NUREG-1437

Supplement 8

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 8

Regarding 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

Final Report |

Manuscript Completed: November 2002 |

Date Published: December 2002

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs |

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they neither destabilize nor noticeably

alter any important attribute of the resource.

December 2002 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has considered the environmental impacts of |

renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic |

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. The GEIS (and its Addendum 1)

identifies 92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental

impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site

characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These

plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS.

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to |

an application submitted to the NRC by Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) to renew the OLs for

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) up to an additional 20 years under 10 CFR |

Part 54. This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the |

environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the

proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. 

It also includes the staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action. |

Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither Duke nor the

staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any of these issues that apply

to McGuire. In addition, the staff determined that information provided during the environmental

review did not call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that the impacts of renewing the McGuire OLs will not be greater than impacts identified for

these issues in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the GEIS conclusion is that the impact is of

SMALL(a) significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and

high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned single significance levels).

Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to McGuire are addressed in this SEIS. 

For each applicable issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential

environmental impacts of renewal of the OLs is SMALL. The staff also concludes that

additional mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. 

The staff determined that information provided during the environmental review did not identify

any new issue that has a significant environmental impact.

The NRC staff’s recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse |

environmental impacts of license renewal for McGuire are not so great that preserving the

option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental
Abstract

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 iv December 2002 |

Report submitted by Duke; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the

| staff’s own independent review, and (5) the staff’s consideration of public comments.
December 2002 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

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

1.1 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

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

1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction

with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.2 Reactor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent

Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . 2-10

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . 2-11

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.1.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 vi December 2002 |

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.2.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.2.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.2.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.2.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

2.2.8.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

2.2.8.2 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

2.2.8.5 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

2.2.8.6 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the McGuire Site . . . 2-41

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4.1.3 Heat Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

4.1.4 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
Contents

December 2002 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

4.2 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License

Renewal Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . 4-27

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

4.4.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

4.6.1 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of

Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

4.8 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

4.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for McGuire Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.2.1 Duke’s Risk Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.2.2 Review of Duke’s Risk Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13 |

5.2.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . 5-13 |
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 viii December 2002 |

5.2.3.2 Staff Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17

| 5.2.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

| 5.2.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20

5.2.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

5.2.6.1 Duke Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

5.2.6.2 Staff Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26

5.2.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29

5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management . . . 6-1

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to Operating License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

8.2.1.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

| 8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

8.2.2.1 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

| 8.2.2.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.2.3.1 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32
Contents

December 2002 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

8.2.3.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8.2.5 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.2.5.2 Wind Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41 |

8.2.5.3 Solar Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

8.2.5.4 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45 |

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

9.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action—License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal

and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9 |

Appendix A Comments Received on the Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 |

Appendix B Contributors to the Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 |

Appendix C Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence |

Related to Duke Energy Corporation’s Application for

License Renewal of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 |
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 x December 2002 |

| Appendix E McGuire Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . E-1

| Appendix F GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
December 2002 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Figures

2-1 Location of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 80-km (50-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2-2 Location of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 10-km (6-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2-3 McGuire Nuclear Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2-4 Transmission Lines Attributable to McGuire Nuclear Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2-5 McGuire Site Vegetation Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2-6 Traffic Counts and Level of Service on Roads Surrounding

McGuire Nuclear Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

4-1 Census 2000 Block Groups Identified as Meeting NRC Criteria for Minority Status

in an 80-km (50-mi) Area Around McGuire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

4-2 Census 1990 Block Groups Identified as Meeting NRC Criteria for Low-Income Status |

in an 80-km (50-mi) Area Around McGuire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 xii December 2002 |

Tables

1-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

2-1 Federal and State of North Carolina Listed Aquatic Species Potentially

Occurring in Lincoln and Mecklenburg Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2-2 Federal and State of North Carolina Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially

Occurring in Mecklenburg County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2-3 McGuire Employee Residence Information by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

2-4 Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant by County During 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . 2-29

2-5 Historic and Projected Population in the Principal McGuire Area of Impact –

The Seven Counties with 90 Percent of the McGuire Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34

2-6 Employment and Earnings in Key Economic Sectors in Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35

2-7 Twenty Largest Manufacturers in Mecklenburg County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

2-8 Unemployment in Counties Surrounding McGuire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

2-9 Property Tax Revenues Generated in Mecklenburg County: 1998-2001 . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

3-1 Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3-2 Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

4-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the McGuire Cooling

System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the McGuire Cooling

System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4-3 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the McGuire Nuclear Station Transmission

Lines During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

| 4-4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields and Category 2 Issue Applicable to 

the McGuire Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

4-5 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4-6 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . 4-22

4-7 Environmental Justice Analysis and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to

Socioeconomics During the License Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

| 4-8 Analysis of Population “Sparseness” and “Proximity” in the Vicinity of McGuire . . . . . 4-24

4-9 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

| 4-10 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During the

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35
Tables

December 2002 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term . . . . . 5-3

5-2 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term . . . . . 5-4

5-3 McGuire Core Damage Frequency (Revision 2 of PRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment End-State |

(Total dose = 0.135 person-Sv [13.5 person-rem] per year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5-5 Comparison of CDF Results by Accident Initiator or Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

5-6 SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs That Reduce CDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5-7 SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs That Improve

Containment Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17

5-8 Sensitivity Results for Hydrogen Control SAMAs (all benefits based

on eliminating early failures only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28

6-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

Management During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Decommissioning of McGuire |

Following the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8-2 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at McGuire and an Alternate Greenfield Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an Alternate

Greenfield Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling System Utilizing Cooling Towers . . . . . . . 8-20

8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at McGuire and an Alternate Greenfield Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23

8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with ClosedCycle Cooling Utilizing Cooling Towers at an Alternate Greenfield Site . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using |

Once-Through Cooling at McGuire and an Alternate Greenfield Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-33

8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant Sited at an

Alternate Greenfield Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of Generating

and Acquisition Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47 |

9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action

Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8 |

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

A-2 Comments Received on the Draft SEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-24 |
Tables

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 xiv December 2002 |

E-1 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and

Other Approvals for McGuire Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2

| F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to McGuire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 xv NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Executive Summary

By letter dated June 13, 2001, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted an application to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses (OLs) for McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) for up to an additional 20-year period. If the OLs are

renewed, State regulatory agencies and Duke will ultimately decide whether the plant will

continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the

State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OLs are not renewed, the plant must be

shut down at or before the expiration dates of the current OLs, which are June 12, 2021, for

Unit 1, and March 3, 2023, for Unit 2.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC 4321) directs that an |

environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for major Federal actions that significantly |

affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA

in 10 CFR Part 51. Part 51 identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In

10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS

for renewal of a reactor OL; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal

stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a)

Upon acceptance of the Duke application, the NRC began the environmental review process

described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

scoping. The staff visited the McGuire site in September 2001 and held public scoping

meetings on September 25, 2001, in Huntersville, North Carolina. In preparing this

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for McGuire, the staff reviewed the |

McGuire Environmental Report (ER) and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other

agencies, conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for

Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, and considered the public

comments received during the scoping process. The public comments received during the

scoping process that were considered to be within scope of the environmental review are

provided in Appendix A, Part I, of this SEIS. A draft SEIS was published for comment in May |

2002. The staff held two public meetings in Huntersville, North Carolina, on June 12, 2002, to

describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, to answer questions, and to |

provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on the

draft SEIS. All of the comments received on the draft SEIS were considered by the staff in |

developing the final SEIS. These comments are addressed in Appendix A, Part II, of this

SEIS. |
Executive Summary

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 xvi December 2002 |

| This SEIS includes the staff’s analysis in which the staff considers and weighs the

environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the

proposed action, and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also

| includes the staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal

from the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license)

is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the

term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system

generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where

authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

The goal of the staff’s environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is

to determine

... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so

great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OLs.

| NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not

required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and

economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed

action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a

determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of

alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental

environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not

discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed

action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the

facility within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) [“Temporary

storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operations–generic determination

of no significant environmental impact”] and in accordance with § 51.23(b).
Executive Summary

December 2002 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. In the GEIS, the staff

evaluated 92 environmental issues using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance – 

SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using the Council on Environmental Quality

guidelines. The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to

Table B-1 of 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 resources.

MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS led to the following

conclusions:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

the GEIS for issues designated Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B.

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-
Executive Summary

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 xviii December 2002 |

specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields

was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

This SEIS documents the staff’s evaluation of all 92 environmental issues considered in the

GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The

alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

renewing the OLs for McGuire, Units 1 and 2) and alternative methods of power generation. 

Based on projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information

Administration, gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation

alternatives if the power from Units 1 and 2 is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated

assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the McGuire site or

some other unspecified location.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

If the McGuire OLs are not renewed and the units cease operation on or before the expiration

of their current OLs, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not be smaller than

those associated with continued operation of McGuire. The impacts may, in fact, be greater in

some areas.

| The recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse

environmental impacts of license renewal for McGuire are not so great that preserving the

option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by

Duke; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff’s own

| independent review; and (5) the staff’s consideration of public comments.
December 2002 xix NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Abbreviations/Acronyms

° degree

m micrometer

Ci microcurie

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ac acre

ac. Alternating current

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs

AEA Atomic Energy Act

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AOC averted offsite property damage costs

AOE averted occupational exposure

AOSC averted onsite cleanup costs |

APE averted public exposure

APRC averted power replacement cost

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

Bq becquerel

Btu British thermal unit

Btu/kWh British thermal units per kilowatt hour

Btu/lb British thermal units per pound

BWR boiling water reactor

C Celsius |

C candidate for Federal or State listing |

CAA Clean Air Act

CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention

CDF core damage frequency

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CET containment event tree

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Ci curie

CMUD Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities District

COE Cost of enhancement

CWA Clean Water Act

DBA design-basis accident

DCH direct containment heating

DG diesel generator

DOE U.S. Department of Energy
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 xx December 2002 |

DSM demand-side management

Duke Duke Energy Corporation

E endangered

ECCS emergency core cooling system

EIA Energy Information Agency

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELF extremely low frequency

EMF electromagnetic field

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPZ Emergency Planning Zone

ER Environmental Report

| ESA Endangered Species Act

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan

EX extirpated

| F Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FES Final Environmental Statement

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

FSC Federal species of concern

ft feet

ft/s feet per second

ft3 cubic feet

F-V Fussell-Vesely

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act

FWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FWST refueling water storage tank

gal gallon

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

GSI Generic Safety Issue

ha hectare

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air (filter)

HLW high-level waste
Abbreviations/Acronyms

December 2002 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

hr hour(s)

Hz hertz

I&C instrumentation and control

IBA Important Bird Area

IEEE Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

IPE individual plant examination

IPEEE individual plant examination for external events

ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

ISLOCA interfacing loss of coolant accident

J joule

km kilometer

km2 square kilometers |

kV kilovolt

kWh kilowatt-hour

L liter

L/s liters per second

LNG liquefied natural gas

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOOP loss of offsite power

LOS level of service

LWR light-water reactor

m meter

M million |

m/s meter per second

m3 cubic meters |

m3/d cubic meters per day |

MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program

MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

McGuire McGuire Nuclear Station

mgd million gallons per day

mGy milligray

mi mile

mi2 square miles |

MJ/kg million joules per kilogram

mL milliliter

mph miles per hour
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 xxii December 2002 |

mrad millirad

mrem millirem

mSv millisievert

MT metric ton

MTHM metric tonnes of heavy metal (uranium, etc.)

MUMPO Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MW megawatt

MW(e) megawatts electric

MW(t) megawatts thermal

MWd/MTU megawatt days per metric ton uranium

MWh megawatt hour

NA not applicable

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NC North Carolina

NCDCR North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources

NCDHHS North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

NCDNRCD North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESC National Electrical Safety Code

ng/J nanograms per joule

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRR Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NWPPC Northwest Power Planning Council

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL operating license

PAME primary ameobic meningoencephalitis

PAR passive autocatalytic recombiner

PDS plant damage state

PM particulate matter
Abbreviations/Acronyms

December 2002 xxiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

PM2.5 particulate matter having aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 m |

PM10 particulate matter having aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10m

PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment

PSD prevention of significant deterioration

PW present worth

PWR pressurized water reactor

PURP present value replacement power cost

RAI request for additional information

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

RN service water

RPV reactor pressure vessel

RV reactor vessel |

RV containment ventilation cooling water system

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives

SBO station blackout

SAR Safety Analysis Report

SC State species of concern

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SHPO State Historical Preservation Officer

SR significantly rare

SR state route

SGTR steam generator tube rupture

SS safe shutdown

SSF standby shutdown facility

Sv sieverts

T threatened

TBq terabecquerel

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

URP long term replacement power cost

U.S. United States

yr year
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

(b) Duke Energy Corporation has held the license for McGuire Units 1 and 2 since September 16, 1997.

Before this date, Duke Power Company held the license. Duke Power Company remains a division

of Duke Energy Corporation.

December 2002 1-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

1.0 Introduction

Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) environmental protection regulations in

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which implement the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license (OL)

requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing the EIS, the

NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for public comment and then

issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. To support the

preparation of the EIS, the staff prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for |

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,

1999).(a) The GEIS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of

environmental impacts that may occur as a result of license renewal of nuclear power plants

under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) identify and assess the impacts that are expected to be generic to

license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 to define the number and scope of issues that

need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal proceedings. Use of the

GEIS guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the OL renewal

process.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke)(b) operates McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire)

in southwestern North Carolina under OLs NPF-9 and NPF-17, which were issued by the NRC. 

These OLs will expire in June 2021 for Unit 1 and in March 2023 for Unit 2. On June 13, 2001,

Duke submitted an application to the NRC to renew the McGuire OLs up to an additional |

20 years under 10 CFR Part 54 (Duke 2001b). The application also included renewal for

Catawba Nuclear Station in Rock Hill, South Carolina. A separate environmental evaluation is

being conducted for Catawba Nuclear Station. Duke is a licensee for the purposes of its

current OLs and an applicant for the renewal of the OLs. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and

51.53(c), Duke submitted an Environmental Report (ER; Duke 2001a) in which Duke analyzed |

the environmental impacts associated with the proposed license renewal action, considered

alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse

environmental effects.

This report is the final plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for |

the McGuire license renewal application. This SEIS is a supplement to the GEIS because it

relies, in part, on the findings of the GEIS. The staff has also prepared a separate safety |

evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 1-2 December 2002 |

1.1 Report Contents

The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of

this SEIS, including the development of the GEIS and the process used by the staff to assess

the environmental impacts associated with license renewal; (2) describe the proposed Federal

action to renew the OLs for McGuire; (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action;

and (4) present the status of Duke’s compliance with environmental quality standards and

requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies that are

responsible for environmental protection.

The ensuing chapters of this SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the GEIS. 

Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. 

Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant

refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of

potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of severe

accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management, Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses alternatives to

license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and

draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided (the relationship between

| short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources). Chapter 9 also

| presents the staff’s recommendation with respect to the proposed license renewal action.

Additional information is included in appendixes. Appendix A contains public comments

received on the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses to those

comments. Appendixes B through F, respectively, list the following:

  the preparers of the supplement

  the chronology of correspondence between NRC and Duke with regard to this SEIS

  the organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS

|  Duke’s compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of

| consultation correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process)

  GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to McGuire.
Introduction

December 2002 1-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

1.2 Background

Use of the GEIS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a

result of renewing individual nuclear power plant OLs under 10 CFR Part 54, and the

established license renewal evaluation process supports the thorough evaluation of the impacts

of renewal of the OLs.

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the

license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting

the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission’s regulations. This

assessment is provided in the GEIS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear

power plant license renewal EISs.

In the GEIS, the staff documented the results of the systematic approach that was taken to |

evaluate the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power

plants and operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue in

the GEIS, the staff (1) described the activity that affects the environment, (2) identified the |

population or resource that is affected, (3) assessed the nature and magnitude of the impact on |

the affected population or resource, (4) characterized the significance of the effect for both |

beneficial and adverse effects, (5) determined whether the results of the analysis apply to all |

plants, and (6) considered whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for |

impacts that would have the same significance level for all plants.

The NRC’s standard of significance was established using the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration of

both “context” and “intensity”). Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC established three

significance levels—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance

levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, as

follows:

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.

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 1-4 December 2002 |

| In the GEIS, the staff assigned a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that

ongoing mitigation measures would continue.

| In the GEIS, the staff included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental

issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be

| warranted. Issues were assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the

GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely to

not be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required in the SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

In the GEIS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as

Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized. The

latter 2 issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are to be

addressed in a plant-specific analysis. Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment,

6 are related only to decommissioning, 67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and

8 apply to both refurbishment and operation during the renewal term. A summary of the

findings for all 92 issues in the GEIS is codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B.

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process

An applicant seeking to renew its OLs is required to submit an ER as part of its application. 

The license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant’s ER and

assurance
Introduction

December 2002 1-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in or available during

the GEIS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the environmental impacts of

the proposed license renewal.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must 

  provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii).

  discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action

and environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to

  consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the

proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for

making a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of

alternatives considered or (2) relevant to mitigation.

  consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of

the proposed action and the alternatives.

  discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic 

determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b).

  contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is significant new information

on a specific issue—this is pursuant to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii) and (iv).

New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental

issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS

and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and

codified in 10 CFR Part 51.

In preparing to submit its application to renew the McGuire OLs, Duke developed a process to

ensure that information not addressed in or available during the GEIS evaluation regarding the

environmental impacts of license renewal for McGuire would be properly reviewed before

submitting the ER and to ensure that such new and potentially significant information related to

renewal of the licenses for McGuire would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the

period of NRC review. Duke reviewed the Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 1-6 December 2002 |

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained

| valid with respect to McGuire. This review was performed by personnel from Duke and its

| support organization who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved

| in the preparation of a license renewal ER. 

The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process

is described in detail in Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP), NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

(NRC 2000). The search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant’s ER and the

process for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of

records of public comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations;

(4) coordination with Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies;

and (5) review of the technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is evaluated

for significance using the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and

significant information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited

in scope to the assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the

assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new

information.

Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GEIS that are

applicable to McGuire. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, there is a table

that identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is

discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1

issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of

short paragraphs that state the GEIS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, followed by the staff’s analysis and conclusion. For Category 2 issues,

in addition to the list of GEIS sections where the issue is discussed, the tables list the

| subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and the SEIS

| sections where the analysis is presented. The SEIS sections that discuss the Category 2

issues are presented immediately following the table.

The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal

and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of

the Duke license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for

| docketing and opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register (FR) cited as 66 FR 42893 on

| August 15, 2001 (NRC 2001a). On August 23, 2001, the staff published a notice of intent to

| prepare an EIS and conduct scoping cited as 66 FR 44386 (NRC 2001b). Two public scoping

meetings were held on September 25, 2001, in Huntersville, North Carolina. Comments

received during the scoping periods were summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement 
Introduction

December 2002 1-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Scoping Process: Summary Report – McGuire Units 1 and 2, Huntersville, North Carolina |

(NRC 2002a). Comments that are applicable to this environmental review are presented in |

Part I of Appendix A. |

The staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, in the

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: 

Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff and its contractors retained to assist the

staff visited the McGuire site on September 24, 2001, to gather information and to become

familiar with the site and its environs. The staff also reviewed the comments received during

scoping and consulted with Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. A list of the

organizations consulted is provided in Appendix D of this SEIS. Other documents related to |

McGuire were reviewed and are referenced.

On May 10, 2002, the NRC published the Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS in 67 FR 31846 |

(NRC 2002b). A 75-day comment period began on the date of publication of the |

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS, to allow |

members of the public to comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff’s review. During |

this comment period, two public meetings were held in Huntersville, North Carolina, on |

June 12, 2002. During these meetings, the staff described the preliminary results of the NRC |

environmental review and answered questions related to it to provide members of the public

with information to assist them in formulating their comments. The comment period for the |

McGuire draft SEIS ended August 2, 2002. Comments made during the 75-day comment |

period, including those made at the two public meetings, are presented in Part II of Appendix A |

of this SEIS. The NRC responses to those comments are also provided. |

This SEIS presents the staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of |

the proposed renewal of the OLs for McGuire, the environmental impacts of alternatives to

license renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

Chapter 9, Summary and Conclusions, provides the NRC staff’s recommendation to the |

Commission on whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so

great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would

be unreasonable.

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OLs for McGuire, Units 1 and 2. McGuire is |

located in southwestern North Carolina, in northwestern Mecklenburg County on the shore of

Lake Norman, approximately 27 km (17 mi) north-northwest of Charlotte and 10 km (6 mi) west

of Huntersville. The current OL for Unit 1 expires on June 12, 2021, and the current OL for Unit |
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 1-8 December 2002 |

| 2 on March 3, 2023. By letter dated June 13, 2001, Duke submitted an application to the NRC

| (Duke 2001b) to renew these OLs for up to an additional 20 years of operation.

The plant has two Westinghouse-designed, pressurized, light-water reactors, each with a

design rating for a net electrical power output of approximately 1129 megawatts electric

(MW[e]). Water for the plant’s once-through cooling system is drawn from and discharged back

into Lake Norman. McGuire produces electricity to supply the needs of more than

619,000 homes. 

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the

existing OL, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be

met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once

an OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide

whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other

matters within the State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.

Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and

need (NRC 1996, Section 1.3):

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other

than NRC) decisionmakers.

This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission’s recognition that, unless there are

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act or findings in the NEPA

environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the

NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State regulators and utility

officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the

perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an OL is

to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the

current term of the plant’s license.
Introduction

December 2002 1-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

Duke is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as

meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In the McGuire ER, Duke provided a

list of the authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well

as environmental approvals and consultations associated with license renewal of McGuire. 

Authorizations and consultations most relevant to the proposed OL renewal action are

summarized in Table 1-1. The full list of authorizations and consultations provided by Duke is

included in Appendix E.

Table 1-1. Federal, State, and Local Authorizations and Consultations

Agency Authority Requirement Number

Permit Expiration

or Consultation

Date Activity Covered

NRC Atomic Energy

Act, 10 CFR

Part 50

Operating

license

NPF-9 

(Unit 1)

NPF-17

(Unit 2)

June 12, 2021

(Unit 1)

March 3, 2023

(Unit 2)

Operation of

McGuire 

Units 1 and 2

FWS Endangered

Species Act,

Section 7

Consultation NA Consultation

initiated 

October 10, 2001

Operation during

renewal term |

NCDENR Clean Water

Act,

Section 402

NPDES

wastewater

permit

NCOO24392 February 28, 2005 Permit for discharge

of wastewater and

once-through

cooling water to 

discharge canal that

empties into Lake

Norman

NCDENR Clean Water

Act, Section

402

NPDES

stormwater

permit

NCS000020 Pending NCDENR

approval

Collection, |

treatment, and

discharge of

stormwater

Mecklenburg

County

Department of

Environmental

Protection

Clean Air Act,

Section 112

Air emissions

permit

00-019-269 Renewed annually Emissions from

diesel emergency

generators,

miscellaneous

diesel engines, and

other miscellaneous

units

NCDCR National

Historic

Preservation

Act, 

Section 106

Consultation NA Consultation

initiated 

January 31, 2000

Impact on sites

listed or eligible for

listing in the

National Register of

Historic Places

FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

NCDCR - North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.

NCDENR - North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

NA - Not applicable.
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 1-10 December 2002 |

The staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of

concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any new and significant

environmental issues. The McGuire ER states that Duke is in compliance with applicable

environmental standards and requirements for McGuire. The staff has also not identified any

environmental issues that are both new and significant.

1.6 References

| 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

| 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

| 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part

1508, “Terminology and Index.”

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Clean Air Act (CAA). 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001a. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating

License Renewal Stage — McGuire Nuclear Station. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001b. Application to Renew the Operating Licenses of

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

Charlotte, North Carolina.

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (Also known as the Clean Water

Act [CWA]).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.
Introduction

December 2002 1-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001a. “Duke Energy Corporation, McGuire,

Units 1 and 2, and Catawba, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the

Application and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF-9, NPF-17, NPF-35, and NPF-52 for an Additional 20-Year Period.” 66 FR |

42893. August 15, 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001b. “Duke Energy Corporation, McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

and Conduct Scoping Process.” 66 FR 44386. August 23, 2001. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Process: Summary Report — McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2, Huntersville, North

Carolina. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. “Duke Energy Corporation; McGuire |

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 8 to the Generic |

Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of McGuire |

Units 1 and 2.” 67 FR 31846. May 10, 2002. |
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 2-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site

and Plant Interaction with the Environment

The Duke Energy Corporation’s (Duke’s) McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) is

located on the shore of Lake Norman in North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County approximately

27 km (17 mi) north-northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina. The plant consists of two units

(Units 1 and 2) that are the subject of this action. Each unit is a pressurized light-water reactor

(LWR) with four steam generators producing steam that turns turbines to generate electricity. 

Lake Norman is used as the sources of cooling and process water for McGuire. The plant and

its environs are described in Section 2.1, and the plant’s interaction with the environment is

presented in Section 2.2.

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant

Operation During the Renewal Term

McGuire is located on 234 ha (577 ac) of Duke-owned land in southwestern North Carolina. 

Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the site location and features within 80 km and 10 km (50 mi and

6 mi), respectively. The site is surrounded by an exclusion area whose radius measures

0.76 km (0.47 mi) and covers 182.4 ha (450.5 ac) (Duke 2001a).

The McGuire site is bounded to the west by the Catawba River and to the north by Lake

Norman. Lake Norman is a 13,156-ha (32,510-ac) lake that was formed by the impoundment

of the Catawba River by the Cowan’s Ford Dam hydroelectric station (owned and operated by

Duke Power). Lake Norman achieved full pond level in 1964. Cowan’s Ford Dam is

immediately west of the site and on the Catawba River channel.

The region surrounding McGuire is considered to have a high population density based on the

definitions applied to case study sites in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,

1999b).(a) The area around McGuire is experiencing a rapid change from a rural to a suburban

environment (Duke 2001a). Huntersville (population 25,000), North Carolina, is the nearest

town (Duke 2001a). The town center is located approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of the plant. |
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-2 December 2002 |

Figure 2-1. Location of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 80-km (50-mi) Region
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Figure 2-2. Location of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 10-km (6-mi) Region |
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-4 December 2002 |

The McGuire site has approximately 1345 full-time workers employed by Duke and site

contractors during normal plant operations. Duke refuels each reactor unit at McGuire on an

18- to 24-month schedule, when site employment increases by as many as 1015 workers for

temporary duty (30 to 40 days).

| The elevation of the McGuire exclusion area varies from 198 m to 244 m (650 to 800 ft)

(Duke 2001a), and its topography is rolling (NRC 1996). The exclusion area is dominated by

Cecil sandy loam and harbors typical piedmont plant communities and cover types,

predominantly hardwood-pine forests and marshes and wetlands (Duke 2001a). The majority

of land in the area immediately around McGuire is forested, pasture, cropland, or residential

developments, each contributing significant proportions to the total land use. The shoreline of

Lake Norman is developed with vacation and permanent residences, campgrounds, boat

launches, marinas, and golf courses. The 270-ha (668-ac) Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge

(owned and operated by Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department) and the

Cowan’s Ford Waterfowl Refuge (managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources

Commission) are located just south of the McGuire exclusion area along the shores of Mountain

Island Lake. These areas, as well as adjacent lands, have been officially designated as

Important Bird Areas (IBAs) by the National Audubon Society because of their rich avian

diversity (Duke 2001a).

Five parks (Blythe Landing County Park, Jetton Road Park, Latta Plantation Park, North

Mecklenburg Park, and Ramsey Park), located in and owned by Mecklenburg County, are

within a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the McGuire plant. Five state parks (Andrew Jackson State

Park, Crowders Mountain State Park, Lake Norman State Park, Morrow Mountain State Park,

and South Mountain State Park), Kings Mountain National Military Park, and the Catawba

Indian Reservation are located within 80 km (50 mi) of the McGuire plant (Duke 2001a).

