always causes an adverse community response. See the text box (next page) for 

the definition of noise-related technical terms and some simple rules governing sound levels.

The Noise Control Act of 1972, along with its subsequent amendments (Quiet Communities Act 

of 1978, 42 USC 4901 et seq.), delegates to the States the authority to regulate environmental 

noise and directs government agencies to comply with local community noise statutes and 

regulations. Many local noise ordinances are qualitative and prohibit excessive noise or noise 

that results in a public nuisance. Because of the subjective nature of such ordinances, they are 

often difficult to enforce. However, several States and counties have established quantitative 

noise level regulations, which typically specify environmental noise limits based on the land use 

of the property receiving the noise.

New Hanover County has established quantitative community noise limits set forth in 

Chapter 23, Environment, Article II, Noise, in the County Code of Ordinances (New Hanover 

County, 2009a), although the State of North Carolina has not. For nonresidentially zoned 

districts, any noise source should not produce noise levels exceeding 75 A-weighted decibels 

(dBA), combined with the ambient noise, during daytime hours, and no more than 70 dBA 

during nighttime hours. Residentially zoned districts have lower criteria of 65 dBA during the 

daytime and 50 dBA at night. If the ambient noise level already exceeds the criteria, a violation 

shall occur only when such sound exceeds the ambient noise level by 3 dBA. Noise 

measurements shall be made at the nearest corner of the primary structure or at the boundary 

of the public ROW that adjoins the property of interest. The EPA identified noise levels requisite 

to protect public health and welfare against hearing loss, annoyance, and activity interference 

(EPA, 1974), as shown in Table 3-16. The EPA recommends a day-night average sound level 

of 55 dBA, which is sufficient to protect the public health and welfare in sensitive areas 

(e.g., residences, schools, and hospitals) from the effect of broadband environmental noise. 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-87 NUREG-1938

Definition of Noise-Related Technical Terms

Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the 

logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound 

measured to the reference pressure (typically 20 micropascals per 

square meter which is the lowest pressure level audible to humans), 

that is, 20 log10(P/Pref).

Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and 

below atmospheric pressure. The normal hearing of a young healthy 

person ranges from 20 to 20,000 Hz.

A-weighted sound level 

(dBA)

The most common frequency weighting on a sound level meter in a 

manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear, that is, 

low sensitivity to the very low and high frequencies and high sensitivity 

to middle frequencies; correlates well with subjective reactions to 

noise.

Equivalent continuous 

sound level (Leq)

The sound level (in dBA) that, had it been a steady level during the 

measurement period, would represent the amount of energy present in 

the measured, fluctuating sound pressure level.

Day-night average 

sound level (Ldn or DNL)

The sound level (in dBA) over a 24-hour period that accounts for 

human sensitivity to noise during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 

due to relatively low background noise. The 10-dB penalty, which 

means 10 times more sound energy (e.g., noise from one car at night 

corresponds to a combined noise from 10 cars during the day), is 

added to the sound level measured during nighttime hours to estimate 

the DNL.

Loudness Subjective magnitude of sound. As a rule of thumb, an increase of 

10 dB is perceived to be approximately twice as loud. For example, 

65 dB is perceived as being twice as loud as 55 dB.

Sound-Related Rules of Thumb

Sound pressure level decreases at a rate of 6 dB and 3 dB per doubling of distance for point 

source (e.g., diesel generator at a fixed location) and line source (e.g., road traffic), 

respectively. For example, if the sound level of a point source is 60 dB at 15 meters 

(50 feet), then it is 54 dB at 30 meters (100 feet) and 48 dB at 60 meters (200 feet). If the 

sound level of a line source is 60 dB at 15 meters (50 feet), then it is 57 dB at 30 meters 

(100 feet) and 54 dB at 60 meters (200 feet).

The doubling of sound energy increases the sound level by 3 dB. For example, if one source 

produces 80 dB, then the combined noise levels would be 83 dB for two identical sources 

and 86 dB for four identical sources.

If the sound levels from two sources differ by 10 dB, the louder source will predominate. 

Accordingly, background noise level should be more than 10 dB below the sound level of a 

source being monitored to have confidence in the accuracy of the measurement.
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-88 February 2012 

Table 3-16 Summary of Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety 

Effect Levela Area

Hearing Leq(24) ≤ 70 dB All areas (at the ear).

Outdoor activity 

interference and 

annoyance

Ldn ≤ 55 dB Outdoors in residential areas and farms and other outdoor 

areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time 

and other places in which quiet is a basis for use.

Leq(24) ≤ 55 dB Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time, 

such as school yards, playgrounds, etc.

Indoor activity 

interference and 

annoyance

Ldn ≤ 45 dB Indoor residential areas.

Leq(24) ≤ 45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities such as schools, etc.

a

Ldn = day-night average sound level; Leq(24) = 24-hour equivalent continuous sound level; dB = decibels.

Source: EPA, 1974.

These levels are not regulatory goals but are “intentionally conservative to protect the most 

sensitive portion of the American population” with “an additional margin of safety.” To ensure 

adequate protection for indoor living, a day-night average sound level of 45 dBA is 

recommended. For protection against hearing loss in the general population from nonimpulsive 

noise, the EPA guideline recommends a 24-hour equivalent sound level of 70 dBA or less over 

a 40-year period. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has developed regulations that are 

related to the overall community noise level. These regulations would only affect their own 

programs and are not binding on local communities; that is, HUD has no regulatory authority 

over noise sources. HUD considers day-night average sound levels from 65 to 75 dBA as 

“normally unacceptable [for housing]” and DNL levels above 75 dBA as “unacceptable” 

(24 CFR 51.103). Levels below 65 dBA are considered “acceptable.”

The Wilmington Site, including the proposed GLE Facility, is surrounded by a mix of land uses. 

The nearest sensitive receptors, areas of human habitation or use where the intrusion of noise 

has the potential to adversely impact the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the environment, are 

located just next to the northeast site boundary and about 1.2 kilometers (0.8 mile) directly to 

the east of the proposed facility (GLE, 2008). Other land uses adjacent to the site include a 

hunting/recreational area to the north, the Northeast Cape Fear River to the southwest, I-140 to 

the south, and NC 133 (Castle Hayne Road) to the east. Highway I-140, which is elevated 

relative to the site, acts as a natural sound barrier and blocks noises from current site 

operations to the residences to the south. Industrial land uses are dominant on the west side of 

the Cape Fear River. No other residences and sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals, and 

nursing homes) are located in the immediate vicinity (within about 1.6 kilometers [1 mile]) of the 

Wilmington Site. 

Per New Hanover County zoning code, the entire Wilmington property (including industrial 

facilities, forest areas, and open-space areas) is currently zoned I-2 Industrial District 

(New Hanover County, 2009b). This zone is intended for heavy industrial uses, which allows 

the highest noise levels. Similar to those of any other industrial facilities, noise emission 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-89 NUREG-1938

sources within the Wilmington Site are associated with various activities, including heavy 

equipment, mechanical systems, vehicular traffic, and public address system (GLE, 2008). 

Natural sounds were observed during the baseline sound survey, including birds and insect 

noise, and leaf-rustling noise by wind. In particular, insect noises peaked at 4 kilohertz; they are 

typically overwhelmed by other created noises during the daytime but are prominent at night. 

Medium-density wooded areas and soft grounds could provide some attenuation for noise from 

the Wilmington Site to propagate to the neighboring areas. Noise sources outside the site 

boundary include local vehicular traffic on NC 133 and I-140, distant vehicular traffic on I-40, 

aircraft overflights, yard maintenance activities in the residential community, and gunshots from 

the hunting/recreation area.

The baseline sound survey was conducted from October 30 to November 1, 2007, to 

characterize the existing acoustic conditions (GLE, 2008). As shown in Figure 3-16, 

measurements were made at four onsite locations: northeastern property line near the 

residences in the Eastern Site Sector (position A); proposed GLE Facility (currently a tree farm) 

in the North-Central Site Sector (position B); northern edge of the existing GNF-A facility in the 

Eastern Site Sector (position C); and existing northern entrance roadway in the Eastern Site 

Sector (position D). Noise levels at the northern property line near the residences 

representative of community noise level (position A) ranged from 41 dBA (night) to 46 dBA (day) 

with a day-night average sound level of 48 dBA. These levels are well below the New Hanover 

County noise ordinance of 50 and 65 dBA, respectively, for residentially zoned districts and the 

EPA day-night average sound level guideline of 55 dBA. The noise levels at the proposed 

GLE Facility, which is currently wooded (position B), ranged from 40 dBA (night) to 48 dBA

(day) with a day-night average sound level of 48 dBA. At the northern edge of the existing 

facility (position C), noise levels of 47 dBA (night) and 51 dBA (day) with a day-night average 

sound level of 54 dBA were recorded, which is characteristic of the noise levels from existing 

operations. The measurements at the northern entrance roadway (position D) were the highest 

among those at four measurement locations, ranging from 56 dBA (night) to 61 dBA (day) with a 

day-night average sound level of 63 dBA,

12 which reflects existing traffic noise levels within the 

Wilmington Site. Comparisons of sound levels from field observations demonstrated that noise 

levels at the northeastern property line near the residences have little correlation with consistent 

noise levels from the existing facilities and the northern entrance roadways. This suggests that 

sound levels at the northern property line originate from activities in the surrounding community, 

rather than from activities at the existing Wilmington Site facilities. Noise measurements were 

conducted in mid-fall when some deciduous trees lose their leaves, which can otherwise 

attenuate sound propagation to some extent. Accordingly, noise levels during this survey are 

considered as median values over the year. To date, no noise complaints have been reported 

from neighboring communities due to noisier sources outside the Wilmington Site, for example, 

nearby roadways.

For the general area surrounding the proposed GLE Facility, the countywide day-night sound 

level based on population density for the New Hanover County was estimated to be 51 dBA, 

typical of “quiet suburban residential” areas (Miller, 2002; Eldred, 1982).

 

12 This location is inside the Wilmington Site, thus noise levels at this location are not subject to any 

noise guidelines or regulations. These noise levels are presented for informational purposes only.
NUREG-1938

3-90 February 2012

Figure 3-16 Locations of Sound Measurements Conducted from October 30 to November 1

at the Wilmington Site (Modified from GLE, 2008; GLE, 2009c)
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-91 NUREG-1938

3.10 Transportation

The Wilmington, North Carolina, area is readily accessible by road, rail, air, and water. The 

road network includes an interstate highway and several major U.S. highways. Public 

transportation in the area includes fixed bus and shuttle routes as well as a trolley in downtown 

Wilmington. The area is home to a major deepwater seaport that is served by a rail network 

that handles the incoming and outgoing cargo. Commercial airline service is provided by a 

regional airport.

3.10.1 Roads and Highways

Wilmington serves as the eastern terminus of I-40 as shown in Figure 3-17. I-40 briefly runs 

northward upon leaving Wilmington, intersecting I-95, the major east coast north-south 

interstate, at a distance of about 160 kilometers (100 miles). Shortly thereafter, I-40 passes 

through Raleigh, North Carolina, and begins its westward trek to its western terminus near 

Los Angeles, California. Another major north-south transportation corridor through the area is 

U.S. Route 17 that runs along the North Carolina coast, linking North Carolina with Virginia and 

South Carolina. Other major roads in the area include I-140, U.S. 74, U.S. 76, U.S. 421, and 

NC 132. All routes are available for the transport of goods and materials. The State of 

North Carolina has not limited the transport of hazardous materials to specifically designated 

routes within its boundaries (see Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Designated, Preferred, 

and Restricted Routes, 65 FR 75771, 75802 [December 4, 2000]). 

I-140, a four-lane interstate highway (two lanes in each direction), considered to be the 

Wilmington Outer Loop, is under construction (GLE, 2008). The northern portion has been 

completed and connects U.S. 421 in the west with I-40 and U.S. 17 in the east. The western 

section of I-140, which links U.S. 421 with U.S. 74-76, has been funded and is scheduled for 

construction in 2011, while the southern portion, which is intended to link U.S. 74-76 with 

U.S. 17, has not yet been funded. As shown in Figure 3-18, the completed portion of I-140 

passes directly south of the Wilmington Site and has an interchange with NC 133 (Castle Hayne 

Road). 

Access to the Wilmington Site is gained from Castle Hayne Road immediately north of the 

I-140 interchange. Castle Hayne Road is a two-lane highway with an additional lane in each 

direction in the vicinity of the interchange with I-140 and the Wilmington Site. Table 3-17 

provides the annual average daily traffic (AADT) flow on major roads near the Wilmington Site 

entrances. The AADT refers to the average number of vehicles in all lanes in both directions 

passing a point on a given road during an average day in the year. The current site entrance 

serves approximately 2800 workers employed at the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008). Peak traffic 

periods related to site access occur during shift changes, such as at 3:00 p.m., as noted during 

a site visit on July 24, 2007 (GLE, 2008).

A second entrance, located 0.04 kilometer (0.25 mile) north of the entrance at the intersection of 

Castle Hayne Road and I-140, is used for truck deliveries and shipments. About 

1000 radioactive material shipments a year are made to and from the Wilmington Site 

(GLE, 2009a). Outbound radioactive material truck shipments enter I-140 from NC 133 on their 

way to I-40 and their interstate destinations. Similarly, inbound interstate shipments would take 

the reverse course, coming in through I-40 to I-140 and exiting at NC 133 near the Wilmington 

Site entrance. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-92 February 2012

Figure 3-17 Map of the Wilmington Region
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-93 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-18 Local Map of the Wilmington Area
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-94 February 2012

Table 3-17 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on Major Roads

near the Wilmington Site

Road General 

Direction Location AADT(Vehicles)

Castle Hayne Rd. North-South South of Sonday Rd. 13,000

North of McDougald 10,000

North of I-140 near site entrance 12,000

South of I-140 12,000

North of Old Mill Rd. 14,000

North of Kerr Ave. 17,000

I-140 East-West West of Castle Hayne Rd. 16,000

East of Castle Hayne Rd., West of I-40 18,000

East of I-40 14,000

I-40 North-South North of I-140 30,000

South of I-140 27,000

Source: NCDOT, 2008.

Wave Transit, the operating name for the Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority, which 

provides services for the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County (Wave Transit, 2009), 

operates bus routes in the area around the Wilmington Site. The Castle Hayne route passes by 

the Wilmington Site entrance on Castle Hayne Road. Wave Transit also operates a trolley that 

serves the downtown Wilmington area and shuttle buses that serve the University of 

North Carolina – Wilmington campus approximately 3 kilometers (2 miles) west of downtown.

3.10.2 Rail Network

The CSX Corporation provides freight service to the Wilmington area with primary terminals at 

the Port of Wilmington and the U.S. Army Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point. Nearly all rail 

freight traffic to these two terminals is routed through Hamlet, 179 kilometers (111 miles) to the 

west (NCDOT, 2005). Currently, there is no passenger train service to Wilmington, but studies 

have been conducted to assess interest and feasibility (NCDOT, 2005). The Wilmington Site 

has no current plans for shipping by rail and no direct rail access, but it is within several miles of 

the freight terminal in Wilmington.

3.10.3 Water

The Cape Fear River and the Intracoastal Waterway in and around Wilmington are maintained 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to support commercial and recreational 

navigation. The southwestern portion of the Wilmington Site borders the Cape Fear River north 

of the city.

The Port of Wilmington is a major East Coast deepwater port near downtown. Direct rail access 

and easy access to I-40 are available for freight shipments. Approximately 3.6 million metric 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-95 NUREG-1938

tons (4 million tons) of goods pass through the port annually in the form of containerized, bulk, 

and breakbulk cargoes. The top five imports in fiscal year 2006, in terms of tonnage, passing 

through the port were forest products, chemicals, cement, general merchandise, and coal 

(GLE, 2008). Wood pulp, forest products, general merchandise, food, and chemicals were the 

top five exports, in terms of tonnage, during the same period (GLE, 2008).

3.10.4 Air

The Wilmington International Airport provides regional passenger service to Charlotte, New 

York, Atlanta, and Philadelphia. The airport is serviced by two major domestic commercial 

airlines. International service is only provided by either corporate or personal aircraft. The 

nearest major airports are Raleigh-Durham International Airport (122 kilometers [145 miles] to 

the north-northwest) and Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (322 kilometers [200 miles] to 

the west-northwest). Several smaller municipal and private airports and heliports also serve the 

Wilmington area in New Hanover County (3), Brunswick County (7) and Pender County (4) 

(FAA, 2009).

3.11 Public and Occupational Health

As described in Sections 3.5 through 3.7, several different media in and around the Wilmington 

Site contain radionuclides and chemicals that are both naturally occurring and anthropogenic 

(i.e., resulting from human activity) from historical and current operations at the site. These 

media include soil, surface water, sediment, groundwater, and air. This section describes these 

radiological and chemical background and anthropogenic levels in terms of public and 

occupational exposure and health, as well as historical exposure levels for activities similar to 

the proposed action. It also summarizes the cancer incidence and death rates in the region,

which were necessary to establish baseline information for the Chapter 4 analysis of impacts on 

public and worker health that may be due to the proposed action.

3.11.1 Background Radiological Exposure

Humans are exposed to ionizing radiation from many naturally occurring sources in the 

environment and created sources that include human enhancement of natural sources of 

radiation. The current sources of radiation at the proposed GLE site include natural background 

sources and created sources, including the GNF-A facility. Section 3.11.1.1 discusses the 

exposure from general background radiation that includes naturally occurring sources and 

created sources, excluding the exposure from GNF-A facility operations. Radiological 

exposures from the operation of the existing GNF-A facility are discussed in Section 3.11.1.2.

3.11.1.1 General Background Radiation 

Radioactivity from naturally occurring elements in the environment is present in soil, rocks, and 

living organisms. A major proportion of natural background radiation comes from naturally 

occurring airborne sources such as radon. The natural radiation sources contribute 

approximately 3.11 millisievert per year (311 millirem per year) to the radiation dose that a 

member of the U.S. population receives annually. The majority of this exposure –

approximately 2 millisievert per year (200 millirem per year) – is from inhalation of naturally 

occurring radon gas from soil, rock, and water. The other sources of exposure include external 

exposure from terrestrial sources and natural radiation of cosmic origin and exposure from 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-96 February 2012

radionuclides that exist in the body. The radiation dose from natural sources of external gamma 

radiation in North Carolina is 1.2 millisievert per year (120 millirem per year) (Kathren, 1984).

Created sources include computed tomography (CT scan) for medical purposes, nuclear 

medicine, interventional fluoroscopy for medical purposes, X-rays for medical purposes, 

consumer products, industrial, and occupational exposure. A person living in the United States 

received an average effective dose of about 6.2 millisievert (620 millirem) in 2006 

(NCRP, 2009). Figure 3-19 shows the percentage contribution to the total dose from different 

sources.

3.11.1.2 Radiological Exposure from GNF-A Operations

The existing facilities on the Wilmington Site that can contribute to radiological exposure are the 

nuclear fuel complex and WFSC. The fuel complex includes the FMO/FMOX buildings, the 

DCP building, the Waste Treatment Facility, process basins, and other support facilities. The 

SCO and FCO facilities handle only nonradioactive components. Therefore, no radioactivity is 

released to the environment from SCO and FCO facilities.

Radiological Exposure to the General Public

Airborne and liquid effluent releases of radionuclides from the existing operations of the nuclear 

fuel complex and WFSC at the Wilmington Site result in radiation exposure to people in the 

vicinity of the site. The most likely public exposure pathway is by inhalation of airborne 

effluents.

Figure 3-19 Percentage Contribution to the Effective 

Dose in the U.S. Population for 2006 (NCRP, 2009)
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-97 NUREG-1938

The gamma radiation exposure levels measured at the site boundary are at background levels 

(GLE, 2009a); therefore, direct radiation exposure is not a significant exposure pathway for the 

public from existing GNF-A operations. 

The airborne effluent releases from the FMO facility vents are sampled continuously. For the 

period 1995 to 2005, the gross alpha activity released per year from the FMO facility vents 

ranged from 5.55 105to 7.29 106becquerels (15 to 197 microcuries) (GLE, 2008). The 

maximum release was in 1997, the year in which the FMO facility switched from a wet process 

of converting uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to uranium dioxide (UO2) to a dry conversion process; 

a decreasing trend has been observed since then.

The airborne effluent from WFSC stacks is monitored for gross beta emissions. Cobalt-60 is the 

main source of beta emissions. For the period 2006 to 2008, the gross beta concentrations at 

the release points ranged from 6.7 10 5to 4.4 10 4becquerels per cubic meter (1.8 10 15

to 1.2 10 14 microcuries per cubic centimeter) (GLE, 2009a). 

Continuous ambient air monitoring for gross alpha activity is conducted at six air sampling 

stations as shown in Figure 3-20. For the period 1995 to 2005, average gross alpha 

measurements from GNF-A ambient air samplers ranged from 8.1 10 5to 1.7 10 4

becquerels per cubic meter (2.2 10 15 to 4.5 10 15 microcuries per cubic centimeter) 

(GLE, 2008). These levels are approximately one order of magnitude below the most restrictive 

maximum allowable uranium air concentration limit of 5 10 14 microcuries per cubic centimeter 

in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B.

Ambient air radiation levels are also monitored by the North Carolina Radiation Protection 

Section (RPS) of the NCDENR. There are two RPS air samplers located on the Wilmington 

Site. The first is at the fence near the southern boundary of the site, and the second is located 

at the site dock on the Cape Fear River. Both of these air samplers are colocated with GNF-A 

ambient air samplers. In 1995, GNF-A monitoring and the RPS onsite sampling results were 

comparable (NRC, 1997). The RPS also has two monitoring stations offsite. A comparison of 

the GNF-A onsite air sampling results with offsite samplers indicates that the measured 

concentrations are at background levels and do not indicate any elevated levels of alpha activity 

(NCDENR, 2009b).

On the basis of modeling of total radionuclide releases to the air for the years 1995 to 2005 from 

the FMO facility stacks, the estimated radiation dose to the nearest resident assumed to be at 

the site boundary (located 130 to 384 meters [427 to 1260 feet] south of the FMO facility stack) 

by using the COMPLY code, ranged from 0.00027 millisievert (0.027 millirem) in 2002 to 

0.0040 millisievert (0.40 millirem) in 1997 (GLE, 2008). These estimated doses to the nearest 

resident are well below the NRC limit of 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year) 

in 10 CFR 20.1301(a).

To confirm that air emissions are within regulatory requirements and are not harmful to human 

health, the dose to a hypothetical person living at the site boundary for 2006 to 2008 from FMO 

facility stack releases was also calculated. The yearly estimated doses from air effluent 

releases varied from 0.00035 to 0.00040 millisievert per year (0.035 to 0.040 millirem per year). 

The distance to the nearest site boundary from different stacks varied from 130 to 384 meters 

(427 to 1260 feet) (GLE, 2009a). The estimated doses are well below the EPA’s NESHAPs limit 
NUREG-1938

3-98 February 2012

Figure 3-20 Onsite Ambient Air Monitoring Locations for Gross Alpha and Uranium Isotopes (
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-99 NUREG-1938

of 0.1 millisievert per year (10 millirem per year), and the NRC total effective dose equivalent 

limit of 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year).

There are no liquid effluent releases from the WFSC, and the airborne effluent releases are 

about four orders of magnitude lower than the 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2 value for 

Cobalt-60 (GLE, 2009a). The concentrations at the site boundary would be much lower than 

the concentration at the release point. These concentrations would result in a yearly dose less 

than 0.0001 millisievert (0.01 millirem) at the site boundary.

Doses from the existing liquid effluent releases at the site were calculated from the liquid 

effluent flow concentrations from the Final Process Lagoon. The concentrations for 2003 to 

2007 varied from 2.0 103to 4.6 103becquerels per cubic meter (5.44 10 8to 1.25 10 7

microcuries per milliliter) compared with the NRC uranium liquid effluent concentration limit of 

1.1 104becquerels per cubic meter (3 10 7 microcuries per milliliter) in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B, Table 2. Assuming that an individual continuously ingests this water for one year, 

this concentration would result in the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) in the range 0.09 to 

0.21 millisievert per year (9 to 21 millirem per year) (NRC, 2009).

Radiological Exposure to Occupational Workers

The Wilmington Site’s occupational radiation exposure data for the last 5 years (FY 2003 to 

FY 2007) were reviewed (Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2004, 2005, 2006; Dickson, 2007; Lewis 

et al., 2008). The TEDE to the average worker during this period varied from 0.77 to 

1.06 millisievert (77 to 106 millirem). None of the workers received a dose greater than 

7.5 millisievert (750 millirem). These doses are well below the NRC limit of 50 millisievert per 

year (5000 millirem per year) in 10 CFR 20.1201 and the Wilmington Site’s administrative limit 

of 40 millisievert per year (4000 millirem per year). Most of this exposure came from inhalation 

of uranium dust and direct contact with uranium.

3.11.2 Background Chemical Exposure

The existing FMO facility is the main source of potential airborne chemical exposures to either 

onsite or offsite populations in the vicinity of the proposed GLE Facility. UF6 and hydrogen 

fluoride (HF) are the primary chemicals of potential concern because of their toxicity and the fact 

that both may be emitted as gases or vapors. HF is formed from the conversion of UF6 to 

UO2F2 (uranyl fluoride) upon contact of UF6 emissions with water in air. Such conversion is the 

source of HF emissions from the existing GNF-A facility as well as from the proposed GLE 

Facility. HF is a gas at ambient temperatures, while UF6 may be vaporized (sublimated) from a 

solid state upon heating and may be emitted as a vapor, before condensing (desublimating) 

back to solid form in air after release. Exposures to UF6 may occur in either its vapor or solid 

particulate form in air. However, the range of transport would be somewhat more limited in air 

than HF because of the precipitation of particulate UF6 or UO2F2. 

HF and uranium have different modes of toxicity, as discussed in Section 3.11.3.3, while 

concentration levels of concern are at similar levels. Because the concentrations of the two 

chemicals are linked due to the production of HF from UF6 and because they have similar 

toxicity benchmark levels, which of the two governs exposure limits depends on the specific 

benchmark chosen. HF exposure may be limiting when using available limits for ambient air 

exposures, such as the California Reference Exposure Level of 14 micrograms per cubic meter 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-100 February 2012

(0.017 parts per million) for chronic exposures (Cal/EPA, 2003), or the State of Washington’s 

Acceptable Source Impact Level of 8.7 micrograms per cubic meter (0.011 parts per million) 

(ATSDR, 2003).

Comparable public health benchmarks for uranium air concentrations are not available as such, 

since uranium is not typically an air pollutant. Occupational exposure standards, on the other 

hand, may be a bit more restrictive for uranium than for HF. For example, the 50 micrograms 

per cubic meter (soluble uranium forms) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) Time-Weighted Average (TWA) Recommended Exposure Level and the equivalent 

50 micrograms per cubic meter Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

Permissible Exposure Limit (NIOSH, 1996, 2005) are more restrictive than OSHA’s Permissible 

Exposure Limit for HF of 2.5 milligrams per cubic meter (3.1 parts per million) in air averaged 

over 8 hours. For further comparison, the NIOSH standard for uranium levels Immediately 

Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) is 10 milligrams per cubic meter over a 1-hour exposure, 

while the NIOSH IDLH for HF is 30 parts per million (25 milligrams per cubic meter) 

(ATSDR, 2003). Thus, the two chemicals have similar exposure limits in the workplace.

HF is produced at the FMO facility in a dry conversion process used to convert UF6 to UO2. 

Extensive measures are taken to prevent any significant emissions of HF, including the use of 

high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on general circulation air vents, and HEPA filter and 

permitted scrubbers, where needed, on process off-gas ventilation systems (NRC, 1997; 

NRC, 2009). A continuous HF monitoring system is operated on all process vents that may 

emit HF.

In 2004, the Wilmington Site emitted about 27 kilograms (60 pounds) of total fluorides and 

15 kilograms (32 pounds) of hydrogen fluoride (Section 3.5.3.1), while in 2007, facility-wide 

fluoride emissions from the FMO and FCO complexes were 145 kilograms (320 pounds) 

(NRC, 2009). Current NCDENR Air Permit 1756R17 for the facility limits total HF emissions 

from the HF recovery building to no greater than 0.29 kilogram per day (0.63 pound per day) 

(24-hour period) and to no greater than 0.029 kilogram (0.063 pound) in any given hour and 

GNF-A facility-wide fluoride emissions to 9100 kilograms per year (20,000 pounds per year). As 

a “synthetic minor source,” the site is required to report air emissions data to the State every 

3 years, while facilities undergo permit verification annually by the State inspector.

Emissions of other criteria air pollutants and North Carolina TAPs from the FMO facility and 

other stationary sources near the Wilmington Site are discussed in Section 3.5.3.1. Among the 

TAPs, which include the Federal HAPs, the greatest emission quantities from the Wilmington 

Site for 2004 were for nitric acid (178 kilograms per year [393 pounds per year]) and ammonia 

(108 kilograms per year [237 pounds per year]). As noted in Section 3.5.3.1, these emissions 

rates are well below the major source thresholds of 9.1 metric tons per year (10 tons per year) 

for a single HAP and 23 metric tons per year (25 tons per year) for any combination of listed 

HAPs. Thus, emissions of TAPs are well below levels that would be of concern for health 

impacts, while those for HF and uranium are of relatively greater concern. Moreover, HF and 

uranium would be the main toxic air emissions of concern for the proposed GLE Facility. 

UF6 will also be used in the proposed GLE Facility, while both UF6 and HF could be released 

from that facility under various accident scenarios. HF would be produced from the reaction of 

UF6 with water in air (humidity) under an accidental release of UF6.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-101 NUREG-1938

Groundwater beneath the Wilmington Site has been affected by industrial operations at the site 

and is being actively remediated. Pollutants include VOCs, fluoride, nitrate, and uranium. 

Affected groundwater is not being used as a source of drinking water (Section 3.7.4.2). A 

network of groundwater monitoring wells is used to follow contaminant movements and to 

monitor the site perimeter. None of the surface water streams on the Wilmington Site are 

affected by chemical contamination. However, the Northeast Cape Fear River upstream of the 

site is listed as impaired because of mercury pollution, and a section of the river upstream is 

under a fish consumption advisory for mercury (NCDENR, 2007a).

GNF-A has discharge permits for treated process water and treated sanitary wastewater for an 

onsite effluent channel, which eventually empties into the Northeast Cape Fear River. The site 

is required to monitor wastewater discharges as well as stormwater surface runoff under its 

permits. Treated sanitary wastewater, however, is currently reused as cooling water onsite. 

Local surface water quality and the requirements of the Wilmington Site’s water quality permits 

are discussed in Section 3.7.1.

The WFSC produces no liquid effluents and no air emissions of chemicals at levels of public 

health concern. The facility is not listed on either the site’s air or water permit lists of site 

sources.

Hazardous chemical wastes produced at Wilmington Site facilities, the largest volume of which 

is etch-acid solution, are collected, packaged, temporarily stored on site, and periodically 

shipped to a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-permitted facility in 

Indianapolis, Indiana (GLE, 2008).

3.11.3 Public Health Studies

3.11.3.1 Regulatory Requirements for Public and Occupational Exposure

NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 identify maximum allowable concentrations of radionuclides 

in air and water above background at the boundary of unrestricted areas to control radiation 

exposures of the public and releases of radioactivity. The most restrictive maximum allowable 

concentration in air and water for uranium isotopes is 5 10 14 and 3 10 7 microcuries per 

cubic centimeter, respectively (10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B). Other 10 CFR Part 20 

requirements are that the sum of the external and internal doses (TEDE) for a member of the 

public may not exceed 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year) (10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1)), 

and the radiation levels at any unrestricted area should not exceed 0.02 millisievert (2 millirem) 

in any 1 hour and 0.5 millisievert (50 millirem) in a single year. (10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2)).

In addition to keeping within NRC requirements, releases to the environment must comply with 

EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 190, “Subpart B Environmental Standards for the Uranium 

Fuel Cycle.” These standards specify limits on the annual dose equivalent from normal 

operations of uranium fuel-cycle facilities (except mining, waste disposal operations, 

transportation, and reuse of recovered special nuclear and by-product materials). The public 

dose limit for annual whole body and organ is 0.25 millisievert (25 millirem), and for the thyroid it 

is 0.75 millisievert (75 millirem).

10 CFR 20.1201 limits the TEDE of workers to ionizing radiation. Table 3-18 provides 

occupational dose limits for operational workers who work at nuclear facilities. Public and 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-102 February 2012

Table 3-18 Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Established by 10 CFR Part 20

Tissue Dose Limit

Whole body or any individual 

organ or tissue other than the 

lens of the eye

More limiting of 0.05 Sv/yr (5 rem/yr) TEDE to whole body or 

0.5 Sv/yr (50 rem/yr) sum of the deep dose equivalent and the 

committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue 

other than the lens of the eye

Lens of the eye 0.15 Sv/yr (15 rem/yr) dose equivalent

Extremities, including skin 0.50 Sv/yr (50 rem/yr) shallow dose equivalent

occupational standards for chemical exposures to HF and uranium are presented in the 

previous section.

3.11.3.2 Health Effects from Radiological Exposure

Radiation interacts with the atoms that form cells. There are two mechanisms by which 

radiation affects cells: direct action and indirect action. In a direct action, the radiation interacts 

directly with the atoms of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecule or some other component 

critical to the survival of the cell. Since the DNA molecules make up a small part of the cell, the 

probability of direct action is small. Because most of the cell is made up of water, there is a 

much higher probability that radiation would interact with water (NRC, 2010). In an indirect 

action, radiation interacts with water and breaks the bonds that hold the water molecule 

together, producing reactive free radicals that are chemically toxic and destroy the cell. The 

body has mechanisms to repair damage caused by radiation. Consequently, the biological 

effects of radiation on living cells may result in one of three outcomes: (1) injured or damaged 

cells repair themselves, resulting in no residual damage; (2) cells die, much like millions of body 

cells do every day, being replaced through normal biological processes and causing no health 

effects; or (3) cells incorrectly repair themselves, which results in damaging or changing the 

genetic code (DNA) of the irradiated cell (NRC, 2004b). Stochastic effects, that is, effects that 

may or may not occur according to probability, may occur when an irradiated cell is modified 

rather than killed. The most significant stochastic effect of radiation exposure is that a modified 

cell may, after a prolonged delay, develop into a cancer.

The biological effects on the whole body from exposure to radiation depend on many factors, 

such as the type of radiation, total dose, time interval over which the dose is received, and part 

of the body that is exposed. Not all organs are equally sensitive to radiation. The blood-forming 

organs are most sensitive to radiation; muscle and nerve cells are relatively insensitive to 

radiation (NRC, 2010). Health effects may be characterized according to two types of radiation 

exposure: (1) a single accidental exposure to high doses of radiation for a short period of time 

(acute exposure), which may produce biological effects within a short time after exposure, and 

(2) long-term, low-level overexposure, commonly called continuous or chronic exposure. High 

doses of radiation can cause death. Other possible effects of a high radiation dose include 

erythema, dry desquamation, moist desquamation, hair loss, sterility, cataracts, and acute 

radiation syndromes (NRC, 2010). 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-103 NUREG-1938

Currently there are no data to unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following 

exposure to low doses and dose rates – below about 100 millisievert (10,000 millirem) 

(NRC, 2004b).

In estimating the health impacts from low dose or low dose rate exposure to occupational 

workers and the general public, the probability of a fatal cancer per unit of radiation exposure 

recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was used. 

The estimated probability for workers is 4 10 2sievert 1and for the public it is 5 10 2sievert 1

(ICRP, 1991). The estimated probability for the public is higher because it includes young 

people who are more sensitive to radiation (ICRP, 1991).

The National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) is the Centers of Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) State-based cancer control program. Under this program, States collect, 

manage, and analyze data about cancer incidence and mortality. The CDC and the National 

Cancer Institute release U.S. Cancer Statistics annually. Table 3-19 lists the cancer incidence 

and death rates for all cancers for 2000 to 2005 for North Carolina and the United States.

3.11.3.3 Health Effects from Chemical Exposure

Chemicals may enter the body through absorption through the skin, by inhalation, or by 

ingestion. Chemical exposure produces different effects on the body depending on the mode of 

action of the chemical and the amount of exposure. Some chemicals can cause cancer, affect 

reproductive capability, disrupt the endocrine system, or have other health effects. Acute 

effects from exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals occur immediately (e.g., when somebody 

inhales or ingests a poisonous substance such as cyanide). Chronic or delayed effects may be 

more subtle and are due to long-term, low-level exposure to toxic chemicals.

The primary chemicals of interest associated with the existing GNF-A facility, as well as the 

proposed GLE Facility, are uranium and HF associated with the UF6 reaction with moisture in 

air. HF is an irritant gas that causes eye, nose, and skin irritation. Breathing high levels can 

also harm the lungs and heart (ATSDR, 2003). Irritant effects in humans, including respiratory 

tract inflammation, begin to be observed in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million, similar to 

occupational exposure limits. Low-level exposure effects are reversible once the exposure is 

terminated. Members of the public are generally not exposed to levels that have observable 

health effects from routine industrial emissions. Various potentially relevant exposure 

benchmarks for the public and occupational exposure to HF are presented in Section 3.11.2.

Table 3-19 Cancer Incidence and Death 

Rates for All Cancers for 2000 to 2005a

Area All Cancer 

Incidence Rate

All Cancer 

Death Rate

United States 467.6 189.8

North Carolina 453.8 196.1

a

Per 100,000 persons and are age adjusted to the 2000 

U.S. standard population.

Source: CDC, 2009.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-104 February 2012

Uranium exerts heavy metal toxicity, primarily to the kidney (ATSDR, 1999). Exposure to 

uranium may be via inhalation or ingestion. The degree of absorption of inhaled uranium from 

the lung or of ingested uranium into the bloodstream is greater for more soluble forms of 

uranium, such as UO2F2, which is formed from the reaction of UF6 and water. Little direct 

toxicological data are available on chemical toxicity in humans at low inhalation exposures. 

Standards are based mainly on tests in mammals, which show low-level systemic health effects 

beginning at inhalation exposures in the 0.1 to 1 milligram per cubic meter range for chronic 

exposures. These levels generally correspond to the occupational exposure standards 

discussed in Section 3.11.2.

The EPA is responsible for regulating most chemicals that can enter the environment. This 

authority is typically delegated to the States for implementation, as it is in North Carolina. 

Disposal of the hazardous chemicals used at GNF-A is regulated via permits issued under 

RCRA, while discharges to waterways are regulated via NPDES permits issued under the CWA 

and air emissions via permits issued under the CAA. These permits are administered and 

enforced by the NCDENR, Division of Water Quality and Division of Air Quality, respectively. 

GNF-A is required by the NRC to operate in compliance with all of its permits, therefore 

minimizing the impact on the environment and on workers and the public.

3.11.3.4 Health Study of Mercury Emissions 

In early 2009, Intertox of Seattle, Washington, completed an independent, peer-reviewed, study 

of potential health impacts from exposure to mercury emissions from the proposed Carolinas 

Cement plant in Castle Hayne, about 10 kilometers (6 miles) northeast of the proposed 

GLE Facility. The study concluded that exposures to plant emissions by residents of Castle 

Hayne and the greater Wilmington area would be minor and would not lead to any health 

effects, even in maximally exposed individuals, including those who subsisted mainly on fish 

from the river. The study found that greater than 98 percent of the estimated mercury exposure 

originating from the cement plant would be via consumption of fish from the Northeast Cape 

Fear River, which would bioconcentrate mercury transported to the river via the atmosphere. 

The study did find, however, that some individuals interviewed currently consumed fish from the 

river in excess of fish advisories in place as a result of existing mercury sources in the area, and 

thus, could benefit from reducing fish consumption (Intertox, 2009).

Mercury in its various forms is a listed HAP. For New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender 

Counties surrounding and including the Wilmington Site, the NCDAQ reported a total of 

135 kilograms (297 pounds) of mercury emissions of all forms from stationary sources in 2007 

(NCDAQ, 2011a-c). Of the nine source facilities listed by the NCDAC in New Hanover County, 

none are associated with the Wilmington Site. Mercury fish advisories, such as those that apply 

to regions of the Northeast Cape Fear River, may be the result of non-point sources or distant 

sources combined with bioaccumulation processes in fish.

3.11.4 Occupational Injury and Illness Rates

OSHA is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations. Occupational 

hazards can be minimized when workers adhere to safety standards and use appropriate 

protective equipment; however, fatalities and injuries from accidents can still occur. 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-105 NUREG-1938

No fatalities have occurred in the nuclear facilities on the Wilmington Site. The GNF-A 

maintains a log and summary of recordable occupational injuries and illnesses under the 

guidance of OSHA’s Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements in 

29 CFR Part 1904. On the basis of the information provided by GLE (GLE, 2008, 2009a), the 

annual recordable accidents at the site varied from 3 to 22 for fiscal years 2000 to 2008. The 

number of recordable injuries/illnesses per year per 100 workers varied from 0.46 to 1.64 over

the years 2000 to 2006 (GLE, 2008). 

The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles annual injury and illness 

data, including the incidence rates by industry (DOL, 2010). GNF-A manufactures fuel 

assemblies and intermediate fuel components for the nuclear power industry, and its operations 

may also be classified as chemical manufacturing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ national 

average incidence rate of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses for chemical 

manufacturing facilities for calendar year 2007 is 3.1, which is higher than the rates of 

0.46 to 1.64 for GNF-A.

3.12 Waste Management 

This section describes the solid and liquid, nonhazardous, hazardous, and radioactive wastes 

currently generated and managed by GE at the Wilmington Site. No radioactive mixed waste is 

currently generated. This reflects the baseline condition and is aside from the wastes that the 

proposed GLE Facility would generate and manage under the proposed action, which are 

described in Chapter 2. This section also describes the existing waste management practices 

used at the Wilmington Site, most of which would also be used to manage wastes from the 

proposed GLE Facility.

3.12.1 Current Waste Management Program

The Wilmington Site generates a range of gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams from its 

current manufacturing operations. The radioactive and nonradioactive air emissions are 

discussed in Section 3.5.3.1. The liquid and solid wastes generated are regulated by the EPA’s 

waste management and disposal programs implemented under RCRA Subtitle C (Hazardous 

Wastes) and Subtitle D (Nonhazardous Wastes). Wastewater treatment is discussed in 

Section 3.12.2. The treatment and disposal of solid waste generated from manufacturing 

operations and wastewater treatment are covered in Section 3.12.4. The liquid and solid 

wastes currently generated at the Wilmington Site are summarized in Table 3-21 in 

Section 3.1.2.3.

3.12.2 Wastewater Treatment

Sanitary wastewater and process wastewater effluents are the largest liquid waste streams 

generated at the Wilmington Site. The process wastewater effluents are from the current 

manufacturing operations, and the sanitary wastewater effluents are from the existing building 

restrooms, cafeteria, and other sanitary facilities. The wastewater streams generated by current 

operations are summarized in Table 3-20.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-106 February 2012

Table 3-20 Wastewater Streams Generated by Current Operations 

at the Wilmington Site

Wastewater 

Stream

Generation 

Frequency NPDES Limita 2006 Average Daily Flow Rate Wastewater Treatment

Process 

wastewater 

Continuous 6,813,741 lpd

(1,800,000 gpd)

1,802,613 lpd

(476,200 gpd)

pH adjustment, settling, 

aeration 

Sanitary 

waste 

effluent 

Continuous 283,906 lpd

(75,000 gpd)

124,919 lpd

(33,300 gpd)

Dual-train, extended, activated 

sludge-aeration wastewater 

treatment facility with 

chlorination/dechlorinationb

a gpd = gallons per day; lpd = liters per day.

b

The Wilmington Site sanitary wastewater treatment facility has recently been upgraded to a single-train, 

extended aeration activated sludge wastewater treatment facility with membrane ultrafiltration and ultraviolet 

(UV) filtration (operational March 2008).

Source: GLE, 2008.

3.12.2.1 Sanitary Wastewater

Sanitary wastes at the Wilmington Site are collected in a sewer system that routes the waste to 

an onsite, activated sludge-aeration, treatment plant that incorporates a membrane bioreactor 

(GLE, 2008; GNF-A, 2008). The activated sludge process is a biological wastewater treatment 

process in which wastewater is fed into an aerated tank where microorganisms feed on the 

waste organic material (the bioreactor). The activated sludge (the microorganisms) is 

subsequently separated from the treated wastewater along with waste by-products by an 

ultrafiltration membrane and disposed of. The current activated sludge–aeration treatment plant 

was commissioned in April 2008. At that time, a water reuse permit from the NCDENR 

(NCDENR, 2007b) was obtained to allow the use of the treated sanitary wastewater effluent as 

makeup water for Wilmington Site cooling towers (GLE, 2008). All treated sanitary wastewater 

effluent is currently used as makeup water for the cooling towers.

Prior to 2008, the treated sanitary wastewater effluent was released to the effluent channel, 

which flows into Unnamed Tributary #1, which empties into the Northeast Cape Fear River 

(Waters of the United States). The NPDES discharge permit (NPDES Permit NC0001228) for 

this activity allows up to 283,906 liters per day (75,000 gallons per day) of sanitary wastewater 

effluent to be discharged from the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008). Figure 3-21 shows the 

discharge location of the sanitary wastewater treatment facility (Discharge Location 002). Prior 

to facility upgrades, the 2006 average daily discharge from the sanitary wastewater treatment 

facility to the effluent channel through Outfall 002 on its way to Discharge Location 002 was 

124,919 liters per day (33,000 gallons per day) (Table 3-20). Sanitary wastewater must meet 

the monitoring requirements and effluent limitations as set forth in the NPDES permit from the 

NCDWQ. The sanitary wastewater effluent is monitored at Outfall 002, which is a location along 

the discharge pipe that drains from the sanitary wastewater treatment facility to the effluent 

channel just south of the treatment facility. Although GNF-A currently uses sanitary wastewater 

effluent for cooling tower makeup water, the NPDES discharge permit has been renewed. 

Therefore, discharge of treated sanitary wastewater to the effluent channel could be resumed, if 

necessary.
February 2012

3-107 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-21 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Discharge Points at the Wilmington Sit
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-108 February 2012

3.12.2.2 Process Wastewater

Current operations at the Wilmington Site include the combined GNF-A FMO facility, GNF-A 

FCO facility, GE AE operations, and GE SCO facility. These facilities all share a common 

wastewater treatment system designed to handle pre-treated process wastewater, nontreated 

process wastewater, filter backwash water, and noncontact cooling water (GLE, 2008). All 

treated wastewater is sent to the final process lagoon treatment facility (FPLTF), which 

discharges to the effluent channel (Discharge Location 001 in Figure 3-21). The 2006 average 

daily discharge from the final process lagoon facility was 1,802,613 liters per day 

(476,200 gallons per day) (see Table 3-21), approximately one quarter of the 6,813,741 liters 

per day (1.8 million gallons per day) of treated process wastewater allowed under the current 

NPDES discharge permit (NPDES Permit NC0001228) (GLE, 2008).

The FMO facility uses a DCP to convert its UF6 waste directly to the oxide (UO2). Two liquid 

waste streams are generated – one with a dilute HF concentration (approximately 1–2 percent 

HF), and a second with a higher concentration of HF (<50 percent). The dilute HF waste 

solution is mixed with lime (Ca(OH)2) to form calcium fluoride (CaF2) which is insoluble in water 

and precipitates out as a solid. The CaF2 solid phase is dewatered and sent to the 

EnergySolutions disposal facility in Clive, Utah, along with other wastes (see Section 3.12.4.2). 

The liquid phase from the dewatering unit is pH-adjusted and combined with other waste 

streams before any final treatment and discharge to the effluent channel. The more 

concentrated HF solution produced during the conversion of UF6 to UO2 is sold for industrial and 

commercial uses. Under safety condition S-2 of NRC license SNM-1097, GNF-A is granted the 

special authorizations stated in Section 1.3 of its license renewal application, including 

authorization to transfer liquid HF to commercial chemical companies or suppliers as long as the 

concentration of uranium is maintained below three parts per million by weight, uranium-235 

enrichment is less than 5 percent, and members of the general public are not exposed through 

any pathway to trace uranium concentrations higher than natural levels in products formed from 

its use (see Section 1.3.3.2 of [GNF-A, 2007]).

3.12.3 Other Liquid Waste

Aside from sanitary and process wastewater streams, other nonhazardous and hazardous liquid 

wastes are generated at the Wilmington Site. Nonhazardous industrial wastes, such as the 

1592 metric tons (1755 tons) of used oils are sent offsite to the FCC Environmental Treatment 

Facility in Concord, North Carolina, for recycling and reuse as shown in Table 3-21. The GNF-A 

FCO facility also generates a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) waste solution and an etch-acid waste 

solution that are treated separately. The NaOH solution waste, 70 metric tons (77 tons) in 2006, 

is shipped to Heritage Environmental Services, Indianapolis, Indiana, for recycling (GLE, 2008).

The predominant hazardous waste generated at the Wilmington Site is the spent etch-acid 

solution (a solution containing HF and nitric acid [HNO3]) from GNF-A FCO activities. Minor 

quantities of hazardous waste paints and solvents are also generated. The hazardous wastes 

are collected and temporarily stored, less than 90 days, in U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT)-approved shipping containers before being shipped offsite to the Heritage Environmental 

Services RCRA-permitted Subtitle C treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) 

(GLE, 2008).
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-109 NUREG-1938

Table 3-21 Solid and Liquid Wastes Generated by Current Operations 

at the Wilmington Site

Waste Type

Waste 

Generation 

Source 

(Wilmington 

Site)

Waste Composition

Annuala 

Quantity 

Generated

Offsite Treatment or 

Disposal Facility (Type 

and Location)

Municipal solid 

waste

GNF-A 

operations and 

GE AE/SCO

• Refuse and other 

nonhazardous solid 

wastes accepted at landfill

898 metric 

tons 

(990 tons)

New Hanover County 

Landfill 

Wilmington, North Carolina

Nonhazardous 

industrial 

wastes 

GNF-A 

operations 

• Used NaOH solutionb

• Clean-room sludge 

• Spent coolant 

• Used tube reducer 

• Nonhazardous caustic 

• Filter medium 

97 metric 

tons

(107 tons)

Heritage Environmental 

Services RCRA Permitted 

TSDFcIndianapolis, 

Indiana, or other facilities 

depending on the 

composition of the wasted

GE AE/SCO • Pre-rinse emulsifier 

• Spill cleanup adsorbent 

media 

• Mixed dry batteries 

• Metal chips 

• Process tank and drain 

cleanout sludges 

36 metric 

tons

(40 tons)

GNF-A and GE 

AE/SCO 

• Used oilse1592 metric 

tons

(1755 tons)

FCC Environmental 

Treatment Facility 

Concord, North Carolina

Hazardous 

waste 

GNF-A and GE 

AE/SCO 

• HF/HNO3 wastef 

• Minor quantities of waste 

paints and solvents and 

X-ray wastes 

1973 metric 

tons 

(2175 tons)

g

Heritage Environmental 

Services RCRA Permitted 

TSDFcIndianapolis, 

Indiana

LLRW GNF-A 

operations

• Metal parts, filters, and 

other noncombustible 

wastes

• Dewatered CaF2

h solids 

• Waste incinerator ash 

188 metric 

tons

(208 tons)

i

EnergySolutions LLRW 

Disposal Facility Clive, 

Utah

a Annual waste quantity records for existing Wilmington Site facilities operations for 2006, with the exception of LLRW.

b Used NaOH solution manifested to Heritage Environmental Services is recycled and reused. In 2006, the quantity of 

recycled/reused NaOH was 70 metric tons (77 tons) of the total 97 metric tons (107 tons) of nonhazardous industrial waste 

manifested to Heritage Environmental Services from GNF-A operations.

c

TSDF = Treatment, storage, and disposal facility permitted under RCRA Subtitle C requirements to manage hazardous 

wastes. Also accepts nonhazardous wastes for treatment and recycling/reuse.

d Depending on the composition of the nonhazardous waste, these materials are either shipped directly to the Heritage 

Environmental Services facility in Indianapolis, Indiana, for treatment and burial and/or routed through Heritage Environmental 

Services for reuse, reclaim, or treatment at other GE-approved facilities.

e Used oils manifested to FCC Environmental are recycled and reused.

f HF/HNO3 waste = hydrofluoric acid (HF) and nitric acid (HNO3) wastes.

g Hazardous waste predominately generated by GNF-A operation with a small quantity from the GE AE operation.

h Calcium fluoride (CaF2).

i

The value for LLRW is an estimate of annual waste quantity for 2008 and future years to reflect the current LLRW 

management practices used by GNF-A operations, which reduce the quantity of LLRW shipped to EnergySolutions from the 

historical levels for 2006 and earlier.

Source: GLE, 2008.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-110 February 2012

3.12.4 Solid Waste

The types of solid wastes generated currently at the Wilmington Site include municipal solid 

waste (MSW), nonhazardous industrial waste, and low-level radioactive wastes (LLRW). 

Table 3-21 summarizes the amounts generated and their offsite treatment or disposal.

3.12.4.1 Municipal Solid Waste and Nonhazardous Industrial Wastes

The GNF-A and GE AE/SCO facilities generated approximately 898 metric tons (990 tons) of 

MSW in 2006 (GLE, 2008). The waste is disposed of offsite at the RCRA-permitted Subtitle D 

New Hanover County municipal landfill, and constitutes less than 1 percent of the approximately 

151,000 tons (approximately 210,000 cubic yards [compacted]) of waste received annually at 

the landfill (NCDENR, 2009a). The county has recently permitted the expansion of the landfill 

from 1.5 million to 2.4 million tons (5.7 million to 8.9 million cubic yards) (NCDENR, 2008a,b). 

The permit allows for 5 years of operation with a renewal permit to continue operations required 

at the end of the 5 years. 

As shown in Table 3-21, the miscellaneous nonhazardous industrial wastes generated at the 

Wilmington Site are shipped to the Heritage Environmental Services RCRA-permitted Subtitle C 

TSDF in Indianapolis, Indiana, or other approved treatment and disposal facilities. Industrial 

waste that is neither a RCRA MSW nor a RCRA hazardous waste under Federal or State laws 

is regulated under RCRA Subtitle D as nonhazardous waste. 

3.12.4.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste

No LLRW is generated by the GE/SCO operations. LLRW generated by GNF-A operations are 

segregated into uranium contaminated-combustible and noncombustible materials. The 

noncombustible materials are collected and stored onsite until a full shipment is ready and then 

sent to the EnergySolutions LLRW disposal facility in Clive, Utah. These materials are 

summarized in Table 3-21 and consist of the CaF2 generated from the conversion of UF6 to UO2

and of items from ongoing plant maintenance activities.

The combustible LLRW is incinerated in an onsite natural gas-fired, multiple-chamber waste 

incinerator. About 166,468 kilograms (367,000 pounds) of LLRW are burned per year in the 

incinerator; the remaining ash is sent to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah, for disposal 

(GLE, 2008).

3.13 Socioeconomics

This section describes current socioeconomic conditions within the region surrounding the 

Wilmington Site that have the potential to be directly or indirectly affected by the construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility. The proposed GLE Facility and 

the communities that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The 

communities provide the people, goods, and services required to operate the facility. Facility 

operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for goods and 

services. The measure of a communities’ ability to support the proposed GLE Facility 

operations depends on the ability of the community to respond to changing environmental, 

social, economic, and demographic conditions.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-111 NUREG-1938

The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI)is defined by the area where GLE workers and 

their families are expected to live and spend most of their income, thereby affecting the 

economic conditions of the region. The socioeconomic ROI, corresponds to the Wilmington 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), a three-county area comprising Brunswick, New Hanover, 

and Pender Counties. These three counties cover an area that extends up to approximately 

80 kilometers (50 miles) from the Wilmington Site (Figure 3-22).

3.13.1 Population Characteristics

The ROI population is predominantly situated in major population centers around the 

Wilmington Site. Population growth trends and significant transient and special populations are 

described in the following sections. Minority and low-income populations are discussed in 

Section 3.14.

3.13.1.1 Major Population Centers

Within the ROI, one city, Wilmington (the county seat) (estimated 2006 population 95,944), is 

located in New Hanover County; several small towns are located in the remainder of the ROI. 

In Pender County, Burgaw is the county seat and had an estimated 3904 residents in 2006. 

The largest town in Brunswick County is Oak Island, with 8152 residents in 2005 

(USCB, 2009a). Bolivia is the county seat. 

Population density in the ROI is the highest in New Hanover County, with 358.5 persons per 

square kilometer (928.9 persons per square mile) in 2008. The remaining counties have more 

land area than New Hanover County with smaller populations resulting in much lower population 

densities. In Brunswick County, there were 45.9 persons per square kilometer (119.1 persons 

per square mile), and 22.9 persons per square kilometer (59.5 persons per square mile) in 

Pender County (USCB, 2009b).

3.13.1.2 Population Growth Trends

Table 3-22 presents recent and projected populations in the ROI and the State of North 

Carolina. As shown, population in the ROI stood at 346,990 in 2008, having grown at an 

average annual rate of 3.0 percent since 2000. This growth was higher than the growth rate for 

North Carolina, 1.7 percent, over the same period.

Each of the counties in the ROI experienced population growth since 2000. Brunswick County 

recorded a population growth rate of 4.4 percent between 2000 and 2008, while Pender County 

and New Hanover County grew by 2.9 and 2.3 percent, respectively, in the same decade. The 

ROI population is expected to increase to 394,925 by 2014, and to 426,797 by 2018. Each of 

the counties in the ROI is projected to experience population growth between 2008 and 2018.

3.13.1.3 Transient and Special Populations

Institutional, transient, and seasonal populations are not included in the residential population. 

Institutional populations include school and hospital populations. The transient population 

consists of visitors participating in various seasonal, social, and recreation activities within the 

local area. Communities in the ROI experience large increases in population during the 

summer. The seasonal population of the region has exceeded the off-season population by up 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-112 February 2012

Figure 3-22 Region of Influence for the Proposed GLE Facility
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-113 NUREG-1938

Table 3-22 Population in the ROI and North Carolina

Location 2000 2008

Average Annual 

Growth (%) 

2000-2008

2014 2018

Brunswick County 73,143 102,877 4.4 125,123 139,954

New Hanover County 160,307 192,279 2.3 208,084 218,620

Pender County 41,082 51,834 2.9 61,718 68,223

ROI 274,532 346,990 3.0 394,925 426,797

North Carolina 8,049,313 9,227,016 1.7 10,259,526 10,936,904

Sources: USCB, 2009a; NCOSBM, 2009.

to 47,100 people, or 14.9 percent. The ROI has a small number of temporary farmworkers 

(USDA, 2009) and also hosts temporary workers in the construction and hospitality sectors 

(Griffith, 2007).

3.13.2 Economic Trends and Characteristics

3.13.2.1 Employment 

Employment in the ROI stood at 120,803 in 2006 (Table 3-23). Over the past decade, there has 

been a slight employment shift from the government, construction, and farm sectors toward the 

service, wholesale and retail trade, and manufacturing sectors within the ROI. Currently, the 

service sector provides the highest percentage of employment in the region, at 49.6 percent, 

followed by the wholesale and retail trade with 21.2 percent. Smaller employment shares are 

held by construction (9.5 percent), manufacturing (6.9 percent), and finance, insurance, and real 

estate (6.6 percent). Within the ROI, the distribution of employment across sectors is similar to 

that of the ROI as a whole, with higher shares of employment in agriculture (19.8 percent) and 

manufacturing (10.5 percent) in Pender County, in manufacturing in Brunswick County 

(8.3 percent), and in wholesale and retail trade (24.5 percent) and construction (11.8 percent) in 

Pender County. Brunswick County (40.9 percent) and Pender County (30.8 percent) have less 

service employment than in the ROI as a whole.

3.13.2.2 Unemployment

Unemployment rates have varied across the counties in the ROI (Table 3-24). Over the 10-year 

period 1999 to 2008, the average rates in Brunswick and Pender Counties were 5.4 percent and 

5.3 percent, respectively, with a lower rate of 4.5 percent in Hanover County. The average rate 

in the ROI over this period was 4.8 percent, lower than the average rate for the State of 

5.2 percent. Unemployment rates for the first two months of 2009 contrast markedly with rates 

for 2008 as a whole; in Brunswick and Pender Counties, unemployment rates increased to 

12.1 and 11.7 percent, respectively, while in New Hanover County the rate reached 9.2 percent. 

The average rate for the ROI (10.4 percent) during this period was higher than the 

corresponding average rates for 2008, while the rate for the State (6.3 percent) remained the 

same.
NUREG-1938

3-114 February 2012

Table 3-23 ROI Employment in 2006

Industry

Brunswick 

County

% of 

Total

New Hanover 

County

% of 

Total

Pender 

County

% of 

Total

Region of 

Influence

% o

Tota

Agriculture

a

710 3.0 232 0.3 1919 19.4 2861 2.4 

Mining 60 0.2 60 0.1 60 0.6 180 0.1 

Construction 3024 12.9 7314 8.3 1138 11.5 11,476 9.5 

Manufacturing 1942 8.3 5424 6.2 1014 10.3 8380 6.9 

Transportation and 

Public Utilities

1749 7.5 2633 3.0 133 1.3 4515 3.7 

Wholesale and Retail 

Trade

4387 18.7 18,883 21.5 2373 24.0 25,643 21.2 

Finance, Insurance, 

and Real Estate

1984 8.5 5733 6.5 257 2.6 7974 6.6 

Services 9586 40.9 47,383 54.0 2982 30.2 59,952 49.6 

Other 5 0.0 29 0.1 10 0.1 44 0.0 

Total 23,446 (100) 87,679 (100) 9886 (100) 120,803 (100

a

Agricultural employment includes 2007 data for hired farmworkers.

Sources: USCB, 2009c; USDA, 2009.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-115 NUREG-1938

Table 3-24 ROI Unemployment Rates (percent)

Location 1999 2008 2008 2009a

Brunswick County 5.4 6.6 12.1

New Hanover County 4.5 5.3 9.2

Pender County 5.3 6.2 11.7

ROI 4.8 5.8 10.4

North Carolina 5.2 6.3 6.3

a Rates for 2009 are the average for January and February.

Sources: DOL, 2009a d).

3.13.2.3 Income

Personal income in the ROI stood at $10.8 billion in 2006 and has grown at an annual average 

rate of 3.5 percent over the period 1997 to 2006 (Table 3-25).1 ROI personal income per capita 

also rose over the same period, but at a slower rate of 1.0 percent, increasing from $29,783 to 

$32,897. Per capita incomes were higher in New Hanover County ($35,862) and in Brunswick 

County ($30,007) in 2006 than in Pender County ($25,361). Although personal income and per 

capita income growth rates in the ROI have been higher than for the State as a whole, personal 

income per capita was slightly higher in the State ($34,310) in 2006 than in the ROI.

The median value of owner-occupied housing in the three-county ROI over the period 

2006-2008 was $178,567 (USCB, 2009d).

3.13.3 Housing Resources and Community and Social Services

This section describes housing and social services in the ROI, including schools, hospitals and 

nursing homes, law enforcement, and firefighting.

3.13.3.1 Housing

Between 2005 and 2007, there were nearly 196,000 housing units in the three counties, with 

more than half of these located in New Hanover County, and another third in Brunswick County 

(Table 3-26). The vast majority of housing units in the region are single-family structures, but 

the number of multifamily structures is increasing as the region develops (GLE, 2008). Vacancy 

rates varied significantly across the three counties, from 42 percent in Brunswick County, which 

had 15,000 seasonal, recreational, or occasional-use units vacant at the time of the 

2000 Census, 24 percent in Pender County, and 17 percent in New Hanover County. Owneroccupied units comprise 71 and 78 percent of the occupied units in Brunswick and Pender 

Counties, respectively, but only 63 percent of the occupied units in New Hanover County, 

reflecting the concentration of seasonal and recreational activities in the ROI.

 

1

All direct income and direct sales tax impact estimates are provided in 2008 dollars.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-116 February 2012

Table 3-25 ROI and State Personal Income

Location 1997 2006

Annual Average 

Growth, 1997-

2006 (%)

Brunswick County

 Total incomea1.7 2.8 5.1

 Per capita income 25,939 30,007 1.4

 Median household income 45,596b

New Hanover County

 Total incomea5.0 6.7 3.1

 Per capita income 32,406 35,862 1.0

 Median household income 49,068b

Pender County

 Total incomea1.0 1.3 2.7

 Per capita income 19,383 25,361 0.4

 Median household income 42,630b

ROI

 Total incomea7.7 10.8 3.5

 Per capita income 29,783 32,897 1.0

 Median household income 45,765b

North Carolina

 Total incomea180.2 286.0 2.4

 Per capita income 31,447 34,310 0.9

 Median household income 46,107b

a

Billion 2008 dollars.

b

2006 2008 3-year average

Source: DOC, 2009; USCB, 2009d.

Housing density in the ROI was 38.9 units per square kilometer (100.8 units per square mile) on 

average during the period 2005–2007, compared with 32.6 units per square kilometer 

(84.7 units per square mile) for the State. There were 182.1 units per square kilometer 

(471.8 units per square mile) in New Hanover County, with lower densities in Brunswick County 

(32.6 units per square kilometer [84.5 units per square mile]) and Pender County (11.1 units per 

square kilometer [28.7 units per square mile]) (USCB, 2009a).

Housing stock in the ROI as a whole grew at an annual rate of 3.0 percent over the period 

2000 to 2005–2007, with 43,840 new units added to the existing housing stock in the ROI 

(Table 3-26). With an overall vacancy rate of 27 percent, there were 52,749 vacant housing 

units in the ROI in 2005–2007, of which 11,199 (5206 in Brunswick County, 5015 in 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-117 NUREG-1938

Table 3-26 ROI Housing Characteristics

Parameter 2000 2005–2007b

Brunswick County

Owner-occupied 25,013 29,934

Rental 5425 12,381

Vacant units 20,993 30,703

 Seasonal and recreational use 15,540 NAa

Total units 51,431 73,018

Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units $178,100c

New Hanover County

Owner-occupied 44,109 51,184

Rental 24,074 30,330

Vacant units 11,433 16,150

 Seasonal and Recreational Use 4387 NAa

Total units 79,616 97,664

Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units $228,400c

Pender County

Owner-occupied 13,260 14,960

Rental 2794 4147

Vacant units 4744 5896

 Seasonal and recreational use 2881 NAa

Total units 20,798 25,003

Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units $129,200c

ROI Total

Owner-occupied 82,382 96,078

Rental 32,293 46,858

Vacant units 37,170 52,749

 Seasonal and recreational use 22,808 NAa

Total units 151,845 195,685

Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units $178,567c

a NA = not available.

b

2005 2007, 3-year average.

c

2006 2008, 3-year average.

Sources: USCB, 2009a,b,d.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-118 February 2012

New Hanover County, and 978 in Pender County) are expected to be rental units available to 

construction workers at the proposed GLE Facility.

New Hanover County has the highest housing values in the ROI, with a median value of 

$228,400 over the 3-year period 2006–2008 for owner-occupied units (USCB, 2009d). The 

median values in Brunswick and Pender Counties were $178,100 and $129,200, respectively.

3.13.3.2 Schools

The ROI has a total of 90 public and private elementary, middle, and high schools, the majority 

of which are in the Brunswick County, New Hanover County and Pender County school districts. 

In addition, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Brunswick Community College, and 

Cape Fear Community College are located in the region (NCES, 2009). Table 3-27 provides 

summary statistics for the schools in the three county school districts, including enrollment, 

educational staffing and two indices of educational quality – student teacher ratios and levels of 

service. Of the 90 schools in the region, only one is within a 6.4 kilometer (4-mile) radius of the 

proposed GLE site, the Wrightsboro Elementary School, while 21 schools are within a 

12.8-kilometer (8-mile) radius of the site (GLE, 2008). 

3.13.3.3 Public Safety

The principal law enforcement agency in New Hanover County is the New Hanover County 

Sheriff’s Office, which in 2007 had 275 officers providing law enforcement services, including 

provision in the unincorporated areas in the vicinity of the proposed GLE Facility (Table 3-28). 

Several State, county, and local police departments provide law enforcement in the ROI, 

including the City of Wilmington police department, which employs 252 law enforcement 

officers. Other counties in the region have a total of 157 full-time officers – 108 in Brunswick 

County and 49 in Pender County.

Two fire departments in the ROI, the Wilmington Fire Department and the New Hanover County 

Fire Department, have 228 career firefighters (Table 3-28). The firefighting service provider 

closest to the Wilmington Site is the Castle Hayne Volunteer Fire & Rescue, with one full-time 

firefighter and 10 volunteer firefighters equipped with two pumper trucks, two water trucks, 

one squad truck, and one heavy rescue truck (GLE, 2008). If the Castle Hayne Volunteer 

Fire & Rescue would need additional assistance in the event of an incident at the Wilmington 

Site, an existing mutual aid agreement among Castle Hayne Fire Volunteer Fire & Rescue 

(GLE, 2008) and the six other fire departments in the county would provide additional support.

3.13.4 Tax Structure and Distribution

The principal sources of tax revenues in the ROI are taxes on real estate and personal property 

and include taxes levied at the county and municipal level (NCDOR, 2009). In 2009, county 

property tax rates for New Hanover County and Pender County were $0.45 and $0.65 per $100 

of appraised valuation, respectively, while the rate in Brunswick County was $0.31. The 

municipal tax rate in Wilmington was $0.33 per $100, levied in addition to county property taxes 

(NCDOR, 2009). A corporate income tax rate of 6.9 percent is levied by the State, which also 

collects sales and use tax of 4.25 percent of sales, in addition to local sales and use tax rates in 

most areas of 2.5 percent (NCDOR, 2009).
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-119 NUREG-1938

Table 3-27 School District Data for the ROI in 2007

Location Number of 

Students

Number of 

Teachers

StudentTeacher RatioLevel of 

Servicea

Brunswick County 11,749 836 14.1 9.5

New Hanover 

County

24,001 1763 13.6 9.7

Pender County 7889 572 13.8 12.5

ROI 43,639 3170 13.8 10.0

a Number of teachers per 1000 population.

Source: NCES, 2009.

Table 3-28 Public Safety Employment in the ROI in 2009

Location Number of 

Police Officers

Level of 

Servicea

Number of 

Firefightersb

Level of 

Servicea

Brunswick County 108 1.2 206 2.3

New Hanover 

County

275 1.5 22 0.1

Pender County 49 1.1 0 0.0

ROI 432 1.4 228 0.7

a Number per 1000 population.

b Number does not include volunteers.

Sources: FBI, 2009; FireDepartments.net, 2009.

3.14 Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” which 

directs all Federal agencies to develop strategies for considering environmental justice in their 

programs, policies, and activities. Environmental justice is described in the Executive Order as 

“identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations.” On December 10, 1997, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

issued “Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act” (NEPA) 

(CEQ, 1997). The Council developed this guidance to, "further assist Federal agencies with 

their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures." On August 24, 2004, the 

Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in 

NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states, “the Commission is 

committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part 

of its NEPA review process.”
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-120 February 2012

In addition to the general guidelines on the evaluation of environmental analyses set forth in the 

document Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 

Programs (NUREG-1748) (NRC, 2003), the NRC issued environmental justice procedures to be 

followed in NEPA documents prepared by the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards (NRC, 2004a).

Data on minority and low-income populations within a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) radius of the 

proposed GLE Facility site were compiled from the 2000 U.S. Census (see Appendix G). The 

6.4-kilometer (4-mile) radius is consistent with the NRC final policy statement on the treatment 

of environmental justice matters (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004). This area includes a total of 

15 Census block groups, including one in Brunswick County, 10 in New Hanover County, the 

location of the proposed GLE Facility, and four in Pender County (USBC, 2009a). To determine 

whether environmental justice will have to be considered in greater detail, the percentage of 

minority and low-income populations in Census block groups located in the 6.4-kilometer 

(4-mile) radius are compared with the State and county percentages. According to NRC 

guidance and procedures, if the minority or low-income population in a given block group

exceeds 50 percent or is 20 percentage points or more than the State or county percentage, 

environmental justice impacts must be considered in greater detail. 

3.14.1 Minority Populations

The CEQ guidelines define “minority” to include members of American Indian or Alaska Native, 

Asian or Pacific Islander, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic populations (CEQ, 1997). Minority 

individuals are persons who identify themselves as members of the following population groups: 

Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander, some other race, and two or more races (meaning individuals who identified 

themselves on the 2000 Census form as being a member of two or more races, for example, 

White and Hispanic), and Hispanic or Latino. The 2000 Census allowed individuals the option 

of identifying themselves in one or more race categories, thereby creating the multiracial census 

category of “two or more races.” They are generally counted as part of the minority group they 

identified.

Minority populations can be determined by subtracting White, not Hispanic or Latino populations 

from the total population. Figure 3-23 identifies the three Census block groups within a

6.4-kilometer (4-mile) radius of the proposed GLE Facility site that contain minority populations. 

Two block groups had minority populations that were more than 20 percentage points higher 

than the respective county average, while one Census block group had a minority population 

that was also more than 20 percentage points higher than the State average. Two of these 

Census block groups also had a minority population that exceeded 50 percent of the total 

population. Table 3-29 presents data for minority populations for the 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) 

area, for each county, and for the State. Appendix G presents the data for the 15 Census block 

groups that completely or partially fall within the 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) radius.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-121 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-23 Census Block Groups within a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) Radius of the Proposed 

GLE Facility with Minority Populations that Exceed 50 Percent of Total Population or 

Exceed State and County Percentages by More than 20 Percentage Points
Affected Environment

NUREG-1938 3-122 February 2012

3.14.2 Low-Income Populations

Low-income populations are those that fall below the poverty level identified by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. If the total income for a family or individual falls below the poverty threshold, then the 

family or individual is determined by the U.S. Census Burear as living “below the poverty level.” 

For example, in 1999, the most recent year for which census block group data on poverty was

available at the time of this analysis, the poverty threshold for a family of five with three children 

below the age of 18 was $19,882.

Figure 3-24 identifies Census block groups within a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) radius of the 

proposed GLE Facility site that contain low-income populations that exceed state and county 

percentages by more than 20 percentage points. In one Census block group, the low-income 

population was more than 20 percentage points higher than both the State and county average. 

Table 3-29 presents data for low-income populations for the 6.4-kilometer [4-mile area]), for 

each county, and for the State. Appendix G presents the data for the 15 Census block groups 

that completely or partially fall within the 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) radius.

Table 3-29 Minority and Low-Income Populations within a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) 

Radius of the Proposed GLE Site

4-mile Radius

County Total 

Populationa

Minority 

Population

Percent 

Minority

County 

Percent 

Minority

State 

Percent 

Minority

Brunswick County 2030 926 45.6 20.4

32.6 New Hanover County 15,725 3881 24.7 22.1

Pender County 9044 2753 30.6 30.9

4-mile Radius

County Total 

Populationb

LowIncome 

Population

Percent 

LowIncome

County 

Percent 

Low-Income

State 

Percent 

Low-Income

Brunswick County 1952 283 14.5 12.6

12.3 New Hanover County 15,217 1488 9.8 13.1

Pender County 8948 1430 16.0 13.6

a

2000 data.

b

1999 data.

Source: USCB, 2009a.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-123 NUREG-1938

Figure 3-24 Census Block Groups within a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) Radius of the Proposed 

GLE Facility with Low-Income Populations that Exceed 50 Percent of the Total Population 

or Exceed State and County Percentages by More Than 20 Percentage Points
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-124 February 2012 

3.15 References 

(ASA, 1983) Acoustical Society of America. “American National Standard Specification for 

Sound Level Meters.” ANSI S1.4-1983.

(ASA, 1985) Acoustical Society of America. “American National Standard Specification for 

Sound Level Meters.” ANSI S1.4A-1985 Amendment to ANSI S1.4-1983. June 26.

(Ashley and Rachels, 2005) Ashley, K.W., and R.T. Rachels. “Cape Fear River Basin 

Recreational Angler Creel Survey, 2003-2004. Coastal Fisheries Investigations, Federal Aid in 

Fish Restoration Project F-22, Project Type: Survey, Period Covered: 1 July 2003-30 June 

2004.” North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries. February.

(ATSDR, 1999) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Toxicological Profile for 

Uranium.” September. ADAMS Accession No. ML120410417. 

(ATSDR, 2003) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Toxicological Profile for 

Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine.” September. 

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf> (Accessed January 31, 2012).

(BLM, 2009) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Manual 8400 

Visual Resource Management.” <http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8400.html> 

(Accessed September 27, 2009). 

(Brunswick County, 2006) Brunswick County. “Brunswick County Core Land Use Plan.” Draft 

under Review by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 

<http://dcm2.enr.State.nc.us/Planning/under_review.htm> (Accessed September 29, 2009).

(Buchanan and Finnegan, 2008) Buchanan, M.F., and J.T. Finnegan (Ed.). “Natural Heritage 

Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.” North Carolina Natural Heritage 

Program, Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources. <http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/2008%20Rare%20Plant%20List.pdf> 

(Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(Burns and Cusick, 1983) Burns, J.F., and A.W. Cusick. “Sagittaria graminea Michx. Grass-leaf 

Arrowhead.” Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. 

<http://www.dnr.State.oh.us/Portals/3/Abstracts/Abstract_pdf/S/Sagittaria_graminea.pdf> 

(Accessed October 1, 2009). 

(Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2004) Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. “Occupational Radiation 

Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2003.” NUREG-0713, 

Volume 25. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. October. <http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0713> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2005) Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. “Occupational Radiation 

Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2004.” NUREG-0713, 

Volume 26. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December. <http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0713> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-125 NUREG-1938

(Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2006) Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. “Occupational Radiation 

Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2005.” NUREG-0713, 

Volume 27. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December. <http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0713> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(Cal/EPA, 2003) California Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment. “Adoption of Chronic Reference Exposure Level for Fluorides Including 

Hydrogen Fluoride [08/15/03].” <http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/hyfluocrel.html> 

(Accessed July 21, 2009). 

(CDC, 2009) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. “United States Cancer Statistics: 1999-2005 Incidence and Mortality Webbased Report.” <http://www.cdc.gov/uscs> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(CEQ, 1997) Council on Environmental Quality. “Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act.” December 10. 

<http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, 2006). City of Wilmington and New Hanover 

County. “Wilmington-New Hanover County Joint Coastal Area Management Plan 2006 

Update.” May 8. http://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/portals/0/documents/Development% 

20Services/Environment%20and%20Historic%20Preservation/Environmental/CAMA_Plan%202

006_cert_080106.pdf (Accessed September 29, 2009). 

(Claggett, 1996) Claggett, S.R. “North Carolina’s First Colonists: 12,000 Years Before 

Roanoke.” <http://www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/articles/1stcolo.htm> (Accessed 

July 15, 2009). 

(Cowardin et al., 1979) Cowardin, L.M, et al. “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States.” FWS/OBS-79. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

<http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/79-31.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(CPC, 2008a) Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile Solidago 

villosicarpa.” <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/CPC_ViewProfile.asp? 

CPCNum=44450> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(CPC, 2008b) Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile Stylisma 

pickeringii var. pickeringii.” <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/CPC_View 

Profile.asp?CPCNum=4157> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(CPC, 2008c) Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile Lysimachia

asperulifolia.” <http://www.centerforplant

conservation.org/Collection/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=2750> 

(Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(CPC, 2008d) Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile Solidago 

verna.” <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/CPC_ViewProfile.asp? 

CPCNum=4050> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-126 February 2012 

(Crone and Wheeler, 2000) Crone, A.J., and R.L. Wheeler. “Data for Quaternary Faults, 

Liquefaction Features, and Possible Tectonic Features in the Central and Eastern 

United States, East of the Rocky Mountain Front.” U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File 

Report 00-260. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr-00-0260/ofr-00-0260.pdf> (Accessed 

May 6, 2009). 

(CSC, 2009) Coastal Services Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

“Historical Hurricane Tracks.” <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes)> (Accessed 

February 8, 2012).

(Dart et al., 2010) Dart, R.L., et al. “Earthquakes in South Carolina and Vicinity 1698 –2009: 

Open File Report 2010-1059.” U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

September. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1059/pdf/OF10-1059.pdf> (Accessed 

December 14, 2011).

(Dickson, 2007) Dickson, E.D., et al. “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear 

Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2006.” NUREG-0713, Volume 28. U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. December. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr0713> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(DOC, 2009) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Local Area 

Personal Income.” <http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA1-3§ion=2> 

(Accessed June 2009). 

(DOL, 2009a) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics: States and Selected Areas: Employment Status of the Civilian 

Noninstitutional Population, 1976 to 2007. Annual Averages.” <http://www.bls.gov/lau/

staadata.txt> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(DOL, 2009b) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics: Unemployment Rates for States.” <http://www.bls.gov/web/

laumstrk.htm> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(DOL, 2009c) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics: County Data.” <http://www.bls.gov/lau/laucntycur14.txt> (Accessed 

September 18, 2009). 

(DOL, 2009d) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index, All 

Urban Consumers – (CPI-U) U.S. City Average, All Items.” <ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.

requests/cpi/cpiai.txt> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(DOL, 2010) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Table 1, Incident rates of 

nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by case type and ownership, selected industries, 

2009.” October 21. <http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2435.pdf> 

(Accessed February 8, 2012).