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

Because of the large amount of timber adjacent to the site, the nuclear plant is visible from only

| a few locations on the land. It is readily visible from many locations along the lake shore. The

| most obvious structures are the transmission towers and lines that are visible from North

Carolina Highway 73 (NC-73), which runs along the southern edge of the site.

McGuire Units 1 and 2 each have a separate reactor building, turbine building, and switchyard. 

The following buildings and features are common to both units: service building, auxiliary

building, intake structures (upper level and lower level), discharge structure and discharge

canal, standby nuclear service water pond, and independent spent fuel storage installation

| (ISFSI; Duke 2001a).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

An ISFSI was added at McGuire to expand the storage capacity for spent fuel. The initial |

loading of spent fuel into the dry storage facility took place in 2001. The storage of spent fuel in |

the ISFSI is conducted under a general permit issued in accordance with 10 CFR 72.210. The |

ISFSI is outside the scope of this review.

The McGuire site lies near the center of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont 

is characterized by rolling hills and numerous small streams and rivers. It is a northeasttrending zone from Georgia through Virginia that varies in width from about 130 to 190 km (80

to 120 mi) (Duke 2001a). The Fall Line, which divides the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain

physiographic province to the southeast, lies 100 km (65 mi) downstream from the site. |

The Piedmont province is underlain by five narrow northeast-trending belts of metamorphosed

sedimentary rock. The McGuire site is within the Charlotte Belt. These rocks, originally formed

during the lower Paleozoic, are now in the form of mica schist and gabbro. Although there are

numerous faults in the Piedmont region, there are no identifiable faults or other geological

structures that could be expected to localize earthquakes in the immediate vicinity of the

McGuire site (NRC 1976).

2.1.2 Reactor Systems

The McGuire site is shown in Figure 2-3. Each unit is a pressurized LWR with four steam

generators that produce steam that turns turbines to generate electricity. Each unit, designed

and fabricated by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, is designed to operate at core power

levels up to 3411 megawatts thermal (MW[t]), with a corresponding net electrical output of

approximately 1129 megawatts electric (MW[e]) (Duke 2001a). |

The nuclear steam supply system for each unit is housed in a separate free-standing steel

containment structure within a reinforced concrete shield building. The containment employs

the ice condenser pressure-suppression concept. The containment is designed to withstand

environmental effects and the internal pressure and temperature accompanying a postulated

loss-of-coolant accident or steam-line break. Together with its engineered safety features, the 

containment structure for each unit is designed to adequately retain fission products that

escape from the reactor coolant system. 

McGuire is licensed for fuel that is slightly enriched uranium dioxide, up to 4.75 percent by

weight uranium-235 (Duke 2001a). McGuire has several different fuel designs that are used for

the production of electricity. The Mark-BW design has a maximum fuel assembly burnup of

55,000 megawatt days/metric tons of uranium (MWd/MTU) and a maximum licensed fuel pin 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-6 December 2002 |

Figure 2-3. McGuire Nuclear Station
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

burnup of 60,000 MWd/MTU. The Westinghouse Robust Fuel Assembly design does not have

a maximum fuel assembly burnup limit; however, this burnup value would be limited by the

maximum licensed fuel pin burnup limit of 60,000 MWd/MTU (Duke 2001a).

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

The site currently uses water from Lake Norman for main condenser cooling and process

water. Water is withdrawn from the lake at an average daily rate (two-unit operation) of about

111 m3

/s (2530 million gpd), circulated through the two units and discharged back into the lake

through the discharge canal. The plant has an upper-level intake and a separate, lower-level

intake structure.

For most of the year, cooling and process water is withdrawn from Lake Norman through the

upper-level intake structure. The upper-level intake structure is located at the lake surface at

the end of the intake channel. It withdraws from the surface water layers of the lake

(epilimnion). The water in the intake channel flows through trash bars and through 1-cm (3/8-

in.) mesh vertical traveling screens before entering the McGuire plant. Water velocity in the

upper intake channel is less than 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s).

During periods of high lake-surface temperature, cooler water (hypolimnion) is withdrawn from |

the lake bottom through the lower-level intake structure. The lower-level intake structure is

located west of the upper intake structure and approximately 30 m (100 ft) below the lake

surface. Cooler water from the lower intake structure is pumped and discharged in front of the |

upper intake structure. The water from the lower intake structure supplements, but cannot

completely replace, the surface water flow from the upper intake channel. Thus, water from the

lower intake structure drawn primarily during the hot summer months reduces the temperature

of the water that is drawn into the plant for cooling. This results in a lower station discharge

water temperature. There are no traveling screens on the lower-level intake structure. Water

velocity through the lower-level intake structure, when operating, can be as high as 0.43 m/s

(1.4 ft/s).

Operation of the rotating vertical traveling screens can be in either automatic or manual mode. |

Automatic rotation of the screens is controlled by differential pressure across the screen

surface. Manual operation and cleaning of the traveling screens is prescribed weekly. 

Backwash water and screen debris are discharged into a refuse removal trench, which drains

into a debris retention basket.

The increase in temperature of cooling system water discharged back into Lake Norman is

related to flow and intake water temperature. During the winter, when the incoming water is the
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-8 December 2002 |

coolest and the flow is the lowest, the increase in temperature is 13.7C (24.7F). During the

summer, when the intake temperatures are the warmest and the flow is the highest, the

temperature increase is 8.6C (15.5F). 

Potable water at McGuire is supplied by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department

(CMUD) water supply system. Six groundwater wells provide specific low-volume uses (e.g.,

irrigation, remote restrooms) with a combined maximum pumping rate of 4.3 L/s (68 gpm). 

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems

McGuire uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and

process the liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes that are the by-products of McGuire operation. 

These systems process radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents before they are released

to the environment. The waste disposal systems for McGuire meet the design objectives of

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions

for Operations to Meet the Criterion “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” for Radioactive

Material in Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents), and control the processing,

disposal, and release of radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes. Radioactive material in

the reactor coolant is the source of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in LWRs. 

Radioactive fission products build up within the fuel as a consequence of the fission process. 

These fission products are contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape from

the fuel rods and contaminate the reactor coolant. Neutron activation of the primary coolant

system also is responsible for coolant contamination.

Nonfuel solid wastes result from treating and separating radionuclides from gases and liquids

and from removing contaminated material from various reactor areas. Solid wastes also consist

of reactor components, equipment, and tools removed from service, as well as contaminated

protective clothing, paper, rags, and other trash generated from plant design modifications and

operations and routine maintenance activities. Solid wastes are shipped to a waste processor

for volume reduction before disposal at a licensed burial site (Duke 2001a). Spent resins and

filters are stored or packaged for shipment to a licensed offsite processing or disposal facility

(Duke 2001a).

Fuel rods that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and are removed from the

reactor core for disposal are called spent fuel. Each unit is refueled approximately every 18 to

24 months. Refueling outages are staggered so both units are not in an outage at the same

time (Duke 2001a). Spent fuel is stored onsite in one of the two spent fuel pools or in

containers in the McGuire ISFSI (Duke 2001a). Each unit has its own spent fuel pool located in

the auxiliary building. Spent fuel storage in the McGuire ISFSI was initiated in 2001.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The waste disposal system used for processing liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes is common to

Units 1 and 2, with the exception of the reactor coolant drain tanks located in each reactor

containment (Duke 2000a).

The offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM) for McGuire (Duke 2001e) describes the methods

used for calculating radioactivity concentrations in the environment and the estimated potential

offsite doses associated with liquid and gaseous effluents from McGuire. The ODCM also

specifies controls for release of liquid and gaseous effluents to ensure compliance with the

following: 

 The concentration of radioactive liquid effluents released from the site to the

unrestricted area will not exceed 10 times the concentration specified in 10 CFR Part 20,

Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, for radionuclides other than dissolved or entrained

gases. For dissolved or entrained noble gases, the concentration shall not exceed

7.4 Bq/mL (0.0002 μCi/mL). 

 The dose or dose commitment per reactor to a member of the public from any

radioactive materials in liquid effluents released to unrestricted areas shall be limited to

the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I: (1) less than or equal to 0.015 mSv |

(1.5 mrem) to the total body and less than or equal to 0.05 mSv (5 mrem) to any organ |

during any calendar quarter, and (2) less than or equal to 0.03 mSv (3 mrem) to the total |

body and less than or equal to 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) to any organ during any calendar |

year.

 The dose rate due to radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents from the site to

areas at and beyond the site boundary shall be limited to (1) less than or equal to

5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr) to the total body and less than or equal to 30 mSv

(3000 mrem/yr) to the skin due to noble gases and (2) less than or equal to 15 mSv/yr

(1500 mrem/yr) to any organ due to iodine-131, iodine-133, tritium, and for all

radioactive materials in particulate form with half-lives greater than 8 days per NUREG1301 (NRC 1991).

 The air dose per reactor to areas at and beyond the site boundary due to noble gases

released in gaseous effluents shall be limited to the design objectives of 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix I (i.e., less than or equal to 0.1 mGy [10 mrad] for gamma |

radiation and less than or equal to 0.2 mGy [20 mrad] for beta radiation during any |

calendar year). 

 The dose to any individual member of the public from the nuclear facility operations will

not exceed the maximum limits of 40 CFR Part 190 (i.e., less than 0.25 mSv [25 mrem])
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-10 December 2002 |

and 10 CFR Part 20 (i.e., less than or equal to 5 mSv [0.5 rem] in a year and less than

or equal to 0.02 mSv [2 mrem] in any hour).

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

All radioactive and potentially radioactive liquids generated in the plant are collected,

segregated, and processed. Most reactor- or primary-grade liquids are recycled. Potentially

contaminated radioactive liquid wastes in the plant are collected in tanks in the auxiliary building

and processed by filtration, demineralization, or evaporation prior to their monitoring and

discharge to Lake Norman (Duke 2001a). Liquid wastes from the auxiliary building floor drains,

sumps, and equipment drains, as well as from the plant’s containment sumps, laboratory

drains, and waste evaporator feed tank drainage are collected in the floor drain tank (Duke

2000a). Dependent on the activity of liquid wastes in the floor drain tank, further processing

(i.e., filtering, chemical treatment, demineralization) may be required prior to collection in one of

two waste monitor tanks (Duke 2000a). Liquid wastes from the laundry hot shower tank also

are collected in the waste monitor tanks after filtering (Duke 2000a). From the waste monitor

tanks, liquid wastes are sampled and monitored. When they are found to be within the

regulated levels, they then are discharged into the condenser cooling water system (i.e.,

condenser circulating water) that flows into Lake Norman (Duke 2000a). Condensate from the

containment ventilation units is collected in the ventilation unit condensate drain tank (Duke

2000a). Liquid wastes from this tank are monitored and discharged into the condenser cooling

water system (i.e., condenser circulating water) flowing into Lake Norman similar to the

discharge from the waste monitor tanks.

Liquid wastes from the turbine building sump (typically not contaminated) are monitored and

released to the conventional wastewater system and the wastewater collection basin discharge

point to the Catawba River downstream of Cowan’s Ford Dam (Duke 2001e). If monitoring

shows elevated radioactivity levels in the Turbine Building sump, liquid waste is routed into the

floor drain tank for processing as described above and eventual discharge to Lake Norman

(Duke 2001e).

The ODCM prescribes the alarm/trip setpoints for the liquid effluent radiation monitors; the

setpoints are derived from 10 times the effluent concentration limits provided in

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2. Liquid effluent radiation monitors are located

on the waste monitor tank release line, the containment ventilation unit condensate drain tank

release lines, and the turbine building sump release line (Duke 2001e). The alarm/trip setpoint

for each liquid effluent monitor is based on the measurements of radioactivity in a batch of

liquid to be released or in the continuous liquid discharge (Duke 2001e).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

During 2000, there were 246 batch releases of liquid effluents for the two units in a total volume

of 1.37×107

 L (3.62×106 gal) prior to dilution (Duke 2001c). The combined liquid waste volume |

prior to dilution for batch and continuous releases for 2000 was 3.35×108 L (8.84×107 gal) |

(Duke 2001c). The liquid waste holdup capacity for the plant is approximately 1.48×106 L |

(390,000 gal) (Duke 2001a). The actual liquid waste generated is reported in the McGuire

Nuclear Station Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (Duke 2001c).

Duke does not anticipate any increase in liquid waste releases during the renewal period.

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

The waste gas system is designed to remove fission gases from radioactive contaminated

fluids and contain these gases. Fission gases are removed from other systems to the

maximum extent possible and contained in the waste gas system. The system is designed so

that storage and subsequent decay of these gases can eliminate, to a large extent, the need for

regularly scheduled discharge of these radioactive gases from the system into the atmosphere

during normal plant operation. There are times, however, when the release of radioactive gas

may become necessary. As a result, there are provisions to sample and isolate each of the

decay tanks.

The waste gas system, containment and auxiliary building ventilation, and flow from the

condenser air ejectors exhaust into the unit vents (Duke 2001e). These four contributors to the

unit vent exhaust are discussed below. The unit vents are the primary (major) gaseous release

points from the plant (Duke 2001e).

 Waste Gas System. The waste gas system in the auxiliary building (Duke 2000a) is

shared between the two reactor units and consists of two waste gas compressors, two

catalytic hydrogen recombiners, six gas decay storage tanks for use during normal

power generation, and two gas decay storage tanks for use during shutdown and

startup operations (Duke 2001e). Letdown flow from the reactor coolant system is

processed through the waste gas system, and the resultant gases (hydrogen, nitrogen,

and small quantities of the fission products xenon and krypton) are collected in the

waste gas decay storage tanks. Gases are allowed to decay in these tanks, then are

released at permissible rates and activity to the Unit 1 vent as prescribed by the ODCM

(Duke 2001e).

 Containment Ventilation. The containment ventilation includes atmosphere from the

containment purge, containment air release and addition, and containment annulus

(Duke 2000a). The containment atmosphere will pass through a charcoal adsorber and

a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter prior to being exhausted into either the

Unit 1 or Unit 2 vent (Duke 2001e).
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-12 December 2002 |

 Auxiliary Building Ventilation. Radioactive gases generated within the auxiliary building

will be exhausted through the building’s ventilation system. Exhausted air is monitored

and, upon radiation monitor alarm, the exhaust air is diverted through a charcoal

adsorber and a HEPA filter prior to being released to the Unit 1 or Unit 2 vent

(Duke 2001e).

 Condenser Air Ejectors. Gases from the condenser air ejectors are monitored

| continuously and discharged into either the Unit 1 or Unit 2 vent (Duke 2000a, 2001a).

Secondary (minor) release points include the waste management facility, the waste handling

area, and the Unit 2 staging building (Duke 2001e). Exhausts from these three areas are

monitored continuously and, upon a high radiation alarm, the supply and exhaust ventilation

fans are stopped (Duke 2000a).

Radioactive gaseous wastes from McGuire are released primarily through the Unit 1 and 2

vents. The exhaust streams that flow into the unit vents (i.e., waste gas decay storage tanks,

containment ventilation, auxiliary building ventilation, and condenser air ejectors) are monitored

for radioactivity. The vents for each unit are continuously monitored for noble gases,

radioiodines, and particulate activity (Duke 2000a). The ODCM prescribes alarm/trip setpoints

for these effluent monitors and control instrumentation to ensure that the alarm/trip will occur

prior to exceeding the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 for gaseous effluents (Duke 2001e). 

Duke does not anticipate any increase in gaseous releases during the renewal period.

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing

Solid radioactive wastes from McGuire consist of spent resin, spent (contaminated) filter

elements, contaminated oils and sludges, and miscellaneous solid materials

| (Duke 2000a, 2001a). Spent resin is flushed from plant demineralizers into spent resin storage

tanks. The spent resin then is processed by dewatering or solidification and packaged in a

cask liner, which is placed in a shielded cask truck (Duke 2000a). Spent filter elements are

removed from their housing using filter-handling tools and filter transfer shields. They are

transferred to a shielded filter storage bunker in the waste drumming area (Duke 2000a). 

Contaminated oils and sludges either are pumped to a processing area for solidification or are

shipped to an offsite vendor for processing (Duke 2001a). Miscellaneous solid materials

include rubber gloves, plastic bags, contaminated clothing, contaminated rags, and

contaminated tools (Duke 2001a).

Lower-activity wastes (i.e., miscellaneous solid materials) are processed at an offsite waste

processing facility for volume reduction or segregation prior to disposal at a licensed facility
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

such as Barnwell, South Carolina, or Envirocare of Utah (Duke 2001a). Higher-activity wastes

(i.e., spent resins) are typically sent directly to a licensed disposal facility such as Barnwell,

South Carolina (Duke 2001a).

Disposal and transportation of solid wastes are performed in accordance with the applicable

requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 and 10 CFR Part 71, respectively. There are no releases to

the environment from radioactive solid wastes created at McGuire.

In 2000, McGuire Units 1 and 2 made eight shipments of solid waste with a volume of 47 m3

(1650 ft3) and a total activity of 0.19 TBq (5 Ci) (Duke 2001c). These shipments are

representative of the shipments made in the past several years and are not expected to change

appreciably during the license renewal period.

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

Nonradioactive solid wastes from McGuire are disposed of in the onsite landfill or in one of

several offsite landfills operated by Mecklenburg County (Duke 2001a). The onsite landfill

typically handles the following types of wastes: asbestos, empty containers and drums,

insulation (nonasbestos), nonhazardous-spill cleanup, conventional wastewater sludge, alkaline

batteries, and oil-contaminated materials. This landfill is permitted by the North Carolina

Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Solid Waste Section

(Duke 2001a). General office trash is disposed in one of several offsite landfills operated by

Mecklenburg County (Duke 2001a).

Nonradioactive liquid wastes are sampled and treated according to the site National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued to McGuire by the North Carolina

Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (Duke 2001a). These wastes originate

from system drainage/leakage, water treatment activities, housekeeping/cleaning wastes,

stormwater runoff, and floor and yard drains (Duke 2001a). Sanitary wastes are treated offsite

by the CMUD (Duke 2001a).

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance

Routine maintenance performed on plant systems and components is necessary for safe and

reliable operation of a nuclear power plant. Maintenance activities conducted at McGuire

include inspection, testing, and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the plant

and to ensure compliance with environmental and safety requirements. Certain activities can

be performed while the reactor is operating. Others require that the plant be shut down. Longterm outages are scheduled for refueling and for certain types of repairs or maintenance, such

as replacement of a major component. Duke refuels each of the McGuire units every 18 to

24 months (Duke 2001a). Each outage is typically scheduled to last approximately 30 to
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-14 December 2002 |

40 days; the outage schedules are staggered so that both units are not in an outage at the

same time (Duke 2001a). One-third of the core is offloaded at each refueling. Approximately

1015 additional workers are onsite during a typical outage (Duke 2001a).

Duke provided an appendix in Duke Energy Company McGuire Nuclear Station Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report regarding the aging management review to manage the effects of aging

on systems, structures, and components in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54 (Duke 2000a). 

Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the McGuire license renewal application specifies the programs

and activities that will manage the effects of aging during the license renewal period

(Duke 2001b). Duke expects to conduct the activities related to the management of aging

effects during plant operation or normal refueling and other outages but plans no outages

specifically for refurbishment activities. Duke has no plans to add additional full-time staff

(nonoutage workers) at the plant during the period of the renewed licenses.

2.1.7 Power Transmission System

Two switchyards connect the McGuire plant transmission lines to the transmission system: a

230-kV switchyard for Unit 1 and a 525-kV switchyard for Unit 2. The switchyards are located

south of Highway NC-73 (see Figure 2-4). Power from Unit 1 is transmitted to the 230-kV

switchyard over two separate three-phase 230-kV transmission lines with an average length of

1.2 km (4000 ft) (Figure 2-4). Power from Unit 2 is transmitted to the 525-kV switching station

over two separate three-phase 525-kV transmission lines with an average length of 1 km

(3300 ft) (Figure 2-4). The 230- and 525-kV lines are designed to meet the heavy loading

condition as defined in the National Electrical Safety Code, 7th Edition (Duke 2001). The 230-

kV switching station is tied into the Duke 230-kV network by seven double-circuit overhead

lines. The 525-kV switching station is east of the 230-kV switching station and is tied into the

Duke 525-kV network by four single-circuit overhead lines. 

The right-of-way for the 525-kV lines is 151.5 m (500 ft) wide. The right-of-way for the 230-kV

| lines is 60.6 m (200 ft) wide (Gaddy 2001). Duke has a well established set of management

practices for right-of-way maintenance. These best management practices include vegetation

| management, erosion and sediment control, soil stabilization, stream and wetland protection,

and protection of sensitive areas and sensitive species. Vegetation management consists of

mowing and herbicide application (Gaddy 2001). Arsenal and Accord with Garlon 4A or Krenite

are used for stump treatments and basal applications. Each of these products has been

evaluated for safety and environmental concerns. In particular, Arsenal and Accord are

approved for use in wetland areas. Following initial treatment with Arsenal and Accord, rightsof-way are maintained thereafter on an approximate 3-year rotation. Subsequent herbicide

applications are limited primarily to trees that could grow into transmission lines (Duke 2001a).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Figure 2-4. Transmission Lines Attributable to McGuire Nuclear Station
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-16 December 2002 |

| Duke maintains a working relationship with the NCDENR Natural Heritage Program and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Duke communicates with these agencies about pertinent

natural heritage data such as Federal- and State-listed species, special habitats, and new

findings. Information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database is used to

establish new and review existing vegetation management programs for the rights-of-way

(Duke 2001a).

The transmission line connecting McGuire to the Oconee Nuclear Station was evaluated

| previously in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for license renewal of the

Oconee Nuclear Station (NRC 1999a).

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment as background

information. They also provide detailed descriptions where needed to support the analysis of

potential environmental impacts of refurbishment and operation during the renewal term, as

discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological

resources in the area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts on other Federal project

activities.

2.2.1 Land Use

Although the McGuire site is not within the town limits of Huntersville North Carolina (the

nearest incorporated town), the site is subject to the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of

Huntersville. Exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction is authorized by Section 160A-360 of the

General Statutes of North Carolina. The McGuire site is located in a special-purpose zoning

district. Power generation plants are a permitted use in special-purpose districts (Town of

Huntersville 2001).

2.2.2 Water Use 

Lake Norman, North Carolina’s largest reservoir, was created by constructing the Cowan’s Ford

Dam on the Catawba River. Lake Norman is part of the Catawba-Wateree Project, which

consists of 11 reservoirs operated for hydroelectric power generation on the Catawba River and

licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In addition to supplying the cooling water for the McGuire plant, Lake Norman also supplies

water for Duke Power’s coal-fired Marshall Steam Station on the western shore of the lake,

approximately 26 km (16 mi) upstream from McGuire. Lake Norman also is a source of
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

municipal drinking water for several cities in the region. Lake Norman supports extensive

recreational use by fishermen, boaters, water skiers, and swimmers. |

Construction of the Cowan’s Ford Dam and impoundment of the Lake Norman reservoir to

serve a variety of purposes, including providing cooling water for McGuire, have considerably

altered the regional water resources environment. Lake Norman represents the critical

landscape feature to lakeside development and regional recreation. 

McGuire employs a once-through cooling system. The average daily withdrawal from Lake

Norman for the cooling water and other service water systems is 9580 million L/d

(2530 million gpd). The average daily discharge to Lake Norman from McGuire also is

approximately 9580 million L/d (2530 million gpd). Approximately 4090 m3

/d (1.08 million gpd)

from the conventional wastewater treatment system and from the wastewater collection basin

are discharged to the Catawba River.

Potable water at McGuire is supplied by the CMUD water supply system. McGuire has six

groundwater wells with a combined maximum pumping rate of 4.3 L/s (68 gpm).

2.2.3 Water Quality

Lake Norman provides water of sufficiently high quality to serve a variety of needs, including

propagation of fish and wildlife and contact recreation. The NCDENR Division of Water Quality

found Lake Norman fully supportive of all uses (NCDENR 1999). 

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977, also known as the Clean Water

Act, the water quality of the plant effluents is regulated through the NPDES. The Division of

Water Quality within the NCDENR is delegated to issue NPDES permits. The current permit

(NC0024392) was issued February 28, 2000, and is due to expire February 28, 2005. Any new

regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the State of

North Carolina would be reflected in future permits.

2.2.4 Air Quality

The McGuire site is located in the Piedmont of the Carolinas, a transitional region between the

Blue Ridge Mountains to the west and the Coastal Plain to the east. The region has a

moderate climate with cool winters and warm summers. Climatological records for Charlotte,

North Carolina (NCDC 2001), are generally representative of the McGuire site. Normal daily

maximum temperatures for Charlotte range from about 9C (49F) in January to a high of
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-18 December 2002 |

| about 32C (89F) in July. Normal daily minimum temperatures range from about -1C (30F)

in January to about 21C (70F) in July. The average precipitation of about 109 cm (43.1 in.)

per year is rather evenly distributed through the year. Normal monthly precipitation ranges from

7 to 11 cm (2.7 to 4.4 in.).

The wind energy resource in the Piedmont of the Carolinas is limited. The annual average wind

power in the region is rated 1 on a scale of 1 through 7 (Elliott et al. 1986). Wind turbines are

| economical in wind power classes 4 through 7 (average wind speeds of 5.6 to 9.4 m/s [12.5 to

| 21.1 mph]) (DOE 2001). The average wind power of exposed coastal areas of North Carolina

is rated 3, and the wind power rating for mountain summits and ridges to the west generally

varies from 3 to 6.

Thunderstorms can occur in any month and occur on an average of more than 3 days per

month from April through August. Hurricanes that strike the Carolina coast may produce heavy

rains but seldom cause high winds at the site (NCDC 2001). Statistics for the 30 years from

| 1954 through 1983 indicate that the probability of a tornado striking the site is expected to be

about 2×10-4 | per year (Ramsdell and Andrews 1986).

The McGuire site is located within the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Air Quality Control

Region. This region is designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants in

40 CFR 81.334 except for the EPA’s reinstated 1-hr ozone standard. Mecklenburg County is a 

| maintenance area for the 1-hr ozone standard. The State of North Carolina and Mecklenburg

County have adopted EPA’s proposed 8-hr ozone standard. This standard was exceeded on

32 days in 1999 (Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection

| [MCDEP] 2000). Monitoring data for Mecklenburg County also indicate that the annual average

concentration of fine particles (PM2.5) for 1999 exceeded the PM2.5 | standard adopted by EPA in

1997. After several years of litigation, new PM2.5 | and 8-hr ozone standards have been upheld. 

| EPA is taking steps to implement the new standards (e.g. developing its approach and

| collecting the data necessary to designate which areas are non-attainment). Six areas in North

and South Carolina are designated in 40 CFR 81.422 and 40 CFR 81.426 as mandatory Class I

Federal areas in which visibility is an important value. All of these Class I areas are more than

80 km (50 mi) from the site.

Diesel generators and other activities and facilities associated with McGuire emit various

pollutants. Emissions from these sources are regulated under Air Quality Permit to

Construct/Operate 00-019–269 issued by the MCDEP on February 23, 2000.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic resources in the vicinity of the McGuire site are associated with the southernmost

portion of Lake Norman, North Carolina’s largest man-made reservoir. In addition to serving 

McGuire, Lake Norman also provides water to Duke Power’s Marshall Steam Station and the

Cowan’s Ford Dam hydroelectric station. The lake also is a source of drinking water for several

cities in the region. Boaters, fishermen, swimmers, and water skiers use the lake for recreation. 

Centers for tourism and conservation in the vicinity include Lake Norman State Park and three

county parks on the shores of the lake. The Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge (owned and

operated by Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department) and the Cowan’s Ford

Waterfowl Refuge (managed by North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) are located

along the shores of Mountain Island Lake, south of the McGuire site and immediately

downstream of the Cowan’s Ford Dam.

Lake Norman’s major tributaries include the Catawba River, Lyle Creek, and Buffalo Shoals

Creek. The lake itself covers 13,150 ha (32,500 ac) and averages 10 m (33 ft) deep, with a

maximum 36.6-m (120-ft) depth.

Pelagic fish species are primarily forage fish, including threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense),

gizzard shad (D. cepedianum), and alewife (Alosa aestivalis). Game fish include black crappie

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus) and white crappie (P. annularis), largemouth bass (Micropterus

salmoides), white perch (Morone americana), white bass (M. chrysops), striped bass

(M. saxatilis), and some spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus). The primary fish caught in the |

nearshore littoral zone include sunfish (Lepomis spp.), largemouth bass, crappie and carp |

(Cyprinus carpio). Numbers of previously abundant catfish species like snail bullhead |

(Ameiurus brunneus), white catfish (Ictalurus catus), and flat bullhead (I. platycephalus) have |

dwindled significantly due to suspected predation by blue catfish (I. furcatus) and flathead |

catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). The Blue catfish, white perch, threadfin shad, white bass, spotted |

bass, and alewife are introduced species, some of which may impact native species |

populations. In addition, striped bass are not indigenous to Lake Norman and do not reproduce

naturally. Instead, they are stocked on an annual basis to provide a resource for sport

fishermen.

In addition to finfish, numerous aquatic invertebrate and plant species are found in the vicinity |

of McGuire. These include diverse phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton and benthic |

macroinvertebrates. In 1999, 135 varieties and forms of phytoplankton were collected, the |

dominant types being cryptophytes and diatoms (Duke 2001a). Zooplankton communities in

Lake Norman also are diverse and tend to fluctuate seasonally and spatially. Since 1987, Duke

researchers have recorded 108 zooplankton taxa (Duke 2001a). Most recently (1999), |

immature copepods dominated the zooplankton standing crop during most of the year, while

rotifers and cladocerans had the highest densities in February and August, respectively. 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-20 December 2002 |

Information from 1977 through 1984 indicates that benthos at sublittoral locations was

| dominated by chironomids, chaoborids, Corbicula sp., Hexagenia spp., and oligochaetes (Duke

Power Company 1985). Since 1989, benthic macroinvertebrate studies have been limited to

| determining seasonal densities of Corbicula sp. in front of the McGuire intake structures. 

Recent studies indicate that the potential for biofouling from these organisms is moderate to

high, but population numbers in front of the intake structures vary widely from year to year (Hall

| and Wilda 2000, 2001; Duke 2001a). Adult clams capable of reproduction generally comprise

10 percent or less of the samples (Duke 2001a).

| The McGuire site lies entirely in Mecklenburg County. However, Lincoln County, immediately 

west of the site, also could harbor species that would be affected by plant refurbishment or

continued operation. A search through the FWS database and the North Carolina National

| Heritage Program for Federally and State-listed species indicated that two fish – Carolina darter

| (Ethostoma collis collis) and highfin carpsucker (Carpoides velifer) – and three mussel

| species – Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), dwarf threetooth (Triodopsis fulciden),

| and Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughnaniana) – could inhabit the region around McGuire

| (Table 2-1), though the probability is low based on the lack of lotic environment. In addition, a

summer 2000 biological assessment of species associated with McGuire and related power

transmission lines (Gaddy 2001) indicated that three other important species, including two

| mussels – the Carolina elktoe (Alasmidonta robusta) and Eastern creekshell

| (V. delumbis) – and one fish – the Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema) – could also inhabit the

region around McGuire (Table 2-1). 

Gaddy (2001) inventoried the site environs, excluding the industrial areas in the center of the

site, using aerial photographs supplemented by field work. Gaddy also walked the four power

line rights-of-way in their entirety. Areas that appeared to be reasonable habitat for Federally

| and State-listed species were inventoried in the summer and the early autumn. Despite an

| extensive survey program conducted by the State and licensee, no Federal- or State-listed

species or critical habitat for such species was found within the McGuire site exclusion area

(see Figure 2-4) or along related power transmission rights-of-way (Gaddy 2001).

Of the species mentioned, only the Carolina heelsplitter is listed as endangered. The other

species are considered species of concern or “significantly rare.” The Carolina heelsplitter was

known historically in the Catawba River system in Mecklenburg County. However, recent

collection records indicate the Carolina heelsplitter has been eliminated from all but one of the

streams where it was originally known to exist. In North Carolina, the only remnant populations

appear to exist in Union County, far to the southeast of the site (Fridell 2001). All of the

streams supporting this species are free-flowing and natural (EPA 2002) and no longer occur in

the vicinity of the plant. The last known occurrence in Mecklenburg County was more than 20

| years ago (Fridell 2001).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 2-1. Federal and State of North Carolina Listed Aquatic Species Potentially

Occurring in Lincoln and Mecklenburg Counties

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal

Status(a)

State

Status(a) County

Ethostoma collis collis Carolina darter FSC – Mecklenburg

Carpoides velifer highfin carpsucker – SC Mecklenburg

Cyprinella zanema Santee chub – SR Mecklenburg or

Lincoln

Lasmigona decorata Carolina

heelsplitter

E E Mecklenburg

Triodopsis fulciden dwarf threetooth – SC Lincoln

Villosa vaughnaniana Carolina creekshell FSC SC Mecklenburg

Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshell – SR Mecklenburg or

Lincoln

Alasmidonta robusta Carolina elktoe – EX Mecklenburg or

Lincoln

(a) E = endangered; EX = extirpated (no longer found in the area); FSC = Federal species of concern; SC =

State species of concern but not protected under State regulations; SR = significantly rare but not protected

under State regulation; – = no listing.

Menhinick (1991) lists the highfin carpsucker from Lake Norman considerably north of the study

area and lists only historic records of the Santee chub in Lake Norman but north of the study

area (Gaddy 2001). However, detailed and thorough historical documentation on both species |

in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records is incomplete or non-existent, and there |

have been no recorded observations of these species in the recent past.

The three freshwater mussel species – dwarf threetooth, Eastern creekshell, and Carolina

creekshell – are not reported from the Lake Norman South quadrangle, according to the North

Carolina Natural Heritage Program database <http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html>. 

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources

Forest is the primary land cover near the McGuire site, with pasture, cropland, and residential

development each contributing substantially to total land use. Noteworthy natural habitats

outside the McGuire site include the 270-ha (668-ac) Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge (owned and |

operated by Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department) and the Cowan’s Ford

Waterfowl Refuge (managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) to the |

south along the shores of Mountain Island Lake (Figure 2-2). These areas, as well as adjacent |
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-22 December 2002 |

lands, are occupied by bottomland hardwood forests and other habitats that support nearly 200

species of birds, 54 of which are neotropical migrants. Because of this rich avian diversity, the

lands from Cowan’s Ford to Mountain Island Lake have been officially designated as IBAs by

the National Audubon Society. In addition, wildlife such as wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo),

numerous raptor species, whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

use these IBAs and the properties around the McGuire site to move freely along the Catawba

River corridor (Duke 2001a).

The McGuire exclusion area is a circle with a 760-m (2500-ft) radius (Figure 2-5) that covers

182 ha (450 ac). Two man-made water bodies, the standby nuclear service water pond

(13.3 ha [32.9 ac]) and the wastewater collection basin (4.13 ha [10.2 ac]), are located within

the exclusion area (Figure 2-5). The exclusion area includes portions of Lake Norman and the

McGuire discharge canal. Approximately 58.7 ha (145 ac) of the exclusion area are composed

of generation and maintenance facilities, parking lots, roads, storage yards, and mowed grass. 

The remaining 41.3 ha (102 ac) consist of forest communities (Duke 2001a). In addition,

4.5 km (2.8 mi) of transmission line right-of-way connects the exclusion area to the McGuire

switching station via nonforested terrestrial habitat.

The exclusion area harbors typical Piedmont plant communities (Duke 2001a) and land cover

types. As shown in Figure 2-5, seven plant communities or cover types have been identified at

| the McGuire site: (1) marsh; (2) marsh/wetland mixed hardwood/open water; (3) mixed

| hardwood-pine; (4) pine; (5) wetland mixed hardwood; (6) wetland mixed hardwood/marsh; and

| (7) open water (Gaddy 2001). Cecil sandy loam dominates the site, with some Monacan clay

loam found along the Catawba River. The more rare and more alkaline Mecklenburg and

Iredell soils, which often support prairie plant species, are absent from the site (Duke 2001a;

Gaddy 2001).

Marshes are nonforested and found along the margin of the floodplain of the Catawba River. 

Dominant marsh species include black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), a mallow

(Hibiscus sp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), fringed sedge (Carex crinita), cattail (Typha

latifolia), rice cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides), and the exotic Asiatic dayflower (Analeima keisak)

(Gaddy 2001).

Marsh/wetland mixed hardwood/open water describes a small wetland altered by beavers

(Castor canadensis) found along the eastern edge of the exclusion area boundary. Common

needlerush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.), and false nettle occur in the backwaters of a

small pond on the site. Black willow, tag alder, and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) are found

in the wetland mixed hardwood community upstream from the pond (Gaddy 2001).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Figure 2-5. McGuire Site Vegetation Types
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-24 December 2002 |

The mixed hardwood-pine community is the most widespread forest type on the McGuire site. 

Dominant species include white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Q. rubra), tulip poplar

(Liriodendron tulipifera), post oak (Q. stellata), hickories (Carya spp.), shortleaf pine (Pinus

echinata), and Virginia pine (P. virginiana). Gaddy (2001) identified a portion of this forest

community as a “significant natural area.” This area supports a well-developed mixed

hardwood forest with scattered mature trees (some greater than 2 ft in diameter). Tulip poplar,

white oak, red oak, white ash (Fraxinus americana), and hickories dominate the canopy of this

area, while dogwood (Cornus florida), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), strawberry bush

(Calycanthus floridus), and big-leaved storax (Styrax grandifolia) are found in the shrub layer of

the understory. The pine community is early successional and is dominated by loblolly pine (P.

taeda) with a low-density groundcover. Most of these stands occur in disturbed areas and

along forest edges and appear to have been planted (Gaddy 2001).

The wetland mixed hardwood community is found in the floodplain of the Catawba River along

the western edge of the exclusion area. Dominant overstory species include sweet gum

(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm (Ulmus americana), river

birch (Betula nigra), and sycamore. Box elder (A. negundo) is the understory dominant. The

forest floor is occupied by sedges, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Vietnam

grass (Microstegium vimineum) (Gaddy 2001).

The wetland mixed hardwood/marsh community occurs just south of the exclusion area where

transmission lines pass over a small tributary of the Catawba River. Sycamore, black willow,

tag alder, and sweet gum grow in the forested portions of the wetland, with Vietnam grass and

cutgrass (Leersia sp.) in the understory. False nettle, common needlerush (Scirpus

polyphyllus), and groundnut (Apios americana) grow in marshy openings (Gaddy 2001).

The forested portion of the exclusion area, as well as the transmission line rights-of-way, do not

provide significant terrestrial habitat because of the small acreage involved. However, the

| McGuire site contains man-made wildlife food plots, including strip plots in the rights-of-way,

that attract whitetail deer and other wildlife, including songbirds, a variety of mice and voles,

raptors, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and opossum (Didelphis

| virginiana). Food plots include sorghum, sunflowers, rye, clover, and wheat that are mowed

selectively to further enhance wildlife habitat value (Duke 2001a).

Notable wildlife species common to the McGuire site include whitetail deer, wild turkey, Canada

geese (Branta canadensis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),

and osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Whitetail deer numbers have increased since McGuire has

been operating. This is attributable largely to forest fragmentation, which provides for more

open area and an increase in the foraging area for the deer. Fifteen wild turkeys were released

on the McGuire site in 1996, and this population is apparently increasing. Wild turkeys are
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

commonly observed frequenting the food plots, rights-of-way, and bottomland hardwood areas. 

Canada geese numbers around McGuire also are increasing. These, and to a lesser extent

other waterfowl and birds, routinely travel between the McGuire site and Cowan’s Ford

Waterfowl Refuge on Mountain Island Lake. Year-round access to reliable food sources in

agricultural settings, yards, golf courses, and other open spaces explains why many of these

are nonmigratory. A great blue heron rookery exists on a Davidson Creek island in Lake |

Norman approximately 4.5 km (3 mi) north of McGuire. This rookery consists of approximately

30 nests and is protected under the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Colonial

Waterbird Nesting Area Program. Island access is prohibited from April 1 to August 31. 

Muskrats, osprey, and various salamanders, aquatic snakes, and turtles have commonly been

observed in marshy lowland areas and near open water (Duke 2001a).

Duke has a progressive wildlife enhancement program for which it received WAIT (Wildlife and

Industry Together) certification from the North Carolina Wildlife Federation in 2001. This

program is implemented both in the relatively unused portions of the plant site and offsite on

nearby properties. It includes establishment and maintenance of food plots in the exclusion

area and the rights-of-way; introduction of wild turkeys in cooperation with the Wild Turkey

Federation; establishment of an osprey hacking (feed and release) site near Cowan’s Ford Dam |

in cooperation with the Carolina Raptor Center; designation of a Davidson Creek island for |

heron management under the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for management |

under the Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area Program; and establishment of bluebird houses.

Eight Federally listed and 10 State-listed threatened or endangered species, candidate species,

or species of special concern are known to occur or may potentially occur in Mecklenburg

County (Table 2-2) (Cole 2001; NCDENR 2001). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are

known to nest at Lake Wylie (downstream of McGuire) and Lake James (upstream of McGuire)

and are known from the Catawba River area (Cole 2001). The eagles are observed

occasionally along Lake Norman (Cole 2001; Duke 2001a; Gaddy 2001), but sightings are rare

and there are no known nest sites within 100 km (60 mi) of the McGuire site. Except for the

bald eagle, no Federally or State-listed species are known to occur within the McGuire

exclusion area or associated transmission line rights-of-way (Duke 2001a; Gaddy 2001). 

However, Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) |

are known to occur on adjacent property (Cole 2001). No areas designated by the FWS as

critical habitat for threatened/endangered species are known to exist within the McGuire

exclusion area or associated transmission line rights-of-way (Duke 2001a; Gaddy 2001).
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-26 December 2002 |

| Table 2-2. Federal and State of North Carolina Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially

Occurring in Mecklenburg County.

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal

Status(a) State Status(a)

BIRDS

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T E

Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus loggerhead shrike SC

MAMMALS

Condylura cristata star-nosed mole -

coastal plain population SC

PLANTS

Aster georgianus Georgia aster C T

Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur FSC E

Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E E

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E E

Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort FSC C

Lotus helleri Carolina birdfoot-trefoil FSC C

Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E E

(a) E = endangered; T = threatened; FSC = Federal species of (special) concern; C = candidate for Federal

or State listing; SC = State species of special concern, but not protected under State regulations.

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts

Duke has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) around the

McGuire site since 1977 (Duke 2001d). The radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the

environment have been routinely monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate

standards. The REMP has four key objectives:

 Provide assurance that McGuire’s contribution of radioactivity to the environment is and

| remains within applicable limits (Duke 2000a).

 Detect and identify changes in environmental levels as a result of station operations

| (Duke 2001d).
Plant and the Environment

(a) The dose limit is twice the dose limit in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, because the limit is per reactor |

unit and McGuire has two operating reactor units.

December 2002 2-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

 Provide representative measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in the

exposure pathways for the radionuclides that have the highest potential for radiation

exposures of members of the public.

 Supplement the radiological effluent monitoring program by verifying that the

measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation are not higher

than expected on the basis of the effluent measurements and the modeling of the

environmental exposure pathways (Duke 2001d).

Radiological releases are summarized in the annual reports – McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1

and 2 – Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (Duke 2001d) and McGuire

Nuclear Station Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (Duke 2000b, 2001c). The limits

for all radiological releases are specified in the McGuire ODCM (Duke 2001e), and these limits

are designed to meet Federal standards and requirements. The REMP includes monitoring of

the air, direct radiation, surface water, drinking water, shoreline sediment, milk, fish, broadleaf

vegetation, and food products.

Review of historical data on releases and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the

doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of the McGuire site were a small fraction

of the limits specified in the EPA’s environmental radiation standards 40 CFR Part 190 as

required by 10 CFR 20.1301(d). For 2000 (the most recent year for which data were available),

dose estimates were calculated based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data

(Duke 2001c) and on measured concentrations of radionuclides from the REMP (Duke 2001d). 

Dose estimates based on effluent data were performed using the plant effluent release data,

onsite meteorological data, and appropriate pathways identified in the ODCM.

A breakdown of maximum dose to an individual located at the McGuire site boundary from

effluent-based releases and environmental-based releases for the year 2000 is as follows:

 Total body dose from liquid effluent-based estimates was 0.001 mSv (0.102 mrem)

compared to 0.00056 mSv (0.056 mrem) from environmental-based estimates. These

estimates were between 1 and 2 percent of the 0.06-mSv (6-mrem) dose limit.(a) The

maximum total organ dose for the liquid effluent-based estimates was 0.0013 mSv

(0.13 mrem) to the child liver compared to 0.00064 mSv (0.064 mrem) to the child liver

from the environmental-based estimates. These estimates were between 0.32 and

0.65 percent of the 0.20 mSv (20-mrem) dose limit (Duke 2001d).
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-28 December 2002 |

 The air dose due to noble gases in gaseous effluents was 0.00084 mSv (0.084 mrad) 

gamma (0.42 percent of the 0.20-mGy [20-mrad] gamma dose limit)(a) and 0.00031 mGy

(0.031 mrad) beta (0.08 percent of the 0.40-mGy [40-mrad] beta dose limit)(a) (Duke

2001d). Noble gases are not collected as part of the REMP; therefore, an

environmental-based estimate was not calculated (Duke 2001d).

 The critical organ dose from gaseous effluents due to iodine-131, iodine-133, tritium,

and particulates with half-lives greater than 8 days is 0.0055 mSv (0.55 mrem), which is

approximately 2 percent of the 0.30-mSv (30-mrem) dose limit(a) (Duke 2001d).

Duke does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or

| exposures from McGuire operations during the renewal period; therefore, the impacts to the

environment are not expected to change.

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors

The staff reviewed the McGuire Environmental Report (ER) and information obtained from

several county, city, and economic development staff during a site visit from September 24 to

28, 2001. The following information describes the economy, population, and communities near

the McGuire site.

2.2.8.1 Housing

| Approximately 1345 full-time workers employed by Duke or site contractors work at McGuire

| during normal plant operations. Approximately 23 percent of these employees live in

Mecklenburg County, 22 percent live in Lincoln County, 13 percent live in Gaston County, 11

percent live in Iredell County, and the rest live elsewhere in the region (see Table 2-3).

Duke refuels each nuclear unit at the McGuire site every 18 to 24 months. During these

refueling outages, site employment increases by approximately 1015 temporary workers for

30 to 40 days. No major plant refurbishment activities were identified as necessary beyond

routine replacement of components as part of normal plant maintenance (Duke 2001a). 

Duke has no plans to augment its current work force during the term of the license renewal

period (Duke 2001a).

Table 2-4 provides the number of housing units, vacancies, vacancy percentages, and 10-year

census percentage change for the seven counties in which 90 percent of McGuire employees

reside. The vacancy rate for the principal counties of residence is similar, between 5 and 9

percent.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 2-3. McGuire Employee Residence Information by County

County Number of Personnel Percent Cumulative Percent

Mecklenburg 318 24 23 |

Lincoln 305 23 47 |

Gaston 180 13 60 |

Iredell 155 11 71 |

Catawba 121 8 79 |

Cabarrus 93 7 86

Rowan 63 5 91 |

South Carolina 41 3 94 |

Other North Carolina 48 4 98

Other States 21 2 100 |

Total 1345 100 –

Source: Duke (2001a)

Table 2-4. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant by County During 1990 and 2000

1990 2000 Approximate Percentage Change

MECKLENBURG COUNTY

Housing Units 216,416 292,780 35

Occupied Units 200,219 273,416 37

Percent Vacant 7 7 0

LINCOLN COUNTY

Housing Units 20,189 25,717 27

Occupied Units 18,764 24,041 28

Percent Vacant 7 7 0

GASTON COUNTY

Housing Units 69,133 78,842 14

Occupied Units 65,347 73,936 13

Percent Vacant 5 6 20

IREDELL COUNTY

Housing Units 39,191 51,918 32

Occupied Units 35,573 47,360 33

Percent Vacant 9 9 0

CATAWBA COUNTY

Housing Units 49,192 59,919 22

Occupied Units 45,700 55,533 22

Percent Vacant 7 7 0

CABARRUS COUNTY

Housing Units 39,713 52,848 33

Occupied Units 37,515 49,519 32

Percent Vacant 6 6 0

ROWAN COUNTY

Housing Units 46,264 53,980 17

Occupied Units 45,512 49,940 10

Percent Vacant 8 7 -13
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-30 December 2002 |

2.2.8.2 Public Services

| Public services include water supply, education, and transportation.

  Water Supply

The CMUD, the largest public water and wastewater utility in the Carolinas, provides

drinking water to more than 700,000 people via an estimated 192,000 active water

| service connections in the City of Charlotte and greater Mecklenburg County – including

the towns of Matthews, Mint Hill, Pineville, Huntersville, Davidson, and Cornelius. The

| drinking water is pumped from the Catawba River – either at Mountain Island Lake or

| Lake Norman – to one of three treatment plants where the water is cleaned, tested, and

pumped into the distribution system. The three plants treat and deliver an average of

| roughly 386 million L/day (102 million gpd) of water or about half the system’s capacity.

| Six groundwater wells at McGuire supply specific low-volume needs totaling less than

0.0063 m3/s (100 gpm). The site also has a passive dewatering system for the reactor

building and auxiliary buildings. The total water usage at McGuire from CMUD for the year

2000 was 71.4 million liters (18.9 million gallons). Based on this figure, McGuire’s average

daily consumption of CMUD-supplied potable water was 0.0023 m3

/s (0.052 million gpd). 

CMUD estimates that the average annual system demand will be 7.14 m3

/s (163 million

gpd) through the year 2030. McGuire’s usage is 0.03 percent of the total system usage.

  Education

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools serve about 106,000 students in 86 elementary,

27 middle, and 16 high schools, as well as 9 special programs, not counting an

extensive pre-kindergarten program. There is excess capacity in general for all grade

levels except high school, for which enrollment equals capacity. This does not include

local school or individual classroom-level allocations, for which there may be

space/teacher/resource shortfalls.

  Transportation

The McGuire vicinity is served by Interstate 77 (I-77), which enters Mecklenburg County

from the north and proceeds southwest through the city of Charlotte and south to

Columbia, South Carolina. North Carolina Highway 16 (NC-16) provides north-south

travel on the west side of the Catawba River. Sixteen miles west of McGuire,

U.S. Highway 321 (US 321) runs north and south through the city of Gastonia. 
Plant and the Environment

(a) LOS is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their

perception by motorists (NRC 1996).

December 2002 2-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Highway NC-73 runs east and west and passes McGuire at the south end of Lake Norman. 

Interstate 85 (I-85) is a major east-west highway that traverses the middle of the county through

the city of Charlotte.

The plant is located approximately halfway between NC-16 and I-77. Road access to the

McGuire site is via NC-73, a two-lane road for most of its length between NC-16 and I-77. An

access railroad enters the site from the south along NC-73.

Duke contacted the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Statewide Planning

Branch for information on traffic counts near McGuire. The NCDOT provided Average Annual

Daily Traffic (AADT) count data and Level of Service (LOS)(a) designations for the requested

locations (Duke 2001a). The AADTs and LOS designation for roads in the vicinity of McGuire

are shown in Figure 2.6. The highest AADT counts are south on NC-16 to NC-73, and then

along NC-73 to SR 2145. NC-16 is a major corridor for traffic to and from the Charlotte area. 

The portion of NC-73 between NC-16 and SR 2145 is a major corridor of travel to Interstate

I-77. In summary, the LOS on NC-73 in the vicinity of McGuire is D—a high-density, stable

flow in which speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted and where small

increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems. 

Continued growth in population, unrelated to McGuire operations, will likely occur in the area |

through the period of the extended license. This growth will necessitate increases in traffic

capacity to accommodate the population increase. Traffic planning for the region is conducted

by the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). The MUMPO

maintains a 20-year planning horizon for transportation improvements in the region (MUMPO

1999). The most recent plan extends to the year 2020 and is reviewed and revised on a 5-year

cycle. The current plan does not include improvements to the road system near McGuire.

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use

The majority of the land area in the region near McGuire is a mixture of pasture, cropland,

forest, and residential development. The shoreline of Lake Norman is developed with both

vacation and permanent residences, along with campgrounds, boat launch areas, marinas, golf

courses, and small retail establishments. The dominant land uses are residential housing (38

percent) and vacant (44 percent).

Two wildlife refuges are close to the plant site. Cowan’s Ford Waterfowl Refuge abuts the plant |

site beginning at the Cowan’s Ford Dam and extends south about 11 km (7 mi) along the 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-32 December 2002 |

Figure 2-6. Traffic Counts and Level of Service on Roads Surrounding McGuire

Nuclear Station
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Catawba River. The Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge is about 7 km (4 mi) south of the plant site, |

within an oxbow bend in the riverine section of Mountain Island Lake. Kings Mountain National |

Military Park and Kings Mountain State Park are about 48 km (30 mi) southwest of McGuire. 

South Mountain State Park is approximately 64 km (40 mi) to the west-northwest. Crowder’s |

Mountain State Park is approximately 39 km (24 mi) southwest of McGuire. Morrow Mountain |

State Park and a small portion of the Uwharrie National Forest are to the east within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the McGuire site. The Catawba Indian Reservation occupies several sites

south of the plant near Rock Hill, South Carolina. The nearest of these sites is approximately

48 km (30 mi) from the McGuire site. 

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise

McGuire is visible from a few vantage points on adjoining roads and from Lake Norman. 

However, its presence does not seem to affect the many recreational boaters or the relatively

expensive homes that dot the shoreline. Very little noise from the nuclear station is evident

from offsite.

2.2.8.5 Demography

Population was estimated in the region of McGuire in an 80-km (50-mi) zone in 16-km (10-mi)

concentric rings. Population estimates for the 80-km (50-mi) area surrounding the site are

based on information from the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for McGuire (Duke 2000a).

  Resident Population Within 80 km (50 mi)

In 2000, an estimated 2,425,097 people lived within 80 km (50 mi), and 904,943 lived within

32 km (20 mi) of McGuire. 

Within 80 km (50 mi) of McGuire are located all or parts of 23 counties in North Carolina

and 6 in South Carolina. Within this circle, Charlotte, North Carolina, is the only major city |

with a population over 500,000 (2000 Census). The next largest city is Gastonia, North |

Carolina, to the southwest, with a population of 66,277 (2000 Census) and Rock Hill, South

Carolina, on Highway 21, with a population of 49,765 (2000 Census). Population data for

the counties surrounding McGuire (in which 90 percent of McGuire employees live) are

shown in Table 2-5.

  Transient Population

There is very little transient population, either from seasonal travelers or migrant workers,

in the vicinity of McGuire (personal communication with Richard W. Jacobsen, Jr., Director,

Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, October 2001; personal 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-34 December 2002 |

| Table 2-5. Historic and Projected Population in the Principal McGuire Area of Impact –The

Seven Counties with 90 Percent of the McGuire Employees

| County 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Mecklenburg 404,270 511,481 695,454 888,137 1,089,258

Lincoln 42,372 50,319 63,780 77,234 90,778

Gaston 162,568 175,093 190,365 203,623 215,587

Iredell 82,538 92,935 122,660 152,177 182,758

Catawba 105,208 118,412 141,685 163,889 186,058

Cabarrus 85,895 98,935 131,063 164,700 200,092

Rowan 99,186 110,605 130,340 150,599 171,889

Source: 1980 census data available at http://www.nationalatlas.gov/census1980m.html. 1990 and 2000 census

data available at http://factfinder.census.gov. Projections for 2010 and 2020 are available at

http://demog.state.nc.us/.

communications with Steve Patterson, Charlotte–Mecklenburg Planning Commission,

March 2002; personal communication with Donny Hicks, Executive Director, Gaston

County Economic Development Commission, March 2002). McGuire is actually in a

relatively affluent part of Mecklenburg and surrounding counties, in part because the

homes and lots on Lake Norman are considered very desirable.