(DuMond, 1984) DuMond, D. “Conservation Resources in New Hanover County. New Hanover 

County Planning Department.” <http://www.nhcgov.com/PlanInspect/Documents/ 

Conservation%20Resources%20in%20NHC.pdf> (Accessed June 6, 2009). 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-127 NUREG-1938

(Eldred, 1982) Eldred, K.M. “Standards and Criteria for Noise Control – An Overview.” Noise 

Control Engineering, 18(1): 16-23.

(EPA, 1974) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.” 

EPA-550/9-74-004. <http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm> (Accessed 

October 5, 2009). 

(EPA, 2001) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “2001 National Land Cover Database 

(NLCD 2001).” <http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2001.html> (Accessed October 8, 2009). 

(EPA, 2007a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Western Ecology Division. “Ecoregion 

Maps and GIS Resources.” <http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm> (Accessed 

October 27, 2009). 

(EPA, 2007b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division. “Level III 

Ecoregions.” <http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm> (Accessed 

October 27, 2009). 

(EPA, 2009a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “SCRAM Surface Meteorological 

Archived Data: 1984-1992.” <http://www.epa.gov/scram001/surfacemetdata.htm> (Accessed 

May 16, 2009). 

(EPA, 2009b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “The Green Book Nonattainment Areas 

for Criteria Pollutants.” <http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/> (Accessed June 2, 2009).

(EPA, 2009c) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data.” 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/data> (Accessed May 12, 2009).

(EPA, 2009d) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Wetlands Definitions.” 

<http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/what/definitions.html> (Accessed January 12, 2010). 

(EPA, 2010a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS).” <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (Accessed March 16, 2010).

(EPA, 2010b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Personal communication from 

D. Deroeck (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) to Y.-S. Chang (Argonne National 

Laboratory). February 18. 

(ESI, 2008) Environmental Services, Inc. “An Intensive Cultural Resource Investigation: 

Potential GE Expansion New Hanover County, North Carolina.” ESI Report of Investigations 

No. 1126, March. 

(FAA, 2009) Federal Aviation Administration. “Airport Data (5010) & Contact Information.” 

<http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010> (Accessed September 27, 2009). 

(FBI, 2009) Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Crime in the United States: 2006.” 

<http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_80_nc.html> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-128 February 2012 

(FireDepartments.Net, 2009). FireDepartments.Net “North Carolina Fire Departments.” 

<http://www.firedepartments.net/NorthCarolina/NC.html> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(Floridata, 2003) Floridata. “Floridata #923 Dionaea muscipula.” <http://www.floridata.com/ 

ref/D/dion_mus.cfm> (Accessed October 3, 2009). 

(Frankel, et al., 2005) Frankel, A.D., et al. “Seismic-hazard Maps for the Conterminous 

United States: Peak Horizontal Acceleration with 10 Percent Probability of Exceedence in 

50 Years.” U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map 2883. 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2005/2883> (Accessed May 6, 2009).

(FWS, 1990) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, 

U.S. Department of the Interior. “National Wetlands Inventory: Castle Hayne, North Carolina 

Quadrangle.” <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html> (Accessed October 5, 2009). 

(FWS, 1998) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Air Division Branch. “Fish and Wildlife Service 

Class I Units.” February 27. <http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/docs/fws.pdf> (Accessed 

January 26, 2010). 

(FWS, 2003a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Shortnose 

Sturgeon in North Carolina.” <http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/fish/shortst.html> (Accessed 

October 2, 2009). 

(FWS, 2003b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker in North Carolina.” <http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/birds/rcwood.html> 

(Accessed June 4, 2009). Document no longer available online. 

(FWS, 2008a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Endangered 

Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, 

New Hanover County, North Carolina.” <http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/ 

new_hanover.html> (Accessed July 10, 2009). 

(FWS, 2008b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Species Profile 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis).” <http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/

speciesProfile.action?spcode=B04F> (Accessed July 10, 2009). 

(FWS, 2008c) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “American 

Alligator Alligator mississippiensis.” <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/alligator.pdf> 

(Accessed October 1, 2009). Document no longer available online. 

(FWS, 2008d) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Endangered 

Species Glossary.” <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/glossary.html> (Accessed 

March 23, 2010). 

(FWS, 2009a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. Letter from 

H. Hall (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

June 8. “Subject: Docket No. 70-7016; General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

Facility, New Hanover County, North Carolina.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091700024.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-129 NUREG-1938

(FWS, 2009b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Fish Facts –

American Eel.” <http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/Fish/zj_anro.html> (Accessed October 9, 2009). 

(GLE, 2008) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the GLE 

Commercial Facility, Revision 0.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573. 

(GLE, 2009a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated June 8. 

“Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Submittal of Additional Information Related to 

NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” Letter number GLEL-09-004. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092110764. 

(GLE, 2009b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy 

(Environmental Health and Safety Manager, GLE) to A. Kock (Chief, Environmental Review 

Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated November 5. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global 

Laser Enrichment Response to Request for Additional Information Related to NRC Review of 

GLE Environmental Report.” ADAMS Accession No. ML093170517.

(GLE, 2009c) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Global Laser Enrichment 

Environmental Report Supplement 2.” November. ADAMS Accession No. ML093240935.

(GNF-A, 2007) Global Nuclear Fuel – Americas, LLC. “License Renewal Application for Global 

Nuclear Fuel – Americas LLC, NRC License SNM-1097.” NRC Docket 70-1113. April 2.

ADAMS Accession No. ML071000128.

(GNF-A, 2008) Global Nuclear Fuel – Americas, LLC. Letter from GNF-A to U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, dated May 14. “Subject: Response to Environmental Assessment 

Request for Additional Information (TAC L32670) March 27, 2008.”

(Griffith et al., 2002) Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, 

D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. “Ecoregions of North Carolina 

and South Carolina.” U.S. Geological Survey. <http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ 

ncsc_eco.htm> (Accessed June 5, 2009). 

(Griffith, 2007) Griffith, D. “Guestworkers, Enganchadores, and Changing Labor Relations in 

U.S. Rural Communities.” Presented at the University of California at Davis Conference 

Immigration Reform: Implications for Farmers, Farm Workers, and Communities, Washington, 

D.C, June 13-14. <http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/files/2007-June/Griffithpaper.pdf> (Accessed 

October 5, 2009). 

(Harden et al., 2003) Harden, S.L., J.M. Fine, and T.B. Spruill. “Hydrogeology and GroundWater Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina.” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03-4051. <http://nc.water.usgs.gov/reports/wri034051/pdf/report.pdf> 

(Accessed November 15, 2010).

(Holzworth, 1972) Holzworth, G.C. “Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air 

Pollution throughout the Contiguous United States.” Office of Air Programs Publication 

No. AP-101, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-130 February 2012 

(Hubricht, 1985) Hubricht, L. “The Distributions of the Native Land Mollusks of the Eastern 

United States.” Fieldiana Zoology New Series, No. 24, Publication 1359, Field Museum of 

Natural History. 

(ICRP, 1991) International Commission on Radiological Protection. “1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection.” ICRP Publication 60. April. 

(Intertox, 2009) Intertox. Press Release: “Intertox Study Concludes That Mercury Emissions 

from Proposed Carolinas Cement Plant Pose Nominal Risk for Local Population.” March 30. 

<http://www.carolinascementproject.com/environmental_impact/studyrelFinal3.pdf> 

(Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(Jennings and Reganold, 1989) Jennings, M.D., and J.P. Reganold. “Local Government 

Policies toward Environmentally Sensitive Areas in British Columbia, Canada; Washington and 

Oregon, USA.” Environmental Management 13(4):443–453.

(Jordan, 1998) Jordan, R.A. “Species Profile: Southern Hognose Snake (Heterodon simus) on 

Military Installations in the Southeastern United States.” Technical Report SERDP-98-4. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. March. <http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tes/pdfs/serdp984.pdf> 

(Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(Kathren, 1984) Kathren, R.L. Radioactivity in the Environment, Sources, Distribution, and 

Surveillance, Harwood Academic Publishers. 

(Klein et al., 1994) Klein, T.H., et al. “Phase I Archaeological Survey, Wilmington Bypass, New 

Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.” North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, 

Raleigh, North Carolina.

(Klimek, 2004) Klimek, A.W. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 

No. NC0001228.” State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Division of Water Quality. February 16. ADAMS Accession No. ML091490113. 

(Klimek, 2007a) Klimek, A.W. “Wastewater Treatment and Reclaimed Water Reutilization 

System Permit No. WQ0031317.” State of North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. March 29. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML091490131. 

(Klimek, 2007b) Klimek, A.W. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 

No. NCS000022.” State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Division of Water Quality. March 30. ADAMS Accession No. ML091490112. 

(Lautier, 1998) Lautier, J.C. “Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Proposed Deepening of the 

Wilmington Harbor Shipping Channel, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.”

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, 

Division of Water Resources. February. <http://www.ncwater.org/Reports_and_Publications/ 

GWMS_Reports/WilmingtonHarborFeb98.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-131 NUREG-1938

(LeBlond and Grant, 2003) LeBlond, R.J., and G.S. Grant. “Natural Area Inventory of 

New Hanover County, North Carolina.” Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. May. 

<http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p249901coll22&CISOPTR=192104

&REC=4> (Accessed January 29, 2010).

(LeGrand et al., 2008) LeGrand, H.E., Jr., et al. “Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare 

Animal Species of North Carolina.” North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of 

Natural Resource Planning and Conservation, Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources. <http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/2008-animal-book-complete.pdf> (Accessed 

January 29, 2010).

(Lewis et al., 2008) Lewis, D.E., et al. “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial 

Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2007.” NUREG-0713, Volume 29. U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. December. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr0713 (Accessed January 29, 2010).

(Miller, 2002) Miller, N.P. “Transportation Noise and Recreational Lands.” Proceedings of InterNoise 2002, Dearborn, Michigan. August 19-21. 

(Moser and Ross, 1995) Moser, M.L., and S.W. Ross. “Habitat Use and Movements of 

Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons in the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina.” Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 124:225-234.

(National Audubon Society, 2009a). National Audubon Society. “North Carolina Important Bird 

Areas of North Carolina.” <http://nc.audubon.org/birds-science-education/important-birdareas/important-bird-areas-north-carolina> (Accessed June 5, 2009). 

(National Audubon Society, 2009b). National Audubon Society. “What Is an Important Bird 

Area?” <http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba/iba_intro.html> (Accessed June 5, 2009). 

(NatureServe, 2009) NatureServe. “NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life.” 

Version 7.1. <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer> (Accessed September 21, 2009). 

(NCCIA, 2004) North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs. “Annual Report 2003-2004.” 

<http://www.doa.state.nc.us/cia/documents/annualrpts-plans/2003-2004-AnnualReport.pdf> 

(Accessed January 21, 2010). 

(NCDAQ, 2004a) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Environmental 

Management Commission, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “Permit 

No. 1161R19 Issued to General Electric Company, Wilmington, New Hanover County, 

North Carolina.” December 3. 

(NCDAQ, 2004b) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Environmental 

Management Commission, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “Permit 

No. 1756R17 Issued to Global Nuclear Fuel – Americas, LLC, Wilmington, New Hanover 

County, North Carolina.” December 15. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-132 February 2012 

(NCDAQ, 2009a) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. “North Carolina Criteria and Toxic Air Pollutant Point 

Source Emissions Report: 2007, Brunswick County, All Pollutants.” 

<http://xapps.enr.State.nc.us/aq/ToxicsReport/toxrpt.jsp?ibeam=true> (Accessed October 3, 

2009). 

(NCDAQ, 2009b) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. “North Carolina Criteria and Toxic Air Pollutant Point 

Source Emissions Report: 2007, New Hanover County, All Pollutants.” 

<http://xapps.enr.State.nc.us/aq/ToxicsReport/toxrpt.jsp?ibeam=true> (Accessed October 3, 

2009). 

(NCDAQ, 2009c) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. “North Carolina Criteria and Toxic Air Pollutant Point 

Source Emissions Report: 2007, Pender County, All Pollutants.” <http://xapps.enr.State.nc.us/

aq/ToxicsReport/toxrpt.jsp?ibeam=true> (Accessed October 3, 2009). 

(NCDAQ, 2009d) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. “North Carolina Criteria and Toxic Air Pollutant Point 

Source Emissions Report: 2007, General Electric Company.” <http://xapps.enr.State.nc.us/

aq/ToxicsReport/toxrpt.jsp?ibeam=true> (Accessed October 3, 2009). 

(NCDAQ, 2009e) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. Personal communication from T. Sabetti (North Carolina, 

Division of Air Quality) to Y-S. Chang (Argonne National Laboratory). May 19.

(NCDAQ, 2011a) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. “North Carolina Criteria and Toxic Air Pollutant Point 

Source Emissions Report: 2007, Facilities in New Hanover County Reporting Mercury & 

Compounds.” <http://xapps.enr.State.nc.us/aq/ToxicsReport/toxrpt.jsp?ibeam=true> (Accessed 

April 28, 2011). 

(NCDAQ, 2011b) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. “North Carolina Criteria and Toxic Air Pollutant Point 

Source Emissions Report: 2007, Facilities in Brunswick County Reporting Mercury & 

Compounds.” <http://xapps.enr.State.nc.us/aq/ToxicsReport/toxrpt.jsp?ibeam=true> (Accessed 

April 28, 2011). 

(NCDAQ, 2011c) North Carolina Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. “North Carolina Criteria and Toxic Air Pollutant Point 

Source Emissions Report: 2007, Facilities in Pender County Reporting Mercury & Compounds.” 

<http://xapps.enr.State.nc.us/aq/ToxicsReport/toxrpt.jsp?ibeam=true> (Accessed April 28, 

2011). 

(NCDC, 2009a) National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. “U.S. Climate Normals – Climate of North Carolina.” <http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

cgi-bin/climatenormals/climatenormals.pl> (Accessed May 10, 2009). 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-133 NUREG-1938

(NCDC, 2009b) National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. “2008 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 

Wilmington, North Carolina (KILM).” <http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS-37433F91-

1949-469E-9A9A-85BC04BFC4D5.pdf> (Accessed February 1, 2012).

(NCDC, 2009c) National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. “Integrated Surface Data (ISD), DS3505 Format, Database.” 

<ftp://ftp3.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa> (Accessed August 1, 2009). 

(NCDC, 2009d) National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Satellite and Information Service. “Storm Events.” <http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/

cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms> (Accessed April 13, 2009). 

(NCDEHNR, 1991a) North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural 

Resources. Letter from A.P. Howard, Jr. (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, 

and Natural Resources) to B. Wolfe (General Electric Nuclear Energy) dated October 30. 

“Subject: Notice of Violation 15A NCAC 2L.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091490115. 

(NCDEHNR, 1991b) North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural 

Resources. Letter from A.P. Howard, Jr. (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, 

and Natural Resources) to B. Wolfe (General Electric Nuclear Energy) dated December 6. 

“Subject: Notice of Violation 15A NCAC 2L.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091490129. 

(NCDENR, 2001) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation. “Guide to Federally 

Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina.” 

<http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/guide.htm> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(NCDENR, 2007a) North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources. “North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List 

(2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report), Final.” May. <http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_ 

library/get_file?uuid=e3cfb62f-0798-480d-90d7-6a0e866f55de&groupId=38364> (Accessed 

February 1, 2012). 

(NCDENR, 2007b) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

“Wastewater Treatment and Reclaimed Water Utilization System Permit.” Final. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML091530549. 

(NCDENR, 2008a) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division 

of Waste Management. “Fact Sheet. Permit Number 65-04, New Hanover County Integrated 

Solid Waste Management.” <http://www.wastenotnc.org/sw/Scan_Docs/4245.pdf> (Accessed 

October 12, 2009). Document no longer available online. 

(NCDENR, 2008b) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division 

of Waste Management. “Municipal Solid Waste Facility, Permit No. 65-04.” June 19. 

<http://www.wastenotnc.org/sw/Scan_Docs/4778.pdf> (Accessed October 12, 2009). 

Document no longer available online. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-134 February 2012 

(NCDENR, 2008c) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Letter 

from F. Rohde (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of 

Marine Fisheries) to H. Wicker (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) dated August 8. “Subject: 

ID#SAW-2007-00073, Carolina Cement Company (Titan America).”

(NCDENR, 2009a) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “North 

Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report, July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008.” January. 

<http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/swmar?p_p_id=110_INSTANCE_V4fV&p_p_lifecycle=0&p

_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-3&p_p_col_count=1&_110_ 

INSTANCE_V4fV_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library_display%2Fview&_110_INSTANCE_V4

fV_folderId=4649254> (Accessed February 12, 2012).

(NCDENR, 2009b) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

Personal communication from D. Dusenbury (North Carolina Radiation Protection Section) to 

C. Ridge (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). September 1.

(NCDENR, 2009c) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division 

of Waste Management. Letter from C.V. Jesneck (North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources) to H.R. Strickler (General Electric Company) dated January 15. 

“Subject: Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091490132. 

(NCDENR, 2009d) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Letter 

from R. Berry (Division of Water Quality) to S. O’Connor (Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas) dated 

September 23. “Subject: Draft of Renewal Permit.”

(NCDENR, 2009e) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North 

Carolina Natural Heritage Program, “North Carolina Heritage Program Virtual Workroom.” 

<http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/nhis/public/gmap75_main.phtml> (Accessed June 23 and 

October 1, 2009). Document no longer available online. 

(NCDENR, 2010) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Division of Coastal Management. “Communities with CAMA Land Use Plans.” 

<http://dcm2.enr.State.nc.us/Planning/LUP%20Submittal_Approval_website.pdf> 

(Accessed January 21, 2010). 

(NCDMF, 2006) North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources. “Fishery Nursery Areas Map 25.” July. <http://www.ncfisheries.net/maps/ 

FNA_maps/map25.pdf> (Accessed October 1, 2009). 

(NCDMF, 2009) North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources. “North Carolina’s Nursery System.” <http://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/

pna.htm> (Accessed October 1, 2009). 

(NCDOR, 2009) North Carolina Department of Revenue (Web site). <http://www.dornc.com/ 

index.html> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(NCDOT, 2005) North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Southeastern North Carolina 

Passenger Rail Study.” July. <http://www.bytrain.org/future/pdf/July05SENCRPT.pdf> 

(Accessed June 19, 2009). 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-135 NUREG-1938

(NCDOT, 2008) North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Annual Average Daily Traffic, 

Wilmington, North Carolina.” February. <http://dotw- xfer01.dot.State.nc.us/imgdot/ 

DOTTSUMaps/AADT_URBANS/WILMINGTON(NEW_HANOVER)_URBAN/2007/Sheet1.pdf> 

(Accessed April 28, 2009). 

(NCES, 2009) National Center for Educational Statistics. “Search for Public School Districts.” 

<http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/> (Accessed June 2009). 

(NCGS, 2007) North Carolina Geological Survey, North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources. “Geologic Hazards in North Carolina –

Sinkholes (Karst).” <http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Geologic_hazards_sink_holes_karst/ 

sinkholes.htm#karst> (Accessed July 14, 2009). Document no longer available online. 

(NCOSBM, 2009) North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. “Population 

Estimates and Projections.” <http://demog.state.nc.us> (Accessed September 18, 2009).

(NCRP, 2009) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Press Release, 

“Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States.” March. 

<http://www.ncrponline.org/Press_Rel/Rept_160_Press_Release.pdf> (Accessed 

July 20, 2009). Document no longer available online. 

(NCWRC, 2007) North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission. Personal communication from 

B. Barwick (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries) to 

J. Schimek (RTI International) dated December 18. “Subject: Commercial and Recreational 

Fisheries on the Northeast Cape Fear River.”

(New Hanover County, 2009a) New Hanover County. “County Code of Ordinances, 

Chapter 23, Environment, Article II, Noise.” <http://www.municode.com/resources/ 

gateway.asp?pid=11337&sid=33> (Accessed April 7, 2009). 

(New Hanover County, 2009b) “New Hanover County. Zoning Map.” 

<http://wwwdefault.nhcgov.com/website/zoning/viewer.htm?Title=Map%20of%20New%20Hano

ver%20Co.%20NC> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(New Hanover County, 2009c) New Hanover County Planning Department. Letter from 

C. O’Keefe (New Hanover County Planning Department) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission). “Subject: Request for Information Regarding Land Use in the Vicinity of the 

Proposed General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Facility.” Document is undated. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML092360197. 

(NHC, 2009) National Hurricane Center. “Hurricane Preparedness: Return Periods.” 

<http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/return_printer.shtml> (Accessed 

May 14, 2009). 

(NIOSH, 1996) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. “IDLH Documentation: 

Uranium.” August. <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/uranium.html> (Accessed 

October 26, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-136 February 2012 

(NIOSH, 2005) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. “NIOSH Pocket Guide to 

Chemical Hazards: Uranium.” September. <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0651.html> 

(Accessed October 26, 2009). 

(NOAA, 2002) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. “Reasor Chemical Company.” <http://archive.orr.noaa.gov/book_shelf/

257_reasor.pdf> (Accessed February 8, 2012).

(NOAA, 2009) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “1996-2005 Flash Density 

Map, 10 Kilometer Grid.” <http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov> (Accessed May 15, 2009). 

(NOAA, 2011) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data 

Center. “NOAA/WDC Global Historical Tsunami Database at NGDC.” 

<www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml> (Accessed December 12, 2011). 

(NRC, 1997) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of 

Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1097 (NRC Docket 70-1113) General Electric 

Company, Nuclear Energy Production Facility, Wilmington, NC.” May.

(NRC, 2003) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG-1748. August. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1748/sr1748.pdf> (Accessed 

January 29, 2010). 

(NRC, 2004a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions,” Final Policy 

Statement (69 FR 52040, 52041-52; August 24, 2004). 

(NRC, 2004b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Fact Sheet: Biological Effects of 

Radiation.” <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effectsradiation.pdf> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(NRC, 2009) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Assessment for the 

Renewal of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License No. SNM-1097 for Global Nuclear 

Fuel-Americas, Wilmington Fuel Fabrication Facility,” Docket No. 70-1113. May 14. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML091180239. 

(NRC, 2010) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Biological Effects of Radiation.” Reactor 

Concepts Manual, Workshop Manual. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basicref/teachers/09.pdf> (Accessed March 22, 2010). 

(NSSL, 2009) National Severe Storms Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. “Severe Thunderstorm Climatology.” <http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/

hazard/index.html> (Accessed May 11, 2009). 

(Omernik et al., 2000) Omernik, J.M., et al. “Ecoregions of Wisconsin.” Transactions of the 

Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 88: 77-1-3.
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-137 NUREG-1938

(Ozier et al., 1999) Ozier, J.C., et al. “Protected Animals of Georgia.” Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Wildlife-Natural Heritage Section.

(Patrick et al., 1995) Patrick, T.S., et al. “Protected Plants of Georgia, an Information Manual on 

Plants Designated by the State of Georgia as Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or Unusual.” 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division. 

(Pender County, 2006) Pender County Planning Board. “Pender County CAMA Land Use Plan, 

2005 Update.” Final. <http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Planning/Pender/Revised%20final% 

20LUP5.24.06.pdf> (Accessed September 29, 2009). 

(Petersen et al., 2008) Petersen, M.D., et al. “Documentation for the 2008 Update of the 

United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: Open-File Report 2008-1128.” U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. May. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/pdf/

OF08-1128_v1.1.pdf> (Accessed December 14, 2011).

(Robinson, 2005) Robinson, P.J. North Carolina Weather & Climate. The University of North 

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

(RTI, 1992) Research Triangle Institute. “Remedial Action Plan for Organic Compounds in 

Groundwater.” RTI Report No. 5040-01F. December 14. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML112500151. 

(RTI, 1994) Research Triangle Institute. “Corrective Action Plan for Organic Compounds in 

Groundwater.” RTI Report No. 5040/006/01F. March 30. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML112500163. 

(RTI, 1996) Research Triangle Institute. “Comprehensive Site Assessment and Corrective 

Action Plan for Organic Compounds in Groundwater Vicinity of Northern Property Boundary 

Area.” RTI Report No. 5040/022/01F. ADAMS Accession No. ML112500169. 

(RTI, 1997) Research Triangle Institute. “Technical Update of Hydrogeological and 

Groundwater Quality Conditions in the Northwest Site Area.” RTI Document No. 6448-

018/001/01F. October 30. 

(RTI, 1998a) Research Triangle Institute. “Fourth Quarter 1997 Groundwater Monitoring Report 

for the FMO/FMOX Building Area.” RTI Report No. 6448/002/021/01F. June 15. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML092100659. 

(RTI, 1998b) Research Triangle Institute. “Technical Update of Groundwater Contamination 

beneath the FCO Building Cleaning Room Area.” RTI Document No. 6448-012/005/01F. 

September 8. ADAMS Accession No. ML092110739. 

(RTI, 1999a) Research Triangle Institute. “Corrective Action Plan for the Northwest Site Area.” 

RTI Report No. 6448-018/004/01F. ADAMS Accession No. ML112500149.

(RTI, 1999b) Research Triangle Institute. “Waste Treatment Area Investigation Report.” RTI 

Report No. 6448-020/001/01F. December 22. ADAMS Accession No. ML091820113.
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-138 February 2012 

(RTI, 2008a) Research Triangle Institute. “Northwest Site Area 2006-2007 Monitoring Report, 

General Electric/Global Nuclear Fuel Site, Wilmington, North Carolina.” RTI Project 

No. 0600002.000.005. December. ADAMS Accession No. ML091820027. 

(RTI, 2008b) Research Triangle Institute. “2006-2007 Report of Organic Compounds in 

Groundwater, General Electric/Global Nuclear Fuel Site Wilmington, North Carolina.” RTI 

Project No. 0600002.000.003. December. ADAMS Accession No. ML091820023. 

(Russ and Postlewaite, 2008) Russ, T., and M. Postlewaite. “An Intensive Cultural Resource 

Investigation: Potential GE Expansion New Hanover County, North Carolina.” ESI Report of 

Investigations No. 1126. Prepared by Environmental Services, Inc., for RTI International. 

March. 

(Tarr and Wheeler, 2006) Tarr, A.C. and R.L. Wheeler. “Earthquakes in Virginia and Vicinity 

1774 –2004: Open File Report 2006-1017.” U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey. April. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1017/downloads/pdf/Map.pdf> (Accessed 

December 14, 2011). 

(Turner and Schulze, 2007) Turner, D.B., and R.H. Schulze. “Practical Guide to Atmospheric 

Dispersion Modeling.” Trinity Consultants, Inc. and Air & Waste Management Association. 

(University of Idaho, 2009) University of Idaho. “Köppen Climate Classification for the 

Conterminous United States.” <http://snow.ag.uidaho.edu/Clim_Map/koppen_usa_map.htm> 

(Accessed May 15, 2009). 

(USCB, 2000) U.S. Census Bureau. “Decennial Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 

100-Percent Data.” <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet> (Accessed 

September 29, 2009). 

(USCB, 2009a) U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder.” <http://factfinder.census.gov> 

(Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(USCB, 2009b) U.S. Census Bureau. “Land Area, Population, and Density for States and 

Counties: 1990.” <http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/90den_stco.txt> (Accessed 

September 18, 2009).

(USCB, 2009c) U.S. Census Bureau. “County Business Patterns, 2006.” <http://www.census.

gov/ftp/pub/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html> (Accessed September 18, 2009). 

(USCB, 2009d) U.S. Census Bureau. GCT1901. “Median Household Income, 2006-2008 

American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.” <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet 

/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT1901&-ds_name=ACS 

_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-mt_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_GCT1901_US25T&- 

format=US-25T> (Accessed January 26, 2010). 

(USDA, 2009) U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. “2007 

Census of Agriculture: Volume 1, Chapter 2, County Level Data. North Carolina, Volume 1, 

Complete Report, All Tables.” <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/ 

Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/North_Carolina/index.asp> (Accessed June 2009). 
Affected Environment

February 2012 3-139 NUREG-1938

(USGS, 2005) U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Mineral Resources 

Data System.” <http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(USGS, 2009) U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Estimated Use of 

Water in the United States in 2000.” <http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/> (Accessed 

October 2, 2009). 

(USGS 2010a) U.S. Geological Survey. “USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for the Nation, 

discharge data from 02108566 Northeast Cape Fear River near Burgaw, North Carolina.” 

<http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual/?referred_module=sw&site_no=02108566&por_021085

66_23=1031739,00060,23,2004,2006&year_type=W&format=html_table&date_format=YYYYMM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list> (Accessed 

January 27, 2010). 

(USGS 2010b) U.S. Geological Survey. “USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for the Nation, 

discharge data from 02108000 Northeast Cape Fear River near Chinquapin, North Carolina.” 

<http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual/?referred_module=sw&site_no=02108000&por_021080

00_2=1031736,00060,2,1940,2010&year_type=W&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MMDD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list> (Accessed 

January 27, 2010). 

(USGS, 2011) U.S. Geological Survey. “Shakemap us082311a, Instrumental Intensity. 

September. <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/082311a/> 

(Accessed December 7, 2011). 

(Wang and Angell, 1999) Wang, J.X.L., and J.K. Angell. “Air Stagnation Climatology for the 

United States (1948–1998).” NOAA/ARL ATLAS No. 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Air Resources Laboratory. April. <http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/ 

atlas.pdf> (Accessed June 15, 2009). 

(Wave Transit, 2009) Wave Transit (Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority). “About Wave 

Transit.” <http://www.wavetransit.com/about/history.aspx> (Accessed February 10, 2012). 

(Weakley, 2008) Weakley, A.S. “Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and 

Surrounding Areas.” Working draft of April 7, 2008. <http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/ 

WeakleyFlora_2008-Apr.pdf> (Accessed October 3, 2009). 

(Weaver and Pope, 2001) Weaver, J.C. and B.F. Pope. “Low-Flow Characteristics and 

Discharge Profiles for Selected Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 

1998.” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4094. Prepared in 

cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Division of Water Quality. 

(Whigham and Brinson, 1990). Whigham, D.F., and M.M. Brinson. “Wetland Value Impacts.” 

Wetlands and Shallow Continental Water Bodies 1:401 421. 
Affected Environment 

NUREG-1938 3-140 February 2012 

(Wilde-Ramsing, 1978) Wilde-Ramsing, M. “A Report on the New Hanover County 

Archaeological Survey: A C.E.T.A. Project, August 1977-July 1978.” North Carolina 

Department of Cultural Resources, Office of Archives and History, Division of Historical 

Resources, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. ADAMS Accession No. ML091610400. 
February 2012 4-1 NUREG-1938

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the potential impacts associated with the preconstruction activities, 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed General Electric (GE)-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) Facility. For the proposed action, this Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) considers impacts from construction activities, normal operations, 

credible accidents, and cumulative impacts and resource commitments. As discussed in 

Section 4.2, preconstruction activities are not part of the proposed action. This chapter is 

organized by resource area (i.e., air, water, noise, public and occupational health, etc.), based 

on the descriptions of preconstruction activities and the proposed action that are included in 

Section 2.1 of this EIS. Impact discussions are divided into three categories: preconstruction 

and construction, operations, and decontamination and decommissioning.

Within each resource area, mitigation measures identified by GLE and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff are disclosed. While the NRC cannot impose mitigation outside its 

regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act, a discussion of mitigation measures is 

presented in this chapter. For the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

per the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 10, “Energy,” 10 CFR 51.71(d), the NRC 

is disclosing mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental effects of the 

proposed action. Mitigation measures identified by GLE in its Environmental Report 

(GLE, 2008) and factored into the NRC’s environmental impact analysis are presented in 

Table 5-1. Additional mitigation measures identified by the NRC are presented in Table 5-2. 

These mitigation measures are not requirements being imposed upon GLE. 

Section 4.2 describes the impacts of preconstruction activities and the proposed action under 

consideration in this EIS – namely, the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the 

proposed GLE Facility at the existing GE site in Wilmington, North Carolina. Because 

decommissioning is not expected to occur until 40 years after the license is issued, 

decontamination and decommissioning impacts discussed in Section 4.2.17 are preliminary, or 

estimated, for the proposed GLE Facility. Within 12 months of its decision to cease enrichment 

activities, GLE will submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC in accordance with 

10 CFR 70.38, and would begin the activities described in the decommissioning plan after 

approval by the NRC. The proposed activities in the decommissioning plan will be subject to 

further NEPA review, as appropriate, at that time. 

In addition, this chapter discusses the potential cumulative impacts (Section 4.3) and impacts of 

the no-action alternative (Section 4.4). For the purposes of this EIS, the assessment of the 

cumulative impacts of the no-action alternative assumes that certain preconstruction activities 

have occurred, because these preconstruction activities are assumed to occur regardless of 

whether an NRC license for the proposed GLE Facility is granted.

Environmental impacts may be radiological or non-radiological. Radiological impacts include 

radiation doses to the public and workers from the routine operations, transportation, potential 

accidents, and decommissioning and environmental impacts from potential releases in the air, 

soil, or water. Non-radiological impacts include chemical hazards, emissions (e.g., vehicle 

fumes), occupational accidents and injuries (e.g., vehicle collisions), and workplace accidents.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-2 February 2012

The Commission’s Notice of Hearing and Commission Order (75 FR 1819) specified that a 

licensing decision be made within 30 months of the Order (i.e., June 2012). Therefore, the 

analyses in this chapter are based on the assumption that a licensing decision will be made in 

June 2012, construction (if authorized) would begin in 2012, start-up and final construction 

would begin in 2014, full facility operations would be achieved in 2020, and termination of the 

40-year license would occur in 2052. The NRC expects that any subsequent changes in the 

licensing and construction schedule could cause slight changes to certain analyses (e.g., air 

quality, socioeconomics, and cost-benefit) but would not affect the conclusions regarding 

impacts on these resource areas.

4.2 Preconstruction Activities and the Proposed Action

As described in Section 2.1 of this EIS, the proposed action is the construction, operation, and 

decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility. Under the proposed 

action, the NRC would issue a license to GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC in 

accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 70, 40, and 30 to possess and use 

by-product source and special nuclear material. 

The NRC has granted an exemption (NRC, 2009a) for GLE to conduct certain preconstruction 

activities without an NRC license to construct and operate the proposed GLE Facility. The NRC 

concluded that the request to perform these activities is authorized by law, will not endanger life 

or property or common defense and security, and is in the public interest. The preconstruction 

activities covered by the exemption include:

• Clearing of approximately 40 hectares (100 acres) for the proposed GLE Facility;

• Site grading and erosion control;

• Installation of a stormwater retention system;

• Construction of main access roadway and guardhouse(s);

• Placement of utilities (electricity, potable water, process water, water for fire suppression, 

sanitary sewer, and natural gas);

• Construction of parking lots and minor roadways; and

• Construction of administrative building(s) (GLE, 2009b). 

The NRC defines three significance levels for rating impacts on a resource (NRC, 2003):

• Small impact: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

• Moderate impact: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource.

• Large impact: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-3 NUREG-1938

No core production facilities would be constructed as part of the preconstruction activities. 

Since preconstruction and construction activities are closely related, these impacts are 

evaluated together and an estimate is provided regarding the apportionment of impacts between 

preconstruction activities (authorized under the exemption and separate from the proposed 

action) and construction as defined in 10 CFR 51.4. Therefore, the impacting activities are 

organized into three phases:

• preconstruction and construction activities

• facility operations

• decontamination and decommissioning

4.2.1 Land Use Impacts

Land use impacts occur when an area is committed in a way that precludes all other future land 

use or alters the land use of adjacent properties. Land use impacts also occur when activities 

take place that are incompatible with the zoning designated by county or State officials. Most of 

the project area currently contains mixed pine forest. The proposed GLE Facility project area is 

bordered to the east by GE’s Fuel Manufacturing Operation (FMO) plant and aircraft engine 

plant. To the west is the Northeast Cape Fear River. Residential developments are located to 

the northeast, east, and south. The project area under consideration is zoned by New Hanover 

County for heavy industrial use. West of the Northeast Cape Fear River is the L.V. Sutton 

Power Plant. The areas to the northeast, east, and south are zoned for residential 

development. The construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility 

are consistent with current zoning. The entire project area is owned by GE. The following 

sections discuss land use impacts resulting from various phases of the project.

4.2.1.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

As described in Section 1.4.1, preconstruction activities include clearing and grading of the land, 

vegetation removal, improvement of existing roads, and construction of support structures, 

among other activities. Preconstruction activities would remove the mixed pine forest. The 

current industrial land use of the proposed GLE Facility site would not change. Preconstruction 

activities would be consistent with current zoning and would not affect surrounding land use. 

Construction of the proposed GLE Facility would not be in conflict with current zoning and would 

not affect surrounding land use. Most activities would occur on the Wilmington Site, which has 

restricted access. Potential impacts outside of the property boundary could result from 

construction traffic. These impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.10. Construction activities will 

be temporary (see Section 2.1.5). The project area is identified in the Wilmington-New Hanover 

County Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) as a wetland and aquifer resource protection 

area. The designation as a wetland resource protection area is intended to limit the destruction 

of wetlands. No wetlands remain within the footprint of the project. Additionally, the aquifer 

would not be affected by construction activities. County officials have agreed that the resources 

identified in the CAMA plan are being appropriately considered and that construction, operation, 

and decommissioning of the facility are not expected to impact these resources (New Hanover 

County, 2009a). While the industrial use of the land would not change, land use impacts from 

preconstruction and construction activities would be SMALL. The estimated relative 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-4 February 2012

contributions to impacts are 50 percent during preconstruction activities and 50 percent during 

construction.

4.2.1.2 Facility Operations 

Operation of the proposed GLE Facility would not be in conflict with the current industrial zoning 

of the Wilmington Site. The operation of a uranium enrichment facility is a change from the 

current land cover (undeveloped forest). The proposed GLE Facility would be in an area that is 

zoned for heavy industrial use. It is possible that operation of the proposed GLE Facility could 

affect plans for nearby low-density residential land development to the north, east, and south. 

However, residential developments already exist in close proximity to the FMO plant, the GE 

aircraft engine plant, and the L.V. Sutton Power Plant. Operation of these facilities has not 

altered or affected surrounding land use. In addition, residential developments continue to be 

planned for the area (New Hanover County, 2009a). The greatest potential for impacts on land 

use would occur during operations because it would occur over the proposed 40-year license 

period. However, land use associated with operation of the proposed GLE Facility is consistent 

with other industrial development in the immediate area, which has not altered the surrounding 

land use. Therefore, overall impacts on land use from operations are expected to be SMALL.

4.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures

To mitigate land use impacts, GLE proposes to use existing service road routes and utility 

rights-of-way (to the fullest extent practicable) to minimize the need for clearing additional 

wooded areas, and to use existing wastewater treatment and solid waste management 

infrastructure (to the fullest extent practicable) to reduce the total area required for the proposed 

GLE Facility. In addition, the New Hanover County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control

Ordinance identifies best management practices (BMPs) for construction in New Hanover 

County (New Hanover County, 2007). The BMPs are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5.3. 

BMPs for construction would help moderate the short-term land use effects associated with 

preconstruction and construction activities. BMPs for controlling waste disposal, erosion, and 

runoff would help restrict the effect of facility operations on surrounding land use.

4.2.2 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as resources that are 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. The criteria for eligibility are listed in Title 36, “Parks, Forests, 

and Public Property,” Part 60, Section 4, “Criteria for Evaluation,” of the U.S. Code of Federal 

Regulations (36 CFR Part 60.4) and include (1) association with significant events in history; 

(2) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; (3) embodies distinctive 

characteristics of type, period, or construction, or (4) sites or places that have yielded or are 

likely to yield important information (ACHP, 2008). The historic preservation review process 

(Section 106 of the NHPA) is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) in Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” Part 800, “Protection of 

Historic Properties,” of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 800). The NRC is 

coordinating its Section 106 review through NEPA per 36 CFR 800.8(c). The area of potential 

effect for the project is defined as the 106-hectare (263-acre) study area. The NRC has 

consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the ACHP, and 

several American Indian tribes.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-5 NUREG-1938

Section 106 of the NHPA identifies the process for considering whether a project will affect a 

significant cultural resource. The Section 106 process requires consultation between the lead 

Federal agency and the SHPO, which is the custodian of information on cultural resources for 

the state. The Section 106 process also requires that Native American groups who have 

aboriginal ties to the project area be consulted to determine if resources important to the tribe 

are present.

Cultural resources, especially archaeological sites, are sensitive to disturbance and are 

nonrenewable. Much of the information possessed in an archaeological site is derived from the 

spatial relationships between soil layers and artifacts. Once these spatial relationships are 

altered, they can never be reclaimed. As a result, the greatest threats to archaeological 

resources are from ground-disturbing activities that will alter the spatial relationships. Most 

ground-disturbing activities would occur during preconstruction activities, when the site is 

cleared and prepared for construction.

4.2.2.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Preconstruction activities have the potential to impact historic and cultural resources. Groundclearing activities such as vegetation removal, grading and recontouring for drainage have the 

greatest potential for impacting historic and cultural resources. Much of the ground disturbance 

expected for the proposed GLE Facility would occur during preconstruction activities. The area 

that would be affected by preconstruction activities was surveyed for historic and cultural 

resources in 2008. Site 31NH801 was identified during the survey and was determined to be 

eligible for listing on the NRHP (GLE, 2008; NCDCR, 2009). The site is located adjacent to an

access road that was identified for the proposed GLE Facility in the original construction 

designs. GLE has since reconfigured the access roads for the facility and will no longer develop 

the road adjacent to site 31NH801 (GLE, 2009b); therefore, no impacts are expected to site 

31NH801 from preconstruction or construction activities. The newly defined areas were 

surveyed in 2009 and no additional NRHP-eligible cultural resources were identified

(ESI, 2009).

The North Carolina SHPO requested that it be contacted in the event of an unanticipated 

discovery of cultural resources during the project. The SHPO also requested that, in the event 

that human remains are found during project activities, the applicable procedures in North 

Carolina General Statute 70 Article 3 be followed (NCDCR, 2009). The statute requires that 

when unmarked remains are encountered, work cease immediately in the vicinity of the find and 

that work not be allowed to continue without authorization from either the county medical 

examiner or the State Archaeologist (N.C. General Statute 70.3(b)). GLE developed Common 

Procedure CP-24-201, Unexpected Discoveries of Artifacts or Human Remains, which was

reviewed by the North Carolina SHPO. The SHPO found the procedure to be adequate

(NCDCR, 2010).

No NRHP-eligible cultural resources are expected to be directly impacted by preconstruction 

activities. Construction of the proposed GLE Facility would take place on ground previously 

disturbed by preconstruction activities. No construction activities would occur in the portion of 

the Wilmington Site where historic and cultural resources are known to exist. If the location for 

the proposed GLE Facility changes, GLE would supplement its license. The NRC would 

evaluate whether the change would alter the area of potential effect, and would notify the North 

Carolina SHPO. 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-6 February 2012

Overall, the impacts on historic and cultural resources from both preconstruction activities and 

construction of the proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL to MODERATE, given the close 

proximity of significant resources and the possibility of an unanticipated discovery. While there 

is some potential for ground disturbance to occur in previously undisturbed areas during 

construction, most impacts on historic and cultural resources would occur during 

preconstruction (ground clearing). The estimated relative contributions to impacts are 

95 percent during preconstruction activities and 5 percent during construction.

4.2.2.2 Facility Operations 

Facility operations and maintenance activities at the proposed GLE Facility have the potential to 

affect historic and cultural resources. Operations could affect resources if expansion of the 

plant was deemed necessary in areas that contain historic and archaeological resources. 

Facility activities are not expected to affect site 31NH801. The North Carolina SHPO asked to 

review the measures that will be taken by GLE to ensure protection and preservation of 

site 31NH801 from future ground-disturbing activities (NCDCR, 2009). In response, GLE

developed Common Procedure CP-24-201, Unexpected Discoveries of Artifacts or Human 

Remains. Additionally, NRC proposed a license condition that would require GLE to consider 

the potential effects on historic and cultural resources from any ground-disturbing activities in 

unsurveyed areas of the proposed GLE Facility site. Based on the procedure and proposed 

license condition, the NRC determined that operational impacts would range from SMALL to 

MODERATE, given the proposed GLE Facility’s close proximity to significant historic and 

cultural resources and possibility for unanticipated discovery.

The NRC has determined that there would be no adverse effect to the historic resources from 

the proposed action. This determination is based on the license (if issued) containing the 

following condition:

Before engaging in any GLE developmental activity not previously assessed by the NRC 

in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed GE-Hitachi Global Laser 

Enrichment LLC Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina (NUREG-1938) that would 

physically disrupt or disturb inventoried cultural sites that have been designated eligible 

for the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to 36 CFR 60.4, the licensee shall, 

in consultation with the North Carolina SHPO, identify mitigation measures intended to 

preserve the integrity of these sites. The licensee shall inform the NRC of such 

mitigation measures prior to engaging in any work at the identified site(s).

Any work that results in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease 

in accordance with GLE Common Procedure CP-24-201, Unexpected Discoveries of 

Artifacts or Human Remains. The artifacts shall be inventoried and evaluated, and no 

disturbance of the area shall occur in accordance with CP-24-201.

All activities that affect cultural resources on the GLE site will be included in GLE’s 

annual environmental monitoring report.

Enforcement of this license condition is subject to the scope of the NRC's regulatory 

authority.

The North Carolina SHPO concurred with the NRC’s determination, based on the license 

(should one be issued) containing this condition (NCDCR, 2011).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-7 NUREG-1938

4.2.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No direct impacts on historic and cultural resources are expected. To protect site 31NH801, 

GLE posted signs stating that no unauthorized excavation is permitted. GLE also proposes to 

maintain the current graded and vegetated state of the bank at the side of the existing gravel 

road (GLE, 2008). GLE developed internal procedures (GLE Common Procedure CP-24-201)

for the protection of historic and cultural resources in the event of unanticipated discoveries 

and/or human remains (GLE, 2009h). In the event that cultural resources are discovered in the 

area of potential effect, GLE would implement these procedures, which include notification of 

State and local agencies, including the State Archaeologist. The NRC recommends the 

proposed license condition be included in the license to protect historic and cultural resources.

4.2.3 Visual and Scenic Impacts 

The following section discusses the potential visual impacts from preconstruction, construction, 

and operation of the proposed GLE Facility. Visual impacts would primarily occur during 

preconstruction and construction. Construction cranes, trucks, and the removal of vegetation 

represent the greatest potential for visual impacts.

4.2.3.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

As described in Section 1.4.1, actions associated with preconstruction include vegetation 

removal, grading, installation of utilities, and construction of support buildings, among other 

activities. Most visual impacts would result from vegetation removal and traffic in the northern 

portion of the Wilmington Site. The vegetation screen along the northern part of the site would 

not be altered by preconstruction activities. The greatest visual impacts would occur at

properties located along Dekker Road. Preconstruction traffic on the site access road would not 

be visible from Dekker Road. Increased traffic along Castle Hayne Road would be noticeable 

and temporary. 

Proposed GLE Facility construction activities would be limited to the Wilmington Site. Visual 

impacts could result from the increased traffic entering and leaving the site; however, these

impacts would be temporary. The main construction area is surrounded by a vegetation barrier. 

Therefore, construction activities at the Wilmington Site would be largely screened even from 

the residences along Dekker Road. Construction cranes would be visible from greater 

distances. However, these would only be temporary impacts. The construction cranes would 

be visible from I-140 and likely south of I-140 as well as Castle Hayne Road. 

Both preconstruction and construction activities would result in visual impacts. The estimated 

relative contributions to impacts are 25 percent during preconstruction activities and 75 percent 

during construction. Overall, the visual and scenic impact from preconstruction and construction 

activities would be SMALL. 

4.2.3.2 Facility Operations 

The two most visible features of the proposed GLE Facility would be the water tower at 

39.6 meters (130 feet) tall and a portion of the operations building referred to as the operations 

building tower. The operations building tower would have front and side profiles of 37 meters 

(120 feet) by 200 meters (660 feet). The height of the operations building tower will depend on 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-8 February 2012

the final process design; however, it could reach up to 49 meters (160 feet) above grade. The 

water tower would be visible from south of I-140 and from along Castle Hayne Road. The 

proposed water tower is the same height as the existing water tower, the top of which would be 

visible from south of I-140 (see Figure 3-3). Although the operations building tower could be 

approximately 10 meters (930 feet) taller than the water tower, it would be visible primarily from 

Castle Hayne Road and from the Wooden Shoe subdivision northeast of the Wilmington Site,

because the proposed facility is set back further within the Wilmington Site than the existing 

water tower. The new water tower and the operations building tower would not represent a 

major alteration of the existing visual environment. Portions of the new plant may be visible 

from I-140. The planting of additional vegetation on the perimeter of the plant after construction 

may minimize visual impacts. 

In Section 3.4, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual Resource Inventory process 

was applied to the study area. Based on that review, the industrial nature of the Wilmington Site

was found to have low scenic quality. The site of the proposed GLE Facility is located adjacent 

to existing industrial facilities and is not a pristine environment. Likewise, the project area is not 

in a location that is sensitive to visual intrusions.

Operations of the proposed GLE Facility would not represent a major alteration from the current 

setting. Visual impacts during facility operations would be SMALL.

4.2.3.3 Mitigation Measures

To mitigate impacts on visual and scenic resources, GLE proposes to locate the proposed GLE 

Facility away from site boundaries bordering on existing development along NC133 and I-140, 

maintain the existing tree buffer along the northeast Wilmington Site boundary to limit visibility of 

the proposed GLE Facility from offsite, and use exterior building colors and landscaping to

soften any visual impacts. Additional mitigation measures identified by NRC could include the 

planting of additional vegetation on the perimeter of the facility site to help screen the study 

area.

4.2.4 Air Quality Impacts

This section describes potential air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of 

the proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. Because certain activities that can 

cause air quality impacts may take place in more than one of the project phases described in 

Section 4.2, the lifespan of the GLE project is considered in four separate phases1for the air 

quality impacts analysis:

• access road construction and land clearing (does not include other preconstruction 

activities, such as ancillary building construction);

 

1

As discussed in Section 4.1, any subsequent changes to the project schedule could cause slight 

changes to the air impact analysis because of seasonal effects, but are not expected to change any of 

the impact conclusions.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-9 NUREG-1938

• building construction (including ancillary building construction that occurs as part of 

preconstruction activities);

2

• start-up and final construction (includes concurrent indoor construction with staged testing 

and start-up of process units as completed); and

• facility operations. 

Air emissions were estimated using the standard emission factor references followed by air 

dispersion modeling to estimate concentrations at and beyond the Wilmington Site boundaries. 

Potential impacts from access road construction, land clearing, building construction, and startup and final construction are presented in Section 4.2.4.1; those from facility operations are 

discussed in Section 4.2.4.2. Mitigation measures for these phases are presented in 

Section 4.2.4.3. Potential impacts from decontamination and decommissioning are discussed in 

Section 4.2.17.4. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are addressed in Section 4.2.18.

During the access road construction, land clearing, and building construction phases, the main 

source of emissions would be fugitive dust from soil disturbances. During the start-up and final 

construction phase and the operations phase, all non-radiological emissions would be small 

because no fossil fuels would be burned.

The applicant will obtain all required construction and operating air permits from the NCDENR.

4.2.4.1 Access Road Construction, Land Clearing, and Building Construction

Development of the proposed GLE Facility includes access road construction, land clearing, 

building construction activities (erection of main GLE buildings and ancillary buildings and 

structures), and start-up and final construction activities (concurrent indoor construction with 

staged testing and start-up of process units as completed). Construction would last 7–8 years, 

but facility operations would begin in 2014. Air quality impacts would be the highest during 

preconstruction activities and during the initial 2-year period of GLE Facility construction, which 

would include a high level of soil disturbance by heavy construction equipment. For air quality 

impact analysis, it is assumed that new onsite access road construction would take place during 

the two consecutive months of the year that result in the highest air quality impacts, followed by 

1 year or more of land clearing. Because these activities have been authorized by exemption 

(see Section 1.4.1), changes in the licensing schedule discussed in Section 4.1 are not 

expected to change the schedule of these preconstruction activities. 

During access road construction, land clearing, and building construction activities, air 

emissions of criteria pollutants,3volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and a small amount of 

 

2

For the purposes of estimating emission inventories and air quality modeling, the construction of 

ancillary structures, which falls under preconstruction, is grouped into building construction.

3

A list of six common air pollutants that are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) on the basis of certain criteria (i.e., information on human health and/or environmental effects of 

pollution). Criteria pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide 

(CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less 

and PM2.5 with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less), and lead (Pb).
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-10 February 2012

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (e.g., benzene) would be released. The primary source of 

emissions would be fugitive dust emissions from soil disturbances and engine exhaust 

emissions from heavy equipment and commuter, delivery, and support vehicular traffic traveling 

within, to, and from the facility. Small quantities of additional VOCs and HAPs emissions would 

also be released from the refueling and onsite maintenance of the off-road construction 

equipment, and from certain painting and other construction-finishing activities. 

For road construction, land clearing, and building construction activities, the primary concern is 

the potential air impact of fugitive dust that results from soil disturbances, such as site clearing, 

bulldozing, compacting, grading, and vehicular traffic on unpaved roads or bare grounds. These 

activities would involve the intense use of heavy equipment over a short time period. Air 

emissions from building construction such as erection of structures and equipment installation 

would be typically lower than those from road construction and land clearing. Wind erosion from 

material stockpiles and disturbed areas are also fugitive dust sources, especially under 

relatively high-wind conditions. Engine exhaust emissions from heavy equipment and vehicles 

would release small amounts of particulate matter (PM), mostly fine particles (PM2.5), which are 

different from large particulate matter (PM10) from mechanical soil disturbances. Potential 

impacts of fugitive dust emissions on ambient air quality would be high because of near-groundlevel release, if there is a short-distance buffer to the site boundaries.

Typically, source types, air pollutants, and their levels of emissions into the atmosphere would 

vary over the life of the project. The level of fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day 

and from location to location, depending on the specific type of operation involved, the level of 

activities, soil types, and prevailing meteorological conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,

atmospheric stability, recent precipitation). No information on the detailed time schedule, heavy 

equipment usage, and activity levels are available at this time. Detailed schedule, equipment 

usage, and activity levels typically become available when a construction contract is developed. 

General area-wide emission factors based on area of and duration of disturbances were used. 

A PM10 emission factor of 0.94 metric ton per hectare-month (0.42 ton per acre-month) was 

applied to large-scale earthmoving activities, such as road construction and land clearing, while 

a PM10 emission factor of 0.25 metric ton per hectare-month (0.11 ton per acre-month) was 

applied to building construction activities, such as erection of building structures and equipment 

installation (MRI, 1996). It is also assumed that 10 percent of PM10 emissions of fugitive dust is 

PM2.5 (Countess Environmental, 2006). For this analysis, a control efficiency of 74 percent is 

assumed during the road construction and land clearing phase (Countess Environmental, 2006). 

No dust control was assumed by GLE during the building construction phase. Dust emissions 

caused by wind erosion might be small at the Wilmington Site compared with other fugitive dust 

emissions and are not estimated. This is because of: (1) infrequent wind speeds high enough 

to trigger wind erosion; (2) natural mitigation due to a high number of precipitation days (over 

118 days per year with a precipitation ≥0.025 centimeter [0.01 inch]), and (3) tall trees 

surrounding the construction site acting as a wind barrier.

Engine exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles traveling to and from the Wilmington Site are 

estimated using emission factor motor vehicle model, MOBILE6.2 (EPA, 2003). Emission 

factors for off-road construction equipment were estimated using the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) nonroad emission factor model (EPA, 2004). Daily and annual 

emissions for criteria pollutants and VOCs are presented in Table 4-1. During the construction 

phase, exhaust emissions from heavy equipment and vehicular traffic, including sulfur oxide 

(SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and VOCs are relatively small. However, 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-11 NUREG-1938

Table 4-1 Estimated Air Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and VOCs

from Construction and Operation of the Proposed GLE Facilitya,b

Phase Source 

Location

Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)

SO2 NOx CO VOCs PM10 PM2.5

Early Construction

 Road Construction Onsite 0.14 74.3 51.4 6.00 76.4 19.3

Offsite 0.08 30.1 58.9 4.27 0.70 0.68

 Land Clearing Onsite 0.14 74.3 51.4 6.00 1395.9 151.2

Offsitec0.08 30.1 58.9 4.27 0.70 0.68

Building Construction Onsite 0.11 42.6 114.9 6.33 867.9 92.9

Offsite 0.76 235.2 505.7 35.3 6.29 6.10

Start-up and Final 

Construction

Onsite 1.28 16.2 55.6 2.75 13.9 13.9

Offsite 0.52 105.0 308.8 20.0 4.33 4.20

Operations Onsite 1.26 14.5 34.9 1.74 13.9 13.9

Offsite 0.31 41.2 170.6 10.4 2.57 2.49

Early Construction

 Road Constructione Onsite 0.004 2.23 1.54 0.18 2.29 0.58

Offsite 0.003 0.90 1.77 0.13 0.02 0.02

 Land Clearing Onsite 0.03 13.56 9.38 1.10 254.75 27.6

Offsite 0.02 5.50 10.75 0.78 0.13 0.12

Building Construction Onsite 0.02 7.64 20.6 1.14 155.8 16.7

Offsite 0.14 42.2 90.8 6.33 1.13 1.10

Start-up and Final 

Construction

Onsite 0.16 2.33 9.9 0.47 2.51 2.51

Offsite 0.10 19.2 56.4 3.64 0.79 0.77

Operations Onsite 0.15 2.01 6.11 0.29 2.50 2.50

Offsite 0.06 7.51 31.1 1.90 0.47 0.45

a CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤2.5 m; PM10 = 

particulate matter ≤10 m; SO2 = sulfur dioxide, and VOCs = volatile organic compounds.

b Detailed information on assumptions, emission factors, and calculations are described in 

Appendix E.

c Offsite emission sources include vehicular traffic traveling on roadways to and from the 

proposed GLE Facility site. 

d

Assume that construction and operations activities would occur on weekdays and weekends 

throughout the year, except no work schedule on six holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, 

Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day) during the construction 

phases. Annual emissions are not 365 times daily emissions due to the 2-month schedule of 

the road construction and due to intermittently operating emergency diesel generators during 

start-up and final construction phase and operations phase.

e

Annual estimates are based on two months of access road construction. 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-12 February 2012

as mentioned previously, fugitive dust emissions from soil disturbances, including PM, are a 

major concern during the construction phase and are about an order of magnitude higher than 

other criteria pollutant and VOC emissions. Detailed information on underlying assumptions, 

emission factors, and emission estimation methodology are described in Appendix E of this EIS.

For the air quality modeling analysis, the latest version of the AMS/EPA Regulatory MODel 

(AERMOD) model, Version 09292 (EPA, 2009a), which is the EPA’s preferred or recommended 

model for a wide range of regulatory applications, was used to estimate concentration 

increments at receptors at and beyond Wilmington Site boundaries as a result of air emissions 

from the proposed GLE Facility. 

Hourly surface and twice-daily upper sounding data from the nearest State Climate Office of 

North Carolina and National Weather Service (NWS) stations were used for the analysis. The 

nearest surface meteorological station is the Horticultural Crops Research Station, which is 

located about 3 kilometers (2 miles) directly east of the proposed GLE Facility. Surface 

characteristics for this station are representative of those for the proposed GLE Facility after 

tree removal, so this station is considered the primary meteorological station. Hourly surface 

meteorological data from Wilmington/New Hanover County Airport, which is located about 

8 kilometers (5 miles) southeast of the proposed GLE Facility, are also used to supplement the 

missing onsite data and to estimate boundary layer parameters. Twice-daily upper sounding 

data from Charleston, South Carolina,4 which is located about 249 kilometers (155 miles) 

southwest of the proposed GLE Facility, are used for estimating the heights of the convective 

boundary layer. Four years of meteorological data (2005 to 2008)5 were processed for input to 

the AERMOD. For the analysis, receptors at Wilmington Site boundaries are set densely (a few 

tens of meters) at northern boundaries where maximum concentrations of air pollutants are 

anticipated, and sparsely (a few hundreds of meters) at other site boundaries where lower 

concentrations of air pollutants are anticipated. Polar grid receptors are set up to 50 kilometers 

(31 miles) from the center of the proposed GLE Facility. Detailed information on assumptions, 

parameter selection, modeling inputs, and air dispersion modeling is available in Appendix E. 

Estimated maximum criteria pollutant concentrations during access road construction and land 

clearing are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. Concentration increments for sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and CO are predicted to be negligible. Predicted 

concentration increments for 24-hour and annual PM2.5 are less than 54 percent of their 

respective standards. Although the modeled 24-hour PM10 concentration increment would be 

less than 32 percent of the standard during access road construction, it would exceed the 

standard (about 186 percent) during land clearing activities.

 

4

An upper air station at Morehead City, North Carolina, is about 113 kilometers (70 miles) northeast of 

the proposed GLE Facility, closer than Charleston, South Carolina. However, the latter was chosen 

considering the similarity of distance and orientation to the ocean.

5

Per EPA’s modeling guidance (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W – Guideline on Air Quality Models), the 

most recent consecutive five years of meteorological data representative of the site of interest should 

be used when estimating concentrations with an air quality model. However, four years of data 

(2005 2008) were used for this analysis. A problem in wind direction measurements was found at the 

Horticultural Crops Research Station in 2004 and wind sensor was replaced in January, 2005. Wind 

roses for 2001 2004 at the station indicated that wind patterns vary significantly from the general 

patterns in the area, rendering data from this period unusable. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-13 NUREG-1938

Table 4-2 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with Road 

Construction Activities for the Proposed GLE Facility

Concentration (μg/m3)

b Percent of 

NAAQS/SAAQS

Pollutanta Averaging 

Time

Maximum 

Incrementc Backgroundd

Total NAAQS/

SAAQS Increment Total

SO2 3 hours 0.57 213.0 213.6 1300 0.044% 16.4%

24 hours 0.09 70.4 70.5 365 0.025% 19.3%

Annual 0.003 17.1 17.1 80 0.004% 21.4%

NO2 Annual 1.76 26.1 27.9 100 1.76% 27.9%

CO 1 hour 463.74 3543.0 4006.7 40,000 1.16% 10.0%

8 hours 81.97 2556.0 2638.0 10,000 0.82% 26.4%

PM10 24 hours 47.66 27.0 74.7 150 31.8% 49.8%

PM2.5 24 hours 7.04 25.4 32.4 35 20.1% 92.7%

Annual 0.28 9.0 9.3 15 1.9% 61.9%

a CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤2.5 m; PM10 = particulate 

matter ≤10 m; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide.

b To convert μg/m3

to ppm for gaseous pollutants, such as SO2, NO2, and CO, divide values in μg/m3by product of 

40.82 and molecular weight.

c For short-term (≤ 24 hours) averages, second-highest modeled concentrations among site boundary and offsite 

receptors except 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5. For PM10, highest of the 5th-highest over 4 years (2005–2008) was 

presented. For PM2.5, the highest of the 4-year average of the 8th-highest concentration at each receptor is 

presented. For annual averages, highest annual average concentrations over 4 years are presented.

d Source: Buckler, 2009.

To obtain the total concentrations for comparison to applicable air quality standards, modeled 

concentration increments were added to measured background concentrations representative of 

the Wilmington Site (Buckler, 2009). For SO2, NO2, and CO, background concentrations, not 

GLE sources, account for most of the total concentrations. The total concentrations would be 

less than 28 percent of their respective standards. The total concentration for annual PM2.5 is 

estimated to be less than 78 percent of its applicable standard. Total 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations would exceed the standard (about 126 percent), but the contribution from 

background would be higher than from GLE emissions. Total 24-hour PM10 concentrations 

would be above the applicable standard, about 204 percent. Note that the concentration 

increment causes 24-hour PM10 exceedances irrespective of background concentration, while 

the sum of background concentration and the project-related increment contributes to exceeding 

the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Maximum PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations associated with road 

construction and land clearing activities are predicted to occur at the proximate northern 

boundary of the Wilmington Site near the proposed GLE Facility (less than 50 meters [164 feet] 

from the boundary) and would last for the duration of land clearing activities. Comparably high 

PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are also predicted at the northern Site boundary near the 

Wooden Shoe residential subdivision, close to which the North access road would be located 

(about 25 meters [82 feet] from the boundary). These high concentrations would result from 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-14 February 2012

Table 4-3 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with Land-Clearing 

Activities for the Proposed GLE Facility

Concentration (μg/m3)

b Percent of 

NAAQS/SAAQS

Pollutanta Averaging 

Time

Maximum 

Incrementc Backgroundd

Total NAAQS/

SAAQS Increment Total

SO2 3 hours 0.24 213.0 213.2 1300 0.019% 16.4%

24 hours 0.04 70.4 70.4 365 0.010% 19.3%

Annual 0.004 17.1 17.1 80 0.004% 21.4%

NO2 Annual 1.87 26.1 28.0 100 1.87% 28.0%

CO 1 hour 148.47 3543.0 3691.5 40,000 0.37% 9.2%

8 hours 33.12 2556.0 2589.1 10,000 0.33% 25.9%

PM10 24 hours 279.06 27.0 306.1 150 186.0% 204.0%

PM2.5 24 hours 18.74 25.4 44.1 35 53.5% 126.1%

Annual 2.70 9.0 11.7 15 18.0% 78.0%

a CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤2.5 m; PM10 = particulate 

matter ≤10 m; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide.

b To convert μg/m3

to ppm for gaseous pollutants, such as SO2, NO2, and CO, divide values in μg/m3by product of 

40.82 and molecular weight.

c For short-term (≤ 24 hours) averages, second-highest modeled concentrations among site boundary and offsite 

receptors except 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5. For PM10, highest of the 5th-highest over 4 years (2005–2008) was 

presented. For PM2.5, the highest of the 4-year average of the 8th-highest concentration at each receptor is 

presented. For annual averages, highest annual average concentrations over 4 years are presented.

d Source: Buckler, 2009.

fugitive dust emissions during road construction and vehicle traffic on unpaved roads during 

land clearing activities.

Estimated maximum pollutant concentrations during the building construction phase are 

presented in Table 4-4. Maximum concentration levels and patterns are similar to those for 

access road construction and land clearing activities. Concentration increments for SO2, NO2, 

and CO are predicted to be negligible and their total concentrations are well below their 

respective standards. Total annual PM2.5 concentration would be below its respective standard. 

However, total 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations would be above their respective 

standards (about 201 percent and 123 percent, respectively). These exceedances would occur 

at the proximate northern boundary of the Wilmington Site near the proposed GLE Facility. 

Unlike impacts during access road construction and land clearing, concentrations at the 

northern Site boundary, near the North access road and Wooden Shoe residential subdivision, 

would be about an order of magnitude lower than at the northern Site boundary near the 

proposed GLE Facility. This is due to paving of the unpaved access road near the end of the 

road construction and land clearing phase.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-15 NUREG-1938

Table 4-4 Maximum Air Quality Impacts Due to Emissions Associated with Building 

Construction Activities for the Proposed GLE Facility

Concentration (μg/m3)

b Percent of 

NAAQS/SAAQS

Pollutanta Averaging 

Time

Maximum 

Incrementc Backgroundd

Total NAAQS/

SAAQS Increment Total

SO2 3 hours 0.33 213.0 213.3 1300 0.026% 16.4%

24 hours 0.06 70.4 70.5 365 0.016% 19.3%

Annual 0.012 17.1 17.1 80 0.015% 21.4%

NO2 Annual 1.64 26.1 27.7 100 1.64% 27.7%

CO 1 hour 1057.28 3543.0 4600.3 40,000 2.64% 11.5%

8 hours 242.69 2556.0 2798.7 10,000 2.43% 28.0%

PM10 24 hours 274.63 27.0 301.6 150 183.1% 201.1%

PM2.5 24 hours 17.64 25.4 43.0 35 50.4% 123.0%

Annual 2.40 9.0 11.4 15 16.0% 76.0%

a CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤2.5 m; PM10 = particulate 

matter ≤10 m; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide.

b To convert μg/m3

to ppm for gaseous pollutants, such as SO2, NO2, and CO, divide values in μg/m3by product of 

40.82 and molecular weight.

c For short-term (≤ 24 hours) averages, second-highest modeled concentrations among site boundary and offsite 

receptors except 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5. For PM10, highest of the 5th-highest over 4 years (2005–2008) was 

presented. For PM2.5, the highest of the 4-year average of the 8th-highest concentration at each receptor is 

presented. For annual averages, highest annual average concentrations over 4 years are presented.

d Source: Buckler, 2009.

During access road construction, land clearing, and building construction activities, potential 

impacts of SO2, NO2, and CO emissions from heavy equipment and vehicles on ambient air 

quality would be well below the applicable ambient air quality standards. These impacts on 

ambient air quality would be anticipated to be SMALL. However, total (background plus 

modeled) 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations mostly resulting from fugitive dust emissions 

are predicted to exceed the standards at the proximate northern site boundaries near the 

proposed GLE Facility during land clearing and building construction activities. In addition, high 

PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at the northern Site boundary near the Wooden Shoe residential 

subdivision result from fugitive dust emissions from vehicle traffic on the unpaved North access 

road during land clearing activities. These exceedances would occur when the wind blows from 

the directions ranging from south to west. Most of these exceedances are associated with a 

couple of hours of high concentrations in the early morning in colder months (late fall to early 

spring), typical of low wind speeds, stable conditions, and relatively low mixing height. The 

access road construction, land clearing, and building construction activities are assumed to last 

two months, 1 year or more, and 2 years, respectively. Accordingly, potential air quality impacts 

during road construction, land clearing, and building construction activities are expected to be 

MODERATE but temporary in nature. Although natural mitigation of fugitive dust emissions is 

considerably high due to high rates of precipitation in the area, aggressive dust control 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-16 February 2012

measures should be implemented during road construction, land clearing, and building 

construction activities to minimize potential air quality impacts, as discussed in Section 4.2.4.3.

Estimated emissions from engine exhaust and vehicular traffic during the start-up and final 

construction phase, which is assumed to last from 2014 to 2020, would be comparable to those 

during road construction, land clearing, and building construction activities. However, PM 

emissions are more than an order of magnitude lower than the previous two phases. 

Accordingly, start-up and final construction activities would have SMALL impacts on ambient air 

quality for all criteria pollutants.

Concentration increments for the two remaining criteria pollutants, lead (Pb) and ozone (O3), 

were not modeled. As a direct result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline in automobiles, 

average lead concentrations in urban areas throughout the country have decreased 

dramatically. It is expected that lead and ozone-precursor emissions from construction of the 

proposed GLE Facility would be negligible, and would therefore have SMALL impacts on 

surrounding areas. 

The high ozone concentrations of regional concern are associated with precursor emissions 

(nitrogen oxides [NOx] and VOCs) locally and long-range transport of precursor-laden air 

masses from neighboring areas under favorable meteorological conditions, such as high 

temperatures, low wind speeds, intense solar radiation, and an absence of precipitation. The 

New Hanover County encompassing the proposed GLE Facility is currently in attainment for 

ozone (40 CFR 81.334) but monitored 8-hour ozone levels in the area approach or are just 

below the standard (see Table 3-9). Ozone precursor emissions during the three construction 

phases would be relatively small. As shown in Table 4-1, the highest emissions would occur 

during the building construction phase, about 45.2 metric tons per year (49.9 tons per year) for 

NOx and 6.8 metric tons per year (7.5 tons per year) for VOCs, which are about 0.7 percent and 

0.3 percent of total emissions in New Hanover County, respectively. These emissions would be 

much lower than those for the regional airshed6in which emitted precursors are transported and 

formed into ozone. Accordingly, potential impacts of ozone precursor releases from all 

construction phases of the proposed GLE Facility on regional ozone would be SMALL.

4.2.4.2 Facility Operations 

No criteria pollutants would be generated during operation of the proposed GLE Facility 

because no combustion is involved. A new operating permit would be required for the proposed 

GLE Facility. However, criteria pollutant and HAP emission rates are expected to be small 

during the operations phase, and thus, the proposed GLE Facility would not be a major source 

of air emissions as defined under the EPA and North Carolina Department of Air Quality 

(NCDAQ) air permit requirements. The laser uranium enrichment process would occur inside 

the main GLE building. Short-term uranium-related and/or hydrogen fluoride (HF) emissions 

would occur during the process and be drawn into the ventilation system with a series of 

emission control devices such as high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters for ≥99.8 percent 

removal of PM, and activated carbon beds for ≥99 percent removal of HF. Then, the air stream 

would be released into the atmosphere through a single building roof stack; accordingly, air 

emissions through the stack would be minimal. Potential impacts associated with radiological 

and hazardous emissions are addressed in Section 4.2.11. No continuous combustion sources 

 

6

A geographical area that shares the same air due to topography, meteorology, and climate.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-17 NUREG-1938

for space heating (such as boilers) would be needed, because most of the heat generated by 

the process lasers would be used for building space heating. The only stationary combustion 

sources at the proposed GLE Facility would be two 382-horsepower auxiliary emergency diesel 

generator units. These units will be operating on an intermittent basis to provide backup electric 

power to the proposed GLE Facility in the event of power outage or load-shedding,

7

and to 

conduct routine maintenance testing. Based on air permit conditions for the existing emergency 

diesel generators at the Wilmington Site, the permitted number of operating hours per year is 

240. However, actual operating hours would vary depending on the number and duration of 

power disruptions. The other stationary sources are two mechanical-draft cooling towers, which 

will not be a source of the typical combustion-related criteria pollutants or other toxic emissions,

but emit small amounts of particulate matter as drift.

Other onsite miscellaneous sources include uranium hexafluoride (UF6)-cylinder handling 

activities and routine equipment maintenance. Accidental releases associated with UF6-cylinder 

handling activities would be possible, and associated emissions could be much higher than 

those from a process building stack. Potential impacts of these releases are addressed in 

Sections 4.2.11 and 4.2.15. Dedicated onsite transfer vehicles (OSTVs)8 would be used to ferry 

the UF6 cylinders between the proposed GLE Facility’s main operations buildings and cylinder 

storage yards. Small quantities of organic solvents and lubricants would be used for process 

equipment and vehicle maintenance. 

Mobile sources along the onsite roadways including commuting and delivery vehicles traveling 

to and from the proposed GLE Facility and existing FMO facility would also contribute 

emissions. Fugitive dust emissions from the disturbed areas during operations would be 

minimal because most working areas and roadways within the proposed GLE Facility would be 

paved.

As shown in Table 4-1, estimated emissions during the operations phase are presented for 

comparison along with construction emissions. Auxiliary diesel generator units account for most 

of SO2 and NOx emissions from onsite operations, while onsite gasoline-engine traffic is a 

primary contributor to CO and VOC emissions. Two mechanical-draft cooling towers account 

for most of the PM emissions. Emissions during the operations phase are lower than those

during the start-up and final construction phase, and PM emissions are more than an order of 

magnitude lower than those during access road construction, land clearing, and building 

construction activities. Accordingly, potential air quality impacts of criteria pollutants resulting 

from operation of the proposed GLE Facility would be anticipated to be SMALL. Potential 

impacts of uranium and hydrogen fluoride emissions on public and occupational health 

associated with operation of the proposed GLE Facility are presented in Section 4.2.11.

As discussed in Section 4.2.4.1, lead emissions from construction of the proposed GLE Facility 

are expected to be negligible, and would therefore have no adverse impacts on surrounding 

areas.

 

7

A program to cut off the electric current on certain large industrial electricity users during times of peak 

demand under a prearranged agreement.

8 Diesel-powered forklifts are the primary option, but other options, such as propane- and electricpowered OSTVs are also under consideration.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-18 February 2012

Ozone precursor emissions during operation of the proposed GLE Facility would be relatively 

small, about 8.6 metric tons per year (9.5 tons per year) for NOx and 2.0 metric tons per year 

(2.2 tons per year) for VOCs, which are less than 0.13 percent and 0.09 percent of total 

emissions in New Hanover County, respectively. These emissions would be much lower than 

those for the regional airshed in which emitted precursors are transported and formed into 

ozone. Accordingly, potential impacts of O3 precursor releases from facility operations on the 

regional ozone would not be of concern.

4.2.4.3 Mitigation Measures

As discussed above, air quality impacts are generally expected to be SMALL. However, 

potentially MODERATE air quality impacts of short duration are possible during road 

construction, land clearing, and building construction activities. To minimize potential air quality 

impacts during road construction, land clearing, building construction, start-up and final 

construction, operations, and decommissioning, best available practices should be 

implemented. Air emissions would need to comply with applicable laws, ordinances, 

regulations, and standards. Fugitive dust emissions and other combustion-related emissions 

would need to be controlled through stipulations included in the permitting processes. Below

are mitigation measures that GLE has committed to implementing (GLE, 2008) and additional

mitigation measures identified by NRC that could potentially reduce or minimize impacts.

Mitigation Measures for Road Construction, Land Clearing, and Building Construction

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

• Water the facility site and unpaved roads to reduce dust.

• Remove dirt from truck tires by driving over a gravel pad prior to leaving the facility site or 

unpaved access road to avoid spreading sediments on paved roads.

• Cover trucks carrying soil and debris to reduce dust emissions from the back of trucks 

driving on roadways.

• Pave access road and parking lots as soon as practicable.

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

• Post speed limits (e.g., 10 miles per hour) visibly within the construction site, and enforce 

them to minimize airborne fugitive dust.

• Limit access to the construction site and staging areas to authorized vehicles only, through 

the designated treated roads.

• Stage construction to limit the exposed/disturbed area at any given time, when practical.

• Train workers to comply with the speed limit, use good engineering practices, minimize drop 

height of materials, minimize disturbed areas, and employ other BMPs as appropriate.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-19 NUREG-1938

• To the extent practicable, conduct soil-disturbing activities and travel on unpaved roads 

during periods of favorable meteorological conditions, as conducting these activities during 

periods of unfavorable meteorological conditions9 may result in exceedances of air quality 

standards. Unfavorable meteorological conditions are infrequent and include (1) periods of 

low winds, stable, and relatively low mixing height conditions (primarily encountered around 

sunrise in colder months from late fall to early spring) and (2) periods of high winds.

• All heavy equipment should meet emission standards specified in the State Code of 

Regulations, and routine preventive maintenance, including tuneup to the manufacturer’s 

specification, should be implemented to ensure efficient combustion and minimum 

emissions.

• Fuel all diesel engines used in the facility and auxiliary diesel generator units with ultra-low 

sulfur diesel with a sulfur content of 15 parts per million or less.

• Limit idling of diesel equipment to no more than 10 minutes, unless idling must be 

maintained for proper operation; for example, drilling, hoisting, and trenching.

• Because GLE assumed a dust control efficiency of 55 percent (applying water twice per day 

for the unpaved North access road during land clearing), more aggressive dust control 

measures should be implemented (for the entire unpaved access road or for the segments 

that most contribute to exceedances) to minimize potential dust impacts at the Wilmington 

Site boundary and the nearby Wooden Shoe residential subdivision. Options include more 

frequent water spraying (e.g., at every 2-hour watering interval) and the application of a dust 

suppressant. Selection of the proper dust suppressant should be based on road conditions, 

environmental impacts (including surface and groundwater quality), and cost (Bolander and 

Yamada, 1999).

Mitigation Measures for Operation

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

• Conduct uranium-enrichment operations inside an enclosed building using a closed-system 

process with no routine venting of process gases.

• Install and operate leak-detection monitors for process equipment. In the event a leak is 

detected due to an equipment component malfunction or other reason, safety interlocks will 

isolate the section of the process where the leak is detected, limiting the potential quantity of 

gaseous material that could be released inside the proposed GLE Facility’s operations 

building.

• Maintain process areas inside the operations building under continuous negative pressure 

relative to atmospheric pressure. In the event of a gaseous release in one of these process 

areas, the negative pressure conditions would prevent outflow of the air from the process 

areas, effectively containing the released gaseous material to the affected process area.

 

9

Stable meteorological conditions limit dilution of airborne pollutants, which can lead to potentially high 

pollutant concentrations at the ground level. High winds are unfavorable due to the increased 

potential for fugitive dust emissions.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-20 February 2012

• Ventilate the operations building with a high-efficiency, multi-stage air emissions control 

system. Components of the air emissions control system planned for the operations 

building consist of high-efficiency particulate arresting (HEPA) filters for removal of solid 

particulate matter and activated carbon beds for adsorption of HF. Exhaust gases from this 

emission-control system would be vented to the atmosphere through a single stack.

• Implement a periodic inspection and maintenance program for uranium hexafluoride (UF6) 

cylinders stored in outdoor areas.

• Burn low-sulfur fuel oil in the auxiliary diesel generators.

• Store organic solvents, paints, and other volatile organic compound–containing liquids in 

containers covered with tightly fitting lids.

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

No additional mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts on ambient air quality from the 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility are proposed by NRC.

4.2.5 Geology and Soil Impacts

Potential environmental impacts on geologic resources and soils during preconstruction, 

construction, and operation of the proposed GLE Facility are described in this section. Potential 

impacts include soil erosion due to ground disturbance and changes in drainage. Section 3.6 of 

this EIS provides a description of site soils and the geologic setting.