2.2.8.6 Economy

According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, Economic Development Information

System (available at http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/region/carolinas.asp), Mecklenburg

County is in the Charlotte Regional Partnership, one of seven economic development regions in

North Carolina. Charlotte is the hub of this economic development region. Population growth

in Mecklenburg County over the past 20 years is shown in Table 2-5. This region’s population

and employment grew more rapidly than the state totals in recent years. The largest

employment sectors in this region are manufacturing and wholesale/retail trade, while the

fastest-growing sectors are construction and services. The business failure rate and business

startup rate are slightly below the state average. Per-capita income and average wages are

approximately 7 percent above the statewide levels. The unemployment rate is lower than the

state average, and the region’s poverty rate is the lowest in North Carolina.

Charlotte, the Piedmont Triad, and the Research Triangle region are the state's economic “hot

spots,” with growth predicted at 19 percent, 17 percent, and 15 percent, respectively, by the

year 2005. Firms such as Hilton Hotels, Marriott Hotels, Hannaford Brothers, Coltec, SeaLand,

Omni Hotels, Nations Bank, Hearst Corp., Black & Decker, and Canteen are located in

Charlotte. Charlotte’s financial sector is also growing and includes Nations Bank and First

Union Bank. 
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 2-6 shows the employment by sector and wages in the Mecklenburg area. Table 2-7

shows the employment of the 20 largest manufacturing companies, as reported by the North

Carolina Department of Commerce, Economic Development Information System. McGuire’s

1370 employees would place it sixth among public and private concerns behind Mecklenburg

County itself.

The unemployment rates for Mecklenburg County and surrounding localities are shown in

Table 2-8. Most are below the North Carolina State average of 3.6 percent (U.S. Department of

Labor 2001), with the notable exception of Gaston County, reflecting the diverse and healthy

economy of the region.

McGuire paid about $8.5 million in property taxes to both Mecklenburg County and the town of

Huntersville in fiscal year 1998-99. This represents about 2 percent of the property tax revenue

and about 1 percent of the total operating budget of Mecklenburg County. McGuire also pays

$333,333 per year to Huntersville, representing 7 percent of its property tax and 4 percent of its

operating budget, as shown in Table 2-9.

Table 2-6. Employment and Earnings in Key Economic Sectors in Mecklenburg County,

North Carolina

Workforce Average Weekly Earnings ($)

Number Percent County State |

Agriculture 4,864 0.90 472.16 383.00

Construction 32,622 6.30 690.74 571.00

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 58,199 11.30 1,124.78 844.00 |

Government 48,103 9.40 724.07 621.00

Manufacturing 49,765 9.70 855.04 689.00

Retail Trade 84,054 16.40 409.79 334.00

Wholesale Trade 45,101 8.80 870.05 733.00

Service 145,914 28.40 676.46 550.00

Transportation/Communications/ Public

Utilities

45,150 8.80 945.34 757.00 |

Total Workforce(a) 513,722 100.00

(a) Mining is excluded because of its very small share of employment in NC and for confidentiality reasons.

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce, Economic Development Information System available at

http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/countyprofiles/county.profile.asp?county=Mecklenburg
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-36 December 2002 |

Table 2-7. Twenty Largest Manufacturers in Mecklenburg County

Company Primary Product Category Staff

IBM Corp. Electronic Computers 3000

Solectron Technology Inc. Printed Circuit Boards 2500

Continental General Tire Inc. Tires and Inner Tubes 1700

Lance Inc. Potato Chips and Similar Products 1600

Microsoft Corp. Prepackaged Software 1300

Knight Publishing Co. Newspapers: Publishing and Printing 1000

Interstate Brands Corp. Bread, Bakery Products Except Cookies and Crackers 900

Frito-Lay Inc. Potato Chips and Similar Products 720

Clariant Corp. Cyclic-Crudes, Intermediates, Dyes and Org.

Pigments 

650

Siemens Westinghouse Power Steam, Gas, and Hydraulic Turbines and Engines 610

Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Co. Gray Iron Foundries 520

Blythe Construction Inc. Commercial Physical and Biological Research 500

Connor, Wilton Packaging

Limited Liability Company

Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes 500

Hoechst Celanese Corp. Commercial Physical and Biological Research 500

Continental General Tire Inc. Tires and Inner Tubes 400

Compass Group North America Food Preparations 400

Carolina Tractor/Equipment Co. Machinery and Equipment, Industrial and Commercial 400

AmeriSteel Corp. Blast Furnaces, Coke Ovens, Steel and Rolling Mills 400

Okuma Machine Tools Inc. Machine Tool Accessories 400

Conbraco Industries Inc. Valves and Pipe Fittings 350

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce, Economic Development Information System available at

http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/countyprofiles/countyprofile.asp?county=Mecklenburg

Table 2-8. Unemployment in Counties Surrounding McGuire

County

2000 Annual 

Unemployment Rates (%)

Cabarrus 2.6

Catawba 2.2

Gaston 6.1

Iredell 3.3

Lincoln 4.1

Mecklenburg 2.5

Rowan 4.8

State of North Carolina 3.6

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000 data (DOL 2001)
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 2-9. Property Tax Revenues Generated in Mecklenburg County: 1998-2001(a)

Tax or

Fiscal

Year

Total

Mecklenburg 

County

Property Tax

Revenues ($)(b)

Property Tax

Paid to

Mecklenburg

County by

McGuire ($)(c)

McGuire Property

Taxes as a 

Percentage of Total

County Property Tax

Revenue

Total County

Operating

Budget ($)(b)

McGuire

Property Taxes

as a Percentage

of Total County

Operating

Budget 

1998 385,673,079 8,100,866 2 760,190,762 1

1999 399,009,088 7,624,712 2 850,502,587 1

2000 445,135,437 7,421,517 2 940,575,290 1

2001 473,588,913 9,311,874 2 1,029,528,662 1

(a) In addition, McGuire pays $333,333 a year to the town of Huntersville, a part of an agreement for payments in

lieu of annexation of the McGuire site by the town of Huntersville. The payments will be made on an annual

basis until the year 2027, when the agreement expires. The total revenues received in 1999 by the town of

Huntersville were $9,462,699, of which $4,832,573 were revenues from property taxes (Duke 2001a, Section

4.18) The payment by McGuire represents about 7 percent of Huntersville’s property tax revenue and 4 percent

of its total operating budget.

(b) Source: Personal communication from Mecklenburg-Charlotte Tax Assessor, February 2002

(c) Source: Personal communication from North Carolina Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division,

March 2002

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological

resources at McGuire and in the surrounding area. This section draws on information

contained in the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a) and from archives and records stored at the North

Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Office of Archives and History, as well as published

literature that treats the history of the North Carolina Piedmont (Piedmont).

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background

McGuire is in the southwest section of the Piedmont geologic province. The Piedmont is a

large, highly dissected plateau covering some 58,000 km2

 (20,000 mi2) between the coastal

plain and the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains (Ward 1983). The Piedmont has an

archaeological sequence that extends back at least 12,000 years before the present. 

The Piedmont’s cultural history can be divided into five major periods: Paleoindian (10,000

B.C., and perhaps as early as 13,000 B.C., to around 8000 B.C.), Archaic (8000 to 500 B.C.),

Woodland (500 B.C. to around A.D. 1000), Mississippian (A.D. 1000 to around 1500), and

Historic and Modern (A.D. 1500 to the present).
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-38 December 2002 |

During the Paleoindian period, the native peoples seemingly were organized into small mobile

bands with a hunting- and a fishing-based economy. Animals hunted included megafauna,

such as the now extinct mammoth. The environment of the Paleoindian period was significantly

different from the present. This was at the end of the last ice age, in which the climate was

cooler than at present and glaciers covered much of the northern portion of North America.

The transition between the Paleoindian and Archaic periods was accompanied by substantial

environmental change. As glaciers began to melt, sea level began to rise. These changing

environmental conditions led to a greater dependance on river systems and the beginnings of

the use of domesticated plants. Middle Archaic sites in the Piedmont are numerous and likely

reflect small groups of socially noncomplex peoples widely ranging across the landscape

(Anderson 1996). Middle and Late Archaic archaeological sites typically exhibit greater

evidence of sedentary economies, such as the presence of storage pits, extensive refuse

middens, and large quantities of fire-cracked rock. Archaic period habitation sites appear to

have been divided into base camps used during the the spring, summer, and winter months,

and smaller upland sites used during the fall for deer hunting and nut gathering.

In the Woodland period, Native American cultures reached their modern configurations as

noted at the time of initial European contact in the 16th and 17th centuries. The middle of the

Woodland period witnessed the establishment of large sedentary base camps in river valleys,

with associated smaller resource-gathering sites being established in surrounding areas.

Toward the end of the Woodland period and during the subsequent Mississippian period, Native

American villages throughout the Midwest and much of the Southeast apparently were

organized into chiefdom-level societies (Bense 1994; Perdue 1985). The use of long-houses,

palisades, earth lodges, mounds and other earthen works, and designated burial grounds are

hallmarks of the Mississippian period.

The staff assumes that the ancestors of the modern Catawba Indians lived in the region

surrounding McGuire and the Catawba River at the time of historic contact with the Europeans

(Perdue 1985; Merrell 1989; Lee 1997; De Vorsey 1998). The Catawba are an eastern Siouanspeaking tribe who likely lived in the Carolinas for several hundred years before European

contact.

The Historic period in North Carolina began in the early 16th century with the first incursions of

European explorers along the Carolina Coast (Bense 1994; Cumming 1998; De Vorsey 1998). 

Beginning around 1660, a steady stream of Euroamericans began moving from Virginia into the

coastal sounds and rivers of North Carolina (Perdue 1985; Lee 1997). In 1670, the Carolina

colony was established by the British at Charles Town (modern Charleston). The stream of

settlers finally led to a series of conflicts between the tribes and the settlers, with the most
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

serious being the Tuscarora, Yamassee, and Cheraw Wars of 1711-1718. In these wars, the

Catawba first assisted the Euroamericans against Tuscarora and then turned on the

Euroamericans, particularly in the Yamassee War. Ultimately, the Catawba joined the

Cherokee in making peace.

In 1701, the surveyor John Lawson reported that several thousand Catawba Indians were

observed living in many different villages (Perdue 1985; Lee 1997). By 1738, smallpox and

other diseases had reduced the tribe to around 1000 people living in six villages in proximity |

along the Catawba River in the area around the present border between South and North

Carolina. A second smallpox epidemic in 1759-1760 further reduced the Catawba population.

By 1750, so many Euroamericans had moved into the Piedmont that Anson County was

created, a county which then covered roughly the western half of North Carolina. Mecklenburg

County itself was carved out from Anson County and established in 1763. The current county

boundaries were set up in 1842. Treaties in 1760 and 1763 set up an approximately 39-km2

(15-mi2) reservation for the Catawba tribe at the eastern edge of South Carolina; however,

these lands were soon overrun by Euroamerican colonists. In 1768, the town of Charlotte was

incorporated at the juncture of two major transportation and trade routes (Rogers and Rogers

1996). John Collet’s detailed 1770 map of North Carolina depicts Charlotte (Charlottesburgh) |

and the small nearby Catawba Tribal Reservation but depicts no settlements, mills, or

transportation corridors in the general vicinity of the current McGuire site (Cumming 1998). |

In early 1779, the British concentrated on consolidating their power in the southern states

during the American Revolution. Charles, First Lord Cornwallis, entered Charlotte on

September 28, 1780; however, his reception was so contested that he retreated from Charlotte |

to Charleston on October 14, 1780.

In December 1780, Nathanael Greene, the commanding general for the Continental Army in the

South, arrived in Charlotte. Greene decided that the Charlotte area did not contain enough

provisions to satisfactorily supply his army, so he removed the majority of the Army to the Pee

Dee River to the east of Charlotte. Some 1000 men under the command of General Daniel

Morgan were sent to northwest South Carolina. Lord Cornwallis began to pursue Morgan, who |

was fleeing east to attempt to rejoin with Greene. Greene, riding west from his camp, met

Morgan at the Catawba River, and was joined by General William Lee Davidson, the local militia

commander for the area.

Because there were no bridges crossing the Catawba River, Davidson and a small force were

tasked to slow the advance of the British Army so that Morgan’s forces would have time to join

up with those of Greene. Just before daybreak the next morning, the British Army led by

Cornwallis surprised Davidson’s sleeping militia at Cowan’s Ford. This action was to prove the |

last that occurred in the Charlotte area during the American Revolution. |
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-40 December 2002 |

| During the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War, the Piedmont was

| divided into regions devoted to the cultivation of tobacco (north and east of Charlotte) and

| cotton (around and to the south of Charlotte). The period of 1789 through 1860 saw the

development of plantations (primarily using African slaves for labor), independent farms, and

small towns through the Piedmont, in which agriculture dominated local economies. This

| agriculture-based economy was facilitated by the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, which

allowed short-fiber cotton to be grown virtually anywhere in the region.

The Catawba Indians were active resisters to the forced relocation plans of the Federal

government during the 1820s to 1850s, such as President Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal

Act of 1830 (Bense 1994). The Catawba attempted to hang onto their old reservation lands

ceded in the 18th century, but in 1840 were finally forced to sell most of them to South Carolina. 

The Catawba then variously lived with the North Carolina Cherokee and the Oklahoma Choctaw

and then surreptitiously returned to South Carolina.

The Charlotte area and the Mecklenberg County portion of the Catawba River did not play a

major role in the battles and strategy of the Civil War (Barrett 1987). Some Catawba soldiers

fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Due to the physical effects of the Civil War and to the abolishment of slavery, the economic

basis of the Southeast was fundamentally changed between 1865 and 1917 (Bense 1994). 

| While plantations typically were returned to their former owners, plant operations became

dependent on voluntary contracts or tenant farming with their labor force. Over time,

plantations became smaller, averaging less than 40 ha (100 ac) by 1920. The expansion of the

railroads, the rebuilding of basic infrastructure, and the Industrial Revolution all led to major

changes.

The period between World War I and World War II saw the continued growth of small towns

and the continuation of the use of small plantations and independent farms. In 1941, the

Catawba Tribe first received Federal recognition but petitioned to terminate their status in 1959,

with lands being distributed among tribal members (Merrell 1989). After a period of

reassessing this decision to divest, the tribal council was reorganized and in 1973 was given

state recognition by South Carolina. After a lengthy court process, Federal recognition was

| reinstated in 1993.

| The period since the end of World War II has witnessed the creation of Lake Norman, North

Carolina’s largest man-made lake, which reached full capacity in 1964. As a consequence,

numerous residential developments have blossomed around its margins, a trend that is

ongoing. Construction began in the mid-1970s on McGuire Units 1 and 2, and in 1981 and

1984, respectively, the units were put into operation.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the McGuire Site

Historic and archaeological site file searches were conducted at the North Carolina Department

of Cultural Resources, Office of Archives and History, to determine what specific historic

cultural resources may be present at the McGuire site. In addition, record searches were

conducted for nearby locations to gain a perspective on the types of historic resources that may

be present in the previously undeveloped and unsurveyed portions of the grounds of the

McGuire Nuclear Station.

These record searches revealed that there are no known historic and archaeological resources

at McGuire. During the construction of McGuire, a forgotten historic marker commemorating

the death of General Davidson at Cowan’s Ford was discovered (Duke 2001a). Cowan’s Ford

and the location of Davidson’s death are now inundated. General Davidson’s body was interred

at the Hopewell Church cemetery about 8 km (5 mi) away. In 1971, Duke incorporated this

marker, as well as a new marker provided by the North Carolina Department of Archives and

History, into a public area adjacent to McGuire. The markers were dedicated in 1971 and are

still maintained by Duke.

An archaeological survey was not conducted at McGuire before construction activities. 

However, based on the records of nearby sites and properties, it is unlikely that significant

Native American resources were present. A number of Native American archaeological sites

were identified and recorded in the early 1960s just north of McGuire before the creation of

Lake Norman. These sites were poorly defined and described but appear to represent Archaic,

Woodland, and Mississippian period occupations. Most consisted of a few scattered stone and

ceramic artifacts in areas heavily disturbed by historic agriculture, specifically from the

cultivation of cotton. Erosion caused by cotton farming was a major impact in virtually every

site, with many of the sites being exposed to bedrock.

No structures or buildings at McGuire are 50 years of age or older. A number of structures and

buildings within a 5.0-km (3.1-mi) radius of McGuire have been evaluated for historic

significance; however, only three of these have been determined eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places (Duke 2001a). These include the Ingleside house, which |

was built in the 1850s, and is about 3.7 km (2.3 mi) from McGuire; the Rural Hill Plantation, |

which has features dating to the late 18th century, and is about 4.6 km (2.8 mi) from McGuire; |

and the Holly Bend house, which was built at the end of the 18th century, and is about 4.9 km |

(3.0 mi) from McGuire. The Gilead Associated Reformed Presbyterian church and cemetery

and the Caldwell-Rosenwald School are currently pending evaluation. 

The Catawba Indian Reservation (in three separate parcels) is situated in South Carolina about

48 km (30 mi) south of McGuire.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-42 December 2002 |

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

renewal of the OLs for McGuire. Any such activities could result in cumulative environmental

impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a cooperating agency in

| preparing the SEIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

The Federal Power Commission, now the FERC, issued a license (FERC Project No. 2232) to

Duke Power Company on September 17, 1958, for the Catawba-Wateree hydroelectric project

(FERC 2001a). One component of the project is the Cowan’s Ford Dam hydroelectric station. 

The Cowan’s Ford Dam impounds Lake Norman. The license for the Catawba-Wateree project

will expire August 31, 2008 (FERC 2001a). Under current FERC rules, Duke Power will need to

file a notice of intent with FERC by August 2003 declaring whether or not it intends to seek a

new license for the Catawba-Wateree hydroelectric project (18 CFR 16.6). Assuming that Duke

Power intends to seek a new license, it will need to file an application for the relicensing of the

| project at least 2 years before the license expires. FERC will prepare an environmental

assessment or an EIS under NEPA in conjunction with reviewing the application. FERC’s

procedures for processing a license application are set out in a handbook (FERC 2001b). 

The Federal lands closest to McGuire are within the Kings Mountain National Military Park. The

park is located near Blacksburg, South Carolina, and is operated by the National Park Service. 

The park is approximately 48 km (30 mi) southwest of McGuire.

The Native American land closest to the McGuire site is the Catawba Indian Reservation. The

tribe occupies a 260-ha (640-ac) reservation in York County, South Carolina, near the city of

Rock Hill. The reservation is approximately 48 km (30 mi) south of McGuire.

Duke’s Catawba Nuclear Sation is located approximately 48 km (30 mi) south of McGuire. 

Duke has requested that the NRC renew the OLs for the Catawba plant also.

After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of McGuire, the staff determined that no

Federal project activities could result in cumulative impacts or would make it desirable for

another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for preparing the SEIS. 

The NRC is required under Section 102 of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments of

any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environ-

| mental impact involved. During the preparation of this SEIS, the NRC staff consulted with the

FWS. The consultation correspondence is included in Appendix E. 
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

2.3 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for |

Protection Against Radiation.”

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing |

of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for |

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, “Licensing |

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.”

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and |

Transportation of Radioactive Material.”

10 CFR Part 42. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, “Licensing |

Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive

Waste.”

18 CFR Part 16. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water |

Resources, Part 16, “Procedures Relating to Takeover and Relicensing of Licensed Projects.”

40 CFR Par 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, |

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, |

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

Anderson, D. G. 1996. “Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period

Southeast.” In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, eds. K. E. Sassaman and D. G.

Anderson, pp. 157-176. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Barrett, J. G. 1987. North Carolina as a Civil War Battleground, 1861-1865. North Carolina

Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Bense, J. A. 1994. Archaeology of the Southeastern United States. Academic Press, New

York. 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-44 December 2002 |

Cole, B. 2001. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor, Asheville Field

Office, Asheville, North Carolina to Cynthina A. Carpenter, Chief, Risk Informed Initiatives,

Environmental Decommissioning and Rulemaking Branch, Division of Nuclear Regulatory

Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Subject: “McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Project,

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370).” November 1, 2001.

Cumming, W. P. 1998. The Southeast in Early Maps. Third edition. University of North

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

De Vorsey, L., Jr. 1998. “American Indians and the Early Mapping of the Southeast.” In The

Southeast in Early Maps, third edition, by W. P. Cumming, pp. 65-98. University of North

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2000a. Duke Energy Company McGuire Nuclear Station

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 9, Oct. 14, 2000. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2000b. McGuire Nuclear Station Annual Radioactive

Effluent Release Report (January 1, 1999 Through December 31, 1999). Charlotte, North

Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001a. Applicant’s Environmental Report—Operating

License Renewal Stage—McGuire Nuclear Station. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001b. Application to Renew the Operating Licenses of

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Charlotte,

North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001c. McGuire Nuclear Station Annual Radioactive

Effluent Release Report (January 1, 2000 Through December 31, 2000). Charlotte, North

Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001d. McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2—Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report—2000. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001e. McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Offsite Dose

Calculation Manual (ODCM). Revision 42, January 2001. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Power Company. 1985. McGuire Nuclear Station 316(a) Demonstration. Charlotte,

North Carolina.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Elliott, D. L., C. G. Holladay, W. R. Barchet, H. P. Foote, and W. F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind

Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D.C. <http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/titlepg.html>

(accessed March 26, 2002).

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). 33 USC 1251, et seq.

Fridell, J. A. 2001. Carolina heelsplitter in North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Asheville, North Carolina. <http://nc-es.fws.gov/mussel/carolheel.html> (accessed

September 12, 2001).

Gaddy, L. L. 2001. Biological Assessment for Endangered, Threatened, and Noteworthy

Species, Wetlands, and Significant Natural Areas in Association with McGuire Nuclear Station

and Related Power Transmission Lines. Prepared for Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North

Carolina, March 2001.

Hall, J. J. and T. J. Wilda. 2000. Corbicula Populations and Their Biofouling Potential in the

McGuire Nuclear Station Intake Structures in 1999. Duke Power Company internal report, 

Charlotte, North Carolina.

Hall, J. J. and T. J. Wilda. 2001. Corbicula Populations and Their Biofouling Potential in the

McGuire Nuclear Station Intake Structures in 2000. Duke Power Company internal report, 

Charlotte, North Carolina.

Lee, E. L. 1997. Indian Wars in North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Archives and

History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP). 2000. State of the

Environment 2000. Charlotte, North Carolina. 

<http://www.co.mecklenburg.mn.us/cenv/SOER/SOER.htm> (accessed October 3, 2001).

Mecklenburg – Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). 1999. Charlotte, North

Carolina.

Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. Delmar Co., Charlotte, North

Carolina. 

Merrell, J. H. 1989. The Indians’ New World: Catawbas and Their Neighbors from European

Contact Through the Era of Removal. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 2-46 December 2002 |

National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC) 2001. “Local Climatological Data Annual Summary

With Comparative Data, Charlotte, North Carolina.” Asheville, North Carolina.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 1999. 

Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section,

Raleigh, North Carolina.

Perdue, T. 1985. Native Carolinians: The Indians of North Carolina. North Carolina Division of

Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Ramsdell, J. V., and G. L. Andrews. 1986. Tornado Climatography of the Contiguous United

States. NUREG/CR-4461, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Rogers, J. R., and A. T. Rogers. 1996. Charlotte and Its Historic Neighborhoods. Arcadia

Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Town of Huntersville. 2001. “The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Huntersville.”

<http://www.huntersville.org/planning/ordinances.htm> (accessed February 15, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001. “U.S. Wind Energy Resource Map.”

<http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/we_map.html> (accessed March 27, 2001)

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 2001. “State and Regional Unemployment. 2000 Annual

Averages.” <ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/srgune.txt> (accessed February 27, 2001).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. “Proposed Carolina Heelsplitter Critical

Habitat”. <http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2001/July/Day-11/e16867.htm>

(accessed March 20, 2002).

U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2001a. Hydroelectric Projects Under

Commission License. <http://www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/projlic.pdf> (accessed February 18,

2002).

U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2001b. Hydroelectric Project Licensing

Handbook. <http://www.ferc.gov/hydro/docs/licensing_handbook.pdf> (accessed February 18,

2002).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. “Final Environmental Statement Related

to Operation of William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Duke Power Company.” 

Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, NUREG-0063, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. “Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors.” 

NUREG-1301, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 2, Oconee Nuclear Station. 

NUREG-1437, Supp. 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation,

Table 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,

Final Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

Ward, H. T. 1983. “A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of

Change.” In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, eds. M. A.

Mathis and J. J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh,

North Carolina.

Water Resources Development Act of 1999. Pub. L. 106-53, August 17, 1999, 113 Stat. 269.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 3-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS included a determination of whether the |

analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 |

designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following

criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1 and,

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These

actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type

of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment

that were determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.

Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these

conclusions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2

issues. These are listed in Table 3-2.
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 3-2 December 2002 |

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 3.4.1

Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Refurbishment 3.5

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 3.4.2

LAND USE

Onsite land use 3.2

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and

recreation

3.7.4; 3.7.4.3; 3.7.4.4;

3.7.4.6

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8

Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to refurbishment that are not applicable to McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) because they are related to plant design features or

site characteristics not found at McGuire are listed in Appendix F.

10 CFR 54.21 describes a required review to demonstrate that the effects of aging will be

managed such that the structure and component intended functions will be maintained

consistent with the current licensing basis during the period of extended operations. Duke

Energy Corporation (Duke) provided this review in the Technical Information portion of its

| application for license renewal (Duke 2001). Duke stated that, “Based on this review, no major

plant refurbishment activities were identified as necessary to maintain the structure and

component intended functions consistent with the current licensing basis during the period of

extended operations.” Therefore, the staff does not further consider refurbishment in this

| Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

December 2002 3-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR 51.53

(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

AIR QUALITY

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and

maintenance areas)

3.3 F

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 3.7.2 I

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I

Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 I

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 I

Public services: transportation 3.7.4.2 J

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice Not

addressed(a)

Not

addressed(a)

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision

to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license

renewal, environmental justice must be addressed in the applicant’s environmental report and the staff’s

environmental impact statement.

3.1 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for |

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 3-4 December 2002 |

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001. Application to Renew the Operating Licenses of 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Charlotte,

North Carolina.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, 

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 4-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

Environmental issues associated with plant operations during the renewal term are discussed in

the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999b).(a) The GEIS included a determination of |

whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether

additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were assigned a Category 1 or a |

Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and |

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter addresses the issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in

Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, and are applicable to McGuire Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire). Section 4.1 addresses the issues applicable to the McGuire

cooling water systems. Section 4.2 addresses issues related to transmission lines and land

use. Section 4.3 addresses the radiological impacts of normal operation. Section 4.4

addresses issues related to the socioeconomic impacts of normal operation during the renewal

term. Section 4.5 addresses issues related to groundwater use and quality. Section 4.6

discusses the impacts of renewal-term operations on threatened and endangered species. 

Section 4.7 addresses new information that was raised during the scoping period. The results

of the evaluation of environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term are
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-2 December 2002 |

summarized in Section 4.8. Finally, Section 4.9 lists the references for Chapter 4. Appendix F

lists Category 1 and Category 2 issues that are not applicable to McGuire Nuclear Station, Units

1 and 2 because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at

McGuire.

4.1 Cooling System

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

to cooling system operation for McGuire during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. Duke

Energy Corporation (Duke) stated in its environmental report (ER) that “no new information

existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions” (Duke 2001a). The staff has

not identified any significant new information during its independent review of the McGuire ER

(Duke 2001a), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of the issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that

the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be

sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

  Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of altered current

patterns during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Altered thermal stratification of lakes. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the McGuire Cooling System

During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2.2

Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.3; 4.4.3; 4.4.2.2

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7; 4.4.3

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8; 4.4.3

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among

organisms exposed to sublethal stresses

4.2.2.1.10; 4.4.3

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11; 4.4.3

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbial organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6

Noise 4.3.7

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of altered thermal stratification of Lake Norman during the renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-4 December 2002 |

  Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of temperature on

sediment transport capacity during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power

plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to

be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of scouring during the renewal term beyond those discussed in

the GEIS.