4.2.5.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

As described in Section 1.4.1, preconstruction activities would include clearing of about 

40 hectares (100 acres) at the proposed GLE site (GLE, 2009b), among other activities. 

Because the site is generally level, regrading would be minimal. Additional activities may 

include construction of a wet detention basin and topsoil stripping and stockpiling. These 

ground-disturbing activities would result in short-term soil erosion, which could be minimized by 

following BMPs, including but not limited to the use of silt fencing, reseeding of areas, and 

proper construction of drainages and culverts. These activities are controlled by the New 

Hanover County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (New Hanover County, 2007), 

which authorizes permits as appropriate.

Under the proposed action, approximately 91 hectares (226 acres) of land would be disturbed in 

the Wilmington Site’s North-Central and Eastern Site Sectors, including the approximately 

40 hectares (100 acres) described above for the proposed GLE site in the north-central site 

sector, plus about 5 hectares (13 acres) for support structures to the east and about 13 hectares 

(33 acres) associated with the North access road.

Soil-related aspects of the construction phase would include soil excavation for foundations and 

buried utility lines, soil storage and removal, and stormwater management. These activities are 

controlled by the New Hanover County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance 

(New Hanover County, 2007), which authorizes permits as appropriate. Most of the project area 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-21 NUREG-1938

is Murville sand, Leon sand, and Onslow loamy fine sand soil types (USDA, 2012), and the 

erosion potential of each of them is slight (USMC, 2009). 

Preconstruction and construction vehicles and equipment could leak fuel, oil, or grease to site 

soils. Following BMPs, as discussed in Section 4.2.5.3, would reduce the associated impacts.

Preconstruction and construction activities would not impact site geologic resources because 

the site lacks significant geologic resources. Construction activities would require crushed 

stone and/or sand and gravel from offsite sources for use in construction of roads and buildings.

Overall, the impact on geology and soil is considered SMALL. The estimated relative 

contributions to the soil-related impacts are 50 percent during preconstruction activities and 

50 percent during construction. These figures are estimated based on assumed similar 

disturbed land footprints and equipment use during both phases for similar durations.

4.2.5.2 Facility Operations 

During proposed GLE Facility operations, soil disturbance would take place at a reduced level, 

as some construction projects would be completed while others would be ongoing. Restoration 

and seeding of cleared land would need to occur to limit erosion due to stormwater. Roads, 

parking lots, and roofs would create impervious surfaces and increase runoff, consequently 

increasing the erosion potential. Large storm events could create erosion along drainages or at 

culverts, causing a need for maintenance or drainage system improvement. Proper site 

development and culvert design would limit this impact. The county notifies owners of deficient 

components of a stormwater system (New Hanover County, 2009c). Correction is the 

responsibility of the owner, otherwise the county would mitigate and recover costs from the 

owner. 

Vehicles and equipment used in unpaved areas could leak fuel, oil, or grease to site soils. 

Following BMPs, as discussed in Section 4.2.5.3, would reduce the associated impacts.

Groundwater extraction is expected to have a minimal effect on groundwater levels, and the 

associated degree of subsidence is expected to be negligible. Other geologic hazards to the 

site (e.g., volcano, tsunami, landslide, radon gas, methane gas, subsidence due to mining) are 

not anticipated. The overall impact on geology or soil during operations is expected to be 

SMALL.

4.2.5.3 Mitigation Measures

GLE proposes to employ a number of measures to mitigate impacts on soil and geological 

resources (GLE, 2008), including:

• minimize the size of the construction footprint

• minimize soil disturbance

• use of soils from onsite borrow pits that are accessible via existing roadbeds if additional soil 

is needed
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-22 February 2012

• management of construction activities so that only designated areas within the GLE study 

area are disturbed and no heavy equipment or construction operations are allowed to affect 

areas outside the study area unless specifically designated

• use of adequate containment methods during excavation

• use of site-stabilization practices (e.g., placing crushed stone on top of disturbed soil in 

areas of concentrated runoff)

• use of silt berms, dikes, and sediment fences

• stabilization of drainage culverts and ditches by lining with rock aggregate/rip-rap to reduce 

flow velocity and prohibit scouring

• reuse and/or appropriate placement of excavated materials to decrease exposed soil piles

• placement of gravel construction pads at the entrance/exits of construction areas

• stabilization of the site with low-maintenance landscaping and pavement

In addition, the New Hanover County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (New 

Hanover County, 2007) contains BMPs for control of soil and sediment. For erosion control, 

BMPs include but are not limited to the use of silt fencing, reseeding of disturbed areas, 

minimizing soil disturbance during the construction phase through planning and engineering 

design, and proper construction of drainages and culverts. Implementation of BMPs would limit 

the impact of soil erosion and soil contamination. Soil-disturbing activities are controlled by the 

New Hanover County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, which authorizes permits 

as appropriate. The county will periodically inspect land-disturbing activities at a site to ensure 

compliance with the permit. Failure to conform to the permit would lead to issuance of a Notice 

of Violation to GLE from New Hanover County, and continuing violations would lead to the 

imposition of penalties assessed against GLE (New Hanover County, 2007). Implementation of 

proper, generally accepted BMPs for storage, handling, spill prevention, and spill response 

would reduce the impact of contamination associated with fuels, oils, and grease from 

equipment used onsite (or from other chemicals or wastes managed onsite).

4.2.6 Surface Water Resources Impacts

This section discusses the assessment of potential environmental impacts on surface water 

during preconstruction activities, construction, and operation of the proposed GLE Facility. The 

discussion includes the potential impact due to turbidity from soil erosion and contaminants in 

runoff. 

4.2.6.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Preconstruction activities are expected to include the construction of a stormwater wet detention 

basin and the clearing of approximately 40 hectares (100 acres) of land at the proposed GLE 

Facility site. As discussed in Sections 4.2.5.1 and 4.2.5.3, BMPs would be implemented and 

the process would be inspected by the county so that soil erosion and the associated increase 

to turbidity would be minimized. Still, a short-term decrease in surface water quality in unnamed 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-23 NUREG-1938

tributaries of Prince George Creek and the Northeast Cape Fear River and potentially the creek 

and river themselves may be realized due to sedimentation and turbidity associated with erosion 

during preconstruction and construction activities.

Currently, the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 

requires the permittee to monitor daily rainfall, visually inspect runoff outfalls on a regular basis, 

and thoroughly document monitoring activities and data (NCDENR, 2009b). Recent EPA rules 

address stormwater runoff at construction sites (EPA 2009d). As of August 2011, all sites that 

disturb 20 or more acres will require self-monitoring on a regular basis and will need to meet the 

EPA’s effluent limitation guidelines for turbidity of 280 nephelometric turbidity units. The 

NCDENR issued a new general permit for construction activities, effective January 1, 2010 

(NCDENR, 2009b), but the turbidity monitoring requirements are not included. The NCDENR

general permit will be updated before August 2011 to include those requirements.

Construction of the proposed facility would involve new buildings, parking lots, UF6 storage 

areas, and landscaping. Excavations for foundations or buried utility lines would lead to 

possible short-term soil erosion problems with associated impacts on surface water quality. 

Again, BMPs would be expected to minimize the impacts, as discussed in Section 4.2.5.3.

The proposed North access road would have a new stream crossing at a tributary of Prince 

George Creek and possibly change a jurisdictional channel. This could lead to erosion and 

increased sediment load. Following BMPs for this type of action would minimize the impact.

Use of construction vehicles and equipment during preconstruction or construction activities 

poses the possibility of leaks or spills of fuels, oil, or grease, which could run off and impact 

surface water in the unnamed tributaries of Prince George Creek and the Northeast Cape Fear 

River and potentially the creek and river themselves. As described in Section 4.2.6.3, BMPs for 

storing and handling these liquids and for dealing with such releases would limit or eliminate 

their effect on surface water quality. Because of the distance from the main work area to the 

drainages, it is unlikely that a minor spill would directly reach the Northeast Cape Fear River or 

Prince George Creek. Infiltration into site soil would likely eliminate runoff of the liquid. 

Preliminary plans for the proposed GLE Facility include a holding pond to receive stormwater 

runoff from the UF6 storage pads (tails), a State-permitted stormwater wet detention basin, a 

small cooling tower for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, a water 

tower for potable and perhaps process water, and a firewater pond. The design of the 

stormwater wet detention basin is not finalized, but it would be constructed according to State 

and County requirements (GLE, 2009f). It would likely have a clay liner and be designed for a 

25-year storm event (GLE, 2009f). The holding pond for the UF6 storage pad is anticipated to 

be approximately 3 acres, have a clay liner, and be designed in consultation with the State 

Department of Water Quality (GLE, 2009f). Overflow from these basins would presumably be 

routed to the effluent channel or to the natural drainage fed by the effluent channel.

The overall impact on surface water quality during preconstruction and construction activities is 

expected to be SMALL due to the nature of the work activities, the site soil characteristics and 

slopes, and the use of generally implemented BMPs to negate the effect of potential problems 

from erosion, spills, etc. The estimated relative contributions of these impacts are 50 percent 

during preconstruction activities and 50 percent during construction. These figures are 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-24 February 2012

estimated based on assumed similar disturbed land footprints and equipment use during both 

phases for similar durations. 

4.2.6.2 Facility Operations 

A process wastewater effluent rate of about 35,000 gallons per day would result from the 

proposed action and be discharged at existing Outfall 001. The flow would include 5000 gallons 

per day of liquid radwaste (from decontamination, cleaning, and laboratory activities) and 

30,000 gallons per day of noncontact cooling tower blowdown (GLE, 2008). The liquid radwaste 

would be pretreated in the proposed GLE Facility liquid effluent treatment system before 

transfer to the existing Wilmington Site final process lagoon wastewater treatment facility. The 

treatment process is very similar to that already in use at the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2009f). 

Steps in the process would include pH adjustment to precipitate uranium, addition of a 

flocculent, filtering and drying of uranium floc (flakes of precipitate), and offsite disposal of the 

resulting solids. The site’s process wastewater volume would increase by 7 percent over the 

2006 level, which is the latest data available (GLE, 2008). Treatment steps would produce an 

effluent with concentrations similar to those of current process wastewaters (GLE, 2008; 

GLE 2009f).

The wastewater treatment and industrial reuse system already in place at the Wilmington Site 

would receive the sanitary effluent from the proposed GLE Facility for use in the cooling tower. 

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit remains valid if 

discharge to Outfall 002 becomes necessary in the future (GLE, 2008).

Stormwater runoff would be collected in a wet detention basin before discharge to a stream. 

Stormwater during the operational phase would be regulated by a NPDES permit, which would 

include a stormwater pollution prevention plan.

If radioactivity were detected in the UF6 storage pad’s stormwater holding pond, the contents 

would be allowed to settle and precipitate. Liquid would be pumped out and taken to the GLE 

liquid effluent treatment system. Residual solids would then be analyzed and, if necessary, 

disposed of as low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) at the EnergySolutions facility in Utah 

(GLE, 2008). When monitoring demonstrates a lack of radioactivity, the holding pond’s effluent 

would be discharged to the stormwater wet detention basin and ultimately to the effluent 

channel above the dam.

Following construction of the North Road, together with completion of associated stream 

crossings, any increase in turbidity and sediment loading to streams realized during the 

preconstruction and construction phases would subside during the operational phase. Oil, 

grease, metals, and other automotive-related contaminants would be present in limited 

quantities due to general traffic.

The use of herbicides at the proposed facility’s landscaped areas would be similar to their use 

elsewhere at the Wilmington Site. BMPs regarding the use of such chemicals would limit their 

impact on surface water quality.

No consumptive surface water use would take place during the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-25 NUREG-1938

Watershed modeling suggests that runoff at the proposed GLE Facility would increase by 

36 percent over the current conditions in undeveloped land (GLE, 2008). This runoff would be 

detained in the wet detention basin designed for a 25-year storm. This basin would be designed 

during final design of the proposed GLE Facility, in compliance with State water quality 

treatment regulations and county regulations (GLE, 2009f). State regulations require treatment 

of the first 1.5 inches of rain to remove 85 percent of total suspended solids. New Hanover 

County (New Hanover County, 2009c) requires peak control of 2-, 10-, and 25-year storms to 

the predevelopment condition.

During operations, some construction projects would be completed while others would be 

ongoing. The potential increase in turbidity in site drainages would take place at a level 

proportional to the intensity and areal extent of soil disturbance. Restoration and seeding of 

cleared land would need to occur to limit erosion due to stormwater. Roads, parking lots, and 

roofs would create impervious surfaces and increase runoff, consequently increasing the 

erosion potential. Large storm events could create erosion along drainages or at culverts, 

causing a need for maintenance or drainage system improvement. 

Overall, the impact on surface water during operations is anticipated to be SMALL due to 

planned systems for runoff, treatment, and monitoring and experience with the existing 

Wilmington Site facilities.

4.2.6.3 Mitigation Measures

GLE proposes to employ a number of measures to mitigate impacts on surface water resources 

(GLE, 2008), including:

• selection of a non-wetland, non-floodplain area for the proposed facility

• implementation of proper construction BMPs as specified by the New Hanover County 

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (New Hanover County, 2007)

• construction of the access road perpendicular to Unnamed Tributary #1 to minimize the 

impacted area

• design and construction of the upgraded crossing following procedures required by the New 

Hanover County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (New Hanover County, 2006)

• limitation of cut/fill slopes to a horizontal-vertical ratio of three to one or less

• use of silt fencing and covering soil stockpiles to prevent sediment runoff

• suspension of general construction activities during storms and impending precipitation

• construction of stream crossings (i.e., installation of culverts) following at least 48 hours of 

dry weather

• diversion of stream flow during stream-crossing construction to minimize excavation in 

flowing water
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-26 February 2012

• maintenance of construction equipment to avoid visible leaks of oil, greases, or hydraulic 

fluids

• restoration of disturbed areas to original surface elevations, where possible

• compliance with all NPDES stormwater and wastewater permit requirements

• routing of stormwater to a new stormwater wet detention basin, designed in accordance with 

the NCDENR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (NCDENR, 2007)

• onsite treatment of process and sanitary wastewaters to NPDES-permit limits before 

discharge to receiving waters

• routine monitoring and inspection of onsite liquid waste storage tanks and containers to 

detect any leaks or releases to the environment to ensure prompt correction action under

the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan10

• discharge of UF6 storage pads stormwater runoff to a holding pond for monitoring prior to 

discharge to the stormwater wet detention basin

• periodic visual inspection of the stormwater wet detention basin to verify proper function, at 

a frequency sufficient to allow for identification of basin high-water-level conditions and 

implementation of corrective actions to restore the water level prior to overflow

• construction of a stormwater wet detention basin and implementation of a Wilmington Site 

stormwater management plan to mitigate a portion of the increased floodwaters from 

extreme storm events and all stormwater from smaller storm events

• ensuring easy access to the stormwater wet detention basin to allow the prompt, systematic 

sampling of runoff

In addition, the New Hanover County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (New 

Hanover County, 2007) contains BMPs for control of soil and sediment which relate closely to 

surface water quality due to sedimentation and turbidity. These are discussed in 

Section 4.2.5.3. The county notifies owners of deficient components of a stormwater system 

(New Hanover County, 2009c). Correction is the responsibility of the owner, otherwise the 

county will mitigate and recover costs from the owner. Implementation of BMPs for storage, 

handling, spill prevention, and spill response would reduce the impact of surface water 

contamination associated with the runoff of fuels, oils, and grease from equipment used onsite 

(or from other chemicals or wastes managed onsite). Implementing these BMPs would also 

limit the impact of soil erosion and soil contamination, as discussed in Section 4.2.5.3. 

Mitigation measures with respect to surface water usage are not relevant because no 

consumptive surface water use is included in the proposed action.

 

10 SPCC plans are prepared to prevent the discharge of oil from a facility into navigable waters or 

adjoining shorelines. These plans require facilities to have adequate containment around oil tanks, 

such as berms and dikes, to protect soil and water in the event of a spill.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-27 NUREG-1938

4.2.7 Groundwater Resources Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts on groundwater resources, which generally are 

related to possible spills or leaks of fuels or other liquids and to the groundwater-surface water 

interaction. 

4.2.7.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Construction equipment used for clearing, excavating, and construction pose the potential for 

leaks of fuel, oil, and grease to the soil and ultimately to the groundwater. Following BMPs 

would reduce the impact to site groundwater. The use of portable toilets would eliminate 

sanitary system impacts on groundwater. Potable and nonpotable water requirements would be 

met by transport of offsite water by tanker trucks. These would include acceptable amounts of 

water for concrete-making and possibly for dust suppression.

Altogether, the impact of preconstruction and construction activities on groundwater use and 

quality would be SMALL. The estimated relative amounts of impact are 50 percent during 

preconstruction activities and 50 percent during construction due to use of similar equipment 

and fuel during these two phases.

4.2.7.2 Facility Operations

During the operational phase, stormwater would collect in a clay-lined wet detention basin and 

eventually drain to surface water bodies. The stormwater is expected to have no more than 

trace amounts of radiological contaminants, and the clay liner (GLE, 2009f) would limit the 

amount of infiltration to groundwater.

Discharge at site Outfall 001 is and would continue to be from process wastewater. The effluent 

is and would continue to be received by the effluent channel, which may partially penetrate the 

semiconfining Peedee clay layer. Some portion of the effluent may therefore potentially infiltrate 

the Peedee sand aquifer, especially if its water level is drawn down by remedial extraction wells. 

This infiltration would be contained hydraulically by the site's groundwater remediation system.

Preliminary plans for the proposed GLE Facility include obtaining additional groundwater for 

potable purposes from the Wilmington Site’s existing production wells east of Castle Hayne 

Road. The estimated increase in potable water needs from the proposed facility is 

11,000 gallons per day. These wells draw from the regionally important Peedee sand aquifer. 

Water level data show them to be cross-gradient of the overall Wilmington Site, and they do not 

result in significant drawdown (GLE, 2008). Additional groundwater will also be needed as a 

source of process water at an estimated rate of 75,000 gallons per day. This groundwater 

would be purified to remove iron and manganese. Increased drawdown of up to 4 feet in offsite 

areas is expected, without significant effect on flow directions, water quality, or availability of 

groundwater for offsite users, as calculated using a groundwater model that is included as an 

appendix to the Environmental Report (GLE, 2008). The increased drawdown in offsite areas 

that are over 2,000 feet from the Wilmington Site boundary is estimated to be generally less 

than one foot. Increased pumping of the site remediation wells would maintain the hydraulic 

containment of contaminated groundwater. The projected water demand of the proposed GLE 

Facility is less than the Wilmington Site’s water needs in the 1990s, and no water supply issues 

were known during that period (GLE, 2008).
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-28 February 2012

Two diesel tanks would be present at the proposed GLE Facility site to supply fuel for backup 

power generation. The North Carolina Administrative Code (Title 15A, Chapter 2, Subchapter N 

[15A N.C. Admin Code 02N]) would govern their construction, leak detection equipment, and 

operation. 

A groundwater monitoring plan for the proposed GLE Facility has not yet been prepared, but it 

would be developed after the facility design is finalized (GLE, 2009f).

Effluent treatment and monitoring are expected to result in no significant contaminant 

concentrations in the effluent channel, which has the potential to interact with the Peedee sand 

aquifer. 

Based on the proposed design of site facilities, the treatment and monitoring of effluent, review 

of local water levels, and model calculations, the overall impact of site operations on 

groundwater is expected to be SMALL.

4.2.7.3 Mitigation Measures

Although no significant impact on the flow field is anticipated, GLE proposes to employ a 

number of measures to mitigate impacts on groundwater resources (GLE, 2008), including:

• implementation of hazardous material and waste-handling procedures and secondary 

containment, as required by applicable laws and regulations

• providing necessary construction water via tanker truck from offsite potable water sources

• reuse of treated sanitary wastewater effluent as makeup water in Wilmington Site cooling 

towers

• routine monitoring of sitewide groundwater levels, and continued analysis of groundwater 

monitoring-well and pumping-well networks to confirm that changes in groundwater levels 

associated with the proposed action are minimal

• readjustment of pumping well rates and/or performance of well maintenance or 

rehabilitation, as appropriate, in the event of unexpected changes in groundwater levels

• use of low-water-consumption landscaping

• installation of low-flow toilets, sinks, and showers

• performance of localized floor washing using mops and self-contained cleaning machines to 

reduce water usage compared to conventional washing techniques

In addition, proper BMPs for storage, handling, spill prevention, and spill response would reduce 

the impact of groundwater contamination associated with the accidental release of fuels, oils, 

and grease from equipment used onsite (or from other chemicals or wastes managed onsite). If 

measurable onsite changes in groundwater levels occur as a result of the proposed action, 

groundwater level monitoring should be expanded to offsite areas.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-29 NUREG-1938

4.2.8 Ecological Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts on ecological resources that could occur during 

preconstruction and construction activities (Section 4.2.8.1) and during operation 

(Section 4.2.8.2) of the proposed GLE Facility. Ecological resources that could be affected 

include vegetation; wetlands; environmentally sensitive areas; wildlife; aquatic biota; and 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. Section 4.2.8.3 presents a list of 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts on ecological resources, including those that have 

been identified by the applicant and those that are recommended by the NRC.

Overall, impacts from the proposed GLE Facility (including ancillary facilities such as the access 

road and transmission line) on ecological resources would depend on:

• the type and amount of habitat that would be disturbed

• the nature of the habitat disturbance (e.g., long-term reduction because of project structure 

and access road placement or complete, long-term alteration due to the transmission line 

right-of-way [ROW])

• the biota that occupy the proposed facility site and surrounding areas

• the timing of construction activities relative to the crucial life stages of biota (e.g., nesting or 

spawning season)

For the purposes of this assessment, impacts from the proposed GLE Facility on ecological 

resources were considered moderate or large if they would noticeably result in or contribute to 

any of the following:

• reduction of the quality and/or quantity of habitat for plants, wildlife, or aquatic biota

• an alteration in a species population that would either not destabilize the population 

(moderate impact) or would destabilize the population to below self-sustaining levels (large 

impact)

• establishment or increases of noxious weed populations

• interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species

• violations of the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, or other applicable Federal and State laws

The changes in any of these conditions must be clearly linked to the proposed GLE Facility and 

not the result of an unassociated activity.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-30 February 2012

4.2.8.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

This section evaluates the potential impacts of proposed GLE Facility preconstruction and 

construction activities on ecological resources.11 Preconstruction activities that could impact

ecological resources at the Wilmington Site are listed in the introduction to Section 4.2. 

Construction activities that could impact ecological resources at the Wilmington Site include: 

adding the UF6 storage pads; constructing the operations building; and adding security fencing 

around the proposed GLE Facility.

More than 75 percent of direct impacts on ecological resources would occur during 

preconstruction activities. This conclusion is based on professional judgment considerations on 

the degree of impacts that could occur during preconstruction and construction activities 

(e.g., vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, and injury, mortality, or disturbance to wildlife). 

The impacts would result primarily from clearing and grading, coupled with the construction of 

various buildings, the access road, substation and transmission line, stormwater wet detention 

basin, and parking lots. Most of the construction activities would occur within areas that would 

have been disturbed during preconstruction activities (although some revegetation may occur 

before the operations building and UF6 storage pads are constructed).

Vegetation

The plant communities that occur on the Wilmington Site are shown in Figure 3-12 and are 

tabulated in Table 3-12. Table 4-5 summarizes the impacts on plant communities that could 

occur from preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility, the 

proposed North access road, and proposed utility structures.

Plant communities affected by preconstruction and construction activities associated with the 

proposed GLE Facility could incur short- or long-term changes in species composition, 

abundance, and distribution. Direct impacts would be primarily associated with the loss of 

habitat within the 81.2 hectares (200.7 acres) disturbed during preconstruction activities for the 

proposed GLE Facility North access road, and utility structures (Table 4-5). The proposed GLE 

Facility would eliminate 19.4 hectares (48 acres) of pine plantation, 21 hectares (52 acres) of 

pine forest, and 6.5 hectares (16 acres) of pine-hardwood forest. The remaining 0.8 hectare 

(2 acres) would be gravel roads (e.g., a component of the “operational area” habitat) 

(GLE, 2009e).

Additional impacts would occur within the 11.7 hectares (29 acres) that would be occupied by 

utility structures (e.g., access driveways, sanitary and process wastewater lift stations, clearings 

for utility lines, a stormwater wet detention basin, and a fire suppression line) and the 

22.1 hectares (54.7 acres) for the proposed north access road (Table 4-5). About 13 hectares 

(33 acres) of this area would be the alteration of existing operations area to another type of 

operations area. This would have a small impact on vegetation on the Wilmington Site. The 

clearing of 3.0 hectares (7.4 acres) of pine-hardwood forest, 3.1 hectares (7.7 acres) of pine 

forest, 12 hectares (3.0 acres) of pine plantation, and 1 hectare (2.3 acres) of pocosin/bay forest 

would have a more measurable impact on vegetation (Table 4-5).

 

11 The significance level of impacts on vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, and aquatic biota from the 

preconstruction and construction of the GLE Facility are incorporated in Tables 4-6 through 4-8. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-31 NUREG-1938

Table 4-5 Impacts on Plant Communities Due to

Preconstruction and Construction Activities

for the Proposed GLE Facility

Proposed Action Plant Communitya Area

(acres)b

Percent of Plant

Community on

Wilmington Site

GLE Facility Operations area 2.0 --

c

Pine forest 51.0 17

Pine-hardwood forest 16.0 7

Pine plantation 48.0 15

Subtotal 117.0

North access road Alluvial forest 0.6 15

Canal corridor 0.4 2

Operations area 25.8 --

Pine forest 2.7 1

Pine-hardwood forest 4.4 2

Pine plantation 17.9 6

Pocosin/bay forest 2.3 5

Power line corridor 0.5 3

Swamp forest 0.1 0

Subtotal 54.7

Utility structuresd Operations area 7.0 --

Pine forest 5.0 2

Pine-hardwood forest 3.0 1

Pine plantation 12.0 3

Power line corridor 2.0 11

Subtotal 29.0

Total 200.7

a Characteristic plant species in each community are listed in Table 3-12.

b

To convert to hectares multiply by 0.4047.

c

-- = no impact assumed from altering existing operations areas to another type of 

operations area.

d

Includes access driveways, sanitary and process wastewater lift stations, 

clearings for utility lines, a stormwater wet detention basin, and a fire suppression 

line.

Source: GLE, 2009e.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-32 February 2012

Habitat fragmentation would also result from the clearing and grading activities conducted 

during preconstruction and construction activities. This would include the creation of isolated 

patches of forest habitat between utility structures. It is foreseeable that some of these patches 

could end up being cleared. Overall, this could impact an additional 4 to 6 hectares (10 to 

15 acres) of forest (GLE, 2009e). As the utility corridor is routed along the North access road, 

overall habitat fragmentation resulting from the project would be reduced.

Soil compaction caused by heavy machinery could destroy ground flora and indirectly damage 

roots of trees (by reducing soil aeration and altering soil structure). These potential impacts 

would be localized in the areas immediately outside the facility site boundary. Excess soil from 

preconstruction and construction activities would be deposited in existing operational area 

habitat in the northwestern portion of the Wilmington Site.

Changes in forest or woodland interiors from tree removal or clearing of adjacent areas could 

include increased light levels, reduced soil moisture, increased transpiration, introduction of 

shade-intolerant species, and increased access of herbivores. Additional decline or mortality of 

trees near the construction boundary may subsequently occur. However, the proposed 

GLE Facility would be located within an area that has been impacted from logging operations.

Plant communities near preconstruction and construction areas could be affected by hydrologic 

changes such as reduced infiltration, increased runoff from exposed or compacted soils, and 

alteration in flow patterns from grading of the proposed GLE Facility site.

Other possible adverse preconstruction and construction effects on vegetation could include the 

localized deposition of dust and other particulate matter from clearing and grading and from the 

operation of vehicles and machinery. Dust can physically affect a plant by shading, interference 

with gaseous diffusion, abrasion of leaf surfaces, and modification of leaf temperature by black

deposits. Impacts on vegetation that may occur from dust deposition would be expected to be 

localized and short-term.

Establishment of the entranceway from Castle Hayne Road and upgrading of the existing 

access road to the proposed GLE Facility would result in loss of some vegetation along the 

roadway and could result in indirect impacts on nearby areas from altered drainage patterns, 

runoff, and sedimentation. The access road to the proposed GLE Facility would mostly involve 

upgrading of existing roadway. Therefore, vegetation disturbance, and particularly 

fragmentation of vegetation communities, would be limited in comparison to those that would 

occur from establishing a completely new access road. Upgrading the access road to the 

proposed GLE Facility and establishment of the new entranceway to the Wilmington Site would 

impact areas already considered to be operations area habitat (i.e., 10.5 hectares [26 acres] of 

the 22 hectares [54 acres]). However, 11 hectares (27 acres) of pine–hardwood forest, pine 

plantation, pine forest, and pocosin/bay forest along the access road corridor and within the 

proposed entranceway would also be affected (GLE, 2009e).

Vehicle operation could promote the introduction and establishment of invasive plant species 

such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and 

Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum). These species can also become established in 

areas impacted by fragmentation and lead to limitations on the growth of native plants, 

disruption of natural succession, and limitations on species and structural diversity 

(Campbell and Johns, 2000).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-33 NUREG-1938

Accidental releases of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels) could impact plant communities in the 

vicinity of the spills. Spills would only be expected within small, localized areas that have mostly 

been disturbed by clearing and grading. Potential adverse impacts from a spill would be 

minimized by taking corrective actions identified in the SPCC Plan. 

In conclusion, MODERATE impacts on vegetation would occur from vegetation clearing, habitat 

fragmentation, alteration of topography, changes in drainage patterns, and soil compaction; 

remaining impacts would be SMALL (Table 4-6). Impacts considered MODERATE would occur 

primarily during preconstruction, as more than 75 percent of direct impacts would occur during 

this phase. Following preconstruction and construction activities, the proposed GLE Facility 

area, including the access road and utility structures, would be considered as part of an

industrial land cover type on the Wilmington Site (i.e., be classified primarily as operations area 

habitat).

Table 4-6 Significance Levels of Potential Impacts on Vegetation,

Wetlands, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas from the

Proposed GLE Facility

Potential Significance of Impacts 

According to Habitat Typea

Impact Category Upland 

Vegetation Wetlands Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Vegetation clearing Moderate Small Small

Habitat fragmentation Moderate Small Small

Alteration of topography Moderate Small Small

Changes in drainage patterns Moderate Small Small

Water depletions Small Small Small

Erosion and sedimentation Small Small Small

Contaminant spills Small Small Small

Fugitive dust Small Small Small

Soil compaction Moderate Small Small

Disruption of groundwater flow patterns Small Small Small

Spread of invasive plant species Small Small Small

Vegetation maintenance Small Small Small

Air emissions Small Small Small

Radiological exposure Small Small Small

a

Small impact: environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. Moderate impact: 

environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of 

the resource. All moderate impacts would occur during the preconstruction phase.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-34 February 2012

Wetlands

Wetlands could be impacted by alteration of surface water runoff patterns, soil compaction, or 

groundwater flow, particularly where facilities are located immediately adjacent to wetland 

areas. Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” requires Federal agencies to minimize 

the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial uses of wetlands. Unavoidable impacts on wetlands within the jurisdiction of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) might require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 

Permit, which would trigger the need for a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. An 

approved mitigation plan might be required prior to the initiation of preconstruction or 

construction activities.

No wetlands would be directly impacted by preconstruction or construction activities for the 

proposed GLE Facility. However, jurisdictional wetlands WD, WF, and WG, and one isolated 

wetland (Wetland WA) occur within the corridor for the revised entrance and roadway 

(GLE, 2009c). Jurisdictional wetlands have a connection to surface waters. The area of the 

three jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed access road is 0.021 hectare (0.052 acre). The 

width of disturbance during construction of the roadway would be 18 meters (60 feet); whereas

the corridor analyzed for the access road was up to 61 meters (200 feet) wide. Therefore, it 

may be possible to avoid direct impacts on the jurisdictional wetlands during construction of the 

entrance and access road. 

It is probable that Isolated Wetland WA would be directly impacted by construction of the access 

road, resulting in a wetland loss of 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre). Impacts on this wetland would 

require an Isolated Wetland Permit (GLE, 2008). Based on the North Carolina Division of 

Environmental Management (1995) guidance for evaluating North Carolina wetlands, the 

wetland had a rating of 6 (maximum rating is 100), indicating that the wetland is of low value 

(GLE, 2008).

Indirect impacts on wetlands could occur from increased stormwater runoff, decreased 

groundwater recharge, disconnected hydrologic conductivity, or changes in groundwater or 

surface water flow patterns. Impacts from increased or decreased runoff are expected to be 

negligible, as impacts on wetlands would be minimized by use of sediment and erosion control 

measures and wetland hydrology would be controlled by the tidal influence of the Northeast 

Cape Fear River (GLE, 2008).

A detailed construction design would be prepared prior to preconstruction activities. From this 

design, a more precise determination of the potential type and extent of impacts on wetlands 

can be determined; and the USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality would 

determine if wetland mitigation would be required (GLE, 2009e). In conclusion, impacts on 

wetlands associated with preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed 

GLE Facility, including the utility structures and access road, would be SMALL (Table 4-6).

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

As discussed in Section 3.8.3, the environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., landscape elements or 

places that are crucial to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, and other 

natural resources, especially as they relate to human health, safety, and welfare, both at a local 

and regional context [Jennings and Reganold 1989]) occurring on or near the Wilmington Site 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-35 NUREG-1938

include the Northeast Cape Fear River Floodplain (includes the southwestern portion of the 

Wilmington Site); the primary nursery area for shellfish and fish within the Northeast Cape Fear 

River (adjacent to the Wilmington Site); and the floodplains, wetlands, unstable soils, and steep 

slopes on the Wilmington Site. Except for the probable impact on a 0.02-hectare (0.06-acre) 

isolated wetland and the possible impact on to up to 0.021 hectare (0.052 acre) of three 

jurisdictional wetlands, no environmentally sensitive areas would be directly impacted by 

preconstruction or construction activities. Only minor, localized, indirect impacts on 

environmentally sensitive areas may occur from erosion and sedimentation or from changes in 

drainage patterns. Overall, impacts from proposed GLE Facility preconstruction and 

construction activities on environmentally sensitive areas would be SMALL (Table 4-6).

Wildlife

Impacts on wildlife from preconstruction and construction activities would include (1) habitat 

disturbance, (2) wildlife disturbance, and (3) injury or mortality of wildlife.

Habitat Disturbance

Most impacts on wildlife from preconstruction and construction activities would occur from 

habitat disturbance (e.g., clearing and grading for the proposed GLE Facility). Habitats within 

the footprint disturbed by preconstruction and construction activities would be reduced or 

altered. Preconstruction and construction activities would also result in habitat fragmentation, 

particularly at the proposed GLE Facility. The use of an existing accessway for the new access 

road would minimize habitat fragmentation compared to what would otherwise be caused by 

creating a new access corridor. As the utility corridor is routed along the North access road, 

habitat fragmentation would be reduced.

Preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility and its ancillary 

facilities would cause a loss of habitat, which could result in a long-term reduction in wildlife 

abundance and richness within the project area. A species affected by habitat disturbance 

might be able to shift its habitat use for a short period. For example, the density of several 

forest-dwelling bird species has been found to increase within a forest stand soon after the 

onset of fragmentation as a result of displaced individuals moving into remaining habitat 

(Hagan et al., 1996). However, it is generally assumed that the habitat into which displaced 

individuals move would be unable to sustain an increased level of use over the long term. For 

example, an increased competition for resources in adjacent habitats would likely preclude the 

incorporation of the displaced individual into the resident populations.

Habitat disturbance could facilitate the spread and introduction of invasive plant species. Roads 

(and other linear corridors) could facilitate the dispersal of invasive plant species by altering 

existing habitat conditions, stressing or removing native plant species, and allowing easier 

movement by wildlife or human vectors (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Wildlife habitat could 

also be adversely affected if invasive vegetation became established in the disturbed areas and 

adjacent offsite habitats. The establishment of invasive vegetation could reduce habitat quality 

for wildlife and locally affect wildlife occurrence and abundance.

Little information is available regarding the effects of fugitive dust on wildlife; however, if 

exposure was of sufficient magnitude and duration, the effects could be similar to those on 

humans (e.g., breathing and respiratory symptoms, including dust pneumonia). A more 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-36 February 2012

probable effect would be the dusting of plants, which could make forage less palatable. This 

localized effect would be short-term and would generally coincide with the displacement of and 

stress to wildlife from human activity. Fugitive dust is not expected to result in any long-term 

individual or population-level effects.

Wildlife Disturbance

Activities associated with preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed 

GLE Facility could cause wildlife disturbance, including interference with behavioral activities. 

The response of wildlife to disturbances caused by noise and human presence would be highly 

variable and species-specific. Intraspecific responses could also be affected by the 

physiological or reproductive condition of individuals; distance from the disturbance; and type, 

intensity, and duration of the disturbance. Seasonal or daily time of noise events could also be 

a factor in how noise would impact wildlife. Wildlife could respond to a disturbance in various 

ways, including attraction, habituation, and avoidance (Knight and Cole, 1991). All three 

behaviors are considered adverse. For example, wildlife might cease foraging, mating, or 

nesting near areas where construction was occurring. In contrast, wildlife such as bears, foxes, 

and squirrels could readily habituate and might even be attracted to human activities, primarily 

when a food source is accidentally or deliberately made available.

Although habitats adjacent to the proposed GLE site would mostly remain unaffected, wildlife 

might tend to make less use of these areas (primarily because of the disturbance that would 

occur within the project site). This impact could be considered indirect habitat loss, and it could 

be of greater consequence than direct habitat loss. The loss of effective habitat (amount of 

habitat actually available to wildlife) due to roads was reported to be 2.5 to 3.5 times as great as 

the actual habitat loss (Reed et al., 1996). Many of the individuals that would make use of 

areas adjacent to a road or other development could be subjected to increased physiological 

stress as a result of complications from overcrowding (e.g., increased competition for space and 

food, increased vulnerability to predators, and increased potential for the propagation of 

diseases and parasites). This combination of avoidance and stress would reduce the capability 

of wildlife to use habitat effectively. 

Principal sources of noise during preconstruction and construction activities would include 

vehicle traffic and operation of machinery. Regular or periodic noise could cause adjacent 

areas to be less attractive to wildlife and result in a long-term reduction in use by wildlife in 

those areas. Responses of birds to disturbance often involve activities that are energetically 

costly (e.g., flying) or affect their behavior in ways that might reduce food intake (e.g., shift away 

from a preferred feeding site) (Hockin et al., 1992). A variety of adverse effects of noise on 

raptors have been demonstrated, but for some species, the effects were temporary, and the 

raptors became habituated to the noise (Brown et al., 1999; Delaney et al., 1999). A review of 

the literature by Hockin (1992) showed that the effects of disturbance on bird breeding and 

breeding success include reduced nest attendance, nest failures, reduced nest building, 

increased predation on eggs and nestlings, nest abandonment, inhibition of laying, increased 

absence from nest, reduced feeding and brooding, exposure of eggs and nestlings to heat or 

cold, retarded chick development, and lengthening of the incubation period. The most adverse 

impacts associated with noise could occur if critical lifecycle activities were disrupted 

(e.g., mating and nesting). For instance, disturbance of birds during the nesting season could 

result in nest or brood abandonment. The eggs and young of displaced birds would be more 

susceptible to cold or predators. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-37 NUREG-1938

Overall, direct and indirect impacts from habitat and wildlife disturbance could potentially reduce 

the carrying capacity of a species range and result in reduced survival or reproduction.

Wildlife Injury or Mortality

Clearing, grading, and other preconstruction and construction activities could result in the direct 

injury or death of those wildlife species that were not mobile enough to avoid impact areas 

(e.g., reptiles, small mammals), those that used burrows (e.g., ground squirrels), or those that 

defend nest sites (e.g., ground-nesting birds). If clearing or other construction activities 

occurred during the spring and summer, bird nests and eggs or nestlings could be destroyed 

and more mobile wildlife species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and adult 

birds, might avoid the initial clearing activity by moving into habitats in adjacent areas. 

However, as previously mentioned, it is conservatively assumed that adjacent habitats are at 

carrying capacity for the species that live there and could not support additional biota from the 

construction areas. The subsequent competition for resources in adjacent habitats would likely 

preclude the incorporation of the displaced individuals into the resident populations.

Direct mortality from construction equipment would be low, as most equipment would be slow 

moving or stationary. Mortality from vehicle collisions would be expected to occur along the 

access road.

Wildlife could be exposed to accidental fuel spills or releases of other hazardous materials. 

Potential impacts on wildlife would vary according to the material spilled, volume of the spill, 

location of the spill, and the exposed species. A spill would be expected to have a populationlevel adverse impact only if the spill was very large or if it contaminated a crucial habitat area 

where a large number of individual animals were concentrated. The potential for either event is 

very unlikely. In addition, use of the project area by wildlife during construction would be limited, 

since there would be construction-related disturbances, thus greatly reducing the potential for 

contaminant exposure.

In conclusion, impacts on some wildlife from vegetation disturbance, wildlife disturbance, and 

injury or mortality could be MODERATE for some groups of wildlife (Table 4-7). Over 

75 percent of the impacts would occur during preconstruction activities, when most of the 

physical disturbance to habitats would occur. Overall, the adverse impacts of preconstruction 

and construction activities are expected to be limited to the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

GLE Facility (within areas subjected to periodic logging or to routine disturbances within or near 

the operations area) and should not affect the viability of any wildlife populations.

Aquatic Biota

No aquatic habitats are located within the footprint of the areas that will be cleared for the GLE 

Facility. Furthermore, no surface water withdrawals would be used during any phase of the 

project. However, portions of four jurisdictional channels, the effluent channel, and Unnamed 

Tributary #1 to Prince George Creek occur within the corridor for the new access road and 

entrance. Road-crossing construction over these channels could impact aquatic biota by direct 

disturbance, deposition of sediments, and degradation of water quality.

Vegetation clearing, grading, and other land-disturbing activities could increase sediment 

loadings to nearby water bodies (such as the four jurisdictional channels, the effluent channel, 
NUREG-1938

4-38 February 2012

Table 4-7 Significance Levels of Potential Impacts on Wildlife from the Proposed GLE Fa

Potential Significance of Impacts According to Species Type

Impact Category

Amphibians 

and Reptiles

Shorebirds, 

Waterfowl, and 

Waterbirds

Landbirds Raptors

Small Game 

and Nongame 

Mammals

Vegetation clearing Moderate Small Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Habitat fragmentation Moderate Small Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Movement/dispersal blockage Moderate Small Small Small Moderate 

Alteration of topography Small Small Small Small Small 

Water depletions Small Small Small Small Small 

Erosion and sedimentation Small Small Small Small Small 

Contaminant spills Small Small Small Small Small 

Fugitive dust Small Small Small Small Small 

Injury or mortality Moderate Small Small Small Moderate 

Collection Small Small Small Small Small 

Human disturbance/harassment Small Small Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Increases in predation rates Small Small Small Small Small 

Noise Small Small Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Spread of invasive plant species Small Small Small Small Small 

Air pollution Small Small Small Small Small 

Radiological exposure Small Small Small Small Small 

a

Small impact: environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter a

attribute of the resource. Moderate impact: environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, impo

of the resource. All moderate impacts would occur during preconstruction activities.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-39 NUREG-1938

and Unnamed Tributary #1 to Prince George Creek listed above) and to Unnamed Tributary #1 

to Northeast Cape Fear River. These water bodies would ultimately receive stormwater runoff 

from the proposed GLE Facility. The effects of suspended sediments on aquatic biota include: 

(1) lethal effects (e.g., direct mortality of individuals, population reduction, or damage to the 

ecosystem that affects its capacity to produce biota); (2) sublethal effects (e.g., injury to the 

tissues or physiology of the organism, but not to the extent that death occurs); and 

(3) behavioral effects (e.g., alteration of activity patterns or types of activities that an organism 

would normally undertake in an unaffected environment) (Newcombe and MacDonald, 1991). 

Implementation of measures to control erosion and runoff into aquatic habitats (Section 4.2.6.3) 

would reduce the potential for impacts on aquatic biota.

Contaminants could be introduced into aquatic habitats as a result of the accidental release of 

fuels and lubricants used during preconstruction and construction activities. The level of 

impacts from releases of toxicants would depend on the type and volume of chemicals entering 

the waterway, the location of the release, the nature of the water body (e.g., size, volume, and 

flow rates), and the types and life stages of organisms present in the receiving waterway. In 

general, lubricants and fuel would not be expected to enter waterways in appreciable quantities 

as long as heavy machinery is not used in or near waterways, fueling locations for construction 

equipment are situated away from the waterway, and measures are taken to control spills that 

do occur.

No significant adverse impacts on aquatic biota (e.g., population-level effects) are expected 

from preconstruction and construction activities. All activities associated with preconstruction 

and construction activities would result in SMALL impacts on aquatic biota (Table 4-8).

Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species

Tables 3-14 and 3-15 in Section 3.8.6 list the threatened, endangered, and other special status 

species reported from New Hanover County, and indicate which species have been reported or 

are potentially present on or near the Wilmington Site. The tables also indicate which species 

could potentially be present in the proposed GLE Facility area. The types of impacts that could 

affect species as a result of preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed 

GLE Facility would be fundamentally similar to or the same as those described above for 

vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic biota. The most important difference from these impacts is the 

potential consequence of the impacts. Because of low population sizes, threatened, 

endangered, and other special status species are more vulnerable to impacts (e.g., habitat 

disturbance) than more common and widespread species.

A copy of the consultation letters received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are provided in Appendix B. The FWS expressed 

potential concerns for those species that could occur on the Wilmington Site – the West Indian 

manatee (Trichechus manatus), roughleaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), and, in 

particular, the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (FWS, 2009). The FWS also 

provided comments on the draft EIS (FWS, 2010), which is also provided in Appendix B. 

Information provided in the FWS correspondence has been incorporated into the evaluations 

below on Federally listed species and are listed as additional mitigation measures presented in 

Section 4.2.8.3. 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-40 February 2012

Table 4-8 Significance Levels of Potential Impacts on

Aquatic Biota from the Proposed GLE Facility

Impact Category Potential Significance of 

Impacts on Aquatic Biotaa

Sedimentation from runoff Small

Water depletions Small

Changes in drainage patterns Small

Disruption of groundwater flow patterns Small

Temperature increases in water bodies Small

Contaminant spills Small

Movement/dispersal blockage Small

Increased human access Small

Radiological exposure Small

a

Small impact: environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that 

they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource. Impacts on aquatic biota would be small for all project phases 

(i.e., preconstruction, construction, and operations).

The NMFS provided various publications on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). 

Information from these reports was considered in the assessment of potential impacts on the 

shortnose sturgeon presented below.

Federally Listed Species

The following text provides an assessment of impacts from preconstruction and construction 

activities for the proposed GLE Facility on the Federally listed species (endangered, threatened, 

and species of concern) that exist or may exist in the Wilmington Site area. No impacts would 

be expected on any of the listed species. The significance level of impacts on all listed species 

would be SMALL.

Carolina bishopweed (Ptilimnium ahlesii)

The Carolina bishopweed is a Federal species of concern that inhabits freshwater tidal marshes 

(Weakley, 2008). No occurrence records for the Carolina bishopweed occur within 

3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Tidal marshes would not be 

impacted by preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, 

these activities would have no effect on the Carolina bishopweed.

Coastal goldenrod (Solidago villosicarpa)

The coastal goldenrod is a Federal species of concern. It occurs in a wide variety of wooded 

habitats, occurring in areas associated with natural or human-caused disturbance 

(CPC, 2008a). An occurrence record for the coastal goldenrod occurs within 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the northern boundary of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Habitat suitable 

for the coastal goldenrod occurs in the pine-hardwood forests in the north-central and south-
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-41 NUREG-1938

central portions of the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008). Preconstruction and construction activities 

for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would be potentially suitable for the 

coastal goldenrod and may therefore also result in mortality to some individuals. Therefore, 

these activities may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, the species. Clearing and 

grading that would take place during preconstruction activities would account for nearly the 

entire amount of habitat disturbance that would occur.

Grassleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria graminea var. weatherbiana)

The grassleaf arrowhead is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits shallow water and wet 

shores of ponds, marshes, and ditches. There are no occurrence records for the grassleaf 

arrowhead within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). 

Preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat 

that would be potentially suitable for the grassland arrowhead (e.g., the jurisdictional channels 

and wetlands associated with the North access road.) Therefore, these activities may affect, but 

are unlikely to adversely affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during 

preconstruction activities would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that 

would occur.

Pickering’s morning-glory (Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii)

The Pickering’s morning-glory (also known as Pickering’s dawnflower) is a Federal species of 

concern. The species occurs in dry to extremely dry, nutrient-poor, well-drained, coarse sandy 

soils. Tree cover, ground cover, and litter accumulation are generally sparse 

(Patrick et al., 1995). It generally forms large mats or clumps in dry, barren, deep sand areas 

such as the edge of Carolina bays and relic riverine dunes (CPC, 2008b; Weakley, 2008). 

Preferred locations include frequently burned or clearcut areas with little or no competing 

vegetation (CPC, 2008b). The only recorded occurrence of the Pickering’s morning-glory near

the proposed GLE Facility area is a 1958 record within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the facility site 

(NCDENR, 2009c). The operations area in the northwestern portion of the Wilmington Site 

contains deep sands that are periodically disturbed, and may provide suitable habitat for the 

Pickering’s morning-glory (GLE, 2008). This area may be used as a source of fill or for the 

deposition of soils excavated during preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed 

GLE Facility; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, the 

species. The need for or disposal of fill would primarily occur during preconstruction activities.

Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis)

Pondspice is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits the margins of swamps, cypress ponds, 

low wet woodlands, and sandhill depressions on wet, sandy or peaty, acidic soils. The only 

known occurrence for the pondspice within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility 

is the presence of 12 to 15 clumps of the shrub around the perimeter of an ephemeral pond 

within the north-central portion of the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008; NCDENR, 2009c). 

Hydrological conditions of this pond have since been altered since the pondspice was first 

observed in 1977 and do not appear to support expansion of the species. During field surveys

for the Environmental Report, the existing plants appeared stressed (GLE, 2008). The location 

of the proposed GLE Facility is over 150 meters (500 feet) southeast of the ephemeral pond 

(GLE, 2008). Habitat suitable for the pondspice would not be impacted by preconstruction and 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-42 February 2012

construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these activities would have no 

effect on the species.

Raven’s seedbox (Ludwigia ravenii)

Raven’s seedbox is a Federal species of concern. It is an obligate wetland species that inhabits 

open, wet, peaty areas such as ditches and the margins of swamps, ponds, and bogs. There 

are no occurrence records for the Raven’s seedbox within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). A minor amount of habitat potentially suitable for the 

Raven’s seedbox could not be impacted by preconstruction and construction activities for the 

proposed North access road. Therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to 

adversely affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during 

preconstruction activities would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that 

would occur.

Roughleaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)

The roughleaf loosestrife is a Federally endangered species. It occurs in grass–shrub ecotones 

adjacent to longleaf pine/scrub oak, pine savanna, flatwoods, and pond pine pocosins 

(evergreen shrub bogs). It prefers full sunlight and is shade intolerant (CPC, 2008c; NCDENR, 

2001). It grows on moist, seasonally saturated sands or shallow organic soils overlying sands. 

The roughleaf loosestrife has been found in roadside depressions, firebreaks, seeps, and power 

ROWs (NCDENR, 2001). Habitats within which the species occurs are usually fire-maintained 

(i.e., areas where natural fires or controlled burns occur). There are no occurrence records for 

the roughleaf loosestrife within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 

2009c). Most pocosin habitat that could potentially support the species has been drained from 

the Wilmington Site and the fire regime necessary for maintaining the species habitat does not 

occur on the site. Also, habitat for the species is not present within the proposed GLE Facility 

area (GLE, 2008); therefore, preconstruction and construction activities would have no effect on 

the roughleaf loosestrife.

Sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii)

The sandhills milkvetch is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits longleaf pine/scrub oak 

woodlands, growing best in disturbed or fire-prone open understory areas (e.g., xeric to 

dry-mesic, nutrient-poor soils, thickets, field edges, and road banks). There is a 1946 

occurrence record for the sandhills milkvetch within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed 

GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009c; GLE, 2008). The longleaf pine/scrub forest in the 

northwestern portion of the Wilmington Site and the pine plantation in the north-central portion 

of the site could provide suitable habitat for the species. Preconstruction and construction 

activities for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially be suitable 

for the sandhills milkvetch; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to adversely 

affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during preconstruction activities 

would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that would occur.

Small-leaf meadowrue (Thalictrum macrostylum)

The small-leaf meadowrue is a Federal species of concern. Habitat for the species includes 

swampy woodlands, slopes, and cliffs. There are no occurrence records for the small-leaf 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-43 NUREG-1938

meadowrue within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Habitat 

suitable for the small-leaf meadowrue would not be impacted by preconstruction and 

construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these activities would have no 

effect on the species.

Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna)

The spring-flowering goldenrod is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits a wide variety of 

habitats such as pine savannas, pocosins, pine barrens, open woods, fields, dry bogs, and 

disturbed roadsides (CPC, 2008d). There are no occurrence records for the spring-flowering 

goldenrod within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). 

Pocosin/bay and pine forests potentially provide limited habitat for the spring-flowering 

goldenrod on the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008). Preconstruction and construction activities for 

the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially be suitable for the springflowering goldenrod; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, 

the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during preconstruction activities would 

account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that would occur.

Venus’ flytrap (Dionaea muscipula)

The Venus’ flytrap is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits bogs and perennially wet areas, 

often located between longleaf pine savannas and pocosins on the coastal plains of the 

Carolinas (Floridata, 2003). Two occurrence records of the Venus’ flytrap have been recorded 

within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site, one of which is also within 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009c). Suitable habitat for the Venus’ 

flytrap occurs within the western portion of the Wilmington Site where pine forest and pocosin 

habitats are adjacent to each other. Habitat suitable for the Venus’ flytrap would not be 

impacted by preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, 

these activities would have no effect on the species.

Cape Fear threetooth (Triodopsis soelneri)

The Cape Fear threetooth is a Federal species of concern. It is a terrestrial snail that occurs on 

logs and under litter in swamps and under trash in pine woods (Hubricht, 1985). There are no 

occurrence records for the Cape Fear threetooth within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed 

GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would be potentially suitable for the Cape Fear threetooth 

(pine woods); therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, the 

species. Clearing and grading that would take place during preconstruction activities would 

account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that would occur.

Eastern arogos skipper (Atrytone arogos arogos)

The eastern arogos skipper is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits native grasslands and 

savannas. There are no occurrence records for the eastern arogos skipper within 

3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Habitat suitable for the 

eastern arogos skipper would not be impacted by preconstruction and construction activities for 

the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these activities would have no effect on the species.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-44 February 2012

Greenfield ramshorn snail (Helisoma eucosmium)

The Greenfield ramshorn snail is a Federal species of concern. Within New Hanover County, 

this freshwater snail is only known from Greenfield Lake in Wilmington. It is also known from 

Town Creek in Brunswick County and from the Wisconsin River in the northeastern portion of 

the State. Specimens from Town Creek inhabit densely vegetated areas at depths less than 

3 meters (10 feet). There are no occurrence records for the Greenfield ramshorn snail within 

3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Habitat suitable for the 

Greenfield ramshorn snail would not be impacted by preconstruction and construction activities 

for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these activities would have no effect on the species.

Rare skipper (Problema bulenta)

The rare skipper is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits marshes along tidal rivers. There 

are no occurrence records for the rare skipper within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington 

Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Habitat suitable for the rare skipper would not be impacted by 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these 

activities would have no effect on the species.

American eel (Anguilla rostrata)

The American eel is a Federal species of concern. It spawns in the Sargasso Sea and matures 

in fresh or brackish waters (estuaries, rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes (NatureServe, 2009). 

There are no occurrence records for the American eel within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). However, the American eel is expected to occur in the 

Northeast Cape Fear River near the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2008). The river’s tributaries 

on the site could also provide suitable habitat for the American eel. Habitat suitable for the 

American eel would not be impacted by preconstruction and construction activities for the 

proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these activities would have no effect on the species.

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

The shortnose sturgeon is Federally listed as endangered. It inhabits the lower reaches of large 

rivers and Atlantic coastal waters. It primarily occurs in brackish and salt waters of lower 

coastal river reaches and river estuaries. The shortnose sturgeon ascends into the freshwaters 

of larger coastal rivers to spawn. Larvae and juveniles prefer deep river channels. It is very 

rare in the Cape Fear River drainage. There is a 1993 occurrence record for the shortnose 

sturgeon within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). It may occur 

in the Northeast Cape Fear River and the lower portions of its unnamed tributaries that occur on 

the Wilmington Site. It does not ascend into smaller tributaries such as the Prince George 

Creek (NOAA, 2002). Habitat suitable for the shortnose sturgeon would not be impacted by 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these 

activities would have no effect on the species.

Carolina gopher frog (Rana capito capito)

The Carolina gopher frog is a Federal species of concern. Adults primarily inhabit xeric 

uplands, especially longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhill associations. They also occur in xeric to 

mesic longleaf pine flatwoods, sand pine scrub, and xeric oak hammocks. Burrows of gopher 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-45 NUREG-1938

tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) and rodents are used for shelter. They will also hide in 

sewers, under logs, and in or under stumps. Breeding habitat includes ephemeral to 

semipermanent graminoid-dominated wetlands that lack large predatory fishes. There are no 

occurrence records for the Carolina gopher frog within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington 

Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Habitat suitable for the Carolina gopher frog would not be impacted by 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these 

activities would have no effect on the species.

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)

The American alligator is Federally listed as threatened due to its similarity of appearance with 

the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). However, the American alligator is not biologically 

threatened and does not have protection under the Endangered Species Act in North Carolina 

(FWS, 2009). It inhabits slow-moving coastal rivers, canals, lakes, impoundments, marshes, 

cypress ponds, and estuaries. The American alligator has been recorded from various localities 

near the Wilmington Site, including the Prince George Creek at its confluence with its Unnamed 

Tributary #1; the Northeast Cape Fear River at its confluence with Prince George Creek; 

upstream of the Wilmington Site in Turkey Creek, Morgan Creek, and Long Creek; and south of 

the Wilmington Site in Ness Creek (GLE, 2008). Occurrences of the American alligator have 

been reported within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 

2009c). At the Wilmington Site, potential breeding habitat occurs along the Northeast Cape 

Fear River and its tributaries, and small alligators may occur within the streams and swamp 

forest area of the site. Habitat suitable for the American alligator would not be impacted by 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these 

activities would have no effect on the species.

Mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus)

The mimic glass lizard is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits longleaf pine savannas and 

conifer and mixed woodlands where it burrows in the soil or inhabits fallen logs and woody 

debris. There are no occurrence records for the mimic glass lizard within 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Preconstruction and construction activities 

for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially be suitable for the 

mimic glass lizard; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, the 

species. Clearing and grading that would take place during preconstruction activities would 

account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that would occur.

Northern pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus)

The northern pinesnake is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits xeric pine forest uplands. 

There is a pre-1927 occurrence record for the northern pine snake within 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009c). Preconstruction and 

construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially 

be suitable for the northern pine snake; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to 

adversely affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during 

preconstruction activities would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that 

would occur.
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-46 February 2012 

Southern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon simus) 

The southern hog-nosed snake is a Federal species of concern. It inhabits mature pine forests 

and sandhill habitats (Jordan, 1998) and spends most of its time buried in soil. Sightings of the 

southern hog-nosed snake have been made southwest of the Wilmington Site between the 

Northeast Cape Fear River and the Cape Fear River (GLE, 2008). There are no occurrence 

records for the southern hog-nosed snake within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENR, 2009c). Within the Wilmington Site, the snake could occur within the pine forests, 

longleaf pine/scrub forests, hardwood forests, and fields. The xeric, sandy soils in the 

northwestern portion of the site may also be suitable habitat. Preconstruction and construction 

activities for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially be suitable 

for the southern hog-nosed snake; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to 

adversely affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during 

preconstruction activities would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that 

would occur. 

Eastern painted bunting (Passerina ciris ciris) 

The eastern painted bunting is a Federal species of concern. Habitat includes partly opened 

areas with scattered trees and brush, riparian thickets and brush, weedy and shrubby areas, 

woodland edges, yards, and gardens. Salt marsh/forest edges are preferred over interior 

forests. There are no occurrence records for the eastern painted bunting within 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). Preconstruction and construction activities 

for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially be suitable for the 

eastern painted bunting; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to adversely 

affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during preconstruction activities 

would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that would occur. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

The red-cockaded woodpecker is Federally listed as endangered. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the species (FWS, 2008a). Habitat that probably supported the largest 

populations was Coastal Plain longleaf pine forests maintained by frequent fires 

(Ozier et al., 1999). It requires open stands of mature pine (over 60 years old) for nesting and 

roosting habitat. Nesting and roosting occur in cavities of live trees that range in age from 63 to 

over 300 years old for longleaf pine or 62 to over 200 years old for loblolly and other pines. An 

aggregate (cluster) of 1 to 20 cavity trees are used on an area of 1.2 to 24.3 hectares (3 to 

60 acres) (FWS, 2003; NatureServe, 2009). Suitable habitat surrounding a cluster of cavity 

trees contains open, park-like conditions. Stands of pine or mixed pines and hardwoods that 

are over 30 years old are used for foraging. A group requires at least 32.4 to 50.6 hectares 

(80 to 125 acres) of foraging habitat. The territory for a group averages about 81 hectares 

(200 acres), but can range from 24.3 to over 243 hectares (60 to over 600 acres) (FWS, 2003). 

An active red-cockaded woodpecker colony occurs within 8 kilometers (5 miles) northeast of the 

Wilmington Site. It is located just north of the Northeast Cape Fear River along NC 117 in 

Pender County (GLE, 2008). There are several occurrence records for the red-cockaded 

woodpecker within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the western border of the Wilmington Site 

(NCDENR, 2009c). No cavity trees were observed on the Wilmington Site during field surveys 

conducted in support of the Environmental Report (GLE, 2008). The forested habitats on the 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-47 NUREG-1938

Wilmington Site meet the minimum area requirements needed for foraging habitat. However, 

the lack of mature forests would limit the value of the Wilmington Site as foraging habitat. The 

Sledge Forest, a property containing over 1619 hectares (4000 acres) of high-quality forests 

directly adjacent to and north of the Wilmington Site, does contain loblolly and longleaf pine 

trees that are over 300 years old. This area would be suitable as nesting and roosting habitat 

for the red-cockaded woodpecker. It is possible that woodpeckers that forage in the Sledge 

Forest could occasionally forage within the western forested portion of the Wilmington Site.

No cavity trees or trees more than 30 years old were observed in the proposed GLE Facility 

area. Most of the area within which the proposed GLE Facility would be located has been 

logged within the last 20 years or less (GLE, 2008). It is not expected that habitat suitable for 

the red-cockaded woodpecker would be impacted by preconstruction and construction activities 

for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these activities would have no effect on the species. 

Prior to preconstruction activities, GLE would conduct surveys for the presence of suitable 

foraging trees. In the event that foraging trees are found, further surveys would be conducted to 

locate potential cavity trees. These surveys would be conducted in consultation with FWS, in 

accordance with the FWS red-cockaded woodpecker survey protocol, to evaluate any potential 

impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat (GLE, 2009e).

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)

The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is a Federal species of concern. The species occurs in forested 

areas. Summer roosts include hollow trees, loose bark, or abandoned buildings in or near 

wooded areas. Bridges are also used as day roosts and as maternity roosts. Foraging habitat 

is primarily among the canopies of mature upland and lowland forests (Ozier et al. 1999). There 

is a pre-2006 occurrence record for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat within 3.2 kilometers 

(2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area (NCDENR, 2009c). Preconstruction and 

construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially 

be suitable for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat; therefore, these activities may affect, but are 

unlikely to adversely affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during 

preconstruction activities would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that 

would occur.

Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius)

The southeastern myotis is a Federal species of concern. It roosts in caves, buildings, and 

snags and hollow trees of pine and hardwood forests, and forages primarily in riparian areas, 

but also in various upland habitats. There is a 1986 occurrence record for the southeastern 

myotis within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed GLE Facility area from floodplains north of 

the Wilmington Site near the confluence of the Northeast Cape Fear River and Prince George 

Creek (NCDENR, 2009c; GLE, 2008). The riparian habitats and pine and hardwood forests on 

the Wilmington Site provide suitable foraging and breeding habitat for the southeastern myotis. 

It may also forage in the operations area and transmission line ROWs. Preconstruction and 

construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility would disturb habitat that would potentially 

be suitable for the southeastern myotis; therefore, these activities may affect, but are unlikely to 

adversely affect, the species. Clearing and grading that would take place during 

preconstruction activities would account for nearly the entire amount of habitat disturbance that 

would occur.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-48 February 2012

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)

The West Indian manatee is Federally listed as endangered. It inhabits shallow coastal bays, 

lagoons, estuaries, and rivers. The manatee usually inhabits waters with a depth of 1 to 

6 meters (3.3 to 20 feet) (FWS, 2009; NatureServe, 2009). Much of their time is spent 

submerged or partly submerged. Manatees feed on aquatic vegetation. It is a seasonal 

inhabitant of North Carolina, being present mainly from June through October. There are no 

occurrence records for the West Indian manatee within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the 

Wilmington Site (NCDENR, 2009c). However, the Northeast Cape Fear River and some of its 

tributaries in the area of the Wilmington Site may provide suitable habitat for manatee 

(FWS, 2009). Habitat suitable for the West Indian manatee would not be impacted by 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility; therefore, these 

activities would have no effect on the species.

State-Listed Species

Based on the information provided in Table 3-15 (Section 3.8.6.2), a number of State rare 

species reported from New Hanover County could be impacted by preconstruction and 

construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility (i.e., those species listed as potentially 

present on or near the GLE Facility). Impacts on State-listed species would primarily be due to 

habitat disturbance that occurs from clearing and grading during preconstruction activities. No 

impacts would be expected to any of the State-listed species. The significance level of impacts 

on all State-listed species would be SMALL.

4.2.8.2 Operations and Maintenance

This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed GLE Facility’s operations on 

ecological resources.

Vegetation

No additional lands beyond those disturbed during preconstruction and construction activities 

would be affected by operation of the proposed GLE Facility. Activities associated with the 

operation and maintenance of the proposed GLE Facility would include mowing, hand-cutting, 

and chemical control of vegetation at the proposed GLE Facility, adjacent facilities 

(e.g., substation), utility corridors, and along the access road. The transmission line ROW 

would be maintained on a 3-year cycle, while cutting of danger trees would occur on a 7- to 

9-year cycle (GLE, 2009e). The diversity of plant species in these areas is generally kept at a 

reduced level. In addition to mowing or hand-cutting, herbicides may be used on a very limited 

basis to control vegetation within the transmission line ROW on a 5-year cycle (GLE, 2009e). 

Herbicide applications may result in impacts on nontarget species from herbicide drift during 

application.

Landscaping within the proposed GLE Facility area would be expected to be similar to other 

operations areas. Lawn areas would be planted in Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum) and 

centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides) and various trees and shrubs (GLE, 2008). A 

cleared security buffer would be maintained around the GLE Facility (GLE, 2009e).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-49 NUREG-1938

Due to the relatively small size of the cooling tower to be used at the proposed GLE Facility, 

humidity, fogging, or salt deposition would not be of concern to vegetation. At most, only a 

localized area of landscaped lawn near the cooling tower may be impacted. No apparent 

impacts on vegetation were observed near the similarly sized FMO cooling tower.

Normal operation of the proposed GLE Facility would result in the generation of air emissions, 

wastewaters, and solid wastes that would be treated onsite before being discharged or shipped 

for disposal offsite. Therefore, no impacts on vegetation due to GLE Facility operations would 

be anticipated.

The radiological exposures from the proposed GLE Facility’s operations would be within 

regulatory limits, which are established to be protective of human health. The level of 

radiological safety required for the protection of humans is considered adequate for other 

animals and plants.

12

 Therefore, normal operation of the proposed GLE Facility would not have 

adverse effects on ecological resources resulting from radionuclide releases. 

Table 4-6 summarizes the significance levels of impacts on vegetation that could occur from the 

proposed GLE Facility. Impacts on vegetation related to the operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility would be SMALL.

Wetlands

The operation of the proposed GLE Facility would not result in further encroachment on 

wetlands. Impervious surfaces within a watershed generally result in increased runoff and 

reduced infiltration, causing changes in the frequency or duration of inundation or soil saturation 

and greater fluctuations in wetland water levels. However, the routing of GLE Facility drainage 

to the stormwater retention basin would minimize the potential for wetland water-level 

fluctuations.

Table 4-6 summarizes the significance levels of impacts on wetlands that could occur from the 

proposed GLE Facility. Impacts on wetlands related to the operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility would be SMALL.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Other than the potentially minor impacts on wetlands discussed above, no environmentally 

sensitive areas would be impacted by operation of the proposed GLE Facility. Therefore, 

impacts on environmentally sensitive areas from operation of the proposed GLE Facility would 

be SMALL (Table 4-6).

 

12 Acute doses of 10 rad (0.1 gray) or less are very unlikely to produce persistent, measurable 

deleterious changes in populations or communities of terrestrial plants or animals. In addition, there is 

no convincing evidence from the scientific literature that chronic radiation dose rates below 0.1 rad per 

day (1.0 milligray per day) will harm animal or plant populations. These conclusions are based on 

population studies that were available at the time (IAEA, 1992; DOE, 2002). The International Atomic 

Energy Agency is continuing to review and discuss concepts for a radiological protection framework 

for the environment, to include appropriate effect levels and dose limits for biota. 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-50 February 2012

Wildlife

Potential impacts on wildlife from operation of the proposed GLE Facility would include: 

(1) ongoing habitat disturbance (i.e., reduction, alteration, and fragmentation of habitat due to 

the presence and maintenance of the proposed GLE Facility and support facilities such as the 

substation, the access road, and transmission line); (2) wildlife disturbance (e.g., from noise and 

the presence of workers); and (3) wildlife injury or mortality (e.g., from collisions with the water 

tower, transmission line, buildings, or vehicles, and from the exposure to contaminants).

Habitat Disturbance

In general, the presence of the proposed GLE Facility (and associated maintenance) could 

result in areas that were once considered areas with a high probability of being used by wildlife 

becoming areas of lower habitat use. Maintenance of landscaped areas generally keeps wildlife 

diversity lower than surrounding habitats. Wildlife species occurring on sites within security 

areas are typically limited by low habitat quality and generally include common species adapted 

to industrial sites. The stormwater detention basin and associated drainage ditches could 

provide habitat capable of supporting some wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, waterfowl). 

Because the project area would be fenced, big game and other larger mammal species would 

be physically excluded from the proposed GLE Facility site.

Periodic maintenance of the transmission line ROW in forested areas would maintain the ROW 

in an early stage of plant community succession, which could benefit small mammals and their 

predators. Regrowth of trees following maintenance could benefit white-tailed deer that feed on 

the leaves, twigs, and young shoots of trees and shrubs. Conversely, habitat maintenance 

would have localized adverse effects on species that prefer late-successional or forested 

habitats. ROW vegetation maintenance would not be expected to occur more often than once 

every 3 years. This would lessen impacts on wildlife species that might use the ROW. 

No distinct travel or migratory corridors for wildlife species occur on the Wilmington Site. 

Therefore, the presence of the proposed GLE Facility would not impact wildlife movement. As 

the proposed GLE Facility would not be located near stream corridors, species such as the 

American black bear (Ursus americanus) that tend to travel along densely vegetated stream 

banks would not be impacted. The edge habitat established between the existing forested 

areas and the proposed GLE Facility could attract species such as white-tailed deer and wild 

turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) (GLE, 2008).

Wildlife Disturbance

During operation and maintenance of the proposed GLE Facility, wildlife could be disturbed by 

noise and the presence of workers. The activities associated with operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility that could generate noise include transmission lines (corona), vehicles, 

maintenance equipment, and plant operations. The response of wildlife to these disturbances 

would be highly variable and depend on the species; distance; timing; and the type, intensity, 

and duration of the disturbance. Disturbance impacts on wildlife during operations and 

maintenance would be similar to those discussed for preconstruction and construction activities 

(Section 4.2.8.1). For example, some individual wildlife might temporarily or permanently move 

from the project area. Wildlife permanently moving from the area might incur high mortality 

rates if the surrounding habitats were at or near carrying capacity or if the surrounding areas 

lacked habitat capable of supporting the displaced individuals.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-51 NUREG-1938

During operations and maintenance, vegetation maintenance would be required (e.g., regularly 

within the landscaped project area and along the access road and about every 3 years within 

the transmission line ROW). Because of the temporary nature of maintenance activities, 

disturbance from noise and human presence would be localized and of short duration. During 

vegetation-clearing operations, wildlife would be displaced to adjacent undisturbed habitats; 

however, less mobile individuals could be destroyed.

Night lighting could also disturb wildlife in the project area. Lights can directly attract migratory 

birds (particularly in inclement weather and during low-visibility conditions) and can indirectly 

attract birds and bats by attracting flying insects. Attraction to lights can increase the potential 

for birds to collide with structures.

Wildlife Injury or Mortality

Wildlife could be injured or killed by vehicle traffic along the access road to the proposed 

GLE Facility. Collisions with buildings, the water tower, and the transmission line also represent 

a potential hazard for birds. The relative abundance of a bird species does not predict the 

relative frequency of fatalities per species (Thelander and Rugge, 2000). However, resident 

birds may have a higher probability of collisions than migrants, given that residents tend to fly 

lower and spend more time in the area (Janss, 2000). Also, birds typically found within the 

operations area habitats of the Wilmington Site would be most likely to collide with structures 

due to their close proximity to them.

The potential for bird collisions with transmission lines depends on variables such as habitat, 

relation of the line to migratory flyways and feeding flight patterns, migratory and resident bird 

species, and structural characteristics of the lines (Beaulaurier et al., 1984). Birds that migrate 

at night, fly in flocks, and/or are large and heavy with limited maneuverability are at particular 

risk (BirdLife International, 2003). Waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and passerines are 

most vulnerable to colliding with transmission lines near wetlands, while in habitats away from 

wetlands, raptors and passerines are most susceptible (Faanes, 1987). Young, inexperienced 

birds, as well as migrants in unfamiliar terrain, appear to be more vulnerable to wire strikes than 

resident breeders. Also, many species appear to be most highly susceptible to collisions when 

alarmed, pursued, searching for food while flying, engaged in courtship, taking off, landing, or 

otherwise preoccupied and not attentive to where they are going, and during the night and 

inclement weather (Thompson, 1978). Mortality resulting from birds colliding with transmission 

lines is considered unavoidable. However, mortality levels are not anticipated to result in longterm loss of population viability in any individual species or lead to a trend toward listing as a 

rare or endangered species, because it is expected that mortality levels would be low.

Except under unusual circumstances, no electrocution of raptors or other birds would be 

expected, because the spacing between the conductors or between a conductor and a ground 

wire or other grounding structure would exceed the wing span of the largest birds that occur in 

the region. Although a rare event, electrocution could occur during current arcing when flocks of 

small birds cross a line or when several roosting birds take off simultaneously. This is most 

likely to occur in humid weather conditions (Bevanger, 1995; BirdLife International, 2003). 

Arcing could also occur from the waste streamers of large birds roosting on the crossarms 

above insulators (BirdLife International, 2003). The electrocution of other wildlife from contact 

with electrical transmission lines is even less common. However, non-avian wildlife species that 

have been electrocuted include snakes, mice, squirrels, raccoons, bobcat (Lynx rufus), and 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-52 February 2012

American black bear (Ursus americanus) (EEI, 1980; Williams, 1990). Among the mammals, 

squirrels are among the most commonly reported species to be electrocuted because of their 

proclivity for chewing on electrical wires. Because of the relatively rare nature of electrocutions, 

they are not expected to adversely affect populations of wildlife species in the vicinity of the 

proposed GLE Facility.

The potential effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure on animal behavior, physiology, 

endocrine systems, reproduction, and immune functions have been found to be negative, very 

minor, or inconclusive (WHO, 2007). Generally, these results are for exposures much higher 

and longer than would be encountered by wildlife under actual field conditions. Also, there is no 

evidence that EMF exposure alone causes cancer in animals, and the evidence that EMF 

exposure in combination with known carcinogens can enhance cancer development is 

inadequate (WHO, 2007).

During operation and maintenance of the proposed GLE Facility and its ancillary components, 

wildlife might be exposed to herbicides, fuel, or other hazardous materials. Potential exposure 

to hazardous materials would be most likely from a spill. A spill could result in direct 

contamination of individual animals, contamination of habitats, and contamination of food 

resources. Acute (short-term) effects generally occur from direct contamination; chronic 

(long-term) effects usually occur from factors such as the accumulation of contaminants from 

food items and environmental media (Irons et al., 2000). Moderate to heavy contaminant 

contact is most often fatal to wildlife. Chronic exposure can reduce reproduction, hatching 

success, and growth and cause a variety of pathological conditions. Contaminant ingestion 

during preening or feeding might impair endocrine and liver functions, reduce breeding success, 

and reduce growth of offspring.

The impacts on wildlife from a spill would depend on factors such as the time of year, volume of 

the spill, type and extent of habitat affected, and home range and density of the wildlife species. 

A population-level adverse impact would be expected only if the spill was very large or if it 

contaminated a crucial habitat area where a large number of individual animals were 

concentrated. The potential for either event would be unlikely. Because the amounts of most 

fuels and other hazardous materials are expected to be small, an uncontained spill would affect 

only a limited area. Also, the avoidance of contaminated areas by wildlife during spill response 

activities (due to disturbance from human presence) would minimize the potential for wildlife 

exposure.

Most herbicides used within the transmission line ROW would pose little or no risk to wildlife 

unless the animals were exposed to accidental spills or direct spray or drift or unless they 

consumed herbicide-treated vegetation. Herbicide applications would be conducted by 

following label directions and in accordance with applicable permits and licenses. Thus, any 

adverse toxicological threat from herbicides on wildlife would be unlikely. The response of 

wildlife to herbicide use would be attributable primarily to habitat changes resulting from 

treatment rather than toxic effects of the applied herbicide. However, accidental spills or

releases of these materials could affect exposed wildlife. Effects could include organ damage, 

growth decrease, decrease in reproductive output, adverse impacts on the condition of 

offspring, and death (BLM, 2007).

As previously discussed, no impacts on ecological resources from operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility due to radiological exposure are expected. The highest exposures to wildlife would 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-53 NUREG-1938

be to small animals occupying the UF6 storage pads. However, periodic surveys and other 

activities within the UF6 storage pads would discourage use of the storage pads by wildlife. 

Thus, the radiological exposures to local wildlife would be negligible.

Table 4-7 summarizes the significance levels of impact to wildlife that could occur from the 

proposed GLE Facility. Impacts on wildlife due to GLE Facility operations would be SMALL.

Aquatic Biota

No natural water bodies occur within the immediate area of the proposed GLE Facility. The 

stormwater detention basin could support aquatic biota similar to other onsite stormwater wet 

detention basins. However, it is not likely that a diverse fish community would occur in the 

detention basin. More diverse aquatic communities on the Wilmington Site occur in the 

tributaries to the Northeast Cape Fear River and Prince George Creek, the effluent channel, and 

process and water treatment lagoons. The Northeast Cape Fear River supports a diverse 

aquatic community.

During the operations and maintenance phase, aquatic habitats and aquatic biota could be 

affected by continued erosion and sedimentation and exposure to contaminants. The rates of 

erosion and the resulting levels of turbidity and sedimentation to aquatic habitats would likely be 

less than during the preconstruction and construction phases because of the established ground 

cover and functioning of the stormwater wet detention basin. However, increased discharges to 

Unnamed Tributary #1 to Northeast Cape Fear River could increase turbidity and sedimentation 

until the stream channel adjusts to increased flows (GLE, 2008). Wastewater generated during 

operations would be treated to meet NPDES permit requirements. Therefore, it is not expected 

that aquatic biota that inhabit Unnamed Tributary #1 to Northeast Cape Fear River, which would 

receive effluent from the proposed GLE Facility’s operations, would be adversely impacted.

The potential exists for toxic materials (e.g., fuel, lubricants, and herbicides) to be accidentally 

introduced into aquatic habitats during operation and maintenance of the proposed GLE Facility, 

access road, and transmission line. The level of impacts from releases of toxicants would 

depend on the type and volume of chemicals entering the waterway, the location of the release, 

the nature of the water body (e.g., size, volume, and flow rates), and the types and life stages of 

organisms present in the waterway. Because the amounts of most fuels and other hazardous 

materials are expected to be small, an uncontained spill would probably affect only a limited 

area. In general, lubricants and fuel would not be expected to enter wetlands or waterways as 

long as heavy machinery is not used near waterways, fueling locations for maintenance 

equipment are situated away from waterways, and measures are taken to control potential 

spills. Mitigation measures for maintenance of transmission line corridors generally restrict the 

use of machinery near waterways. Similarly, there are restrictions placed on the application 

methods, quantities, and types of herbicides that are used in the vicinity of wetlands and 

waterways in order to limit the potential for impacts on aquatic ecosystems. For example, 

herbicides would not be used directly along streams, ditches, or the stormwater wet detention 

basin (GLE, 2008).