  Eutrophication. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of eutrophication during the renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

  Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available

information including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit

for McGuire or discussion with the NPDES compliance office. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications,

if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available

information including the NPDES permit for McGuire or discussion with NPDES compliance

office. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of sanitary

wastes and minor chemical spills during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

  Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been

satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available

information including the NPDES permit for McGuire or discussion with NPDES compliance

office. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of other

metals in wastewater during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Water-use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems). Based on information

in the GEIS, the Commission found that

These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-6 December 2002 |

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no water-use conflicts during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but

has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with

those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of accumulation of

contaminants in sediments or biota during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

  Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Cold shock. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with

once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of cold shock during

the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of thermal plumes to

migrating fish during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the

larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on the distribution of aquatic organisms during the renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating

nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of premature

emergence during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-8 December 2002 |

  Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear

power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily

mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of gas supersaturation

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a

once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

  Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

stresses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of losses from

predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sub-lethal stresses during

the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

  Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single

nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was

a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of stimulation of

nuisance organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Microbiological organisms (occupational health). Based on information in the GEIS, the

commission found that 

Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application

of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposure.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s onsite visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there is no impacts of

microbiological organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Noise. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not

expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of noise during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are

applicable to McGuire are discussed in the section that follows, and are listed in Table 4-2.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-10 December 2002 |

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the McGuire Cooling System

During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix

B, Table B-1

GEIS

Sections

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

AQUATIC ECOLOGY

| (FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH AND COOLING POND HEAT-DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life

stages

4.2.2.1.2; 4.4.3 B 4.1.1

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3; 4.4.3 B 4.1.2

Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4; 4.4.3 B 4.1.3

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (public health)(plants

using lakes or canals, or cooling towers or

cooling ponds that discharge into a small river)

4.3.6 G 4.1.4

4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages

For plants with once-through cooling systems, entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life

stages into cooling water systems associated with nuclear power plants is considered a

Category 2 issue, requiring a site-specific assessment prior to license renewal.

The staff independently reviewed the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a), visited the site, and reviewed

the application for NPDES Permit No. NC0024392, which was issued by the North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and expires February 28, 2005.

In response to requirements set by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and

Community Development (NCDNRCD), Division of Environmental Management, Duke

submitted a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) demonstration for McGuire in October

1978 (Duke Power Company 1978).

The 316(b) study conclusions related to entrainment of juvenile fish were based on determinaions of larval fish species composition and abundance evaluated on a biweekly basis when

larval fish were present between 1974 and 1977 (Duke Power Company 1978). Species known

to spawn in the McGuire intake cove are the introduced forage fish—threadfin shad (Dorosoma

petenense), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), and

crappie (Poxomis spp). The collection site was in the upper intake area, at a depth of 15 m

(49 ft). Icthyoplankton losses to entrainment were primarily threadfin shad eggs and larvae. 

Because of the rapid threadfin shad reproduction rate and the presence of more suitable

spawning habitat outside the influence of the intake structures, losses do not have a
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

measurable effect on the standing crop of shad. Most fish species that reside in the vicinity of

McGuire spawn in shallow shoreline areas and produce demersal, adhesive eggs that would

not be subject to entrainment. In addition, during summer up to 45 percent of the intake water

is predicted to come from the low-level intake, which pulls water from the hypolimnion at a |

depth of approximately 30 m (100 ft). Because there are few plankton of any sort in this cold,

low-oxygen water, opportunities for larval fish entrainment are expected to be further reduced |

during the summer period.

After reviewing Duke’s submittal, the NCDNRCD concurred with the conclusions of the study

(NCDNRCD 1984) and re-issued the site’s NPDES permit (dated September 1, 1984) with no

additional monitoring or studies required.

The staff has reviewed the available information, the results of entrainment studies, and |

operating history of the intake and concludes that the potential impacts of the cooling-waterintake system’s entrainment of fish and shellfish in the early life stages are SMALL, and

additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

For plants with once-through cooling systems, impingement of fish and shellfish on debris

screens of cooling water systems associated with nuclear power plants is considered a

Category 2 issue, requiring a site-specific assessment prior to license renewal.

The staff independently reviewed the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a), visited the site, and reviewed

the application for NPDES Permit No. NC0024392, which was issued by the NCDENR and

expires February 28, 2005.

In response to requirements set by the NCDNRCD, Division of Environmental Management, |

Duke submitted a CWA Section 316(b) demonstration for McGuire in October 1978 (Duke |

Power Company 1978).

The 316(b) study conclusions related to impingement of fish and shellfish were based on

studies of fish species composition and abundance evaluated on a monthly, quarterly, or annual

basis using electrofishing, gillnetting, and rotenone sampling techniques between 1974 and

1977 (Duke Power Company 1978). Based on studies conducted in the 1970s, most fish

impinged at McGuire were threadfin shad, especially during the fall and winter when the

introduced species is susceptible to low-temperature stress and exhibits high mortality

associated with cool water temperatures. Fish swimming between the trash racks and screens

were predicted to be most susceptible to impingement. However, it was predicted that fish

approaching the upper-level trash racks when the low-level pumps were operating could be
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-12 December 2002 |

repelled by the low temperature and oxygen levels associated with water drawn from the

hypolimnion by the low-level pumps.

After reviewing Duke’s submittal, the NCDNRCD concurred with the conclusions of the study

(NCDNRCD 1984) and re-issued the site’s NPDES permit (dated September 1, 1984), with no

additional monitoring or studies required.

An in-house impingement sampling program that began in December 2000 and is scheduled to

continue through November 2002 incorporates a full count of all fishes impinged on condenser

cooling water intake screens for Units 1 and 2 through a weekly sampling program

(Duke 2001b). Preliminary results indicate that impingement rates at McGuire are very low. 

Between December 2000 and December 2001, a total of 1746 fish were impinged. Weekly

impingement ranged from a low of 5 fish to a high of 455 fish. Threadfin shad was the species

most commonly impinged (50 percent). Seventy-one percent of these threadfin shad were

observed during a 14-day period between December 29, 2000, and January 12, 2001, when the

| water temperature reached a low of 10C. Threadfin shad are a nonindigenous, temperate

species with documented potential for cold shock morbidity and mortality when water

temperatures drop below 9C (Strawn 1963). These data suggest that the high impingement

rate for threadfin shad during the 14-day period resulted from a natural die-off in the vicinity of

the intake. Other species observed on the intake screens were bluegill sunfish (Lepomis

macrochirus; 9 percent), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus; 8 percent), and a combination of

other species that individually comprised less than 5 percent of the total number impinged

(30 percent).

Impacts to shellfish from impingement are not considered important because adult shellfish are

not motile and susceptible to impingement.

The staff has reviewed the available information relative to potential impacts of the cooling

water intake on the impingement of fish and shellfish and, based on this data, concludes that

the impacts are SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.1.3 Heat Shock

For plants with once-through cooling systems, the effects of heat shock are listed as a

Category 2 issue and require plant-specific evaluation before license renewal.

The staff independently reviewed the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a), visited the site, and reviewed

the application for NPDES Permit No. NC0024392, which was issued by the NCDENR and

expires February 28, 2005.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Duke submitted a CWA Section 316(a) demonstration for McGuire to the NCDNRCD, Division

of Environmental Management, in June 1985 (Duke 1985). In summary, the NCDNRCD

indicated that “the effects of the discharge from the McGuire Nuclear Station is such that the

protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community is assured in Lake

Norman and that interaction of the two thermal plumes of McGuire and Marshall do not occur”

(NCDNRCD 1985). Thus, the 316(a) submittal was successful and suggested that the limits in

the NPDES permit were sufficient to protect the aquatic environment of Lake Norman.

Studies performed for the 316(a) submittal were initiated in 1973 and continued through

submission of the document. Physical and mathematical models were developed to determine

Lake Norman hydrodynamics and thermal plume characteristics in relation to station operation

(Duke Power Company 1985). Both models were validated with surface-temperature data and

were found to predict surface thermal plume size with a high degree of confidence. Both

predicted that operation of McGuire would not result in discharge temperatures outside those

allowed in the NPDES permit. Fish species collected during preoperational and operational

studies indicated no substantial change in species composition over time (Duke Power

Company 1985). The most significant changes were increases in specific fish taxa abundance

in winter at the McGuire discharge, associated with fish congregating in the discharge plume

due to increased water temperature.

McGuire currently operates under thermal limits established in its NPDES permit issued

February 1, 1990. Annual aquatic monitoring to assess impacts of current thermal limits on the

aquatic biota of Lake Norman is required. Results of the monitoring studies conducted in

support of this requirement are reported annually to the NCDENR (formally NCDNRCD).

Monitoring of fish populations in and around the McGuire mixing zone is coordinated with the

North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). The latest report covers data

collected in 1999 (Duke 2000). Observed striped bass mortalities during the summer of 1999

included one mortality within the mixing zone and five mortalities in the main channel outside

the mixing zone which may or may not have been related to heat shock. Shoreline

electrofishing catches at the McGuire mixing zone area were only slightly lower than a

reference area in total biomass and taxa composition. Hydroacoustic and purse seine sampling

were also conducted in 1999, in cooperation with the NCWRC, to evaluate Lake Norman forage

fish populations. According to the applicant, “fisheries data to date indicate that the Lake

Norman fishery is consistent with the trophic status and productivity of the reservoir” (Duke

2000).

Based on its review of available information, the staff concludes that the potential heat shock

impacts resulting from operation of the plant’s cooling water discharge system to the aquatic

environment on or in the vicinity of the site are SMALL, and additional mitigation is not

warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-14 December 2002 |

4.1.4 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health)

McGuire has a once-through cooling system that uses the Catawba River as the cooling

| source. The Catawba River, which was impounded to form Lake Norman, has an annual

average flow rate of 2.38×109 cubic meters per year (8.42×1010 | cubic feet per year). This flow

rate is lower than the 9×1010 cubic meters per year (3.15×1012 | cubic feet per year) specified in

| 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(G), which requires an evaluation of potentially harmful thermophylic

(heat-loving) microorganisms on human health. The flow rate raises a concern from the

standpoint of the potential for enhancement of thermophylic microorganisms such as Naegleria

fowleri. This type of organism could be a potential health concern for members of the public

swimming in the cooling source and can under certain conditions cause a fatal condition called

primary ameobic meningoencephalitis (PAME).

Lake Norman is a popular site for a variety of water-based recreational activities, including

boating, fishing, water skiing, and swimming. All of these activities are dispersed throughout the

lake, rather than being concentrated in certain areas. Swimming occurs from private boat docks

and piers located around the lake shoreline and from boats anchored offshore.

| McGuire uses Lake Norman as a source for condenser cooling water. The heated effluent from

| the condenser discharge enters Lake Norman through a discharge canal that is 1 km (0.6 mi)

| long and has an average depth of 12.2 m (40 ft). The heated effluent mixes initially in the canal

with surface waters of the main lake before stabilizing vertically and spreading over the lake

surface, ultimately dissipating its heat to the atmosphere.

No swimming or boating is allowed in the canal, although fishing is permitted from its banks.

Boating, fishing, and water contact activities take place at the confluence of the canal and the

lake. The closest privately owned dock is located outside the 760-m (2500-ft) exclusion zone

and is approximately 150 m (495 ft) from the confluence of the canal and the lake.

The state agency responsible for public health is the North Carolina Department of Health and

Human Services (NCDHHS), Division of Public Health. Duke consulted with this agency to

| determine if there is a concern about the potential existence and concentration of N. fowleri in

the receiving waters for the plant cooling discharge waters. By letter dated June 12, 2000, the

Division of Public Health summarized the agency’s position and opinion regarding the risk to

| individuals using Lake Norman for recreational activities. The Division of Public Health

| concluded that only a small percentage of cases of PAME have been associated with thermally

enhanced waters and the disease is exceedingly rare given the millions of swimming events in

| warm fresh water bodies in the United States. Therefore, the NCDHHS feels the risk to

| individuals utilizing Lake Norman for recreational activities is extremely low (Duke 2001a).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

There has been no known impact of operation of McGuire on public health related to

thermophylic microorganisms. These data indicate that the impact of deleterious |

microbiological organisms during continued operation of the plant during the renewal term is

low.

Based on its review of the above information, the staff concludes that the potential impacts to

public health from microbiological organisms resulting from operation of the plant’s cooling

water discharge system to the aquatic environment on or in the vicinity of the site are SMALL,

and additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.2 Transmission Lines

The McGuire ER (Duke 2001a) describes four transmission lines with a total length of 4.5 km

(2.8 mi) that connect the McGuire plant to two substations within the local transmission system. 

These lines are situated on 2.2 km (1.4 mi) of corridor on approximately 22.8 ha (56.2 ac). 

Transmission corridor rights-of-way are generally maintained on a 3-year cycle. Mechanical

mowing and selective herbicide application are the standard methods of corridor maintenance. 

Duke cooperates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and North Carolina Natural

Heritage Program to identify Federally-and State-listed species, special habitats, new findings, |

and other pertinent factors. This information is used to establish new and review existing

vegetation management programs for the rights-of-way so that adverse impacts to these may

be avoided during corridor maintenance. As noted in Section 2.1.7, the NRC staff conducted a

separate evaluation of the rights-of-way from the McGuire station to the Oconee Nuclear

Station, in South Carolina, under the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for Oconee Nuclear Station (NRC 1999a).

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

the McGuire transmission lines are listed in Table 4-3. Duke stated in its ER that “no new

information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions” (Duke 2001a). 

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of the

McGuire ER (Duke 2001a), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other 

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these

issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues, the GEIS concluded that

the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently

beneficial to be warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-16 December 2002 |

Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the McGuire Nuclear Station Transmission Lines

During the Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

Terrestrial Resources

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1

Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops,

honeybees, wildlife, and livestock)

4.5.6.3

Floodplains and wetlands on power line right-of-way 4.5.7

Air Quality

Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2

Land Use

Onsite land use 4.5.3

Power line right-of-way 4.5.3

A brief description of the staff’s review and GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for each

of these issues follows:

  Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small

significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with the FWS, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of power line right-of-way maintenance during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

  Bird collisions with power lines: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Impacts (of bird collisions with power lines) are expected to be of small

significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with the FWS, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

  Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops,

honeybees, wildlife, livestock): Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna

have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the

license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna during the renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

  Floodplains and wetlands on power line right-of-way: Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power

lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant

impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, discussions with the FWS, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts on floodplains and wetlands on the power line rights-of-way during the renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Air quality effects of transmission lines: Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not

contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no air quality impacts of

transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-18 December 2002 |

  Onsite land use: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected onsite land use changes required during ... the renewal period would

be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is

controlled by the applicant.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no onsite land-use

impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Power line right-of-way (land use). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in

restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on use of

power line rights-of-way during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

There is one Category 2 issue related to transmission lines, and another issue related to

transmission lines is being treated as a Category 2 issue. These issues are listed in Table 4-4

and are discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

| Table 4-4. Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields and Category 2 Issue Applicable to

the McGuire Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

HUMAN HEALTH

Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1

Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects

In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff found that without a review of the conformance of each

nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria, (Institute of

Electrical and Electronic Engineers [IEEE] 1997) it was not possible to determine the

significance of the electric shock potential. Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was not addressed in the licensing

process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity of transmission lines may

have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to upgrade line voltage. To

comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an assessment of the

potential shock hazard if the transmission lines that were constructed specifically to connect the

plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing

electric shock from induced currents.

Two 230-kV transmission lines and two 525-kV transmission lines connect McGuire Nuclear |

Station to the transmission system. The 230-kV lines connect McGuire Unit 1 to a 230-kV

switchyard and have a length of approximately 1200 m (4000 ft). Similarly, the 525-kV lines

connect Unit 2 to a 525-kV switchyard and have a length of approximately 1000 m (3300 ft). 

The two switchyards are adjacent to each other.

The transmission lines were constructed to meet the 1973 NESC requirements. Duke (2001a)

has compared the clearances calculated using the 1973 NESC with clearance requirements of

the 1997 NESC and found the 1973 NESC clearance requirements to be greater. Duke further

states that measured clearances from the sagged plan and profile of each bus line indicate that

the designed clearances of the transmission lines exceed the 1997 NESC vertical clearance

requirements and that there have been no changes in the design voltages of the lines. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact of the potential for electric shock is SMALL, and

additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects

In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not

designated as Category 1 or 2 and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the

health implications of these fields.

The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at

this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related

research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). A recent report (NIEHS 1999)

contains the following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field]

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive

regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the

public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-20 December 2002 |

NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide

sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The staff considers the GEIS finding of “not

applicable” still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

| Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

| McGuire in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-5. Duke stated in its ER (Duke

2001a) that “no new information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS

conclusion.” The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues,

the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific

mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

  Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with

normal operations.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of radiation exposures

to the public during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

  Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are

within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal

maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of occupational

radiation exposures during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations. |

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the

License Renewal Period

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-6. Duke stated in its ER

(Duke 2001a) that “no new information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS

conclusions.” The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS (NRC 1996). For all of

those issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific

mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

  Public services–public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to be

of small significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on public safety,
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-22 December 2002 |

social services, and tourism and recreation during the renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and

recreation

4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6

Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8

  Public services–education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Only impacts of small significance are expected.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on education during

the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts during the

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on information in

the GEIS, the Commission found that

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts of

transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Table 4-7 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis, and 

environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS.

Table 4-7. Environmental Justice Analysis and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable

to Socioeconomics During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 4.7.1 I 4.4.1

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 I 4.4.2

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 I 4.4.3

Public Services, transportation 4.7.3.2 J 4.4.4

Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5

Environmental Justice

Not

Addressed(a) Not Addressed(a) 4.4.6

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated

revision to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice is to be addressed in the |

licensee’s ER and the staff’s SEIS. |

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, states that impacts on housing availability |

are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a high-population area where

growth-control measures are not in effect. SMALL impacts result when no discernible change

in housing availability occurs, changes in rental rates and housing values are similar to those

occurring statewide, and no housing construction or conversion is required to meet new

demand (NRC 1996). Increases in rental rates or housing values in these areas would be

expected to equal or slightly exceed the statewide inflation rate. No extraordinary construction

or conversion of housing would occur where small impacts are foreseen.

The impacts on housing are considered to be of MODERATE significance when there is a

discernible but short-lived reduction in available housing units because of project-induced

in-migration. The impacts on housing are considered to be of LARGE significance when

project-related demand for housing units would result in very limited housing availability and

would increase rental rates and housing values well above normal inflationary increases in the
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-24 December 2002 |

state. MODERATE and LARGE impacts are possible at sites located in rural and remote areas,

at sites located in areas that have experienced extremely slow population growth (and thus slow

or no growth in housing), or where growth control measures that limit housing development are

in existence or have been recently lifted. Because impact significance depends on local

conditions, housing is a Category 2 issue (NRC 1996).

The NRC has developed a method of characterizing population that is based on two factors: 

"sparseness" and "proximity" (NRC 1996). "Sparseness" measures population density and city

size within 32-km (20-mi) of the site. “Proximity” measures population density and city size

within 80 km (50 mi). In these calculations, the density is averaged over the land area covered

by the ring; large water bodies are excluded. Each factor has categories of density and city

| size and a matrix is used to rank the population category as low, medium, or high.

An analysis of the 2000 census data indicates that 781,783 people live within a 32-km (20-mi)

radius of McGuire with an average population density of 240 persons/km2 (622 persons/mi2

). 

There are also four communities of 25,000 or more in this area (Table 4-8). This population

density and number of cities correspond to “sparseness” Category 4, “least sparse.” An

analysis of the 2000 census data also indicates that 2,309,976 people live within 80 km (50 mi)

of McGuire, with an average population density of 114 persons/km2 (294 persons/mi2

). There is

one city, Charlotte, with a population of 100,000 or more in this area. This population density

and number of cities correspond to “proximity” Category 4 "in close proximity.” According to the

GEIS, these “sparseness” and “proximity” sources indicate that McGuire is located in a

high-population area.

Table 4-8. Analysis of Population “Sparseness” and “Proximity” in the Vicinity

of McGuire

Radial

Distance from

McGuire

2000 Census

Population

Population Density

persons/km2

(persons/mi2)

Communities of

25,000 or More

Persons

Cities of 100,000

or More Persons

32 km (20 mi) 781,783 240 (622) 3 1

80 km (50 mi) 2,309,976 114 (294) 6 1

McGuire is located in northwestern Mecklenburg County, approximately 27 km (17 mi)

north-northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, within the rapidly developing Charlotte

metropolitan area. There are no prohibitions on the development of residential housing within

Iredell, Mecklenburg, Gaston, or Lincoln counties. In the McGuire ER, Duke made the case for

considering no further employment increases for its operating Units 1 and 2 rather than the

standard GEIS assumption of 60 new employees per unit (Duke 2001a). Adding full-time

employees to the plant workforce for the license renewal operating term would have the

potential indirect effect of creating additional jobs and related population growth in the
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

community. Section 4.14.2 of Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2 (NRC 2000) states: “If

additional workers are not anticipated there will be no impact on housing and no further analysis

is required.” McGuire has approximately 1345 full-time workers employed by Duke or site |

contractors during normal plant operations. Duke does not anticipate that additional full-time

workers will be employed during the license renewal period. Therefore, no analysis is required

for this issue.

Duke has concluded that the impact on housing from the continued operation of McGuire will be

SMALL and that no mitigation is required. This conclusion is based on the following:

 (1) Duke does not anticipate an increase in employment during the license renewal period.

 (2) The number of McGuire employees will continue to be a small percentage of the

population in the adjacent counties during the period of the extended license.

The staff reviewed the available information relative to housing impacts and Duke’s

conclusions. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the impact on housing during the

license renewal period will continue to be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted. |

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations

Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the

ability of the system to respond to the level of demand, and thus there is no need to add capital

facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of service capabilities occurs

during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if existing levels of service

(e.g., water or sewer services) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to

meet ongoing demands for services. In the GEIS, the staff concluded that, in the absence of

new and significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be

significant are impacts on public water supplies (NRC 1996).

There are no identified increases in demand of the water supplied by the CharlotteMecklenburg Utilities District (CMUD) during the period of extended operation at McGuire. The

current water use at McGuire, from water supplied by CMUD, is 0.03 percent of the average

daily demand on the CMUD system. Duke does not anticipate that additional workers will be

employed during the period of extended operations. Therefore, there will be no impact to public

utilities from additional plant workers.

The staff reviewed the available information relative to impacts on public utility services and |

Duke’s conclusions. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the impact on public utilities

during the license renewal period would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-26 December 2002 |

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations

| Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR Part 51,

| Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B notes

that "significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue

changes resulting from license renewal."

The GEIS (NRC 1996) defines the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant operation

during the license renewal term as follows:

SMALL – Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use pattern.

MODERATE – Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern.

LARGE – Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern.

Based on predictions for the case study plants, the staff projected that all new population-driven

land-use changes during the license renewal term at all nuclear plants will be small because

population growth caused by license renewal will represent a much smaller percentage of the

local area's total population than has operations-related growth. Also, any conflicts between

offsite land use and nuclear plant operations are expected to be small (NRC 1996).

Duke concluded (Duke 2001a) that there will be no adverse impact to the offsite land use from

plant related population growth because they do not anticipate that additional workers will be

employed at McGuire during the period of extended operations.

Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to be able to provide

the public services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. In the

GEIS, the staff states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during the license

renewal term should consider (1) the size of the plant's payments relative to the community's

total revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land-use pattern, and (3) the extent to

which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development

(NRC 1996).

In general, if a plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community's total

revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes during the plant's license renewal term would be

SMALL. If the plant’s tax payments are projected to be medium to large relative to the

community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land-use charges would be MODERATE. If the

plant’s tax payments are projected to be a dominant source of the community’s total revenue,

new tax-driven land-use changes would be LARGE.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

In the GEIS, the staff states that if tax payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of

the taxing jurisdictions revenue, the significance level would be SMALL, MODERATE if the

plant tax payments represent 10 to 20 percent, and LARGE if the payments are over 20 percent

of the jurisdiction’s revenues.

The payments made by McGuire represented 7 percent of the property tax revenues and

4 percent of the total revenues collected by the town of Huntersville; the percentages are

2 percent and 1 percent for Mecklenburg County (Table 2.11). No major refurbishment

activities are anticipated during the period of license renewal at McGuire. The relative

importance of tax payments to Mecklenburg County would slowly decline as other development

occurs.

The impacts from tax driven offsite land-use changes will be SMALL for the following reasons: 

(1) The significance of tax payments made by Duke for McGuire to local governments will |

continue to be SMALL.

(2) The area around McGuire has pre-established land patterns of development, such as land

use plans and controls. McGuire is located within the town of Huntersville’s planning zone.

(3) The area around McGuire has public services in place to support and guide development. 

Therefore, the impact to tax-driven land-use changes from the continued payment of

property taxes at McGuire is SMALL and no mitigation is required.

The staff reviewed the available information relative to land use impacts and Duke’s

conclusions. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the impact on land use during the

license renewal period would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations

On October 4, 1999, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1 were revised to clearly state that “Public Services: Transportation Impacts During

Operations” is a Category 2 issue (see NRC 1999 for more discussion of this clarification). The

issue is treated as such in this SEIS. |

Approximately 1345 full-time workers are employed by Duke or site contractors at McGuire |

during normal plant operations (non-outage periods). These workers reside primarily in |

Mecklenburg County and in adjoining counties. An average of 1015 additional workers are

onsite during plant outage periods. The plant outages last from 30 to 40 days and occur about

every 18 to 24 months. There are no identified increases in the total number of employees that

will be onsite during the term of the renewed license. As shown in Table 2-3, the workers
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-28 December 2002 |

employed at McGuire reside in locations that are well distributed geographically. Therefore,

with the exception of travel along North Carolina Highway 73 (NC-73), the workers would travel

to the plant along many different routes.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation classifies some of the segments of NC-73 in

the vicinity of McGuire as having Level of Service (LOS) D. This is a regional growth and

transportation planning issue. However, Duke has taken the following steps to minimize the

impacts to local traffic:

(1) The starting times for workers at the station has been staggered to minimize the impact of

plant workers entering and leaving the site.

|

| (2) Turn lanes have been added on NC-73 for plant traffic. Traveling east to west on NC-73,

there are right turn lanes into the plant site at both entrances. Traveling west to east on

NC-73, there is a left turn lane at the east plant entrance.

There are no identified increases in the total number of employees that will be onsite during the

term of the renewed license. Increases in traffic capacity will be required to accommodate the

projected growth in the population in the areas adjacent to McGuire. The growth in population

in the area near McGuire will not be attributed to increases in employment at McGuire. 

Therefore, the impact of continued operation of McGuire on any future degradation in traffic

service will be SMALL, and no mitigation measures are warranted.

The staff reviewed Duke’s assumptions and resulting conclusions. The staff concludes that any

impact of McGuire on transportation service degradation is likely to be SMALL and would not

require additional mitigation.

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take into account

the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic preservation review process

mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council

| on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800 as amended. Renewal of an operating license

(OL) is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore, according to

the NHPA, the NRC is to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the areas of

potential effects. If no historic properties are present or affected, NRC is required to notify the

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before proceeding. If it is determined that historic

properties are present, the NRC is required to assess the possible adverse effects of the

undertaking.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) The NRC guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines “minority” as American

Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; or Black races; or

Hispanic ethnicity. “Other” races and multi-racial individuals may be considered a separate minority

category as well as multi-racial individuals (NRC 2001).