Only trace levels of radiological contamination would be released to surface waters from 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility, with the discharges being within NPDES-permitted 

levels (Section 4.2.6.2). Therefore, adverse radiological impacts on aquatic biota from the 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility would not be expected.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-54 February 2012

Table 4-8 summarizes the significance levels of impacts on aquatic biota that could occur from 

the proposed GLE Facility. Impacts on aquatic biota from GLE Facility operations would be 

SMALL.

Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species

No impacts on threatened, endangered, or other special status species would be expected from 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility because of the lack of suitable habitats within the 

immediate project area (in part due to habitat disturbance that would have occurred during 

preconstruction and construction activities [Section 4.2.8.1] and due to minimal contaminant 

releases to the environment). Therefore, impacts from GLE Facility operations to these species 

would be SMALL.

4.2.8.3 Mitigation Measures

This section presents mitigation measures to minimize impacts on ecological resources. 

Included are mitigation measures that GLE has committed to (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2009b) and 

mitigation measures identified during the NRC’s review. The mitigation measures are grouped 

by phase of development. Many of the mitigation measures are general in nature, being 

applicable to all phases of the project. These general mitigation measures are presented first, 

with more phase-specific mitigation measures following. A number of the mitigation measures 

designed to minimize impacts on air quality (Section 4.2.4.3), soils (Section 4.2.5.3), surface 

waters (Section 4.2.6.3), noise (Section 4.2.9.3), and waste management (Section 4.2.12.3) 

would also minimize impacts on ecological resources, and are discussed in the referenced 

sections.

General Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

General mitigation measures that GLE has identified in order to minimize impacts on ecological 

resources include (GLE, 2008):

• Select a non-wetland, non-floodplain area for the proposed facility.

• Maintain the hydrological connectivity of wetlands to surface waters.

• Sod, seed, and/or landscape disturbed areas in accordance with the Sediment and Erosion 

Control Permit.

• Plant native plant species (i.e., not invasive species) to revegetate disturbed areas and for 

landscaping the proposed GLE Facility.

• Use nectar- and berry-producing plants for landscaping plants.

• Place bluebird boxes throughout the study area.

• Conduct site-stabilization practices to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-55 NUREG-1938

• Consider the recommendations made by appropriate Federal and State agencies, including 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (NCDENR).

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

• Reduce or prevent the collection, harassment, or disturbance of plants, wildlife, and their 

habitats (particularly threatened, endangered, and sensitive species) through employee and 

contractor education on applicable State and Federal laws. Additionally, implement the 

following measures: (1) instruct all personnel to avoid harassment and disturbance of local 

plants and wildlife; (2) make personnel aware of the potential for wildlife interactions around 

facility structures; and (3) ensure that food refuse and other garbage are not available to 

scavengers.

• Establish a trash abatement program focusing on containing trash and food in closed 

containers and removing them periodically to reduce their attractiveness to opportunistic 

species, such as bears, coyotes, and feral dogs.

• Minimize the number of areas where wildlife could hide or be trapped (e.g., open sheds, 

pits, uncovered basins, and laydown areas).

• Observe all trees greater than 61 centimeters (24 inches) in diameter identified during GLE's 

surveys for potential compensatory tree plantings for the potential presence of red-cockaded 

woodpecker cavities. If any cavities are observed, consult the FWS as required by 

Section 7 of the ESA and determine an appropriate course of action to avoid or mitigate 

impacts.

• Develop an integrated vegetation management plan for the control of noxious weeds and 

invasive plant species.

Mitigation Measures for Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

Mitigation measures that the applicant has identified in order to minimize impacts on ecological 

resources during preconstruction and construction activities include (GLE, 2008):

• Minimize the construction footprint to the extent possible and limit habitat disruption.

• Limit cut/fill slopes to a horizontal-vertical ratio of 3:1 or less.

• Use existing service road routes and utility ROWs to the fullest extent practicable to 

minimize the need for additional wetlands crossings.

• Construct access road perpendicular to wetlands to minimize the area impacted.

• Avoid temporary storage of materials in wetlands.

• Place fencing/barriers and use signs around wetland areas.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-56 February 2012

• Use silt fencing and cover soil stockpiles to prevent sediment runoff.

• Restore disturbed areas to original surface elevations.

• Perform surveys of trees greater than 61 centimeters (24 inches) in diameter before 

beginning preconstruction and construction activities. The impacts on each tree would be 

mitigated by the planting of one 61-centimeter (24-inch) diameter tree, two 30.5-centimeter 

(12-inch) diameter trees, or three 20.3-centimeter (8-inch) diameter trees elsewhere on the 

Wilmington Site.

• Restrict preconstruction activities and the harvesting of trees to periods when the ground is 

dry.

• If trenches are necessary, ensure that they are closed overnight; inspect trenches that are 

left open overnight and remove animals prior to backfilling. In addition, place escape ramps 

at less than 45-degree angles in trenches to provide exit strategies for animals entering the 

trenches.

• Sod, seed, and/or landscape disturbed areas in accordance with the Sediment and Erosion 

Control Permit.

• Revegetate disturbed areas with native plant species.

• Install animal-friendly fencing around the proposed GLE Facility site so that wildlife cannot 

be injured by or entangled in the site’s security fence.

• Establish food plots along roadways and under power lines.13

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

• As an alternative to GLE’s proposed tree-planting mitigation described above, the alternative 

tree mitigation program suggested by the FWS (FWS, 2010) should be adopted. The FWS 

proposes that compensation should be provided for all pine trees with a diameter at breast 

height (dbh) of 10.0 in. (25.4 cm) or more that would be cut down during preconstruction and 

construction activities. Mitigation would consist of planting longleaf pine seedling in 

appropriate habitat. One longleaf pine seedling should be planted for every 2.0 in. (5.1 cm) 

of dbh lost (e.g., five seedlings would be planted for the loss of a 10.0 in. [25.4 cm] dbh pine) 

with the diameter rounded up to the nearest 2.0 in. (5.1 cm). For example, a 10.5 in. (26.7 

cm) dbh pine would be rounded up to 12.0 in. (30.5 cm) and require the planting of six 

longleaf pine seedlings. A professional forester could designate the suitable habitat and 

appropriate spacing for the longleaf pine seedling plantings. Habitat suitable for seedling 

planting should be areas identified in the forest management plan that would be excluded 

from all future development.

 

13 The NRC does not recommend that food plots be established along roadways, as this could increase 

the potential for wildlife being run over or hit by vehicles.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-57 NUREG-1938

• Minimize the area disturbed by preconstruction activities and the installation of facilities 

(pipelines, transmission towers, pump stations, substations, laydown areas, assembly 

areas) to retain native vegetation and minimize soil disturbance.

• Backfill open trenches as quickly as is reasonable.

• To the extent practicable, avoid the use of guy wires, as these pose a collision hazard for 

birds.

Mitigation Measures for Operations 

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

No specific mitigation measures to protect ecological resources from the operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility were identified by GLE (GLE, 2008).

Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

• Maintain areas left in a natural condition during construction (e.g., wildlife crossings) in as 

natural a condition as possible within safety and operational constraints.

• To minimize habitat loss and fragmentation, reestablish as much habitat as possible after 

construction is complete by maximizing the area reclaimed or vegetated during operations.

• Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds within the 

transmission line ROW, along the access road, and in associated areas of ground surface 

disturbance or vegetation cutting. Monitor the area regularly and eradicate invasive species 

immediately.

• Based on recommendations by the FWS (FWS, 2010), consider planting longleaf pine 

seedlings as landscaping around buildings and parking lots.

4.2.9 Noise Impacts

This section describes potential noise impacts of preconstruction activities, construction, and 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility on neighboring communities. In this analysis, noise 

impacts were organized into road construction, land clearing and grading, and operations 

activities. As explained further in Section 4.2.9.1, building construction would generate less 

noise than road construction, land clearing, and grading, thus it was not modeled separately.

In this analysis, noise level data for stationary and mobile sources such as heavy equipment, 

various types of vehicles, and facility operating units for the proposed GLE Facility are 

estimated using standard references and then noise levels at receptors are estimated using 

sound propagation computer software Cadna/A®developed by DataKustik. Potential impacts 

from road construction are presented in Section 4.2.9.1, and those from facility operations are 

discussed in Section 4.2.9.2. Mitigation measures for preconstruction and construction

activities, as well as facility operations, are presented in Section 4.2.9.3.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-58 February 2012

4.2.9.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

The commuter and truck delivery vehicular traffic around the proposed GLE Facility and along 

the traffic routes nearby would generate intermittent noise. However, the contribution to noise 

from these intermittent sources would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the traffic routes 

and would be minor in comparison to the contribution from continuous noise sources such as 

compressors or bulldozers during preconstruction and construction activities. Sources of noise 

during preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility would include 

standard construction activities for moving earth and erecting concrete and steel structures. 

Noise levels from these activities would be comparable to those from other construction sites of 

similar size. The noise levels would be highest during land clearing, grading, and road 

construction, when a large fleet of heavy equipment would be used to clear the site over a short 

time period. This phase is expected to include two months of road construction followed by 

1 year or more of land clearing and grading.

In general, the dominant noise source for most construction equipment is the diesel engine 

without sufficient muffling. Pile driving or pavement breaking would normally dominate noise at 

a construction site, but neither of these activities is planned. During construction, a variety of 

heavy equipment would be used. Average noise levels for typical construction equipment range 

from 74 A-weighted decibels (dBA) for a roller to 101 dBA for a pile driver (impact) at the 

distance of 15 meters (50 feet) from a source (Hanson et al., 2006). During construction at the 

Wilmington Site, the noise level for any heavy equipment or traffic vehicle would be less than 

90 dBA at a 15-meter (50-foot) distance.

Projected sound-level contours including average daytime A-weighted decibels and day-night 

average sound levels (Ldn, dBA) are estimated for road construction and land clearing and 

grading. The assumed numbers of heavy equipment and vehicle trips for use in sound 

propagation modeling are presented in Table 4-9. Background and modeled sound levels at the 

fenceline nearest to the Wooden Shoe residential subdivision are presented in Table 4-10.

The proposed north access road would be constructed to connect the NC 133 (Castle Hayne 

Road) to the proposed GLE Facility. Road construction 2.6 kilometers (1.6 miles) in distance 

would last about two months and progress westward from the NC 133 along 2.6 kilometers 

(1.6 miles) in the proposed access road. Predicted noise levels of 68 dBA equivalent sound 

level (Leq) and 66 dBA Ldn would temporarily exceed the daytime 65 dBA Leq for the 

New Hanover County Noise Ordinance (New Hanover County, 2009b) and the EPA guideline of

55 dBA Ldn (EPA, 1974)14 at the fenceline where the access road is the closest to the site 

boundary (not shown in the table). At the fenceline nearest to the Wooden Shoe residential 

subdivision, predicted noise levels of 61 dBA Leq and 59 dBA Ldn would be lower than the 

daytime equivalent continuous sound level for the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance but 

exceed the EPA guideline, as shown in Table 4-10. Road construction activities would be of 

very short duration (assumed to last two months). Potential noise impacts on the surrounding 

community would be MODERATE but temporary in nature when the road construction activities 

would occur in the proximity of the site property line near the Wooden Shoe subdivision.

 

14 This location is not a residence, and thus not subject to the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance or 

the EPA guideline. These noise levels are presented for informational purposes only.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-59 NUREG-1938

Table 4-9 Assumed Number of Noise Sources for Use 

in Sound Propagation Modeling

Phase Assumed Value

Road construction 4

2

4

2

1

1

bulldozers

graders

loaders

rollers

excavator

water truck

Land clearing and 

grading

4

2

4

2

1

1

375

35

Bulldozers

graders

loaders

rollers

excavator

water truck

passenger vehicles (trips/day)

hauling vehicles (trips/day)

Operations 4

2

4

1

2

2

6

2

1

375

6

cylinder hauling vehicles dedicated to proposed GLE Facility

hauling vehicles using the western connector to existing facility

air handling units

scrubber exhausta

cooling towers

emergency diesel generators

heat pumps (2 per service building)

pump/lift stations (25 horsepower)

electrical substation (60,000 kilovolt-amperes)

passenger vehicles (trips/day)

hauling vehicles (trips/day)

a

Scrubber exhaust noise is included in sound propagation modeling, but the scrubber has been 

removed from the proposed GLE Facility design. Results can be viewed as a conservative estimate 

during facility operations.

Source: GLE, 2008.

Land clearing and grading activities, which are assumed in this analysis to last for 1 year or 

more, follow road construction activities. Most land clearing and grading activities would occur 

away from the fenceline and far from the nearest residential subdivision (about 1.3 kilometers 

[0.8 mile]). Noise levels from commuting, delivery, and support vehicles traveling the access 

road would be lower than those during road construction. Predicted noise levels of 61 dBA Leq

and 58 dBA Ldn at the fenceline nearest to the proposed GLE Facility would be lower than the 

daytime equivalent sound level for the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance but higher than 

the EPA guideline (not shown in the table). However, noise levels of 48 dBA Leq and 49 dBA Ldn

at the fenceline receptor closest to the subdivision are predicted to be below the daytime 

equivalent continuous sound level for the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance and the 

EPA guideline; thus, potential noise impacts on the surrounding community would be SMALL 

and temporary in nature.

During the building construction phase, major activities would include building erection and 

electrical and mechanical installation, and some activities would occur inside the buildings. 

Typically, heavy equipment with lower noise levels than those during road construction or land 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-60 February 2012

Table 4-10 Estimated Cumulative Sound Levels (dBAs) at the

Fenceline Receptor Nearest to the Wooden Shoe

Residential Subdivision

Average Leq

a

Activity Item Day Night Ldn

b

Background (measured) 46 41 48

Road construction Modeled 61 41c58

Background+ modeled 61 41 59

Land clearing and 

grading

Modeled 42 41c40

Background+ modeled 48 41 49

Operations Modeled 38 34 42

Background+ modeled 47 42 49

Applicable 

regulations

New Hanover County 

Ordinance (residential)d

65 50 NAe

EPA guideline (residential)f NA NA 55

a

Leq = equivalent continuous sound level. The “day” time period is 15 hours from 

7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and “night” time period is 9 hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

b

Ldn = day-night average sound level.

c No modeling was performed because no activities would occur at night. This 

background value is used to calculate the Ldn.

d

Source: New Hanover County, 2009b.

e NA = not applicable.

f

Source: EPA, 1974.

clearing and grading would be employed. The start-up and final construction phase would 

include concurrent indoor construction activities along with staged testing and start-up of 

process units as completed. Traffic accessing the construction site might increase but the traffic 

would consist of smaller passenger vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks. Noise modeling was not 

performed for this building construction phase because noise levels would be expected to be 

lower than those for the road construction and land clearing and grading phase. Accordingly, 

potential noise impacts on the nearest Wooden Shoe subdivision would be anticipated to be 

SMALL during these phases.

In conclusion, road construction noise could temporarily exceed the EPA guideline at the 

nearest Wooden Shoe subdivision but not exceed the daytime New Hanover County Noise 

Ordinance level. During land clearing and grading, building construction, and start-up and final 

construction, noise levels at the nearest subdivision are well below the New Hanover County 

Noise Ordinance or the EPA guideline due to the distance (about 1.3 kilometers [0.8 mile]).

4.2.9.2 Facility Operations 

During facility operations, noise sources would be primarily in enclosures within the main GLE 

operations buildings with limited rooftop equipment. Various outbuildings are planned with 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-61 NUREG-1938

exterior equipment, such as diesel generators, pumps, heat pumps, transformers, and cooling 

towers. Other noise sources would include vehicular traffic such as commuting and material 

delivery vehicles on the proposed north access road, as well as hauling vehicles around the 

proposed GLE Facility and to and from the cylinder yards and the existing FMO facility

(GLE, 2008).

The assumed numbers of stationary noise sources and vehicle trips are presented in Table 4-9. 

It is also assumed that the proposed GLE Facility is operating 24 hours per day, seven days per 

week (GLE, 2008). Sound propagation modeling indicates that noise levels of 47 dBA Leq (day), 

42 dBA Leq (night), and 49 dBA Ldn at the fenceline receptor closest to the Wooden Shoe 

residential subdivision are estimated to be below the day and night equivalent continuous sound 

level for the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance and the EPA guideline. These levels are 

only 1 decibel higher than existing ambient levels at this receptor, which is lower than a 

3-decibel change that is considered a barely discernable difference (NWCC, 2002). 

Accordingly, potential noise impacts on the nearest Wooden Shoe subdivision during operations 

are anticipated to be SMALL.

4.2.9.3 Mitigation Measures

As discussed above, potentially MODERATE noise impacts during access road construction of 

short duration (assumed to be two months) and SMALL impacts during land clearing and 

grading, construction, and facility operations are anticipated. All project-related activities should 

comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. Mitigation measures 

during the life of the project are recommended as a means to reduce potential noise impacts on 

the neighboring communities. Below are mitigation measures that GLE has proposed 

(GLE, 2008). The NRC has also identified additional measures that could potentially reduce 

impacts.

General Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

• When possible, use quiet equipment or methods to minimize noise emissions.

• For equipment with internal combustion engines, operate equipment at the lowest operating 

speed to minimize noise emissions, when possible and practical.

• Close engine-housing doors during operation of equipment to reduce noise emissions from 

the engine.

• Avoid equipment engine idling.

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

• Operate all vehicles traveling within and around the project area in accordance with posted 

speed limits.

• Post warning signs in high-noise areas and implement a hearing protection program for 

work areas in excess of 85 dBA.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-62 February 2012

• Project operators should realize that complaints about noise may still occur, even when the 

noise levels from the facility do not exceed regulatory or guideline levels. Implement a noise 

complaint process and hotline for the surrounding communities, including documentation, 

investigation, evaluation, and resolution of all legitimate project-related noise complaints.

Mitigation Measures for Preconstruction Activities and Building Construction

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

• Prohibit heavy truck and earth-moving equipment usage after twilight and during early 

morning hours.

• Equip construction equipment with the manufacturer’s noise-control devices, and maintain 

these devices in effective operating condition.

• Use quieter, less-tonal devices that comply with all applicable safety restrictions 

(e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] standards) on backup alarms 

for construction equipment.

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

• When possible, schedule different noisy activities to occur at the same time, since additional 

sources of noise generally do not significantly increase noise levels at the site. That is, lessfrequent but noisy activities would generally minimize overall noise disturbance than lowerlevel noise occurring more frequently.

• Implement noise control measures (e.g., erection of temporary wooden noise barriers) if 

noisy activities would be expected near sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measures for Operations

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

• Use a quieter, high-efficiency transformer to mitigate noise from the proposed electrical 

substation.

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

No additional mitigation measures to minimize potential noise impacts on neighboring

communities from the operation of the proposed GLE Facility are proposed by NRC.

4.2.10 Transportation Impacts

This section addresses the potential impacts on the environment from transportation of workers 

and materials attributable to preconstruction activities, construction, and operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility. The main impact of these activities on transportation resources is 

expected to be increased traffic on nearby roads and highways. Impacts are expected to be 

SMALL to MODERATE on adjacent local roads, but regional impacts are expected to be 

SMALL. All incoming and outgoing shipments associated with the construction, operation, and 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-63 NUREG-1938

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility are anticipated to be transported by truck. All 

motor vehicle traffic to the facility will use a new entrance, an extension of the existing North 

Entrance (GLE, 2009e), to the Wilmington Site off of North Carolina Route 133 (Castle Hayne 

Road).

4.2.10.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Preconstruction and construction activities involve the movement of personnel and equipment to 

and from the site, the delivery of materials and supplies, and the removal of construction debris 

and waste. The number and type of truck shipments will vary over the course of the initial 

3-year preconstruction and construction period depending on the type and level of activity at the 

site. Truck types would vary from heavy haul tractor-trailer trucks and other heavy haul trucks, 

such as dump trucks and cement trucks, to light-duty delivery trucks. Site activities would 

include site clearing and grading, building construction (exterior and interior), installation of 

process equipment, and utility installation. Preconstruction and construction activities are 

estimated to add approximately 35 trucks per day to local traffic on average over the 

construction period (GLE, 2008). This additional traffic load would have only a SMALL impact 

on local traffic.

The number of construction workers and visitors (e.g., regulatory inspectors, GLE staff) at the 

construction site would also vary widely over the 3-year preconstruction and construction period, 

depending on progress at the site. During preconstruction and construction activities, prior to 

initial start-up of operations, an average increase of up to 1428 daily trips by construction 

personnel is anticipated (GLE, 2009e; GLE, 2011a) as shown in Table 4-11. Approximately 

200 daily trips by workers are anticipated during preconstruction with an additional 1228 daily 

trips at the onset of construction activities. The heaviest local traffic occurs in the immediate 

vicinity of the site entrance on Castle Hayne Road near the I-140 on- and off-ramps. With an 

annual average daily traffic (AADT)15 level ranging from about 10,000 to 12,000 on Castle 

Hayne Road, as discussed in Section 3.10.1, an additional 200 to 1228 or more trips during 

peak commuting periods could have a SMALL to MODERATE impact at the local level. 

Impacts would be lessened if shift changes did not directly coincide with local peak road usage 

times, including shift changes at the existing Wilmington Site facilities. Because Castle Hayne 

Road is a major north-south thoroughfare and I-140 is in the immediate area to handle eastwest traffic, traffic funnels to and from the site on these roads, keeping impacts limited to the 

local site vicinity, regional impacts are considered to be SMALL.

Approximately 200 daily trips by construction personnel are expected during preconstruction 

activities, which would result in SMALL to MODERATE impacts at the site entrance. During 

construction, approximately 1228 to 1428 daily trips by construction personnel are expected and 

would result in MODERATE impacts at the local level.

 

15 Annual average daily traffic (AADT) is a measure of the daily average number of vehicles that pass 

through a given segment of roadway.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-64 February 2012

Table 4-11 Estimated Traffic Generated by Construction, Operation, and 

Decommissioning of the Proposed GLE Facility

Phase Schedulea

Average 

Annual 

Number of 

Employeesb

Total Vehicle Tripsc,d

AM Peak 

Hour Trips

Average Daily 

Trips (ADT)e

Preconstruction and 

initial construction 

activities

2012–2013 680f680g1428k

Start-up operation

(2014), overlapping with 

5–6 years of final 

construction activities 

2014–2020 590h236 1239

Production operations 2020–2048 350 140 735

Production operations 

and initial 

decommissioning 

activities 

2049-2050 400i190g,j 840

Decommissioning 2051-2057 50i50g105

a As discussed in Section 4.1, additional schedule changes would be expected to cause slight changes in the 

transportation impact analysis but are not expected to change the overall impact conclusions.

b Average annual number of employees during the specified years using annual employment estimates for the 

proposed GLE Facility. 

c Number of vehicle trips estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standard trip generation rates for 

industrial manufacturing land use (ITE, 2004). The ITE defines manufacturing facilities as areas where the primary 

activity is the conversion of raw material or parts into finished products. The ITE trip generation rates are total vehicle 

rates that include trucks. Morning peak-hour trips = 0.4 per employee. 

d Assumed ITE ADT trip generation rates for industrial manufacturing land use for all phases.

e ADT = 2.1 per employee.

f Actual total number of construction workers onsite on a given day would vary depending on the project’s construction 

stage and required activities. On many days, fewer than 680 workers used for the ADT estimate are expected to be 

needed to perform the required daily construction activities.

g Assumed construction and decommissioning activities conducted only during daylight hours on a Monday through 

Friday schedule. Therefore, morning peak-hour trip estimates conservatively assume that all workers work the same 

schedule and arrive at the Wilmington Site at the same time.

h Start-up consists of a varying mix of onsite permanent operational workers and temporary engineering and 

construction workers.

i

The 50 workers included in the ADT estimate is anticipated to be an upper limit. Actual total number of 

decommissioning workers on-site on a given day could vary depending on the specific decommissioning-phase 

activities.

j

140 morning peak-hour trips for production workers + 50 morning peak-hour trips for decommissioning workers.

k

The number of vehicle trips associated with preconstruction and construction are estimated to be 200 and 1228, 

respectively (GLE, 2009e).

Source: Modified from GLE, 2008; and GLE, 2011a.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-65 NUREG-1938

4.2.10.2 Facility Operations 

The facility operations phase would overlap with the construction phase for 5–6 years 

(GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011a). During this time period, vehicular traffic from operations personnel 

commuting to and from the proposed GLE Facility would add to the increased local traffic from 

construction workers and shipments, as discussed in Section 4.2.10.1. The remaining years of 

operations would continue to see vehicular traffic from permanent operations personnel staff, 

occasional visitors (e.g., regulatory inspectors), and incoming truck shipments for materials and 

supplies as well as outgoing shipments of product materials and wastes.

Transportation of Personnel, Materials, and Supplies

In addition to the construction-related truck shipments, the natural uranium material used for 

feed to the enrichment process (i.e., UF6 feed) would be shipped to the Wilmington Site and 

enriched UF6 product, UF6 tails, empty cylinders, and LLRW, would be shipped from the site. 

However, the enriched UF6 product will be another source of material for the FMO facility, and 

thereby reduce the number of enriched UF6 shipments coming to the Wilmington Site. A 

conservative estimate of the annual number of additional heavy-haul truck shipments to and 

from the Wilmington Site from operation of the proposed GLE Facility, which does not account 

for the reduced number of enriched UF6 shipments arriving at the site, is 2100, approximately 

six trucks per day on average (GLE, 2008). Other supplies and equipment necessary for 

operations would also be delivered to the proposed GLE Facility on an as-needed basis.

Operations personnel would be expected to reside in the Wilmington Site regional area and 

commute from all directions, which is similar to current workers at the other site facilities and 

construction workers for the proposed GLE Facility. As shown in Table 4-11, the average 

number of workers (construction and operations personnel) at the proposed GLE Facility on a 

daily basis during operations start-up and construction completion would be approximately 

590 (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011a). About 350 permanent operations personnel would be employed 

over the 28-year remainder of the operations period. The proposed GLE Facility would operate 

on a 24-hour, multiple-shift schedule 7 days per week. Thus, not all employees would be 

arriving and departing at the same time in the morning and evening, respectively.

As noted in Table 4-11, the average number of additional daily vehicle trips at the Wilmington 

Site would increase by about 1428 during preconstruction and initial construction activities. 

Once preconstruction and construction activities have concluded, the average number of daily 

trips by operations personnel associated with the proposed GLE Facility is estimated to be 

approximately 735. The range of an additional 735 to 1428 daily trips would have a similar 

effect on the local road network as the increase due to construction traffic for the proposed 

GLE Facility discussed in Section 4.2.10.1. Traffic in the vicinity of Castle Hayne Road and 

I-140 near the site entrance may become more congested at times of peak travel associated 

with shift changes at the proposed GLE Facility resulting in a SMALL to MODERATE impact. 

Impacts would be lessened if shift changes did not directly coincide with local peak road usage 

times, including shift changes at the existing Wilmington Site facilities. The impact on regional 

traffic flow is expected to be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-66 February 2012 

Transportation of Radioactive Materials

Operations of the proposed GLE Facility would require the shipment of various radioactive 

materials to and from the facility: 

• natural UF6 (i.e., not enriched) feed to the facility 

• enriched UF6 product from the facility to a fuel fabrication facility 

• depleted UF6 to a conversion facility 

• return of empty feed cylinders with residual contamination

• LLRW for disposal 

All shipments are anticipated to occur via heavy-haul tractor trailer combination trucks. 

A number of these shipments may have multiple origins or destinations. UF6 feed may be 

obtained from a U.S. facility (Honeywell International, Metropolis, Illinois), a Canadian source 

(Cameco, Port Hope, Ontario, Canada) or overseas sources arriving at U.S. seaports 

(Portsmouth Marine Terminal [PMT], Portsmouth, Virginia; Dundalk Marine Terminal [DMT], 

Baltimore, Maryland). UF6 product may be used at the Wilmington Site or sent to other fuel 

fabrication facilities in Columbia, South Carolina (Westinghouse Electric), and Richland, 

Washington (AREVA NP). The depleted UF6 tails could be sent to facilities in either Paducah, 

Kentucky or Portsmouth, Ohio; both facilities completed operational testing and were fully 

operational in September 2011 for conversion of depleted UF6 to uranium oxide for disposal. In 

the case of the LLRW generated at the proposed GLE Facility, only one destination is planned, 

the EnergySolutions disposal facility in Clive, Utah. Single-shipment and annual impacts are 

evaluated for all potential shipment routes. Annual impacts are assumed based on all 

shipments of one material type over the same route (e.g., all depleted UF6 tails going to 

Paducah, Kentucky, or all going to Portsmouth, Ohio). 

This assessment is based on the transportation assessment presented in NUREG-0170 

(NRC, 1977). Since that assessment was conducted, computer models and basic assumptions 

have been refined, but the overall approach to estimating transportation impacts has remained 

the same. The technical approach for estimating transportation risks involves use of several 

computer models and databases. For assessment of normal transport, risks were calculated for 

the collective populations of all potentially exposed individuals, as well as for a maximally 

exposed individual (MEI)16 receptor. Potentially exposed populations include those persons 

living and working along the transport route, those present at vehicle stops, and those on the 

road near the shipment. The accident assessment included consideration of the probabilities 

and consequences of a range of possible transportation-related accidents, including lowprobability accidents that have high consequences and high-probability accidents that have low 

consequences. The details of the transportation analysis are provided in Appendix D.

For all shipments, risks were estimated for truck transport for both normal (incident-free) and 

accident conditions. In both cases, “vehicle-related” and “cargo-related” impacts were 

evaluated. 

 

16 A maximally exposed individual (MEI) is an individual that may be expected to receive the highest 

potential radiological dose for a given scenario. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-67 NUREG-1938

Vehicle-related risks result simply from moving any material from one location to another, 

independent of the characteristics of the cargo. For example, increased levels of pollution from 

vehicular emissions during normal conditions may affect human health. Similarly, accidents 

during transportation may cause fatalities from physical trauma.

Cargo-related risk, on the other hand, refers to risk attributable to the characteristics of the 

cargo being shipped. The radiological cargo-related risks from the transportation of uranium 

feed and product materials, depleted uranium tails, empty cylinders with residual heels, and 

LLRW would be caused by exposure to ionizing radiation. Exposures to radiation occur during 

both normal transportation and during accident conditions. In the case of the uranium materials 

considered, cargo-related risks also include chemical hazards during accident conditions.

The risks from exposure to hazardous chemicals during transportation-related accidents, which 

include consideration of the formation of HF from the reaction of UF6 with moisture in the air for 

this assessment, can be either acute (result in immediate injury or fatality) or latent (result in 

cancer that would present itself after a latency period of several years). However, none of the 

chemicals that might be released in any of the transportation accidents involving UF6 is 

carcinogenic. As a result, no excess chemically induced latent cancers would be expected from 

accidental chemical releases. The acute health end point potential irreversible adverse 

effects was considered for the assessment of cargo-related population impacts from 

transportation accidents.

Routine Transportation

Radiological risks during routine transportation would result from the potential exposure of 

people to low levels of external radiation near a loaded shipment. U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and NRC regulations 49 CFR 73.441 (Radiation Level Limitations) and 

10 CFR 71.47 (External Radiation Standards for All Packages) were set to maintain these 

external radiation levels at a value considered to be protective of the public. The maximum 

allowable external dose rate is 0.1 millisievert per hour (10 millirem per hour) at 2 meters 

(6.5 feet) from the outer lateral sides of the transport vehicle. In this analysis, the external dose 

rates range from approximately 0.0015 millisievert per hour (0.15 millirem per hour) to 

0.02 millisievert per hour (2.0 millirem per hour) as shown in Table 4-12, depending on the 

shipment type. Since the regulatory maximum is approximately 0.14 millisievert per hour 

(14 millirem per hour) at a distance of 1 meter (3.3 feet), the external dose rates from the 

GLE Facility shipments are expected to be approximately 20 percent or less than the regulatory 

maximum.

Single-shipment radiological impacts are presented in Table 4-13 for transportation of the UF6

feed material, the enriched uranium, the depleted UF6 tails, empty cylinders, and LLRW. 

Impacts on an annual basis are presented in Table 4-14 for all shipment types. The most 

conservative annual impacts can be estimated if the shipment option for each type of shipment 

with the greatest impacts are selected (i.e., UF6 feed material from Cameco in Port Hope, 

Ontario; enriched uranium sent to AREVA in Richland, Washington; depleted UF6 tails sent to 

the Paducah conversion facility; empty cylinders sent to Honeywell; and LLRW sent to 

EnergySolutions).

In the most conservative case, combined total doses of 11 person-rem and 6.0 person-rem 

were estimated for the public and the transportation crews, respectively, from all shipments on 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-68 February 2012

Table 4-12 Estimated External Dose Rates for Radioactive

Material Shipments

Material Shipment Configuration Shipment External Dose 

Rate at 1 m (mrem/hr)

UF6 feed 1-48Y cylinder 0.29

UF6 product 5-30B cylinders 0.95

Depleted UF6 tails 1-48Y cylinder 0.28

Empty cylinders 2-48Y cylinders with residual heels 2.0

LLRW 36-4 4 4 feet waste boxes 0.15

Sources: GLE, 2008; GLE, 2009b.

an annual basis. The resulting expected latent cancer fatalities (LCFs) are 0.007 and 0.004,

respectively (see Table 4-14). These impacts on the public would be SMALL because the 

exposure would be spread out among all people along the transportation routes. For example, 

50 annual shipments of the empty cylinders with tails to the Honeywell facility resulted in an 

estimated dose of 1.7 person-rem to 367,776 persons along the route, for an average individual 

dose of 0.0046 millirem. Thus, an average member of the public would receive only 

0.002 percent or less of the value for exposure to natural background radiation in 1 year.

For an MEI member of the public (defined as being located 30 meters [98 feet] away from a 

shipment passing at a speed of 24 kilometers per hour [15 miles per hour] [NRC, 1977]), the 

greatest radiological risk would be from the empty cylinders with heels shipments, as shown in 

Table 4-15. The remaining heels in the cylinders contain a concentration of residual daughter 

radionuclides that pose a greater external radiation hazard than present in full UF6 cylinders. In 

this case, a risk of 8 10 7(a chance of less than 1 in 1.3 million) of contracting a fatal cancer is 

estimated and is 0.00004 percent of the value for an annual exposure to natural background 

radiation. However, the value for potential exposure to multiple shipments would be 

correspondingly higher. For example, if the same maximally exposed member of the public 

were present for three shipments of depleted UF6, that individual would receive a dose of 

approximately 2.6 10 5 millirem.

For transportation crew members, the largest estimated single shipment dose to one 

transportation crew member would be 11 millirem for shipments of the enriched product from 

the proposed GLE Facility to the AREVA facility in Richland, Washington. In this case, the risk 

of contracting a fatal cancer is 1 in 160,000. The transportation crew member dose of 

11 millirem is about 10 times lower than the estimated dose of 1.02 millisievert (102 millirem) if 

the dose rate in any normally occupied space in the vehicle was at the regulatory limit of 

0.02 millisievert per hour (2 millirem per hour) [10 CFR 71.47(b)(4)].

No latent fatalities were estimated from vehicle emissions on an annual basis (risk < 0.5). In 

addition, the proposed action annual truck travel on U.S. highways for the most conservative

case, 2,700,000 kilometers (1,700,000 miles) as shown in Table 4-14, is only 0.0012 percent of 

similar truck travel on an annual basis in the United States, 229,600,000,000 kilometers 

(142,706,000,000 miles) (BTS, 2009). Thus, impacts on the public from vehicle emissions are 

considered to be SMALL.
February 2012

4-69 NUREG-1938

Table 4-13 Estimated Collective Population Proposed GLE Facility Single Shipment Transport

Cargo-Related

a Radiological Impacts

Dose Risk (person-rem)

b

Latent Cancer

Fatalities

d

Total

Distance 

(km)

Routine Public 

Shipment

Routine

Crew

Off-Link On-Link Stops Total Accident

e Crew Public

UF6 feed coming from:

 Portsmouth Marine Terminal 463 8.3 10

4

2.2 10

5

8.5 10

5

7.3 10

4

8.3 10

4

1.9 10

6

5 10

7

5 10

7

 Dundalk Marine Terminal 754 1.3 10

3

6.2 10

5

1.7 10

4

1.1 10

3

1.4 10

3

7.6 10

6

8 10

7

2 10

7

 Honeywell International 1314 2.4 10

3

9.8 10

5

2.6 10

4

2.1 10

3

2.4 10

3

5.8 10

6

1 10

6

1 10

6

 Cameco 1397 2.5 10

3

1.1 10

4

3.0 10

4

2.2 10

3

2.6 10

3

1.2 10

5

2 10

6

2 10

6

UF6 product going to:

 Westinghouse Electric 479 2.1 10

3

2.5 10

4

8.9 10

4

7.3 10

3

8.5 10

3

6.6 10

6

1 10

6

5 10

6

 AREVA NP 4786 2.1 10

2

2.0 10

3

8.7 10

3

7.5E 10

2

8.6 10

2

9.6 10

6

1 10

5

5 10

5

Depleted UF6 tails going to:

 Paducah conversion facility 1219 2.1 10

3

8.4 10

5

2.3 10

4

1.8 10

3

2.1 10

3

5.0 10

6

1 10

6

1 10

6

 Portsmouth conversion facility 989 1.7 10

3

7.5 10

5

1.9 10

4

1.5 10

3

1.8 10

3

4.9 10

6

1 10

6

1 10

6

Empty 48Y cylinder return to:

 Honeywell International 1314 1.6E 10

2

1.4 10

3

3.6 10

3

2.9 10

2

3.4 10

2

2.1 10

8

1 10

5

2 10

5

LLRW going to:

 EnergySolutions 3947 6.9 10

3

3.4 10

4

1.4 10

3

1.2 10

2

1.3 10

2

5.0 10

8

4 10

6

8 10

6

a Cargo-related impacts are impacts attributable to the radioactive nature of the material being transported.

b

To convert person-rems to person-sieverts, divide by 100.

c Vehicle-related impacts are impacts independent of the cargo in the shipment.

d

Latent cancer fatalities were calculated by multiplying the dose by the FGR 13 health risk conversion factors of 6 10

4

fatal cancers per person-rem.

e Dose risk is a societal risk and is the product of accident probability and accident consequence.
NUREG-1938

4-70 February 2012

Table 4-14 Estimated Annual Collective Population Proposed GLE Facility Transportation 

Cargo-Related

a Radiological Impacts

Dose Risk (person-rem)

b

Latent Cancer

Fatalities

d

Total

Distance 

(km)

Routine Public 

E

F

Shipment

Routine

Crew

e Off-Link

f On-Linkg Stopsh

Total Accident

i Crew Public

UF6 feed coming from:

 Portsmouth Marine Terminal 416,707 7.5 10

1

2.0 10

2

7.6 10

2

6.5 10

1

7.5 10

1

1.7 10

3

4 10

4

5 10

4

 Dundalk Marine Terminal 679,014 1.2 5.6 10

2

1.5 10

1

1.0 1.2 6.8 10

3

7 10

4

2 10

4

 Honeywell International 1,182,482 2.1 8.8 10

2

2.3 10

1

1.9 2.2 5.2 10

3

1 10

3

1 10

3

 Cameco 1,257,364 2.3 9.8 10

2

2.7 10

1

2.0 2.3 1.1 10

2

1 10

3

1 10

3

UF6 product going to:

 Westinghouse Electric 23,971 1.0 10

1

1.2 10

2

4.5 10

2

3.7 10

1

4.2 10

1

3.3 10

4

6 10

5

3 10

4

 AREVA NP 239,277 1.0 1.0 10

1

4.4 10

1

3.8 4.3 4.8 10

4

6 10

4

3 10

3

Depleted UF6 tails going to:

 Paducah conversion facility 975,262 1.7 6.7 10

2

1.8 10

1

1.4 1.7 4.0 10

3

1 10

3

1 10

3

 Portsmouth conversion facility 791,411 1.4 6.0 10

2

1.5 10

1

1.2 1.4 3.9 10

3

8 10

4

8 10

4

Empty 48Y cylinder return to:

 Honeywell International 65,693 8.1 10

1

6.9 10

2

1.8 10

1

1.4 1.7 1.0 10

6

5 10

4

1 10

3

LLRW going to:

 EnergySolutions 142,095 2.5 10

1

1.2 10

2

5.0 10

2

4.2 10

1

4.8 10

1

1.8 10

6

1 10

4

3 10

4

a Cargo-related impacts are impacts attributable to the radioactive nature of the material being transported.

b

To convert person-rems to person-sieverts, divide by 100.

c Vehicle-related impacts are impacts independent of the cargo in the shipment.

d

Latent cancer fatalities were calculated by multiplying the dose by the FGR 13 health risk conversion factors of 6 10

4

fatal cancers per person-rem.

e Collective doses were calculated for truck transportation crew members involved in the actual shipment of material. Workers involved in loading or unload

f Dose to persons living or working within 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of each side of a transportation route.

g Dose to persons in all vehicles sharing the transportation route. This group includes persons traveling in the same or opposite directions as the shipment, 

vehicles passing the shipment.

h Dose to persons who might be exposed while a shipment was stopped en route. For truck transportation, these stops include those for refueling, food, and 

i Dose risk is a societal risk and is the product of accident probability and accident consequence.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-71 NUREG-1938

Table 4-15 Maximally Exposed Individual

Routine Dose from Radioactive

Material Shipmentsa

Material Single Shipment Exposure 

(mrem)b

UF6 feed 9.1 10 6

UF6 product 9.2 10 5

Depleted UF6 tails 8.8 10 6

Empty cylinders 1.3 10 4

LLRW 1.7 10 5

a

Individual is located 30 m from the passing shipment. 

Shipment is traveling at 24 km/hr.

b

To convert mrem to mSv, divide by 100.

Accident Impacts

Overall annual transportation accident impacts from the proposed action are considered to be 

SMALL. The total annual radiological collective population accident dose risk to the public from 

all shipments for the most conservative case was estimated to be 1.6 10 2person-rem. The 

resulting estimated LCFs are 1 10 5annually. These impacts on the public would be SMALL 

because the exposure would be spread out among all people along the transportation routes. 

For example, 50 annual shipments of the empty cylinders with tails to the Honeywell facility 

resulted in an estimated accident dose risk of 1 10 6person-rem to 367,776 persons along the 

route, for an average individual dose of 2.7 10 9 millirem. Thus, an average member of the 

public would receive a negligible percentage of the value for exposure to natural background 

radiation in 1 year, which is approximately 310 mrem (NCRP, 2009). 

Chemical impacts would be negligible; past analyses of depleted UF6 shipments have shown 

that the estimates of irreversible adverse effects to be approximately 1 to 3 orders of magnitude 

lower than the estimates of public LCFs from radiological accident exposure (DOE, 2004a; 

DOE, 2004b; NRC, 2005a). In addition, only 1 percent or less of those persons experiencing 

irreversible adverse effects due to exposure to HF or uranium compounds actually results in 

fatality (Policastro, 1997).

Total fatalities from direct physical trauma as a result of accidents were estimated to be 

0.034 per year. Thus, no fatalities are expected from accidents on an annual basis.

4.2.10.3 Mitigation Measures

The major impact identified in Sections 4.2.10.1 and 4.2.10.2 was related to traffic congestion 

near the Wilmington Site entrance, primarily as a result of commuting construction and 

operations workers. Measures identified by GLE that would lessen such impacts include 

(GLE, 2008):
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-72 February 2012

• Locate the proposed facility near an interstate highway interchange to facilitate employee 

commuter traffic and minimize the distance that truck traffic must travel on local surface 

streets. Selecting the Wilmington Site for the proposed action achieves this measure 

because of its proximity to I-140 on Castle Hayne Road.

• Increase the number of entry gates to the Wilmington Site from NC 133, including one 

dedicated to workers. The design for the Wilmington Site achieves this measure through 

the addition of a new, separate entrance dedicated to traffic destined for the proposed 

GLE Facility, thereby distributing the traffic load and reducing the impact on a single point of 

entry and exit.

• Implement roadway improvements such as deceleration lanes, turn lanes, and traffic control 

devices (e.g., traffic lights) to NC 133 as required by the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) for issuance of a driveway permit for connecting the new entrance.

• Work with the NCDOT to evaluate driveway- and roadway-improvement options to minimize 

impacts (and help regulate traffic flow in an orderly manner).

• Schedule/stagger worker shift changes for off-peak traffic periods, including those from shift 

changes for existing Wilmington Site facilities and other planned operations.

• Route truck shipments of radioactive materials around cities by using a U.S. Interstate 

Highway Systems bypass or beltway (when available).

• Schedule truck deliveries and shipments for off-peak traffic periods to reduce potential 

congestion on local roadways during peak worker commuting periods.

• Encourage carpooling for construction and operations workers.

4.2.11 Public and Occupational Health Impacts from Normal Operations

This section presents the environmental impacts on the surrounding public and on workers at 

the proposed GLE Facility from preconstruction activities, construction, and operation of the 

proposed facility for both radiological and non-radiological (i.e., hazardous chemical) exposures. 

For members of the public, this EIS considered the affected population within an 80-kilometer 

(50-mile) radius of the proposed GLE Facility, with the primary exposure pathway being from 

gaseous effluents. Workers at the proposed GLE Facility could similarly be exposed to airborne 

or gaseous releases in addition to direct chemical and radiation exposures from handling UF6

cylinders, working near enrichment process equipment, or decontaminating cylinders and 

equipment. The analysis presented in this section is based on the assumptions that 

preconstruction and construction activities could start in 2012 and would continue until 2020, 

operations would start in 2014, and there would be 5–6 years of overlap between construction 

and operations of the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2011a). The NRC expects that a licensing 

decision will be made in 2012 and that construction would begin at that time, followed by initial 

operations (2014), and full operations (2020). Changes to the project schedule are assumed to 

have a minimal effect on the total number of worker-hours required for preconstruction and 

construction activities, and are therefore not expected to affect the analysis of public and 

occupational health from normal operations.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-73 NUREG-1938

4.2.11.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

This section evaluates the potential for occupational injuries and illnesses associated with the 

proposed preconstruction and construction activities. It also evaluates the potential public and 

occupational health impacts from non-radiological and radiological releases during 

preconstruction and construction activities.

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

The proposed action involves a major construction activity with the potential for industrial 

accidents related to construction vehicle accidents, material-handling accidents, and trips and 

falls. Resultant injuries could range from minor temporary injuries to long-term injuries and/or 

disabilities to fatalities. The proposed activities are not anticipated to be any more hazardous 

than those for a typical large industrial construction or demolition project.

Health impacts associated with preconstruction and construction activities were estimated using 

annual injury and illness data for heavy construction compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This bureau compiles statistics by the North American 

Industry Classification System, which replaced Standard Industrial Classification Codes in 2002. 

Preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility are classified under 

North American Industry Classification System Code 237, Heavy and Civil Engineering 

Construction. The most recent data available for incident rates for total recordable cases and 

lost workday cases, in units of incidents per 100 full-time equivalents (FTEs), were obtained 

from the BLS publication “Table 1, Incident rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses 

by case type and ownership, selected industries, 2009” (DOL, 2010a). Fatality incident rates for 

Construction for calendar year 2009 (the most recent data available), in units of incidents per 

100,000 FTEs, were obtained from BLS publication “Fatal occupational injuries, total hours 

worked, and rates of fatal occupational injuries for civilian workers by selected worker 

characteristics, occupations, and industries, 2009” (DOL, 2010b). The number of construction 

workers per year (FTEs) and the duration of preconstruction and construction activities were 

obtained from Table 4.3-10 of the Environmental Report (GLE, 2008; GLE 2011a). The incident 

rates for total recordable cases, lost workday cases, and fatalities were applied to the projected 

number of construction worker-years for the 10-year project to estimate the total number of 

incidents. The incident rates, total FTEs, and total incidents are summarized in Table 4-16.

Table 4-16 provides estimates of 89 total incidents and 52 lost work incidents of illness and 

injury to construction workers and less than one fatality over the approximately 10-year 

schedule. These totals include preconstruction impacts that are not part of the proposed action. 

Based on these estimates, impacts on occupational safety from preconstruction and 

construction activities would be SMALL. Assuming that preconstruction activities would be 

completed in the first year, about 4 percent of these impacts, as well as those for 

non-radiological and radiological exposures discussed below, would occur during 

preconstruction activities. In estimating the impact from preconstruction activities, it is assumed 

that 95 FTEs would be involved compared to 2346 FTEs involved in total construction activities

(GLE, 2011a).
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-74 February 2012

Table 4-16 Health and Safety Statistics for Estimating Industrial Safety

Impacts Common to the Workplace and Total Incidents for 

Preconstruction and Construction Activities

FTE Total Recordable Cases Lost Workday Cases Fatalities

Average 

FTEs per 

year

Total 

FTEsa

Incidents per 

100 FTEsb

Total 

Recordable 

Cases

Incidents per 

100 FTEsb

Lost 

Workday 

Cases

Incidents per 

100,000 FTEsc

Total 

Fatalities

235 2346 3.8 89 2.2 52 9.7 0.22

a

FTEs (full-time equivalents) (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011a).

b

Source: DOL, 2010a.

c

Source: DOL, 2010b.

Nonradiological Impacts

Occupational exposures during preconstruction and construction activities would include 

exposure of construction workers to airborne fugitive dusts generated from vehicle traffic and 

heavy equipment use, exposure to pollutants emitted from diesel and gasoline powered 

equipment (e.g., carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter), and 

exposure to vapors from any fuels, paints, or solvents used during construction. Any such 

exposures would be expected to be minor and would be minimized using work practices and 

personal protective equipment specified in a construction health and safety plan. Construction 

activities would be subject to OHSA construction regulations (29 CFR Part 1926, Safety and 

Health Regulations for Construction). Such exposures would be typical of construction projects 

of industrial facilities. Worker exposure to low-level background emissions of uranium and HF 

from the existing FMO plant and from the proposed GLE Facility during the overlap period of its 

construction and early operation is discussed under cumulative impacts in Section 4.3.8 and 

under facility operations in Section 4.2.11.2. As noted in these sections, such exposures would 

be minor.

The estimated levels of air pollutants emitted during road construction, land clearing, and 

building construction activities are presented in Section 4.2.4. As indicated there, impacts on air 

quality during these preconstruction and construction activities would be SMALL. 

Preconstruction and construction activities are not expected to cause any exceedances of 

ambient air quality criteria, with the possible exception of minor exceedances of short-term 

criteria for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) from fugitive dust emissions. Worker exposures 

would be limited through the use of dust masks or respirators, as appropriate.

Impacts on surface water and groundwater during preconstruction and construction activities

have also been analyzed in this EIS in Sections 4.2.6 and 4.2.7, respectively. These analyses 

showed that surface water impacts would be minimized during these activities through the use 

of BMPs and engineering controls (see Section 4.2.5.3). Releases to surface water streams 

would be governed under an NPDES permit. Temporary increases in sedimentation and 

turbidity in streams may occur from stormwater runoff from soils disturbed by construction 

activities. As for surface waters, impacts on groundwater would be prevented using best 

practices and engineering controls to prevent or contain any spills of hazardous materials, 

including fuels for vehicles and equipment. Thus, incidental exposure to groundwater and 

surface water to members of the public would not be of concern. Drinking water for workers 

would be from an offsite source.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-75 NUREG-1938

Radiological Impacts

Radiological impacts during preconstruction and construction activities would be received 

primarily by the construction workers. Exposures to the offsite public would not be expected 

due to the distance from construction emission sources. Construction workers would not be 

monitored for radiation exposure by the onsite radiation exposure control program. Thus, the 

applicable dose limits for the construction workers would be as for the general public listed in 

10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) (i.e., 0.1 sievert per year [100 millirem per year]).

Preconstruction and construction activities would not generate any radiological contamination, 

but these activities could disturb areas previously contaminated due to deposition of 

contaminated particulates on soil from air effluent releases of past FMO facility operations as 

well as to the current air emission from FMO facility operations. Preconstruction and 

construction workers would also be exposed to emissions from the proposed GLE Facility 

during the overlap period of construction and early operation. 

The primary exposure pathways for construction personnel would be: (1) inhalation of 

contaminated dust resuspended by construction activities in contaminated soils; (2) inhalation of 

air effluent releases from FMO operations; (3) inhalation of air effluent releases from the 

proposed GLE operations after 2014; (4) external exposure from previously contaminated 

ground; and (5) external exposure from onsite sources, such as the cylinder storage yards. The 

construction workers were not assumed to consume food grown at the Wilmington Site or 

consume water impacted by site contamination. Therefore, potential exposure from ingestion of 

food and drinking water was not included. The external exposure from the air submersion 

pathway was also ignored, as it would be small compared to direct external exposure. 

For calculating the doses to workers from the various existing soil contamination, the RESRAD 

code Version 6.5 (Yu et al., 2001) was used in conjunction with contamination data from site 

environmental reports (GNF-A, 2007) and the environmental assessment for the license 

renewal for the Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas (GNF-A) (FMO) facility (NRC, 2009b). A 

description of the modeling approach in RESRAD code for this analysis is provided in 

Appendix C. The CAP88-PC computer code was used in estimating the internal dose from 

FMO and GLE air emissions (see Section 4.2.11.2). For estimating the external dose from the 

cylinder storage yard, the RESRAD-BUILD code Version 3.5 (Yu et al., 2003) was used. A 

description of the modeling approach in RESRAD-BUILD code and the CAP88-PC code’s 

modeling approach for this analysis are also provided in Appendix C. 

The maximum estimated dose for each of the exposure pathways was calculated for an annual 

exposure period. These estimated doses are:

• internal dose from inhalation of resuspended contaminated soil: <6 10 5 millisievert per 

year (6 10 3 millirem per year)

• external dose from contaminated soil: <3.2 10 4 millisievert per year (3.2 10 2 millirem 

per year)

• internal dose from inhalation of air emissions from FMO operations: <2.8 10 5 millisievert 

per year (2.8 10 3 millirem per year)
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-76 February 2012

• internal dose from inhalation of air emissions from the proposed GLE operations: 

<3.2 10 7 millisievert per year (3.2 10 5 millirem per year) (Section 4.2.11.2)

• external dose from the existing site sources: <1.05 10 1 millisievert per year (10.5 millirem 

per year)

The total maximum possible dose before and after the start of GLE operations is 

<1.05 10 1 millisievert per year (10.5 millirem per year). The dose is dominated by the 

external dose received from existing site sources.

The maximum dose to construction workers of 1.05 10 1 millisievert (10.5 millirem) is a very 

small fraction of background radiation exposure in the United States, which averages 

approximately 3.1 millisievert per year (311 millirem per year) (Section 3.11.1). The estimated 

maximum yearly dose applies to workers in both the preconstruction and construction phases.

The total maximum possible dose to construction workers from all pathways is less than the limit 

of 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year) in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1), even for estimates 

combining the most conservative analytical assumptions. This is a negligible dose, representing 

a lifetime excess cancer risk of less than 5 10 6 (less than a 5 in 1,000,000 chance of getting 

cancer) when using a risk coefficient of 5 10 2risk per sievert (5 10 4risk per rem)

(ICRP, 1991). Based on this assessment, the impact on workers from radiological exposure 

during preconstruction and construction is SMALL.

The dose to the offsite public will be significantly smaller than that for construction workers, as 

there is no potential for measurable exposure from the existing site contamination. The impact 

on the offsite public from preconstruction and construction is therefore SMALL.

4.2.11.2 Facility Operations 

This section evaluates potential occupational injuries and illnesses, as well as public and 

occupational health impacts associated with non-radiological and radiological releases, from 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility.

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

The estimated rates and numbers of injuries to workers during operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility were determined from Bureau of Labor Statistics tables of rates and from numbers 

of expected workers in the same manner as for preconstruction and construction. For these 

estimates, operation of the proposed GLE Facility is classified under North American Industry 

Classification System Code 325, Chemical Manufacturing. Incident rates for total recordable 

cases and lost workday cases for calendar year 2009 (the most recent data available), in units 

of incidents per 100 FTEs, for North American Industry Classification System Code 325 were 

obtained from the BLS publication “Table 1, Incident rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and 

illnesses by case type and ownership, selected industries, 2009” (DOL, 2010a). Fatality 

incident rates for Chemical Manufacturing (North American Industry Classification System 

Code 325) for calendar year 2009 (the most recent data available), in units of incidents per 

100,000 FTEs, were obtained from the BLS publication “Fatal occupational injuries, total hours 

worked, and rates of fatal occupational injuries for civilian workers by selected worker 

characteristics, occupations, and industries, 2009” (DOL, 2010b).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-77 NUREG-1938

Incident rates for total recordable cases, lost workday cases, and fatalities were applied to the 

projected annual number of workers (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011a) over the years of the projected 

operation schedule to estimate the total number of incidents. The estimated total incidents of 

each type are presented in Table 4-17. For the first 4 years of start-up and operations, 

550 workers would be required, and 350 workers would be required for operation thereafter. A 

total of 14,100 FTEs were computed from a projected 38 years of operations.17 

A total of 324 total recordable incidents and 197 lost workday incidents are projected for 

38 years of operation of the proposed GLE Facility. Over the same period, less than one fatal 

injury is projected. According to the small number of projected non-fatal and fatal incidents, 

impacts on occupational health and safety during facility operations are expected to be SMALL.

Routine Non-Radiological Impacts

Since the proposed GLE Facility would be based on a new, laser-based, technology, no 

historical data are available on workplace concentrations of toxic chemicals of concern, UF6 and 

HF. However, it is expected that the greatest potential for occupational exposures inside the 

GLE process building could be due to connecting and disconnecting of the UF6 cylinders during 

operations and repair activities, which are the processes that produce the highest potential 

emissions of UF6 at existing uranium enrichment facilities employing centrifuge technologies 

(GLE, 2008). GE-Hitachi experience in UF6 cylinder handling at its FMO facility would be useful 

in limiting exposures. Any released UF6 would react with ambient moisture to form HF and 

uranyl fluoride (UO2F2). Airborne concentrations of HF and UO2F2 inside facilities are expected 

to be insignificant with respect to general worker exposure. Workers would use ventilation 

equipment in the immediate vicinity of cylinder handling or similar operations with potential UF6

releases to minimize exposures. An analysis performed for the proposed American Centrifuge 

Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio, found that workplace HF concentrations from these operations 

would be, on average, less than 1 percent of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s Permissible Exposure Limit of 2.5 milligrams per cubic meter of air over an 

8-hour averaging time. The Piketon facility is assumed to be an appropriate model for such 

exposures at the proposed GLE Facility, as exposures would most likely occur during the same 

kind of operations associated with the connecting and disconnecting of cylinders to and from 

process lines. Concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the release point could be briefly as

Table 4-17 Health and Safety Statistics for Estimating Industrial Safety Impacts Common 

to the Workplace and Total Incidents for Facility Operations

FTE Total Recordable Cases Lost Workday Cases Fatalities

FTEs 

per 

Year

Total 

FTEsa

Incidents per 

100 FTEsb

Total 

Recordable 

Cases

Incidents per 

100 FTEsb

Lost 

Workday 

Cases

Incidents per 

100,000 FTEsc Fatalities

371 14,100 2.3 324 1.4 197 1.4 0.20

a

Full-time equivalents (FTEs) (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011b).

b Source: DOL, 2010a.

c Source: DOL, 2010b.

 

17 The operational period of 38 years is based the assumption that operations would begin in 2014 and 

continue until 2051, with license termination occurring in 2052. Additional changes in the project 

schedule are not expected to affect any of the impacts conclusions.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-78 February 2012

high as 10 percent of the limit and would be limited by ventilation equipment. The 

corresponding analysis for UF6 at ACP found that maximum expected levels of 0.7 milligrams 

per cubic meter would be well below the relevant workplace one-hour standard of 10 milligrams 

per cubic meter of uranium (NRC, 2006). Based on this analysis, the impacts associated with 

routine occupational exposures to HF and UF6 in the workplace should be SMALL.

Large volumes of UF6 would be present at the proposed GLE Facility as feed material and 

product material as a consequence of the primary function of the facility uranium enrichment. 

This material, which is solid at ambient temperatures, would be stored in appropriate steel 

canisters in the feed storage and product storage areas. There would be no routine exposures 

to solid UF6.

Worker health and safety would be the focus of the GLE Nuclear Safety Program and the 

Industrial Safety Program administered by the Industrial Health and Safety manager at the 

Wilmington Site. Work practices at the proposed GLE Facility would be evaluated to assure that 

workers were protected through the implementation of appropriate safety measures, including 

the use of safety equipment and personal protective equipment (GLE, 2008). Worker exposure 

to industrial chemicals would be limited to safe levels through a combination of minimizing 

airborne releases within and outside of the proposed GLE Facility and use of appropriate 

protective equipment, such as fume hoods, in situations where elevated air concentrations could 

exist. Hazardous chemicals would be handled under written procedures administered by the 

Industrial Safety Program. Industrial activities would be subject to OSHA’s industrial regulations 

(29 Part CFR Part 1910, Occupational Safety and Health Standards), as well as site licenses 

and permits (GLE, 2008).

Because of the controls on chemical exposures that would be in place under an ongoing 

chemical safety program, non-radiological impacts on workers from routine operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility are expected to be SMALL.

The proposed GLE Facility would use banks of lasers to effect the enrichment of uranium. 

Thus, potential worker exposure to laser light would be a safety concern. Injuries to the eye 

would be the primary concern. Lasers would normally be operated within enclosures, while 

lasers would be equipped with interlocks to prevent inadvertent exposures from opening of 

enclosures. To ensure that protections are in place and to prevent any accidental exposures, a 

formal laser safety program would be implemented at the facility, headed by a Laser Safety 

Officer and employing a written laser safety protocol. The program would require laser safety 

training for all personnel working with or around laser equipment. Laser safety reviews would 

be conducted in advance of any maintenance, repair, or non-routine activity where exposures 

are possible. At the State level, laser safety would be regulated by the North Carolina 

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Division. Applicable regulations relevant 

to laser safety would include Federal standards for ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, 

29 CFR 1910.133 (eye and face protection), and laser exposure limits under American National 

Standards Institute standard ANSI Z136.1. North Carolina Department of Labor General 

Industry Standards (under 13 N.C. Admin Code 07F) would apply as well. With laser 

protections in place, laser impacts on worker health would be SMALL.

With respect to public health impacts, non-radiological releases from operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility to surface water and groundwater, including liquid waste effluents from 

decontamination, cleaning, and laboratory processes and from cooling tower blowdown, should 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-79 NUREG-1938

be small and should not degrade existing water quality (Sections 4.2.6.2 and 4.2.7.2). 

Therefore, the public health impacts associated with such liquid releases would also be SMALL.

Potential long-term, low-level HF and uranium exposure to members of the public would be the 

primary offsite chemical exposures of concern. Public health impacts from such exposures are 

expected to be SMALL, however. The building housing the enrichment process would be 

operated under negative pressure. Any leaks, therefore, would exit the building only through 

the ventilation system, which would be equipped with a HEPA filter to remove particulate matter 

and with carbon beds to remove gaseous contaminants (GLE, 2008). Only minor quantities of 

UF6 or HF would thus escape the system, as dictated by the efficiency of the filter devices.

As discussed in Section 4.2.4.2, carbon beds are expected to remove ≥99 percent of the HF in 

the gas vented through the operations building stack. The specific quantity of HF that would 

pass through the emissions control devices is not known at this time, but should be below levels 

established in a required air permit for the proposed GLE Facility and protective of public health 

(i.e., the facility would be assumed to meet its air permit requirements). Absent such estimates, 

onsite and offsite exposures were estimated using estimates for the National Enrichment Facility

(NEF), a three million separative work unit (SWU) gas-centrifuge plant proposed to be built in 

New Mexico (NRC, 2005b). Most HF emissions would be expected to occur in feed and product 

ends of the operations at both types of plants, so similar emission levels would be expected for 

a given amount of UF6 processed. Since the proposed GLE Facility would have twice the output 

of this facility, twice its estimated discharge point (ventilation stack) concentration of 

3.9 micrograms per cubic meter, or 7.8 micrograms per cubic meter (0.0095 parts per million), 

was assumed to be the concentration at the proposed GLE Facility’s stack. Table 4-18 shows 

modeled HF concentrations at various onsite and offsite locations after dispersion. A maximum 

HF concentration of only 3.7 10 4 micrograms per cubic meter (4.5 10 7parts per million) is 

estimated at the location of an onsite member of the public or construction worker, which is far 

below the OSHA chronic (8-hour) exposure level of 2.5 milligrams per cubic meter (31 parts per 

million), while offsite locations would be far below public exposure standards discussed in 

Section 3.11.2. Given that the concentrations estimated for receptor locations would be far 

below levels of concern, the stated assumptions should be sufficiently accurate for the purposes 

of the analysis.

Uranium concentrations to which receptors could be exposed are shown in Table 4-18. These 

concentrations were based on GLE’s estimated emission rate for uranium isotopes, (GLE, 2008; 

Table S-2) after converting uranium activity to mass. The maximum uranium concentration is 

estimated to be 1.9 10 7 micrograms per cubic meter at the location of the onsite member of 

the public.

Both the estimated HF and uranium concentrations at onsite exposure locations are many 

orders of magnitude below safe levels established by the OSHA (2.5 milligrams per cubic meter

for HF and 50 micrograms per cubic meter for uranium, each averaged over eight hours, 

see Section 3.11.2). Modeled UF6 and HF levels at the site boundary and at the location of the 

nearest resident given in Table 4-18 are even lower than onsite levels. HF concentrations at 

any exposure location, moreover, are far below the most stringent State or Federal ambient air 

quality standards for the general public, for example, Washington’s standard of 8.7 micrograms 

per cubic meter (0.011 parts per million) (ATSDR, 2003). Since these estimates are based on a 

continuous release, they represent a continuous exposure. Such chronic exposure modes are 

considered in the formulation of the aforementioned air quality standards.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-80 February 2012

Table 4-18 Predicted Airborne Concentrations of Uranium and Hydrogen

Fluoride from Proposed GLE Facility Stack Releases at Different

Receptor Locations

Location Direction Distance 

(m)a

Total 

Uranium 

(μg/m3)

b

HFc

(μg/m3)

Site Boundary North 399 1.1 10 72.2 10 4

Site Boundary North-northwest 573 5.2 10 81.0 10 4

Site Boundary Northwest 924 2.7 10 85.3 10 5

Site Boundary West-northwest 1493 1.5 10 82.9 10 5

Site Boundary West 1717 2.2 10 84.4 10 5

Site Boundary West-southwest 2302 1.8 10 83.5 10 5

Site Boundary Southwest 1806 3.0 10 85.8 10 8

Site Boundary South-southwest 1892 2.9 10 85.7 10 5

Site Boundary South 1416 5.1 10 81.0 10 4

Site Boundary South-southeast 1708 1.9 10 83.7 10 5

Site Boundary Southeast 2664 1.1 10 82.1 10 5

Site Boundary East-southeast 1270 1.9 10 83.8 10 5

Site Boundary East 671 6.5 10 81.3 10 4

Site Boundary East-northeast 427 1.1 10 72.1 10 4

Site Boundary Northeast 353 1.5 10 73.0 10 4

Site Boundary North-northeast 346 1.2 10 72.4 10 4

Onsite Member of the Public South 250 1.9 10 73.7 10 4

Nearest Resident East-southeast 1352 1.8 10 83.6 10 5

a

To convert meters to feet multiply by 3.28.

b

106μg = 1 g. 

c HF concentrations are based on dispersion of a release point concentration of 7.8 μg/m3

, or twice 

that estimated for the 3 million SWU proposed National Enrichment Facility (NRC, 2005b).

HF emissions would be monitored in vent stacks (as fluoride) and would be limited by an air 

quality permit required for the operation of the proposed GLE Facility that would be issued by 

the NCDAQ and would be protective of public health. This permit would consider 

GLE emissions in combination with those from the existing FMO facility, which would be 

substantially higher because of the nature of the chemical processes conducted there 

(GLE, 2008). No criteria air pollutants (e.g., CO, NOx, SO2, or VOCs) would be produced by the 

GLE process, as discussed in Section 4.2.4.2.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-81 NUREG-1938

Routine Radiological Impacts

This section describes the potential routine radiological impacts on members of the public and 

workers from the proposed GLE Facility. Appendix C documents the methodology used in 

evaluating and reviewing project information and also includes the site-specific data used.

Public Health Impacts

Operation of the proposed GLE Facility could result in radiation exposure to the public via intake 

(ingestion or inhalation) of uranium released from the facility or from direct external exposure to 

radiation emitted by the uranium present at the facility. The two potential pathways of concern 

potentially leading to public intake of uranium would be airborne releases and liquid releases. 

With respect to releases to air, any UF6 gas released inside the proposed GLE Facility’s 

operations building during operations and repair activities would be sent through a ventilation 

system employing a high-efficiency, multi-stage, emissions control system that incorporates 

HEPA filters for removal of particulate matter and activated carbon beds for gas absorption, 

minimizing outside releases. Liquid releases could result from decontamination, cleaning, and 

maintenance of failed equipment or equipment being serviced and any associated releases of 

radioactive liquids to surface water. However, these liquids would be treated and sampled to 

limit releases via a permitted outfall. Exposure of members of the public to direct external 

radiation could occur from emission of radiation from uranium in process lines, in cylinders in 

storage areas, and during handling, temporary storage, and transportation within and outside of 

the site. The direct radiation emitted by the uranium in the facility would be significantly 

absorbed by the walls of the storage cylinder, and building walls, process lines and equipment 

within the proposed GLE Facility. Additionally, any direct radiation would diminish with distance 

as it traveled over 1300 meters (0.8 miles) to reach the current nearest member of the public. 

Any direct radiation and skyshine (radiation reflected from the atmosphere) from uranium 

released to the air would be expected to be undetectable at offsite areas due to the very low 

concentrations of such releases.

Public Dose from Airborne Releases of Radioactive Materials

The proposed GLE Facility’s operations building would release small amounts of uranium to the 

atmosphere during operation through a single rooftop stack. The modeling performed by NRC 

for this analysis evaluated the impact of these releases to offsite populations and to onsite 

populations that are not included in the site’s radiological dose monitoring program 

(e.g., construction workers). Exposures in both of these groups would be subject to the 

1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year) public exposure limits in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) 

and the 0.1 millisievert per year (10 millirem per year) airborne dose limits in 40 CFR Part 61, 

Subpart H, the EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

GLE laser-enrichment is a new technology and therefore, there are currently no test data to 

quantify the air emissions from the proposed GLE Facility. Monitoring data for the existing FMO 

facility vents that approximate the proposed GLE Facility’s operations were used to approximate 

the proposed GLE Facility’s emissions (GLE, 2008). Dispersion of uranium emitted at this 

estimated release rate was modeled from the design height of the rooftop vent of the proposed 

GLE Facility’s main operations building. Table 4-19 shows the stack and vent characteristics, 

site-specific parameters, and annual release rates assumed in dose modeling. The stack could 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-82 February 2012

Table 4-19 Proposed GLE Facility Stack/Vent

Characteristics, Site Characteristics, and

Stack Releases Used in Modeling

Input Parameter Value

Stack Diameter (m) 1.2

Stack Release Height (m)a15.24

Velocity (m/s) 12.3

Temperature Ambient

Uranium-234 Emission Rate (Ci/sec)b1.25 10 13

Uranium-235 Emission Rate (Ci/sec)b4.88 10 15

Uranium-236 Emission Rate (Ci/sec)b5.49 10 17

Uranium-238 Emission Rate (Ci/sec)b1.77 10 14

Ambient Temperature ( C) 17.7

Annual Precipitation (cm) 144.96

a

Stack could be higher (21–27 m [69–89 ft]) as reported by 

GLE in June 2009 (GLE, 2009a), but the lower value 

(GLE, 2008) is used because it is conservative and the doses 

are small.

b

Emission rates are converted to Ci/yr by multiplying 

3.15 107sec/yr conversion factor for input in the CAP-88 

code.

Source: GLE, 2008 (Tables S-1 and S-2).

be higher (21–27 meters [69–89 feet]) as reported by GLE (GLE, 2009a), but the lower value of 

15.24 meters (50 feet) (GLE, 2008) is used because it is conservative and the doses are small.

EPA air modeling code CAP88-PC (Version 3) was used to assess the impacts from the 

proposed GLE Facility’s air emissions. This code is approved by the EPA for demonstrating 

compliance with NESHAPs. The code calculates radiation doses from a number of exposure 

pathways, including inhalation, submersion, groundshine, and ingestion of contaminated food 

following uranium deposition on the ground. A description of the modeling approach in the 

CAP88-PC code for this analysis is provided in Appendix C.

Data for wind speed and direction by stability classes were taken from the Wilmington 

International Airport meteorological station for the years 1988 through 1992 (Rosnick, 2007). 

The distances from the proposed GLE Facility stack to the receptor locations were measured to 

the Wilmington Site boundary in each of the 16 compass directions (GLE, 2009a). Receptor 

dose was also calculated at 250 meters (0.16 mile) to model the nearest onsite member of the 

public (e.g., a construction worker) and at 1350 meters (0.84 mile) to model the nearest 

resident. Separate runs for the onsite member of the public, site boundary, and nearest 

resident were made. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-83 NUREG-1938

The onsite member of the public was assumed to consume foodstuff produced within an 

80-kilometer (50-mile) radius surrounding the proposed GLE Facility but not produced onsite 

(regional food pattern in the code). The rural food consumption pattern was used to estimate 

the dose at the site boundary and the nearest resident. The rural food consumption pattern 

assumes a high percentage of the foodstuff is produced at home or at the point of exposure 

(70 percent vegetables, 40 percent milk, and 44 percent meat), and the remainder is produced 

within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the release point (proposed GLE Facility). These food 

assumptions are very conservative, because very few people actually consume 100 percent of 

their diet produced within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of their residence (Hill, 2008).

Table 4-20 shows the estimated dose to hypothetical receptors residing at the site boundary in 

each of the 16 directions modeled in CAP88-PC (Version 3). Information about doses from 

natural background radiation is provided in Section 3.11.1. Table 4-20 also includes the dose to 

the onsite member of the public and the nearest resident. The maximum dose to a hypothetical 

receptor at the Wilmington Site boundary is in the northeast direction (0.35 kilometers 

[0.22 miles]) of the proposed GLE Facility, estimated to be 1.1 10 6 millisievert per 

year (1.1 10 4 millirem per year). The estimated dose to the nearest resident located 

at 1.35 kilometers (0.84 miles) east-southeast of the proposed GLE Facility is 1.4

10 7 millisievert (1.4 10 5 millirem per year). The maximum estimated dose for the onsite 

member of the public assumed to be located 250 meters (0.16 mile) to the south of the GLE 

stack is 3.2 10 7 millisievert per year (3.2 10 5 millirem per year). For calculating the dose 

for the onsite member of the public it was assumed that the member of the public was on-site 

for 2000 hours in 1 year. All of these estimated doses are well below the 1 millisievert per year 

(100 millirem per year) public exposure limits in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) and the 0.1 millisievert 

per year (10 millirem per year) airborne dose limits in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H (NESHAPs). 

Therefore, impacts on members of the public from the air emissions of the proposed 

GLE Facility would be SMALL.

The CAP-88 PC code also calculates airborne concentrations in picocuries per cubic meter for 

each radionuclide at the user-defined locations. These concentrations can be converted to 

micrograms per cubic meter for the purpose of evaluating the chemical toxicity of uranium. 

Uranium exerts heavy metal toxicity, primarily to the kidney (Section 3.11.3.3). Table 4-18

provides the calculated airborne uranium (and HF) concentrations at the same receptor 

locations as in Table 4-20.

In summary, airborne emission of uranium from the proposed GLE operations are predicted to 

cause radiation doses that are well below the 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year) 

public exposure limits in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) and the 0.1 millisievert per year (10 millirem per 

year) airborne dose limits in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H, the EPA’s NESHAPs. The airborne 

concentration of uranium from the proposed GLE operations are also well below the toxicity 

limits established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the American 

Conference of Industrial Hygienists. Therefore, the impacts from proposed GLE Facility air 

emission are expected to be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-84 February 2012

Table 4-20 Annual Effective Dose from Proposed GLE Facility

Stack Releases at Different Receptor Locations

Location Direction Distance (m)b Dose 

(mSv/yr)

c

Site Boundary North 399 8.5 10 7

Site Boundary North-northwest 573 6.2 10 7

Site Boundary Northwest 924 2.1 10 7

Site Boundary West-northwest 1493 4.7 10 8

Site Boundary West 1717 1.7 10 7

Site Boundary West-southwest 2302 1.4 10 7

Site Boundary Southwest 1806 2.3 10 7

Site Boundary South-southwest 1892 2.2 10 7

Site Boundary South 1416 3.9 10 7

Site Boundary South-southeast 1708 2.5 10 7

Site Boundary Southeast 2664 1.8 10 7

Site Boundary East-southeast 1270 1.5 10 7

Site Boundary East 671 4.9 10 7

Site Boundary East-northeast 427 8.3 10 7

Site Boundary Northeast 353 1.1 10 6

Site Boundary North-northeast 346 9.4 10 7

Onsite Member of the 

Publica

South 250 3.2 10 7

Nearest Resident East–southeast 1352 1.4 10 7

a Onsite member of the public in the south direction got the maximum dose. For calculating the 

dose for the onsite member of the public it was assumed that the member of the public was onsite 

for 2000 hours in 1 year.

b

To convert m to ft multiply by 3.28.

c

To convert mSv to mrem multiply by 100.

Public Dose from Direct Gamma Radiation

The presence of radioactive materials at the proposed GLE Facility would present the possibility 

for onsite members of the public to receive a radiation dose directly from gamma rays (photons) 

emitted from these materials. Isotopes of uranium could be present in quantities large enough 

to provide the potential for onsite members of the public to receive a measurable external 

radiation dose. Of the uranium onsite, only that being stored as depleted uranium would be 

continuously present in sufficient quantity to represent a potential source of direct radiation dose 

to the onsite member of the public. However, as noted above, gamma emissions would be 

attenuated to a large degree by container walls, structures, and through distance to receptors. 

There would be small amounts of other gamma emitters present onsite as sealed sources and 

laboratory standards, but these are not detectable at any large distance. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-85 NUREG-1938

The measured radiation dose at various locations of interest from existing radiation sources at 

the Wilmington Site was used to gauge the public dose from direct gamma radiation from the 

proposed GLE Facility. The site conducts external gamma radiation monitoring using a network 

of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) positioned at various locations both on and off the 

Wilmington Site. The TLD readings are inclusive of any exposure caused by the presence of 

existing radiation sources on the Wilmington Site, including direct radiation and skyshine from 

the existing cylinder storage yards. None of the TLDs showed readings above the background 

exposure rate of 5 microentgens per hour (GLE, 2009b) at the site boundary. The distance to 

the nearest site boundary from the additional storage yards planned for the proposed 

GLE Facility is greater than 350 meters (1148 feet). Because of the shielding and the distance 

to the receptors, it is expected to have only a minor effect on the direct radiation exposure rate 

at the site boundary. Therefore, the impact from direct exposure to the public is expected to be 

SMALL.

Public Dose from Liquid Releases of Radioactive Material

The proposed GLE Facility would generate process and sanitary liquid effluent streams. 

Process wastewater generated at the proposed GLE Facility is a combination of 5000 gallons 

per day (18,900 liters per day) of liquid radiological waste generated from decontamination, 

cleaning, and laboratory activities and 30,000 gallons per day (113,600 liters per day) of cooling 

tower blowdown that circulates in a closed-loop system and does not come in direct contact with 

uranium materials. Radioactive wastewater is collected via a closed-drain system and 

discharged to an accumulator tank. The closed-drain system allows the liquid radioactive 

wastewater generated from different activities involving radioactive material to be collected at 

one place instead of being discharged. Liquid radioactive wastewater in the tank would be 

sampled on a regular basis before routing to a liquid effluent treatment system. The treated 

effluent would be discharged to the final process lagoon facility. Blowdown from the cooling 

water system would be piped directly to the final process lagoon facility (GLE, 2008). The water 

from the lagoon facility would be discharged through an NPDES-permitted outfall (Outfall 001) 

to the effluent channel. The 10,500 gallons per day (40,000 liters per day) sanitary wastewater 

generated would be treated in the existing sanitary wastewater treatment facility. The treated 

sanitary wastewater effluent would be used to replace blowdown from the cooling towers. The 

stormwater runoff from the proposed GLE Facility would drain to a stormwater wet detention 

basin before being discharged. In addition, a holding pond would be placed near the UF6

storage pads to collect the stormwater runoff from these pads. Monitoring for gross alpha/beta 

activities, total uranium, and fluoride would be conducted at the holding pond before the water is 

discharged to the stormwater wet detention basin. If any unanticipated radioactivity is detected 

in the holding pond, radiological material would be allowed to settle and/or precipitate. The 

liquid then would be pumped from the holding pond and, if necessary, routed to the GLE liquid 

effluent treatment system. The effluent channel includes the discharges from all liquid effluent 

streams from the Wilmington Site and flows to the Northeast Cape Fear River through Unnamed 

Tributary #1.

For calculating the doses to the public from liquid effluent releases, the GENII code 

Version 2.06 (Napier, 2007; Napier et al., 2007) was used. The code has been developed by 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the EPA for calculating dose and risk from 

radionuclide releases in the environment. GENII Version 2.06 incorporates internal dosimetry 

models recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and 

the related risk factors published in Federal Guidance Report 13 (EPA, 1999). The GENII code 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-86 February 2012

includes a set of programs for calculating radiation dose and risk from radionuclides released to 

the environment. GENII implements the NRC models in LADTAP code for surface water doses.

The Northeast Cape Fear River would receive the liquid effluent discharges from the proposed 

GLE Facility. There are no public water intakes on the river downstream of the discharge point, 

so only the fish ingestion and recreational water use-related exposure pathways were analyzed 

(GLE, 2009g). 

The radionuclide concentration in surface water was calculated at three potential exposure 

locations from the uranium concentrations in liquid effluent releases from the proposed GLE 

Facility and the dilution factor in the receiving water body (GLE, 2009g). It was assumed that a 

member of the public was exposed to contaminated surface water from recreational activities 

and ingestion of fish grown in the contaminated surface water. The recreational activities 

considered were swimming, boating, and use of the shoreline. The following exposure 

pathways were included in the dose assessment:

• external exposure from swimming

• external exposure from boating

• external exposure from contaminated shoreline sediment

• inadvertent ingestion of contaminated surface water during swimming

• ingestion of fish grown in contaminated surface water

The surface water concentrations, estimated number of people involved, specific radiological 

parameters, and exposure parameters for different activities used in the GENII code for 

radiological impact assessment are provided in Appendix C. Table 4-21 provides the estimated 

dose for an exposed member of the public from different surface water exposure pathways, 

along with the estimated population doses. Information about doses from natural background 

radiation is provided in Section 3.11.1. 

The maximum dose that a member of a public would receive from liquid effluent releases from 

the proposed GLE Facility would occur just south of the Wilmington Site boundary. The 

maximum estimated dose for the MEI from liquid effluent releases would be 

7.3 10 7 millisievert per year (7.3 10 5 millirem per year). Total estimated population dose 

would be 2.7 10 3person-millisievert per year (2.7 10 1person-millirem per year). These 

doses are well below the 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year) public exposure limits in 

10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1). Therefore, impacts on members of the public from liquid effluent 

releases from the proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL.

Summary of Public Dose

Based on these estimates, normal operations at the proposed GLE Facility would have SMALL 

impacts on public health. Results are based on conservative assumptions (see Appendix C), 

and it is anticipated that actual exposure levels would be less than presented here. The total 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-87 NUREG-1938

Table 4-21 Estimated Doses for Liquid Effluent Releases from the

Proposed GLE Facility

Exposure location Exposure Pathway

Dose (mrem/yr) 

to a Member of 

Public

Number of 

People 

Exposed

Collective Dose 

(personmrem/yr)

Confluence with 

Unnamed Tributary #1 

to Northeast Cape Fear 

River

Fish ingestion 5.26 10−51414 7.44 10−2

Water ingestion during 

swimming

4.37 10−71906 8.33 10−4

External exposure from 

swimming

1.03 10−81906 1.96 10−5

External exposure from 

boating

5.15 10−91244 6.41 10−6

External exposure from 

shoreline activities

2.01 10−51231 2.47 10−2

Total for a member 

of public

7.32 10−5 NA NA

Just South of GE 

Wilmington Site 

Boundary

Fish ingestion 5.26 10−51414 7.44 10−2

Water ingestion during 

swimming

4.37 10−71906 8.33 10−4

External exposure from 

swimming

1.03 10−81906 1.96 10−5

External exposure from 

boating

5.15 10−91244 6.41 10−6

External exposure from 

shoreline activities

2.01 10−51231 2.47 10−2

Total for a member 

of public 

7.32 10−5 NA NA

NC 133 Bridge Fish ingestion 5.06 10−51414 7.15 10−2

Water ingestion during 

swimming

4.21 10−71906 8.02 10−4

External exposure from 

swimming

9.95 10−91906 1.90 10−5

External exposure from 

boating

4.98 10−91244 6.20 10−6

External exposure from 

shoreline activities

1.93 10−51231 2.38 10−2

Total for a member 

of public

7.03 10−5 NA NA

Total population dose NA NA 2.72 10−1

a

To convert mrem to mSv, divide by 100.

b NA = not applicable.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-88 February 2012

annual dose from all exposure pathways would be far less than the limit of 1 millisievert per year 

(100 millirem per year) established in the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 20.1301. All exposures 

are also expected to be significantly below the EPA limit of 0.25 millisievert per year (25 millirem 

per year) in 40 CFR Part 190 for dose to members of the public from uranium fuel-cycle 

facilities.

Occupational Exposure Impacts

Under the proposed action, the most significant contributor to occupational radiation exposure 

would be direct radiation from the UF6. It is expected that the average occupational doses at 

the proposed GLE Facility would be similar to occupational doses at existing fuel cycle facilities

in the United States. As is the case for such fuel cycle facilities, the most substantial sources of 

direct radiation would likely include both full Type 48Y cylinders containing either feed material 

or depleted UF6 and empty Type 48Y cylinders with residual material (NRC, 2005b). Table 4-22

presents occupational doses at fuel cycle facilities within the United States for 2003–2007 

(Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2005; Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2006; Lewis et al., 2008).

The existing nuclear and industrial safety program at the Wilmington Site would be expanded to 

include operation of the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008). The program would monitor the 

occupational workers at the proposed GLE Facility for internal exposure from intake of uranium 

as well as dose from external exposure to radiation. GLE would also apply an annual 

administrative limit of 40 millisievert (4000 millirem), which is below the 10 CFR 20.1201 limit of 

50 millisievert (5000 millirem) for occupational exposure.

GNF-A has implemented a comprehensive exposure control program at the Wilmington Site to 

manage occupational radiation exposure and dose. The program maintains exposures “As Low 

As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) through the use of radiation monitoring systems, 

personnel dosimetry, and mitigation systems to reduce environmental concentrations of 

uranium. The average TEDE to workers from existing GNF-A operations at the Wilmington Site 

for 2003–2007 varied from 0.5–0.75 millisievert (50–75 millirem) and the maximum TEDE during 

the same time period varied from 4.7–5.6 millisievert (470–560 millirem) (NRC, 2009b). 

The occupational exposure analysis and the historical exposure data from the United States 

Enrichment Corporation facilities and the existing GNF-A operations at the Wilmington Site 

demonstrate that a properly administered radiation protection program at the proposed 

GLE Facility would maintain radiological occupational impacts below the regulatory limits of 

10 CFR 20.1201. Therefore, the impacts from occupational exposure at the proposed 

GLE Facility are expected to be SMALL.

4.2.11.3 Mitigation Measures

Facility design features and process controls would be incorporated into the proposed 

GLE Facility to minimize gaseous and liquid effluent releases, and to maintain the impacts on 

workers and the surrounding population below regulatory limits. An ALARA program would be 

implemented in addition to routine radiological surveys and personnel monitoring. Minimum 

requirements associated with compliance with 29 CFR Part 1910 regarding OSHA standards 

would be implemented. Worker health and safety would be protected under an expansion 
February 2012

4-89 NUREG-1938

Table 4-22 Annual CEDE

a

and TEDE

b

for Fuel Cycle Facilities within the United States for 20

Year

Number of 

Monitored 

Individuals

Workers 

with 

Measured 

TEDE

Collective 

TEDE 

(personrem

c

)

Average 

Measured 

TEDE 

(rem)

Workers 

with 

Measured 

DDE

Collective 

DDE

d

(personrem)

Average 

Measured 

DDE (rem)

Workers 

with 

Measured 

CEDE

Collecti

CEDE 

(person

rem)

2003 7738 3633 556 0.15 2815 258 0.09 2255 298 

2004 7562 3814 514 0.13 2933 258 0.09 2327 256 

2005 7699 3371 497 0.15 2385 238 0.10 2173 259 

2006 7417 3413 522 0.15 2475 283 0.11 2131 238 

2007 7536 3225 429 0.13 2254 230 0.10 1983 199 

a Committed effective dose equivalent = total radiation dose received from ingestion or inhalation of radioactive material.

b

Total effective dose equivalent = CEDE plus DDE (deep dose equivalent from external radiation).

c

1 rem = 1000 mrem.

d

To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100.

Sources: Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2005; Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2006; Lewis, et al. 2008.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-90 February 2012

of the current GNF-A Nuclear Safety Program and the Industrial Safety Program that would 

comply with applicable State, NRC (10 CFR Part 20), and OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) 

requirements. Appropriate safety controls would be implemented according to the nature of 

work and hazards presented to minimize exposure to chemicals and radionuclides.

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

• Install a building ventilation system and maintain the majority of the process building under 

sub-atmospheric pressure to prevent any air effluent release inside the building from being 

directly vented outside the building. 

• Install alarms in the Emergency Control Center to detect, alarm, and/or activate the 

automatic safe shutdown of process equipment in case of operational problems.

• Install radiation monitors in effluent stacks to detect, alarm, and activate the automatic safe 

shutdown of process equipment, should contaminants be detected in the system exhaust.

• Isolate leaks and shut down process lines to prevent damage to equipment. 

• Vent exhaust-gases from the emission control system to the atmosphere through a single 

rooftop stack. The emission control system would have a design control efficiency of at 

least 99 percent for uranium particulates and UF6 and HF vapors.

• Employ fluoride monitors and radiation monitors in vent stacks to detect, alarm, and activate 

the automatic safe shutdown of process equipment. 

• Perform environmental monitoring and sampling to ensure compliance with regulatory 

discharge limits.

• Route treated process wastewater effluents to the existing final process lagoon facility at the 

Wilmington Site for additional treatment. Treated sanitary wastewater effluent would be 

used to replace blowdown from the cooling towers.

The mitigation measures proposed by GLE for worker health and safety include:

• Comply with all applicable State, NRC, and OSHA regulations concerning worker health and 

safety, as well as the existing Wilmington Site Nuclear Safety Program and the Industrial 

Safety Program.

• Comply with the Site Radiation Protection Program, the Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plan, and the GLE Environmental, Health, and Safety Program.

• Conduct routine facility radiation and radiological surveys to characterize and minimize 

potential radiological exposure.

• Monitor all operational workers via dosimeters and area air sampling to ensure that 

radiological doses remain within regulatory limits and ALARA practices.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-91 NUREG-1938

• Conduct operations activities involving hazardous respirable effluents with ventilation control 

and/or respiratory protection, as required.

• Use personal protective equipment based on the nature of the work and chemical and/or 

radiological hazards present.

Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC

• Move UF6 cylinders only when cool and when UF6 is in solid form, to minimize the risk of 

inadvertent release due to mishandling.

• Direct process off-gas from UF6 purification and other operations through cold traps to 

solidify and reclaim as much UF6 as possible. Pass remaining gases through high-efficiency 

filters and chemical absorbers to remove HF and uranic compounds.

• Separate uranic compounds and various other heavy metals in waste material generated by 

decontamination of equipment and systems.

4.2.12 Waste Management Impacts

This section evaluates the potential environmental impacts related to operation of the solid, 

hazardous, and radioactive waste management program at the proposed GLE Facility, including 

impacts resulting from temporary storage, conversion, and disposal of the depleted UF6. No 

mixed waste (hazardous and radioactive) is expected to be generated at the proposed facility. 

Due to the nature, design, and operation of a laser enrichment facility, the generation of waste 

materials can be categorized by three distinct facility operations: (1) preconstruction and 

construction, which generates typical construction wastes associated with an industrial facility; 

(2) enrichment process operations, which generate gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams; 

and (3) generation and temporary storage of depleted UF6 (Section 4.2.17.11 of this chapter 

discusses decommissioning wastes). Waste materials include radioactive waste (i.e., depleted 

UF6 and material contaminated with UF6), listed or characteristic hazardous materials 

(as defined in 40 CFR Part 261), and nonhazardous materials (any other wastes not identified 

as radioactive or hazardous). Hazardous materials include any fluids, equipment, and piping 

contaminated as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, such as cleaning solvents and pesticides, that 

would be generated due to the construction, operations, and maintenance programs.

The handling and disposing of waste materials is governed by various Federal and State 

regulations. To satisfy the Federal and State regulations, GLE has implemented waste 

minimization and pollution-prevention practices associated with the generation, collection, 

removal, and proper disposal of waste materials. GLE’s waste management program is 

intended to minimize the generation of waste through reduction, reuse, or recycling 

(GLE, 2008). This program would assist in identifying methods to minimize the volume of 

regulated wastes through better segregation of materials and the substitution of nonhazardous 

materials as required under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. 

Using available information and waste data from similar facilities, the waste-management 

impacts at the proposed GLE Facility are assessed for preconstruction and construction, 

operations, and depleted UF6 disposition activities.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-92 February 2012

4.2.12.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Solid nonhazardous wastes generated during the preconstruction and construction phases 

would be typical of those for construction of industrial facilities. These wastes would be 

transported offsite to an approved local landfill. Approximately 3058 cubic meters (4000 cubic 

yards) per year of non-compacted waste is anticipated to be generated (GLE, 2009a) and would 

include paper, plastic, cardboard, packaging materials, wood scraps, metal building material 

scraps, roofing and insulation material scraps, masonry and ceramic materials, and empty paint 

and coatings containers. Small quantities of organic solvent-based residuals remaining from 

application of specialty paints, architectural coatings, sealants, and adhesives, as well as 

wastes from certain other materials that possibly could be used for ancillary building 

construction, which is one aspect of preconstruction, or construction, may be required to be 

managed as hazardous waste.

Nonhazardous wastes would be transported to the New Hanover County Landfill for disposal. 

This landfill receives approximately 151,000 tons (approximately 210,000 cubic yards 

[compacted]) annually (NCDENR, 2009a). Thus, proposed GLE Facility preconstruction and 

construction activities would generate approximately 2 percent of the waste that the New 

Hanover County Landfill receives annually from all other sources. The generation of hazardous 

wastes (i.e., waste oil, greases, excess paints, and other chemicals) associated with the 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed facility due to the maintenance of

construction equipment and vehicles, painting, and cleaning, would be packaged and shipped 

offsite to licensed facilities in accordance with Federal and State environmental and 

occupational regulations. Table 4-23 shows the hazardous wastes that would be expected from 

construction of the proposed GLE Facility. The quantity of all preconstruction- and constructiongenerated hazardous and nonhazardous waste material would result in SMALL impacts that 

could be managed effectively.

Preconstruction activities such as land clearing, site grading and erosion control, installation of 

the stormwater system, utility placement, and parking lot and roadway construction, would 

account for less than 2 percent of the nonhazardous waste generated during preconstruction 

activities, with approximately 300 cubic meters (400 cubic yards) generated, compared to

3058 cubic meters per year (4000 cubic yards per year) generated during each of the following 

6 years of building construction (GLE, 2009f). Similarly, hazardous waste generated during 

preconstruction activities would be expected to account for approximately two percent of the 

hazardous waste generated during the ensuing 6 years of construction. These estimates are 

based on GLE’s assumption that construction of ancillary buildings, although authorized by the 

exemption allowing GLE to perform certain preconstruction activities prior to the NRC licensing 

decision, would not occur until after the NRC licensing decision (GLE, 2009f). Thus, the 

estimated volume of waste from ancillary building construction is included here in the estimated 

volumes of building construction waste.

4.2.12.2 Facility Operations 

Normal operation of the proposed GLE Facility would result in the generation of wastewaters 

that would be treated onsite before discharge and solid wastes that would be treated onsite or 

offsite and shipped for disposal offsite. The systems used to manage the wastes generated 

during operations onsite are described in Section 2.1.2.4.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-93 NUREG-1938

Table 4-23 Estimated Construction Hazardous Wastes

for the Proposed GLE Facility

Waste Annual Quantity

Paints, solvents, thinners, organics 3000 gal (11,360 L) 

Petroleum products, oils, lubricants 3000 gal (11,360 L)

Sulfuric acid (battery) 100 gal (379 L) 

Adhesives, resins, sealers, caulking 2000 lb (910 kg)

Lead (batteries) 200 lb (91 kg)

Pesticides 100 gal (379 L)

Source: GLE, 2009a.

Wastewater

Wastewater management systems are in place at the proposed GLE Facility site to handle 

sanitary wastewater, facility cooling tower water, stormwater, and process wastewater. The first 

three systems deal with nonradioactive effluents, while the last system is in place to remove any 

uranium or other metals left in the water as a result of the uranium enrichment process. 

Stormwater management is discussed in Sections 3.7.1 and 4.2.6.2. Table 4-24 summarizes 

the estimated quantities generated by the different systems.

Sanitary Wastewater

Sanitary wastewater at the proposed GLE Facility would be collected by a sewer system 

connected to the existing Wilmington Site sanitary wastewater treatment facility discussed in 

Section 3.12.2.1. Approximately 39,747 liters per day (10,500 gallons per day) are estimated to 

be generated by the proposed GLE Facility, increasing the load on the existing treatment 

system by about one-third (GLE, 2008). Because the Wilmington Site has secured a reuse 

permit for treated sanitary wastewater effluent as makeup water in cooling towers onsite, the 

additional 39,747 liters per day (10,500 gallons per day) discharged could be used in the 

proposed GLE Facility cooling tower, which is estimated to have a blowdown of about 

113,562 liters per day (30,000 gallons per day) (GLE, 2008). Should discharges to surface 

waters be necessary in the future, the existing NPDES discharge permit of 283,906 liters per 

day (75,000 gallons per day) as discussed in Section 3.12.2.1 would be adequate to cover the 

additional volume of effluent. The NPDES discharge permit is half of the capacity of the existing 

treatment system. Therefore, impacts from sanitary wastewater from the proposed GLE Facility 

would be SMALL.

Cooling Tower Blowdown

The water removed from a cooling tower loop is referred to as “blowdown.” Water in a cooling 

tower loop does not come in direct contact with wastes or hazardous materials, but a portion of 

the cooling water in a tower’s loop is replaced periodically to maintain the concentration of 

dissolved solids and other impurities within specific water quality limits. At the proposed 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-94 February 2012

Table 4-24 Wastewater Volume Estimates for the Proposed GLE Facility

Wastewater Type Wastewater Source

Estimated Average 

Daily Quantity 

Generated

Process liquid radwaste Wastewaters from proposed GLE Facility’s main 

operations building decontamination room; 

process area floor drains, sinks, sumps, and mop 

water; laboratory area floor drains, sinks, sumps, 

and mop water; change room showers and sink; 

and aqueous process liquids that have the 

potential to contain uranium 

18,927 lpd (5000 gpd)

Cooling tower blowdown Proposed GLE Facility’s main operations building 

HVAC cooling tower 

113,562 lpd (30,000 gpd)

Sanitary waste Sanitary waste from building areas used by 

proposed GLE Facility workers (e.g., restrooms, 

break rooms) 

39,746 lpd (10,500 gpd)

Stormwater runoff Stormwater runoff from proposed GLE Facility

impervious surfaces (e.g., building roofs, parking 

lots, service roads, outdoor storage pads, and 

other maintained areas) 

Variable depending on 

local precipitation 

Source: GLE, 2008.

GLE Facility, approximately 113,562 liters per day (30,000 gallons per day) of blowdown would 

be sent directly to the Wilmington Site’s final process lagoons (GLE, 2008). This volume of 

water represents a 6 percent increase handled by the process lagoons in 2006, but is only 

2 percent of the existing NPDES permit for treated process wastewater. The impacts from 

cooling tower blowdown are therefore expected to be SMALL.

Process Wastewater

Daily operations at the proposed GLE Facility are estimated to generate approximately 

18,927 liters per day (5000 gallons per day) of radioactive wastewater from decontamination, 

cleaning, and laboratory activities within the proposed GLE Facility’s main operations building 

(GLE, 2008). This process wastewater would be collected in an accumulator tank. Uranium 

and other metals would be precipitated out of solution in the accumulator tank through a pH 

adjustment. The resulting precipitate slurry at the bottom of the tank would be isolated and 

disposed of as solid LLRW as discussed in the following section on Nonhazardous Solid 

Wastes. The resulting fluoride solution at the top of the tank would be treated to remove the 

fluoride also resulting in a solid waste form. The treated process wastewater effluent would 

then be discharged to the Wilmington Site process wastewater aeration basin and Final Process 

Lagoon Treatment Facility (FPLTF). Because the additional 18,927 liters per day (5000 gallons 

per day) from operation of the proposed GLE Facility would only be about an additional 

1 percent over the volume treated by the FPLTF in 2006 (the latest data available) and less than 

0.3 percent of the NPDES permit, the impacts from GLE process wastewater would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-95 NUREG-1938

Nonhazardous/Nonradioactive Solid Wastes

Operations at the proposed GLE Facility would generate approximately 345 metric tons per year 

(380 tons per year) of municipal solid waste (MSW) and an additional 97 metric tons per year 

(107 tons per year) of other nonhazardous industrial solid wastes. Table 4-25 provides a 

summary of the types of wastes anticipated. The MSW would be collected on a regular basis 

and sent to the local New Hanover Municipal Landfill, which receives about 137,000 metric tons 

per year (151,000 tons per year) (NCDENR, 2009a). Impacts on the landfill operations would 

be SMALL, as the MSW waste would contribute approximately an additional 0.3 percent to its 

current receipt rate. The other nonhazardous industrial waste would either be packaged and 

shipped directly to Heritage Environmental Services in Indianapolis, Indiana, or routed through 

Heritage Environmental Services for reuse, reclamation, or treatment. Impacts are considered 

to be SMALL because 97 metric tons per year (107 tons per year) represents less than 

0.1 percent of the waste received at Heritage Environmental in 2007 (the latest data available) 

(IDEM, 2008).

Hazardous Wastes

As shown in Table 4-25, approximately 11 metric tons per year (12 tons per year) of RCRA 

hazardous waste would be expected to be generated by the proposed GLE Facility. The waste 

would be packaged and shipped to Heritage Environmental Services in Indianapolis, Indiana, a 

RCRA-permitted Subtitle C facility, for treatment, storage, and disposal. The impact would be 

expected to be SMALL because disposal of 11 metric tons per year (12 tons per year) 

represents approximately 0.01 percent of the amount of hazardous waste, 122,091 metric tons 

(134,610 tons), received by Heritage Environmental Services in 2007 (the latest data available) 

(IDEM, 2008).

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

A variety of uranium-contaminated wastes would be expected to be generated from operation of 

the proposed GLE Facility, as shown in Table 4-25. With the exception of the depleted UF6

tails, the majority of the LLRW (312 metric tons per year [344 tons per year]) would be the 

combustible and non-combustible portions of contaminated used items, with an additional 

953 kilograms per year (2100 pounds per year) of sludge from the process wastewater 

treatment discussed in Section 4.2.12.2, followed by waste from feed sampling and analysis 

(44 kilograms per year [97 pounds per year]) (GLE, 2008). This LLRW would be packaged per 

DOT standards and shipped to EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah, facility for disposal. The impact 

would be considered SMALL because approximately 312 metric tons per year (344 tons per 

year) of waste is less than 0.08 percent of the 500,000 metric tons per year (453,600 tons per 

year) permitted maximum of the disposal facility (UDRC, 2009).

Depleted UF6 Management

As discussed in Chapter 2 of this EIS, depleted UF6-filled Type 48Y or 48G cylinders (depleted 

UF6 cylinders) would be temporarily stored on an outdoor cylinder storage pad on the facility 

grounds. Storage of depleted UF6 cylinders at the proposed GLE Facility would occur during 

the facility’s 40-year operating lifetime, with eventual removal of depleted UF6 from the site 

through one of the disposition options considered. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is 

required by Section 3113 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2297h11, to take title to and 

possession of the depleted uranium if requested. Furthermore, DOE provided GLE with a
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-96 February 2012

Table 4-25 Operations Waste Estimates for the Proposed GLE Facility

Waste Type Waste Source

Estimated Average 

Annual Quantity 

Generated

Municipal solid waste 

(MSW) 

General worker operations, maintenance, and 

administrative activities not involving the 

handling of or exposure to uranium 

345 Mt/yr (380 tons/yr)

Nonhazardous industrial 

wastes 

Nonhazardous wastes from proposed 

GLE Facility equipment cleaning and 

maintenance activities (e.g., used coolant, 

non-hazardous caustic, and filter media) that 

are recyclable or not accepted by municipal 

solid waste (MSW) landfill 

97 Mt/yr (107 tons/yr)

RCRA hazardous waste Wastes designated as RCRA hazardous 

wastes from proposed GLE Facility

equipment and maintenance activities (e.g., 

used cleaning solvents, used solventcontaminated rags) 

11 Mt/yr (12 tons/yr)

Low–level radioactive 

waste (LLRW) 

Laboratory waste from UF6 feed cylinder 

sampling and analysis 

44 kg/yr (97 lbs/yr)

Combustible, uranium-contaminated used 

items (e.g., worker personal protection 

equipment, swipes, step off pads) 

93 Mt/yr (103 tons/yr)

Noncombustible, uranium-contaminated used 

items (e.g., spent filters from HVAC systems, 

liquid effluent treatment system, and area 

monitors) and corrective maintenance items 

(e.g., defective pigtails, valves, other safety 

equipment that need replacement) 

219 Mt/yr (241 tons/yr)

Liquid effluent treatment system 

filtrate/sludge

953 kg/yr (2100 lbs/yr)

Depleted UF6 (UF6 tails) 11,250 Mt/yr

(12,400 tons/yr)

Source: GLE, 2008.

cost estimate for disposition of the depleted uranium and indicated that DOE would extend the 

operational period of its conversion plants to accommodate the additional material (GLE, 2008). 

The current storage pad design is large enough (465,000 square feet) to accommodate up to 

9000 cylinders, the expected inventory from 10 years of operation. Additional area is available 

nearby for expansion, if room for more cylinders is required. If further expansion of the pad is 

necessary in the future, GLE would be required to prepare a license amendment and prepare 

the requisite safety and environmental analyses at that time.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-97 NUREG-1938

Temporary Onsite Storage Impacts

Proper and active cylinder management, which includes routine inspections and maintaining the 

anti-corrosion layer on the cylinder surface, has been shown to limit exterior corrosion or 

mechanical damage to the degree necessary for the safe storage of depleted UF6

(DNFSB, 1995a; DNFSB, 1995b; DNFSB, 1999). DOE has stored depleted UF6 in Type 48Y or 

similar cylinders at the Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants since approximately 

1956. Cylinders were also stored at the East Tennessee Technical Park in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee,.until 2007 (DOE, 2010). Cylinder leaks due to corrosion led DOE to implement a 

cylinder management program. Past evaluations and monitoring by the Defense Nuclear 

Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) of DOE’s cylinder maintenance program confirmed that DOE met 

all of the commitments in its cylinder maintenance implementation plan (DOE, 1995), 

particularly through the use of a systems engineering process to develop a workable and 

technically justifiable cylinder management program (DNFSB, 1999). Thus, similar active 

cylinder maintenance program by GLE would assure the integrity of the depleted UF6 cylinders 

for the period of time of temporary onsite storage of depleted UF6 on the cylinder storage pad.

The principal impacts from cylinder storage would be the radiological exposure resulting from 

depleted UF6 temporarily stored in 9000 depleted UF6 cylinders (the design capacity of the GLE 

full tails cylinder storage pad) under normal conditions and the potential release (slow or rapid) 

of depleted UF6 from the cylinders due to an off-normal event or accidents (operational, 

external, or natural hazard phenomena events). These radiation exposure pathways are 

analyzed in Sections 4.2.11.2 and 4.2.15.2, and based on these results, the impacts from 

temporary storage would be SMALL. The annual impacts from temporary storage would 

continue until the depleted UF6 cylinders are removed from the proposed GLE Facility site.

Offsite Disposal Impacts

For the disposal of the depleted UF6, GLE has proposed that the Type 48Y cylinders would be 

transported from the proposed GLE Facility to either of the DOE’s conversion facilities at 

Paducah, Kentucky, or Portsmouth, Ohio, for conversion to triuranium octaoxide (U3O8). After 

being converted to uranium oxide (primarily dry U3O8), the waste would be further transported to 

a licensed disposal facility. The transportation of the Type 48Y cylinders from the proposed 

GLE Facility to either of the conversion facilities would have environmental impacts that are 

included in the transportation analysis presented in Section 4.2.10.2. 

If the DOE conversion facility could not immediately process the depleted UF6 upon arrival, 

potential impacts would include radiological impacts proportional to the time of temporary 

storage at the conversion facility. DOE has previously assessed the impacts of depleted UF6

storage during the operation of a depleted UF6 conversion facility (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b). 

At the Paducah and Portsmouth conversion facilities, the maximum collective dose to workers 

(i.e., workers at the cylinder yards) would be 0.055 person-sievert (5.5 person-rem) per year 

and 0.03 person-sievert (3 person-rem) per year, respectively, considering the existing stored 

inventories of depleted UF6. There would be negligible exposure to noninvolved workers or the

public because of their distance from the cylinder yards and air emissions from the cylinder 

preparation and maintenance activities would be negligible (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b).

The dose calculations presented throughout this EIS are based on the estimated composition of 

depleted UF6 generated by the proposed laser-based facility. The doses from external 

exposure to containers of depleted uranium from the proposed facility (either as UF6 or U3O8) 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-98 February 2012

are expected to be very similar to the doses calculated by DOE (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b) 

(i.e., within 1 percent). However, under accident conditions at a potential DOE facility that 

converts UF6 to U3O8, if the depleted uranium is aerosolized and inhalation becomes the 

dominant pathway for exposure, the doses from depleted uranium from the proposed GLE 

Facility could be up to twice as large as doses calculated by DOE. Based on a comparison to 

doses from accidents considered by DOE (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b), the resulting doses 

would still be well below levels that could cause acute fatalities from radiation exposure and 

below the levels that could cause acute radiation sickness. The lifetime increase in the 

probability of developing a fatal latent cancer would be less than 0.05 for the maximally exposed 

member of public or maximally exposed non-involved worker. For involved workers, DOE 

indicated that impacts under accident conditions would likely be dominated by physical forces 

from the accident itself. This conclusion would be the same for a potential accident with 

depleted uranium from the proposed GLE Facility at a potential DOE facility that converts UF6 to 

U3O8.

To assess the impacts of depleted UF6 generated by the proposed GLE Facility on DOE’s 

conversion facilities, one must understand the relative amount of additional material as 

compared to DOE’s existing depleted UF6 inventory. The Paducah conversion facility would 

operate for approximately 25 years to process 436,400 metric tons (481,000 tons) that were in 

storage prior to the anticipated facility start-up in 2006 (DOE, 2004a). The Portsmouth 

conversion facility would operate for 18 years to process 243,000 metric tons (268,000 tons) 

(DOE, 2004b). The projected maximum amount of depleted UF6 generated by the proposed 

GLE Facility (450,000 metric tons [496,000 tons]) would represent approximately 185 percent of 

the Portsmouth and approximately 103 percent of the Paducah starting inventories. The 

proposed GLE Facility would produce approximately 11,250 metric tons (12,401 tons) of 

depleted UF6 per year at full production capacity (GLE, 2008), which represents approximately 

62 percent of the annual conversion capacity of the Paducah facility (18,000 metric tons 

[20,000 tons]) and approximately 83 percent of the Portsmouth facility annual conversion 

capacity (13,500 metric tons [15,000 tons]). The proposed GLE Facility maximum depleted UF6

inventory could extend the time of operation by approximately 25 years for the Paducah 

conversion facility or 33 years for the Portsmouth conversion facility.

With routine facility and equipment maintenance, and periodic equipment replacements or 

upgrades, DOE indicated that the conversion facilities could be operated safely beyond their 

proposed operational lifetimes to process the depleted UF6 such as that originating at the 

proposed GLE Facility. In addition, DOE indicated that the estimated impacts that would occur 

from prior conversion facility operations would remain the same when processing depleted UF6

such as the proposed GLE Facility’s wastes. The overall cumulative impacts from the operation 

of the conversion facility would increase proportionately with the increased life of the facility 

(DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b). 

Additional conversion processing capacity could also be achieved through increased efficiency 

of the Paducah and Portsmouth conversion plants and the possibility of a commercial 

conversion plant being constructed. International Isotopes, Inc., submitted a license application 

to the NRC on December 31, 2009, to construct and operate a depleted UF6 conversion facility 

near Hobbs, New Mexico; the NRC is currently conducting environmental and safety reviews of 

the application (NRC, 2010). In either case, impacts are expected to be comparable to those 

estimated for construction and operation of the Paducah and Portsmouth plants (DOE, 2004a; 

DOE, 2004b).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-99 NUREG-1938

In order to keep up with increased demand for enriched uranium as discussed in Chapter 1, 

other uranium enrichment facilities are in the planning process or already under construction. 

These facilities would also generate depleted UF6, in addition to the currently operating gaseous 

diffusion enrichment plant at Paducah that would require conversion and disposal. Should all 

such facilities (NEF, ACP, and Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility [EREF]) become fully 

operational, extended storage times for the depleted UF6 cylinders would be necessary and 

could result in the need for an additional conversion facility.

The above assumptions and data indicate that environmental impacts from the conversion of 

the depleted UF6 from the proposed GLE Facility at an offsite location such as Portsmouth or 

Paducah would be SMALL.

Impacts from the transportation of the converted depleted uranium oxide from the conversion 

facilities to potential disposal sites at locations such as a commercial facility, EnergySolutions in 

Utah, or a DOE facility, the Nevada Test Site in Nevada, have been previously evaluated for the 

depleted uranium stored at the Portsmouth and Paducah sites (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b). 

Transportation impacts for shipment of depleted uranium oxide from the Paducah or Portsmouth 

conversion facility to either potential disposal site for similar volumes with origins traced back to 

the proposed GLE Facility discussed above would be SMALL.

Depleted uranium remains source material after it ceases to possess any value for uranium 

enrichment purposes. Thus, if no beneficial reuse can be identified, the depleted uranium could 

be considered as radioactive waste for disposal. Under the current provisions of 

10 CFR Part 61, depleted uranium can be considered as Class A low-level radioactive waste. 

The NRC is currently in the process of amending its regulations to establish new requirements 

for the disposal of some low-level radioactive wastes, including large quantities of depleted 

uranium. Considering the steps that are involved in this rulemaking, the NRC plans to publish a 

final rule in late 2012 (NRC, 2009c). While this rulemaking may result in additional 

requirements in the future, along with further restrictions that could be imposed by Agreement 

States, the disposal of depleted uranium, for the purpose of preparing this EIS, is assumed to 

remain within the current regulatory framework until such rulemaking actions have been 

finalized and the revised rules promulgated. As such, it is assumed that the DOE will transport 

the entire depleted uranium oxide inventory to a low-level waste disposal facility, such as 

EnergySolutions at Clive, Utah, for disposal as Class A low-level waste.

4.2.12.3 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures Identified by GLE

Impacts from waste generation and management at the proposed GLE Facility would be 

minimized or eliminated by implementing a number of mitigation measures as proposed by 

GLE, which include (GLE, 2008):

• Select the laser enrichment process over current gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuge 

technologies, which would reduce the amount of waste generated for production of the 

same amount of enriched product.

• Minimize the quantities of waste generated by the proposed facility by implementing a

Waste Minimization Plan that considers all facility processes, entails input and responsibility 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-100 February 2012

at the worker level on up through all levels of management, and involves recurring review 

cycles to measure performance and investigate new reduction measures. The plan should 

include potential reuse and recycling, where possible.

• Perform an integrated safety analysis (ISA) for each onsite waste storage area to identify 

and prevent accidental releases to the environment.

• Pre-treat radioactive liquid wastewaters in a treatment system planned for the proposed 

facility before the wastewater effluent is pumped to the existing NPDES-permitted final 

process lagoon facility for further treatment.

• Conduct onsite treatment of process and sanitary wastewaters to NPDES permit limits 

before discharge to receiving waters.

• Ship each waste generated by the proposed facility that requires offsite storage, treatment, 

or disposal to a licensed facility (as appropriate for the waste type) in compliance with EPA 

and NRC requirements.

• Avoid and minimize potential hazardous and radiological waste impacts from the UF6

storage pads by implementing design elements and safety procedures during operations, 

including: 

– use of a storage array that permits easy visual inspection (stacked no more than two 

cylinders high)

– segregation of storage pad areas from the rest of the enrichment facility by barriers 

(e.g., vehicle guardrails)

– inspection of cylinders for external contamination (i.e., a “wipe test”) prior to placing on 

the storage pads or transporting them offsite

– ensuring that UF6 cylinders are not equipped with defective valves

– allowing only designated vehicles with a limited amount of fuel in the storage pad area

– allowing only trained and qualified personnel to operate vehicles in the storage pad area

– monitoring the holding pond that collects stormwater runoff from the cylinder pads

• Inspect cylinders of UF6 initially prior to placing a filled cylinder on a storage pad and, 

thereafter, inspect periodically for damage or surface coating defects. Inspection criteria 

would include ensuring that: 

– lifting points are free from distortion and cracking

– cylinder skirts and stiffener rings are free from distortion and cracking

– cylinder surfaces are free from bulges, dents, gouges, cracks, or significant corrosion
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-101 NUREG-1938

– cylinder valves are fitted with the correct protector and cap

– cylinder valves are straight and not distorted, two to six threads are visible, and the 

square head of the valve stem is undamaged

– cylinder plugs are undamaged and not leaking

• If inspections of a cylinder reveal significant deterioration or other conditions that may affect 

its safe use, transfer the contents of the cylinder to another cylinder and discard the 

defective cylinder. Investigate the cause of any significant deterioration, and if necessary, 

perform additional inspection of cylinders.

• Minimize onsite storage volumes and times and shipping waste destined for offsite 

treatment and disposal facilities as soon as practicable.

• Monitor and inspect onsite liquid waste storage tanks and containers on a periodic schedule 

to detect leaks or releases to the environment due to equipment malfunctions so that actions 

identified in the SPCC plan or other appropriate corrective action can be taken promptly.

• Conduct continuous or periodic monitoring of waste management processes and storage 

facilities for the detection of non-intentional releases to the environment, so that corrective 

actions would be taken to minimize adverse impacts on the environment. For example, 

directing stormwater runoff from the UF6 storage pads to a holding pond, where it would be 

monitored to ensure that unexpected radioactive material releases to the wet detention 

basin did not occur.

• Use the existing Wilmington Site onsite wastewater treatment facilities within current 

regulatory permit limits to avoid the need to add new onsite waste treatment and disposal 

facilities for the proposed facility.

4.2.13 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section provides an analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of preconstruction and 

construction, start-up, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility. Each 

phase would generate income and employment and State and local tax revenue, while the influx

of workers and their families into local communities would affect housing demand and 

availability and local public services. The impacts are evaluated for the socioeconomic region 

surrounding the proposed GLE Facility. 

As discussed in Section 3.13, the socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) is defined by the 

area where GLE workers and their families are expected to live and spend their income, thereby 

affecting the economic conditions of the region. The socioeconomic ROI corresponds to the 

Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), a three-county area comprising Brunswick, 

New Hanover, and Pender Counties. These three counties cover an area that extends up to 

approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the Wilmington Site.

This analysis of socioeconomic impacts includes impacts on employment, income, State and 

local tax revenues, population, housing community, and social services.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-102 February 2012

Employment impacts are evaluated by estimating direct and indirect employment associated 

with the proposed GLE Facility; direct employment is created at the Wilmington Site during 

preconstruction, construction, start-up, facility operations, and decommissioning, while indirect 

employment is created in the ROI, to support the needs of the workers employed by the 

proposed GLE Facility and jobs created to support site purchase and non-payroll expenditures. 

The number of direct jobs created is estimated based on anticipated labor inputs for various 

engineering and construction activities. Impacts of preconstruction are separated from 

GLE construction impacts using payroll expenditure data provided by GLE (GLE, 2009g). 

Indirect employment is estimated using economic multipliers from the IMPLAN input-output 

model (MIG, 2009), which account for inter-industry relationships within regions (see 

Appendix F). 

State income tax revenue impacts are estimated by applying State income tax rates to 

GLE project-related construction and operations earnings. State and local sales tax revenues 

are estimated by applying appropriate State and local sales tax rates to after-tax income 

generated by construction and operations employees, spent within the ROI. Impacts of the 

proposed GLE Facility on State corporate income taxes were estimated by applying current 

State tax rates to projected annual facility operating revenues.

Impacts on population characteristics are evaluated by estimating the fraction of direct and 

indirect jobs that will be filled by workers relocating to the area from outside the ROI. The 

average family size and age profiles of migrating families are estimated using U.S. Census 

Bureau statistics. Impacts on area housing resources are estimated by comparing rental and 

owner-occupied vacancy statistics with estimated population in-migration into the ROI during the 

construction and operations phases of the project.

In addition to State income and sales taxes, tax incentives were provided to GE by the State of 

North Carolina and by New Hanover County. It is anticipated that these would amount to up to 

$26.6 million from the State, most of which would be payable over a 12-year period, and up to 

$10 million from the county, payable over a 10-year period. Both incentives are contingent on 

GE reaching specified investment and employment levels at the plant (GLE, 2009f).

Impacts on community and social services are assessed by estimating the number of additional 

local community service employees that would be required to maintain existing levels of service 

or education, law enforcement, and fire services, given the number of in-migrating workers 

expected into the ROI. Although the ROI corresponds to the Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA), which is expected to be the primary source of labor for the proposed GLE Facility, 

some labor in-migration is expected during each phase of the proposed project. The number of 

in-migrating workers was based on interviews with local economic development officials, with 

estimates used in the analysis assumed to be a range. Sixty-five percent of in-migrating 

workers were assumed to be accompanied by their families, which would consist of an 

additional adult and one school-age child (GLE, 2009a).

There are large differences between the indirect (offsite) impact of the proposed GLE Facility

during the construction phase and during other phases of the project. These differences are 

due to the relative magnitude of expenditures during the construction phase compared to the 

other phases of the project, and the important role in the economy of the ROI of suppliers of 

capital equipment and other materials and services provided to the project during the 

construction phase.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-103 NUREG-1938

4.2.13.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Preconstruction and construction activities combined during the peak year (2012)19 would 

employ 680 construction workers at the proposed GLE Facility site. An additional 3131 indirect 

jobs could be created in the ROI from the procurement of material and equipment and the 

spending of worker income (see Table 4-26 and Appendix F for more information on the 

methods used to estimate impacts). Facility construction would generate $139.8 million in 

income in the ROI in 2012.20 Construction would generate $1.7 million and $1.2 million in direct 

State income and sales taxes, respectively. Peak year construction activities would constitute 

approximately 2.5 percent of total ROI employment in 2012; the economic impact of 

constructing the proposed GLE Facility would, therefore, be SMALL.

Although a large proportion of construction workers are expected to come from within the threecounty region, given the scale of construction activities and the likelihood of local worker 

availability in the required occupational categories, construction of the proposed GLE Facility 

could cause some workers and their families to relocate from outside the ROI, with between 299 

and 598 persons in-migrating into the ROI during the peak year of construction. Although inmigration may potentially impact local housing markets, the relatively small number of people 

relocating to the ROI and the availability of temporary accommodation (hotels, motels, and 

mobile home parks) would mean that the impact of facility construction on the number of vacant 

rental housing units would be small, with between 87 and 173 rental units expected to be 

occupied in the ROI during construction. These occupancy rates would represent less than 

1 percent of the vacant rental units expected to be available in the ROI in 2012; the impact from 

construction of the proposed GLE Facility on housing would, therefore, be SMALL.

In addition to the potential impact on housing markets, in-migration would also affect localcommunity and educational services. With between 299 and 598 in-migrants expected in the 

ROI during preconstruction and construction activities, and existing levels of service 

(see Section 3.13), approximately one additional police officer and firefighter would be required 

to maintain the existing levels of service during the peak construction year. Assuming that a 

certain number of workers are accompanied by their families during construction, between 84 

and 169 school-age children could be expected in the ROI in 2012, meaning approximately 

one additional teacher would be required to maintain existing student-teacher ratios in the local 

school system. These increases would represent less than 1 percent of community service 

employment expected in the ROI in 2012; the impact of construction of the proposed 

GLE Facility on community services would, therefore, be SMALL.

Based on expenditure data for the project, preconstruction activities would contribute 5 percent 

of the socioeconomic impacts, and construction activities (2012 to 2020) would contribute 

95 percent (GLE, 2009g).

 

19 The socioeconomic impacts analysis is based on the assumption that the peak construction year will 

be 2012, if a license is granted. Any changes in the licensing and construction schedule could cause 

slight changes to socioeconomic analysis but would not affect the overall impact conclusion.

20 All direct income and direct sales tax impact estimates are provided in 2008 dollars.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-104 February 2012

Table 4-26 Effects of the Proposed GLE Facility on ROI Socioeconomicsa

Parameter Preconstruction

and Construction Start-up Operations Decommissioning

Employment (number of 

jobs)

 Direct 680 200 350 50

 Indirect 3131 218 382 33

 Total 3811 418 732 83

Income ($m 2007)

 Direct 26.0 19.2 33.3 5.1

 Indirect 113.8 8.7 15.1 1.0

 Total 139.8 28.0 51.5 6.1

Direct tax revenues

 Income taxes ($m 2007) 1.7 1.3 2.3 0.3

 Sales taxes ($m 2007) 1.2 0.9 1.7 0.2

Population (number of new 

residents)

299–598 92–120 161–210 115–120

Housing (number of units 

required)

87–173 27–47 47–61 33–35

Community service 

employment (number of 

individuals)

 Police officers 1 <1 <1 <1

 Firefighters 1 <1 <1 <1

Education (number of 

individuals)

 School-age children 84–169 26–40 46–70 38–40

 Teachers 1 <1 <1 <1

a

Impacts are shown for the peak year of construction (2012), the first year of start-up activities (2014), the 

first complete year of full operations (2020), and the first year of decommissioning (2051).

Source: Modified from GLE, 2008.

4.2.13.2 Facility Operations

Start-up

Start-up activities in 2014 would employ 200 workers at the proposed GLE Facility. An 

additional 218 indirect jobs could be created in the ROI from the procurement of material and 

equipment and the spending of worker income (Table 4-26) (see Appendix F for more 

information on the methods used to estimate impacts). Facility start-up would generate 

approximately $28.0 million in income in the ROI in 2014, and approximately $1.3 million in 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-105 NUREG-1938

income taxes paid by GLE employees and approximately $0.92 million in sales taxes. Start-up 

activities would constitute less than 1 percent of total ROI employment in 2014; the economic 

impact of start-up of the proposed GLE Facility would, therefore, be SMALL.

Given the scale of start-up activities and the availability of local workers, start-up of the 

proposed GLE Facility could cause some workers and their families to relocate from outside the 

ROI, with between 92 and 120 persons migrating into the ROI during the peak year of start-up

(Table 4-26). Although in-migration may potentially impact local housing markets, the relatively 

small number of people relocating to the ROI and the availability of temporary accommodation 

(hotels, motels, and mobile home parks) would mean that the impact of facility start-up on the 

number of vacant rental housing units would be small, with between 27 and 47 rental units 

expected to be occupied in the ROI during start-up. These occupancy rates would represent 

less than 0.1 percent of the vacant rental units expected to be available in the ROI in 2014; the 

impact of the proposed GLE Facility’s start-up on housing would, therefore, be SMALL.

In addition to the potential impact on housing markets, in-migration would also affect localcommunity and educational services. With between 92 and 120 in-migrants expected in the 

ROI during start-up activities and existing levels of service (see Section 3.13), less than one 

police officer and firefighter would be required to maintain existing levels of service during the 

peak start-up year, 2014. Assuming that a certain number of workers are accompanied by their 

families during start-up, between 26 and 40 school-age children could be expected in the ROI in 

2014, meaning one additional teacher would be required to maintain existing student-teacher 

ratios in the local school system (Table 4-26). These increases would represent less than 

0.1 percent of community service employment expected in the ROI in 2014; the impact of the 

proposed GLE Facility’s start-up on community services would, therefore, be SMALL. 

Operations

Operations activities in 2020 would employ 350 workers at the proposed GLE Facility. An 

additional 382 indirect jobs could be created in the ROI from the procurement of material and 

equipment and the spending of worker income (Table 4-26) (see Appendix F for more 

information on the methods used to estimate impacts). Facility operations would generate

approximately $51.5 million in income in the ROI in 2020. Operations would also generate

approximately $2.3 million in income taxes paid by GLE employees and approximately 

$1.7 million in sales taxes. Corporate income tax payments would total approximately 

$52.7 million annually. Operations activities would constitute less than 1 percent of total ROI 

employment in 2020; the economic impact of operating the proposed GLE Facility would, 

therefore, be SMALL.

Given the scale of operations activities and the availability of local workers, operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility could cause some workers and their families to relocate from outside the 

ROI, with between 161 and 210 persons in-migrating into the ROI during the first year of 

operation. Although in-migration may potentially impact local housing markets, the relatively 

small number of people relocating to the ROI and the availability of temporary accommodation 

(hotels, motels, and mobile home parks) would mean that the impact of facility operations on the 

number of vacant owner-occupied housing units would be small, with between 47 and 61 rental 

units expected to be occupied in the ROI during operations. These occupancy rates would 

represent less than 0.1 percent of the vacant owner-occupied units expected to be available in 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-106 February 2012

the ROI in 2020; the impact of the proposed GLE Facility’s operations on housing would, 

therefore, be SMALL.

In addition to the potential impact on housing markets, in-migration would also affect localcommunity and educational services. With between 161 and 210 in-migrants expected in the 

ROI during operations and existing levels of service (see Section 3.13), less than one police 

officer and less than one firefighter would be required to maintain existing levels of service

during the peak operations year. Assuming that a certain number of workers are accompanied 

by their families during operations, between 46 and 70 school age children could be expected in 

the ROI in 2020, meaning less than one additional teacher would be required to maintain 

existing student-teacher ratios in the local school system. These increases would represent 

less than 0.1 percent of community service employment expected in the ROI in 2020; the impact 

of the proposed GLE Facility’s operation on community services would, therefore, be SMALL.

4.2.13.3 Mitigation Measures

Since the socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating the proposed GLE Facility

would be SMALL and mostly beneficial, mitigation would not be required.

4.2.14 Environmental Justice Impacts

The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility at the Wilmington 

Site. Adverse human health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or 

nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health 

effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or lowincome population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population 

or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects 

refer to impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or lowincome community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the 

larger community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. 

Some of these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this EIS. 

For example, increased demand for rental housing during construction could disproportionately 

affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general 

public residing in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site, and all are exposed to the same health and 

environmental effects generated from activities at the proposed GLE Facility.

As described in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.13, the impacts of preconstruction activities and the 

proposed action, including the construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility, would

be SMALL for most of the resource areas evaluated. Impacts ranging from SMALL to 

MODERATE in other resource areas could potentially affect environmental justice populations. 

However, in each of these resources areas, the impacts would not be disproportionately high 

and adverse for minority or low-income populations. A brief summary of potential impacts to the 

general population follows:

• Land Use. As described in Section 4.2.1, the Wilmington Site is owned by GE and is zoned 

for heavy industrial use. Preconstruction activities would remove the undeveloped forest. 

Construction of the proposed GLE Facility is consistent with current zoning. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-107 NUREG-1938

Preconstruction, construction, and operations of the proposed GLE Facility would not alter 

current land use or zoning of the Wilmington Site or surrounding properties. Impacts would 

be SMALL during all phases.

• Historic and Cultural Resources. As described in Section 4.2.2, no construction activities 

would occur in the portion of the Wilmington Site where historic and cultural resources are 

known to exist. While GLE has no plans to alter the site during operations, there is a high 

potential for additional historic and cultural resources to be discovered during routine 

maintenance activities. The Wilmington Site is located within a region containing high 

concentrations of historic and cultural resources. Operational impacts would depend largely 

on procedures employed to protect historic and cultural resources. The NRC proposed a 

license condition that would require GLE to consider the potential effects on historic and 

cultural resources from any ground-disturbing activities in unsurveyed areas of the proposed 

GLE Facility site. GLE also developed Common Procedure CP-24-201 to address the 

unanticipated discovery of human remains or artifacts. Based on this information, the NRC 

determined that the impact level is SMALL to MODERATE given the close proximity of 

significant historic and cultural resources and high potential for additional historic and 

cultural resource materials to be discovered during preconstruction, construction, and facility 

operations.

• Visual and Scenic Resources. As described in Section 4.2.3, the proposed GLE Facility 

project area has low scenic quality and would be located adjacent to existing GE industrial 

facilities. Temporary visual impacts would result from increased truck and worker traffic and 

the use of construction cranes during preconstruction and construction activities. The 

proposed project area would be surrounded by a vegetation barrier, so preconstruction and 

construction activities would largely be screened; therefore, the impacts would be SMALL. 

During operations, the two most visible features would be the water tower and a portion of 

the operations building. These features would not represent a major alteration of the 

existing visual environment; therefore, the impacts would be SMALL.

• Air Quality. As described in Section 4.2.4, air quality impacts from the proposed GLE 

Facility would be highest during preconstruction activities and during the initial 2 years of 

construction. Criteria pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), greenhouse gases, 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), fugitive dust emissions, and engine exhaust emissions 

would be released during these activities. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) would have a SMALL impact on ambient air 

quality (well below applicable standards). Road construction, land-clearing, and building 

construction activities are projected to cause a temporary increase in the concentrations of 

particulate matter in the ambient air, which would exceed the air quality standard. These 

impacts would be MODERATE, but temporary. The proposed GLE Facility would not 

employ any continuous combustion activities during operation; criteria pollutant and HAPs 

emission rates would be SMALL. Uranium-related and hydrogen fluoride (HF) stack 

emissions would be minimal, and emissions from diesel fuel handling would be very low; 

therefore, these impacts would be SMALL.

• Geology and Soils. As described in Section 4.2.5, approximately 91 hectares (226 acres) of 

land would be disturbed on the Wilmington Site, including approximately 40 hectares 

(100 acres) for the proposed GLE Facility site in the North-Central Site Sector, plus about 

5 hectares (13 acres) for support structures to the east and about 13 hectares (33 acres) 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-108 February 2012

associated with the North access road. Soil disturbance during facility operations would 

continue at reduced levels, as some construction projects are ongoing, while others would 

be completed. Impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and roofs would increase 

stormwater runoff, increasing the erosion potential. Although terrain changes would be 

minimal, a short-term increase in soil erosion would occur. Foundations, roads, and utility 

lines would likely be undisturbed during decommissioning. Erosion may increase, as 

portions of the site are disturbed by heavy equipment. Impacts on soils and geology during 

construction and operations are expected to be SMALL.

• Surface Water Resources. As described in Section 4.2.6, construction excavation could 

affect surface water quality. Access road construction could lead to erosion and increased 

sediment load, and erosion may increase as portions of the site are disturbed by heavy 

equipment. Leaks or spills of fuel, oil, or grease from construction vehicles and equipment 

could affect nearby surface water, but infiltration into soil would likely eliminate or reduce the 

potential for runoff. Impacts on surface water quality during preconstruction and 

construction are expected to be SMALL due to the nature of the work activities, the site soil 

characteristics and slopes, and the use of best management practices (BMPs). Process 

wastewater effluent would be discharged at an existing outfall during operations, increasing 

the site’s wastewater volume. Treatment of liquid radioactive waste would produce an 

effluent similar to process wastewaters currently produced at the Wilmington Site. No 

consumption of surface water would occur during operations. Stormwater runoff would 

collect in a State-permitted wet detention basin before regulated discharge, and stormwater 

runoff from the UF6 cylinder storage pads would collect in a lined holding pond for 

radioactivity monitoring prior to discharge to the wet detention basin. Oil, grease, metals, 

and other automotive-related contaminants would be present in limited quantities due to 

vehicular traffic; herbicides used in landscaped areas would also be present. Impacts on 

surface water during operations are expected to be SMALL due to planned systems for 

runoff, treatment, and monitoring, as well as experience with existing Wilmington Site 

facilities.

• Groundwater Resources. As described in Section 4.2.7, implementation of BMPs during 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility would reduce the 

potential for leaks of fuel, oil, and grease to soil and groundwater. The use of portable 

toilets during construction would eliminate sanitary system impacts on groundwater. Tanker 

trucks would provide potable and nonpotable water necessary for construction. The impact 

of preconstruction and construction activities on groundwater use and quality would be 

SMALL. Groundwater used for facility operations would come from existing groundwater 

supplies at the site and would be offset by the industrial reuse of treated sanitary 

wastewater effluent as process water. A small increase in drawdown is expected, without 

significant effect on flow directions, water quality, or availability for offsite users. Stormwater 

runoff collected from the UF6 cylinder storage pads is expected to have no more than trace 

amounts of radiological contaminants, and the lined holding pond would limit infiltration to 

groundwater. A portion of discharged effluents may potentially infiltrate the Peedee sand 

aquifer, but treatment and monitoring are expected to result in no significant contaminant 

concentrations in the effluent channel. Diesel tanks at the facility would have appropriate 

leak detection equipment, and a groundwater monitoring plan would be developed after the 

facility is constructed. Impacts on groundwater during operations are expected to be 

SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-109 NUREG-1938

• Ecological Resources. As described in Section 4.2.8, preconstruction impacts on wildlife 

and vegetation from clearing, habitat fragmentation, alteration of topography, changes in 

drainage patterns, and soil compaction would be MODERATE; remaining construction 

impacts (e.g., decline or mortality of trees near the construction boundary, erosion, dust and 

other particulate matter, invasive plant species, habitat fragmentation, noise, and accidental 

releases of hazardous materials) would be SMALL. Impacts on wetlands associated with 

preconstruction and construction activities would be SMALL. Preconstruction and 

construction activities would result in SMALL impacts on aquatic biota. Impacts on any 

Federally listed threatened, endangered, or other special status species from 

preconstruction and construction activities would be SMALL; impacts on any State-listed 

species would also be SMALL. Impacts on vegetation during operation would be SMALL 

and would include mowing, cutting, and chemical control of vegetation around facilities, 

utility corridors, and access roads. Impacts on wetlands during operation would be SMALL. 

No environmentally sensitive areas would be affected by operations, so impacts would be 

SMALL. Impacts on wildlife, aquatic biota, and threatened, endangered, and other special 

status species due to operations would also be SMALL.

• Noise. As described in Section 4.2.9, vehicular traffic to and from the proposed GLE Facility 

would generate intermittent noise along local roadways during preconstruction and 

construction activities. Noise would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington 

Site. Potential noise impacts on the nearest subdivision would be MODERATE but 

temporary during road construction (preconstruction). Most land-clearing and grading 

activities would occur away from the fenceline and far from the nearest residential 

subdivision and would be below day and night ambient sound levels that correspond to the 

New Hanover County Noise Ordinance and EPA guidelines; therefore, noise impacts on the 

surrounding community would be temporary and SMALL. During facility operations, exterior 

equipment, such as pumps, heat pumps, transformers, and cooling towers would generate 

noise. Other sources of noise would include commuter vehicular and delivery truck traffic. 

Noise levels from facility operations at the fenceline nearest to the Wooden Shoe residential 

subdivision would be below day and night ambient sound levels that correspond to local and 

EPA guidelines; therefore, impacts would be SMALL.

• Public and Occupational Health. As described in Section 4.2.11, members of the public 

around the Wilmington Site and the workers who will be involved in the construction and 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility (and employees at existing GE facilities on the 

Wilmington Site) are likely to be exposed to radiation from uranium used and stored at the 

proposed GLE Facility and other existing operations at the Wilmington Site. They could also 

be exposed to certain quantities of radioactive materials (primarily UF6) and chemicals 

(primarily HF) that are likely to be released to the environment during normal operations of 

the proposed GLE Facility. All radiological doses and chemical exposures received by 

members of the public and workers due to the proposed action would be well below all 

applicable regulatory limits and standards. In addition, GLE would implement an As Low As 

Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) program and use best management practices to keep all 

public and occupational exposures low. As a result, the public and occupational health 

impacts from normal operations are expected to be SMALL.

• Waste Management. As described in Section 4.2.12, solid nonhazardous wastes generated 

during construction would be similar to wastes from other industrial construction sites and 

transported offsite to an approved local landfill. Construction activities would generate less 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-110 February 2012

than 2 percent of the waste that the New Hanover County Landfill receives annually from all 

other sources. Hazardous wastes from construction would be packaged and shipped offsite 

to licensed facilities. The quantity of all waste materials generated during preconstruction 

and construction activities could be managed effectively and would result in SMALL impacts. 

Facility operations would generate wastewaters that would be treated onsite prior to 

discharge, and solid wastes that would be treated (onsite or offsite) and shipped offsite for 

disposal. Radioactive process wastewater from facility operations would be collected and 

treated to remove uranium, other metals, and fluoride. The treated effluent would be 

discharged to the process wastewater aeration basin and final process lagoon facility. 

Should discharges to surface waters be necessary, the existing National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System discharge permit would be adequate to cover additional effluent volume. 

Impacts from sanitary wastewater, cooling tower blowdown, and process wastewater would 

be SMALL. Impacts of nonhazardous/nonradioactive waste, hazardous waste, and lowlevel radioactive waste generation would be SMALL due to treatment processes and the 

availability of disposal pathways. Impacts from radiological exposure to depleted UF6 in the 

cylinder storage pads would be SMALL, and impacts from the conversion of depleted UF6

would be SMALL.

• Socioeconomics. As described in Section 4.2.13, there would be increases in regional 

employment, income, and tax revenue during preconstruction, construction, and operation of 

the proposed GLE Facility. Workers and their families could relocate into the ROI in support 

of GLE Facility operations (over the 40-year license period), which would result in long-term 

socioeconomic impacts, including increased demand for housing resources and public 

services. However, these impacts are estimated to be SMALL. All other socioeconomic 

effects from preconstruction, construction, and decommissioning would be short-term and 

limited.

• Accidents. As described in Section 4.2.15, five accident scenarios were evaluated in this 

EIS as a representative selection of the types of accidents that are possible during operation 

of the proposed GLE Facility. The representative accident scenarios vary in severity from 

intermediate- to high-consequence events and include accidents initiated by natural 

phenomena, operator error, and equipment failure. Two of the accidents involve criticality 

and the other three involve the release of UF6. If the higher-consequence-criticality accident 

were to occur, the consequence for a worker in close proximity would be high (fatality), but 

GLE has committed to various preventive and mitigating measures to significantly reduce 

these consequences. A maximally exposed individual at the Controlled Area Boundary 

would receive a radiation dose of 5.7 millisievert (0.57 rem) total effective dose equivalent, 

which represents a low consequence to an individual (<0.05 sievert [<5 rem]). For the 

accidents involving a UF6 release, worker health consequences would be low for radiological 

exposures (<0.25 sievert [25 rem]); for accidents involving uranium chemical exposure, 

worker health consequences would be intermediate for one (Node 4200) and high for two 

(Nodes 4100 and 4800) of the accidents. Consequences to the collective offsite public are 

less than one lifetime cancer fatality for all accident scenarios. Through a combination of 

facility design, passive and active engineered controls, and administrative controls, all 

processes would be maintained non-critical, and accidents at the proposed GLE Facility 

pose an acceptably low risk to workers, the environment, and the public. Therefore, the 

probability weighted consequence (risk) from accidents would be SMALL. No facility 

accidents would occur after the cessation of operations, so there would be no potential for 

facility accidents during decommissioning.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-111 NUREG-1938

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental 

and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). 

Radiation doses from facility operations after construction are expected to remain below 

regulatory limits.

Noise and dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite activities. Minority and lowincome populations residing along site access and the primary commuter roads could 

experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. Increased demand for 

rental housing during construction could disproportionately affect low-income populations. 

However, due to the short duration of construction work and the availability of rental housing, 

impacts to minority and low-income populations would be short-term and limited.

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

presented in this EIS, the construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility would not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 

and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site.

Even where environmental impacts would be SMALL for the general population, some 

population subgroups, such as individuals participating in outdoor recreation, home gardening, 

or subsistence hunting and fishing, could be disproportionately affected through the inhalation or

ingestion of radionuclides. One Census block group, which has a high percentage of lowincome and minority residents, is located downstream of the proposed GLE Facility on the 

Northeast Cape Fear River. Residents of this Census block group could face increased risk of 

exposure due to fish-consumption; however, releases of total uranium and UF6 are projected to 

be extremely low (see Section 4.2.11.2), and exposure through fish consumption would be even 

lower. Therefore, any impacts the minority and low-income populations from the 

preconstruction, construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the proposed GLE 

Facility are not expected to be disproportionately high and adverse. 

Soil and vegetation samples from the existing site and from 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) away show 

no impact from current GE operations at the Wilmington Site. As discussed in Section 4.2.11.2, 

the radiological doses to the nearest residents resulting from operation of the proposed 

GLE Facility and current GE operations are projected to be well below the EPA 10 millirem 

(0.1 millisievert) per year standard (20 CFR Part 190) and the NRC total effective dose 

equivalent (TEDE) limit of 1 millisievert (100 millirem) per year (10 CFR Part 20).

Resource Dependencies and Vulnerabilities of Minority and Low-Income Populations

Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 

appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that 

rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

consumption patterns to the public. In this EIS, the NRC considered whether there were any 

means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining 

impacts to American Indian, migrant workers, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway 

receptors. Special pathways that took into account the levels of contaminants in native 

vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, groundwater, surface water, fish, and game animals on 

or near the Wilmington Site were considered.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-112 February 2012

As part of addressing environmental justice concerns associated with the construction, 

operations, and eventual decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility, the NRC considers the 

potential radiological risk to special population groups (such as migrant workers or American

Indians) from exposure to radioactive material received through their unique consumption and 

interaction with the environment patterns including subsistence consumption of fish, native 

vegetation, surface waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in 

sediments through the skin; and inhalation of airborne radioactive material released from the 

facility during routine operation.

Potential resource dependencies were sought in the course of public meetings and other 

information supplied by the Hispanic/Latino and African American/Black communities in 

meetings with the NRC. Letters were also sent to local Federally recognized American Indian 

tribes to determine any potential resource dependencies. These letters described the 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility, solicited their 

concerns on the project, and inquired about whether the American Indian tribes desired to 

participate in the Section 106 consultation process (see Appendix B). The Coharie Indian Tribe 

indicated that there are no historic properties in the area of potential effects that could have 

cultural or religious significance to them. Currently, very few American Indians live in the vicinity 

of the Wilmington Site.

In addition, the NRC examined data provided by the State of North Carolina concerning the 

health status of the general population in Brunswick County, New Hanover County, and Pender 

County (Table 4-27). No exceptional health problems were found among residents in the 

Wilmington area. It was not possible to identify any unusual incidences of birth defects, chronic 

diseases, or cancer clusters at the county level, the smallest area for which published health 

information is available. Age-adjusted incidence of cancer is slightly lower in Pender County 

than elsewhere in the three-county area; rates in each county are lower than in North Carolina 

as a whole. The income and ethnicity of individuals with chronic diseases are not available. 

Table 4-27 Selected Health Statistics for Counties near the

Proposed GLE Facility

Brunswick 

County

New Hanover 

County

Pender 

County

North 

Carolina

Age-adjusted cancer Incidence rates 

(per 100,000 population), 2005

474.0 491.4 432.0 511.8

Age-adjusted cancer death rates, 

(per 10,000 population), 2002-2006

196.8 197.6 217.5 195.8

Age-adjusted major causes of death 

(per 100,000 population), 2006

 Heart disease 194.0 203.0 215.8 198.7

 Trachea, bronchus, or lung cancer 58.8 65.0 62.3 60.4

 Cerebrovascular disease 56.8 40.8 46.1 53.2

 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 66.4 37.1 35.7 46.4

Source: NCSCHS, 2009.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-113 NUREG-1938

4.2.15 Accident Impacts

The operation of the proposed GLE Facility would involve impacts to workers, the public, and 

the environment from potential accidents. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 70, Subpart H, 

“Additional Requirements for Certain Licensees Authorized to Possess a Critical Mass of 

Special Nuclear Material,” require that each applicant or licensee evaluate, in an Integrated 

Safety Analysis (ISA), its compliance with certain performance requirements. The Safety 

Evaluation Report (SER) for the proposed GLE Facility will include a more detailed analysis of 

the potential accidents identified in the GLE license application (GLE, 2011b). The accidents 

evaluated in the SER are a representative selection of the types of accidents that are possible 

at the proposed GLE Facility.

The analytical methods used in this consequence assessment are based on NRC guidance for 

analysis of nuclear fuel-cycle facility accidents (NRC, 1990; NRC, 1991; NRC, 1998; NRC, 

2001). With the exception of the criticality accident, the hazards evaluated involve the release 

of UF6 from process systems that are designed to confine UF6 during normal operations. As 

described below, UF6 poses a chemical and radiological risk to workers, the public, and the 

environment. GLE has committed to various preventive and mitigative measures to significantly 

reduce these impacts.

4.2.15.1 Accidents Considered

The GLE License Application (GLE, 2011b) describes potential accidents that could occur at the 

proposed GLE Facility. GLE provided accident descriptions according to facility node 

(operational unit), and further subdivided them by consequence, according to the severity of the 

accident.

The NRC selected, for detailed evaluation, a subset of the potential accident scenarios that is 

intended to encompass the range of possible accidents. The representative accident scenarios 

selected vary in severity from intermediate- to high-consequence events and include accidents 

initiated by natural phenomena, operator error, and equipment failure. The accident scenarios 

evaluated are as follows:

• nuclear criticality

• liquid fuel fire outside (Node 4100 cylinder storage and handling)

• system breach inside a solid feed station (Node 4200 feed and vaporization)

• system breach inside an autoclave (Node 4800 sampling system)

• criticality due to uranium accumulated in decontamination and maintenance equipment 

(Node 5200 decontamination/maintenance)

The accident analysis does not include an estimate of the probability of occurrence of accidents. 

Instead, the analyzed accidents are assumed to occur and the consequences are evaluated.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-114 February 2012

4.2.15.2 Accident Consequences 

Accidents involving release of UF6 liquids or vapors were analyzed, in general, by identifying the 

quantity of a containerized material at risk inside the facility, the amount of material released 

into a room as vapor or particulates under the accident scenario, the fraction of released 

material that is of respirable size, and the fraction of material exhausted to the atmosphere 

through an available pathway, typically a building ventilation system. The dispersion of released 

material in the atmosphere and transport to onsite and offsite locations was then analyzed using 

the GENII code (Napier, 2007; Napier et al., 2007) with conservative inputs for release and 

atmospheric transport factors. The model estimated direct exposures to members of the public 

from an airborne plume, as well as exposures over a year’s time from deposited uranium 

materials, to determine accident consequences to the public. The analysis also included 

impacts on the public from exposure to radionuclides that would be released from a criticality 

event in a vessel inside the facility, including gaseous fission products and radioiodine.

The NRC performance requirements in Part 70, Subpart H (10 CFR 70.61), require that the 

applicant limit the risks of credible high-consequence and intermediate-consequence events by 

applying engineering controls, administrative controls, or both, to reduce the likelihood and 

consequences of these types of accidents, and ensure that under normal and credible abnormal 

conditions, all nuclear processes are subcritical. Threshold consequence values that define the 

high- and intermediate-consequence events, except for criticality events, are indicated in 

Table 4-27. The values in Table 4-27 are based on the requirements of 10 CFR 70.61 and the 

EPA’s Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for chemical exposure to HF (EPA, 2009e;

EPA, 2009f).

Receptors located at the Restricted Area Boundary within the site and at the Controlled Area 

Boundary represent worst-case exposures to non-radiological workers at the facility and 

members of the public, respectively. The NRC also evaluated accident consequences for 

releases of UF6 for the general public offsite of the facility.

Table 4-28 summarizes the NRC’s evaluation of consequences from the hypothetical accidents. 

Consequences were evaluated against the above criteria. For the generic criticality accident, 

previous experience with this type of criticality accident indicates that a worker in close proximity 

(less than 4.5 meters [15 feet]) is unlikely to survive. With increasing distance from the 

accident, the radiation dose would be lower. Therefore, the NRC has qualitatively evaluated the 

accident as a high-consequence event for the worker. However, GLE has committed to various 

preventive and mitigative measures to significantly reduce these consequences (GLE, 2008). A 

maximally exposed individual at the Controlled Area Boundary (CAB) would receive a radiation 

dose of 5.7 millisievert (0.57 roentgen equivalent man [rem]) total effective dose equivalent, 

which represents a low consequence to an individual (<0.05 sievert [<5 rem]). The collective 

dose to the offsite population in the east–southeast direction, as determined using GENII 

(Napier, 2007; Napier et al., 2007), is estimated to be 3.87 person-sievert (387 person-rem). 

This population dose would cause an estimated 0.28 latent cancer fatalities (LCFs). The 

specific criticality accident at Node 5200, Decontamination and Maintenance, would likewise 

have high consequences for a nearby worker and roughly one half the estimated concentrations 

of uranium and HF at the site boundary of those for the generic criticality. It is estimated to 

similarly result in one half the offsite dose and cancer risk.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-115 NUREG-1938

Table 4-28 Definition of High- and Intermediate-Consequence Events

Receptor Intermediate Consequence High Consequence

Worker – Radiological >25 rem (0.25 Sv) >100 rem (1 Sv)

Worker – Chemical

(10-minute exposure)

>19 mg U/m3

>78 mg HF/m3(95 ppm)

(>AEGL-2 valuesa)

>147 mg U/m3

>139 mg HF/m3(170 ppm)

(>AEGL-3 values)

Individual at the 

Controlled Area 

Boundary - Radiological

> 5 rem (0.05 Sv) > 25 rem (0.25 Sv)

30 mg soluble uranium intake

Individual at the 

Controlled Area 

Boundary – Chemical 

(30 minute)

>2.4 mg U/m3

>0.8 mg HF/m3(0.98 ppm)

(>AEGL-1 values)

>13 mg U/m3

>28 mg HF/m3(34 ppm)

(>AEGL-2 values)

Environment at the 

Restricted Area 

Boundary

>24-hour average release greater 

than 5000 times the values in Table 2 

of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 

(1.5 10-8uCi/mL)

N/A

a

AEGL: Acute Exposure Guideline Levels are public and private sector derived consensus values intended 

to describe the risk to humans resulting from once-in-a-lifetime, or rare, exposure to airborne chemicals.

Sources: EPA, 2009e; EPA, 2009f.

The consequences of the accident scenarios involving a release of UF6 vary widely, as shown in 

Table 4-28. Worker radiological consequences are low (<25 rem [<0.25 sievert]) for all 

analyzed scenarios involving a UF6 release. Worker health consequences from HF exposure 

are low for the accident scenario at Node 4200 and are high for scenarios at Nodes 4100 and 

4800. Worker health consequences from uranium chemical exposure would be intermediate for 

the scenario at Node 4200 and high for scenarios at Nodes 4100 and 4800. 

Radiological consequences (30-minute exposure) to the maximally exposed individual at 

the CAB would be low for all UF6 release scenarios and for the criticality accidents

(<0.05 sievert [<5 rem]).

Uranium chemical exposure consequences (30-minute exposure) would be low (<2.4 milligrams 

uranium per cubic meter [<1.5 10–7pounds uranium per cubic foot]) for the accident scenario 

at Node 4200 and intermediate (>2.4 and <13 milligrams uranium per cubic meter [>1.5 and 

<8.1 10–7pounds uranium per cubic foot]) for the scenarios at Nodes 4100 and 4800. HF 

exposure consequences (30-minute exposure) would be low (<0.8 milligrams HF per cubic 

meter [0.98 parts per million]) for the accident scenario at Node 4200 and intermediate (>0.8 

and <28 milligrams HF per cubic meter [>0.98 and <34 parts per million]) for scenarios at 

Nodes 4100 and 4800.

Total consequences to the public in terms of radiation dose to the population in the ESE

direction and resultant total LCFs are provided in Table 4-29. Accident scenarios at all nodes 

predict less than one LCF in this population.

Of the accident scenarios analyzed by the NRC, the accident consequences to a worker great 

than low would be those from scenarios involving nuclear criticality, a liquid fuel fire outside 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-116 February 2012

Table 4-29 Summary of Health Effects Resulting from Accidents

Workera Environment 

at RAB

Individual at CAB Collective Dose and LCFs

Accident

(Node)

[U], mg/m3

(rem)b

[HF],

mg/m3

(ppm)

uCi/mL [U], mg/m3

(rem)

[HF],

mg/m3

(ppm)

Direction PersonremLCFs

Generic Criticality (Highc) NA 2.64d(0.57)

e NA ESE 387 0.28

Liquid Fuel Fire 

Outsidef(4100)

5.6E+3

(3.91)

1.8E+3

2.2E+3)

3.2E-9 2.79

(0.02)

1.06

(1.3)

ESE 41.2 3.0E-2

Breach Inside a 

Solid Feed Station

(4200)

66

(0.46)

22

(27)

2.64E-11 3.2E-2

(<0.001)

1.1E-2

(1.3E-2)

ESE 0.032 7.6E-4

System Breach 

Inside an 

Autoclave

(4800)

1.8E+4

(13.0)

6.25E+3

(7.6E+3)

2.7E-9 9.12

(3.8E-2)

3.45

(4.2)

ESE 67.8 5.0E-2

Decontamination 

and Maintenance 

Criticality (5200)

(Highc) NA 1.32 (0.28) NA ESE 190 0.14

a Worker exits after 5 minutes in all cases.

b To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.

c High consequence could lead to a fatality.

d Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.61(c)(3), this value is the sum of the fractions of individual fission product radionuclide concentrations over 

5000 times the concentration limits that appear in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2.

e

The dose to the individual at the CAB is the sum of internal and external doses from fission products released from the criticality.

RAB – Restricted Area Boundary; CAB – Controlled Area Boundary; HF – hydrogen fluoride; LCF – latent cancer fatalities; mg/m3–

milligrams per cubic meter; ppm – parts per million.

resulting in a cylinder rupture and UF6 release (Node 4100), a breach inside a solid feed station 

(Node 4200), and a system breach inside an autoclave (Node 4800). The accident scenarios 

with potential consequences to the public greater than low would be a system breach inside an 

autoclave (Node 4800) and a liquid fuel fire outside resulting in a cylinder rupture and UF6

release (Node 4100). The potential consequences to the public from both of these accidents 

would be potentially intermediate due to exposure to both uranium and HF.

The NRC selected and evaluated a representative subset of the potential accidents that could 

occur at the proposed facility. The accident consequences vary in magnitude, and demonstrate 

that both UF6 and HF release can be of concern if these accidents were to occur. However, the 

design of the proposed facility minimizes the likelihood of accidents occurring, while the facility 

Emergency Plan addresses all identified potential low- to high-consequence events. Therefore, 

the NRC concludes that, through the combination of plant design, passive and active 

engineered controls (items relied on for safety, or IROFS), and administrative controls, all 

processes would be maintained non-critical, and accidents at the proposed facility pose an 

acceptably low risk to workers, the environment, and the public. Thus, the probability weighted 

consequence (or risk) from accidents is expected to be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-117 NUREG-1938

4.2.15.3 Mitigation Measures

NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 70, Subpart H) and GLE’s operating procedures (GLE, 2008) for 

the proposed GLE Facility are designed to ensure that the high- and intermediate-consequence

accident scenarios would be highly unlikely. The NRC’s SER assesses the safety features and 

operating procedures required to reduce the risks from accidents. The combination of 

responses by IROFS that mitigate or prevent emergency conditions, and the implementation of 

emergency procedures and protective actions in accordance with the proposed GLE Emergency 

Plan, would limit the consequences and reduce the likelihood of accidents that could otherwise 

extend beyond the proposed GLE boundaries.

Specifically, preventive and mitigative measures within the proposed facility relevant to a 

fire/explosion scenario would include (GLE, 2008):

• fire alarm and detection systems, possibly including a fire suppression system

• fire barriers preventing propagation of fires into and out of areas holding quantities of 

uranium materials

• system features that isolate combustible (process) materials and/or shut down processes to 

prevent or mitigate a fire

• continuous detection of a flammable gas in the laser system, with automatic isolation of 

process piping exceeding set limits

• structures designed to ensure that peak explosive blast loads would minimize intrusion of 

structural materials into UF6 process or handling areas

• limiting combustibles in outside areas where cylinders are stored

Mitigative measures proposed by GLE relevant to radiological accidents would include 

(GLE, 2008):

• radiation detection and criticality monitoring systems to alert workers and isolate systems 

when parameters exceed set limits

• physical separation of areas within the facility designed to prevent or reduce exposure

• controlled positive or negative air pressures within designated areas to control air flow and 

prevent or maintain leakage between facility areas

• carbon absorbers, HEPA filters, and automatic trips on ventilation systems to prevent 

releases outside of affected areas

• limited building leakage paths to the outside environment through appropriate door and 

building design

These features are designed to contain UF6 vapors within specified building areas and 

attenuate any release to the environment. Preventive controls for a nuclear criticality accident 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-118 February 2012

would include maintaining a safe geometry of all vessels, containers, and equipment that 

contain fissile material, and ensuring that the amount of such material in these vessels does not 

exceed set limits. Mitigative controls would include criticality monitoring and alarm systems and 

emergency response training (GLE, 2008).