December 2002 4-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

On January 26, 2000, Duke wrote to the North Carolina SHPO, requesting its comment on the

McGuire license renewal process and on the determination by Duke that the continued

operation of McGuire will have no effect on historic properties (Huff 2000). In a response dated

January 31, 2000, the North Carolina SHPO stated that the extension of the operating license

was not an undertaking that is likely to affect historic properties; thus, no further compliance

with Section 106 was required (Brook 2000).

Due to disturbance by historic agriculture and the original construction of McGuire, it is unlikely

that significant historic resources are present on the McGuire site. Major refurbishment of

McGuire is not required during the license renewal period, and it is anticipated that there will be

no need to utilize the few currently undeveloped portions of the McGuire site for operations |

during the renewal period. Continued operation of McGuire would have a beneficial effect on

any potential unknown or undiscovered historic or archaeological resources in undisturbed

areas for the duration of the license renewal period by protecting the natural landscape and

vegetation and by providing restricted access to the plant.

However, care should be taken by the licensee while undertaking normal operational and

maintenance activities to ensure that historic properties are not inadvertently impacted. These

activities may include not only operation of the plant itself, but also land management-related

actions such as recreation, wildlife habitat enhancement, or maintaining/upgrading plant access

roads through the plant site.

Based on the staff’s cultural resources analysis and consultation, the staff concludes that the

potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources are SMALL, and no additional

mitigation is warranted.

4.4.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy that requires that Federal agencies identify and

address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its actions on minority(a) or low-income populations. The memorandum accompanying

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to consider

environmental justice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental

justice (CEQ 1997). Although the Executive Order is not mandatory for independent agencies,
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a

census tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity of which the Census Bureau collects

and tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent

statistical subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in accordance

with Census Bureau guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. 

Census block groups are subsets of census tracts.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-30 December 2002 |

the NRC has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. Specific

guidance is provided in NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Instruction

LIC-203, “Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering

Environmental Issues” (NRC 2001).

The environmental justice review involves identifying offsite environmental impacts, their

geographic locations, minority and low-income populations that may be affected, the

significance of such effects, and whether they are disproportionately high and adverse

compared to the population at large within the geographic area, and if so, what mitigative

measures are available and which will be implemented.

| For the purpose of the staff's review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage

of each minority, or aggregated minority category within the census block groups(a) | potentially

| affected by the license renewal of the McGuire OLs, exceeds the corresponding percentage of

| minorities in a comparison area (by convention, the state) by 20 percent, or if the corresponding

| percentage of minorities within the census block group is at least 50 percent. A low-income

| population is defined to exist if the percentage of low-income population within a census block

group exceeds the corresponding percentage of low-income population in the comparison area

| (again by convention, the state) by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-

| income population within a census block group is at least 50 percent. For counties and census

| block groups within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of McGuire, the percentage of minority and low-

| income populations is comparable to the percentage of minority and low-income populations in

| North and South Carolina, as applicable.

Within a 80 km (50-mi) radius of McGuire, 24.5 percent of the population are minorities. Also

within that 80 km (50-mi) radius, 284 block groups with minority populations meet the definition

outlined in the NRC review guidance (NRC 2001). This represents 11.5 percent of the total

number of block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. These populations are shown in

Figure 4-1. The majority of these block groups are located in urban areas associated with

| Charlotte, Gastonia, Statesville, and Salisbury, North Carolina, and Rock Hill, South Carolina. 

There are no known environmental pathways by which these minority populations would be

disproportionately and adversely affected by the renewal of the McGuire license.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) Figure 4-2 was prepared using 1990 income data because the 2000 census income data were not |

yet available.

December 2002 4-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Low-income households comprise 11 percent of all households located within a 80-km (50-mi)

radius of McGuire. Within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, there are 88 low-income block groups. 

This represents 5.5 percent of the total number of block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. 

These populations are shown in Figure 4-2.(a) The majority of these block groups are located in

the urban areas of Charlotte and Gastonia, North Carolina, and Gaffney, South Carolina. There

are no known environmental pathways by which these low-income populations would be

disproporionately and adversely affected by the renewal of the McGuire license.

As part of its environmental assessment of this proposed action, Duke has determined that no

significant offsite environmental impacts will be created by the renewal of the McGuire OLs. 

This conclusion is supported by the review performed of the Category 2 issues defined in

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii) presented in the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a). As the NRC review

guidance recognizes, if no significant offsite impacts occur in connection with the proposed

action, then no member of the public will be substantially affected. Therefore, there can be no

disproportionately high and/or adverse impacts or effects on any member of the public,

including minority and low-income populations, resulting from the renewal of the McGuire

licenses.

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence

agriculure, hunting, or fishing, through which minority or low-income populations could be

disproporionately adversely impacted. In addition, the staff did not identify any

location-dependent disproportionately adverse impacts affecting these minority and low-income

populaions. The staff concludes that offsite impacts from McGuire to minority and low-income

populations would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation actions are warranted.

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

McGuire groundwater use and quality are listed in Table 4-9. Duke stated in its ER that “no

new information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions” (Duke

2001a). The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts related to this issue beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For this issue, the GEIS

concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to

be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-32 December 2002 |

Figure 4-1. Census 2000 Block Groups Identified as Meeting NRC Criteria for Minority Status

in an 80-km (50-mi) Area Around McGuire
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Figure 4-2. Census 1990 Block Groups Identified as Meeting NRC Criteria for Low-Income 

Status in an 80-km (50-mi) Area Around McGuire
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-34 December 2002 |

Table 4-9. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Section

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

| Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm). 4.8.1.1

A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

| this issue follows.

  Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm). 

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use

conflicts.

As discussed in Section 2.2.2, McGuire groundwater use is less than 0.068 m3

/s (100 gpm). 

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no groundwater-use conflicts

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

| There are no Category 2 issues related to groundwater use and quality for McGuire.

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

Threatened or endangered species is listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart

A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10.

This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or

endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by continued

operation of the nuclear plant during the license renewal term. NRC Staff initiated informal

consultation with the FWS by letter requesting information on species protected under the

Endangered Species Act that occur in the vicinity of the McGuire site. The FWS responded by

letter (Cole 2001) indicating no known occurrences on the McGuire site. The presence of

threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the McGuire site is discussed in

Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During

the Renewal Term |

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E 4.6

4.6.1 Aquatic Species

As described in Section 2.2.5, the only Federally or State-listed threatened or endangered

aquatic species with potential to inhabit waters near McGuire, the Carolina heelsplitter

(Lasmigona decorata), is not present in the vicinity of the plant (Fridell 2001) and does not

occur in impounded water. Thus, continued operation of the plant should not result in impacts

to threatened or endangered aquatic species.

Based on these considerations, the staff has determined that the continued operation of

McGuire and the continued maintenance of the transmission lines will not impact listed aquatic

species.

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species

A field survey for species of concern was conducted within the McGuire exclusion area and on

the related transmission line rights-of-way in summer and fall 2000. During this survey, no

Federally listed threatened or endangered species were located (Gaddy 2001). In a letter dated

November 1, 2001, the FWS (Cole 2001) concurred with the findings of the survey report 

(Gaddy 2001).

However, the bald eagle is known to infrequently visit the shore of Lake Norman. Based on a |

review of the applicant’s report and the staff’s independent analysis, the NRC staff concluded |

that continued operation of the McGuire site under license renewal will not adversely impact the |

bald eagle.

Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (Federal endangered) occurs in relatively open

habitats, such as road and power line rights-of-way, early successional fields, forest ecotonal

margins, and forest clearings. Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) (Federal threatened) occurs in

dry open woods along roadsides, woodland borders, old fields, and pastures (Cole 2001). 

Neither of these species is currently known to occur on the McGuire site nor is expected to

colonize this area due to lack of appropriate soils (Gaddy 2001).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-36 December 2002 |

| Based on a review of the applicant’s report and the staff’s independent analysis, the NRC staff

concluded that continued operation of the McGuire site and related transmission corridors

under license renewal will not adversely impact Schweinitz's sunflower and Georgia aster.

It is the staff’s determination that the impact to threatened or endangered species of an

| additional 20 years of operation on aquatic and terrestrial listed species would be SMALL, and

additional mitigation is not required.

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information

on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term

The staff has not identified new and significant information on environmental issues listed in

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, related to operation during the renewal

term. The staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts associated with operation

during the renewal term in the GEIS and conducted its own independent review, including the

public scoping meetings, to identify issues with significant new information. Processes for

identification and evaluation of new information are described in Chapter 1.0 under License

Renewal Evaluation Process.

4.8 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal

Term

Neither Duke nor the staff is aware of information that is both new and significant related to any

| of the applicable Category 1 issues associated with McGuire operation during the renewal term. 

Consequently, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with these issues

are bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the GEIS

concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that “plant-specific mitigation measures are

not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.”

Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 11 Category 2 issues applicable to

McGuire operation during the renewal term and for environmental justice. For all 11 issues and

environmental justice, the staff concluded that the potential environmental impact of renewal

term operations of McGuire would be of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set

forth in the GEIS and that mitigation would not be warranted. In addition, the staff determined

that a consensus has not been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are

adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, the staff did not conduct an evaluation

of this issue.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

4.9 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, |

Part 800, “Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.”

Brook, D. 2000. Letter from Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (signed by Renee

Gledhill-Early), North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, to J. R. Huff, Duke Power. 

(January 31, 2000).

Cole, B. 2001. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor, Asheville Field

Office, Asheville, North Carolina to Cynthina A. Carpenter, Chief, Risk Informed Initiatives,

Environmental Decommissioning and Rulemaking Branch, Division of Nuclear Regulatory

Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Subject: “McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Project,

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370).” November 1, 2001.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

<http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf> (accessed February 9, 2002).

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001a. Applicant’s Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage - McGuire Nuclear Station. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001b. McGuire Impingement Study - Preliminary Results

(Draft). Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2000. Lake Norman: 1999 Summary, Maintenance

Monitoring Program, McGuire Nuclear Station. NPDES No. NC0024392. Charlotte,

North Carolina.

Duke Power Company. 1978. McGuire Nuclear Station, 316(b) Predictive Study of

Impingement and Entrainment. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Power Company. 1985. McGuire Nuclear Station, 316(a) Demonstration. Charlotte,

North Carolina.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 4-38 December 2002 |

Fridell, J. A. 2001. Carolina heelsplitter in North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Asheville, North Carolina. <http://nc-es.fws.gov/mussel/carolheel.html> (accessed 9/12/01).

Gaddy, L. L. 2001. Biological Assessment for Endangered, Threatened, and Noteworthy

Species, Wetlands, and Significant Natural Areas in Association with McGuire Nuclear Station

and Related Power Transmission Lines. Prepared for Duke Power Company, Charlotte,

North Carolina, March 2001. (Attachment D to the Duke ER, Duke 2001a)

Huff, J. R. 2000. Letter from Scientist - Duke Power, to Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early, State

Historic Preservation Office, Virginia Department of Historic Resources. (January 26, 2000).

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 1997. National Electrical Safety

Code. New York. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et. seq.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNRCD). 

1984. Letter from W. L. Fleming, NCDNRCD, Water Quality Section, to W. A. Haller, Duke

Power Company dated February 1, 1984.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNRCD). 

1985. Letter from R. P. Wilms, NCDNRCD, Department of Environmental Management, to

H. B. Tucker, Duke Power Company, dated October 18, 1985.

Strawn, K. 1963. “Resistance of threadfin shad to low temperatures”. Proceedings of the

Annual Conference of Southeast Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, 17:290-293.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 2, Oconee Nuclear Station. 

NUREG-1437, Supp. 2, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation,

Table 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,

Final Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. “Preparation of Supplemental

Environmental Reports for Application to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.” 

Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2. Washington D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. “Procedural Guidance for Preparing

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues,” Appendix D to NRC

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Instruction LIC-203, June 21, 2001, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. “Preparation of Supplemental

Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.” 

Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2. Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 5-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents were discussed in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999a).(a) The GEIS included a determination of whether the |

analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 |

designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following

criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur

during the license renewal term.

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents

Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. These are design-basis accidents (DBAs)

and severe accidents, as discussed in the following sections.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-2 December 2002 |

Design-Basis Accidents

To receive NRC approval to operate a nuclear power facility, an applicant for an initial operating

license must submit a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) as part of its application. The SAR

presents the design criteria and design information for the proposed reactor and

comprehensive data on the proposed site. The SAR also discusses various hypothetical

accident situations and the safety features that are provided to prevent and mitigate accidents. 

The staff reviews the application to determine whether the plant design meets the

Commission’s regulations and requirements and includes, in part, the nuclear plant design and

its anticipated response to an accident.

| DBAs are those accidents that both the licensee and the staff evaluate to ensure that the plant

can withstand normal and abnormal transients, and a broad spectrum of postulated accidents

without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number of these postulated

accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant but are evaluated to establish the

design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The acceptance

criteria for DBAs are described in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100.

The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the

ability of the plant to withstand these accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before

| issuance of the operating license (OL). The results of these evaluations are found in license

| documentation such as the applicant’s Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), the staff’s Safety

| Evaluation Report (SER), and the Final Environmental Statement (FES). A licensee is required

to maintain the acceptable design and performance criteria throughout the life of the plant

including any extended-life operation. The consequences for these events are evaluated for

the hypothetical maximum exposed individual; as such, changes in the plant environment will

not affect these evaluations. Because of the requirements that continuous acceptability of the

consequences and aging management programs be in effect for license renewal, the

environmental impacts as calculated for DBAs should not differ significantly from initial licensing

assessments over the life of the plant, including the license renewal period. Accordingly, the

design of the plant relative to DBAs during the extended period is considered to remain

acceptable and the environmental impacts of those accidents were not examined further in the

GEIS.

The Commission has determined that the environmental impacts of DBAs are of SMALL

significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand these

accidents. Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, design-basis events are designated

as a Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue,

applicable to McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire), is listed in Table 5-1. The early

resolution of the DBAs makes them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the current
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

licensing basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and,

therefore, under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal.

Table 5-1. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Design-basis accidents (DBAs) 5.3.2; 5.5.1

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents

are of small significance for all plants.

In its Environmental Report (ER), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) stated that “no new

information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions (Duke 2001).” 

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of the

McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to this

issue beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Severe Accidents

Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result

in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite

consequences. In the GEIS, the staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the

license renewal period, using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information to

conservatively predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the

renewal period.

Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and

fires have not traditionally been discussed in quantitative terms in FESs and were not

considered specifically for the McGuire site in the GEIS (NRC 1996). However, in the GEIS,

the staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by the NRC and by the industry at

44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from beyond-design-basis

earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL. Additionally, the staff concluded that

the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of

internally initiated severe accidents.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-4 December 2002 |

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open

bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from

severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe

accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2

issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue, applicable to McGuire,

is listed in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1

GEIS

Sections

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; 

5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4; 

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2

L 5.2

The staff has not identified any significant new information with regard to the consequences

from severe accidents during its independent review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s

site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the

staff concludes that there are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in the

GEIS. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed severe

accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for McGuire. The results of its review are discussed in

Section 5.2.

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs)

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to

mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for the applicant’s

plant in an EIS or related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The purpose of this

consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, procedures, and training) with the

potential for improving severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated. 

SAMAs have not been previously considered for McGuire; therefore, the remainder of Chapter

5 addresses those alternatives.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

5.2.1 Introduction |

|

Duke submitted an assessment of SAMAs for McGuire as part of the ER (Duke 2001). The |

assessment was based on Revision 2 of the McGuire Probabilistic Risk Assessment

(McGuire PRA, Revision 2) (Duke 1998), which is a full scope Level 3 PRA that includes the |

analysis of both internal and external events. The internal events analysis is an updated

version of the Individual Plant Examination (IPE) model (Duke Power 1991), and the external

events analysis is based on the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) model

(Duke Power 1994). In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, Duke took into

consideration the insights from the McGuire PRA, as well as other studies, such as the Watts

Bar Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives (SAMDA) Analysis (NRC 1995a) and

NUREG-1560 (NRC 1997c). Duke concluded that none of the candidate SAMAs evaluated

were cost effective for McGuire.

Based on a review of the initial SAMA assessment, the staff issued a request for additional

information (RAI) to Duke by letter dated November 19, 2001 (NRC 2001). Key questions

concerned (1) further information on several candidate SAMAs, especially those that mitigate |

the consequences of a station blackout (SBO) event; (2) details on the PRA used for the SAMA |

analysis, including results as they pertain to containment failure and releases; and (3) the

impact of including elements of averted risk that were omitted in the ER. By a letter dated

January 31, 2002, Duke submitted additional information (Duke 2002a), which provided details |

on the updated PRA, the requested PRA results, and other information identified in the RAI

(NRC 2001). Duke provided additional clarification in a conference call on February 25, 2002

(NRC 2002a). In these responses, Duke included supplemental tables showing the impacts of

including averted replacement power costs for SAMAs that have the potential to reduce core

damage frequencies and averted offsite property damage costs for SAMAs that have the

potential to improve containment performance, both of which were omitted in the original

analysis. Also, Duke presented its position on the value of providing back-up hydrogen control

capability during SBO events. Duke’s responses addressed the staff’s concerns and reaffirmed

that none of the SAMAs would be cost-beneficial. However, based on review of the cost and

benefit information provided by Duke, the staff concludes that one SAMA is cost-beneficial |

under the assumptions presented. This SAMA, which involves plant and procedure

modifications to enable the existing hydrogen control (igniter) system to be powered from an

ac-independent power source in SBO events, has not been implemented at McGuire. This

issue is currently being addressed by the NRC as part of the resolution of Generic Safety Issue

189 – Susceptibility of Ice Condenser and Mark III Containments to Early Failure from

Hydrogen Combustion During a Severe Accident (NRC 2002b).

The staff’s assessment of SAMAs for McGuire is presented below. |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-6 December 2002 |

| 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for McGuire Units 1 and 2

|

| Duke’s estimates of offsite risk at McGuire are summarized below. The summary is followed by

| the staff’s review of Duke’s risk estimates.

| 5.2.2.1 Duke’s Risk Estimates

|

The McGuire PRA model, which forms the basis for the SAMA analysis, is a Level 3 risk

analysis; i.e., it includes the treatment of core damage frequency, containment performance,

and offsite consequences. The model, which Duke refers to as PRA, Revision 2 (Duke 1998),

consists of an internal events analysis based on an updated version of the original IPE

(McGuire PRA, Revision 1) (Duke Power 1991) and an external events analysis based on the

current version of the IPEEE (Duke Power 1994). The calculated total core damage frequency

(CDF) for internal and external events in Revision 2 of the McGuire PRA is 4.9×10-5 | per year.

| The McGuire PRA is a “living” PRA. The original version of the IPE has been updated to reflect

| various design and procedural changes, such as those related to the improvements identified in

| the IPE, and to reflect operational experience since 1991. The CDF for internal and external

events was reduced from 7.4×10-5 per year (Revision 1) to 4.9×10-5 | per year (Revision 2). The

Level 1 PRA changes associated with the McGuire PRA Revision 2 model included

  incorporation of updated data for component reliability, unavailabilities, initiating event

frequencies, common cause failures, and human error probabilities

  conversion from a sequence based solution to a single top fault tree 

  modifications to reflect changes to the plant configuration.

The most significant data changes are those related to diesel generator (DG) performance. 

Following the IPE, Duke proceeded with a program to improve the DG reliability at McGuire. 

The reliability improvement that occurred significantly reduced the CDF contributed by the loss

of offsite power (LOOP) and tornado initiators. To a lesser extent, the seismic results are also

impacted by the DG reliability data. The net effect is that the total CDF for SBO sequences

(internal and external events) was reduced from approximately 4.1×10-5 | per year in the IPE and

IPEEE to 2.3×10-5 | per year in PRA Revision 2. Another important change occurred in the

interfacing system loss-of-coolant accident (ISLOCA) evaluation. The generic database

adopted for the Revision 2 analysis had significantly higher failure rates for valve ruptures. This

resulted in a significant increase in the CDF contributed by the ISLOCA, an important risk

contributor.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The breakdown of the CDF from Revision 2 to the PRA is provided in Table 5-3. Internal

event initiators represent about 57 percent of the total CDF and are composed of transients

(31 percent of total CDF), loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) (22 percent of total CDF), and

reactor pressure vessel rupture (2 percent of total CDF). Remaining contributors together

account for less than 3 percent of total CDF. External event initiators represent about 43

percent of the total CDF and are composed of seismic initiators (22 percent of total CDF),

tornado initiators (13 percent of total CDF), and fire initiators (6 percent of the total CDF). 

Although not explicitly reported in Table 5-3, SBO events account for 47 percent of the total

CDF for internal and external events in Revision 2 of the PRA.

Table 5-3. McGuire Core Damage Frequency (Revision 2 of PRA)

Initiating Event Frequency (per year) % of Total CDF |

Transients 1.5×10-5 31 |

Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 1.1×10-5 22 |

Internal flood 8.7×10-7 2 |

Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) 1.5×10-7 <1 |

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 7.8×10-10 <1 |

Reactor pressure vessel rupture (RPV) 1.0×10-6 2 |

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 2.2×10-7 <1 |

CDF from internal events 2.8×10-5 57

Seismic 1.1×10-5 22 |

Tornado 6.5×10-6 13 |

Fire 2.9×10-6 6 |

CDF from external events 2.1×10-5 43 |

Total CDF 4.9×10-5 100 |

The Level 2 (also called containment performance) portion of the McGuire PRA model,

Revision 2, is essentially the same as the IPE Level 2 analysis. However, the following

changes were made:

  modifications to reflect an emergency operating procedure change that reduced the

likelihood of restarting a reactor coolant pump following core damage, thus reducing the

potential for thermally induced steam generator tube rupture

  modification of the containment event tree (CET) logic regarding the potential for corium

contact with the containment liner

  modification of the CET logic and quantification to reflect that the refueling water

storage tank inventory would drain through a failed reactor vessel in some sequences

(e.g., SBO).
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-8 December 2002 |

These changes resulted in a large decrease in the potential for thermally-induced steam

generator tube ruptures, a slight increase in the potential for early containment failure as a

result of corium contact with the containment liner and a reduction in basemat melt-through due

to reactor cavity flooding via the reactor vessel breach.

The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses (i.e., Level 3 PRA Analyses) were

carried out using the NRC-developed MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

(MACCS2) code. Inputs for this analysis include plant and site specific input values for core

radionuclide inventory, source term and release fractions, meteorological data, projected

population distribution, and emergency response evacuation modeling. 

Duke estimated the dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the McGuire site from all

initiators (internal and external) to be about 0.135 person-sieverts (Sv) (13.5 person-rem) per

year (Duke 2001). The breakdown of the total population dose by containment end-state is

| summarized in Table 5-4. Internal events account for approximately 0.060 person-Sv

| (6.0 person-rem) per year, and external events account for approximately 0.075 person-Sv (7.5

person-rem) per year. As can be seen from this table, early and late containment failures

account for the majority of the population dose. 

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment End-State

| (Total dose = 0.135 person-Sv [13.5 person-rem] per year)

Containment End State

% of Total Dose

Internal Initiators

% of Total Dose

External Initiators

% of Total Dose

All Initiators

SGTR(a) | <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

ISLOCA(a) | 19.4 0.0 19.4

Containment isolation failure 0.1 0.3 0.4

Early containment failure 8.5 32.1 40.6

Late containment failure 15.9 23.3 39.2

Basemat melt-through <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

No containment failure 0.3 0.1 0.4

Total 44.2 55.8 100

(a) Containment bypass events
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

5.2.2.2 Review of Duke’s Risk Estimates |

|

Duke’s estimate of offsite risk at McGuire is based on the Revision 2 of the McGuire PRA and a

separate MACCS2 analysis. For the purposes of this review, the staff considered the following |

major elements:

  the Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the November 1991 IPE submittal

(Duke 1991)

  the major modifications to the IPE models that have been incorporated in Revision 2 of

the PRA (Duke 1998)

  the external events models that form the basis for the June 1994 IPEEE submittal

(Duke 1994)

  the analyses performed to translate fission product release frequencies from the Level 2

PRA model into offsite consequence measures (Duke 2001).

The staff reviewed each of these analyses to determine the acceptability of Duke’s risk |

estimates for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below.

The staff’s review of the McGuire IPE is described in a staff report dated June 30, 1994 |

(NRC 1994). In that review, the staff evaluated the methodology, models, data, and |

assumptions used to estimate the CDF and characterize containment performance and fission

product releases. The staff concluded that Duke’s analysis met the intent of Generic Letter 88- |

20 (NRC 1988), which means the IPE was of adequate quality to be used to look for design or |

operational vulnerabilities. The staff’s review primarily focused on the licensee’s ability to |

examine McGuire for severe accident vulnerabilities and not specifically on the detailed findings

or quantification estimates. Overall, the staff concluded that the McGuire IPE was of adequate

quality to be used as a tool in searching for areas with high potential for risk reduction and to

assess such risk reductions, especially when the risk models are used in conjunction with

insights, such as those from risk importance, sensitivity, and uncertainty analyses.

The staff’s review of the McGuire IPEEE is described in an evaluation report dated February 16,

1999 (NRC 1999b). Duke did not identify any fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities to

severe accident risk with regard to the external events. In the safety evaluation report, the staff |

concluded that the IPEEE met the intent of Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20 (NRC 1991)

and that the licensee’s IPEEE process is capable of identifying the most likely severe accidents

and severe accident vulnerabilities.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-10 December 2002 |

In a RAI (NRC 2001), the staff questioned why the CDF for steam generator tube

rupture events in Revision 2 to the PRA is so low relative to other pressurized-water reactor

(PWR) PRAs. In response (Duke 2002a), Duke stated that

The McGuire SGTR model incorporated in both the IPE and in the 1997 update relied

upon success criteria established during the IPE development. Where applicable, the

system success criteria were established with the then current version of the MAAP

[Modular Accident Analysis Program] code. Furthermore, a sequence was categorized

as a success because core damage occurred beyond 24 hours, even though a safe

stable state had not been attained, this is inconsistent with what is now the generally

accepted industry practice. As a result of comments received during the McGuire peer

review process, these success criteria were revisited. The new MAAP results showed

core damage to occur where the original analysis did not. The outdated success criteria

are judged to be the most significant contributors to the comparatively low SGTR

initiated CDF previously reported. The SGTR analysis is being completely revisited in

Revision 3 to the McGuire PRA, which is still in development. This new analysis

estimates the CDF for SGTR at 5.3×10-7 per year, which is more in line with similar

| plants.

In a February 7, 2002, telephone conference with Duke, the staff questioned the impact that

other Revision 3 PRA results might have on the conclusions drawn in the McGuire ER, because

| the change for the SGTR event was not trivial. In response (Duke 2002b), Duke provided the

CDF values from Revision 3 of the McGuire Level 1 PRA, broken out by the major contributors. 

Peer review of the Level 2 and 3 portions of the PRA Revision 3 had not yet been completed. 

Thus, revised Level 2 and 3 information was not provided. A comparison of the CDF results

| from the various versions of the McGuire PRA is provided in Table 5-5. Duke’s SAMA

| assessment was based on PRA Revision 2 since the Revision 3 results available at the time of

| the analysis (and reported in the draft SEIS) were preliminary. Results from the final approved

| version of Revision 3, completed subsequent to the draft SEIS, were provided by Duke by letter

| dated August 2, 2002 (Duke 2002b) and are included in Table 5-5. The differences between

| the final Revision 3 results and the preliminary Revision 3 results reported in the draft SEIS are

| not significant and do not have any impact on the staff’s analysis or conclusions. The staff

| based its assessment on the CDF and offsite doses derived from PRA Revision 2, but also

| considered the impact that the use of CDF estimates from Revision 3 of the PRA might have on

| the risk results. Note that the CDF values for Revision 1 were not broken out for the individual

| internal event categories in Table 5-5 because Revision 2 was used as the basis of the staff’s

evaluation.

Based on a comparison of the frequency of major contributors to CDF, the following key

differences were noted:
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

  The SGTR frequency in Revision 3 is more than a factor of 600 larger than in Revision 2

(5.3×10-7 per year versus 7.8×10-10 per year). This increase is due to the use of revised, |

more technically-supported success criteria as discussed above.