4.2.16 Separation of Preconstruction and Construction Impacts

As described in Section 4.2, the NRC has granted an exemption (NRC, 2009a) for GLE to 

conduct certain preconstruction activities, and Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.14 have provided 

estimates of the fraction of impacts that are attributable to preconstruction activities (conducted 

as part of the exemption granted by the NRC) and the fraction attributable to NRC-licensed

construction activities. Table 4-30 provides a summary of the anticipated impacts for each 

resource area, along with the fractions of these impacts that would be attributable to 

preconstruction and construction activities, respectively.

4.2.17 Impacts from Decontamination and Decommissioning

This section summarizes the potential environmental impacts of decontamination and 

decommissioning of the site through comparison with facility construction and normal 

operational impacts. Decontamination and decommissioning (under a separate NRC action) 

would involve the removal and disposal of all operating equipment while leaving the structures 

and most support equipment decontaminated to free-release levels in accordance with 10 CFR 

Part 20 (since GLE does not plan to demolish the buildings). These activities would include the 

cleaning and removal of materials, equipment, and structures that are contaminated with 

radioactive and/or hazardous wastes. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this EIS, decommissioning 

activities are estimated to require 3.5 years, shorter than construction (6 years) or operations 

activities (40 years).

Decommissioning activities anticipated to be conducted for the proposed GLE Facility include 

purging and draining of process systems, dismantling and removal of equipment, 

decontamination of equipment and structures, waste disposal, and final radiological surveys 

(GLE, 2009c). GLE has also indicated that it plans to sell salvaged materials (GLE, 2009c). 

However, a complete description of actions taken to decommission the proposed GLE Facility at 

the expiration of its NRC license period cannot be determined fully at this time. In accordance 

with 10 CFR 70.38, GLE must prepare and submit a Decommissioning Plan to the NRC at least 

12 months prior to the expiration of the NRC license for the proposed GLE Facility. GLE would 

submit a final decommissioning plan to the NRC prior to the start of decommissioning 

(GLE, 2008). This plan would be the subject of further NEPA review, as appropriate, at the time 

the Decommissioning Plan is submitted to the NRC. Decontamination and decommissioning 

activities would be conducted to comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations in 

effect at the time of these activities.

Depleted UF6 (tails) that remains after the operational phase would be sold, sent to a DOE 

depleted UF6 conversion facility, and/or sent to other licensed facilities for conversion. These 

facilities would convert the tails into a stable, non-volatile uranium compound for disposal in 

accordance with regulatory requirements. Low-level radioactive wastes produced during the 

decontamination and decommissioning process would be disposed of in a licensed low-level 

waste disposal facility. Hazardous wastes generated during the decontamination and 

decommissioning process would be treated or disposed of in permitted hazardous waste 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-119 NUREG-1938

Table 4-30 Summary of Anticipated Impacts from 

Preconstruction and Construction Activities

Resource Area Impact Preconstruction

(%)

Construction 

(%)

Land Use SMALL 50 50

Historic and Cultural SMALL to MODERATEa95 5

Visual and Scenic SMALL 25 75

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATEb75 25

Geology and Soil SMALL 75 25

Surface Water SMALL 75 25

Groundwater SMALL 50 50

Ecology SMALL to MODERATEa75 25

Noise SMALL to MODERATEb75 25

Transportation SMALL to MODERATE NAc NAc

Occupational and Public Health SMALL 15 85

Waste Management SMALL 2 98

Accidents SMALL NAc NAc

Socioeconomic SMALL 5 95

Environmental Justice No disproportionately 

high and adverse impact

NAc NAc

a

The majority of impacts on this resource occur during preconstruction. Therefore, the anticipated impacts 

from preconstruction activities are SMALL to MODERATE, and the anticipated impacts from construction 

activities are SMALL.

b

Although the majority of overall impacts on this resource occur during preconstruction activities, the impacts 

vary on a daily basis, depending on the types of activities performed. Therefore, the anticipated impacts are 

SMALL to MODERATE for both preconstruction and construction activities.

c Quantitative separation of preconstruction and construction impacts is either not applicable or not appropriate 

for this resource.

facilities. Releases to the atmosphere would be expected to be minimal. The final step in the 

decontamination and decommissioning process, the radiation survey, does not involve adverse 

environmental impacts. The proposed GLE Facility would be released for unrestricted use as 

defined in 10 CFR 20.1402.

The primary environmental impacts of the decontamination and decommissioning of the 

proposed GLE Facility include changes in releases to the atmosphere and surrounding 

environment, and disposal of industrial trash and decontaminated equipment. The types of 

impacts that may occur during decontamination and decommissioning would be similar to many 

of those that would occur during the initial construction of the proposed facility. Some impacts, 

such as water usage and the number of truck trips, could increase during the decontamination 

and disposal phase of the decommissioning, but would be less than the construction phase. 

The impacts on different resource areas from decontamination and decommissioning are 

discussed in detail in the following subsections.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-120 February 2012

4.2.17.1 Land Use

The location of the proposed GLE Facility is zoned for heavy industrial uses. The 

decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would not alter the use or

the zoning of the property or adjacent properties. Impacts on land use from decontamination 

and decommissioning would be SMALL. 

4.2.17.2 Historic and Cultural Resources

It is unlikely that decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would 

have an effect on historic and cultural resources. Impacts on historic and cultural resources 

occur primarily during ground-disturbing activities; if decontamination and decommissioning 

activities require the disturbance of previously undisturbed land, then impacts could result. The 

need to clear previously undisturbed land is not expected as part of decontamination and 

decommissioning activities. The NHPA can also consider project effects on items of unique 

engineering. If, at the time of decommissioning, the technologies employed at the facility are 

considered significant to the nation for understanding nuclear technologies, some record of the 

facility may be required to mitigate the removal of the facility. Therefore, the impacts on historic 

and cultural resources resulting from decontamination and decommissioning are expected to be 

SMALL. 

4.2.17.3 Visual and Scenic Resources

Decontamination and decommissioning activities have the potential to impact visual and scenic 

resources, however, all impacts would be minimal and of short duration. Visual and scenic 

impacts associated with decontamination and decommissioning would result from the use of 

heavy equipment to dismantle the facilities and the increase in worker traffic. Once the 

decommissioning was complete, most of the visual impacts would cease. The vegetation 

screen surrounding the facility would remain, making changes to the plant imperceptible to all 

but the closest residences. Visual and scenic impacts from decontamination and 

decommissioning would be SMALL. 

4.2.17.4 Air Quality

Large-scale soil disturbances are not anticipated during decontamination and decommissioning. 

Most decontamination activities would occur inside the proposed GLE Facility buildings, where

emission controls would minimize atmospheric releases of radioactive materials. If 

decommissioning activities include demolition of buildings, structures, and hard surface areas;

heavy construction equipment, such as bulldozers, scabblers, or front-end loaders, would be 

used for demolishing and loading debris onto trucks. For these activities, fugitive dust 

emissions, potentially contaminated, would be a primary concern. Standard dust suppression 

techniques could be employed during these activities to control dust emissions (e.g., water 

spraying). By employing dust suppression techniques, demolition activities would be unlikely to 

violate the permit conditions. If necessary, work areas would be monitored for airborne dust, 

and respiratory protection may be used or a small, temporary shelter or tent with portable HEPA 

filtration may be used to minimize potential contaminated dust emissions. Salvaged materials 

for sale and wastes and debris for disposal would be hauled offsite. The number of workers 

during this phase would be fewer than those during construction or operations, but hauling truck 

traffic on the North access road would be comparable to that experienced during construction. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-121 NUREG-1938

The GLE license, if issued, would terminate in 2052. Around 2051, when decommissioning is 

expected to begin, more stringent exhaust standards may be applied to onroad and offroad 

engines, and zero-emission cars (e.g., electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars) may be more 

common. Air emission rates and associated air quality impacts of decontamination and 

decommissioning activities at the proposed GLE Facility would be comparable to or less than 

those experienced during construction. Therefore, potential impacts of decontamination and 

decommissioning activities on ambient air quality would be SMALL.

4.2.17.5 Geology and Soils

During decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility, the foundations, 

roads, and utility lines would likely be undisturbed. Erosion may increase, as portions of the site 

are disturbed by heavy equipment. BMPs would reduce the impact of the erosion, as discussed 

in Section 4.2.6.3 related to mitigation measures for surface water. Impacts on geology or soil 

during decontamination and decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. 

4.2.17.6 Water Resources

During decontamination and decommissioning, the process wastewater flow would cease, but 

decontamination effluent would be generated. If sanitary discharge from the proposed 

GLE Facility could not be received by the Wilmington treatment and industrial reuse facility, then 

presumably, portable toilets would be required for the decommissioning workers. The 

collection, treatment, monitoring, and discharge of decontamination water would be designed to 

avoid significant environmental impact. 

Erosion may increase, as portions of the site are disturbed by heavy equipment. BMPs would 

reduce the impact of the erosion, as discussed in Section 4.2.6.3 related to mitigation measures 

for surface water. Stormwater would continue to be gathered in a State-permitted wet detention 

basin. 

The impact of decontamination and decommissioning (including removal of structures, utilities, 

materials, and products) on water resources is expected to be SMALL. 

4.2.17.7 Ecological Resources

Large-scale ecological resource impacts would not be likely, as most decontamination activities 

would occur inside the buildings. If decommissioning activities include demolition of buildings, 

structures, or hard surface areas (e.g., cylinder storage pads and parking lots), the activities that 

could affect ecological resources include:

• the dismantling process

• generation of waste materials

• regrading of project areas
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-122 February 2012

• revegetation activities

• accidental releases (spills) of potentially hazardous materials

Vegetation

Removal of facilities could impact vegetation adjacent to the facilities and cause offsite erosion 

and sedimentation. Landscaped areas used for staging of equipment or temporary storage of 

materials could also be impacted. Fill may be required following the removal of facilities. If 

Wilmington Site areas are used to supply the fill, any vegetation established at the source area 

would be destroyed. Following decontamination and decommissioning, affected areas would be 

revegetated (GLE, 2008). The plant community established where facilities are removed would 

depend on subsequent use of the project area.

Accidental spills of hazardous materials during decontamination and decommissioning could 

impact plant communities in the vicinity of the spill. Impacts would be similar to those discussed 

for preconstruction and construction (Section 4.2.8.1).

Wetlands

As no wetlands occur within the proposed GLE Facility area, decontamination and 

decommissioning activities would not directly impact wetlands.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

As no environmentally sensitive areas occur within the proposed GLE Facility area, 

decontamination and decommissioning activities would not directly impact environmentally 

sensitive areas.

Wildlife

As decontamination and decommissioning activities would be restricted primarily to within the 

proposed GLE Facility, only landscaped areas and maintained lawn areas adjacent to the 

impervious storage pad areas would be impacted. During decontamination and 

decommissioning, there would be a temporary increase in noise and visual disturbance to 

wildlife associated with vehicle, equipment, and worker activities.

Other potential environmental concerns resulting from decontamination and decommissioning 

would include the disposal of solid wastes and hazardous materials and the remediation of any 

contaminated soils. Some fuel and chemical spills could also occur, but these would be 

generally confined to the access road and project site area. The probability that wildlife would 

be exposed to such spills would be small and limited to a few individuals. After decontamination 

and decommissioning activities were complete, there would be no fuel or chemical spills 

associated with the proposed GLE Facility.

Impacts on wildlife from decontamination and decommissioning activities would be similar to 

those that occurred during the construction phase, but the extent of impacts would be less, as 

the operations building is not expected to be demolished. Minimal wildlife habitat would exist on 

the storage pads. If the minimal existing habitat were removed as part of decontamination and 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-123 NUREG-1938

decommissioning, their removal would have negligible direct impacts on wildlife. There would 

be a temporary increase in noise and visual disturbance associated with the removal and 

subsequent restoration of facilities. Most wildlife would avoid the area while decontamination 

and decommissioning activities were taking place. Increased traffic levels during 

decommissioning could result in increased roadkills, but injury and mortality rates of wildlife 

would probably be lower than they would be during construction.

Revegetation of the removed facility areas could increase wildlife habitat diversity. 

Revegetation of the pad areas would probably result in habitat similar to that on other 

operational areas of the Wilmington Site (i.e., landscaped lawns). Wildlife species that would 

inhabit these areas would be the same as those that occur on other developed locations of the 

Wilmington Site (Section 3.8.4).

Aquatic Biota

Removal of the impervious areas, coupled with the cessation of the proposed GLE Facility’s 

operations, would lower the amount of runoff and discharge to the stormwater wet detention 

basin and water treatment facilities. Therefore, what minimal impacts occur to water quality and 

thus, aquatic biota during operations, would cease. The potential would exist for fuel and 

chemical spills to occur. These would be confined to the access road and the proposed 

GLE Facility area and would not be expected to enter waterways. Once decontamination and 

decommissioning activities were completed, there would be no spills associated with the 

proposed GLE Facility.

Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species

As no threatened, endangered, or other special status species would be expected to inhabit the 

proposed GLE Facility, decontamination and decommissioning activities would not directly 

impact listed species.

Summary

In the long-term, decommissioning and reclamation would increase species diversity and habitat 

quality within the project area compared to that which would exist during operations. The 

impact of decommissioning on ecological resources is expected to be SMALL.

4.2.17.8 Noise

Most decontamination activities would occur inside the proposed GLE Facility buildings. If 

decommissioning activities include demolition, heavy construction equipment (such as 

bulldozers, scabblers, or front-end loaders) would be used for demolishing and loading debris 

onto trucks. Salvaged materials for sale and wastes and debris for disposal would be hauled 

offsite by truck. There would be fewer workers during decommissioning than during 

construction or operations, which would result in a reduction in commuter traffic. Noise from

truck traffic on the North access road would be comparable to that during construction and could 

impact the Wooden Shoe residential subdivision. As discussed in Section 4.2.9, potential noise 

impacts on the Wooden Shoe subdivision during construction would be SMALL. Even though 

cylinder pads would be removed and heavy equipment would be used, noise levels at the 

Wooden Shoe subdivision would be below the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance and EPA 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-124 February 2012

guideline. Therefore, noise impacts from decontamination and decommissioning activities on 

the nearest residential subdivision are expected to be SMALL.

4.2.17.9 Transportation

Initial decontamination and decommissioning activities during the last year of operations would 

increase the total number of workers at the proposed GLE Facility to approximately 400, a level 

similar to that during the construction period, with similar impacts. Approximately 50 workers 

are estimated to support decommissioning activities (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011) as shown in 

Table 4-11. An upper limit of 50 workers is expected, though day-to-day numbers would vary 

depending on the scheduled activities as decontamination and removal of equipment and other 

materials progresses. The number of truck shipments to offsite locations during this time period 

is anticipated to be approximately the same as during construction, an average of about 

35 trucks per day (GLE, 2008). Local and regional transportation impacts would be SMALL 

after operations cease due to the decrease in workers from approximately 680 during 

construction, 350 during operations, 400 during operations and initial decontamination and 

decommissioning, to 50 during decommissioning. 

Radioactive waste from decontamination and decommissioning would be transported to the 

appropriate storage, treatment, and disposal facilities as authorized by the NRC. Suitable 

disposal facilities would be identified at the time of decommissioning. All shipments would 

comply with existing NRC and DOT regulations. Impacts from radioactive waste shipments 

would be SMALL because of the low levels of external radiation and the low number of 

shipments. Overall, transportation impacts from decontamination and decommissioning would 

be SMALL.

4.2.17.10 Public and Occupational Health 

The anticipated decontamination and decommissioning plans call for cleaning structures and 

selected facilities to free-release levels and allowing them to remain in place for future use. 

Allowing the buildings to remain in place would minimize the potential number of workers 

required for decontamination and decommissioning, which would reduce the number of injured 

workers compared to building removal. Occupational injuries would be of similar nature to those 

incurred during construction of the facility (Section 4.2.11.1), but would be reduced in number in 

accordance with the reduced effort required for decontamination and decommissioning. 

According to current estimates, such efforts would require less than 20 percent of the worker 

level for construction: 450 FTEs versus 2346 FTEs for construction (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011a; 

Table 4.10-3). If residual contamination is discovered, it would be decontaminated to freerelease levels or removed from the site and disposed of in a low-level radioactive waste facility.

The annual occupational dose during decontamination and dismantling activities is estimated to 

be in the range of 0.05–1.5 millisievert (5–150 millirem) (GLE, 2009a). The dose estimate is 

based on the time spent at different work locations and the dose rates in the non-affected and 

major processing areas. The dose rate assumed in the non-affected areas was 0.0001 

millisievert (0.01 millirem) per hour, and in the major processing areas it was up to 0.5 millirem 

per hour (GLE, 2009a). The highest dose is comparable to the average dose from the operating 

fuel facilities of 1.3-1.5 millisievert (130-150 millirem) (Table 4-22). Therefore, the occupational 

dose during decontamination and decommissioning is expected to be bounded by potential 

exposures during operations. Similar uranium handling would be involved (i.e., UF6 in Type 48Y 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-125 NUREG-1938

cylinders and UF6 in the laser-enrichment lines) during the portion of operations that purges the 

laser-enrichment lines. Although purging operation is different from the normal operation, the 

number of UF6 workers would be exposed in the laser-enrichment lines would not be much 

different. Once this decontamination operation is completed, the remaining quantity of UF6

would be residual and significantly less than handled during operations. Because systems 

containing residual UF6 would be opened, decontaminated (with the removed radioactive 

material processed and packaged for disposal), and dismantled, an active environmental 

monitoring and dosimetry (external and internal) program would be conducted to maintain 

ALARA doses to workers and to individual members of the public as required by 10 CFR 

Part 20. Chemical exposures would be similarly limited. Therefore, the public and occupational 

health impacts from decontamination and decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.2.17.11 Waste Management 

The waste management facilities used during operations would also be used during 

decontamination and decommissioning. With the decrease in workers from operations to 

decommissioning, the sanitary wastewater treatment volumes would decline. Materials and 

equipment eligible for recycling or nonhazardous disposal would be sampled or surveyed to 

ensure that contaminant levels are below release limits. Buildings and other structures would 

be decontaminated and the debris shipped offsite for disposal. Radioactive material from 

decontamination and contaminated equipment would be packaged and shipped offsite to an 

appropriately licensed facility. Staging and laydown areas would be segregated and managed 

to prevent contamination of the environment and creation of additional wastes. Waste 

management impacts from decontamination and decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.2.17.12 Socioeconomics

Decontamination and decommissioning activities in the first year would employ 50 workers at 

the proposed GLE Facility. Based on data provided by GLE (GLE, 2008), an additional 23 

indirect jobs could be created in the ROI from the procurement of material and equipment and 

the spending of worker income (Table 4-26). Decontamination and decommissioning of the 

proposed GLE Facility would generate $6.1 million in income in the ROI in the first year of 

decommissioning. Facility decommissioning would also generate less than $0.3 million in 

income taxes and less than $0.2 million in sales taxes. With decommissioning activities 

constituting less than 1 percent of total ROI employment in the first year, the economic impact of 

decommissioning the proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL.

Given the scale of decommissioning activities and the availability of local workers, 

decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility could cause some workers 

and their families to relocate from outside the ROI, with between 115 and 120 persons migrating 

into the ROI during the first year of decommissioning. Although in-migration may potentially 

impact local housing markets, the relatively small number of people relocating to the ROI and 

the availability of temporary accommodation (hotels, motels, and mobile home parks) would 

mean that the impact of facility decommissioning on the number of vacant rental housing units 

would be small, with between 33 and 35 rental units expected to be occupied in the ROI during 

decommissioning. These occupancy rates would represent less than 1 percent of the vacant 

rental units expected to be available in the ROI; the impact of the proposed GLE Facility’s 

decontamination and decommissioning on housing would, therefore, be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-126 February 2012

In addition to the potential impact on housing markets, in-migration would also affect local 

community and education services. Accordingly, less than one police officer and firefighter 

would be required to maintain existing levels of service during the peak decommissioning year. 

Assuming that a certain number of workers are accompanied by their families during 

decommissioning, between 38 and 40 school-age children could be expected in the ROI, 

meaning less than one additional teacher would be required to maintain existing student-teacher 

ratios in the local school system. These increases would represent less than 1 percent of 

community service employment expected in the ROI; therefore, the impact of decontamination 

and decommissioning on community services would be SMALL. 

4.2.17.13 Environmental Justice

As described in Sections 4.2.17.1 through 4.2.17.12, the potential impacts of the proposed 

action during decontamination and decommissioning are expected to be SMALL for all of the 

resource areas evaluated. Impacts could affect minority and low-income residents living in the 

immediate vicinity of the proposed GLE Facility. Since impacts to the general population are 

expected to be SMALL and of short duration, overall impacts to minority and low-income 

populations would not be disproportionately high or adverse.

Even where environmental impacts are SMALL for the general population, some population 

subgroups, such as individuals participating in outdoor recreation, home gardening, or 

subsistence hunting and fishing, could be disproportionately affected through inhalation or 

ingestion of radionuclides and other environmental contaminants. One Census block group, 

which has a high percentage of low-income and minority residents, is located downstream of the 

proposed GLE Facility on the Northeast Cape Fear River. Residents of this Census block group

could face increased risk of exposure due to fish consumption; however, the releases of total 

uranium and UF6 are projected to be extremely low (see Section 4.2.11.2), and indirect 

exposure through fish consumption would be even lower.

Soil and vegetation samples from the existing site and from a mile away show no impact from 

current GE operations at the Wilmington Site. As discussed in Section 4.2.11, the radiological 

doses to the nearest residents resulting from operations of the proposed GLE Facility and the 

current GE operations are projected to be well below the EPA 10 millirem (0.1 millisievert) per 

year standard (20 CFR Part 190) and the NRC total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) 

100-millirem (1-millisievert) per year limit (10 CFR Part 20).

Overall, impacts to minority and low-income populations from the decontamination and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would not be disproportionately high or adverse.

4.2.17.14 Summary

For most resource areas, the adverse environmental impacts of decontamination and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility could be SMALL to MODERATE; similar to the 

construction impacts. The notable exception would be cultural resources, where the impacts of 

preconstruction and construction activities would be significant in comparison to those of 

decontamination and decommissioning. The facilities and land could be released for restricted 

or unrestricted use, and releases to the environment from the proposed GLE Facility would 

cease. In addition, depending on the future use of the site, consumption of water and electricity 

and vehicular traffic to and from the site could be reduced. Decommissioning impacts would be 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-127 NUREG-1938

localized in the immediate proposed GLE Facility-developed site. No disposal of waste, 

including radioactive waste, would occur at the proposed GLE Facility site.

4.2.18 Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gas Impacts

This section presents an assessment of the effect construction, operations, and 

decommissioning activities for the proposed GLE Facility would be expected to have on carbon 

dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.

4.2.18.1 Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases include those gases, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), that are transparent to incoming short-wave radiation from the sun but 

opaque to outgoing long-wave (infrared) radiation from the earth’s surface. The net effect over 

time is a trapping of absorbed radiation and a tendency to warm the planet’s surface and the 

boundary layer of the earth’s atmosphere, which constitute the “greenhouse effect.” Some 

direct GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) are both naturally occurring and the product of industrial 

activities, while others such as the hydrofluorocarbons are created and are present in the 

atmosphere exclusively due to human activities. Each GHG has a different radiative forcing 

potential (the amount of thermal energy [in watts] trapped by the gas per square meter of the 

earth’s surface). The radiative efficiency of a GHG is directly related to its concentration in the 

atmosphere. As a way to compare the radiative forcing potentials of various GHGs without 

directly calculating changes in their atmospheric concentrations, an index known as the Global 

Warming Potential (GWP) has been established with CO2, the most abundant of GHGs released 

to the atmosphere (after water vapor),21 established as the reference point. 

GWPs are calculated as the ratio of the radiative forcing that would result from the emission of 

1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of a GHG to that which would result from the emission of 1 kilogram 

(2.2 pounds) of CO2 over a fixed period of time. GWPs represent the combined effect of the 

amount of time each GHG remains in the atmosphere and its ability to absorb outgoing thermal 

infrared radiation. As the reference point in this index, CO2 has a GWP of 1. On the basis of 

100-year time horizon, GWPs for other key GHGs are as follows: 21 for CH4, 310 for N2O, 

11,700 for trifluoromethane (HFC-23), and 23,900 for SF6 (IPCC, 2007).

Indirect GHGs, including CO, NOx, nonmethane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and 

SO2, indirectly affect terrestrial solar radiation absorption by influencing the formation and 

destruction of tropospheric and stratospheric ozone or, in the case of SO2, by affecting the 

absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere.

 

21 Water vapor is the most abundant and most dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, it 

is neither long-lived nor well mixed in the atmosphere, varying spatially from 0 to 4 percent by volume. 

Compared to natural processes, human activities are not believed to have a significant direct effect on 

the average global concentration of water vapor; however, increased concentrations of other 

greenhouse gases released, in part, through human activities may indirectly affect the hydrologic 

cycle. Despite its substantial radiative forcing potential (primarily through the formation of clouds 

which can both absorb and reflect solar and terrestrial radiation), water vapor is not typically included 

in GHG inventories.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-128 February 2012

4.2.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in the United States

The EPA is responsible for preparation and maintenance of the official U.S. Inventory of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks to comply with existing commitments under the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). GHG emissions are reported 

in sectors, using the GWPs established in the Second Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).22

In 2007, total GHG emissions in United States were 7150.1 teragrams CO2 equivalent,23 an 

increase of 17 percent from 1990 (EPA, 2009c). In 2007, CO2 emissions in U.S. were about 

20 percent of worldwide emissions (EIA, 2009). However, net emissions (considering sources 

and sinks) were estimated to be 6087.5 teragrams CO2 equivalent. The primary GHG sinks 

functional in 2007 included carbon sequestration in forests, trees in urban areas, agricultural 

soils, and landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps, all of which, in aggregate, offset 

14.9 percent of the total GHG emissions in 2007. The primary GHG emitted by human activities 

in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 85.4 percent of the total GHG 

emissions (6103.4 teragrams CO2 equivalent). The largest source of CO2 for 2007 was the 

result of fossil fuel combustion (80.2 percent of total GHG emissions), primarily electricity 

generation (33.5 percent), transportation (26.4 percent), industrial applications (11.8 percent), 

residential heating (4.8 percent), and commercial applications (3.0 percent). Methane 

emissions in 2007, which declined from 1990 levels, were about 585.3 teragrams CO2

equivalent, which represented about 8.2 percent of total GHG emissions. Major contributors to 

CH4 emissions included enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, decomposition 

of wastes in landfills, and natural gas systems. Emissions of N2O in 2007 were about 

311.9 teragrams CO2 equivalent (4.4 percent of total GHG emissions), for which agricultural soil 

management accounts for two-thirds of total N2O emissions, followed by mobile fuel combustion 

(about 10 percent of total N2O emissions). Emissions of HFCs in 2007 were 125.5 teragrams 

CO2 equivalent (about 1.8 percent of total GHG emissions), most of which was associated with 

substitution of ozone-depleting substances. PFC and SF6 emissions in 2007 were a small 

fraction of total GHG emissions (about 0.1 and 0.2 percent, respectively). Contributions to PFC 

emissions were comparable between aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing, 

while three-quarters of SF6 emissions in 2007 resulted from electrical transmission and 

distribution.24 Albeit small emissions relative to other principal GHG emissions, emissions of 

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 were significant because many have extremely high GWPs and, in the 

case of PFCs and SF6, have long atmospheric lifetimes (e.g., PFC-14 with about 50,000 years).

 

22 IPCC assessment reports are a compilation of separate reports of the various working groups that are 

established by the Panel. IPCC periodically updates assessment reports to incorporate newly 

established data, including revisions to GWPs and radiative forcing potentials of GHGs. The latest is 

the Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007. Revised GWPs are contained in the report of 

Working Group I (IPCC, 2007). However, to provide for the analysis of trends of GHG emissions and 

sinks over time, nations responsible for GHG inventories continue to use the GHG GWPs established 

in the Second Assessment Report published in 1996.

23 GHG emissions are expressed as CO2 equivalent (or CO2 Eq.), which is the product of the mass of a 

gas and its associated GWP. One teragram is equal to 1012 grams, or one million metric tons 

(1.12 million tons).

24 SF6 is a gas at standard conditions and is used as a dielectric medium in high-voltage electrical 

equipment.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-129 NUREG-1938

Emissions of indirect GHGs in 2007 included about 14.25 teragrams for NOx, 63.88 teragrams 

for CO, 13.75 teragrams for NMVOCs, and 11.73 teragrams for SO2. Mobile fossil fuel 

combustion accounted for half of total NOx emissions, followed by stationary fossil fuel 

combustion. CO emissions resulted primarily from mobile fossil fuel combustion, while SO2

emissions resulted primarily from stationary fossil fuel combustion (e.g., coal-fired power 

plants). Mobile fossil fuel combustion and solvent use accounted for about 41 and 28 percent of 

NMVOCs emissions, respectively.

4.2.18.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in North Carolina

Among States, North Carolina ranks 12th with respect to emissions of GHGs and 11th in 

population (based on 2003 data) (NextGenerationEarth, 2009). In 2005, North Carolina 

produced about 192 teragrams CO2 equivalent gross emissions, an amount equal to 2.7 percent

of total gross U.S. GHG emissions (Peterson et al., 2007). The principal source of North 

Carolina’s GHG emissions is consumption-based electricity use (electricity production netting 

out electricity exports), accounting for 39.5 percent of total State gross GHG emissions in 2005. 

The next largest contributors to total gross GHG emissions are the transportation sector 

(30.9 percent) and residential, commercial, and industrial fossil fuel combustion (16.6 percent). 

Note that electricity production is predominated by coal, which accounted for over one-third of 

State gross GHG emissions in 2005. Typically, coal-fired power plants produce as much as 

twice the CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity as natural gas-fired power plants. As a 

result of these factors, North Carolina’s power plants are the greatest single source of GHG 

emissions in the State. Agricultural activities, industrial processes, and waste management 

account for the remainder of State GHG emissions (about 13 percent). Considering carbon 

sequestered and released from biomass throughout the State, net emissions would be about 

169 teragrams CO2 equivalent, an amount equal to 2.8 percent of total net U.S. GHG emissions.

During the period 1990 to 2005, gross and net GHG emissions in North Carolina increased by 

about 42 and 57 percent, respectively, while gross and net national GHG emissions increased 

by only 17 and 16 percent, respectively.

4.2.18.4 Projected Impacts from the Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of 

the Proposed GLE Facility on Carbon Dioxide and Other GHG Emissions

Construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would contribute to 

CO2 and other GHG emissions through various mechanisms, primarily from combustion of fossil 

fuels in both mobile and stationary sources during construction, operations, and 

decommissioning. Individual contributions are discussed below. Regional transportation 

volumes used in the analysis below were established in Section 4.2.10 and Appendix E.

Gasoline combustion is expected to occur at 99 percent efficiency, each gallon releasing 

8.8 kilograms (19.4 pounds) of CO2 (EPA, 2005). Likewise, diesel fuel burned at the same 

combustion efficiency would release 10.1 kilograms (22.2 pounds) of CO2 per gallon. In this 

analysis, only CO2 emissions were estimated. Gasoline and diesel engine combustion also 

generate small amounts of other GHG emissions, such as CH4, N2O, and HFCs. However, CO2

emissions account for about 93 94 percent of total GHG emissions for automobiles and about 

99 percent for heavy-duty trucks on a CO2 equivalent basis (EPA, 2009c). Accordingly, 

estimation of CO2 emissions only could underestimate total GHG emissions by a few percent.

CO2 emissions source categories are similar during access road construction, land clearing, and 

building construction activities. The final start-up and final construction phase would include 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-130 February 2012

concurrent indoor construction activities with staged testing and start-up of process units as 

completed. Accordingly, CO2 emission source categories during this phase are similar to those 

during operations. This discussion addresses these two phases together.

Impacts During Access Road Construction, Land Clearing, and Building Construction

Access road construction and land clearing activities were assumed in the air quality analysis 

(Section 4.2.4) to include road construction for two months, followed by 1 year or more of land 

clearing, and building construction for 2 years. During these activities, GHG emission sources 

would include heavy construction equipment, as well as commuting to and from the site by the 

construction workforce, and locally by delivery vehicles bringing materials and equipment to the 

site and removing construction-related non-radiological wastes from the site to area landfills and 

treatment/disposal facilities. Annual total fuel consumption for offroad heavy construction 

equipment is estimated using a fuel consumption rate of 0.065 gallons per horsepower-hour 

(SME, 1992). During access road construction and land clearing activities, a daily average of 

95 workers would work onsite, while during the building construction phase, a daily average of

858 workers would work onsite. For onroad vehicles, an average of 200 daily local trips for 

access road construction and land clearing activities and 1801 daily local trips for building 

construction activities are assumed, 90 percent of which are from gasoline engine automobiles 

and 10 percent of which are from heavy-duty diesel trucks. Average vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) offsite per trip by automobiles and trucks are assumed 10 and 100 miles, 

respectively. In addition, these vehicles would travel another 1.64 miles onsite from the gate to 

the proposed GLE Facility. Fuel economy factors of 24.1 and 7.2 miles per gallon were 

assumed for automobiles and trucks, respectively.

Annual total fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are estimated, as shown in Table 4-31. 

During access road construction and land clearing activities, annual total CO2 emissions would 

be around 729 metric tons (804 tons) and 4436 metric tons (4890 tons), respectively. These 

emissions would account for about 0.0004 and 0.0023 percent of North Carolina GHG 

emissions in 2005, and about 0.00001 and 0.00006 percent of U.S. GHG emissions in 2007 (the 

most recent publically reviewed data). During the building construction phase, annual total 

emissions are estimated to be about 12,939 metric tons (14,262 tons), about 0.0067 percent of 

North Carolina GHG emissions and 0.00018 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. CO2 emissions 

during this period are about three times more than those for access road construction and land 

clearing activities due to increased workforce and delivery activities.

Impacts During Start-up and Final Construction, and Operations

Start-up and final construction activities would occur for 5–6 years from 2014 to 2020, and 

operations would continue until 2051. During start-up and final construction, an estimated 

590 workers would work onsite, while during the operations phase, an estimated 350 workers 

would work onsite. For onroad vehicles, a total of 1239 daily local trips for start-up and final 

construction and 735 daily local trips for operations are assumed. Compared with the previous 

two phases, auxiliary diesel generators, onsite transfer vehicles (OSTVs), possibly dieselpowered forklifts, and onsite diesel trucks used for cylinder transfer are added instead of offroad 

heavy construction equipment. To support facility operations, regional deliveries would be 

anticipated: UF6 feedstock coming to the proposed GLE Facility and UF6 product, depleted UF6

tails, empty 48Y cylinders, and LLRW leaving the facility. Detailed discussion including the 

destination and total distance traveled by delivery trucks is available in Section 4.2.10. It is 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-131 NUREG-1938

Table 4-31 Annual CO2 Emissions from Access Road Construction, Land Clearing, 

Building Construction, Start-up and Final Construction, and Operation of the 

Proposed GLE Facility

Phase Air Emission 

Source

Fuel CO2

Emission 

Factor 

(lbs/gal)b

CO2 Emissions

Type Consumption 

rate (gals/yr)a (tons/yr) (MTs/yr)c

Access road 

construction

Offroad construction 

equipment

Diesel 22.2 565.8 513.3

Automobiles (local) Gasoline 19.4 50.4 45.7

Diesel trucks (local) Diesel 22.2 187.7 170.2

Total 803.8 729.2

Land clearing Offroad construction 

equipment

Diesel 229,249 22.2 3441.8 3122.4

Automobiles (local) Gasoline 23,415 19.4 306.4 277.9

Diesel trucks (local) Diesel 76,039 22.2 1141.6 1035.7

Total 4889.7 4436.0

Building 

construction

Offroad construction 

equipment

Diesel 126,744 22.2 1407.6 1277.0

Automobiles (local) Gasoline 281,013 19.4 2719.8 2467.4

Diesel trucks (local) Diesel 912,559 22.2 10,135.1 9194.5

Total 14,262.4 12,938.9

Start-up and final

construction

Auxiliary diesel 

generator unitsd

Diesel 10.4 9.4

OSTVs used for 

cylinder transfer

Diesel 6299 22.2 70.0 63.5

Onsite diesel truck used 

for cylinder transfer

Diesel 29 22.2 0.3 0.3

Automobiles (local) Gasoline 196,581 19.4 1902.6 1726.0

Diesel trucks (local) Diesel 638,405 22.2 7090.0 6432.0

Diesel trucks (regional)e Diesel 249,175 22.2 2767.3 2510.5

Total 11,840.5 10,741.7

Operations Auxiliary diesel 

generator unitsd

Diesel 10.4 9.4

OSTVs used for 

cylinder transfer

Diesel 6299 22.2 70.0 63.5

Onsite diesel truck used 

for cylinder transfer

Diesel 29 22.2 0.3 0.3

Automobiles (local) Gasoline 116,616 19.4 1128.7 1023.9

Diesel trucks (local) Diesel 378,715 22.2 4205.9 3815.6

Diesel trucks (regional)e Diesel 498,349 22.2 5534.5 5020.9

Total 10,949.8 9933.6

Foonotes on following page.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-132 February 2012

Table 4-31 Annual CO2 Emissions from Access Road Construction, Land Clearing, 

Building Construction, Start-up and Final Construction, and Operation of the 

Proposed GLE Facility (Cont.)

a See Appendix E for detailed information on underlying assumptions.

b Source: EPA, 2005.

c MTs/yr = metric tons/year. To convert to tons/year, divide by 0.9072.

d Emissions are estimated using the NCDENR calculator spreadsheet (NCDENR, 2010).

e

Includes UF6 feed coming to proposed GLE Facility and UF6 product, depleted UF6 tails, empty 48Y cylinders, and LLRW leaving 

the facility.

assumed that separate shipments would be initiated to return empty cylinders and waste 

containers to their points of origin. It is further assumed that, during start-up and final 

construction, the production level on average would be 50 percent of that during operations.

During start-up and final construction, the proposed GLE Facility is estimated to release an 

annual total of 10,742 metric tons (11,841 tons) of CO2, which is equivalent to 0.0056 percent of 

North Carolina GHG emissions in 2005 and 0.00015 percent to U.S. GHG emissions in 2007. 

During operations, annual total CO2 emissions are projected to be 9934 metric tons 

(10,950 tons), which is approximately 0.0052 percent of North Carolina statewide emissions in 

2005 and 0.00014 percent of nationwide emissions in 2007. The building construction phase 

would release the highest CO2 emissions during the lifespan of the GLE project, followed by the 

start-up and final construction phase and operations. During start-up and final construction, 

CO2 emissions from local traffic are predicted to be greater than from regional traffic. However, 

during operations, CO2 emissions from local and regional traffic would be comparable. 

Impacts During Decommissioning

As discussed in Section 4.1, because decommissioning will take place well in the future, 

detailed plans for decommissioning the proposed GLE Facility are not known at this time. 

Consequently, the impacts of decommissioning are discussed qualitatively in this document.

The main sources of CO2 and other GHG emissions during the decommissioning phase are 

expected to be shipment of waste (LLRW and nonhazardous/nonradioactive waste) to 

appropriate disposal facilities and shipment of any remaining depleted UF6 on site to a 

conversion facility. In addition, heavy equipment use at the site and travel to and from the site 

by the decommissioning workers would contribute to CO2 and other GHG emissions during 

decontamination and decommissioning. 

The emissions from shipments of waste and depleted UF6 would depend on the locations of 

selected disposal and conversion facilities. Because GLE does not plan to demolish buildings 

during decommissioning (see Section 4.2.17), the quantity of nonhazardous/nonradioactive 

waste generated during this phase of the project would be relatively small as compared to the 

quantity generated during operations. With respect to LLRW, GLE estimates that it would 

generate approximately 18,800 cubic meters (664,000 cubic feet) of LLRW during the entire 

decommissioning period (GLE, 2009c). Assuming that LLRW generated during 

decommissioning has a density of 2 kilograms per liter (125 pounds per cubic foot), GLE would 

generate approximately three times more LLRW, by mass, during decommissioning than it 

would during operations. Assuming LLRW is disposed of in the same facility during 

decommissioning as it is during operations, this difference would represent approximately 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-133 NUREG-1938

3000 more shipments of approximately 3940 kilometers (2450 miles) during the entire 

decommissioning period as compared to the operations period. However, the emissions from 

these LLRW shipments would be less than the emissions from other shipments that would occur 

during operations but not during decommissioning, including approximately 900 shipments per 

year of unenriched UF6 feed to the facility (470 to 1400 kilometers [290 to 870 miles]), 

50 shipments per year of enriched UF6 product (480 to 4780 kilometers [300 to 2970 miles]), 

and 50 shipments per year to return empty depleted UF6 cylinders (1320 kilometers [820 miles]). 

Available storage space on the cylinder storage pads would limit the number of depleted UF6

cylinders that could be stored on site at any one time to 9000. Upon cessation of facility 

operations, it is likely that less than 9000 cylinders would be stored on-site. However, assuming 

9000 cylinders would be stored on site and awaiting shipment to a conversion facility during 

decommissioning, there would be approximately three times as much depleted UF6 shipped to a 

conversion facility during operations as there would be during decommissioning. 

As a result, CO2 emissions associated with shipments of materials, including LLRW, 

nonhazardous/nonradioactive waste, and depleted UF6, during decontamination and 

decommissioning would be less than the 221,000 tons (200,000 metric tons) of CO2 emissions 

that are associated with use of diesel trucks at the regional scale during 40 years of facility 

operations (see Table 4-30).

As discussed in 4.2.17.4, large-scale soil disturbances are not likely during decommissioning. 

In addition, GLE does not currently plan to demolish buildings associated with the proposed 

GLE Facility during decommissioning. Therefore, significantly less heavy equipment use would 

be used during decontamination and decommissioning than during access road construction 

and land clearing, and the CO2 emissions from heavy equipment use during decontamination 

and decommissioning would be bounded by the offroad construction vehicle CO2 emissions 

during access road construction and land clearing listed in Table 4-30. Similarly, because the 

number of employees during operations is significantly greater than during decontamination and 

decommissioning, the GHG emissions associated with employee traffic during decontamination 

and decommissioning would be bounded by the emissions provided in Table 4-30 for local 

automobile use during operations. 

Based on the considerations of the expected CO2 emissions attributable to shipment of depleted 

UF6 to a conversion facility, shipment of LLRW for disposal, heavy equipment use, and 

employee traffic as described in this section, the total quantity of GHGs emitted during 

decontamination and decommissioning would be less than the amount emitted during 

operations. 

Indirect Impacts from Operation of the Proposed GLE Facility

Nuclear power generation with fuel fabricated from the proposed GLE Facility would indirectly 

displace GHG emissions that would otherwise be released from fossil-fuel power plants. It is 

estimated that, at full production, the proposed GLE Facility would produce approximately 

2047 metric tons (2257 tons) of enriched UF6 annually, which would be equivalent to 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-134 February 2012

1570 metric tons (1731 tons) of uranium dioxide (UO2) fuel.25 A typical 1100-megawatt 

pressurized water reactor (PWR) would have approximately 98 metric tons (108 tons) of UO2 in 

its core (Nero, 1979). Thus, annual production of the proposed GLE Facility could replace the 

fuel cores of 16 PWRs. Operating at a capacity factor of 95 percent, each PWR would be 

capable of producing 9154 gigawatt-hours per year, so the total amount of power associated 

with GLE-enriched UF6 production would be 146,654 gigawatt-hours per year.

Carbon Dioxide and Other GHG Emissions Summary

In summary, over the lifespan of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed

GLE Facility, the building construction phase was projected to generate the highest emissions. 

These direct emissions would be about 0.0067 percent of North Carolina GHG emissions in 

2005 and 0.00018 percent of U.S. GHG emissions in 2007 (the most recent publicly reviewed 

data). The NRC concludes that potential impacts from the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility on climate change would be SMALL.

4.2.18.5 Mitigation Measures

The applicant should consider measures that would reduce GHG emissions. These could 

include, but would not necessarily be limited to, energy-efficient design features and features to 

reduce space conditioning energy requirements, use of renewable energy sources, use of 

low-GHG-emitting vehicles, and other policies to reduce GHG emissions from vehicle use, such 

as anti-idling policies and van- or carpooling.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA define cumulative effects 

as “the impact on the environment which results from the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are 

presented below for resource areas in which there are anticipated changes related to other 

activities that may arise from single or multiple actions and may result in additive or interactive 

effects (e.g., other new facilities that are planned at the Wilmington Site).

Impacts from preconstruction activities for the proposed GLE Facility are addressed as 

cumulative impacts in this EIS, as these actions are not part of the proposed action. These 

impacts are discussed within the various resource area discussions in Section 4.2 so that they 

can be presented alongside similar impacts from construction of the facility that are included in 

the proposed action. In Section 4.2.16, impacts resulting from preconstruction are identified as 

a percentage of total impacts estimated to occur prior to facility operations. In this sense, site 

preconstruction activities would be considered past activities for the purposes of cumulative 

impacts.

 

25 AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC, (AES) estimated that, at full production, EREF would produce 

approximately 2252 metric tons (2482 tons) of enriched UF6 annually, which would be equivalent to 

1727 metric tons (1904 tons) of UO2 fuel (AES, 2008; NRC, 2011). The capacity of the proposed GLE 

Facility would be 6 million SWU and the total production volume of enriched UF6 annually is estimated 

in proportion to production capacity of EREF (6.6 million SWU).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-135 NUREG-1938

Consultation with local development boards and agencies with which proposed new projects are 

filed identified other actions or activities in the area that could affect the same resources as the 

proposed GLE Facility, contributing to cumulative effects.

Identified activities include several that exist or will exist at the Wilmington Site. Onsite and 

adjacent offsite activities are summarized below:

• Existing facilities on the Wilmington Site. These include the existing FMO facility and other 

existing facilities.

• Facilities planned for the Wilmington Site. Two new facilities, which could contribute to 

cumulative effects, are planned for the Wilmington Site – the Advanced Technology Center 

(ATC) II complex and the Tooling Development Center (see Figure 4-1). Since publication 

of the Draft EIS in June 2010, construction of the ATC II complex has been completed; 

construction of the Tooling Development Center has not begun. The newly constructed 

ATC II is an office building located adjacent to the existing ATC I building, near the South 

Gate entrance to the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011c). Construction of this facility 

disturbed approximately 12 hectares (30 acres). The planned Tooling Development Center 

would consist of five new buildings and would also disturb approximately 12 hectares 

(30 acres). This planned facility would be located in the southwestern portion of the Eastern 

Site Sector of the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008). 

Figure 4-1 Planned Projects at the Wilmington Site 

(Modified from GLE, 2008)
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-136 February 2012

Both facilities are located in previously disturbed areas (GLE, 2011c). The ATC II complex 

is located on a former stormwater drainage area and the planned Tooling Development 

Center would be constructed where a parking lot currently exists (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011a). 

In addition, it is reasonably foreseeable that a security-related feature, independent of 

security measures specific to the proposed GLE Facility, may be developed on the 

Wilmington Site (GLE, 2009d). Additional information about this feature and the cumulative 

impacts of the proposed action in combination with this feature are provided in Appendix H.

• New processes planned for the Wilmington Site. Sanitary wastewater from the existing 

FMO facility is currently treated for reuse for industrial purposes. This process would be 

expanded to include similar sanitary wastewater from the proposed GLE Facility for 

industrial reuse.

• Offsite industrial development. (1) The Carolinas Cement Company has submitted an 

application for an air permit to construct a new cement manufacturing plant (also referred to 

as Titan Cement Plant) in northeastern Hanover County, roughly 6 miles northeast of the 

proposed GLE Facility. (2) The River Bluffs residential development has been proposed to 

be built on 95 hectares (237 acres) adjacent to the southern boundary of the Wilmington 

Site. (3) The proposed North Carolina International Terminal (near Southport, NC, 

approximately 35 miles south of the proposed GLE Facility) and/or the upgrade of existing 

facilities at the Port of Wilmington (approximately 10 miles south of the proposed GLE 

Facility).

• Offsite UF6 transportation and local traffic increases. Increased transport of UF6 feed and 

waste materials could increase doses to the public over those from current transport of such 

materials from operation of the FMO facility. Increased traffic from workers at the proposed 

GLE Facility would contribute to traffic congestion on local roads and highways.

The following sections present assessments of the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed 

action in combination with above activities by resource area. Cumulative impacts associated 

with the no-action alternative on the various resource areas would be generally less than those 

for the proposed action, except in terms of local job creation. Therefore, except for 

socioeconomic impacts, the cumulative impacts of the no-action alternative are not discussed in 

detail.

4.3.1 Land Use

Cumulative impacts on land use would result if the proposed action in combination with other 

projects prohibited other land uses from occurring or were incompatible with current zoning. 

The proposed GLE Facility site is located on property currently owned by GE. The eastern 

portion of the property already contains the GNF-A and GE AE/SCO facility. The proposed 

GLE Facility is consistent with the current zoning. Other developments in the area include

several new housing complexes and the proposed Titan Cement Plant, which is roughly 6 miles

(9.6 kilometers) northeast of the proposed GLE Facility. The construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would not alter the current land use of the 

Wilmington Site or affect land use in the surrounding area. Therefore, cumulative impacts on 

land use would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-137 NUREG-1938

4.3.2 Historic and Cultural Resources

The impacts of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed GLE Facility on 

historic and cultural resources could range from SMALL to MODERATE. Cumulative impacts 

on historic and cultural resources can result from the incremental loss of unique site types. 

Archaeological sites within the vicinity of the project area contain evidence of Middle Woodland 

Cultures. Several other prehistoric sites of unknown age are found in the region. Historic 

remains are also found in the vicinity dating to the colonial periods as well as later American era 

sites. Most impacts on historic and cultural resources are expected to occur during 

preconstruction activities, because the majority of ground-disturbing activities would occur at 

this time. Two additional construction projects were identified for the Wilmington Site that could 

result in 60 additional acres of disturbed land (GLE, 2008). These projects are the ATC II 

complex and the Tooling Development Center. Since the publication of the Draft EIS, the ATC 

II complex has been built. Construction impacts would involve activities similar to those of the 

proposed action, namely clearing, grading, and excavation for building foundations and a 

stormwater wet detention basin. Both projects are located in a portion of the Wilmington Site 

that has been previously disturbed. No historic or cultural resources are known to exist in those 

areas. The security-related feature discussed in Appendix H could impact several Middle 

Woodland Era NRHP-eligible sites. This security feature is not related to the proposed GLE 

Facility. Should ground-disturbing activities occur in areas known to have historic properties, 

GLE, in accordance with the proposed license condition, would contact the North Carolina 

SHPO prior to initiating the action to ensure that the resources are considered appropriately. 

GLE also developed Common Procedure CP-24-201, Unexpected Discoveries of Artifacts or 

Human Remains, to ensure that remains or artifacts discovered during the proposed action 

would be addressed appropriately. In the event that sites are found, proper mitigation would be 

developed by GLE in consultation with the North Carolina SHPO. Cumulative impacts could 

range from SMALL to MODERATE given the close proximity of significant resources and 

possibility of an unanticipated discovery.

4.3.3 Air Quality

As discussed in Section 3.5.3, New Hanover County, in which the proposed GLE Facility would 

be located, and neighboring Brunswick and Pender Counties, are currently designated as being 

in attainment for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.334).

As discussed in Section 4.2.4.2, potential incremental air quality impacts of the proposed 

GLE Facility would be SMALL and localized. Accordingly, the proposed GLE Facility operations 

would make a small contribution to cumulative impacts for other actions planned in the 

New Hanover County. In addition to the proposed GLE Facility, a number of onsite and offsite 

projects are planned in the New Hanover County as discussed below (GLE, 2008). 

Two additional projects planned at the Wilmington Site include the Advanced Technology 

Center (ATC) II complex and the Tooling Development Center. Since publication of the Draft 

EIS in June 2010, the ATC II complex has been constructed. These projects would not use 

radioactive materials or include manufacturing operations. Neither of the projects would be a 

major source of air emissions as defined under EPA or NCDAQ air permit requirements. 

Emission sources for these projects would be limited to small natural gas-fired boilers for space 

heating, emergency diesel generators, and other small operating units.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-138 February 2012

An offsite industrial development, the Carolinas Cement Company LLC, submitted an air permit 

application to construct a new Portland cement manufacturing plant (referred to as the Titan 

Cement Plant) on 757-hectare (1868-acre) parcel, which is located about 10 kilometers 

(6 miles) east-northeast of the proposed GLE Facility (EQM, 2008). Per the “potential to emit” 

section in the air permit application, the facility can be classified as a major source. This plant 

would also emit toxic air pollutants (TAPs) including a trace amount of fluorides. Air dispersion 

modeling indicated that maximum concentrations are less than applicable ambient air quality 

standards and all maximum impacts occurred within a few kilometers of the facility boundaries. 

Potential cumulative impacts in public health associated with fluoride emissions are discussed in 

Section 4.3.8.

Another offsite development is new River Bluffs residential and mixed-use project planned on 

96 hectares (237 acres) bounded by the Wilmington Site’s southern boundary, I-140, and 

Northeast Cape Fear River. This project would not include any large stationary sources, and 

thus, would not be considered as a major source of criteria pollutants under EPA or NCDAQ air 

permit requirements. This project along with three proposed projects at the Wilmington Site 

could draw more automobiles and trucks on Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) and I-140, and thus 

increase air emissions along these routes.

Overall, projects planned in New Hanover County would increase air emissions from current 

levels. However, incremental impacts of individual projects would be limited to the immediate 

vicinity of their property lines, and thus, would not be additive due to the distances between 

them. It is unlikely that combined impacts from all of these projects combined would be high 

enough to significantly deteriorate ambient air quality or reverse current attainment status. 

Accordingly, cumulative impacts on ambient air quality in New Hanover County are expected to 

be SMALL.

4.3.4 Geology and Soils

Two other construction projects identified for the Wilmington Site could result in 60 additional 

acres of disturbed land (GLE, 2008). These projects are the ATC II complex and the Tooling 

Development Center. Since publication of the Draft EIS in June 2010, the ATC II complex has

been built, disturbing approximately 12 hectares (30 acres) of previously disturbed land. 

Tooling Development Center construction impacts would involve activities similar to those of the 

proposed GLE Facility, namely clearing, grading, and excavation for building foundations and a 

stormwater wet detention basin. Best management practices would avoid or limit the impact on 

soil. Operational impacts on soil would be negligible. Preconstruction activities at the proposed 

GLE Facility site would create a similar situation in terms of disturbed land, with approximately 

91 hectares (226 acres) of cleared, regraded land. 

Proposed developments in the Wilmington area include the Titan Cement Plant 32 kilometers 

(20 miles) upstream of the site, and several residential developments, including a 600-lot 

development with nursing home facilities, proposed for siting adjacent to the Wilmington Site’s 

south boundary (New Hanover County, 2009a). Another possibility is 1000 acres of mixed 

development near the Wilmington Site, east of Castle Hayne Road (New Hanover 

County, 2009a). In these offsite areas, BMPs are expected to be required by New Hanover 

County to control soil erosion (New Hanover County, 2007).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-139 NUREG-1938

Geologic resources are not expected to be impacted by Wilmington-area activities. Cumulative 

impacts on soil from the proposed action and the additional construction projects are expected 

to be SMALL due to county involvement and presumed BMPs..

4.3.5 Water Resources 

Other facilities in New Hanover County are permitted to discharge to the Northeast Cape Fear 

River or the tributary Prince George Creek (EPA, 2009b). These include municipal wastewater 

treatment plants and various industries. Discharges from these facilities have State oversight 

through the NPDES permitting system and reporting of monitoring results.

Two other new facilities at the Wilmington Site, the ATC II complex and the Tooling 

Development Center, would convey stormwater to wet detention basins en route to discharge to 

surface water bodies. These basins, as with the proposed GLE Facility’s basin, would have clay 

liners to limit the infiltration of stormwater to the groundwater system. Since publication of the 

Draft EIS in June 2010, the ATC II complex has been built. Therefore, construction of this

facility would not coincide with the preconstruction or construction activities associated with the

proposed GLE Facility, and some of the impacts that arise from disturbed ground, such as 

turbidity, would not occur from both sites simultaneously. However, such cumulative impacts 

may occur from the construction of the Tooling Development Center if the construction activities 

overlap with preconstruction and construction for the proposed GLE Facility. The Tooling 

Development Center’s construction runoff would run through wooded land, which would provide 

sediment attenuation beyond that provided by following BMPs.

As described in Section 4.3.4, offsite development for residential and industrial purposes is 

expected to occur, resulting in additional disturbed land. The timing of possible construction is 

unknown, but it could provide cumulative detrimental effect of turbidity and sediment load to the 

Northeast Cape Fear River. Wastewater effluent and stormwater effluent flowing to the river 

would increase once any residential community or industrial facility was built. Surface water 

monitoring stations in between the Wilmington Site and the proposed cement facility would 

provide a basis for determining the relative impact of the site. Enforced adherence to countylevel ordinances regarding erosion control and stormwater management (e.g. New Hanover 

County, 2007; New Hanover County, 2009c) would limit the impact of new developments.

Effective in April 2008, the Wilmington Site’s treated sanitary wastewater is used in processes 

and as makeup water for its cooling tower systems, rather than discharged at Outfall 002. After 

reuse, wastewater is treated at the Wilmington Site’s final process lagoon, and the effluent is 

discharged to the effluent channel at Outfall 001. The low hardness of the treated sanitary 

wastewater increases the efficiency of Wilmington Site cooling towers. This reuse of water 

decreases the need for pumping of groundwater for process needs. The relative increase in 

groundwater pumping for the proposed GLE Facility includes 11,000 gallons per day additional 

for potable water and 75,000 gallons per day additional for process water (GLE, 2008). 

However, the net cumulative amounts of groundwater pumping, including the recently built 

ATC II complex and the proposed Tooling Development Center, and factoring in the reuse of 

treated sanitary effluent, would result in an increase of 29,500 gallons per day for potable water, 

and a decrease of 44,600 gallons per day for process water (GLE, 2008). While appreciable, 

the potable water need is small compared to the current groundwater withdrawal at the site of 

656,640 gallons per day (see Section 3.7.4.2), a rate that has been sustained over a long period 

of time.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-140 February 2012

Based on the potential impacts on surface water that are controlled by the NPDES permitting 

and county ordinances, and based on anticipated groundwater withdrawals that are not 

significant, the overall cumulative impact on water resources would be SMALL.

4.3.6 Ecology

Many of the natural terrestrial and wetland habitats of New Hanover County have been

modified, fragmented, or replaced by commercial, residential, and industrial developments 

(including silviculture and agriculture) (LeBlond and Grant, 2003). Similarly, extensive areas of 

natural upland and wetland forests on the Wilmington Site have been modified to pine 

plantations and operational (industrial) areas. The proposed GLE Facility, the completed ATC II 

complex, other projects to be developed on the Wilmington Site (i.e., the Tooling and 

Development Center and a security-related feature discussed in Appendix H), and unrelated 

projects to be constructed near the Wilmington Site (e.g., residential, industrial, and commercial 

developments) would contribute to the cumulative impact to ecological resources of the county 

(GLE, 2008; New Hanover County, 2009a). Overall, cumulative impacts on ecological 

resources from the proposed action in combination with the security-related feature discussed in 

Appendix H are SMALL. Impacts from the other projects to be developed on or near the 

Wilmington Site are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Impacts on ecological resources from the completed ATC II complex, the planned Tooling and 

Development Center, and the proposed GLE Facility would primarily occur from site clearing 

and grading. The ATC II complex has impacted about 8.4 hectares (20.8 acres) of pine forest 

and less than 0.01 hectare (0.01 acre) of pine-hardwood forest; while the Tooling and 

Development Center would impact about 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre) of pine forest, 2.9 hectares 

(7.2 acres) of pine-hardwood forest, and 2.6 hectares (6.4 acres) of pine plantation forest 

(GLE, 2009e). As discussed in Section 4.2.8.1, about 81 hectares (201 acres) of habitat would 

be impacted by preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility. The 

majority of this (65 hectares [160 acres]) would be pine plantation, pine forest, or pine-hardwood 

forest. Overall, these three projects would change over 79 hectares (195 acres) of these forest 

habitat types on the Wilmington Site to operations area habitat (e.g., buildings, other facilities, 

and landscaped lawns). An additional 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of alluvial, pocosin/bay, and 

swamp forest would be impacted by the proposed project (Table 4-5, Section 4.2.8.1). The loss 

of forested habitat from the three construction projects within the Wilmington Site would be more 

than 20 percent greater than from the proposed GLE Facility alone; and would total about 

15.5 percent of the forest habitat on the Wilmington Site. Overall, the cumulative impacts on 

vegetation on the Wilmington Site from preconstruction activities for the proposed GLE Facility,

completed construction of the ATC II complex, and the planned construction of the Tooling and 

Development Center would be MODERATE. The contribution to cumulative impacts from the 

remaining construction of the proposed GLE Facility and operation of the three facilities would 

be SMALL.

Negligible direct impacts on wetlands within New Hanover County in general or specifically on 

the Wilmington Site are expected from any of the proposed construction projects on the 

Wilmington Site (the access road to the proposed GLE Facility may cause the loss of up to 

0.021 hectare (0.052 acre) of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) of an isolated 

wetland); while indirect (but mitigable) impacts on wetlands from erosion and sedimentation may 

occur from the proposed GLE Facility and the completed ATC II complex (GLE, 2008; 

GLE, 2009e; GLE, 2009f). Past drainage of over 120 hectares (298 acres) of wetlands occurred 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-141 NUREG-1938 

on the Wilmington Site; while over 198 hectares (490 acres) of wetlands would be impacted by 

the proposed cement manufacturing plant and quarry to be located east of the Town of Castle 

Hayne (FWS, 2008b). The contribution of the completed ATC II complex, the proposed 

GLE Facility, and the planned Tooling and Development Center to cumulative impacts on 

wetlands within New Hanover County and on the Wilmington Site would be SMALL. 

No environmentally sensitive areas occur within the proposed GLE Facility area. Any indirect 

impacts on environmentally sensitive areas from preconstruction activities, construction, and 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL (Section 4.2.8). Therefore, any 

cumulative impacts on environmentally sensitive areas due to the proposed GLE Facility would 

be SMALL.

Impacts on wildlife from construction and operation of the completed ATC II complex and the 

planned Tooling and Development Center would be similar to those discussed for the proposed 

GLE Facility (Section 4.2.8). Construction of the ATC II complex disturbed approximately 

12 hectares (30 acres) of previously disturbed land, in a former stormwater drainage area 

(GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011a). The main impacts on wildlife that occur from a construction project 

are habitat disturbance (i.e., habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation). Habitat fragmentation 

would be minor for the ATC II complex and Tooling and Development Center, as they would be 

closely situated within the main operations area in the Eastern Site Sector of the Wilmington 

Site. Past actions that have affected wildlife habitat on the Wilmington Site have involved 

primarily the drainage of over 120 hectares (298 acres) of forested wetlands, and alteration of 

natural habitats (e.g., pine and pine-hardwood forests) for pine plantations, power line corridors, 

or operations areas. These habitat alterations have affected 255 hectares (631 acres), nearly 

39 percent, of the Wilmington Site (GLE, 2008). Overall, the cumulative impacts on wildlife on 

the Wilmington Site from the completed ATC II complex, preconstruction activities for the 

proposed GLE Facility, and the planned construction of the Tooling and Development Center 

would be MODERATE. The contribution to cumulative impacts from the remaining construction 

of the proposed GLE Facility and operation of the three facilities would be SMALL. 

As discussed in Section 4.3.5, cumulative impacts on water resources are expected to be 

SMALL. As a result, cumulative impacts on aquatic biota due to the proposed GLE Facility 

would also be SMALL. 

Federally threatened and endangered species are not known to occur in the area of the 

completed ATC II complex and the planned Tooling and Development Center (GLE, 2008). 

Therefore, cumulative impacts on Federally threatened and endangered species from these 

facilities and the proposed GLE Facility would be SMALL. Similarly, cumulative impacts on a 

number of the Federal species of concern or State-listed species that occur within New Hanover 

County would be SMALL, because they are not expected to inhabit the areas within which these 

three facilities would occur. For those species that may be present within areas that would be 

impacted by one or more of these facilities (i.e., those species assessed in Section 4.2.8.1), 

cumulative impacts from the completed ATC II complex, preconstruction activities for the 

proposed GLE Facility, and the planned construction of the Tooling Development Center would 

be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on how many individuals could be impacted and possible 

mitigation measures that would be undertaken to protect those individuals. Cumulative impacts 

from remaining GLE construction and from the operation of all three projects to those species 

would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-142 February 2012

4.3.7 Transportation

The additional 300 to 400 operations workers for the proposed GLE Facility represent a 

10 percent to 15 percent increase from the 2800 workers currently employed at the Wilmington 

Site. Furthermore, approximately 1000 more employees (GLE, 2008) may be added to the site 

with the addition of the ATC II complex and the Tooling Development Center noted in 

Section 4.3. However, the additional 1000 workers would be using the existing site entrances, 

not the one to be dedicated for GLE Facility use. 

A foreseeable event in the vicinity of the site is a planned retirement community project that 

would use Chair Road, which intersects Castle Hayne Road about one-quarter mile south of the 

I-140 interchange (GLE, 2008). This project is anticipated to generate 3700 average daily trips 

in the local area. Combined with the increased employment at the Wilmington Site, the local 

incremental transportation impacts associated with the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would be MODERATE as the annual average 

daily trips could increase approximately 50 percent (about 1000 from GLE; 2000 from ATC II 

and the TDC; 3700 from the retirement community) from the current value of 12,000 on Castle 

Hayne Road near the site entrance.

Approximately 2086 radioactive material shipments annually to or from the Wilmington Site 

would be added in support of the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008). These shipments would 

roughly triple the number of radioactive material shipments occurring at the site, with about 996 

annual shipments currently supporting site activities (GLE, 2009a). The additional radiological 

impact on those in the vicinity of the additional shipments would be SMALL. If the same person 

were to be present for all current shipments, that person would receive approximately 

0.01 millisievert per year (1 millirem per year) from these shipments if they were by the road 

(such as a security guard) 2 meters (6.6 feet) from the side of each shipment as it passed by at 

a speed of 24 kilometers per hour (15 miles per hour). That same person would only receive 

approximately 0.002 millisievert per year (0.2 millirem per year) from the GLE shipments 

because the expected external dose rates are much lower on average than those from current 

operations at the site. Thus, any expected exposure would only increase approximately 

20 percent at the most over current conditions, despite three times the number of current 

shipments.

4.3.8 Public and Occupational Health 

This section describes the cumulative impacts on public and occupational health associated 

with preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed 

GLE Facility on the Wilmington Site in combination with other past, present or foreseeable 

actions in the region that may affect the same resources as the proposed facility. The focus of 

the discussion is on radiological cumulative effects, and when appropriate, cumulative 

non-radiological effects are described. 

4.3.8.1 Preconstruction and Construction Activities

The cumulative impacts associated with preconstruction and construction activities on public 

and occupational health could be received by some workers during the 6-year overlap of 

construction and operations. Accordingly, the potential annual radiological exposure to an 

onsite construction worker (3.85 10 4 millisievert per year [3.85 10 2 millirem per year]) 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-143 NUREG-1938

would be well below the applicable dose limits for the general public of 1 millisievert per year 

(100 millirem per year) limit listed at 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1). During preconstruction and 

construction activities, the potential dose to offsite personnel would not increase. 

4.3.8.2 Operations 

The cumulative radiological and non-radiological impact of uranium emissions from the 

proposed GLE Facility and existing FMO facility at the Wilmington Site were evaluated.

The yearly average TEDE to involved workers for 2003–2007 at the Wilmington Site from FMO 

operations varied from 0.50 0.75 millisievert per year (50 75 millirem per year), which is less 

than the applicable dose limits for the general public of 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per 

year) limit listed in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) and well below the 10 CFR 20.1201 limit of 

50 millisievert (5000 millirem) for involved workers (i.e., workers in radiologically controlled 

areas) (NRC, 2009c). The average estimated dose to involved workers at the proposed 

GLE Facility is expected to be less than 1.5 millisievert per year (150 millirem per year), which is 

well below the regulatory thresholds. Because the workers at the FMO facility and the proposed 

GLE Facility would not be working at both facilities, there would not be a cumulative exposure 

and even considering the overall collective dose to workers from existing conditions, and 

ongoing and anticipated operations at the Wilmington Site, the cumulative radiological impacts 

on workers from existing conditions and ongoing and anticipated site operations will be SMALL.

To assess the cumulative impacts on public health, the potential cumulative impacts of 

radiological air emissions from the existing FMO facility and the proposed GLE Facility were 

analyzed. Radiological releases to air from both facilities would be routinely monitored to 

ensure that releases are at or below the expected and regulated levels. In addition, the North 

Carolina Division of Radiation Protection collects data from a monitoring network of six ambient 

air samplers (GLE, 2008). The monitoring network is intended to assess whether the 

radiological air emissions from the FMO facility affect air quality in the surrounding area. Data 

are collected both onsite and in the area surrounding the Wilmington Site. A background 

ambient air monitoring station is located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) west of the site. 

The analytical results from air sampling stations closer to the plant are compared to background 

measurements (GLE, 2008). Based on the predicted emission rates associated with the FMO 

facility and the proposed GLE Facility, and on current data from the comprehensive site 

monitoring program, the cumulative radiological emissions would result in a SMALL impact on 

air quality.

Currently there is an insignificant contribution to direct radiation exposure at the site boundary 

from FMO facility operations. None of the TLDs used to monitor such exposures showed 

readings above the background exposure rate of 5 microroentgens per hour at the site 

boundary (GLE, 2009b). The additional storage planned for the proposed GLE Facility is 

expected to have a similar minor effect on the direct radiation exposure rate at the site 

boundary. Therefore, the cumulative impact from direct exposure to the public would be 

SMALL.

The cumulative effect of operating the existing FMO facility and the proposed GLE Facility may 

result in some increase of dose at the fenceline of the Wilmington Site from air emissions. The 

estimated maximum dose due to air emissions from the FMO facility at the fenceline is 

approximately 4 10 4 millisievert per year (4 10 2 millirem per year) (Section 3.11.1.2). The 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-144 February 2012

operation of the proposed GLE Facility would introduce a new source of radiological emissions. 

The estimated maximum dose due to air emissions from the proposed GLE Facility at the 

fenceline is 1.4 10 6 millisievert per year (1.4 10 4 millirem per year) (Section 4.2.11.2). The 

estimated doses from both the FMO facility and proposed GLE Facility are far less than the 

applicable dose limits for the general public of 1 millisievert per year (100 millirem per year) limit 

listed at 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) and would result in a SMALL cumulative impact.

Non-radiological cumulative impacts on occupational and public health could accrue from the 

airborne emissions of UF6 and HF from the proposed GLE Facility (Section 4.2.11.2) in 

combination with those from the adjacent FMO facility. However, as noted in Section 4.2.11.2, 

the estimated emissions of these chemicals from the proposed GLE Facility would be well below 

levels of concern. Fluoride emissions from the FMO facility between 1995 and 2005 were 

typically a fraction of their permitted levels of 0.29 kilograms per day (0.63 pounds per day), 

while measured air concentrations were a small fraction of the recommended workplace 

exposure limit of 2.5 milligrams per cubic meter (NRC, 2009b). Additional fluoride emissions 

from the proposed GLE Facility are expected to be much lower than those from the FMO facility 

and would not materially increase the total levels of fluorides in the air onsite or at the site 

boundary. Fluoride emissions from the proposed Titan Cement Plant, the only other significant 

potential source of fluoride emissions in the region, would be located about 6 miles 

(9.6 kilometers) to the north and would not adversely impact ambient air quality outside the 

boundary of that plant, according to the analysis prepared to support its permit application 

(EQM, 2008). Impacts from mercury emissions from the same facility would be minor and 

would not contribute to adverse health effects in the region, as discussed in Section 3.11.3.4. In 

addition, health impacts from mercury, a neurological toxin, would not combine cumulatively 

with those from HF, a respiratory irritant. Given the distance between the contributing facilities, 

the required fluoride emission permits for the facilities, and the relatively minor contributions of 

the proposed GLE Facility, the cumulative impacts of fluoride and other toxic chemical 

emissions in the region would be SMALL. 

Uranium emissions, as UF6, from the FMO facility, evaluated in terms of radiological effects, 

were estimated to be a tiny fraction of the applicable dose limit for members of the public 

(GLE, 2008). Because predicted uranium and HF emissions would produce air concentrations 

that are far below levels of health concern, it is expected that effects of chemical toxicity of 

uranium and HF from the facility would also be minor. Thus, the expected low-level uranium 

and HF emissions from the proposed GLE Facility would not contribute to material increases in 

public or worker exposure, while the cumulative effects of both uranium and HF emissions 

would be SMALL. 

4.3.9 Waste Management

Potential average daily process and sanitary wastewater flow rates from existing facilities, the 

proposed GLE Facility, and potential future facilities at the Wilmington Site are summarized in 

Table 4-32. As shown in the table, the total site process and sanitary wastewater flow rates, 

without taking credit for reuse in the site cooling towers, are approximately 1,956,000 liters per 

day (516,200 gallons per day) and 236,000 liters per day (62,300 gallons per day), respectively, 

which are well below the NPDES permit levels of 6.8 million liters per day (1.8 million gallons 

per day) and 284,000 liters per day (75,000 gallons per day), respectively. Thus, cumulative 

impacts from wastewater generation would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-145 NUREG-1938

Table 4-32 Cumulative Wastewater Generation at the Wilmington Site

Total Average Daily Wastewater Flow 

Rate (gpd)

Wilmington Site Wastewater Source Process 

Wastewater

Sanitary 

Wastewater

Combined 

Wastewater 

Flow Rate

Existing Wilmington Site facilitiesa476,200 33,300 509,500

Proposed GLE Facilityb35,000 10,500 45,500

Other planned onsite projectsc5000 18,500 23,500

Total projected treated wastewater effluent 

(not including industrial reuse of treated 

sanitary wastewater effluent)

516,200 62,300 578,500

Effects of industrial reuse of treated effluent 

from the Wilmington Site sanitary 

wastewater treatment facilityd

−62,300e−62,300f−124,600

Projected NPDES-permitted discharges of 

wastewaters to the onsite effluent channel

453,900e0

f

453,900

a

Total averaged daily volumes based on measured flow for 2006.

b

Total averaged daily volumes based on estimated flow rates for GLE operations (see Table 4-24).

c

Total averaged daily volumes based on estimated flow rates for ATC II complex and Tooling

Development Center.

d

Although the reuse of treated sanitary wastewater effluent from the Wilmington Site sanitary

wastewater treatment facility as Site process water commenced in April 2008, it is included in the

cumulative impacts assessment because it postdates the 2006 baseline set of conditions.

e

Because the treated sanitary wastewater effluent has such low hardness, its addition to the 

Wilmington Site cooling towers increases efficiencies. Each gallon of reuse water introduced into a 

cooling tower offsets 2 gal of process makeup water, which reduces the amount of process water to be 

treated in the final process lagoons and discharged to the effluent channel.

f

The effluent reuse process water resulted in a switch away from discharge of treated sanitary

wastewater effluent to the effluent channel, which flows to Unnamed Tributary #1 to Northeast Cape

Fear River (Waters of the United States). The NPDES discharge permit remains valid should

discharges of treated sanitary wastewater become necessary in the future. The effluent reuse process

also reduces the requirement to withdraw groundwater to meet the Wilmington Site process-water

requirement. 

Note: Total wastewater quantities presented in this table are lower than the process-water and 

potable-water demands due to consumptive losses. To convert gal to l, multiply by 3.8.

Source: GLE, 2008.

Current disposal of hazardous and solid wastes from the Wilmington Site is expected to 

continue, and disposal of hazardous, nonhazardous solid, and solid LLRW from the proposed 

GLE Facility at appropriate facilities is shown in Section 4.2.12.2 to comprise a small fraction of 

the disposal rates and capacities at these disposal facilities. The majority of waste expected 

from the completed ATC II complex and the planned Tooling Development Center at the 

Wilmington Site would be municipal solid waste destined for disposal at the New Hanover 

County Landfill (GLE, 2008). Based on available capacities at LLRW and hazardous waste 

treatment and disposal sites in conjunction with the anticipated expansion of the New Hanover 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-146 February 2012

County Landfill (see Section 3.12.4.1), the cumulative impacts from hazardous and solid waste 

generation are anticipated to be SMALL. 

4.3.10 Socioeconomics

Preconstruction and construction activities in the peak year would employ 680 workers at the 

proposed GLE Facility. An additional 3131 indirect jobs could be created in the ROI from the 

procurement of material and equipment and the spending of worker income (Table 4-26). 

Facility construction would generate $139.8 million in income in the ROI. Beginning in 2014, 

start-up activities would employ 200 workers annually at the proposed GLE Facility, with an 

additional 218 indirect jobs and $28.0 million in income in the ROI. During the period 2014 to 

2020, construction and start-up activities would occur at the same time. Construction activities

during this period would employ 231 construction workers, with 981 indirect workers and 

approximately $45.6 million in income in 2014, to employing 136 construction workers, with 

626 indirect workers and approximately $29.1 million in income in 2020. The cumulative impact 

of construction and start-up during this period would range from the creation of 413 direct and 

1199 indirect jobs and approximately $73.5 million in income in 2014, to 486 direct and 1008 

indirect jobs and approximately $77.5 million in income in 2020.

Operations activities beginning in 2020 would employ 350 workers at the proposed GLE Facility, 

with an additional 382 indirect jobs, and would constitute less than 1 percent of total ROI 

employment. Facility operations would generate approximately $51.5 million in income in the 

ROI in 2020. Compared to existing employment levels in the ROI, the economic impact of 

construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would be SMALL.

Construction would generate $1.7 million in income taxes and $1.2 million in sales taxes in the 

peak construction year, while start-up activities would generate $1.3 million in income taxes and 

$0.9 million in sales taxes annually, beginning in 2014 and continuing through 2020. During the 

period 2014 to 2020, construction and start-up activities would occur at the same time, 

generating $1.9 million in income taxes and $1.3 million in sales taxes in 2014, and $2.6 million 

in income taxes and $1.9 million in sales taxes in 2020. Compared to current income and sales 

tax revenues, the impact of constructing, operating, and decommissioning the proposed GLE 

Facility on sales and income taxes would be SMALL.

Given the duration and scale of activities and the availability of local workers, construction of the 

proposed GLE Facility could cause some workers and their families to relocate from outside the 

ROI, with between 299 and 598 persons moving into the ROI during the peak year of 

construction (2012) and between 92 and 120 persons migrating into the area during start-up 

activities. During the period 2014 to 2020, construction and start-up activities would occur at the 

same time. In-migration associated with construction activities during this period could vary 

from 153 and 195 in 2014 and between 97 and 124 in 2020. Cumulatively, between 245 and 

315 persons could move into the ROI in 2014 and between 167 and 194 persons in 2020. 

Between 161 and 210 persons could move into the ROI during the first year of full operations 

(2020). Although in-migration may potentially impact local housing markets, the relatively small 

number of people relocating to the ROI and the availability of temporary accommodation (hotels, 

motels, and mobile home parks) would mean that the impact of facility construction on the 

number of vacant rental housing units would be small. Between 87 and 173 rental units in the 

ROI would be required during construction and between 27 and 47 rental units would be 

required during start-up activities. During the period 2014 to 2020, construction and start-up 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-147 NUREG-1938

activities would occur at the same time. The demand for rental housing would range between 

54 and 103 units in 2014 and between 64 and 97 units in 2020. Between 47 and 61 owneroccupied units would be required during operations. These occupancy rates would represent 

less than 1 percent of the vacant rental units expected to be available in the ROI; the impact of 

GLE Facility construction, operations, and decommissioning on housing would, therefore, be 

SMALL.

In addition to the potential impact on housing markets, in-migration would also affect localcommunity and educational services. These increases would represent less than 1 percent of 

community service employment expected in the ROI; therefore, the impact of GLE Facility 

construction, operations, and decommissioning on community services would be SMALL.

Two other projects have been constructed or are planned at the Wilmington Site, in addition to 

the proposed GLE Facility. Since publication of the Draft EIS in June 2010, construction of the 

ATC II complex has been completed and is anticipated to employ approximately 500 workers 

(GLE, 2008). The Tooling Development Center, construction of which is projected to occur in 

10 years, would employ approximately 500 workers annually when operational (GLE, 2008). 