  The SBO frequency in Revision 3 is more than a factor of two smaller than in Revision 2

(1.0×10-5 per year versus 2.3×10-5 per year). This reduction is due to credit taken for |

installing improved reactor coolant pump O-ring seals that would be capable of

withstanding higher temperatures and would have a higher likelihood of remaining intact

under loss of seal-cooling conditions.

Table 5-5. Comparison of CDF Results by Accident Initiator or Sequence

Accident Initiator/Sequence

PRA, Rev. 1

(IPE)

PRA, Rev. 2 PRA, Rev. 3 |

Internal Floods -- 8.7×10-7 5.4×10-6 |

Transients -- 1.5×10-5 2.9×10-6 |

LOCAs -- 1.1×10-5 8.8×10-6 |

RPV -- 1.0×10-6 1.0×10-6 |

SGTR -- 7.8×10-10 5.3×10-7 |

ATWS -- 1.5×10-7 5.3×10-7 |

ISLOCA -- 2.2×10-7 9.8×10-7

CDF from internal events 4.0×10-5 2.8×10-5 2.0×10-5 |

(IPEEE)

Seismic 1.1×10-5 1.1×10-5 8.9×10-6 |

Tornado 1.9×10-9 6.5×10-6 1.6×10-6 |

Fire 2.3×10-7 2.9×10-6 6.3×10-6 |

CDF from external events 3.0×10-5 2.0×10-5 1.7×10-5 |

Total CDF 7×10-5 4.8×10-5 3.7×10-5 |

SBO (internal & external

events)(a)

4.1×10-5 2.3×10-5 1.0×10-5 |

(a) the internal and external event frequencies above include contributions from SBO events; the CDF for SBO |

events is broken out here separately for illustrative purposes. |

The impact of the revised SGTR and SBO frequencies on the risk reduction estimates for

related SAMAs was considered in the staff’s review (see Sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.6.2). The

frequency of other CDF contributors was impacted to a much lesser degree, and these changes

are not expected to alter results of the SAMA analysis.

The staff reviewed the process used by Duke to extend the containment performance (Level 2) |

portion of the IPE to the offsite consequence (Level 3) assessment. This included

consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product releases for each
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-12 December 2002 |

containment release category and the major input assumptions used in the offsite consequence

analyses. This information is provided in Section 6 of Duke’s IPE submittal. Duke used the

MAAP code to analyze postulated accidents and develop radiological source terms for each of

31 containment release categories used to represent the containment end-states. These

source terms were incorporated as input to the MACCS2 analysis. The MACCS2 code is the

| current standard for assessing consequences of accidents at nuclear power plants. The staff

reviewed Duke’s source term estimates for the major release categories and found these

| predictions to be in reasonable agreement with estimates from NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) for

| the closest corresponding release scenarios. The staff concludes that the assignment of

source terms is acceptable.

The plant-specific input to the MACCS2 code includes the McGuire reactor core radionuclide

inventory, emergency response evacuation modeling based on McGuire evacuation time

| estimate studies, release category source terms from the McGuire PRA, Revision 2 analysis

(same as the source terms used in the IPE), site-specific meteorological data, and projected

| population distribution within a 80 km (50 mi) radius for the year 2040. 

MACCS2 requires a file of hourly meteorological data consisting of wind speed, wind direction,

atmospheric stability category, and precipitation. For the McGuire SAMA analysis, meteorological data was obtained from the meteorological tower located on the McGuire site; the

meteorological data used in MACCS2 contained data for one year, January 1 through

December 31, 1999.

| The McGuire PRA, Revision 2 and the SAMA offsite consequence analyses use three distinct

evacuation schemes in order to adequately represent evacuation time estimates for the

permanent resident population, the transient population, and the special facility population

(e.g., schools, hospitals, etc.). The three groups are defined by the time delay from initial

notification to start of evacuation. For each evacuation scheme, the fraction of the population

starting their evacuation is included. For the permanent resident evacuation schemes, it was

assumed that 5 percent of the population would delay evacuation for 24 hours after being

warned to evacuate. The delay time and fraction of population for the remaining two schemes

were developed from information given in the latest update to the McGuire evacuation time

| estimate study for the 16-km (10-mi) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The evacuation

schemes include additional information such as evacuation distance, average evacuation

speed, sheltering, and shielding considerations. In the McGuire evacuation model, only the 10-

mile EPZ is assumed to be involved in the initial evacuation. The MACCS2 model assumes that

persons outside of the 10-mile EPZ will wait 24 hours before evacuating (provided that

radiological conditions warrant evacuation).
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The staff reviewed the Duke responses (Duke 2002a) to questions regarding meteorological |

data, population data and emergency planning. Those responses confirmed that Duke used

appropriate values for the consequence analysis.

The staff concludes that the methodology used by Duke to estimate the CDF and offsite

consequences for McGuire provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an

assessment of the risk reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Additionally, the risk profile

used is similar to other PWRs with ice condenser containments. The staff based its

assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and offsite doses reported by Duke, but also considered

the impact that the use of CDF estimates from Revision 3 of the PRA might have on the risk

results.

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements |

|

This section discusses the process for identifying potential design improvements, the staff’s |

evaluation of this process, and the design improvements evaluated in detail by Duke.

5.2.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements |

|

Duke’s process for identifying potential plant improvements consisted of the following elements:

  The core damage cut sets from Revision 2 of the McGuire PRA were reviewed to

identify potential SAMAs that could reduce CDF.

  The Fussell-Vesely (F-V) importance measures were evaluated for the basic events

(including initiating events, random failure events, human error events, and maintenance

and testing unavailabilities), and the importance ranking was examined to identify any

events of significant F-V importance.

  Potential enhancements to reduce containment failure modes of concern for McGuire

(including early containment failure, containment isolation failure, and containment

bypass) were reviewed for possible implementation.

In addition, Duke reviewed the Watts Bar SAMDA analysis (NRC 1995a) and insights from the

staff’s report on the IPE (NRC 1997c) to identify additional SAMAs.

As a starting point for the core damage cut set review, Duke developed a listing of the top

100 cut sets (severe accident sequences) based on internal initiators and the top 100 cut sets

for external initiators. These 200 sequences include all potential core damage sequences with

at least a 0.06 percent contribution to the total CDF. Additionally, some cut sets contributing as

little as 0.05 percent to the total CDF were considered. Duke reviewed the cut sets to identify

potential SAMAs that could reduce CDF. A cutoff value of 3.5×10-7 per year (for internal and |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-14 December 2002 |

external event initiators) was used to screen events. To account for the cumulative effect of cut

sets below this cutoff value, the basic events importance measure was also used to identify

potential enhancements, as discussed below. Duke indicated in responses to the RAIs

(Duke 2002) that the estimated CDF for the 200 cut sets is 4.4×10-5 | per year, which is about

90 percent of the total CDF.

For each seismic initiator cut set, Duke calculated the associated offsite risk based on the

population dose and CDF for the plant damage states (PDSs) attributable to the seismic

initiator. Duke conservatively assumed that the implementation of plant enhancements for

seismic events would completely eliminate the seismic risk and calculated the present worth of

the averted risk based on a $200,000 per person-Sv ($2000 per person-rem) conversion factor,

a discount factor of 7 percent, and an additional 20-year license renewal period. This process

was repeated for each of the remaining seismic initiator cutsets above the cutoff frequency. 

The present worth of averted risk for all of the seismic cutsets combined was estimated to be

about $275,000 (not including the cost of replacement power and offsite property damage, the

significance of which is discussed in Section 5.2.6.2). On the basis of the small risk reduction

achievable [0.041 person-Sv (4.1 person-rem)] and the large costs associated with substantial

seismic upgrades (estimated at several million dollars), Duke eliminated seismic SAMAs from

further consideration.

Duke reviewed the F-V Basic Event Importance Ranking presented in the McGuire PRA report,

Revision 2, and identified several basic events for further consideration. These included

internal event initiators, seismic-related events, equipment failures, and human-error events. 

Seismic-related events were not evaluated further for the reasons discussed above. Seven

potential enhancements to reduce CDF were identified through this process and are presented

in Table 5-6.

In the ER, Duke identified the installation of back-up power to the igniters and the installation of

back-up power to air return fans as two separate SAMAs. However, in responses to staff RAIs,

Duke indicated that the availability of air return fans would be essential to the effective

operation of igniters in an SBO; therefore, Duke treated the combined modification as a single

SAMA. Accordingly, these two hydrogen control related SAMAs are shown as a single SAMA in

Table 5-7. This effectively reduces the number of containment-related SAMAs to eight.

Duke also considered potential alternatives to reduce containment failure modes of concern for

McGuire. These alternatives included nine containment-related improvements evaluated as

| part of the staff’s assessment of SAMDAs for Watts Bar (NRC 1995a) and five containmentrelated improvements (e.g., procedures for reactor coolant system depressurization and

| procedures to cope with and reduce induced SGTR) derived from the staff’s generic report on

the individual plant examination program (NRC 1997c). Duke eliminated those alternatives that

are either (1) already implemented at McGuire or (2) not applicable to the McGuire containment 
December 2002 5-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Table 5-6. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs That Reduce CDF

Potential Alternative Sequences/Failures Addressed

Risk Reduction

Total Benefit

CDF 

(a)

Population

Dose(b)

(person-rem(c))

Man standby shutdown facility(SSF) 24 hours/day with trainedoperator

Loss of service water (RN), failure of 

operators to align safe shutdown (SS)system for operation, filter (standbymakeup pump) restricts flow, failure toalign containment ventilation coolingwater system (RV) cooling/other Unit RN Vital instrumentation and control (I&C)Fire causes a Loss of RN, failure ofoperators to align SS system foroperation, failure to use other Unit orremote control during fireLoss of 4160V essential bus and failure toalign SS system for operationANDTornado causes LOOP, DG 1A and 1Bfail to fun, operators fail to initiate SSsystem operation

1.1×10-5 3.2 $380,000 

(a) Total CDF = 4.9×10-5 per year

(b) Total population dose = 13.5 person-rem per year(c) One person-Sv = 100 person-rem(d) Cost estimates for manning the standby shutdown system apply on a per-site rather than a per-unit basis. To provide a c

for comparison with the estimated benefits (which are per unit), the estimated site costs were divided by two.

(e) M =millions 
NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-16 December 2002

| Table 5-6. (contd)

Potential Alternative Sequences/Failures Addressed

Risk Reduction

Total Benefit

CDF 

(a)

Population

Dose(b)

(person-rem(c))

| Install automatic swap over to

high-pressure recirculation

LOCA cut sets with failure of operators toestablish high pressure recirculation

1.0×10-5 0.4 $291,000 

|| Install automatic swap to

RV/other unit RN system uponloss of RN

Loss of RN, failure of operators to alignSS system for operation, filter (StandbyMakeup Pump) restricts flow, failure toalign RV/other Unit RN

8.8×10-6 1.2 $275,000 

| Install third diesel generator Tornado causes LOOP, DG 1A and 1B

fail, and operators fail to initiate SSsystem operation

8.4×10-6 3.1 $304,000 

| Install automatic swap to other

unit

Vital I&C Fire causes a Loss of RN,failure of operators to align SS system foroperation, failure to use other Unit orremote control during fire

2.9×10-6 1.1 $106,000 

| Increase test frequency of| standby makeup pump flow

path (currently tested quarterly)

Loss of RN, failure of operators to alignSS system for operation, filter (StandbyMakeup Pump) restricts flow, failure toalign RV cooling/other Unit RN

1.8×10-6 0.5 $62,000 

| Replace reactor vessel with

stronger vessel

Failure of reactor pressure vessel withfailure to prevent core damage following areactor pressure vessel breach

1.0×10-6 <0.1 $30,000 

(a) Total CDF = 4.9×10-5 per year

(b) Total population dose = 13.5 person-rem per year(c) One person-Sv = 100 person-rem

| (e) M = millions
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 5-7. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs That Improve Containment

Performance

Risk Reduction

Potential Alternative CDF

Population Dose

(person-rem(a))

Total Benefit

(per unit)

Cost of

Enhancement

(per unit) |

Install independent containment

spray system

NA 10.8 $349,000(b) >$1 M(c) |

Install filtered containment vent

system

NA 10.8 $349,000(b) >$1 M |

Install back-up power to igniters

and install back-up power to air

return fans

NA 10.8 $349,000(b) $540,000

Install containment inerting

system

NA 10.8 $349,000(b) >$1 M |

Install additional containment

bypass instrumentation

NA 2.6 $84,000 >$1 M |

Add independent source of

feedwater to reduce induced

SGTR

NA < 0.1 < $3,200 >$1 M |

Install reactor cavity flooding

system

NA 5.6 $181,000 >$1 M |

Install core retention device NA < 0.1 < $3,200 >$1 M |

(a) One person-Sv = 100 person-rem

(b) Total benefit based on eliminating all early and late containment failures |

(c) M = millions

design. Based on the screening, Duke designated nine of the containment- related SAMAs for

further study. The list of the potential enhancements to improve containment performance is

presented in Table 5-7.

5.2.3.2 Staff Evaluation |

|

It should be noted that Duke has made extensive use of PRA methods to gain insights

regarding severe accidents at McGuire. Risk insights from various McGuire risk assessments

have been identified and implemented to improve both the design and operation of the plant. 

For example, using the IPE process, Duke (1) modified procedures to better cope with a loss of

nuclear service water event and to better prioritize operator actions in a loss of alternating

current (ac) power event; (2) added procedures to exercise the nuclear service water crossconnect valves between Unit 1 and 2 during each refueling outage; (3) fitted expansion joints in

the nuclear service water piping located in the auxiliary feedwater pump room with a collar to

limit the leak rate; (4) made a number of changes to enhance the reliability of the Emergency

Diesel Generator System; (5) performed training exercises to ensure that the operators can
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-18 December 2002 |

| activate the standby shutdown facility (SSF) within 10 minutes; and (6) expanded the refueling

water storage tank (FWST) level instrumentation span to the full range to reduce the potential

for operator error during switchover to sump recirculation. Examples of plant improvements

being planned for implementation by Duke based on IPEEE findings include:

| (1) adding spacers between the Unit 1 DG batteries and racks

| (2) adding grout between component cooling heat exchangers saddle base and concrete curb

| (3) trimming the grating around the steam vent valves 

| (4) replacing some missing bolts on the Unit 2 upper surge tanks

| (5) adding some additional procedural guidelines to secure movable equipment and structures

to prevent potential seismic interactions.

The implementation of such improvements reduced the risk associated with the major

contributors identified by the McGuire PRA and contributed to the reduced number of candidate

SAMAs identified as part of Duke’s application for license renewal.

Duke’s effort to identify potential SAMAs focused on areas found to be risk-significant in the

McGuire PRA. The SAMAs listed generally coincide with accident categories that are dominant

CDF contributors or with issues that tend to have a large impact on a number of accident

sequences at McGuire. Duke made a reasonable effort to use the McGuire PRA to search for

potential SAMAs and to review insights from other plant-specific risk studies and previous

SAMA analyses for potential applicability to McGuire. The staff reviewed the set of potential

enhancements considered in Duke’s SAMA identification process. These include

improvements oriented toward reducing the CDF and risk from major contributors specific to

McGuire and improvements identified in the previous SAMDA review for Watts Bar (NRC

1995a) that would be applicable to McGuire.

The staff notes that most of the SAMAs involve major modifications and significant costs and

that less expensive design improvements and procedure changes could conceivably provide

similar levels of risk reduction. The staff requested additional information (NRC 2001) from

Duke on less expensive alternatives that would yield similar benefits. In response, Duke

provided additional information on alternative power to hydrogen igniters for SBO and passive

autocatalytic recombiners (PARs) as an alternative to igniters. Duke also provided an estimate

of the cost to install a dedicated line from the Cowan’s Ford hydroelectric station, as an

alternative source of ac power. This information was responsive to the staff’s requests and

provided additional depth to the SAMAs considered. These additional alternatives are further

evaluated, along with the other SAMAs, in the sections that follow.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The staff concludes that Duke has used a systematic process for identifying potential design

improvements for McGuire and that the set of potential design improvements identified by Duke

is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable.

5.2.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements |

Section 4.3 of Attachment K to the ER describes the process used by Duke to determine the

risk reduction potential for each enhancement.

For each seismic initiator cut set, Duke calculated the associated offsite risk based on the

population dose and CDF for the PDSs attributable to the seismic initiator. Implementation of

the plant enhancement was assumed to completely eliminate the seismic risk associated with

the cut set. For each (non-seismic) sequence/enhancement, Duke evaluated the severe

accident sequences. In general, where an alternative impacted more than one severe accident

sequence, Duke determined the cumulative risk reduction achievable by each SAMA. This was

performed by identifying which basic events in the cut sets would be affected by the

implementation of the particular SAMA and assuming that the implementation of the SAMA

would eliminate the basic event. For each containment-related improvement, Duke assumed

that all of the population dose associated with the release categories impacted by the SAMA

would be eliminated. For those alternatives that benefit more than one containment failure

mode (i.e., independent containment spray system, filtered containment vent, back-up power to

igniters and air return fans, containment inerting system, and reactor cavity flooding system),

the total population dose for all affected failure modes was assumed to be completely

eliminated by implementing the alternative. For example, installation of a standpipe in

containment for reactor cavity flooding, which could reduce the likelihood of both early

containment failure associated with reactor vessel breach and late containment failure due to

basemat melt-through, was assumed to completely eliminate the associated early and late

containment failures.

In responses to follow-up RAIs (NRC 2002a), Duke noted that the risk reduction estimates had |

changed in some instances when the PRA was updated to Revision 3. The final Revision 3 |

CDF results are summarized in Section 5.2.2.2 (Duke 2002b). One significant change was an |

increase in the CDF for SGTR events. According to Duke, this change yielded an estimated

increase in population dose of approximately 0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem). Duke reassessed

the benefits of completely eliminating SGTR based on this new information, and calculated a

maximum benefit of approximately $101,000 (present worth for the 20-year license renewal |

period). It is Duke’s position that it is unlikely that a cost-beneficial alternative could be

implemented to further reduce the SGTR risk based on such a low benefit estimate. The staff

concurs with this assessment. Use of the PRA Revision 3 CDF estimates in lieu of the

PRA Revision 2 CDF values would not appear to introduce any other significant changes to the

risk profile that would make any of the other candidate SAMAs more cost-beneficial and might

make some SAMAs less cost-beneficial, particularly SAMAs related to SBO events.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-20 December 2002 |

The staff questioned Duke regarding why the SAMA involving addition of a third DG was

estimated to provide only a small (about 36 percent) reduction in the CDF for SBO sequences

| (NRC 2001). Duke indicated that the risk reduction was based on eliminating all failures to

start, failures to run, and common-cause failures of the existing two diesels. However, it was

| assumed that the third DG would not be seismically qualified; therefore, it would not be effective

in seismic events. Because seismic events account for approximately half of the SBO CDF, the

| limited risk reduction estimated for the third DG appears reasonable. Duke also considered the

| additional benefit if the third DG were seismically qualified, similar to the existing DGs. Duke

estimated that an additional reduction in CDF of about 1.3×10-6 | per year would be achieved by

eliminating all random failures of DGs in seismic events. This risk reduction is limited because

the seismic results are dominated by seismic failures in the 4-kV power system for which

| improving DG availability provides no benefit. The staff concludes that Duke’s risk reduction

estimates for this SAMA are reasonable.

An estimate of the risk reduction for the SAMA involving installation of a dedicated power line

from the Cowan’s Ford hydroelectric station was not provided in Duke’s RAI response. 

However, the risk reduction would be comparable to that for adding a third DG, because the

seismic fragility of the hydroelectric unit is expected to be similar to that for the seismically

qualified DGs.

| The staff notes that Duke evaluated the risk reduction potential for each SAMA, including the

dedicated power line, in a bounding fashion. Each SAMA was assumed to completely eliminate

all sequences that the specific enhancement was intended to address; therefore, the benefits

| are generally overestimated and conservative. The staff also notes that use of the PRA

Revision 3 CDF estimates in lieu of the PRA Revision 2 CDF values would not appear to

introduce any significant changes to the risk profile that would make any of the candidate

SAMAs cost-beneficial, including SAMAs related to SGTR events. Accordingly, the staff based

| its estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on Duke’s risk reduction estimates.

| 5.2.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

Duke’s estimated costs for each potential design enhancement are provided in Table 4-2 and

Section 5.3 of Attachment K to the ER. For most of the SAMAs, Duke estimated the cost of

implementation to be greater than $1 million based on cost estimates developed in previous

industry studies. For two SAMAs, Duke developed plant-specific cost estimates because there

was no readily available information on the estimated cost to implement similar alternatives and

because the basic events associated with these alternatives were found to have a high

importance in the McGuire PRA. These SAMAs involve (1) installing a third DG, and (2)

increasing the test frequency of the standby makeup pump flow path. The costs to implement

| these SAMAs were estimated to be on the order of $2 million and $435,000, respectively. 

Because the benefits of the potential SAMAs were significantly less than their estimated

implementation costs (by a factor of three or more), none of the cost estimates were further
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

refined. Specifically, the benefit of adding a third DG was about $304,000 while the benefit of

increasing the test frequency was about $62,000 (see Table 5-6).

The staff compared Duke’s cost estimates with estimates developed elsewhere for similar

improvements, including estimates developed as part of the evaluation of SAMDAs for

operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors (LWRs). The staff notes that Duke’s

estimated implementation costs of $1 million dollars or greater are consistent with the values

reported in previous analyses for major hardware changes of similar scope and are not

unreasonable for the SAMAs under consideration, given that these enhancements involve

major hardware changes and impact safety-related systems. For example, Duke estimated the

cost to install a third DG to be approximately $2 million; this value is less than the cost |

estimates reported in previous SAMDA analyses for a similar design change.

Duke’s estimate of the cost to install a dedicated line from the Cowan’s Ford hydroelectric

station as an alternate source of ac power also appears reasonable. This line would be buried

to eliminate weather-related common-cause failures. The estimated cost ($3 million) is |

comparable to the cost estimate provided by Dominion Power (NRC 2002c) for a similar

modification at the Surry Nuclear Power Station ($2 million to $5 million), but is far greater than

the calculated benefit of $300K for McGuire.

The staff questioned Duke regarding the costs of less expensive alternatives that could offer |

similar risk reduction benefits, particularly with regard to hydrogen control in SBO events. In a

January 31, 2002, response to staff RAIs (Duke 2002a), Duke provided additional information |

on the costs associated with installing a passive hydrogen control system based on the use of

PARs in lieu of the present ac-dependent hydrogen igniters, and the costs of powering a subset

of the current hydrogen igniters from a back-up generator. For scoping purposes, Duke

provided supplementary information regarding the cost of back-up power to the igniters and air

return fans in response to a follow-up RAI (NRC 2002a).

Duke’s estimate of the cost to establish a capability to power a subset of igniters from a backup generator was $205,000 for each unit. This modification, as defined by Duke, would involve |

prestaging a single, dedicated generator for each unit outdoors on a concrete pad (for

ventilation and exhaust considerations) and supplying the necessary power cables and circuit

breakers to enable connection to the igniter branch circuits. The breakdown of this cost is:

$5,000 for engineering, $50,000 for materials, $110,000 for installation labor, and $40,000 for

maintenance and operation. This cost estimate does not include an enclosure, tornado

protection for the generator, or any seismic design. Duke further noted that providing electric |

power to hydrogen igniters during a SBO will not be effective without also powering at least one |

of the containment air return fans and that this will further increase the cost of this option. 

When one air return fan is added to this estimate, the combined cost is $540,000. The |

breakdown of this cost is: $50,000 for engineering, $210,000 for materials $240,000 for

installation labor, and $40,000 for maintenance and operation. Duke points out there will be

additional costs not included in these estimates. |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-22 December 2002 |

The staff requested additional information on PARs, because PARs are to be installed in

French PWRs by 2007 to mitigate the consequences of hydrogen combustion events. In

| response (Duke 2002a), Duke estimated that the installation of PARs would cost more than

$750,000 per unit, which is well above the estimated benefit (see Table 5-8, Section 5.2.6.2). 

This cost estimate is consistent with independent staff cost estimates for installing PARs. 

| The staff asked for further information on the basis for the greater than $1 million cost estimate

for two other SAMAs: (1) install automatic swap-over to high pressure recirculation, and

| (2) install automatic swap-over to the containment ventilation cooling water system or the other

unit’s service water system upon loss of the service water system. Duke (NRC 2002a)

| referenced NUREG-0498, Supp. 1 (NRC 1995a), which estimated a cost of about $2.1 million

for a similar alternative, i.e., “automate the alignment of emergency core cooling system

(ECCS) recirculation to the high-pressure charging and safety injection pumps.” This would

reduce the potential for related human errors made during manual realignment. This cost

| estimate applies to both of these candidate SAMAs and is considerably higher than the

| estimated averted risk benefits for McGuire of about $291,000 and $275,000 respectively. 

| (Benefits are discussed further in Section 5.2.6.)

The staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by Duke are reasonable and adequate for

the purposes of this SAMA evaluation. As noted in Section 5.2.6.2, further attention will be

placed on the costs associated with SBO-related plant improvements by the NRC as part of the

resolution of Generic Safety Issue 189 - Susceptibility of Ice Condenser and Mark III

Containments to Early Failure from Hydrogen Combustion During a Severe Accident

(NRC 2002b).

5.2.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

The cost-benefit comparison as evaluated by Duke and the staff evaluation of the cost-benefit

analysis are described in the following sections.

5.2.6.1 Duke Evaluation

In the analysis provided in the McGuire ER, Duke did not include the following factors in its

cost-benefit evaluation: replacement power costs for SAMAs that have the potential to reduce

CDF and averted offsite property damage costs for SAMAs that have the potential to improve

containment performance. In view of the significant impact of these averted costs on the

estimated benefit for a SAMA, the staff requested that Duke include these factors in the cost-

| benefit analysis for each affected SAMA. In response to the RAI (Duke 2002a), Duke updated

the benefit estimates to include averted replacement power costs (ARPC) and averted offsite

property damage costs (AOC).
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The methodology used by Duke was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing costbenefit analysis in NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook

(NRC 1997b). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA according to

the following formula:

Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE |

where APE = present value of averted public exposure ($) |

AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($) |

AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($) |

AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($) |

COE = cost of enhancement ($) |

If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

benefit associated with the SAMA and it is not considered cost-beneficial. Duke’s derivation of

each of the associated costs is summarized below.

Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (∆ person-rem/reactor year) |

x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period with a 

7-percent discount rate)

As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), it is important to note that the monetary value of

the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an

accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

potential future losses to present value. Duke used the following expression when calculating

the APE for the 20-year license renewal period:

APE = $2.20×104

 x (Change in public exposure) |

Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

For SAMAs that reduce CDF, the AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

AOC = Annual CDF reduction

x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

x present value conversion factor |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-24 December 2002 |

Duke derived the values for averted offsite property damage costs based on information

| provided in Section 5.7.5 of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b). A discount factor of 7 percent and

a 4-percent rate of inflation were used. Duke used the following expression when calculating

the AOC for the 20-year license renewal period:

AOC = $3.92×109 | x (Change in annual CDF)

Originally, as part of the ER, Duke did not include the AOC for containment-related SAMAs. In

response to staff RAIs, Duke incorporated AOC as follows (Duke 2002a).

For containment-related SAMAs (which impact population dose but not CDF), Duke estimated

the combined AOC and averted public exposure costs (APE) based on a conversion factor of

$3000/person-rem, which was attributed to NUREG/CR-6349 (NRC 1995b). Duke used the

following expression when calculating these costs (for containment-related SAMAs) for the 20-

year license renewal period:

AOC + APE = $3.23×104 | x (Change in public exposure)

Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

AOE = Annual CDF reduction

x occupational exposure per core damage event

x monetary equivalent of unit dose

| x present value conversion factor

Duke derived the values for averted occupational exposure based on information provided in

Section 5.7.3 of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b). Best-estimate values provided for immediate

occupational dose [33 person-Sv (3300 person-rem)] and long-term occupational dose [200

person-Sv (20,000 person-rem) over a 10-year cleanup period] were used. The present value

of these doses was calculated using the equations provided in NUREG/BR-0184 in conjunction

with a monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a discount rate of 7 percent,

and a time period of 20 years to represent the license-renewal period. Duke used the following

expression when calculating the AOE for the 20-year license renewal period:

AOE = $3.1×108 | x (Change in annual CDF)

Averted Onsite Costs (AOSC) (Not Including Replacement Power Costs)

The AOSCs, as calculated by Duke, include averted cleanup and decontamination costs. 