The timing, workforce requirements, and worker residential locations of the Tooling 

Development Center would overlap with the operation of the proposed GLE Facility.

Elsewhere, additional reasonably foreseeable projects include the Carolinas Cement Company 

LLC, proposal to construct the Titan Cement Plant in New Hanover County, which would employ 

approximately 1000 workers during its 3-year construction phase, and approximately 

160 workers during operations (Carolinas Cement Company, 2011). GLE Facility operations

are expected to begin in 2014 (GLE, 2008; GLE, 2011), overlapping with the ongoing 

construction of the proposed GLE Facility. There are also plans to upgrade container port 

facilities in the Wilmington area, including the construction of the North Carolina International 

Terminal (NCIT) near Southport (Star News Online, 2008; Journal of Commerce, 2010), and 

upgrades to existing facilities at the Port of Wilmington (Greater Wilmington Business Journal,

2010). However, the timeline and employment requirements for the NCIT are not known 

because the project has been postponed indefinitely (Journal of Commerce, 2010). If 

construction does occur, it is likely that there would be some overlap with the construction of the 

proposed GLE Facility. Assuming these projects would occur at the same time as the proposed 

GLE Facility, relatively SMALL annual increases are expected in population within the

socioeconomic region of cumulative impacts. Housing growth trends in the region and plans for 

new school construction suggest that the cumulative effect of these projects would be SMALL. 

Therefore, the overall cumulative socioeconomic impact of the construction and operation of the 

proposed GLE Facility and reasonably foreseeable projects in the region would be SMALL to 

MODERATE.

4.3.11 Environmental Justice

Construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility and other proposed 

projects onsite and offsite would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on

minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site.
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-148 February 2012

4.4 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

As presented in Section 2.2 of this EIS, the no-action alternative would be to not construct, the 

proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. As discussed in Section 1.4.1 and the 

introduction to Section 4.2, the NRC granted an exemption for GLE to conduct certain 

preconstruction activities in advance of a formal licensing decision. It is assumed that up to 

1 year of preconstruction activities would take place (preconstruction activities could begin prior 

to the licensing decision in 2012, but construction cannot begin until a licensing decision is 

made) regardless of the decision to issue a license for the proposed GLE Facility under both the 

proposed action and the no-action alternative. It follows that the impacts associated with these 

preconstruction activities, as described in Section 4.2, would also have occurred. The impact 

conclusions presented in this section address the impacts of denying the license;

preconstruction activities are assumed to have occurred prior to the licensing decision.

Under the no-action alternative, enrichment services would continue to be performed by existing 

domestic and foreign uranium enrichment suppliers. Paducah GDP and the NEF would 

continue to supply enrichment services. The ACP and EREF also may provide enrichment 

services in the future. Impacts from these other domestic enrichment facilities have been 

evaluated in other NRC environmental reviews.

4.4.1 Land Use

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would occur even if the proposed GLE 

Facility is not constructed. Preconstruction activities would remove the undeveloped forest 

within the Wilmington Site and would not affect surrounding land use. Preconstruction impacts 

on land use are addressed in Section 4.2.1.1. The baseline for the no-action assessment is a 

cleared property with utilities and administrative structures extant.

Denying the license would not preclude other uses of the land at the Wilmington Site; therefore,

land use impacts would be SMALL.

4.4.2 Historic and Cultural Resources

Under the no-action alternative, ground disturbance associated with preconstruction activities 

could impact historic and cultural resources (unanticipated discovery) at the Wilmington Site. 

Preconstruction impacts on historic and cultural resources are addressed in Section 4.2.2.1. 

Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed, no further impacts to historic and 

cultural resources would occur from the no-action alternative. 

Denying the license would result in no further land disturbance at the Wilmington Site; therefore, 

impacts on historic and cultural resources in New Hanover County from the no-action alternative 

would not occur and would be SMALL.

4.4.3 Visual and Scenic Resources

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would consist of clearing vegetation. 

Preconstruction impacts on visual and scenic resources are addressed in Section 4.2.3.1. Since 

the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed,,the visual appearance of the Wilmington 

Site would not change because the vegetation screen along the northern part of the site would 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-149 NUREG-1938

remain. The baseline for the no-action alternative is a property cleared of vegetation with 

utilities and support structures in place. The discussion of impacts from preconstruction 

activities on visual and scenic resources is provided in Section 4.2.3.1.

Since denying the license would not introduce any additional visual disturbance at the 

Wilmington Site, local visual impacts of the no-action alternative would be SMALL.

4.4.4 Air Quality

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have an impact on ambient air 

quality conditions at the Wilmington Site. Preconstruction impacts on air quality are addressed 

in Section 4.2.4.1. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed, air emission 

sources for the existing facilities at the Wilmington Site would continue to operate according to 

the allowable emission limits and emission control requirements set forth in the current two 

“synthetic minor” operating permit issued by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). 

As discussed in Section 3.5.3.1, point source emissions from current operations at the 

Wilmington Site are negligible compared with the annual total emissions in New Hanover 

County. 

Since denying the license would not result in local air quality impacts from additional vehicle 

emissions, land disturbance, or facility emissions, impacts of no-action alternative on ambient 

air quality would be SMALL.

4.4.5 Geology and Soils

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities such as grading, wet retention basin 

construction, and drainage changes would have occurred at the proposed GLE Facility site and 

along site roads. Erosion control measures on the land disturbed during preconstruction (such 

as seeding) would limit soil loss due to erosion. Preconstruction impacts on geology and soil 

are addressed in Section 4.2.5.1. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed, 

there would be no further impacts on geologic and soils conditions at the Wilmington Site. The 

discussion of geologic and soil impacts resulting from preconstruction activities is presented in 

Section 4.2.5.1. 

Since denying the license would not lead to additional land disturbance, impacts of the no-action 

alternative would be SMALL.

4.4.6 Water Resources

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have occurred. Preconstruction 

impacts on water resources are addressed in Sections 4.2.6.1 and 4.2.7.1. As described in 

Section 4.4.5, preconstruction would require measures for control of soil erosion on land 

disturbed during preconstruction activities. By taking steps to minimize erosion, the impact on 

turbidity of surface water can likewise be limited. Additional water use may or may not occur 

under the no-action alternative (depending on GLE’s future plan for the site).

Under the no-action alternative, the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed. 

Groundwater quality would not be reduced at the GLE site, but rather, would be gradually 
Environmental Impacts

NUREG-1938 4-150 February 2012

improved sitewide due to continued use and improvement of the site remediation systems and 

also due to some degree of natural attenuation. 

Since denying the license would not result in additional water use or changes to surface or 

groundwater quality, the overall impact of the no-action alternative on water resources would be 

SMALL. 

4.4.7 Ecological Resources

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would have occurred. Preconstruction 

impacts on ecological resources are addressed in Section 4.2.8.1. The baseline for the noaction alternative is an area cleared of vegetation with administrative structures, utilities, and 

north access road in place.

Because denying the license would not result in additional land disturbance on the Wilmington 

Site, anticipated impacts on ecological resources from the no-action alternative would be 

SMALL.

4.4.8 Noise

Under the no-action alternative, noise impacts associated with preconstruction would be shortterm and limited to the immediate vicinity of the location of the proposed GLE Facility. Noise 

impacts from preconstruction activities are addressed in Section 4.2.9.1. Since the proposed 

GLE Facility would not be constructed, noise from existing GE operations at the Wilmington Site 

would remain unchanged. As discussed in Section 3.9, a sound survey indicated that noise 

levels at the nearest residences were well below the New Hanover County Noise Ordinance and 

EPA guideline. 

Since denying the license would not result in additional noise sources on the site, noise impacts 

of the no-action alternative on surrounding communities would be SMALL.

4.4.9 Transportation

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would affect traffic conditions on 

access roads at the Wilmington Site. These impacts would be short-term and limited to the 

vicinity of the Wilmington Site. Transportation impacts from preconstruction are addressed in 

Section 4.2.9.1. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed, there would be no 

further transportation impacts relating to the proposed GLE Facility on roads in the vicinity of the 

Wilmington Site. Additional national impacts from the transportation of radioactive materials to 

and from the Wilmington Site would also not occur. 

Since denying the license would not result in additional traffic, transportation impacts of the noaction alternative would be SMALL.

4.4.10 Public and Occupational Health

Under the no-action alternative, impacts on workers associated with preconstruction activities 

would have occurred. Occupational exposures during preconstruction would be minor and 

minimized by using work practices and personal protective equipment. Preconstruction 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-151 NUREG-1938

activities are not expected to cause any exceedances of ambient air quality criteria, with the 

possible exception of short-term criteria for particulate matter from fugitive dust. Public and 

occupational health impacts from preconstruction are addressed in Section 4.2.11.1. Since the 

proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed, public and occupational health risks would 

remain the same as described in Section 3.11 to onsite workers and the public. Therefore, the 

public and occupational health impacts of the no-action alternative would be SMALL.

4.4.11 Waste Management

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would occur. Preconstruction impacts 

on waste management are addressed in Section 4.2.12.1. Since the proposed GLE Facility 

would not be constructed, there would be no additional waste generated at the Wilmington Site 

beyond the waste generated by existing GE activities. Impacts of the no-action alternative on 

waste management would be SMALL.

4.4.12 Socioeconomic Impacts

Under the no-action alternative, preconstruction activities would increase the number of onsite

construction workers, resulting in a short-term increase in the demand for rental housing and 

public services in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. The socioeconomic impacts from 

preconstruction are addressed in Section 4.2.13.1. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not 

be constructed under the no-action alternative, population and employment in the ROI 

(Brunswick County, New Hanover County, and Pender County) would change in accordance 

with current projections. Total population in the region is projected to be approximately 368,000 

in 2010 and 444,000 in 2020 (NCOSBM, 2009). Employment in Brunswick, Columbus, 

New Hanover, and Pender counties is projected to grow approximately 1.7 percent per year, 

from 150,648 workers in 2004 to 178,714 workers in 2014. Assuming growth continues at this 

rate after 2014, total employment would reach 198,005 by the year 2020 (NCOSBM, 2009). As 

discussed in Section 4.2.13, completion of preconstruction activities is not expected to have a 

noticeable effect on these trends or on county services.

Since denying the license would not directly result in changes to current county services or 

growth projections, the socioeconomic impact of the no-action alternative would be SMALL. 

4.4.13 Environmental Justice

Under the no-action alternative, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from 

preconstruction activities would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects 

(e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts would be 

short-term and limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along 

site access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. 

Increased demand for rental housing during preconstruction could disproportionately affect lowincome populations. However, due to the short duration of the preconstruction activities and the 

availability of rental housing, impacts to minority and low-income populations would be shortterm and limited. Since the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed under the no-action 

alternative, there would be no further impacts to minority and low-income populations residing in 

the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. 
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-152 February 2012 

Based on this information and the assessment of human health and environmental impacts 

presented in Chapter 4, the no-action alternative would not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations 

residing in the vicinity of the Wilmington Site. 

4.4.14 Accident Impacts 

Under the no-action alternative, the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed and no 

accidents would occur from facility operations or decommissioning. Therefore, impacts of the 

no-action alternative from facility accidents would be SMALL. 

4.5 References 

(ACHP, 2008) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. “National Register Evaluation 

Criteria.” ADAMS Accession No. ML082880723. 

(AES, 2008) AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC. “Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility, 

Application for a Uranium Enrichment Facility License under 10 CFR 70, ‘Domestic Licensing 

of Special Nuclear Material.’” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090300656. 

(ATSDR, 2003) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Toxicological Profile for 

Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine.” September. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

toxprofiles/tp11.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(Beaulaurier et al., 1984) Beaulaurier, D.L., et al. “Mitigating the Incidence of Bird Collisions 

with Transmission Lines.” In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. A.F. Crabtree (Ed.). 

(Bevanger, 1995) Bevanger, K. “Tetraonid Mortality Caused by Collisions with Power Lines in 

Boreal Forest Habitats in Central Norway.” Fauna norv. Ser. C, Cinclus 18:41–51.

(BirdLife International, 2003) BirdLife International. “Protecting Birds from Powerlines: A 

Practical Guide on the Risks to Birds from Electricity Transmission Facilities and How to 

Minimise Any Such Adverse Effects.” T-PVS/Inf (2003) 15, Convention on the Conservation of 

European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Standing Committee, 23rd Meeting, Strasbourg, 

December 1-4, 2003. <http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/ 

Nature_and_biological_diversity/Nature_protection/> (Accessed October 23, 2006). Document 

no longer available online. 

(BLM, 2007) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Vegetation 

Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Final Programmatic 

Environmental Report.” June. <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_

Renewable_Resources/veis.Par.81642.File.dat/Final%20Biological%20Assessment%20%20 

(June%202007).pdf> (Accessed March 2, 2010). 

(Bolander and Yamada, 1999) Bolander, P., and A. Yamada. “Dust Palliative Selection and 

Application Guide.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Services. November. 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/99771207/99771207.html> (Accessed January 30, 2009).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-153 NUREG-1938 

(Brown et al., 1999) Brown, B.T., et al. “The Influence of Weapons-Testing Noise on Bald Eagle 

Behavior.” Journal of Raptor Research 33:227 232. 

(BTS, 2009) Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “National Transportation Statistics, 2009.” 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 

<http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2009/pdf/entire.pdf> 

(Accessed May 4, 2009). 

(Buckler, 2009) Buckler, C. Personal communication from C. Buckler (North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources) to Y.-S. Chang (Argonne National 

Laboratory). September 4.

(Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2004) Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. “Occupational Radiation 

Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2003.” NUREG-0713, 

Volume 25. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. October. <http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0713> (Accessed March 2, 2010). 

(Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2005) Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. “Occupational Radiation 

Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2004.” NUREG-0713, 

Volume 26. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December. <http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0713> (Accessed January 29, 2010).

(Burrows and Hagemeyer, 2006) Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. “Occupational Radiation 

Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2005.” NUREG-0713, 

Volume 27. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December. <http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0713> (Accessed January 29, 2010).

(Campbell and Johns, 2000) Campbell, M., and M. Johns. “Habitat Fragmentation and Birds.” 

North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission. <http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mbrooks/pif/ 

Fact%20Sheets/fragmentation%20fact%20sheet.htm> (Accessed September 3, 2009). 

(Carolinas Cement Company, 2011) Carolinas Cement Company. “Carolinas Cement 

Company: Questions and Answers.” <http://www.carolinascement.com/faq/> (Accessed 

December 22, 2011). 

(Countess Environmental, 2006) Countess Environmental. “WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook.” 

Prepared by Countess Environmental for Western Governors’ Association. September 7.

<http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh/content/FDHandbook_Rev_06.pdf> 

(Accessed August 24, 2009). 

(CPC, 2008a). Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile Solidago

villosicarpa.” <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/CPC_ViewProfile.asp? 

CPCNum=44450> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(CPC, 2008b). Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile Stylisma

pickeringii var. pickeringii.” <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/CPC_ 

ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=4157> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-154 February 2012 

(CPC, 2008c). Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile 

Lysimachia asperulifolia.” <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/CPC_ 

ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=2750> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(CPC, 2008d). Center for Plant Conservation. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile Solidago

verna.” <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/ 

CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=4050> (Accessed October 2, 2009). 

(Delaney et al., 1999) Delaney, D.K., et al. “Effects of Helicopter Noise on Mexican Spotted 

Owls.” Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1):60 76.

(DNFSB, 1995a) Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. “Integrity of Uranium Hexafluoride 

Cylinders.” Technical Report DNFSB/TECH-4. May 5.

(DNFSB, 1995b) Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. “Improved Safety of Cylinders 

Containing Depleted Uranium.” Recommendation 95-1 to the Secretary of Energy. May 5. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML101810041. 

(DNFSB, 1999) Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. Letter from J. Conway to 

B. Richardson, Secretary of Energy. Closing of Recommendation 95-1. December 16. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML101810043. 

 

(DOE, 1995) U.S. Department of Energy. “Department of Energy Implementation Plan for 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 95-1, Improved Safety of Cylinders 

Containing Depleted Uranium.” October 16. <http://www.hss.doe.gov/deprep/1995-2/

fs95o16a.pdf> (Accessed August 7, 2009). 

(DOE, 2002) U.S. Department of Energy. “A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses 

to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota.” DOE-STD-1153-2002. July. 

<http://www.doeal.gov/SWEIS/DOEDocuments/027%20DOE%20STD-1153-2002.pdf>

(Accessed February 13, 2012).

(DOE, 2004a) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

Paducah, Kentucky Site.” DOE/EIS-0359. June. <http://www.gc.doe.gov/nepa/downloads/eis0359-final-environmental-impact-statement> (Accessed January 26, 2012). 

(DOE, 2004b) U.S. Department of Energy. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the 

Portsmouth, Ohio, Site.” DOE/EIS-0360. June. <http://www.gc.doe.gov/nepa/downloads/eis0360-final-environmental-impact-statement> (Accessed January 26, 2012). 

(DOE, 2010) U.S. Department of Energy. “Background on Public Notification of Depleted 

Uranium Hexafluoride Cylinders Transferred from East Tennessee Technology Park to Piketon, 

Ohio Facility.” July. <http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/Meetings/2010/D&D/July/ 

Cylinder%20Transfer%20from%20ETTP%20to%20PORTS%20Fact%20Sht%20FINAL.pdf> 

(Accessed February 10, 2012). 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-155 NUREG-1938 

(DOL, 2010a) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Table 1, Incident rates 

of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by case type and ownership, selected 

industries, 2009.” October 21. <http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2435.pdf> 

(Accessed February 8, 2012). 

(DOL, 2010b) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Fatal occupational 

injuries, total hours worked, and rates of fatal occupational injuries for civilian workers by 

selected worker characteristics, occupations, and industries, 2009.” 

<http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2009hb.pdf> (Accessed January 27, 2011). 

(EEI, 1980) Edison Electric Institute. “Compatibility of Fish, Wildlife, and Floral Resources with 

Electric Power Facilities.” A Report Prepared by the Urban Wildlife Research Center, Inc., for 

the Edison Electric Institute.

(EIA, 2009) Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. “Frequently Asked 

Questions – Environment.” June 30. <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp> 

(Accessed December 16, 2009). 

(EPA, 1974) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.” 

EPA-550/9-74-004. <http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm> (Accessed 

October 5, 2009). 

(EPA, 1999) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Cancer Risk Coefficients for Exposure to 

Radionuclides: Federal Guidance Report No. 13.” EPA 402-R-99-001. Prepared by Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. September. <http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/federal/402-r-99-

001.pdf> (Accessed March 2, 2010). 

(EPA, 2003) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “User’s Guide to MOBILE6.1 and 

MOBILE6.2, Mobile Source Emission Factor Model.” EPA420-R-03-010. August. 

<http://www.epa.gov/OMS/models/mobile6/420r03010.pdf> (Accessed December 14, 2009). 

(EPA, 2004) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors 

for Nonroad Engine Modeling—Compression-Ignition.” EPA420-P-04-009. April. 

<http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004/420p04009.pdf> 

(Accessed December 14, 2009). 

(EPA, 2005) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.” EPA420-F-05-001. February 1. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML120440122. 

(EPA, 2009a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Preferred/Recommended Models - 

AERMOD Modeling System.” <http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm>

(Accessed November 8, 2009). 

(EPA, 2009b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) query on 

NPDES permits in New Hanover County, North Carolina. <http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/ 

pcs/pcs_query.html> (Accessed October 16, 2009). 
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-156 February 2012 

(EPA, 2009c) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007.” EPA 430-R-09-004. April 15. <http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf> (Accessed 

December 14, 2009). 

(EPA, 2009d) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Fact Sheet - Final Rule: Effluent 

Guidelines for Discharges from the Construction and Development Industry.” November. 

<http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/construction/upload/2009_11_23_guide_construc

tion_files_c_and_d_final_rule_factsheet.pdf> (Accessed February 12, 2012). 

(EPA, 2009e) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “AEGL Program: Hydrogen fluoride 

results.” <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/results53.htm> (Accessed January 10, 2010). 

(EPA, 2009f) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “AEGL Program: Uranium hexafluoride 

results.” <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/results58.htm> (Accessed January 10, 2010).

(EQM, 2008) Environmental Quality Management, Inc. “Air Dispersion Modeling Report: 

Class II and Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) Analysis, Carolina Cement Company LLC –

Castle Hayne Plant.” Prepared for Carolina Cement Company LLC. February 25. 

<http://daq.state.nc.us/permits/psd/docs/titan/CCC_Class_II_and_AAQS_Modeling_Report.pdf> 

(Accessed August 24, 2009). 

(ESI, 2009) Environmental Services, Inc. “Addendum Report Area E- An Intensive Cultural 

Resource Investigation: Potential GE Expansion New Hanover County, North Carolina.” ESI 

Report of Investigations No. 1126A. November. 

(Faanes, 1987) Faanes, C.A. “Bird Behavior and Mortality in Relation to Power Lines in Prairie 

Habitats, Fish and Wildlife.” Technical Report 7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

(Floridata, 2003). Floridata. “Floridata #923 Dionaea muscipula.” 

<http://www.floridata.com/ref/D/dion_mus.cfm> (Accessed October 3, 2009).

(FWS, 2003) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker in North Carolina.” <http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/birds/rcwood.html> (Accessed 

June 4, 2009). Document no longer available online. 

(FWS, 2008a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Species Profile 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis).” 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B04F> (Accessed 

July 10, 2009). 

(FWS, 2008b) Benjamin, P. Letter from P. Benjamin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to 

H. Wicker (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). “Subject: Action ID # SAW-2007-00073, Carolina 

Cement Company (Titan America), New Hanover County, North Carolina.” August 6.
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-157 NUREG-1938 

(FWS, 2009) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Letter from H. Hall 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated June 8. 

“Subject: Docket No. 70-7016; General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Facility, New 

Hanover County, North Carolina.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091700024.

(FWS, 2010) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Letter from H. Hall 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to K. Hsueh (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

August 10. “Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

Proposed GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) LLC Facility in Wilmington, North 

Carolina.” ADAMS Accession No. ML102420377.

(GLE, 2008) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the 

GLE Commercial Facility, Revision 0.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573. 

(GLE, 2009a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated June 8. 

“Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Submittal of Additional Information Related to 

NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” Letter number GLEL-09-004. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092110764. 

(GLE, 2009b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report 

Supplement 1 – Early Construction.” July. ADAMS Accession No. ML092100528. 

(GLE, 2009c) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

LLC Commercial Facility, Wilmington, North Carolina: License Application April 2009.” April 30. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML091871003.

(GLE, 2009d) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated June 8. 

“Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Submittal of Additional Proprietary and SecurityRelated Information Related to NRC Review of GLE-Environmental Report.” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092360488. 

(GLE, 2009e) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Global Laser Enrichment 

Environmental Report Supplement 2.” November. ADAMS Accession No. ML093240935. 

 

(GLE, 2009f) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 5. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response to Request for 

Additional Information Related to NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093200137. 

(GLE, 2009g) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 11. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response (#2) to Request for 

Additional Information Related to NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093220060. 
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-158 February 2012 

(GLE, 2009h) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from J. Olivier (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

December 29. “Subject: Submittal of GLE Procedure for Unanticipated Discovery of Human 

Remains/Artifacts.” ADAMS Accession No. ML093631158. 

(GLE, 2011a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from J. Olivier (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated January 

17. “Subject: Response to Questions from Telecon Held on January 5, 2011, Regarding the 

Global Laser Enrichment Environmental Report.” ADAMS Accession No. ML110460567. 

(GLE, 2011b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

LLC Commercial Facility, Wilmington, North Carolina: License Application November 2011.”

Revision 6. November 11. ADAMS Accession No. ML11326A177.

(GLE, 2011c) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Personal communication from 

J. Olivier (GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission) dated December 14. “Subject: Info on ATC II and Tooling Center.” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML113480296. 

(GLE, 2012) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Personal communication from J. Olivier 

(GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 

dated February 6. “Subject: Re: Transportation Table 4.2-1.” ADAMS Accession No. 

ML120440072. 

(GNF-A, 2007) Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas LLC. “Site Environmental Report Supplement for 

the Period 1995–2005.” March 30. ADAMS Accession No. ML071000137.

(Greater Wilmington Business Journal, 2010) Greater Wilmington Business Journal. “NC to 

Give Study Funds for Wilmington Harbor Work, not NCIT.” December 10. 

<http://www.wilmingtonbiz.com/industry_news_details.php?id=2089> (Accessed 

March 22, 2011). 

(Hagan et al., 1996) Hagan, J.M., et al. “The Early Development of Forest Fragmentation 

Effects on Birds.” Conservation Biology 10(1):188 202.

(Hanson et al., 2006) Hanson, C.E., D.A. Towers, and L.D. Meister. “Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment.” FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson 

Inc., for U.S. Department of Transportation. May. <http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_ 

Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf> (Accessed September 1, 2009). 

(Hill, 2008) Hill, H. “Food Miles: Background and Marketing.” ATTRA Publication IP312. 

National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. <https://attra.ncat.org/attrapub/download.php?id=281> (Accessed February 13, 2012).

(Hockin et al., 1992) Hockin, D., et al. “Examination of the Effects of Disturbance on Birds with 

Reference to Its Importance in Ecological Assessments.” Journal of Environmental 

Management 36:253 286. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-159 NUREG-1938 

(Hubricht, 1985) Hubricht, L. “The Distributions of the Native Land Mollusks of the Eastern 

United States.” Fieldiana Zoology New Series, No. 24, Publication 1359, Field Museum of 

Natural History. 

(IAEA, 1992) International Atomic Energy Agency. “Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and 

Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards.” Technical Report 

No. 332.

(ICRP, 1991) International Commission on Radiological Protection. “1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection.” ICRP Publication 60. April. 

(IDEM, 2008) Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Land Quality. 

“Hazardous Waste Received in 2007.” September 4. <http://www.in.gov/idem/files/waste_ 

received2007.pdf> (Accessed April 29, 2009). 

(IPCC, 2007) International Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (Eds.). <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-

wg1.htm> (Accessed March 2, 2010). 

(Irons et al., 2000) Irons, et al. “Nine Years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Effects on Marine 

Bird Populations in Prince Sound, Alaska.” The Condor 102:723 737. 

(ITE, 2004) Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C.

(Janss, 2000) Janss, G.F.E. “Avian Mortality from Power Lines: A Morphological Approach of 

Species-Specific Mortality.” Biological Conservation 95:353 359.

(Jennings and Reganold, 1989) Jennings, M.D., and J.P. Reganold. “Local Government 

Policies toward Environmentally Sensitive Areas in British Columbia, Canada; Washington and 

Oregon, USA.” Environmental Management 13(4):443–453.

(Jordan, 1998) Jordan, R.A. “Species Profile: Southern Hognose Snake (Heterodon simus) on 

Military Installations in the Southeastern United States.” Technical Report SERDP-98-4, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. March. <http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tes/pdfs/serdp984.pdf> 

(Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(Journal of Commerce, 2010) Journal of Commerce. “NC Ports Shelve Container Terminal 

Plan.” July 22. <http://www.joc.com/maritime/north-carolina-ports-shelve-planned-containerterminal> (Accessed March 22, 2011). 

(Knight and Cole, 1991) Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. “Effects of Recreational Activity on Wildlife 

in Wildlands.” In Transactions of the Fifty-sixth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, March 17 22, 1991. R.E. McCabe (Ed.). Wildlife Management Institute. 
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-160 February 2012 

(LeBlond and Grant, 2003) LeBlond, R.J., and G.S. Grant. “Natural Area Inventory of 

New Hanover County, North Carolina.” Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. May. 

<http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p249901coll22&CISOPTR=192104

&REC=4> (Accessed January 29, 2010).

(Lewis et al., 2008) Lewis, D.E., et al. “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial 

Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2007.” NUREG-0713, Volume 29. U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. December. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr0713 (Accessed March 2, 2010).

(MIG, 2009) Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. “2009 State Data Files.” Stillwater, Minn. 

(MRI, 1996) Midwest Research Institute. “Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM 

Project No. 1), Final Report.” Prepared for South Coast AQMD. March 29.

(Napier, 2007) Napier, B.A. “GENII Version 2 Users’ Guide.” PNNL-14583, Rev. 2. Prepared 

by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March. 

(Napier et al., 2007) Napier, B.A., et al. “GENII Version 2. Software Design Document.” 

PNNL-14584, Rev. 2. Prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March. 

(NatureServe, 2009) NatureServe. “NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life.” 

Version 7.1. <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer> (Accessed September 21, 2009). 

(NCDCR, 2009) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation 

Office. Letter from P. Sandbeck (State Historic Preservation Office) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) dated June 2. “Re: Initiation of the National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 Process for General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Proposed Uranium 

Enrichment Facility, New Hanover County, ER 07-2157.” ADAMS Accession 

No. ML091630258. 

(NCDCR, 2010) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation 

Office. Personal communication from R. Gledhill-Earley (State Historic Preservation Office) to 

J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated February 23. “Subject: Inadvertent 

Discovery Procedure.” ADAMS Accession No. ML120240765. 

(NCDCR, 2011) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation 

Office. Letter from R. Gledhill-Earley (State Historic Preservation Office) to K. Hsueh 

(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated April 5. “Re: General Electric-Hitachi LaserBased Uranium Enrichment Facility near Wilmington, Docket 70-7016, New Hanover County, 

ER 07-2157.” ADAMS Accession No. ML110950680. 

(NCDENR, 2001) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. North 

Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, “Guide to Federally 

Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina.” 

<http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/guide.htm> (Accessed March 2, 2010). 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-161 NUREG-1938 

(NCDENR, 2007) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division 

of Water Quality. “Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.” 

<http://www.lenoirnc.govoffice2.com/vertical/Sites/%7B916BA528-4D3A-4AF2-9B92-

9AC1C284EA52%7D/uploads/%7B89C8F254-2353-49D2-9787-A6C91C23D2E9%7D.PDF> 

(Accessed February 13, 2012).

(NCDENR, 2008) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Letter 

from F. Rohde (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of 

Marine Fisheries) to H. Wicker (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) dated August 8. “Subject: 

ID#SAW-2007-00073, Carolina Cement Company (Titan America).”

(NCDENR, 2009a) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “North 

Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report, July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008.” January. 

<http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/swmar?p_p_id=110_INSTANCE_V4fV&p_p_lifecycle= 

0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-3&p_p_col_count=1&_110_ 

INSTANCE_V4fV_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library_display%2Fview&_110_INSTANCE_ 

V4fV_folderId=4649254> (Accessed February 8, 2012).

(NCDENR, 2009b) Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water 

Quality. “General Permit NCG 010000 To Discharge Stormwater under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System for Construction Activities.” December 29. 

<http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/documents/NCG01_FinalSignedPermit.pdf> Accessed 

January 13, 2010). 

(NCDENR, 2009c). North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North 

Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation and Community Affairs. “North 

Carolina Heritage Program Virtual Workroom.” <http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/nhis/public/ 

gmap75_main.phtml> (Accessed June 23 and October 1, 2009) Document no longer available 

online. 

(NCDENR, 2010) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division 

of Air Quality. “Large Diesel and All Dual-Fuel Engines Emissions Calculator (LGD2009 

Revision A).” <http://daq.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/permit_forms.cgi?id=intlarge&type=sheets> 

(Accessed January 19, 2010). 

(NCOSBM, 2009) North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. “Population 

Estimates and Projections.” <http://demog.state.nc.us> (Accessed September 1, 2009). 

(NCRP, 2009) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. “Exposure of the 

Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation.” Report 

No. 94. August. 

(NCSCHS, 2009) North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics. “NC-CATCH – North 

Carolina Comprehensive Assessment for Tracking Community Health.” 

<http://www.schs.State.nc.us/SCHS/catch/> (Accessed June 2009). 

(Nero, 1979) Nero, A.V., Jr. A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors. University of California Press. 

Berkeley, California. 
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-162 February 2012 

(New Hanover County, 2006) New Hanover County. “New Hanover County Flood Damage 

Prevention Ordinance.” Adopted by the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners 

June 5, 2006. <http://www.nhcgov.com/Documents/Floodplain%20Ordinance.pdf> (Accessed 

November 18, 2009). 

(New Hanover County, 2007) New Hanover County. “County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 23, 

Environment, Article VI: Erosion and Sedimentation Control.” 

<http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11337&sid=33> (Accessed October 16, 

2009). 

(New Hanover County, 2009a) New Hanover County Planning Department. Letter from 

C. O’Keefe (New Hanover Planning Department) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission). “Subject: Request for Information Regarding Land Use in the Vicinity of the 

Proposed General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Facility.” Document is undated. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML092360197. 

(New Hanover County, 2009b) New Hanover County. “County Code of Ordinances, 

Chapter 23, Environment, Article II, Noise.” 

<http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11337&sid=33> (Accessed April 7, 

2009). 

(New Hanover County, 2009c) New Hanover County. “County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 23, 

Environment, Article VII, Stormwater Management.” 

<http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11337&sid=33> (Accessed October 15, 

2009). 

(Newcombe and MacDonald, 1991) Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. “Effects of 

Suspended Sediments on Aquatic Ecosystems.” North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 11: 72 82.

(NextGenerationEarth, 2009) NextGenerationEarth. “U.S. State Impacts to Climate Change.” 

<http://www.nextgenerationearth.org/usstates/statelist/> (Accessed December 14, 2009). 

Document no longer available online. 

(NOAA, 2002) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Reasor Chemical 

Company.” <http://archive.orr.noaa.gov/book_shelf/257_reasor.pdf> (Accessed February 8, 

2012).

(NRC, 1977) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Final Environmental Impact Statement on 

the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes.” NUREG-0170. December. 

(NRC, 1990) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Control Room Habitability System Review 

Models.” NUREG/CR-5659. December. <http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6156999-

0o2iC4/6156999.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 2010). 

(NRC, 1991) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Chemical Toxicity of Uranium Hexafluoride 

Compared to Acute Effects of Radiation.” NUREG-1391. February. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML072610185. 
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-163 NUREG-1938 

(NRC, 1998) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident 

Analysis Handbook.” NUREG/CR-6410. March. ADAMS Accession No. ML072000468. 

(NRC, 2001) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “RASCAL 3.0: Description of Models and 

Methods.” NUREG-1741. March. ADAMS Accession No. ML010940218. 

(NRC, 2005a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Construction and Operation of a Proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the 

Savannah River Site, South Carolina.” NUREG-1767. January. <http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1767> (Accessed March 3, 2010). 

(NRC, 2005b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico.” NUREG-1790. June. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1790/> (Accessed 

March 26, 2009). 

(NRC, 2006) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, Final Report.” NUREG-1834. April. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1834/> (Accessed 

March 26, 2009). 

(NRC, 2009a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from D.H. Dorman (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to A.E. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC) dated 

May 8. “Subject: Approval of GE-Hitachi Exemption Request Related to Commencement of 

Construction.” ADAMS Accession No. ML083510647. 

(NRC, 2009b) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Assessment for the 

Renewal of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License No. SNM-1097 for Global Nuclear 

Fuel-Americas, Wilmington Fuel Fabrication Facility,” Docket No. 70-1113. May 14. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML091180239. 

(NRC, 2009c) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Fact Sheet: Depleted Uranium and 

Other Waste Disposal.” August. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fsdu-other-waste-disposal.pdf> (Accessed December 16, 2009). 

(NRC, 2010) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from M. Bartlett (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission) to J.J. Miller (International Isotopes, Inc.) dated February 23. “Subject: 

License Application for International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Inc. Facility – Acceptance 

Review (TAC No’s. L32739 and L32740).” ADAMS Accession No. ML100480302.

(NRC, 2011) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho, Final Report.” NUREG1945. February. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1945/> 

(Accessed March 3, 2011).

(NWCC, 2002) National Wind Coordinating Committee. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A 

Handbook. Prepared by the NWCC Siting Subcommittee. August. 

<http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf> (Accessed September 16, 

2011). 
Environmental Impacts 

NUREG-1938 4-164 February 2012 

(Ozier et al., 1999) Ozier, J.C., J.L. Bohannon, and J.L. Anderson. “Protected Animals of 

Georgia.” Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame 

Wildlife-Natural Heritage Section. 

(Patrick et al., 1995) Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. “Protected Plants of Georgia, 

An Information Manual on Plants Designated by the State of Georgia as Endangered, 

Threatened, Rare, or Unusual.” Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources 

Division. 

(Peterson et al., 2007) Peterson, T., et al. “Final North Carolina Greenhouse Gas Inventory and 

Reference Case Projections 1990-2020.” North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources and Center for Climate Strategies. September. <http://daq.state.nc.us/

news/leg/ghg_dft_inv_10102005.pdf> (Accessed December 8, 2009).

(Policastro, 1997) Policastro, A.J., et al. “Facility Accident Impact Analyses in Support of the 

Depleted UF6 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.” Environmental Assessment 

Division, Argonne National Laboratory. June.

(Reed et al., 1996) Reed, R.A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W.A. Baker. “Contribution of Roads to 

Forest Fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains.” Conservation Biology 10(4):1098–1106.

(Rosnick, 2007) Rosnick, R. “CAP88-PC Version 3.0 User Guide.” December 9. 

<http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/cap88/userguide_120907.pdf> (Accessed January 29, 

2010). 

(SME, 1992) Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. “SME Mining Engineering 

Handbook,” 2nd Edition, Volume 2. H.L. Harman (Ed.). Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and 

Exploration, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 

(Star News Online, 2008) Star News Online. “A Look at the Preliminary Plan for the Proposed 

North Carolina International Terminal.” August. <http://www.starnewsonline.com/assets/pdf 

/WM12788827.PDF> (Accessed March 22, 2011). 

(Thelander and Rugge, 2000) Thelander, C.G., and L. Rugge. “Bird Risk Behaviors and 

Fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area.” In Proceedings of NWCC National Avian-Wind 

Power Planning Meeting III. May 1998. 

(Thompson, 1978) Thompson, L.S. “Transmission Line Wire Strikes: Mitigation through 

Engineering Design and Habitat Modification.” In Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in 

Flight: Proceedings of a Conference, January 31 February 2, 1978, ORAU-142, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities. 

(Trombulak and Frissell, 2000) Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. “Review of Ecological 

Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities.” Conservation Biology 14(1):18–30. 

(UDRC, 2009) Utah Division of Radiation Control. “Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Division of Radiation Control Radioactive Material License, License Number: UT 2300478, 

Amendment #6.” <http://www.deq.utah.gov/businesses/energysolutions/docs/2012/Feb/ 

RML%20UT2300478%20Amendment%207.PDF> (Accessed February 12, 2012).
Environmental Impacts

February 2012 4-165 NUREG-1938 

(USDA, 2012) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey (Web site). 

<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx> (Accessed February 13, 2012). 

(USMC, 2009) U.S. Marine Corps. “Final Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Marine Corps 

Grow the Force at MCB Camp Lejeune, MCAS New River, and MCAS Cherry Point, North 

Carolina.” December. <http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/emd/FINAL_GTF_EIS_Vol_1.pdf> 

(Accessed February 12, 2012). 

(Weakley, 2008) Weakley, A.S. “Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, 

and Surrounding Areas.” Working draft of April 7, 2008. <http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/ 

WeakleyFlora_2008-Apr.pdf> (Accessed October 3, 2009). 

(WHO, 2007) World Health Organization. “Extremely Low Frequency Fields.” Environmental 

Health Criteria 238. June. <http://www.who.int/entity/peh-emf/publications/Complet_ 

DEC_2007.pdf> (Accessed November 15, 2010). 

(Williams, 1990) Williams, R.D., 1990, “Bobcat Electrocutions on Powerlines.” California Fish 

and Game 76(3):187 189. 

(Yu et al., 2001) Yu, C., et al. “User’s Manual for RESRAD Version 6.” ANL/EAD/04. Argonne 

National Laboratory. July. <http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/resrad6.pdf> (Accessed 

October 29, 2009).

(Yu et al., 2003) Yu, C., et al. “User’s Manual for RESRAD-BUILD Version 3.” ANL/EAD/03-1. 

Argonne National Laboratory. June. <http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/ANL-EAD-03-

1.pdf> (Accessed October 29, 2009).

February 2012 5-1 NUREG-1938 

5 MITIGATION 

This chapter addresses potential means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts from the 

proposed action as required by Appendix A of Title 10, Part 51, of the U.S. Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). Under Council on Environmental Quality regulation 

40 CFR 1500.2(f), Federal agencies shall, to the fullest extent possible, “use all practicable 

means consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

other essential considerations of national policy to restore and enhance the quality of the human 

environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions on the quality of 

the human environment.” The Council on Environmental Quality regulations defines mitigation 

to include activities that (1) avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of 

an action; (2) minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; (3) repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected environment; (4) reduce or 

eliminate impacts over time by preservation or maintenance operations during the life of the 

action; or (5) compensate for the impact by replacing or substituting resources or environments. 

This definition has been used in identifying potential mitigation measures. As such, mitigation 

measures are those actions or processes (e.g., process controls and management plans) that 

would be implemented to control and minimize potential adverse impacts from construction, 

operation, and decommissioning activities for the proposed Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) 

Facility. 

General Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) must comply with applicable 

laws and regulations, including obtaining all appropriate construction and operating permits. A 

complete discussion of applicable laws and regulations is included in Chapter 1 of this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The mitigation measures proposed by GLE, many of 

which are compliance related, are discussed in Section 5.1 (GLE, 2008). 

Based on the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4 of this EIS, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff has identified additional potential mitigation for the proposed GLE 

Facility. These mitigation measures are described in Section 5.2. 

The proposed mitigation measures provided in this chapter do not include environmental 

monitoring activities. Environmental monitoring activities are described in Chapter 6 of this EIS. 

5.1 Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE 

GLE identified mitigation measures in its Environmental Report (GLE, 2008) that would reduce 

the environmental impacts associated with preconstruction activities and the proposed action. 

Table 5-1 lists the mitigation measures proposed for each impact area. Because many of GLE’s 

proposed mitigation measures apply to preconstruction and construction activities as well as 

facility operation, they are listed together in the table. 

5.2 Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC 

The NRC reviewed the mitigation measures proposed by GLE and finds that these measures 

are sufficiently protective of human health and the environment. The NRC identified additional 

mitigation measures as recommendations (Table 5-2). While the NRC cannot impose mitigation 

outside its regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act, these additional mitigation 

measures in Table 5-2 could potentially reduce the impacts of the proposed action. These 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-2 February 2012 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Land Use Land disturbance Use existing service road routes and utility rights-of-way 

(ROWs) to the fullest extent practicable to minimize the 

need for clearing additional wooded areas. 

Use existing wastewater treatment and solid waste 

management infrastructure to the fullest extent 

practicable to reduce the total area needed for 

construction and operation of the proposed facility. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

Disturbance of 

prehistoric 

archaeological sites 

eligible for listing on 

the National Register 

of Historic Places

To prevent disturbance of site 31NH801, maintain 

conditions of the bank at the side of the existing gravel 

road unchanged from its current graded and vegetated 

state. 

Signs are posted to prevent unauthorized excavation. 

Visual and Scenic 

Resources 

Potential visual 

intrusions in the 

existing landscape 

character 

Locate the proposed facility in a sector of the Wilmington 

Site away from site boundaries bordering existing 

development along NC 133 and I-140. 

To the fullest width practicable, maintain the existing tree 

buffer along the northeast Wilmington Site boundary to 

limit visibility of the proposed facility structures and 

access road traffic from offsite viewpoints in nearby 

residential neighborhoods. 

Use exterior building colors and landscaping that would 

soften the visual impact of the proposed facility. 

Air Quality Fugitive dust, 

construction 

equipment, and 

facility operation 

emissions 

Water the facility site and unpaved roads to reduce dust. 

Remove dirt from truck tires by driving over a gravel pad 

prior to leaving the facility site or unpaved access road to 

avoid spreading sediments on paved roads. 

Cover trucks carrying soil and debris to reduce dust 

emissions from the back of trucks driving on roadways. 

Pave access road and parking lots as soon as 

practicable. 

Conduct uranium-enrichment operations inside an 

enclosed building using a closed-system process with no 

routine venting of process gases. 

Install and operate leak-detection monitors for process 

equipment. In the event a leak is detected due to an 

equipment component malfunction or other reason, 

safety interlocks will isolate the section of the process 

where the leak is detected, limiting the potential quantity 

of gaseous material that could be released inside the 

proposed facility operations building. 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-3 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Air Quality (Cont.) Fugitive dust, 

construction 

equipment, and 

facility operation 

emissions (Cont.) 

Maintain process areas inside the operations building 

under continuous negative pressure relative to 

atmospheric pressure. In the event of a gaseous 

release in one of these process areas, the negative 

pressure conditions would prevent outflow of the air 

from the process areas, effectively containing the 

released gaseous material to the affected process 

area. 

Ventilate the operations building with a high-efficiency, 

multi-stage air emissions control system. Components 

of the air emissions control system planned for the 

operations building consist of high-efficiency 

particulate arresting (HEPA) filters for removal of solid 

particulate matter and activated carbon beds for 

adsorption of hydrogen fluoride (HF). Exhaust gases 

from this emission-control system would be vented to 

the atmosphere through a single stack. 

Implement a periodic inspection and maintenance 

program for uranium hexafluoride (UF6) cylinders 

stored in outdoor areas. 

Burn low-sulfur fuel oil in the auxiliary diesel 

generators. 

Store organic solvents, paints, and other volatile 

organic compound–containing liquids in containers 

covered with tightly fitting lids. 

Geology and Soil 

Resources 

Soil disturbance and 

contamination 

Minimize the construction footprint to the extent 

possible. 

Engineer design plans that minimize soil disturbance 

during construction activities. 

If additional soil is necessary for construction 

purposes, use soils from onsite borrow pits that are 

accessible via existing roadbeds, to minimize 

disturbance to other areas of the Wilmington Site 

outside of the GLE study area. 

Manage construction activities so that only designated 

areas within the GLE study area are disturbed and so 

that no heavy equipment or construction operations 

are allowed to affect areas outside the study area 

unless specifically designated, such as potential use of 

existing onsite borrow areas. 

Use adequate containment methods during excavation 

and/or similar operations. 

 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-4 February 2012 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Geology and Soil 

Resources (Cont.) 

Soil disturbance and 

contamination 

(Cont.) 

Use site-stabilization practices (i.e., placing crushed 

stone on top of disturbed soil in areas of concentrated 

runoff). 

Use silt berms, dikes, and sediment fences. 

Stabilize drainage culverts and ditches by lining 

surface with rock aggregate/rip-rap to reduce flow 

velocity and prohibit scouring. 

Reuse and/or appropriately place excavated materials 

to decrease exposed soil piles. 

Place gravel construction pads at the entrances/exits 

of construction acres. 

Stabilize site with low-maintenance landscaping and 

pavement. 

Surface Water 

Resources 

Runoff Follow proper construction Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) as specified by the New Hanover 

County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance 

(New Hanover County, 2007). 

Construct an access road perpendicular to Unnamed 

Tributary #1 to minimize the area impacted. 

Design and construct the upgrade of the crossing over 

Unnamed Tributary #1 following procedures required 

by the New Hanover County Flood Damage 

Prevention Ordinance (New Hanover County, 2006). 

Construct a stormwater wet detention basin and 

implement a Wilmington Site stormwater management 

plan to mitigate a portion of the increased floodwaters 

from extreme storm events and all stormwater from 

smaller storm events. 

Limit cut/fill slopes to a horizontal-vertical ratio of 3:1 

or less. 

Use silt fencing and covering of soil stockpiles to 

prevent sediment runoff. 

Suspend general construction activities during storms 

and impending precipitation. 

Construct stream crossings (i.e., installation of 

culverts) following at least 48 hours of dry weather. 

Divert stream flow during stream-crossing construction 

to minimize excavation in flowing water. 

 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-5 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Surface Water 

Resources (Cont.) 

Runoff (Cont.) Maintain construction equipment so that equipment is 

in good repair and without visible leaks of oil, greases, 

or hydraulic fluids. 

Restore disturbed areas to original surface elevations, 

where possible. 

Comply with all National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater and 

wastewater permit requirements. 

Route stormwater from the proposed facility to a new 

stormwater wet detention basin, designed in 

accordance with the North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 

Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual 

(NCDENR, 2007). 

Perform onsite treatment of process and sanitary 

wastewaters to NPDES-permit limits before discharge 

to receiving waters. 

Routinely monitor and inspect onsite liquid waste 

storage tanks and containers to detect any leaks or 

releases to the environment due to equipment 

malfunctions to ensure that actions according to the 

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

plan or other appropriate corrective action can be 

taken promptly. 

Discharge stormwater runoff from UF6 storage pads 

area to a holding pond for monitoring prior to 

discharge to the stormwater wet detention basin. 

Perform periodic visual inspections of the stormwater 

wet detention basin to verify proper function, at a 

frequency sufficient to allow for identification of basin 

high-water-level conditions and implementation of 

corrective actions to restore the water level prior to 

overflow. 

Ensure easy access to the stormwater wet detention 

basin to allow the prompt, systematic sampling of 

runoff. 

Floodplains Floodplain 

disturbance 

Select a non-wetland, non-floodplain area for the 

proposed facility. 

Groundwater 

Resources 

Infiltration Implement hazardous material and waste-handling 

procedures and secondary containment, as required 

by applicable laws and regulations. 

 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-6 February 2012 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Groundwater 

Resources (Cont.) 

Water use Provide water necessary during construction via tanker 

truck from off-site potable water sources. 

Reuse treated sanitary wastewater effluent as makeup 

water in Wilmington Site cooling towers. 

Routinely monitor sitewide groundwater levels, and 

continue to analyze the groundwater monitoring-well 

and pumping-well networks to confirm that changes in 

groundwater levels associated with the proposed 

action are minimal. 

Readjust pumping well rates and/or perform well 

maintenance or rehabilitation, as appropriate, in the 

event of unexpected changes in groundwater levels. 

Use low-water-consumption landscaping. 

Install low-flow toilets, sinks, and showers. 

Perform localized floor washing using mops and selfcontained cleaning machines to reduce water usage 

compared to conventional washing techniques. 

Ecological Resources Disturbance of 

habitats 

Minimize the construction footprint to the extent 

possible and limit habitat disruption. 

Perform surveys of trees greater than 61 centimeters 

(24 inches) in diameter before beginning 

preconstruction and construction activities, and plant 

one 61-centimeter (24-inch) diameter tree, two 

30.5-centimeter (12-inch) diameter trees, or three 

20.3-centimeter (8-inch) diameter trees elsewhere on 

the Wilmington Site. 

Restrict preconstruction activities and the harvesting of 

trees to periods when the ground is dry. 

If trenches are necessary, ensure that they are closed 

overnight; inspect trenches left open overnight and 

remove animals prior to backfilling. Place escape 

ramps in trenches at less than 45-degree angles to 

provide exit strategies for animals. 

Sod, seed, and/or landscape disturbed areas of the 

study area in accordance with the Sediment and 

Erosion Control Permit. 

Install animal-friendly fencing around the proposed 

facility site so that wildlife cannot be injured by or 

entangled in the site’s security fence. 

 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-7 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Ecological Resources 

(Cont.) 

Disturbance of 

habitats (Cont.) 

Plant native plant species (i.e., not invasive species) to 

revegetate disturbed areas and for landscaping. 

Use nectar- and berry-producing plants for 

landscaping plants. 

Conduct site-stabilization practices to reduce the 

potential for erosion and sedimentation. 

Place bluebird boxes throughout the study area. 

Establish food plots along roadways and under power 

lines. 

Consider the recommendations of appropriate State 

and Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and NCDENR. 

Wetland disturbance Select a non-wetland, non-floodplain area for the 

proposed facility. 

Use existing service road routes and utility ROWs to 

the fullest extent practicable to minimize the need for 

additional wetlands crossings. 

Construct access road perpendicular to wetland to 

minimize the area impacted. 

Limit cut/fill slopes to a horizontal-vertical ratio of 3:1 

or less. 

Avoid temporary storage of materials in wetlands 

during construction. 

Maintain the hydrological connectivity of wetlands to 

surface waters. 

Place fencing/barriers and use signs around wetland 

areas. 

Use silt fencing and cover soil stockpiles to prevent 

sediment runoff. 

Restore disturbed areas to original surface elevations. 

Revegetate disturbed areas with native plant species. 

Noise Exposure of workers 

and the public to 

noise 

Prohibit heavy truck and earth-moving equipment 

usage after twilight and during early morning hours. 

Equip construction equipment with the manufacturer’s 

noise-control devices, and maintain these devices in 

effective operating condition. 

When possible, use quiet equipment or methods to 

minimize noise emissions. 

 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-8 February 2012 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Noise (Cont.) Exposure of workers 

and the public to 

noise (Cont.) 

For equipment with internal combustion engines, 

operate equipment at the lowest operating speed to 

minimize noise emissions, when possible and 

practical. 

Close engine-housing doors during operation of 

equipment to reduce noise emissions from the engine. 

Avoid equipment engine idling. 

Use quieter, less-tonal devices that comply with all 

applicable safety restrictions (e.g., Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] standards) 

on back-up alarms for construction equipment. 

Use a quieter, high-efficiency transformer to mitigate 

noise from the proposed electrical substation. 

Transportation Traffic volume Locate the proposed facility near an interstate highway 

interchange to minimize the distance that truck traffic 

must travel on local surface streets and to facilitate 

employee commuter traffic. 

Increase the number of entry gates onto the 

Wilmington Site from NC 133 (Castle Hayne Road), 

including one dedicated to worker entrance/exit. 

Add roadway improvements (e.g., a turn lane) to 

NC 133 as required by the North Carolina Department 

of Transportation (NCDOT) for issuance of a driveway 

permit for connections of the new entrance. 

Work with NCDOT to evaluate driveway- and roadwayimprovement options to minimize impacts. 

Schedule worker shift intervals so that shift start and 

end times are staggered from peak periods of workercommuting traffic for existing site facilities and other 

planned operations. 

Promote carpooling among construction and 

operations workers to help reduce congestion by 

minimizing the additional number of vehicle trips 

necessary during peak commuting periods. 

Route truck shipments of radioactive materials around 

cities by using a U.S. Interstate Highway System 

bypass or beltway (when available). 

Schedule truck deliveries and shipments for off-peak 

traffic periods to reduce potential congestion on local 

roadways during peak worker commuting periods. 

 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-9 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Public and 

Occupational Health 

Facility operation Install a building ventilation system to maintain the 

majority of the interior of the process building under 

sub-atmospheric pressure. 

Install alarms in the Emergency Control Center to 

detect, alarm, and/or activate the automatic safe 

shutdown of process equipment in the event of 

operational problems. 

Isolate leaks and shut down process lines to prevent 

damage to equipment. 

Vent exhaust gases from the emission control system 

to the atmosphere through a single rooftop stack. 

Install radiation monitors in effluent stacks to detect, 

alarm, and activate the automatic safe shutdown of 

process equipment, should contaminants be detected 

in the system exhaust. 

Comply with all applicable State, NRC, and OSHA 

regulations concerning worker health and safety, as 

well as the existing Wilmington Site Nuclear Safety 

Program and the Industrial Safety Program. 

Comply with the Site Radiation Protection Program, 

the SPCC plan, and the GLE Environmental, Health, 

and Safety Program. 

Conduct routine radiological surveys to characterize 

and minimize potential radiological exposure. 

Monitor all radiation workers via the use of dosimeters 

and area air sampling to ensure that radiological doses 

remain within regulatory limits and As Low As 

Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). 

Conduct operations activities involving hazardous 

respirable effluents with ventilation control and/or 

respiratory protection, as required. 

Use personal protective equipment based on the 

nature of the work and chemical and/or radiological 

hazards present. 

Perform environmental monitoring and sampling to 

ensure compliance with regulatory discharge limits. 

Route treated process wastewater effluents to the 

existing final process lagoon facility for additional 

treatment. 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-10 February 2012 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Waste Management Generation of 

industrial, 

hazardous, 

radiological, and 

mixed wastes (air 

emissions are 

addressed under 

Air Quality and liquid 

emissions are 

addressed under 

Groundwater and 

Surface Water 

Resources) 

Select the laser enrichment process to reduce the 

amount of waste generated for production of the same 

amount of enriched product. 

Minimize the quantities of waste generated by the 

proposed facility by implementing the Waste 

Minimization Plan. 

Perform an integrated safety analysis (ISA) for each 

onsite waste storage area to identify and prevent 

accidental releases to the environment. 

Monitor and inspect onsite liquid waste storage tanks 

and containers on a periodic schedule to detect leaks 

or releases to the environment due to equipment 

malfunctions so that actions identified in the SPCC 

plan or other appropriate corrective action can be 

taken promptly. 

Use the existing Wilmington Site onsite wastewater 

treatment facilities within current regulatory permit 

limits to avoid the need to add new onsite waste 

treatment and disposal facilities for the proposed 

facility. 

Pre-treat radioactive liquid wastewaters in a treatment 

system planned for the proposed facility before the 

wastewater effluent is pumped to the existing NPDESpermitted final process lagoon facility for further 

treatment. 

Ship each waste generated by the proposed facility 

that requires offsite storage, treatment, or disposal to a 

licensed facility (as appropriate for the waste type) in 

compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and NRC requirements. 

Minimize onsite storage volumes and times and ship 

waste destined for offsite treatment and disposal 

facilities as soon as practicable. 

Conduct onsite treatment of process and sanitary 

wastewaters to NPDES permit limits before discharge 

to receiving waters. 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-11 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Waste Management 

(Cont.) 

Generation of 

industrial, 

hazardous, 

radiological, and 

mixed wastes (Cont.) 

Avoid and minimize potential hazardous and 

radiological waste impacts from the UF6 storage pads 

by implementing design elements and safety 

procedures during operation, including: 

– Use of a storage array that permits easy visual 

inspection (stacked no more than two cylinders 

high); 

– Segregation of storage pad areas from the rest of 

the enrichment facility by barriers (e.g., vehicle 

guardrails); 

– Inspection of cylinders for external contamination 

(i.e., a “wipe test”) prior to placing on the storage 

pads or transporting them offsite; 

– Ensuring that UF6 cylinders are not equipped with 

defective valves; 

– Allowing only designated vehicles with a limited 

amount of fuel in the storage pad area; 

– Allowing only trained and qualified personnel to 

operate vehicles in the storage pad area; and 

– Monitoring the holding pond that collects stormwater 

from the cylinder pads. 

Inspect cylinders of UF6 initially prior to placing a filled 

cylinder on a storage pad and, thereafter, inspect 

periodically for damage or surface coating defects. 

Inspection criteria would include ensuring that: 

– Lifting points are free from distortion and cracking; 

– Cylinder skirts and stiffener rings are free from 

distortion and cracking; 

– Cylinder surfaces are free from bulges, dents, 

gouges, cracks, or significant corrosion; 

– Cylinder valves are fitted with the correct protector 

and cap; 

– Cylinder valves are straight and not distorted, two to 

six threads are visible, and the square head of the 

valve stem is undamaged; and 

– Cylinder plugs are undamaged and not leaking. 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-12 February 2012 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Waste Management 

(Cont.) 

Generation of 

industrial, 

hazardous, 

radiological, and 

mixed wastes (Cont.) 

If inspections of a cylinder reveal significant 

deterioration or other conditions that may affect its 

safe use, transfer the contents of the cylinder to 

another cylinder and discard the defective cylinder. 

Investigate the cause of any significant deterioration, 

and if necessary, perform additional inspection of 

cylinders. 

Conduct continuous or periodic monitoring of waste 

management processes and storage facilities for the 

detection of non-intentional releases to the 

environment, so that corrective actions would be taken 

to minimize adverse impacts on the environment. For 

example, directing stormwater runoff from the UF6

storage pads to a holding pond, where it would be 

monitored to ensure that unexpected radioactive 

material releases to the wet detention basin did not 

occur. 

Accidents Accident prevention 

and consequence 

management 

Incorporate the following features into facility design to 

mitigate fire and explosion accidents: 

– Fire alarm and detection systems, including 

suppression capability; 

– Fire barriers to prevent propagation of fire in and out 

of areas containing uranic material; 

– System and component design features that isolate 

combustible material and/or shut down affected 

systems; 

– Continuous detection of a flammable gas in the laser 

systems, for automatic isolation in the event of high 

readings; 

– Structural design features that ensure peak explosive 

blast loads and eliminate or minimize propagation of 

structural material into a UF6 process or handling 

area; and 

– Limit combustibles in outside areas where cylinders 

are stored. 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-13 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by GLE (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Accidents (Cont.) Accident prevention 

and consequence 

management (Cont.) 

Incorporate the following features into facility design 

and operating procedures to mitigate criticality 

accidents, and to contain UF6 gas within specified 

building areas and attenuate any release to the 

environment: 

– Maintain safe geometry of all vessels, containers, 

and equipment containing fissile material and ensure 

that the concentration and/or mass of fissile material 

is limited to a specified amount; 

– Install radiation detection and criticality monitoring 

systems to quickly alert personnel and isolate 

systems when parameters exceed expected limits; 

– Physically separate areas within the facility to 

prevent or reduce exposure; 

– Control positive or negative air pressures within 

designated areas to prevent or maintain leakage 

between facility areas; 

– Install carbon adsorbers, HEPA filters, and, where 

necessary, automatic trips for ventilation systems to 

help minimize the potential for a release outside the 

affected area; and 

– Implement appropriate door and building design 

features to limit leakage paths to the outside 

environment. 

NRC-recommended measures are not requirements being imposed upon GLE. For the 

purposes of NEPA per 10 CFR 51.71(d) and 51.80(a), the NRC is disclosing measures that 

could potentially reduce or avoid environmental impacts of the proposed action. 

No additional mitigation measures were identified for the resource areas of: 

• Transportation 

• Waste Management 

• Accidents 

• Decontamination and Decommissioning 

• Socioeconomics 

• Environmental Justice 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-14 February 2012 

Table 5-2 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Land Use Land disturbance Construction BMPs required under the New Hanover 

County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance are 

listed under Geology and Soil. Following those 

measures would help moderate the short-term land use 

effects associated with preconstruction and construction 

activities. 

Use BMPs to control waste disposal, erosion, and runoff 

to help restrict the effect of facility operation on 

surrounding land use. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

Disturbance of 

prehistoric 

archaeological sites 

and sites eligible for 

listing on the 

National Register of 

Historic Places

Follow internal procedural guidance for unexpected 

archaeological discoveries, including the unexpected 

discovery of human remains. The procedures include 

notification of certain local and State agency 

representatives, including the State Archaeologist. 

Consider the effect of facility activities on historic and 

cultural resources, as required by the license condition 

(which would be applicable if the license is granted). 

Visual and Scenic 

Resources 

Potential visual 

intrusions in the 

existing landscape 

character 

Plant additional vegetation on the perimeter of the facility 

site to help screen the study area. 

Air Quality Fugitive dust, 

construction 

equipment, and 

facility operation 

emissions 

Post speed limits (e.g., 10 mph) visibly within the 

construction site, and enforce them to minimize airborne 

fugitive dust. 

Limit access to the construction site and staging areas to 

authorized vehicles only, through the designated treated 

roads. 

Stage construction to limit the exposed/disturbed area at 

any given time, when practical. 

Train workers to comply with the speed limit, use good 

engineering practices, minimize drop height of materials, 

minimize disturbed areas, and employ other BMPs as 

appropriate. 

To the extent practicable, conduct soil-disturbing 

activities and travel on unpaved roads during periods of 

favorable meteorological conditions, as conducting these 

activities during periods of unfavorable meteorological 

conditions may result in exceedances of air quality 

standards. Unfavorable meteorological conditions are 

infrequent and include (1) periods of low winds, stable, 

and relatively low mixing height conditions (primarily 

encountered around sunrise in colder months from late 

fall to early spring) and (2) periods of high winds. 

 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-15 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-2 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Air Quality (Cont.) Fugitive dust, 

construction 

equipment, and 

facility operation 

emissions (Cont.) 

All heavy equipment should meet emission standards 

specified in the State Code of Regulations, and routine 

preventive maintenance, including tuneup to the 

manufacturer’s specification, should be implemented to 

ensure efficient combustion and minimum emissions. 

Fuel all diesel engines used in the facility and auxiliary 

diesel generator units with ultra-low sulfur diesel with a 

sulfur content of 15 parts per million or less. 

Limit idling of diesel equipment to no more than 

10 minutes, unless idling must be maintained for proper 

operation; for example, drilling, hoisting, and trenching. 

Implement more aggressive dust control measures 

during road construction and land clearing, such as more 

frequent water spraying and the application of an 

appropriate dust suppressant. 

Geology and Soil Soil disturbance and 

contamination 

Implement erosion control BMPs by following the 

New Hanover County Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control Ordinance. 

Implement BMPs for storage, handling, spill prevention, 

and spill response to reduce the impact of soil 

contamination associated with fuels, oils, and grease 

from equipment used onsite or from other chemicals or 

wastes managed onsite. 

Surface Water 

Resources 

Runoff Implement BMPs for storage, handling, spill prevention, 

and spill response to reduce the impact of surface water 

contamination associated with the runoff of fuels, oils, 

and grease from equipment used onsite or from other 

chemicals or wastes managed onsite. 

Groundwater 

Resources 

Infiltration Implement BMPs for storage, handling, spill prevention, 

and spill response to reduce the impact of groundwater 

contamination associated with the accidental release of 

fuels, oils, and grease from equipment used onsite or 

from other chemicals or wastes managed onsite. If the 

proposed action results in measurable onsite changes in 

groundwater levels, expand groundwater level 

monitoring to appropriate offsite areas. 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-16 February 2012 

Table 5-2 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Ecological 

Resources 

Disturbance of 

habitats 

Reduce or prevent the collection, harassment, or 

disturbance of plants, wildlife, and their habitats 

(particularly threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species) through employee and contractor education on 

applicable State and Federal laws. Additionally, instruct 

all personnel to avoid harassment and disturbance of 

local plants and wildlife; make personnel aware of the 

potential for wildlife interactions around facility 

structures; and ensure that food refuse and other 

garbage is not available to scavengers. 

Establish a trash abatement program that focuses on 

containing trash and food in closed containers and 

removing them periodically to reduce their attractiveness 

to opportunistic species, such as bears, coyotes, and 

feral dogs. 

Avoid known locations of listed plant species and 

habitats of listed wildlife species and establish a setback 

distance (minimum 60 meters [200 feet]) to prevent any 

destructive impacts associated with construction and 

decommissioning activities. 

Minimize the number of areas where wildlife could hide 

or be trapped (e.g., open sheds, pits, uncovered basins, 

and laydown areas). 

If any Federally threatened or endangered species such 

as the roughleaf loosestrife or the red-cockaded 

woodpecker are encountered, consult with FWS (as 

required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

[ESA]) and determine an appropriate course of action to 

avoid or mitigate impacts. 

Observe all trees >61 centimeters (24 inches) identified 

during GLE’s surveys for potential compensatory tree 

plantings for the potential presence of red-cockaded 

woodpecker cavities. If any cavity trees are observed, 

consult the FWS (as required by Section 7 of the ESA) 

and determine an appropriate course of action to avoid 

or mitigate impacts. 

Develop an integrated vegetation management plan for 

the control of noxious weeds and invasive plant species. 

Minimize the area disturbed by preconstruction activities 

and the installation of facilities (pipelines, transmission 

towers, pump stations, substations, laydown areas, 

assembly areas) to retain native vegetation and minimize 

soil disturbance. 
 Mitigation

February 2012 5-17 NUREG-1938 

Table 5-2 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC (Cont.) 

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Ecological 

Resources (Cont.) 

Disturbance of 

habitats (Cont.) 

Backfill open trenches as quickly as is reasonable. 

To the extent practicable, avoid the use of guy wires, 

which pose a collision hazard for birds. 

Maintain areas left in a natural condition during 

construction (e.g., wildlife crossings) in as natural a 

condition as possible within safety and operational 

constraints. 

To minimize habitat loss and fragmentation, reestablish 

as much habitat as possible after construction is 

complete by maximizing the area reclaimed or revegetated during operations. 

Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive 

species and noxious weeds within the transmission line 

ROW, along the access road, and in associated areas of 

ground surface disturbance or vegetation cutting. 

Monitor the area regularly and eradicate invasive 

species immediately. 

Noise Exposure of workers 

and the public to 

noise 

When possible, schedule different noisy activities to 

occur at the same time. Less-frequent but noisy 

activities would generally minimize overall noise 

disturbance compared to lower-level noise occurring 

more frequently. 

Implement noise control measures (e.g., erection of 

temporary wooden noise barriers) if noisy activities 

would be expected near sensitive receptors. 

Operate all vehicles traveling within and around the 

project area in accordance with posted speed limits. 

Post warning signs in high noise areas and implement a 

hearing protection program for work areas in excess of 

85 dBA. 

Because complaints about noise may occur even when 

noise levels from the facility do not exceed regulatory or 

guideline levels, implement a noise complaint process 

and hotline for the surrounding communities, including 

documentation, investigation, evaluation, and resolution 

of all legitimate project-related noise complaints. 
Mitigation 

NUREG-1938 5-18 February 2012 

Table 5-2 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by NRC (Cont.)

Impact Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures

Public and 

Occupational 

Health

Effects from facility 

operation

Move UF6 cylinders only when cool and when UF6 is in 

solid form, to minimize the risk of inadvertent release 

due to mishandling.

Direct process off-gas from UF6 purification and other 

operations through cold traps to solidify and reclaim as 

much UF6 as possible. Pass remaining gases through 

high-efficiency filters and chemical absorbers to remove 

hydrogen fluoride and uranic compounds.

Separate uranic compounds and various other heavy 

metals in waste material generated by decontamination 

of equipment and systems.

5.3 References 

(GLE, 2008) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the GLE 

Commercial Facility, Revision 0.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573. 

(NCDENR, 2007) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division 

of Water Quality. “Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.” 

<http://www.lenoirnc.govoffice2.com/vertical/Sites/%7B916BA528-4D3A-4AF2-9B92-

9AC1C284EA52%7D/uploads/%7B89C8F254-2353-49D2-9787-A6C91C23D2E9%7D.PDF> 

(Accessed February 13, 2012).

(New Hanover County, 2006) New Hanover County. “New Hanover County Flood Damage 

Prevention Ordinance.” Adopted by the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners 

June 5, 2006. <http://www.nhcgov.com/Documents/Floodplain%20Ordinance.pdf> (Accessed 

November 18, 2009). 

(New Hanover County, 2007) New Hanover County. “County Code of Ordinances Chapter 23, 

Environment, Article VI: Erosion and Sedimentation Control.” <http://library.municode.com/ 

index.aspx?clientId=11337> (Accessed November 18, 2009). 
February 2012 6-1 NUREG-1938 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 

This chapter describes the proposed environmental measurements and monitoring program to 

characterize the effect of radiological and nonradiological releases from the proposed General 

Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) Facility in New Hanover County, 

North Carolina, on human health and environment. The proposed monitoring program includes 

monitoring of radiological and physiochemical gaseous and liquid effluents from facility 

operations, and monitoring and measurement of ambient air, surface water, groundwater, 

stormwater, soil, sediment, and direct radiation in the vicinity of the proposed GLE Facility. 

The proposed GLE Facility would be located on GE’s Wilmington Site near Wilmington, North 

Carolina. Two of GE’s principal manufacturing operations – the Global Nuclear Fuel-America 

(GNF-A) Fuel Manufacturing Operation (FMO) facility, Wilmington Field Services Center 

(WFSC), and the GE Aircraft Engines/Services Components Operation (AE/SCO) facility – are 

located at the Wilmington Site. For the last 40 years, the FMO facility possessed nuclear 

materials for the conversion of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to uranium dioxide

(UO2). The FMO facility fabricates and constructs nuclear assemblies for use in commercial 

light water reactors. There is an existing monitoring program for the Wilmington Site. The 

environmental monitoring program for the proposed GLE Facility is based on the experience 

and data accumulated at the Wilmington Site. The existing monitoring program would be 

expanded to include and account for the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008); this program is 

referred to throughout this chapter as the Expanded Monitoring Program. The existing 

monitoring program would provide the baseline for air quality, surface water, sediment, treated 

sanitary wastewater effluent, and treated process wastewater effluent (GLE, 2008). The 

baseline data for groundwater and soil would be collected before the proposed GLE Facility 

becomes operational. The baseline uranium concentration in shallow soil across the 100-acre 

(40-hectare) proposed GLE Facility site would be established through statistical sampling 

program before the construction of the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008). Table 6-1 

(GLE, 2008) provides a summary of the proposed monitoring program for the proposed GLE 

Facility, including the types, frequency, and sampling locations in addition to locations currently 

monitored by GNF-A. 

In addition to routine sampling, provisions would be in place to respond to emergency situations, 

accidents, or increased emission levels found in routine sampling. Sampling frequency and 

locations would be determined by GLE environmental staff in accordance with the permit 

requirements, to demonstrate compliance. All liquid and solid hazardous and radioactive 

wastes related to operation of the proposed GLE Facility would be analyzed for chemical and 

radiological properties to determine appropriate disposal methods or treatment requirements. 

Effluent compliance levels would be set primarily in the respective permits issued and 

administered by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) and under National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. To ensure that the permit 

requirements are met, administrative action levels would be established at levels below 

compliance levels for all measured parameters. Response actions for elevated measurements 

would be set in documented procedures at increasing levels of priority, ranging from 

(1) increasing monitoring frequency, to (2) adjusting operations, and (3) performing corrective 

actions to prevent exceedances of regulatory compliance levels. 
NUREG-1938 6-2 February 2012

Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs Table 6-1 Summary of GLE Environmental Monitoring Program Medium Additional Sample Locationsa Sample Type Analyte/Parameter Frequencyb Direct radiation Personnel dosimetry Continuous film badges, TLDs, and pocket dosimeters 

• Gamma and neutron activity 

UF6 storage pads area and other 

outdoor storage areas 

Continuous film badges or TLDs • Gamma and neutron activity 

Air Main GLE process building stack 

(see Figure 6-1) 

Continuous air particulate filter • Gross alpha activity 

 Weekly 

• Fluoride 

 Weekly 

Around the proposed GLE Facility. Site boundary point of highest potential impact, and ambient (background) (see Figure 6-1) 

Continuous air particulate filter • Gross alpha activity 

 Weekly 

• Uranium isotopes 

 Weekly 

Surface Water None in addition to the current effluent 

channel location at the Site dam and Northeast Cape Fear River locations upstream and downstream of the Site 

Grab sample • Gross alpha/beta activities 

 Monthly 

• Total uranium 

 Monthly 

• LCFRP physical, chemical, and 

biological monitoring 

Treated process wastewater effluent 

None in addition to the current monitoring at the wastewater treatment and reclamation facility 

Continuous, composite, or grab samples, per permit 

• Total uranium 

 Daily composite 

• Gross alpha/beta activities 

 Weekly 

composite 

• Technetium-99 

 Quarterly composite 

• NPDES permit requirements 

Treated sanitary wastewater effluent 

None in addition to the current monitoring at NPDES Outfall 002 

Continuous proportional sample of liquid effluent 

• NPDES permit requirements 

Groundwater 21 monitoring wells Grab sample after typical 3-well 

purge 

• Total uranium 

 Quarterly 

• Gross alpha/beta activities 

 Only if 

total uranium concentration in previous sample >0.02 mg/L 

• Fluoride 

 Quarterly 
February 2012 6-3 NUREG-1938

Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs

Table 6-1 Summary of GLE Environmental Monitoring Program (Cont.) 

Medium Additional Sample Locationsa Sample Type Analyte/Parameter Frequencyb

Stormwater Stormwater wet detention basin Stormwater grab samples • NPDES permit requirements 

UF6 storage pads area holding pond Stormwater grab sample • Gross alpha/beta activities 

 Before 

transfer of held water to detention pond 

• Total uranium 

 Before transfer of held 

water to detention pond 

• Fluoride 

 Before transfer of held water 

to detention pond 

Soil 4 locations Shallow soil grab sample • Total uranium 

 Semiannual 

Sediment None in addition to current monitoring 

locations 

Sediment grab sample • Total uranium 

 Semiannual 

a Sampling locations for the proposed action in addition to locations currently monitored by GNF-A (GNF-A, 2007). b Initial monitoring frequencies may be evaluated and adjusted. UF6 = uranium hexafluoride; TLDs = thermoluminescent dosimeters; LCFRP = Lower Cape Fear 

River Program; NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Source: Adapted from GLE, 2008. 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

NUREG-1938 6-4 February 2012 

The following sections describe the monitoring program in detail. 

6.1 Radiological Measurements and Monitoring Program 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that the proposed GLE Facility 

establish a radiological monitoring and measurement program to monitor and report quantities 

of the radionuclides released to the environment from gaseous and liquid effluents. These 

requirements are specified in Title 10, “Energy,” of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) Part 20 Appendix B and 10 CFR 70.59. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) specifies additional monitoring requirements for air and liquid (40 CFR 70.6(a)(3), 

40 CFR 122.48, and 40 CFR 123.25). The corresponding requirements from the State of North 

Carolina are specified in 15A North Carolina (NC) Administrative Code 02Q.0508 and 15A NC 

Administrative Code 2B.0500. The radiological monitoring and measurement program for the 

proposed GLE Facility was developed based on the above regulatory requirements, the existing 

GNF-A monitoring program, and NRC guidance documents listed in Table 6-2. 

The Expanded Monitoring Program at the proposed GLE Facility would demonstrate compliance 

with effluent release requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B, and would be implemented by 

the GNF-A and GLE Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) functions. The expanded 

radiological monitoring program would start when the proposed GLE Facility begins operation 

and would remain operational during the decommissioning phase. The monitoring during the 

decommissioning phase may be reduced as the contaminants are removed from the site. 

The following sections describe radiological air monitoring, direct radiation monitoring, 

radiological sampling and monitoring for wastewater and stormwater discharge, surface water 

and sediment monitoring, groundwater monitoring, and soil sampling. 

6.1.1 Air Monitoring 

Radioactive airborne releases from the proposed GLE Facility would be discharged primarily 

from the stack on the main process building. Figure 6-1 shows the proposed location of the 

Table 6-2 Guidance Documents That Apply to the Radiological Monitoring Program 

Document Applicable Guidance 

Regulatory Guide 4.15a

“Quality Assurance for Radiological 

Monitoring Programs (Inception through 

Normal Operations to License Termination) 

– Effluent Streams and the Environment.” 

This guide describes a method acceptable to the 

NRC for designing a program to ensure the quality 

of the results of measurements for radioactive 

materials in the effluents and the environment 

outside of nuclear facilities during normal 

operations. 

Regulatory Guide 4.16b

“Monitoring and Reporting Radioactivity in 

Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid 

and Gaseous Effluents from Nuclear Fuel 

Processing and Fabrication Plants and 

Uranium Hexafluoride Production Plants.” 

This guide describes a method acceptable to the 

NRC for submitting semiannual reports that specify 

the quantity of each principal radionuclide released 

to unrestricted areas to estimate the maximum 

potential annual dose to the public resulting from 

effluent releases. a

 NRC, 2007. 

b

 NRC, 1985. 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

February 2012 6-5 NUREG-1938 

stack, which would be about 21.3 meters (70 feet) above the ground. Airborne release 

monitoring procedures for this source would be designed in a manner to determine the 

quantities and concentrations of radionuclides discharged to the environment, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 70.59. Uranium isotopes anticipated to be released as airborne emissions would 

include uranium-234, uranium-235, uranium-236, and uranium-238. The stack would be 

sampled continuously. During initial operation, the collection filter would be removed daily and 

analyzed for gross alpha activity. If, during normal operations, the monitoring results show 

continued low alpha activity, the removal frequency for the collection filter would eventually be 

decreased to weekly. 

In addition to stack monitoring for compliance with regulatory requirements, ambient air 

monitoring for radioactive emissions would take place around the proposed GLE Facility, to 

ensure that the facility is operating properly. A total of 11 active air monitors would be used for 

analysis of a weekly composite sample for gross alpha activity and concentrations of uranium 

isotopes, resulting primarily from the GLE stack emissions and activities from UF6 cylinder pads. 

As shown in Figure 6-1, nine monitors would be placed around the proposed GLE Facility. 

Considering prevailing wind directions, three monitors each would be placed to the north and 

south. Three monitors to the south would be placed to monitor for levels of radioactive material 

from the UF6 storage pads and the stack under prevailing northerly winds. Three monitors 

would be placed to the north and northeast to monitor levels of radioactive materials under 

prevailing southwesterly winds. Additionally, one monitor would be placed to the east of the UF6

storage pads, and two monitors would be placed on the western side of the facility to cover 

potential impacts from all wind directions. Finally, one monitor would be placed where the 

highest potential impact was predicted to occur, on the Wilmington Site property boundary about 

0.5 kilometers (0.3 miles) to the northeast of the proposed GLE Facility stack. 

An active air monitor would be placed approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) to the west–

northwest of the proposed GLE Facility stack. The monitor is located in the least-prevailing 

wind direction from the proposed GLE Facility and thus, considered as an onsite background 

monitor associated with the operation of the proposed GLE Facility. 

6.1.2 Direct Radiation Monitoring 

Direct radiation monitoring would be conducted to demonstrate compliance with the NRC 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and North Carolina State requirements for radiation protection 

(GLE, 2008). Direct gamma radiation in offsite locations from processes inside the proposed 

GLE Facility main process building would be expected to be minimal, because the low-energy 

gamma radiation associated with uranium would be shielded by the building structure, process 

piping, and equipment. Personal dosimetry would be used to evaluate the dose to the workers. 

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) or film badges would be used for direct radiation 

monitoring for the cylinder pads and other outdoor storage areas and would be placed at 

strategic locations along the boundaries of the cylinder storage pads. TLDs would be placed at 

locations where there is higher employee traffic, such as near the access gates for each 

cylinder storage pad. TLDs would also be placed on the three fencelines that do not have 

access gates. TLDs would be replaced and analyzed every six months. Periodic surveys using 

portable survey meters would be performed monthly in the general storage pad area and along 

the boundary of the storage pads (GLE, 2009a). 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

NUREG-1938 6-6 February 2012 

Figure 6-1 GLE Air Monitoring Locations1 (GLE, 2008) 

6.1.3 Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Monitoring 

The proposed GLE Facility would generate and treat liquid process wastewater containing 

uranium and fluoride. A treatment process would remove uranium through pH adjustment and 

fluoride through addition of a salt to precipitate the fluoride (GLE, 2008). Either filtration or 

evaporation would then take place on the fluoride precipitate. The treatment process would be 

very similar to what is currently in effect at the FMO facility, and effluent concentrations of 

uranium are expected to be similar or lower compared to the existing process (GLE, 2009b). 

The treated wastewater would be conveyed to the existing Wilmington Site final process lagoon 

facility for further treatment. From the lagoon, treated effluent is discharged under NPDES 

permit to the effluent channel via Outfall 001. Continuous proportional samples of the treated 

wastewater are collected at Outfall 001 (see Figure 3-20). The monitoring would include daily 

composite samples for uranium; weekly composite samples of the daily samples for gross alpha 

and gross beta activity; and quarterly composite samples of the weekly composites for 

technetium-99. 

 

1

 The locations shown are approximate. 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

February 2012 6-7 NUREG-1938 

Stormwater runoff from the UF6 storage area would travel to a new holding pond for monitoring 

for uranium, gross alpha, and gross beta (GLE, 2008, 2009b). Afterwards, the stormwater 

would be released to a stormwater wet detention basin. The purpose of the holding pond would 

be to detain stormwater from the UF6 storage area in the event of an incident involving the 

release of uranium on the storage pad. Treatment of the stormwater would not, therefore, 

normally take place. If such an incident occurred, water in the holding pond would be retained 

and monitored until uranium stabilized through precipitation or was subjected to active 

treatment. Afterward, the holding pond liner would be sampled to assess the need for 

remediation (GLE, 2009b). 

Wilmington Site stormwater basins are not currently monitored during rainfall events. The 

NPDES stormwater permit states that no analytical sampling is required if a basin is designed to 

discharge only in response to a 10-year storm (GLE, 2009b). 

GLE intends to consult with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) to develop a 

monitoring plan for the UF6 storage area stormwater holding pond (GLE, 2009b). Per 

10 CFR Part 70 Appendix A(c), any release that is reportable to the State would also be 

reported to NRC. 

6.1.4 Surface Water and Sediment Monitoring 

The current monitoring program would be expanded to account for the proposed GLE Facility 

(GLE, 2008). As part of this Expanded Monitoring Program, GLE would continue the surface 

water monitoring activities that are currently conducted under the GNF-A monitoring program at 

the Wilmington Site. Gross alpha, gross beta, and uranium are monitored in the effluent 

channel, the Northeast Cape Fear River 27 kilometers (17 miles) upstream of the Wilmington 

Site, and the Northeast Cape Fear River at the Wilmington Site dock, which is downstream of 

the discharge of the effluent channel to the river (via a tributary), as described in Section 3.7.1. 

Monitoring consists of monthly grab samples. 

Current sediment sampling under the GNF-A Environmental Monitoring Program includes 

semiannual uranium samples in the effluent channel downstream of Outfall 001 (GLE, 2008). 

Because the proposed GLE Facility’s process wastewater would follow the same route, the 

current sediment sampling program would provide relevant samples. 

6.1.5 Groundwater Monitoring 

Current groundwater monitoring for radiological contaminants involves monitoring wells across 

the Wilmington Site. Thirteen more wells would be installed at the proposed location to 

complement the existing eight wells already in the North-Central Site Sector (GLE, 2008). This 

set of 21 wells would become part of the Expanded Monitoring Program. They would be 

arranged in seven clusters with wells installed at three depths in each cluster (at or near the 

water table in the surficial aquifer, in the upper portion of the Peedee Sand, and in the 

intermediate Peedee Sand). 

Quarterly sampling for uranium would take place from the 21 wells. If a result exceeded 

0.02 milligrams per liter (1.7  10–7 pounds per gallon), then subsequent quarterly samples from 

that well would also include analysis for gross alpha and gross beta activity (GLE, 2008). After 

sufficient data were gathered for a statistical trend analysis, the sampling frequency for each 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

NUREG-1938 6-8 February 2012 

well would be reviewed, and adjusted if necessary. Quarterly monitoring would begin prior to 

GLE operations to establish baseline conditions, and the Expanded Monitoring Program would 

continue through the operations and decommissioning phases. 

6.1.6 Soil Sampling 

The existing soil sampling and analysis program at the Wilmington Site would be supplemented 

with four additional sampling locations; two to the north and two to the south of the proposed 

GLE Facility (GLE, 2008). The sampling at these new locations would begin before startup of 

the proposed GLE Facility to establish the baseline condition. In addition, uranium baseline 

concentration in shallow soil across the 100-acre (40-hectare) proposed GLE Facility site would 

be established before preconstruction and construction of the proposed GLE Facility 

(GLE, 2008). 

6.2 Nonradiological Measurements and Monitoring Program 

This section describes the proposed physiochemical, ecological, and industrial health and safety 

monitoring for the proposed GLE Facility. Discussions of physiochemical monitoring cover 

effluent monitoring of chemical constituents to meet permit requirements, and environmental 

media sampling to detect impacts from site operations. 

6.2.1 Physiochemical Monitoring 

A physiochemical monitoring program would be conducted during the construction and 

operation of the proposed GLE Facility as part of an environmental protection program to control 

chemical and other nonradiological exposures to workers, the public, and the environment. 

During the preconstruction and construction phases, worker and public exposure to dust would 

be monitored as required under GNF-A’s Industrial Safety Program and Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Stormwater would be monitored during 

construction under the provisions of an NPDES General Permit for Construction Stormwater. 

The specific monitoring requirements under the permit would be specified in an Erosion and 

Sedimentation Control Plan submitted to and approved by the North Carolina Division of Land 

Resources. 

During facility operation, the primary objective of monitoring would be to confirm that effluent 

controls for gaseous and liquid effluents are working properly, and if not, to alert operators when 

actions, including corrective measures, need to be taken. Physiochemical sampling of effluent 

streams and of environmental media potentially affected by the effluents, including soil, 

sediments, groundwater, surface water, and biota, would be conducted. Specific parameters 

monitored would include uranium, fluoride, and any other chemicals or parameters specified in 

facility or site permits. 

In addition, environmental media samples would be collected periodically and analyzed for 

chemicals present in effluents. Much of this sampling is already conducted for the existing 

facilities at the Wilmington Site, including sampling of uranium at various surface water 

locations, uranium and fluoride in groundwater at 21 site perimeter monitoring wells, and in 

sediments at various site locations. In addition to current sampling, four new soil sampling 

locations would be sampled near the boundaries of the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008). 

Soil and sediment samples would be collected semiannually. 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

February 2012 6-9 NUREG-1938 

Groundwater sampling would be performed quarterly as described in Section 6.1.5, and would 

include analysis for fluoride and measurements of pH, temperature, and specific conductance. 

Water levels would be measured at each sampling event and in semiannual comprehensive 

measurement events across the Wilmington Site. 

6.2.1.1 Effluent Monitoring 

Hydrogen fluoride (HF), as fluoride ions, would be collected continuously on particulate filters in 

vent stacks and analyzed weekly in accordance with an NCDAQ air permit that would be 

required for the facility. Uranium isotopes would be collected continuously on particulate filters 

in air samplers located around the proposed GLE Facility. These filters would likewise be 

analyzed weekly. Fluoride and uranium would be monitored in liquid effluents along with any 

other chemicals required under the Wilmington Site’s NPDES permits. Effluents would be 

sampled at outfalls from treatment systems for process wastewater and sanitary wastewater 

and in stormwater retention basins, including the holding pond for UF6 storage pads. 

The Expanded Monitoring Program would include continued monitoring at effluent outfalls under 

the current NPDES permit as described in Section 3.7.1. 

Outfall 001 (Figure 3-20) is for process wastewater. It is monitored prior to discharge to the 

effluent channel for various parameters and has limitations on total suspended solids (TSS), 

total nitrogen, fluoride, cyanide, pH, metals (total cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, nickel, 

silver, zinc), oil and grease, and total toxic organics. The permit lists a number of equipment 

systems that contribute flow to the outfall, including treatment tanks, lime slurry system, and 

hydrofluoric acid equipment. The permitted maximum flow at the outfall is 6.8 million liters per 

day (1.8 million gallons per day). 

Outfall 002 (Figure 3-20) was used for treated domestic (sanitary) wastewater until April 2008. 

Permit limitations included biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), TSS, and fecal coliform, and a 

maximum allowed flow of 280,000 liters per day (75,000 gallons per day). Because the new 

sanitary wastewater treatment facility does not release effluent, the outfall is unused; however, 

the permit is in place if discharge is necessary in the future. Effluent limits for both monthly 

average and daily maximum values include turbidity, nitrogen, BOD, TSS, and fecal coliform. 

Monitoring of pH at the site dam is also described in Section 3.7.1. 

Surface water monitoring would continue to be monitored by GLE, the NCDWQ, and the Lower 

Cape Fear River Program, as described in Section 3.7.1 of this EIS. The NCDWQ maintains 

two monitoring stations along the Northeast Cape Fear River; one is 27 kilometers (17 miles) 

upstream of the site and the other is 10 kilometers (6 miles) downstream. A third station near 

the Wilmington Site’s south border is monitored by the Lower Cape Fear River Program. GE 

monitors water quality parameters along with gross alpha, gross beta, and uranium 

concentrations in the effluent channel at the Wilmington Site dam, the Northeast Cape Fear 

River significantly upstream of the Wilmington Site, and the Northeast Cape Fear River just 

downstream of the Wilmington Site. 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

NUREG-1938 6-10 February 2012 

6.2.1.2 Stormwater Monitoring 

A stormwater permit would be required for the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008). For 

nonradiological monitoring, sampling would be performed semiannually during storm events, as 

discussed in Section 3.7.1. Analyses would include lead, oil and grease, pH, and TSS. 

6.2.2 Ecological Monitoring 

The current ecological monitoring program for the Wilmington Site consists of a forestry 

management plan to improve natural habitats on the Wilmington Site. This program would also 

provide appropriate monitoring and habitat management for the proposed GLE Facility. 

Monitoring would include ecological surveys to identify potential issues and habitat areas that 

need improvement. GLE would consider survey recommendations made by appropriate 

Federal and State agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources) (GLE, 2008). Such actions could include 

surveys for listed species or their suitable habitat, particularly the roughleaf loosestrife 

(Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (FWS, 2009). 

To mitigate losses of more mature trees, GLE would conduct surveys for trees >61 centimeters 

(24 inches) in diameter in areas that would be affected by preconstruction activities and 

construction of the proposed GLE Facility, in order to determine compensatory requirements for 

tree plantings that would be performed elsewhere on the Wilmington Site. If trenches are 

required, any that would be left open overnight would be inspected for animals prior to 

backfilling. 

Any nonradiological ecological monitoring prescribed through the various environmental permits 

for the preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE 

Facility are expected to be sufficient to evaluate any nonradiological ecological impacts. 

6.2.3 Industrial Health and Safety Monitoring 

The existing industrial health and safety program at the Wilmington Site would be expanded to 

include the activities of the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2008). This would include monitoring 

of indoor air quality and noise in workplaces. It would also include training of workers in safe 

work practices and monitoring of workplace safety-related occurrences and taking appropriate 

corrective actions. An ergonomic program would also be included as part of the industrial 

health and safety program to reduce or eliminate worker injuries (GLE, 2008). 

6.2.4 Cylinder Surveillance and Monitoring 

Surveillance and monitoring of depleted UF6 cylinders would be conducted prior to placement 

on the storage pad (and periodically thereafter, including prior to transportation) to ensure 

cylinder integrity and prevent or minimize the potential release of UF6 (GLE, 2008). GLE’s 

cylinder monitoring program would include inspection criteria to ensure that lifting points, skirts, 

and stiffener rings are free from distortion and cracking; surfaces are free from bulges, dents, 

gouges, cracks, and significant corrosion; valves are equipped with correct protectors and caps; 

valves are not distorted and valve stems are undamaged; and cylinder plugs are undamaged 

and not leaking. If inspections reveal significant deterioration or other conditions that may affect 

safe use of a cylinder, the contents of the affected cylinder would be transferred to another 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

February 2012 6-11 NUREG-1938 

cylinder and the defective cylinder would be discarded. Investigation of the cause of the 

deterioration would be performed, and if necessary, additional cylinder inspections would be 

performed (GLE, 2008). In addition, radiological surveys would be conducted to ensure that 

cylinders are not externally contaminated and to help ensure that radiation exposures during 

cylinder handling and storage comply with the regulatory limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (GLE, 2008). 

6.3 Quality Assurance 

The Expanded Monitoring Program (which would incorporate the proposed GLE Facility) would 

fall under the oversight of the Wilmington Site Quality Assurance Program and would be 

managed by a qualified quality assurance officer. The program would employ written 

procedures for the collection of representative environmental samples, appropriate sampling 

methods and equipment, selection of sampling points, and sample preservation, transport, 

handling, storage, and custody. Additional written procedures would be used to ensure that 

sampling and monitoring equipment is properly maintained and calibrated, and in good working 

order. 

Onsite and contractor analytical laboratories would similarly implement a formal quality 

assurance/quality control program to monitor, assess, and control the performance of 

radiological and chemical analysis so that required performance standards specified in permits 

and within the standard analytical procedures are met. Good laboratory practices would be 

employed in all aspects of analysis. Laboratories would participate in third-party comparison 

studies to validate their performance. 

Quality assurance measures employed in sampling and analysis would be adequate to produce 

valid analytical results. Procedures would require the use of calibration standards traceable to a 

primary National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard, as appropriate. 

Industry-accepted, regulatory agency-approved sampling, analysis, and reporting methods 

would be employed, such as those endorsed by the National Environmental Laboratory 

Accreditation Conference (NELAC). 

The quality assurance program would specify an adequate set of quality assurance samples to 

validate field samples. Both field and laboratory quality control samples would be analyzed, 

including appropriate blank, duplicate, and spiked samples, as well as laboratory calibration and 

sample recovery standards. Performance standards would be set to meet the requirements of 

specific measurement programs, and would include standards for minimum detectable 

concentrations (MDCs), sample recovery, and analysis reproducibility. MDCs would be 

sufficient to meet action level, regulatory, and permit requirements, as well as the requirements 

of environmental media monitoring programs. 

6.4 Reporting 

Reporting would comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 70.59 and the guidance specified in 

NRC Regulatory Guide 4.16 (NRC, 1985). It is expected that a single semiannual report for the 

Wilmington Site (that would include the proposed GLE Facility) would be submitted to the NRC. 

The semiannual report would include the quantities of the radionuclides released in the 

unrestricted area and other information necessary to evaluate the radiation dose from effluent 

releases to the public (GLE, 2008). The NRC would place this report (and all other relevant 
Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs 

NUREG-1938 6-12 February 2012 

information pertaining to environmental sampling) on the NRC’s web site to make it available to 

the public. 

6.5 References 

(FWS, 2009) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter from H. Hall (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated June 8. “Subject: Docket No. 70-

7016; General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Facility, New Hanover County, North 

Carolina.” ADAMS Accession No. ML091700024. 

(GLE, 2008) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the GLE 

Commercial Facility, Revision 0.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573. 

(GLE, 2009a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated June 8. 

“Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Submittal of Additional Information Related to 

NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” Letter number GLEL-09-004. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092110764. 

(GLE, 2009b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 5. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response to Request for 

Additional Information Related to NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093170517. 

(GNF-A, 2007) Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas LLC. “Site Environmental Report Supplement for 

the Period 1995–2005.” March 30. ADAMS Accession No. ML071000137. 

(NRC, 1985) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Monitoring and Reporting Radioactivity in 

Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Nuclear Fuel 

Processing and Fabrication Plants and Uranium Hexafluoride Production Plants.” Regulatory 

Guide 4.16, Revision 1. December. ADAMS Accession No. ML003957058. 

(NRC, 2007) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Quality Assurance for Radiological 

Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operation to License Termination) – Effluent 

Streams and the Environment.” Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 2. July. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML072070314. 
February 2012 7-1 NUREG-1938

7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The costs and benefits of the proposed action and no-action alternative are considered in this 

chapter as an aid in evaluating environmental consequences. Costs and benefits are 

presented, to the extent possible, in monetary terms. Important costs and benefits that cannot 

be quantified in monetary terms, such as environmental impacts, are presented qualitatively.

Cost-benefit analysis can provide a rationale for deciding whether a project is likely to have a 

net positive impact by aggregating each of the costs and benefits resulting from the project. 

Cost-benefit analysis involves valuing the benefits and costs associated with a project in 

monetary terms, to the extent possible. Depending on the extent of the data available, costbenefit analyses may rely partially on qualitative data to assess the various costs and benefits; 

the methodology employed for a cost-benefit analysis is usually dependent on the specific 

issues involved in a project. Costs and benefits are often separated into two categories –

private and societal. Private costs and benefits are those that impact the owner of a project or 

facility, in this case General Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE), while 

societal costs and benefits are those that impact society as a whole. Much of the data 

associated with the construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility that would be used 

to assess private costs (i.e., the costs of constructing and operating the proposed facility) are 

proprietary commercial information, withheld in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. Although these 

costs are presented in Appendix H, they cannot be discussed in this section of this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The analysis focuses on the various private and societal costs and benefits associated with the 

proposed action and the no-action alternative using data provided by GLE (GLE, 2008, 2009a, 

and 2011). These data include the economic and fiscal benefits of facility construction,

operation, and decommissioning to the region in which the facility is located, and to the North 

Carolina state economy. As described in Section 3.13, the area in which workers are expected 

to live and spend most of their salary is referred to as the region of influence (ROI) for the 

analysis of socioeconomic impacts. The ROI corresponds to the Wilmington Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA), a three-county area comprising Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender 

Counties. Although the majority of the costs and most of the socioeconomic impacts of the 

various phases of the proposed GLE Facility development would occur in the ROI, there would 

be economic, fiscal, and, in particular, energy security benefits that would occur at both the local 

and national level. Therefore, the cost-benefit analysis addresses a larger area than the ROI 

that was considered in the analysis of socioeconomic impacts. Also discussed are the benefits 

of the proposed GLE Facility at the national level in fulfilling the need for enriched uranium to 

fulfill domestic electricity requirements, for domestic supplies of enriched uranium for national 

energy security, and for upgraded uranium enrichment technology in the United States. 

Societal costs considered include those related to impacts on land use, historical and cultural 

resources, visual resources, air quality, geology and soils, water resources, ecological 

resources, environmental justice, noise, transportation, public and occupational health, and 

waste management.

This chapter analyzes the costs and benefits both quantitatively, in monetary terms where 

possible, and qualitatively. Section 7.1 weighs the costs and benefits associated with the 

proposed action. Section 7.2 compares the costs and benefits for the proposed action to those 

of the no-action alternative. Section 7.3 combines these sections into overall conclusions. 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

NUREG-1938 7-2 February 2012

Alternatives that have previously been ruled out for failing to meet the project's technical and 

policy objectives are described in Section 2.3 of this EIS and are not revisited in this chapter.

7.1 Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Action

Under the proposed action, GLE would construct, operate, and eventually, decommission

(under a separate licensing action) the proposed GLE Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. In 

order for GLE to carry out the proposed action, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

would grant a license to GLE to possess and use source material, byproduct, and special 

nuclear material in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, “Energy,” Parts 40, 30, and 70 

of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), respectively, if all regulatory requirements 

are met. The proposed GLE Facility would be constructed from 2012 to 2020, and 

preconstruction activities could begin prior to the licensing decision in 2012 (GLE, 2011). The 

start-up activities would begin in 2014 and continue until 2020. Full production would be 

achieved in 2020, and continue through 2051, followed by license termination in 2052 and 

decommissioning.

1

The principal socioeconomic impact or benefit from the proposed GLE Facility would be an 

increase in employment and income in the ROI. Although the majority of the costs and most of 

the socioeconomic impacts of the various phases of GLE Facility development would occur in 

the ROI, there would be economic, fiscal, and, in particular, energy security benefits, which 

would occur at both the local and national level. Therefore, the cost-benefit analysis addresses 

a larger area than the ROI, which was considered in the analysis of socioeconomic impacts.

This section describes the costs and benefits of each life-cycle stage of preconstruction and the 

proposed action. Quantitative estimates (in terms of dollars) are provided where possible. 

Other costs and benefits are described in qualitative terms.

7.1.1 Costs of Preconstruction and the Proposed Action

The direct costs associated with the proposed action may be categorized by the following lifecycle stages:

• construction

• start-up activities

• facility operation

• depleted uranium disposal

• decommissioning

 

1

As discussed in Section 4.1, the cost-benefit analysis is based on the assumption that a licensing 

decision will be made in 2012, NRC-licensed construction (if authorized) would begin shortly after the 

licensing decision, and termination of the 40-year license would occur in 2052. The analysis is also 

based on the assumption that operations would begin in 2014, construction activities would continue 

through 2020, and the facility would be fully operational in 2020 (GLE, 2011). Any changes in the 

licensing and construction schedule could cause slight changes to the cost-benefit analysis, but would 

not affect the overall impact conclusion.
Cost-Benefit Analysis

February 2012 7-3 NUREG-1938

In addition to the costs of the proposed action, costs would be incurred for preconstruction 

activities that occur under both the proposed action and no-action alternatives. Because the 

monetary costs associated with preconstruction, construction, operations, and decommissioning 

phases of the proposed GLE Facility are withheld under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390, the 

costs associated with each of these life-cycle stages are discussed in the proprietary appendix 

(Appendix H of this EIS) and summarized in Table H-1.

An additional element of the development of the proposed GLE Facility in the Wilmington area 

would be the tax incentives provided to GLE by the State of North Carolina and New Hanover 

County. It is anticipated that these incentives would amount to up to $26.6 million from the 

State, most of which would be payable over a 12-year period; and up to $10 million from the 

county, payable over a 10-year period. Both incentives are contingent upon GLE reaching 

specified investment and employment levels at the proposed GLE Facility (GLE, 2009b). In the 

cost-benefit calculation, the analysis reduced the total cost of construction of the proposed 

facility by the amount of these tax incentives, and reduced the county and State tax benefits 

from the proposed GLE Facility.

In addition to monetary costs, the proposed action would result in impacts on various resource 

areas, which can also be considered “costs” for the purpose of this analysis. The resource 

areas and corresponding impacts are summarized below and described in more detail in 

Chapter 4 of this EIS. The impact of the proposed action is estimated to be SMALL or SMALL 

to MODERATE for all resource areas.

• Land Use. As described in Section 4.2.1, the Wilmington Site is owned by GE and is zoned 

for heavy industrial use. Preconstruction activities would remove the undeveloped forest.

Construction of the proposed GLE Facility is consistent with current zoning. 

Preconstruction, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE 

Facility would not alter current land use or zoning of the Wilmington Site or surrounding 

properties. Impacts would be SMALL during all phases.

• Historic and Cultural Resources. As described in Section 4.2.2, no construction activities 

would occur in the portion of the Wilmington Site where historic and cultural resources are 

known to exist. While GLE has no plans to alter the site during operations, there is a high 

potential for additional historic and cultural resources to be discovered during routine 

maintenance activities. The Wilmington Site is located within a region containing high 

concentrations of historic and cultural resources. Operational impacts would depend largely 

on procedures employed to protect historic and cultural resources. The NRC proposed a 

license condition that would require GLE to consider the potential effects on historic and 

cultural resources from any ground-disturbing activities in unsurveyed areas of the proposed 

GLE Facility site. GLE also developed Common Procedure CP-24-201 to address the 

unanticipated discovery of human remains or artifacts. Based on this information, the NRC 

determined that the impact level is SMALL to MODERATE given the close proximity of 

significant historic and cultural resources and high potential for additional historic and 

cultural resource materials to be discovered during preconstruction, construction, and facility 

operations. Should decommissioning activities require the disturbance of previously 

undisturbed land, impacts could result. However, the need to clear previously undisturbed 

land is not anticipated, therefore, impacts are expected to be SMALL.
Cost-Benefit Analysis

NUREG-1938 7-4 February 2012

• Visual and Scenic Resources. As described in Section 4.2.3, the proposed GLE Facility 

project area has low scenic quality and would be located adjacent to existing GE industrial 

facilities. Temporary visual impacts would result from increased truck and worker traffic and 

the use of construction cranes during preconstruction and construction activities. The 

proposed project area would be surrounded by a vegetation barrier, so preconstruction and 

construction activities would largely be screened; therefore, the impacts would be SMALL. 

During operations, the two most visible features would be the water tower and a portion of 

the operations building. These features would not represent a major alteration of the 

existing visual environment; therefore, the impacts would be SMALL. Impacts during 

decommissioning would be minimal and of short duration. Temporary impacts would result 

from the use of heavy equipment and increased worker traffic. Once decommissioning is 

completed, most impacts would cease, therefore, the impacts would be SMALL.

• Air Quality. As described in Section 4.2.4, air quality impacts from the proposed GLE 

Facility would be highest during preconstruction activities and during the initial 2 years of 

construction. Criteria pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), greenhouse gases, 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), fugitive dust emissions, and engine exhaust emissions 

would be released during these activities. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) would have a SMALL impact on ambient air 

quality (well below applicable standards). Road construction, land-clearing, and building 

construction activities are projected to cause a temporary increase in the concentrations of 

particulate matter in the ambient air, which would exceed the air quality standard. These 

impacts would be MODERATE, but temporary. The proposed GLE Facility would not 

employ any continuous combustion activities during operation; criteria pollutant and HAPs 

emission rates would be SMALL. Uranium-related and hydrogen fluoride (HF) stack 

emissions would be minimal, and emissions from diesel fuel handling would be very low;

therefore, these impacts would be SMALL. Decontamination activities would mostly occur 

inside buildings, where emission controls would minimize atmospheric releases. Overall, 

decontamination and decommissioning activities at the proposed GLE Facility would be 

comparable to or less than those during construction; therefore, impacts on ambient air 

quality are expected to be SMALL.

• Geology and Soils. As described in Section 4.2.5, approximately 91 hectares (226 acres) of 

land would be disturbed in the Wilmington Site, including approximately 40 hectares 

(100 acres) for the proposed GLE Facility site in the North-Central Site Sector, plus about 

5 hectares (13 acres) for support structures to the east and about 13 hectares (33 acres) 

associated with the North access road. Soil disturbance during facility operations would 

continue at reduced levels, as some construction projects are ongoing, while others would 

be completed. Impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and roofs would increase 

stormwater runoff, increasing the erosion potential. Although terrain changes would be 

minimal, a short-term increase in soil erosion would occur. Foundations, roads, and utility 

lines would likely be undisturbed during decommissioning. Erosion may increase, as 

portions of the site are disturbed by heavy equipment. Impacts on soils and geology during 

construction, operation and decommissioning are expected to be SMALL.

• Surface Water Resources. As described in Section 4.2.6, construction excavation could 

affect surface water quality. Access road construction could lead to erosion and increased 

sediment load, and erosion may increase as portions of the site are disturbed by heavy 

equipment. Leaks or spills of fuel, oil, or grease from construction vehicles and equipment 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

February 2012 7-5 NUREG-1938

could affect nearby surface water, but infiltration into soil would likely eliminate or reduce the 

potential for runoff. Impacts on surface water quality during preconstruction and 

construction are expected to be SMALL due to the nature of the work activities, the site soil 

characteristics and slopes, and the use of best management practices (BMPs). Process 

wastewater effluent would be discharged at an existing outfall during operations, increasing 

the site’s wastewater volume. Treatment of liquid radioactive waste would produce an 

effluent similar to process wastewaters currently produced at the Wilmington Site. No 

consumption of surface water would occur during operations. Stormwater runoff would 

collect in a permitted wet detention basin before regulated discharge, and stormwater runoff

from the UF6 cylinder storage pads would collect in a lined holding pond for radioactivity 

monitoring prior to discharge to the wet detention basin. Oil, grease, metals, and other 

automotive-related contaminants would be present in limited quantities due to vehicular 

traffic; herbicides used in landscaped areas would also be present. Impacts on surface 

water during operations are expected to be SMALL due to planned systems for runoff, 

treatment, and monitoring, as well as experience with existing Wilmington Site facilities. 

Process wastewater flow would cease during decommissioning, but decontamination 

effluent could be generated. Erosion may increase as portions of the facility site are 

disturbed by heavy equipment, but BMPs would reduce these impacts. Stormwater runoff 

would continue to be gathered in a wet detention basin. The impact of decommissioning on 

surface water resources is expected to be SMALL.

• Groundwater Resources. As described in Section 4.2.7, implementation of BMPs during 

preconstruction and construction activities for the proposed GLE Facility would reduce the 

potential for leaks of fuel, oil, and grease to soil and groundwater. The use of portable 

toilets during construction would eliminate sanitary system impacts on groundwater. Tanker 

trucks would provide potable and nonpotable water necessary for construction. The impact 

of preconstruction and construction on groundwater use and quality would be SMALL. 

Groundwater used for facility operations would come from existing groundwater supplies at 

the site and would be offset by the industrial reuse of treated sanitary wastewater effluent as 

process water. A small increase in drawdown is expected, without significant effect on flow 

directions, water quality, or availability for offsite users. Stormwater runoff collected from the 

UF6 cylinder storage pads is expected to have no more than trace amounts of radiological 

contaminants, and the lined holding pond would limit infiltration to groundwater. A portion of 

discharged effluents may potentially infiltrate the Peedee sand aquifer, but treatment and 

monitoring are expected to result in no significant contaminant concentrations in the effluent 

channel. Diesel tanks at the facility would have appropriate leak detection equipment, and a 

groundwater monitoring plan would be developed after the facility is constructed. Impacts 

on groundwater during operations are expected to be SMALL. The impact of 

decommissioning (including removal of structures, utilities, materials, and products) on 

groundwater resources is expected to be SMALL.

• Ecological Resources. As described in Section 4.2.8, impacts on wildlife and vegetation 

from clearing, habitat fragmentation, alteration of topography, changes in drainage patterns, 

and soil compaction associated with proposed GLE Facility preconstruction activities would 

be MODERATE; remaining construction impacts (e.g., decline or mortality of trees near the 

construction boundary, erosion, dust and other particulate matter, invasive plant species, 

habitat fragmentation, noise, and accidental releases of hazardous materials) would be 

SMALL. Impacts on wetlands associated with preconstruction and construction activities 

would be SMALL. Preconstruction and construction activities would result in SMALL 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

NUREG-1938 7-6 February 2012

impacts on aquatic biota. Impacts on any Federally listed threatened, endangered, or other 

special status species from preconstruction and construction activities would be SMALL. 

Impacts on any State-listed species would also be SMALL. Impacts on vegetation during 

operation would be SMALL and would include mowing, cutting, and chemical control of 

vegetation around facilities, utility corridors, and access roads. Impacts on wetlands during 

operation would be SMALL. No environmentally sensitive areas would be affected by 

operations, so impacts would be SMALL. Impacts on wildlife, aquatic biota, and threatened, 

endangered, and other special status species due to operations would also be SMALL. 

Most decontamination activities would occur inside buildings, so large-scale ecological 

impacts would not be likely. Removal of facilities could affect vegetation adjacent to the 

facilities and cause offsite erosion and sedimentation. Decommissioning activities would not 

directly affect wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. Impacts would be similar to 

those occurring during construction. The overall impacts of decommissioning on ecological 

resources are expected to be SMALL.

• Noise. As described in Section 4.2.9, vehicular traffic to and from the proposed GLE Facility 

would generate intermittent noise along local roadways during preconstruction and 

construction. Noise would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington Site. 

Potential noise impacts on the nearest subdivision would be MODERATE, but temporary 

during road construction (preconstruction). Most land clearing and grading activities would 

occur away from the fenceline and far from the nearest residential subdivision and would be 

below day and night ambient sound level in compliance with the New Hanover County Noise 

Ordinance and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines; therefore, noise 

impacts on the surrounding community would be temporary and SMALL. During GLE 

Facility operations, exterior equipment, such as pumps, heat pumps, transformers, and 

cooling towers, would generate noise. Other sources of noise would include commuter 

vehicular and delivery truck traffic. Noise levels from facility operations at the fenceline 

nearest to the Wooden Shoe residential subdivision would be below day and night ambient 

sound levels that correspond to local and EPA guidelines, therefore, impacts would be 

SMALL. Most decontamination activities would occur inside the GLE Facility buildings. If 

decommissioning includes demolition, heavy construction equipment may be required and 

waste/debris would be hauled offsite by truck. Noise from truck traffic on site access roads 

would be comparable to that during construction. Noise impacts from decommissioning are 

expected to be SMALL. 

• Transportation. As described in Section 4.2.10, the number of truck shipments would vary 

over the course of construction. Truck traffic associated with preconstruction and 

construction activities would have a SMALL impact on local traffic. Prior to start-up, an 

average increase of up to 1428 daily trips by construction personnel is anticipated, with the 

heaviest traffic occurring in the immediate vicinity of the site entrance. Impacts on roads in 

the vicinity of the Wilmington Site would be SMALL to MODERATE; regional impacts are 

expected to be SMALL. Operations would overlap with construction for 5–6 years, during 

which time vehicular traffic from commuting operations personnel would be combined with 

traffic from construction workers and shipments. The average number of additional daily 

vehicle trips associated with GLE Facility activities would increase to about 1239 at the 

Wilmington Site during the overlap of construction and operations. Once construction is 

complete, the average number of daily trips associated with operations personnel is 

estimated to be approximately 735. The range of additional daily vehicle trips from facility 

operations would have a MODERATE impact on the local road network and a SMALL 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

February 2012 7-7 NUREG-1938

impact on regional traffic flow. Operations would require the shipment of various radioactive 

materials to and from the facility; impacts on the public and transportation crews from 

radiation exposure, chemical exposure, and vehicle emissions would be SMALL. No 

fatalities are expected from accidents (direct physical trauma) on an annual basis. The 

overall annual transportation accident impacts from the proposed action are expected to be 

SMALL. Initial decommissioning activities during the final year of operations would increase 

the total number of workers, and the number of truck shipments is anticipated to be 

approximately the same as during construction. In this regard, operations and initial 

decommissioning are anticipated to have a similar impact (i.e., MODERATE local and 

SMALL regional). Once operations cease and the workforce drops to 50, local and regional 

transportation impacts would be SMALL. Impacts from radioactive waste shipments would 

be SMALL due to the low levels of external radiation and the low number of shipments. 

Transportation impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL.

• Public and Occupational Health. As described in Section 4.2.11, members of the public 

around the Wilmington Site and the workers who will be involved in the construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility (and employees at existing 

GE facilities on the Wilmington Site) are likely to be exposed to radiation from uranium used 

and stored at the proposed GLE Facility and other existing operations at the Wilmington 

Site. They could also be exposed to certain quantities of radioactive materials (primarily 

UF6) and chemicals (primarily HF) that are likely to be released to the environment during 

normal operations and decommissioning of the proposed facility. All radiological doses and 

chemical exposures received by members of the public and workers due to the proposed 

action would be well below all applicable regulatory limits and standards. In addition, GLE 

would implement an As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) program and use BMPs to 

keep all public and occupational exposures low. As a result, the public and occupational 

health impacts from normal operations would be SMALL. The public and occupational 

health impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL.

• Waste Management. As described in Section 4.2.12, solid nonhazardous wastes generated 

during construction would be similar to wastes from other industrial construction sites and 

transported offsite to an approved local landfill. Construction activities would generate less 

than 2 percent of the waste that the New Hanover County Landfill receives annually from all 

other sources. Hazardous wastes from construction would be packaged and shipped offsite 

to licensed facilities. The quantity of all waste materials generated during preconstruction 

and construction could be managed effectively and would result in SMALL impacts. 

Operations would generate wastewaters that would be treated onsite before discharge, and 

solid wastes that would be treated (onsite or offsite) and shipped offsite for disposal. 

Radioactive process wastewater from facility operations would be collected and treated to 

remove uranium, other metals, and fluoride. The treated effluent would be discharged to the 

process wastewater aeration basin and final process lagoon facility. Should discharges to 

surface waters be necessary, the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

discharge permit would be adequate to cover additional effluent volume. Impacts from 

sanitary wastewater, cooling tower blowdown, and process wastewater would be SMALL. 

Impacts of nonhazardous/nonradioactive waste, hazardous waste, and low-level radioactive 

waste generation would be SMALL due to treatment processes and the availability of 

disposal pathways. Impacts from radiological exposure to depleted UF6 in the cylinder 

storage pads would be SMALL, and impacts from the conversion of depleted UF6 would be 

SMALL. Waste management facilities used during operations would be used during 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

NUREG-1938 7-8 February 2012

decommissioning. With the decrease in workers during decommissioning, sanitary 

wastewater treatment would decline. Materials and equipment eligible for recycling or 

nonhazardous disposal would be sampled or surveyed to ensure that contaminant levels are 

below release limits. Buildings and other structures would be decontaminated and the 

debris shipped offsite for disposal. Radioactive material from decontamination and 

contaminated equipment would be packaged and shipped offsite to a licensed facility. 

Waste management impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL.

• Socioeconomics. As described in Section 4.2.13, workers and their families could relocate 

into the ROI in support of GLE Facility operations (over the 40-year license period), which 

would result in long-term socioeconomic impacts, including increased demand for housing 

resources and public services. However, these impacts are estimated to be SMALL. All 

other socioeconomic effects from preconstruction, construction, and decommissioning would 

be short-term and limited.

• Environmental Justice. As described in Section 4.2.14, potential impacts on minority and 

low-income populations from the proposed GLE Facility would largely consist of 

environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and 

housing impacts). Radiation doses from facility operations are expected to remain below 

regulatory limits. Noise and dust impacts would be temporary and limited to onsite activities. 

Minority and low-income populations residing along site access and the primary commuter 

roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. Increased 

demand for rental housing during construction could disproportionately affect low-income 

populations. However, due to the short duration of construction work and the availability of 

rental housing, impacts on minority and low-income populations would be short-term and 

limited. Therefore, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed 

GLE Facility would have no disproportionately high or adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the 

Wilmington Site.

• Accidents. As described in Section 4.2.15, five accident scenarios were evaluated in this 

EIS as a representative selection of the types of accidents that are possible during operation 

of the proposed GLE Facility. The representative accident scenarios vary in severity from 

intermediate- to high-consequence events and include accidents initiated by natural 

phenomena, operator error, and equipment failure. Two of the accidents involve criticality 

and the other three involve the release of UF6. If the higher-consequence-criticality accident 

were to occur, the consequence for a worker in close proximity would be high (fatality), but 

GLE has committed to various preventive and mitigating measures to significantly reduce 

these consequences. A maximally exposed individual at the Controlled Area Boundary 

would receive a radiation dose of 5.7 millisievert (0.57 rem) total effective dose equivalent, 

which represents a low consequence to an individual (<0.05 sievert [<5 rem]). For the 

accidents involving a UF6 release, worker health consequences would be low for radiological 

exposures (<0.25 sievert [25 rem]). For uranium chemical exposure, worker health 

consequences would be intermediate for one (Node 4200) and high for two (Nodes 4100 

and 4800) of the accidents. Consequences to the collective offsite public would be less than 

one lifetime cancer fatality for all accident scenarios. Through a combination of facility 

design, passive and active engineered controls, and administrative controls, all processes 

would be maintained non-critical, and accidents at the proposed GLE Facility would pose an 

acceptably low risk to workers, the environment, and the public. Therefore, the probability 

weighted consequence (risk) from accidents would be SMALL. No facility accidents would 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

February 2012 7-9 NUREG-1938

occur after the cessation of operations, so there would be no potential for facility accidents 

during decommissioning. 

7.1.2 Benefits of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would result in an annual peak capacity of 6 million separative work units 

(SWU), producing approximately 2.5 million pounds of enriched uranium per year from 2020

through 2051. The benefits to the company will depend on the market price of natural uranium, 

the cost to enrich the uranium, and the market price of enriched uranium.

As discussed in Section 1.3, the level of production expected by the proposed GLE Facility 

would augment the domestic supply of enriched uranium and would assist in meeting the need 

for increased domestic supplies of enriched uranium for national energy security. Under the 

proposed action, enriched uranium production would be undertaken with the latest enrichment 

technology.

The proposed action would also result in small positive socioeconomic impacts in the ROI, as 

described in Section 4.2.13. Table 7-1 presents the estimated employment and tax revenue 

benefits associated with the proposed action. Between 2012 and 2020, average annual direct 

and indirect employment at the site as a result of construction activities would be 1264 jobs; 

State direct income tax revenues would be approximately $0.5 million per year, and State sales 

tax receipts would be approximately $0.4 million per year during construction on average.

2

Start-up activities from 2014 to 2020 are expected to create 200 annual direct jobs in the ROI, 

provide approximately $1.3 million to the State in income tax revenues, and provide 

approximately $0.9 million in sales tax revenues. During the GLE operations phase between

Table 7-1 Socioeconomic Benefits Associated with the Proposed GLE Facility

Project Phase

Average Direct and 

Indirect

Jobs Created

(Full-Time Jobs)

Average Direct 

State Income

Tax Revenues

($ 2008 m)a

Average Direct 

State Sales Tax

Revenues 

($ 2008 m)

Proposed Action

 Construction 1264b0.5 0.4

 Start-up 418 1.3 0.9

 Facility operation 732 2.3 1.7

 Decommissioning 83 0.3 0.2

Preconstruction 119 0.3 0.2

a

Includes individual and corporate income taxes.

b

Chapter 4 lists 3811 preconstruction and construction jobs, which is the peak number of workers; 

1264 represents the average number of construction jobs.

Sources: GLE, 2008; 2009b; 2011.

 

2

All direct income and direct sales tax impact estimates are provided in 2008 dollars.
Cost-Benefit Analysis

NUREG-1938 7-10 February 2012

Start-up activities from 2014 to 2020 are expected to create 200 annual direct jobs in the ROI, 

provide approximately $1.3 million to the State in income tax revenues, and provide 

approximately $0.9 million in sales tax revenues. During the GLE operations phase between 

2020 and 2051, 350 direct jobs would be created annually. The State would benefit from 

approximately $2.3 million in additional income tax, and approximately $1.7 million in sales tax 

receipts. The decommissioning phase of the proposed action is expected to create a total of 

50 annual direct jobs, with annual State income and sales tax revenues of approximately 

$0.3 million and $0.2 million, respectively.

During the preconstruction phase, 119 jobs would be created; State direct income tax revenues 

would be $0.3 million and State sales tax receipts would be $0.2 million.

Between approximately 20 percent and 30 percent of direct State income taxes from the 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would be generated 

as a result of wages and salaries paid to GLE employees moving into the ROI from elsewhere. 

Procurement of equipment, materials, and services, and the spending of wages and salaries 

associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility

would generate less than 1 percent of annual State sales taxes. Corporate income taxes would 

also be collected by the State during the facility operational period, and would total an estimated 

$52.7 million annually.

Although it can be assumed that some portion of State sales and income taxes paid would be 

returned to the ROI under revenue-sharing arrangements between each county and the State

government, the exact amount that would be received by each county cannot be determined.

In addition to sales and income taxes, the proposed GLE Facility would also be subject to 

property taxes levied by New Hanover County, which were $0.45 per $100 of assessed 

valuation in 2009, and by the City of Wilmington, which would levy $0.33 per $100 in addition to 

the County tax (see Section 3.13.4). Assuming that assessed valuation equals total capital 

investment cost of the proposed GLE Facility, then GLE would pay total property taxes of 

approximately $8.7 million annually during the period 2020 to 2051.

Beyond the economic and fiscal benefits of the proposed GLE Facility in the ROI, the proposed 

facility would also create fiscal benefits in the nation as a whole, primarily in the form of Federal 

income taxes on employee wages and salaries. Based on the distribution of employees in each 

salary category at the proposed facility, it is estimated that average annual direct individual 

Federal income taxes during facility construction would be approximately $1.2 million, with 

approximately $6.4 million generated annually during facility operations. Although, as was the 

case with State taxes, some portion of Federal income taxes paid by GLE workers would 

become part of expenditures by various Federal government programs occurring in the ROI, the 

exact amount that would be received by each county cannot be determined.

7.1.3 Summary of the Proposed Action

This analysis shows that although there are economic and fiscal benefits associated with the 

proposed action, these impacts are expected to be SMALL. There would also be costs resulting 

from impacts associated with the proposed action on various resource areas that cannot be 

expressed in dollar terms. For the majority of these resource areas, impacts are estimated to 

be SMALL, or SMALL to MODERATE in magnitude.
Cost-Benefit Analysis

February 2012 7-11 NUREG-1938

7.2 Comparative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Action Relative to No-Action 

Alternative

This section compares the costs and benefits of the proposed action to those of the no-action 

alternative. This comparison focuses on the tradeoffs between the proposed GLE Facility 

compared to not building the facility.

7.2.1 The No-Action Alternative

Although the proposed GLE Facility would not be constructed under the no-action alternative, 

preconstruction activities would still occur (see Section 1.4.1 of this EIS and the summary of 

costs and benefits in Section 7.1 above). These activities are not part of the proposed action 

and would involve the disturbance of land associated with site clearing and the construction of 

ancillary facilities, in addition to other preconstruction activities, meaning that some ecological, 

natural, and socioeconomic impacts would therefore occur. All potential local environmental 

impacts (with the exception of preconstruction activities) related to water use, land use, 

groundwater contamination, ecology, air emissions, human health and occupational safety, 

waste storage and disposal, disposition of depleted uranium, and decommissioning projected to 

occur during the construction, operations, and decommissioning phases would be avoided. 

Similarly, all socioeconomic impacts (with the possible exception of preconstruction activities) 

related to employment, economic activity, population, housing, and community resources during 

the construction, operations, and decommissioning phases would not occur.

Under the no-action alternative, enrichment services would continue to be performed by existing 

domestic and foreign uranium enrichment suppliers. United States Enrichment Corporation’s 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) and Louisiana Energy Services LLC’s (LES) (d/b/a 

URENCO USA) National Enrichment Facility (NEF) would continue to supply enrichment 

services. Both the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) and AREVA’s Eagle Rock Enrichment 

Facility (EREF) also may provide enrichment services in the future.

7.2.2 Methodology

The proposed action and the no-action alternative are first assessed in Section 7.2.3 for 

compliance with various policy and technical objectives. The proposed action and the no-action 

alternative are then analyzed in Section 7.2.4 for impacts and values across the following 

impact areas or attributes:

• construction costs

• operating costs

• depleted uranium disposal costs

• decommissioning costs

While costs and benefits associated with preconstruction activities were discussed in this 

chapter, they are not included in the comparative analysis, as they are likely to be similar for 

both the proposed action and the no-action alternative.
Cost-Benefit Analysis

NUREG-1938 7-12 February 2012

The other non-monetary cost areas described in Section 7.1.1 are not included in this 

comparison because the effect of these impacts is assumed to be either: (1) approximately 

equal for the proposed action and the no-action alternative as defined above or (2) too small of 

a differential impact to materially affect the comparative cost-benefit analysis. The NRC 

assessed impacts and values for these criteria using either: (1) estimated dollars or (2) ordinal 

ratings based on expert judgment where quantification is regarded as inappropriate or 

unnecessary. This approach is consistent with NRC guidance and is well suited to the current 

analysis.

This analysis does not attempt to estimate the economic effects of a cheaper source of enriched 

uranium for nuclear power plants, or to estimate the impact of lower enriched uranium prices on 

the ratio of nuclear and non-nuclear power in the domestic economy, on overall power demand 

and price, and on the potential economic benefits to consumers and suppliers.

7.2.3 Compliance with Policy and Technical Objectives

The following policy and technical objectives are relevant to the choice of an enrichment 

technology:

• the need for enriched uranium to fulfill domestic electricity requirements

• the need for domestic supplies of enriched uranium for national energy security

• the need for upgraded uranium enrichment technology in the United States

The no-action alternative would not contribute to fulfilling these objectives. The following 

sections address how the proposed action would meet each of these objectives.

7.2.3.1 Meeting Future Demand

As indicated in Section 1.3.1, the demand for enriched uranium in the United States is currently 

being met from two categories of sources:

• domestic production of enriched uranium

• foreign sources

The current 5-year average U.S. demand for enriched uranium is approximately 14 million SWU

per year (EIA, 2011). This demand could reach 15 million to 16 million SWU by 2025, 

depending on the rate of nuclear generation growth in the United States (EIA, 2003). Currently, 

as much as 84 percent of the U.S. demand is supplied by foreign sources. Under the proposed 

action, construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility would contribute to reliable 

domestic supply of enriched uranium to meet the increased demand for nuclear fuel from the 

nuclear power industry. This benefit could potentially be SMALL to MODERATE.

7.2.3.2 National Energy Security

Foreign sources currently supply approximately 84 percent of the U.S. demand for enriched 

uranium, and most of the domestic production of enriched uranium takes place at a single 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 

February 2012 7-13 NUREG-1938 

facility – the Paducah GDP. The heavy dependence on foreign sources and the lack of 

diversification of domestic sources of enriched uranium represent a potential reliability risk for 

the domestic nuclear energy industry, which supplies 20 percent of national energy 

requirements. Interagency discussions led by the National Security Council have concluded 

that the United States should maintain a viable and competitive domestic uranium enrichment 

industry for the foreseeable future (DOE, 2002). 

In a letter to NRC regarding general policy issues raised by the LES license application, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) stated that uranium enrichment is a critical step in the 

production of nuclear fuel and noted the decline in domestic enrichment capacity (DOE, 2002). 

In its 2002 letter, DOE also referenced comments made by the U.S. Department of State 

indicating that ‘‘Maintaining a reliable and economical U.S. uranium enrichment industry is an 

important U.S. energy security objective’’ (DOE, 2002). DOE reaffirmed this position during 

congressional hearings in June 2010, stating that it (DOE) has made available $4 billion in loan 

guarantees for the deployment of advanced enrichment technology in the United States in order 

to increase the domestic uranium enrichment market (DOE, 2010).

In 2007, DOE projected that all gaseous diffusion enrichment operations in the United States 

would cease in 2012 due to the higher cost of aging facilities (DOE, 2007). Furthermore, the 

Megatons-to-Megawatts Program is scheduled to expire by 2013 (DOE, 2010). As noted in 

Section 1.3.1, these two sources meet more than half (53 percent) of the current U.S. demand 

for low-enriched uranium (LEU). In March 2011, USEC signed an agreement with a Russian 

corporation, JSC “Techsnabexport” (TENEX), for LEU to be supplied to USEC from Russian 

commercial enrichment activities (USEC, 2011a). Under the terms of the new agreement, the 

supply of LEU to USEC will begin in 2013, with the expectation that by 2015, the level of 

supplied LEU will be approximately one-half the current level supplied under the Megatons-toMegawatts Program. The level of supplied LEU could eventually meet that supplied under the 

Megatons-to-Megawatts Program under options in the agreement (USEC, 2011a, 2011b). 

However, new domestic sources of enriched uranium are still needed to reliably provide fuel to 

both existing and future nuclear power plants in the United States. Therefore, the projected 

6 million SWU production capacity resulting from the proposed action could be important for 

increasing the nation’s energy security. This benefit could potentially be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

7.2.3.3 Technology Upgrade 

The proposed action represents the implementation of a new uranium enrichment technology. 

Gaseous diffusion technology (in use at Paducah GDP) and gas centrifuge technology (in use at 

NEF, and planned for ACP and EREF) are the two enrichment technologies currently in 

commercial use in the United States. Gas centrifuge technology is known to be more efficient 

and substantially less energy-intensive than gaseous diffusion technology. The GLE laserbased technology that would be deployed at the proposed GLE Facility is newer than gas 

centrifuge technology, and GE-Hitachi expects it to offer certain advantages over both the 

gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuge processes (GLE, 2008). This could potentially result in a 

SMALL to MODERATE beneficial impacts. The proposed action therefore contributes to 

fulfilling the objective of upgraded domestic uranium enrichment technology, while the no-action 

alternative does not. 
Cost-Benefit Analysis

NUREG-1938 7-14 February 2012

7.2.4 Impacts and Value Analysis

A comparison of the impacts and values of the proposed action and the no-action alternative

would include the following cost and categories:

• construction costs

• operating costs

• depleted uranium disposal costs

• decommissioning costs

As the monetary costs associated with preconstruction, construction, operations, and 

decommissioning phases of the proposed GLE Facility are proprietary and withheld under the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.390, the costs associated with each of these life-cycle stages are 

discussed in a proprietary appendix (Appendix H) and summarized in Table H-1.

7.2.5 Summary Regarding the Proposed Action versus the No-Action Alternative

Based on consideration of local and national socioeconomic benefits, the costs of construction,

operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility on a range of environmental 

resources, and on public and occupational health, the proposed action is preferable to the noaction alternative in the following respects:

• The proposed action would contribute to meeting future demand from domestic sources and 

increase national energy security. It would also introduce a newer technology with potential 

to have smaller resource requirements and environmental impacts in the United States to 

fulfill these needs.

• The proposed action would have positive impacts in the ROI on employment, income, and 

tax revenues during the construction, operations, and decommissioning phases (as 

discussed in Sections 4.2.13 and 4.2.17.12), and on State and Federal income tax 

revenues.

7.3 Overall Cost-Benefit Conclusions

While there are national energy security and fiscal benefits associated with the proposed action, 

and local socioeconomic benefits in the ROI, there are also direct costs associated with the 

construction and operation phases of the proposed action, as well as impacts associated with 

the proposed action on various resource areas. However, these impacts are estimated to be 

SMALL to MODERATE in magnitude and small in comparison to the local and national benefits 

of the proposed action.

Although the proposed action and the no-action alternative would include the continuation of 

uranium enrichment using gaseous diffusion, the development of new facilities based on gas 

centrifuge technology, and imported enriched uranium supplies, the proposed action would 

better satisfy the objectives to meet future demand for enriched uranium and improve national 

energy security because it provides a new and reliable domestic source for enriched uranium. It 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 

February 2012 7-15 NUREG-1938 

is therefore apparent that in comparison to the no-action alternative, the proposed action would 

be associated with net positive benefits. 

7.4 References 

(DOE, 2002) U.S. Department of Energy. Letter from W.J. Magwood, IV (U.S. Department of 

Energy) to M.J. Virgilio (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated July 25. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML022350130. 

(DOE, 2007) U.S. Department of Energy. “Uranium Enrichment Decontamination & 

Decommissioning Fund: 2007 Report to Congress.” ADAMS Accession No. ML103490664. 

(DOE, 2010) U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. “Highly 

Enriched Uranium Disposition.” <http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/ 

materialremovaldisposition/highlyenricheduraniumdisposition> (Accessed January 28, 2010). 

 

(EIA, 2003) Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. “U.S. Nuclear Fuel 

Cycle Projections 2000-2025.” January. ADAMS Accession No. ML101790059. 

(EIA, 2011) Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. “Uranium 

Marketing Annual Report.” May. <http://www.eia.gov/FTPROOT/nuclear/umar2010.pdf> 

(Accessed February 6, 2012). 

(GLE, 2008) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the GLE 

Commercial Facility, Revision 0.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573. 

(GLE, 2009a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

LLC Commercial Facility, Wilmington, North Carolina: License Application April 2009.” April 30. 

ADAMS Accession No. ML091871003.

 

(GLE, 2009b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from A. Kennedy (GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC) to A. Kock (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

November 5. “Subject: GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment Response to Request for 

Additional Information Related to NRC Review of GLE Environmental Report.” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093200137. 

(GLE, 2011) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. Letter from J. Olivier (GE-Hitachi Global 

Laser Enrichment LLC) to J. Davis (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated January 17. 

“Subject: Response to Questions from Telecon Held on January 5, 2011 Regarding the Global 

Laser Enrichment Environmental Report.” ADAMS Accession No. ML110460567. 

(USEC, 2011a) USEC, Inc. News Release: “USEC’s Supply Agreement with TENEX Takes 

Effect.” December 21. <http://www.usec.com/news/usec%E2%80%99s-supply-agreementtenex-takes-effect> (Accessed January 31, 2012). 

(USEC, 2011b) USEC, Inc. News Release: “Megatons to Megawatts Eliminates Material for 

17,000 Nuclear Warheads.” August 24. <http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawattseliminates-material-17000-nuclear-warheads> (Accessed January 31, 2012). 

February 2012 8-1 NUREG-1938

8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

On January 30, 2009, General Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) 

submitted an environmental report (GLE, 2008) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) in anticipation of its application for a license to construct, operate, and decommission the 

GLE Commercial Facility near Wilmington, North Carolina. If licensed, the proposed GLE 

Facility would enrich uranium for use in commercial nuclear fuel for power reactors. Feed 

material would be comprised of non-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6). GLE would employ a 

laser-based enrichment process to enrich uranium to up to 8 percent uranium-235 by weight 

with an initial planned maximum target production of 6 million separative work units (SWU) per 

year. The proposed GLE Facility would be licensed in accordance with the provisions of the 

Atomic Energy Act. Specifically, an NRC license under Title 10, "Energy," of the U.S. Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 30, 40, and 70 would be required to authorize GLE to 

possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material at the 

proposed GLE Facility.

GLE could begin preconstruction activities prior to the licensing decision in 2012. If the license 

application is approved, facility construction would begin in 2012 and continue for 7–8 years. 

GLE anticipates commencing initial production in 2014 and reaching full production by 2020. 

Prior to license expiration in 2052, GLE would decide to seek to renew its license to continue 

operating the facility, or plan for the decontamination and decommissioning of the facility per the 

applicable licensing conditions and NRC regulations.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended 

(42 USC 4321 et seq.), directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for 

major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information about the following:

• the environmental impacts of the proposed action;

• any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

implemented;

• alternatives to the proposed action;

• the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity; and

• any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the 

proposed action is implemented.

NRC’s regulations under 10 CFR Part 51 implement the requirements of the NEPA, as 

amended (Public Law 91-190). In particular, 10 CFR 51.20 (b)(10) states that issuance of a 

license for a uranium enrichment facility requires the NRC to prepare an EIS.

GLE submitted a license application for the proposed GLE Facility on June 26, 2009. GLE 

proposes to co-locate the facility on the existing General Electric Company (GE)/Global Nuclear 

Fuel-Americas (GNF-A) site near Wilmington, North Carolina. On May 8, 2009, the NRC 

granted an exemption authorizing GLE to conduct preconstruction activities on the Wilmington 
Summary of Environmental Consequences

NUREG-1938 8-2 February 2012

Site. Subsequently, GLE submitted Supplement 1 to its Environmental Report on July 13, 2009

(GLE, 2009a), which distinguishes between the environmental impacts of preconstruction 

activities and those of NRC-licensed construction activities, which cannot be undertaken unless 

a license is granted. On November 13, 2009, GLE submitted Supplement 2 to its Environmental 

Report (GLE, 2009b), which provides information describing the environmental impacts 

associated with revising the location of the Wilmington Site entrance and roadway to the 

proposed GLE site.

Upon acceptance of the Environmental Report, the NRC began the environmental review 

process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing, on April 9, 2009, a Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (Volume 74, page 45075, of the Federal Register 

[74 FR 16237]). The NRC held two public scoping meetings on May 19, 2009. The NRC also 

met with local officials and conducted a site visit and technical meetings with GLE on 

May 18–20, 2009. Due to a delay in submission of the license application, the NRC extended 

the public scoping comment period from June 8, 2009, to August 31, 2009 (74 FR 36781).

The NRC reviewed the GLE Environmental Report and supplemental documentation, and 

consulted with other Federal, State, and local agencies, and Tribal organizations. The NRC 

also considered the public comments received during the scoping process for preparation of this 

EIS; these comments are provided in Appendix A. The NRC issued a Scoping Summary Report 

in November 2009.

Further comments from the public and government agencies were received after the NRC

issued a Draft EIS for public review and comment on June 25, 2010, and announced its 

availability in the Federal Register (75 FR 36447) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.73, 51.74, 

and 51.117. The public comment period ended on August 9, 2010. During the public comment 

period, the NRC held two public meetings – in Wilmington, North Carolina, on July 22, 2010 –

where oral comments from members of the public were received on the Draft EIS. In addition to 

comments received at the public meetings, the NRC received written comments by postal mail 

and email during the public comment period. The public meeting transcripts and the written 

comments are part of the public record for the proposed GLE Facility. These comments were 

considered by the NRC in preparing this EIS. Comment summaries and the NRC’s responses 

are contained in Appendix J of this EIS.

Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the NRC’s analyses, which consider and weigh the 

environmental effects of the proposed action; (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding 

adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and 

(4) the NRC’s recommendation regarding the proposed action based on its environmental 

review.

The NRC defines three significance levels for rating impacts on a resource (10 CFR Part 51, 

Subpart A, Appendix B):

• SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

• MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource.
Summary of Environmental Consequences

February 2012 8-3 NUREG-1938

• LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource.

Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in 

Chapters 4 and 5 of this EIS. During its environmental review, the NRC considered planned 

activities and actions that GLE indicates it and others would likely take should GLE receive a 

license. In addition, GLE provided estimates of the environmental impacts resulting from 

construction, operation, or decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility at the Wilmington 

Site.

In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of 

“construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority (10 CFR 51.4). In 

September 2011, the Commission amended the regulations by revising the provisions 

applicable to the licensing and approval processes for byproduct, source, and special nuclear 

materials licenses, and irradiators (see 76 FR 56951). The changes clarified the definitions of 

‘‘construction’’ and ‘‘commencement of construction’’ with respect to materials licensing actions 

conducted under the NRC’s regulations. Many of the activities required to build a proposed 

nuclear facility are not part of the NRC action to license the facility. Activities associated with 

construction of a facility that are not within the purview of the NRC action are grouped under the 

term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing and grading, excavating, 

erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other associated activities. Although 

preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, they support or are requisite to the 

NRC action. In addition, certain preconstruction activities require permits from other Federal, 

State, and local agencies.

8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information about any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of the NRC action that 

cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of mitigation are available.

The environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the no-action alternative 

are described in detail for each resource area in Chapter 4. The impacts of the proposed 

action, no-action alternative, and gas centrifuge technology alternative are summarized and 

compared in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.4. Brief summaries of the impacts are also provided in 

Chapter 7 under the Cost-Benefit Analysis and in the Executive Summary. Chapter 4 discusses 

the mitigation measures that GLE proposed in its Environmental Report to mitigate the potential 

impacts from the proposed action and the measures that NRC recommends to further reduce 

the potential impacts on the affected environment. These two sets of mitigation measures are 

summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, respectively. The cumulative impacts on the environment 

that would result from the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such action, are 

described in Section 4.3.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the environmental impacts that would result if the proposed action 

were to be implemented as proposed by GLE would generally be SMALL, and would, in most 

cases, be mitigated by the methods proposed by GLE. The only impacts that could potentially 

be classified as MODERATE would be in the following resource areas: historic and cultural 
Summary of Environmental Consequences

NUREG-1938 8-4 February 2012

resources, ecological resources, and transportation. In addition, air quality and noise impacts 

could be MODERATE on a temporary basis during preconstruction and construction activities.

The impact level on historic and cultural resources has been classified as SMALL to 

MODERATE, given the close proximity of significant resources and the possibility of an 

unanticipated discovery. Therefore, the applicant developed GLE Common 

Procedure CP-24-201, Unexpected Discoveries of Artifacts or Human Remains. The NRC has 

determined that there would be no adverse effect to historic and cultural resources from the 

proposed action. The staff's determination is based on the license containing the proposed 

license condition (see Section 4.2.2.2). The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) concurred with the NRC’s determination (NCDCR, 2011).

The impact level on ecological resources has been classified as SMALL to MODERATE, mainly 

due to clearing of land that would occur during preconstruction activities.

The transportation impacts on local roads in the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington Site could 

be SMALL to MODERATE due to increases in traffic density during certain phases of the 

proposed action (e.g., during construction and when the construction and operations overlap 

from 2014 to 2018) and due to other reasonably foreseeable actions (e.g., the development of a 

retirement community to the south of the Wilmington Site). The regional transportation impacts 

would be classified as SMALL.

The ground-disturbing activities during preconstruction and construction activities could result in 

increased fugitive dust emissions and cause MODERATE air quality impacts. Similarly, noise 

generated by ground-clearing and construction equipment could raise the noise levels to a 

range considered to be MODERATE impact. However, both the air quality and noise impacts 

would be MODERATE and temporary. The majority of the time, these impacts would be 

considered to be SMALL.

8.2 Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) definition and the definition 

provided in Section 5.8 of NUREG-1748 (NRC, 2003), this EIS defines short-term uses and 

long-term productivity as follows:

• Short-term uses generally affect the present quality of life for the public (i.e., the 40-year 

license period for the proposed GLE Facility).

• Long-term productivity affects the quality of life for future generations on the basis of 

environmental sustainability (i.e., the period after license termination for the proposed GLE 

Facility).

The construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed GLE Facility would 

necessitate short-term commitments of resources and would permanently commit certain other 

resources (such as energy and water). The short-term use of resources would result in 

potential long-term socioeconomic benefits to the local area and the region. The short-term 

commitments of resources would include the use of materials required to construct new 
Summary of Environmental Consequences

February 2012 8-5 NUREG-1938

buildings, the new operations support facilities, transportation, and other disposal resources and 

materials for proposed GLE Facility operations.

Workers, the public, and the environment would be exposed to increased amounts of hazardous 

and radioactive materials over the short term from operations of the proposed GLE Facility and 

the associated materials, including process emissions and the handling of waste and depleted 

uranium hexafluoride (UF6) cylinders. Construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility 

would require a long-term commitment of terrestrial resources, such as land, water, and energy. 

Short-term impacts would be minimized by the application of proper mitigation measures and 

resource management. Upon the closure of the proposed GLE Facility, GLE would 

decontaminate and decommission the buildings and equipment and restore them for 

unrestricted use. This work would make the site available for other uses. The use of the site 

and the buildings for other industrial purposes would constitute a long-term benefit to the 

community and would increase long-term productivity. Continued employment, expenditures, 

and tax revenues generated during the implementation of the proposed action would directly 

benefit the local, regional, and state economies and would be considered a long-term benefit.

8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Irreversible commitment of resources refers to resources that are destroyed and cannot be 

restored, whereas an irretrievable commitment of resources refers to material resources that 

once used cannot be recycled or restored for other uses by practical means (NRC, 2003). 

The implementation of the proposed action as described in Section 2.1 would include the 

commitment of land, water, energy, raw materials, and other natural and manmade resources. 

About 40 hectares (100 acres) on the 656-hectare (1621-acre) site would be used for the 

construction and operation of the proposed GLE Facility. The applicant stated in its ER that 

it plans to decontaminate and decommission the proposed facility for unrestricted use

(GLE, 2008). Given the Wilmington Site’s current land use zoning, the 40-hectare (100-acre) 

parcel of land would likely remain industrial beyond license termination. Water required during 

the entire proposed action, including preconstruction and construction, operation, and 

decontamination and decommissioning, would be obtained from the existing wells at the 

Wilmington Site and would be replenished through natural mechanisms. The wastewaters that 

are generated would be treated to meet applicable standards and would be released to local 

receiving surface waters. The energy used in the form of electricity, natural gas, and diesel fuel 

would be supplied through existing systems in the Wilmington area. The specific types of 

construction materials and the quantities of energy and materials used cannot be determined 

with certainty until the final facility design is completed. However, it is not expected that the 

quantities required would put any strains on the availability of these resources.

Even though the land on the Wilmington Site used to construct the proposed GLE Facility would 

be returned to other productive uses after the facility is decommissioned, there would be some 

irreversible commitment of land at some offsite locations used to dispose of solid wastes 

generated at the proposed GLE Facility. In addition, wastes generated during the conversion of 

depleted UF6 produced at the proposed GLE Facility and the depleted uranium oxide 

conversion product from the depleted UF6 conversion would be disposed of at an offsite location 

(see Section 2.1.3). The land used for the disposal of these materials would also represent an 

irreversible commitment of land. No solid wastes or depleted uranium oxide conversion product 

originating from the proposed GLE Facility would be disposed of at the Wilmington Site.
Summary of Environmental Consequences 

NUREG-1938 8-6 February 2012 

When the facility is decommissioned, some of the materials used in its construction, such as 

concrete, steel, other metals, plastics, and other materials, would be recycled and reused. 

Other materials would be disposed of in a licensed and approved offsite location. The amount 

of land used to dispose of these materials would also be an irretrievable land resource. 

During the operation of the proposed GLE Facility, natural UF6 would be used as the feed 

material. This would require the mining of uranium and several other operational steps in the 

uranium fuel cycle that result in the production of UF6. The use of uranium minerals would be 

an irretrievable resource commitment. There would also be other irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources during uranium fuel cycle operations that result in the production of 

natural UF6 feed. As shown in Figure 1-3, there are several fuel cycle operations leading up to 

the production of the natural UF6 that feeds enrichment operations. These steps include the 

mining and processing of uranium ore, which results in the production of natural triuranium 

octaoxide (U3O8), and conversion of natural U3O8 to UF6. All the materials and energy used in 

the construction and operation of the facilities used to mine and process the uranium ore, and 

convert natural U3O8 to natural UF6, would constitute irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources. 

8.4 References 

(GLE, 2008) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report for the 

GLE Commercial Facility, Revision 0.” December. ADAMS Accession No. ML090910573. 

(GLE, 2009a) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Environmental Report Supplement 1 

– Early Construction.” July. ADAMS Accession No. ML092100528. 

(GLE, 2009b) GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC. “Global Laser Enrichment 

Environmental Report Supplement 2.” November. ADAMS Accession No. ML093240935. 

(NRC, 2003) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” NUREG-1748. August. 

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1748/sr1748.pdf> (Accessed 

January 29, 2010). 

(NCDCR, 2011) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation 

Office. Letter from R. Gledhill-Earley (State Historic Preservation Office) to K. Hsueh 

(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated April 5. “Re: General Electric-Hitachi LaserBased Uranium Enrichment Facility near Wilmington, Docket 70-7016, New Hanover County, 

ER 07-2157.” ADAMS Accession No. ML110950680. 
February 2012 9-1 NUREG-1938

9 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

The following sections list the agencies and persons consulted for information and data for use 

in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):

9.1 Federal Agencies

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service

Andrew Herndon, Biologist

Protected Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Regulatory Office, Wilmington, North Carolina

Keith Harris, Chief

Jennifer Frye, Project Manager

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina

Howard Hall, Fish and Wildlife Biologist

John Hannon, Fish and Wildlife Biologist

9.2 Indian Tribes and Organizations

Coharie Indian Tribe, Clinton, North Carolina

Gene Faircloth, Chief

Elizabeth Maynor, Executive Director

Cumberland County Association for Indian People, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Roy Maynor, Chairman

Gladys Hunt, Executive Director

Eastern Band of Cherokee, Cherokee, North Carolina

Leon Jones, Principal Chief

Guilford Native American Association, Greensboro, North Carolina

Rick Oxendine, Executive Director

Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe, Hollister, North Carolina

Ruth Ealing, Chairperson

Archie Lynch, Tribal Administrator

Sappony, Roxboro, North Carolina

Dante Desiderio, Executive Director

Lumbee Indian Tribe, Pembroke, North Carolina

Milton Hunt, Chairman

Darlene Jacobs, Tribal Administrator

Meherrin Indian Tribe, Winton, North Carolina

Denyce Hall, Executive Director
Agencies and Persons Consulted

NUREG-1938 9-2 February 2012

Metrolina Native American Association, Charlotte, North Carolina

Letha Strickland, Executive Director

Triangle Native American Society, Raleigh, North Carolina

Brett Locklear, President

Waccamaw Siouan Indian Tribe, Bolton, North Carolina

Sabrina Jacobs, Executive Director

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian, Cherokee, North Carolina

Russ Townsend, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Catawba Indian Tribe, Catawba, South Carolina

Wenonah Haire, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

Lisa C. Stopp, Tribal NAGPRA Point of Contact

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

Tuscarora Nation, Lewiston, New York

Leo Henry, Chief 

9.3 State Agencies

North Carolina Department of Administration, State Environmental Review Clearinghouse, 

Raleigh, North Carolina

Valeria McMillan, Director

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina

Melba McGee, Environmental Review Coordinator

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality

Dean Carroll, Permit Coordinator

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal 

Management, Morehead City, North Carolina

Steven Everhart, District Manager

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental 

Health, Radiation Protection Section, Emergency Response and Environmental Branch, 

Raleigh, North Carolina

Dale Dusenberry, Manager

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Inactive 

Hazardous Sites

Ginny Henderson, Hydrogeological Technician
Agencies and Persons Consulted

February 2012 9-3 NUREG-1938

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 

Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program, Raleigh, North Carolina

Hannah Stallings, SEPA Coordinator

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Surface Water 

Protection

Rhonda Hall, Environmental Engineer

Linda Willis, Environmental Engineer

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste 

Management, Eastern Region Compliance Branch

Ted Cashion, Supervisor

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste 

Management, Solid Waste Section

Dennis Shackelford, Central District Supervisor

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste 

Management, Superfund Section

S. Franch, Environmental Chemist

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, One-Stop/Express 

Permitting

Cameron Weaver, Coordinator

North Carolina Department of Labor

Kevin O’Barr, Standards Supervisor

Jennifer Chrisohon, Deputy General Counsel

Ric Schumann, Industrial Hygienist

Wanda Lagoe, Bureau Chief, Education, Training, and Technical Assistance

Lafayette Atkinson, District 10 Supervisor, Compliance Bureau

North Carolina Division of Historical Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Presentation Office, Raleigh, 

North Carolina

Renee Gledhill-Early, Environmental Review Coordinator

Dolores Hall, Deputy State Archaeologist

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina

Molly Ellwood, Southeastern Permit Coordinator

9.4 Local Agencies

Cape Fear River Watch, Wilmington, North Carolina

Doug Springer, Executive Director/Riverkeeper
Agencies and Persons Consulted

NUREG-1938 9-4 February 2012

New Hanover County, Wilmington, North Carolina

David F. Weaver, Assistant County Manager

New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservation District, Wilmington, North Carolina

Jennifer Braswell, Director, Community Conservation

New Hanover County Planning Department, Wilmington, North Carolina

Sam Burges, Principal Development Planner

Wanda B. Coston, Community Development Planner

Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner

Chris B. O’Keefe, Planning Director

Shawn Ralston, Senior Environmental Planner

New Hanover County Engineering Department, Wilmington, North Carolina

James P. Iannucci, Chief Project Engineer

Dennis Ihnat, Director

Beth E. Wetherill, Erosion Control Engineer
February 2012 10-1 NUREG-1938

10 LIST OF PREPARERS

10.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Contributors

Jennifer A. Davis

B.A., Historic Preservation and Classical Civilization (Archaeology), Mary Washington 

College, 1996

Years of Relevant Experience: 9

A. Christianne Ridge

B.A., Physics, Drew University, 1996

M.S., Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 1999

Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, University of California-Berkeley, 2004

Years of Relevant Experience: 7

Behram Shroff

M.C.P., City/Regional Planning, Georgia Tech, 1973

M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of California-Berkeley, 1966

Years of Relevant Experience: 2

Haimanot Yilma

B.S., Chemical Engineering, University of Maryland-College Park, 1998

M.B.A., University of Maryland at College Park, 2010

Years of Relevant Experience: 2

10.2 Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) Contributors

Tim Allison: Socioeconomics, environmental justice, cost-benefit analysis

B.A., Economics and Geography, Portsmouth Polytechnic, (U.K.), 1982

M.A., Geography, West Virginia University, 1987

M.S., Mineral and Energy Resource Economics, West Virginia University, 1990

Years of Relevant Experience: 26

Halil Avci: Argonne project team lead

B.S., Nuclear Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1973

M.S., Nuclear Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975

Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1978

Years of Relevant Experience: 25

Bruce Biwer: Transportation, waste management, accidents

B.A., Chemistry, St. Anselm College, 1980

M.S., Chemistry, Princeton University, 1983 

Ph.D., Chemistry, Princeton University, 1985

Years of Relevant Experience: 20
List of Preparers

NUREG-1938 10-2 February 2012

Young-Soo Chang: Air quality, noise

B.S., Chemical Engineering, Seoul National University, Korea, 1977

M.S., Chemical & Materials Engineering, University of Iowa, 1984

Ph.D., Chemical & Materials Engineering, University of Iowa, 1987

Years of Relevant Experience: 22

Victor Comello: Technical editing

B.S., Physics, DePaul University, 1962

M.S., Physics, University of Notre Dame, 1970

Years of Relevant Experience: 34

Karl Fischer: Argonne deputy team lead, document manager

B.S.E., Nuclear Engineering, University of Michigan, 1995

M.Eng., Radiological Health Engineering, University of Michigan, 1996

Years of Relevant Experience: 13

Elizabeth Hocking: Environmental regulations/permits

B.A., Psychology and English, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 1971

M.A., Guidance and Counseling, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, 1973

J.D., Washington College of Law, American University, 1991

Years of Relevant Experience: 20

Pat Hollopeter: Technical editing

B.A., Religion, West Virginia Wesleyan College, 1970

M.A., Philosophy, University of Chicago, 1979

Years of Relevant Experience: 26

Sunita Kamboj: Health physics, decommissioning, accidents

B.Sc., Science, Rajasthan University, 1972

M.Sc., Physics, Rajasthan University, 1974

M.S., Health Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1990

Ph.D., Health Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1994

Years of Relevant Experience: 17

Dan O’Rourke: Cultural resources, land use

B.A., History, Michigan State University, 1991

M.S., Industrial Archaeology, Michigan Technological University, 1997

Years of Relevant Experience: 18

Kurt Picel: Chemical risks and accidents, and cumulative impacts

B.S., Chemistry, Western Michigan University, 1976

M.S., Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, 1979

Ph.D., Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, 1985

Years of Relevant Experience: 25
List of Preparers

February 2012 10-3 NUREG-1938

John Quinn: Hydrology, geology and soils

B.S., Geosciences, Purdue University, 1987

B.S.E., Geo-Engineering, Purdue University, 1988

M.S., Hydrogeology, University of Minnesota, 1992

Ph.D., Hydrogeology, University of Minnesota, 2009

Years of Relevant Experience: 20

Carolyn Steele: Technical editing

B.A. English, B.A. Rhetoric

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Years of Relevant Experience: 5

William Vinikour: Ecology

B.S., Biology, Northern Illinois University-DeKalb, 1971

M.S., Biology with Environmental Emphasis, Northern Illinois University-DeKalb, 1977

Years of Relevant Experience: 35

Suzanne Williams: Lead technical editor

B.S., Communication Studies w/concentration in English,

Northwestern University, 1980

Years of Relevant Experience: 26

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(12-2010)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1938, Vol. 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

February

YEAR

2012

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment, LLC

Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina

Final Report

5. AUTHOR(S) 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 Waste Management and Environmental Protection

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, 

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

On January 30, 2009, General Electric (GE)-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment, LLC (GLE) submitted an environmental report to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to construct and operate the GLE Global Laser Enrichment

Facility. GLE submitted the remainder of the license application on June 26, 2009. The proposed GLE Facility would be located

in the North-Central Sector of the existing GE property near Wilmington, North Carolina. The proposed GLE Facility, if licensed,

would enrich uranium for use in manufacturing nuclear fuel for commercial power reactors. Feed material for the proposed GLE

Facility would be comprised of non-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6). GLE would employ a laser-based enrichment process

to enrich uranium up to 8 percent uranium-235 by weight, with an initial planned maximum target production of 6 million

separative work units (SWU) per year. The proposed GLE Facility would be licensed in accordance with the provisions of the

Atomic Energy Act. Specifically, an NRC license under Title 10, "Energy," of the U.S. Code of Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 30,

40, and 70 would be required to authorize GLE to possess and use special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct

material at the proposed GLE Facility site.

This environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended, and the NRC's regulations for implementing the Act (10 CFR Part 51). This EIS evaluates the potential environmental

impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives and responds to public comments.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

EIS

GE-Hitachi

GLE

Proposed GLE Facility

NUREG-1938

National Environmental Policy Act

Environmental Impact Statement

Proposed GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment, LLC Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (12-2010)

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Same as above.


UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG-1938, Vol. 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed GE-Hitachi Global Laser 

Enrichment, LLC Facility in Wilmington, North Carolina