NUREG/BR-0184, Section 5.7.6.2, states that long-term replacement power costs must also be
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

considered (NRC 1997b). Duke did not include this cost in the ER. However, Duke did add this

cost in the responses (Duke 2002a) to the staff’s RAIs.

Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated using the following formula:

ACC = Annual CDF reduction |

x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

x present value conversion factor |

The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b) as $1.5×109

 (undiscounted). This value was converted to |

present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed

license extension. Duke used the following expression when calculating the ACC for the 20-

year license renewal period:

ACC = $1.18×1010 x (Change in annual CDF) |

Averted Power Replacement Cost (APRC) |

The Duke estimate of the annual power replacement cost for McGuire is based on an assumed

discount rate of 7 percent for the 20-year license renewal period.

The estimated present power replacement costs of a severe accident occurring in each year of

the license renewal period is given by (equation from NUREG/BR-0184):

PVRP = [$1.2×108

/0.07][1 – exp(-0.07 x 20)]2 |

PVRP = $9.73×108 |

Then, to estimate the net present value of power replacement over the 20-year license renewal

(equation from NUREG/BR-0184, p. 5.44):

URP = [PVRP/0.07][1 – exp(-0.07 x 20)]2

URP = $7.89×109 |

APRC = URP x (Change in annual CDF) |

Because the averted power replacement cost from the NUREG is in 1990 dollars, an

assumption is made to include a 4 percent inflation rate over 11 years to bring the value into

2001 dollars; therefore,

APRC = $1.21×1010 x (Change in annual CDF) |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-26 December 2002 |

Duke Results

| The total benefit associated with each of the 15 SAMAs evaluated by Duke (seven that reduce

| CDF and eight that improve containment performance) is provided in Tables 5-6 and 5-7. One

of the SAMAs has a positive net value (i.e., the total benefit is greater than the cost of the

enhancement). All of the remaining SAMAs have a negative net value, even given the

bounding risk-reduction benefits inherent in these estimates.

5.2.6.2 Staff Evaluation

The cost-benefit analysis provided by Duke (Duke 2001, 2002) was based primarily on NRC’s

Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (NRC 1997b). In the original ER, Duke did

not include averted replacement power costs for SAMAs that reduce CDF or averted offsite

property damage costs for SAMAs that improve containment performance. However, the

impact of these factors was included in supplemental analyses provided by Duke in response to

the staff’s RAIs (Duke 2002a; NRC 2002a). The averted replacement power costs were

| assessed appropriately and the values calculated by Duke are consistent with independent staff

assessments.

Duke used a conversion factor of $3,000/person-rem to determine the averted offsite property

damage and averted public exposure costs. This effectively assumes a $1,000/person-rem

conversion factor as a surrogate for averted offsite property damage, in addition to the

accepted $2,000/person-rem conversion factor for averted offsite public exposure costs. 

| Because offsite property damage costs are plant- and site-specific, it would be more consistent

with standard practice to actually calculate the property damage using the MACCS code. 

Nevertheless, the averted offsite costs values (for health effects and property damage)

calculated by Duke provide reasonably good agreement with typical site values and are

acceptable for purposes of estimating the value of containment-related SAMAs. Inclusion of

averted replacement power and offsite property damage costs did not result in identification of

any additional cost-beneficial SAMAs, and would not call into question Duke’s decision to

eliminate seismic SAMAs from consideration, given the large costs associated with seismic

SAMAs. 

For most of the candidate SAMAs, the staff agrees with Duke that the SAMAs would clearly not

be cost-beneficial because they have costs that are substantially (typically a factor of three or

more) higher than the dollar equivalent of the associated benefits. This difference is considered

to provide ample margin to cover uncertainties in the risk and cost estimates because estimates

for these factors were generally evaluated in a conservative manner. This is true even when

considering the 3 percent versus 7 percent discount rate sensitivity case or the use of a 40-year

versus 20-year time period. However, the cost-benefit analyses for the some of the SAMAs

related to hydrogen control in SBO events have benefits that are similar in magnitude to the

costs. The frequency of SBO events for McGuire account for 47 percent of the total CDF of
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

4.9×10-5 per year based on Revision 2 of the PRA and 27 percent of the total CDF of 3.7×10-5 |

per year based on Revision 3 of the PRA. Also, ice condenser containments have a higher

degree of vulnerability to hydrogen combustion in SBO events, as described in

NUREG/CR-6427 (NRC 2000). 

NUREG/CR-6427 provided a simplified Level 2 analysis that studied the direct containment |

heating (DCH) issue for plants with ice condenser containments (NRC 2000) and found that

early containment failure is dominated by hydrogen combustion events rather than DCH events,

and that no ice condenser plant is inherently robust to all credible DCH or hydrogen combustion

events in station blackout. The study concluded that all plants, especially McGuire, would

benefit from reducing SBO frequency or from providing some means of hydrogen control that is

effective in SBO events. It should be noted that the NUREG contains several assumptions that |

may be justified for purposes of dispositioning the DCH issue but are not necessarily consistent |

with the best-estimate philosophy or PRA (such as a bounding assumption that random ignition |

prior to vessel breach will not occur). Accordingly, the NUREG is useful for understanding the |

uncertainties associated with early containment failure probabilities, but should not be

interpreted as providing a realistic or best-estimate evaluation of the potential for early |

containment failure as a result of hydrogen combustion during SBO events. |

In light of the issues raised in NUREG/CR-6427 concerning the likelihood of early containment |

failure in SBO events, the staff requested Duke to provide a reevaluation of the benefits

associated with the hydrogen control measures (install back-up power to igniters and air return

fans) assuming a containment response consistent with the findings in NUREG/CR-6427 (i.e.,

using the containment failure probabilities for DCH and non-DCH events reported in the study,

in place of the conditional failure probabilities implicit in the baseline PRA). Under these

assumptions, Duke estimated that the averted population dose risk from eliminating early

containment failures would rise from a base case value of 0.055 person-Sv (5.5 person-rem)

per year to 0.21 person-Sv (21 person-rem) per year. The benefit values based on use of the

NUREG/CR-6427 containment failure probability for McGuire are reported in Table 5-8. Also

shown are the benefits values for the sensitivity cases involving use of a 3-percent discount rate |

compared to a 7-percent discount rate in the base case and use of the SBO CDF estimates |

from Revision 3 of the PRA rather than Revision 2. All of the values in Table 5-8 include

averted offsite property damage.

A number of points are worth noting regarding the Duke base case results and these sensitivity

assessments:

  Not all early and late releases can be eliminated by providing hydrogen control. For

example, late failures due to long-term containment over-pressure could still occur. 

Also, the non-safety related, non-seismic back-up power source may not be available

in large seismic and tornado events, if it is not designed to withstand such events. An

upper bound estimate can be provided by assuming that all containment failures – |

early and late – would be eliminated. More realistically, most of the early and some of |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-28 December 2002 |

the late releases would be eliminated. The assumption that hydrogen control would

eliminate all early failures is considered to provide a reasonable estimate of the risk

reduction benefit. Accordingly, the estimated benefits shown in Table 5-8 are based

on eliminating all early containment failures.

Table 5-8. Sensitivity Results for Hydrogen Control SAMAs (all benefits based on

eliminating early failures only)

SAMA

Estimated

Cost

(per unit)

Estimated Benefits for Hydrogen Control SAMAs Under Various

Assumptions

Based on

Revision 2 of the

PRA

Based on

conditional

containment

failure

probabilities from

NUREG/CR6427

Based on a 3%

discount rate

compared to a

7% discount rate

in the base case

Based on

SBO values

from

Revision 3 of

the PRA

Back-up

power to

igniters & air

return fans

| $540,000 $178,000 $678,000 $248,000 $76,000

PARs $750,000 $178,000 $678,000 $248,000 $76,000

| Back-up

power to

igniters only

$205,000 Duke: no benefit,

since air-return

fans are needed

Duke: no benefit,

since air-return

fans are needed

Duke: no benefit,

since air-return

fans are needed

Duke: no

benefit, since

air-return

fans are

needed

  It is Duke’s position that powering the igniters without also powering the air-return fans

would not achieve effective hydrogen control. According to Duke, in order to realize the

stated benefits, the air-return fans must also have a back-up power source. More than

half of the cost of the SAMA to provide back-up power to igniters and air-return fans

comes from powering the fans. Based on available technical information, it is not clear

that operation of an air-return fan is necessary to provide effective hydrogen control. If

only the igniters need to be powered during SBO, a less expensive option of powering a

subset of igniters from a back-up generator, addressed by Duke in responses to RAIs

| (Duke 2002a; NRC 2002a), is within the range of averted risk benefits and would

warrant further consideration.

|  If a 3-percent discount rate is assumed in contrast to the 7-percent discount rate

| assumed in the base case analysis, the benefits are similar in magnitude to the costs if
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

back-up power to the air-return fans is not needed. This further supports the position

that the benefits are large and that a hydrogen-related SAMA may be cost-beneficial. |

  The effect of implementing the SAMA in the near term rather than delaying

implementation until the start of the license renewal period (i.e., use of a 40-year rather

than a 20-year, period in the value impact analyses) is bounded by the sensitivity study

that assumed a 3-percent discount rate. |

  The Revision 3 PRA results would reduce the averted risk benefits by about half. While

this is a substantial reduction, it does not eliminate the generic concern that the benefits

of additional hydrogen control are large.

The NRC has recognized that ice condenser containments like McGuire’s are vulnerable to

hydrogen burns in the absence of power to the hydrogen ignitor system. This issue is

sufficiently important for all PWRs with ice condenser containments that NRC has made the

issue a Generic Safety Issue (GSI), GSI-189 – Susceptibility of Ice Condenser and Mark III

Containments to Early Failure from Hydrogen Combustion During a Severe Accident (NRC

2002b). As part of the resolution of GSI-189, NRC is evaluating potential improvements to

hydrogen control provisions in ice condenser plants to reduce their vulnerability to hydrogenrelated containment failures in SBO. This will include an assessment of the costs and benefits

of supplying igniters from alternate power sources, such as a back-up generator, as well as

containment analyses to establish whether air-return fans also need an ac-independent power

source, as part of this modification. The need for plant design and procedural changes will be

resolved as part of GSI-189 and addressed for McGuire and other ice condenser plants as a

current operating license issue.

5.2.7 Conclusions

Duke completed a comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate potential cost-beneficial plant

enhancements to reduce the risk associated with severe accidents at McGuire. As a result of

this assessment, Duke concluded that no additional mitigation alternatives are cost-beneficial

and warrant implementation at McGuire.

Based on its review of SAMAs for McGuire, the staff concurs that none of the candidate SAMAs |

are cost-beneficial with the possible exception of one SAMA related to hydrogen control in SBO

events. This conclusion is consistent with the low level of risk indicated in the McGuire PRA

and the fact that Duke has already implemented numerous plant improvements identified from

previous plant-specific risk studies. Duke’s position is that SAMAs that provide hydrogen

control in SBO events are not cost-effective because back-up power would also need to be

supplied to the air-return fans from ac-independent power sources in order to ensure mixing of

the containment atmosphere; the cost of powering both the igniters and the air-return fans

would exceed the expected benefit. However, based on available technical information, it is not

clear that operation of an air-return fan is necessary to provide effective hydrogen control. If
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-30 December 2002 |

only the igniters need to be powered during SBO, a less-expensive option of powering a subset

of igniters from a back-up generator, addressed by Duke in responses to RAIs (Duke 2002a;

| NRC 2002a), is within the range of averted risk benefits and would warrant further

consideration. Even if air-return fans are judged to be necessary to ensure effective hydrogen

control in SBOs, the results of sensitivity studies suggest that this combined SAMA might also

be cost-beneficial. 

The staff concludes that one of the SAMAs related to hydrogen control in SBO sequences 

(supplying existing hydrogen igniters with back-up power from an independent power source

during SBO events) is cost-beneficial under certain assumptions, which are being examined in

connection with resolution of GSI-189. However, this SAMA does not relate to adequately

managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, it need not

| be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. The need for plant

| design and procedural changes will be resolved as part of GSI-189 and addressed for McGuire

and all other ice condenser plants as a current operating license issue.

5.3 References

| 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

| 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

| 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

| 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.” 

Duke Power Company (Duke Power). 1991. Letter from T. C. McMeekin, DPC to NRC. 

Subject: Evaluation of the McGuire Units 1 and 2 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) – Internal

Events, dated November 4, 1991.

Duke Power Company (Duke Power). 1994. Letter from T. C. McMeekin, DPC to NRC. 

Subject: Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal, McGuire Nuclear

Station, dated June 1, 1994.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 1998. Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Individual Plant

Examination, McGuire Nuclear Station, dated March 19, 1998.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001. Applicant’s Environmental Report–Operating License

Renewal Stage, McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002a. Letter from M. S. Tuckman of Duke Energy

Corporation to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to Request for |

Additional Information in Support of the Staff Review of the Application to Renew The Facility

Operating Licenses of McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station

Units 1 and 2, January 31, 2002.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002b. Letter from M.S. Tuckman of Duke Energy

Corporation to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Comments on draft plant- |

specific Supplement 8 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License |

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, McGuire Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, |

August 2, 2002. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, “Individual Plant

Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” November 23, 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks - An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20, 

“Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” June 28, 1991.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1994. Letter from V. Nerses (NRC) to T. C.

McMeekin (Duke Power Company), Subject: Staff Evaluation of the McGuire Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2, Individual Plant Examination - Internal Events Only, June 30, 1994.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995a. Final Environmental Statement Related

to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement 1,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995b. Cost-Benefit Considerations in

Regulatory Analysis. NUREG/CR-6349. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. SECPOP90: Sector Population, Land

Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. NUREG/CR-6525, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 5-32 December 2002 |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. Individual Plant Examination Program:

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3—Transportation,

Table 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,

Final Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Letter from F. Rinaldi (NRC) to H. B.

Barron (Duke Energy Corporation), Subject: Review of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

- Individual Plant Examination of External Events Submittal, February 16, 1999.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Assessment of the DCH Issue for Plants

with Ice Condenser Containments. NUREG/CR-6427, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Letter from J. H. Wilson (NRC) to M. S.

Tuckman (Duke Energy Corporation), Subject: Request for Additional Information Related to

the Staff’s Review of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for McGuire Nuclear

Station Units 1 and 2, November 19, 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Note to File from J. H. Wilson (NRC). 

Subject: Information Provided by Duke Energy Corporation Related to Severe Accident

Mitigation Alternatives in its License Renewal Application for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1

and 2, March 14, 2002 (Accession No. ML0207450318).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Memorandum from F. Eltawila (NRC) to

A. Thadani (NRC), Subject: Generic Issue Management Control System Report - First Quarter

FY 2002, February 13, 2002.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002c. Note to File from A. Kugler (NRC). 

Subject: Information Provided by VEPCo in Relation to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

in Its License Renewal Application for the Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, January

23, 2002 (Accession No. ML020250545).
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 6-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium

Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management were

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999a).(a) The GEIS included a |

determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants

and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were assigned a |

Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those

that meet all of the following criteria: 

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter addresses the issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management during the license renewal term that are listed in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, and are applicable to McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire). The

generic potential impacts of the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the

uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes are described in detail in the

GEIS, based, in part, on the generic impacts provided in 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table S-3, "Table of

Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, "Environmental

Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 6-2 December 2002 |

Power Reactor." The GEIS also addresses the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99. 

There are no Category 2 issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management.

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

Category 1 issues from 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable

to McGuire from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

Management During the Renewal Term

| ISSUE10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other

than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste [HLW])

6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3; 6.2.4;

6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4, 6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and HLW) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4, 6.6

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8; 6.2.2.9;

6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Low-level waste storage and disposal 6.1; 6.2.2.2; 6.4.2; 6.4.3; 6.4.3.1;

6.4.3.2; 6.4.3.3; 6.4.4; 6.4.4.1; 6.4.4.2;

6.4.4.3; 6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5; 6.4.4.5.1;

6.4.4.5.2; 6.4.4.5.3; 6.4.4.5.4; 6.4.4.6,

6.6

Mixed waste storage and disposal 6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3; 6.4.5.4;

6.4.5.5; 6.4.5.6; 6.4.5.6.1; 6.4.5.6.2;

6.4.5.6.3; 6.4.5.6.4, 6.6

Onsite spent fuel 6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2; 6.4.6.3;

6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5; 6.4.6.6; 6.4.6.7; 6.6

Nonradiological waste 6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 6.6

Transportation 6.1; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3; 6.3.4; 6.6,

Addendum 1

| In its environmental report (ER; Duke 2001), Duke stated that “no new information existed for

the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions.” No significant new information has

been identified by the staff in the review process and in the staff’s independent review. 
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those

discussed in the GEIS. For all of those GEIS issues, the staff concluded that the impacts are

SMALL except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and

spent fuel disposal, as discussed below, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to

be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1,

10 CFR Part 51, for each of these issues follows. |

  Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel

and HLW). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the

Commission in Table S-3 of this part [10 CFR 51.51(b)]. Based on information in

the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases

including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite

radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

  Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the

fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be

about 14,800 person rem [148 person Sv], or 12 cancer fatalities, for each

additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the

contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses

summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be

extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well

as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of

cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses

have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated (for

example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these doses

projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions

are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there

will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are

very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural

background exposure to the same populations.
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 6-4 December 2002 |

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] implications of these matters should

be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case.

Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these

impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to

require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation

under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission

has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel

cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite

radiological impacts (collective effects) from the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and HLW disposal). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle,

there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the

current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are

developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

report, "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," and that in accordance

with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository

can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits,

peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem [1 mSv] per year or

less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these

assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits

are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or

reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible

pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem

[1 mSv] per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual

doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and

international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem [1

mSv] per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem [1 mSv] annual dose

limit is about 3×10-3.

Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more

problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the

Department of Energy in the "Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management

of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste," October 1980 [DOE 1980]. The

evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum

individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a

reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years,

and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies

have expended considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the

licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at

Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of doses to population may be possible

in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca

Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially

with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard

proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of

potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative

population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the view

that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository at

Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] generic

repository standards in 40 CFR part 191 generally provide an indication of the order

of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a

Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range

of standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR part 191 protect the

population by imposing "containment requirements" that limit the cumulative amount

of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. Reporting performance

standards that will be required by EPA are expected to result in releases and

associated health consequences in the range between 10 and 100 premature

cancer deaths with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a

100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository. 

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to

repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into

account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these

impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant,

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated.

Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for

the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered

Category 1.

Since the GEIS was originally issued in 1996, the EPA has published radiation protection

standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, at 40 CFR Part 197, “Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” on June 13, 2001
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 6-6 December 2002 |

(66 FR 32132). The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 USC 10101 et seq) directed that the

NRC adopt these standards into its regulations for reviewing and licensing the repository. 

The NRC published its regulations at 10 CFR Part 63, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive

Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” on November 2, 2001

(66 FR 55792). These standards include the following: (1) 0.15 mSv/year (15 mrem/year)

dose limit for members of the public during the storage period prior to repository closure,

(2) 0.15 mSv/year (15 mrem/year) dose limit for the reasonably maximally exposed

individual for 10,000 years following disposal, (3) 0.15 mSv/year (15 mrem/year) dose limit

for the reasonably maximally exposed individual as a result of a human intrusion at or

before 10,000 years after disposal, and (4) a groundwater protection standard that states

for 10,000 years of undisturbed performance after disposal, radioactivity in a representative

volume of ground-water will not exceed (a) 0.19 Bq/L (5 pCi/L) (radium-226 and radium228), (b) 0.56 Bq/L (15 pCi/L) (gross alpha activity), and (c) 0.04 mSv/year (4 mrem/year) to

the whole body or any organ (from combined beta and photon emitting radionuclides).

On February 15, 2002, subsequent to receipt of a recommendation by Secretary Abraham,

U.S. Department of Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the

development of a repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

| nuclear waste. The U.S. Congress approved this recommendation on July 9, 2002. This

| development does not represent new and significant information with respect to the offsite

| radiological impacts related to spent fuel and HLW disposal during the renewal term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts related to spent fuel and HLW disposal during the renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

  Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal

of an operating license for any plant are found to be SMALL.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no nonradiological

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

  Low-level waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public

doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the

environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The

maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste

storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be

small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The

radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of

low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition,

the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient

low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for

facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning

requirements.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

low-level waste storage and disposal associated with the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

  Mixed waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are

in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and

exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants.

License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and

the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from

any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission

concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste

disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be

decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

mixed waste storage and disposal associated with the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 6-8 December 2002 |

  Onsite spent fuel. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of

operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects

through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored

retrievable storage is not available.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

onsite spent fuel associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Nonradiological waste. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at

all plants.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no nonradiological

waste impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Transportation. Based on information contained in the GEIS, the Commission found

that

The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with

average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to

62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to

a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent

with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary

Table S-4--Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and

from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or

burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the

implications for the environmental impact values reported in Sec. 51.52.

McGuire meets the fuel-enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the

GEIS. In recent years, licensees have requested authorization to increase fuel enrichment

and fuel burnup. In its letter dated September 22, 1999 (NRC 1999b), the staff approved a

maximum burnup rate of 60,000 MWd/MTU. Based on a reassessment of the impacts
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

resulting from the transportation of spent fuel (NRC 2001), the staff’s preliminary

determination is that the environmental impacts at a burnup rate of 62,000 MWd/MTU are

unchanged from those summarized in Table S-4. The staff has not identified any significant

new information during its independent review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff's

site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the

staff concludes that there are no impacts of transportation associated with license renewal

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

6.2 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for |

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of High- |

Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.”

40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191, |

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear

Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste.”

40 CFR Part 197. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 197, |

“Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain,

Nevada.”

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001. Applicant’s Environmental Report  Operating

License Renewal Stage  McGuire Nuclear Station. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Energy Policy Act of 1992. 42 USC 10101 et seq.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS 00046-G, Vols. 1-3,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 6-10 December 2002 |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 - Transportation,

Table 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,

Final Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Letter from F. Rinaldi, NRC, to

H.B. Barron, Vice President, McGuire Site, Duke Energy Corporation. Subject: McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Re: ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel

Burnup Above 60 GWd/MTU, NUREG/CR-6703, Washington D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 7-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Environmental issues associated with decommissioning, which result from continued plant

operation during the renewal term, were discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2

(NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS included a determination of whether the analysis of the |

environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures

would be warranted. Issues were assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set |

forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. No Category 2 issues are

related to decommissioning McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire).

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

to McGuire decommissioning following the renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. In its

environmental report (ER; Duke 2001), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) stated “no new |

information exists for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions.” The staff has not

identified any significant new information during its independent review of the McGuire ER

(Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available 
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 7-2 December 2002 |

| Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Decommissioning of McGuire

Following the Renewal Term

| ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

DECOMMISSIONING

Radiation Doses 7.3.1; 7.4

Waste Management 7.3.2; 7.4

Air Quality 7.3.3; 7.4

Water Quality 7.3.4; 7.4

Ecological Resources 7.3.5; 7.4

Socioeconomic Impacts 7.3.7; 7.4

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS

that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be

sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of the issues follows:

  Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless

of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase

no more than 1 man-rem [0.01 person-Sv] caused by buildup of long-lived

radionuclides during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

radiation doses associated with decommissioning following license renewal beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

December 2002 7-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

  Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate

no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in

the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of solid waste associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Air quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at

the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of license renewal on air quality during decommissioning beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

  Water quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no

greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period

or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available

to avoid such impacts.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of the license renewal term on water quality during decommissioning beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

  Ecological Resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year

license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 7-4 December 2002 |

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of the license renewal term on ecological resources during decommissioning

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Socioeconomic Impacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found

that

Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The

impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a

20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and

economic growth.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the McGuire ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of license renewal on the socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

7.1 References

| 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating

License Renewal Stage – McGuire Nuclear Station. Charlotte, North Carolina.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
1 (a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

2 all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 8-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives |

to Operating License Renewal |

|

|

This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying the renewal |

of the operating licenses (OLs) (i.e., the no-action alternative); the potential environmental

impacts from electric generating sources other than McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

(McGuire); the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to replace power

generated by McGuire and the associated environmental impacts; the potential environmental

impacts from a combination of generating and conservation measures; and other generation

alternatives that were deemed unsuitable for replacement of power generated by McGuire. The |

environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s)

three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using the |

Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of

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.

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

The impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) with the additional impact category of environmental

justice.

8.1 No-Action Alternative

The NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A) implementing the National |

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) specify that the no-action alternative be discussed in an NRC

environmental impact statement (EIS). For license renewal, the no-action alternative refers to a |

scenario in which the NRC would not renew the OLs for McGuire, and Duke Energy Corporation

(Duke) would then decommission McGuire when plant operations cease. The no-action |

alternative is a conceptual alternative resulting in a net reduction in power production, but with

no environmental impacts assumed for the replacement power. In actual practice, the power |
Alternatives

(a) The NRC staff is currently supplementing NUREG-0586 for reactor decommissioning. In October

2001, the staff issued draft Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 dealing with decommissioning of nuclear

| power reactors (NRC 2001a) for public comment. The staff is currently finalizing the Supplement for

publication as a final document.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-2 December 2002 |

| lost by not renewing the OLs for McGuire would likely be replaced by (1) demand-side

| management and energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers,

| (3) generating alternatives other than McGuire, or (4) some combination of these options. 

Duke will be required to comply with NRC decommissioning requirements whether or not the

| OLs are renewed. If the McGuire OLs are renewed, decommissioning activities may be

| postponed for up to an additional 20 years. If the OLs are not renewed, Duke would conduct

decommissioning activities according to the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82.

The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning under both license renewal and

the no-action alternative would be bounded by the discussion of impacts in Chapter 7 of the

GEIS, Chapter 7 of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), and the Final

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,

NUREG-0586 dated August 1988.(a) The impacts of decommissioning after 60 years of

operation are not expected to be significantly different from those occurring after 40 years of

operation.

The environmental impacts for the socioeconomic, historic and archaeological resources, and

environmental justice impact categories are summarized in Table 8-1 and discussed in the

following paragraphs.

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Impact Category Impact Comment

Socioeconomic SMALL to MODERATE Decrease in employment, higher-paying jobs,

and tax revenues

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Land occupied by Units 1 and 2 would likely

be retained by Duke

Environmental Justice SMALL to MODERATE Loss of employment opportunities and social

programs

  Socioeconomic. When McGuire ceases operation, there will be a decrease in

employment and tax revenues associated with the closure. Employment (primary and

secondary) impacts and impacts on population would occur over a wide area.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Employees working at McGuire reside in a number of North Carolina counties including

Mecklenburg, Lincoln, Gaston, Iredell, Catawba, Cabarrus, and Rowan (Duke 2001a). 

Tax-related impacts would occur in Mecklenburg County as well as the town of Huntersville

within Mecklenburg County. In 1998, Duke paid property taxes for McGuire to Mecklenburg |

County in the amount of $8,100,866 (Duke 2001a). This payment represented

approximately 2 percent of total property tax revenues in Mecklenburg County and 1

percent of total revenues from all sources for Mecklenburg County. Duke also pays

property taxes for McGuire to the town of Huntersville in the amount of $333,333 per year

(Duke 2001a). In 1999, this payment represented approximately 7 percent of total property

tax revenues and 4 percent of total revenues from all sources for the town of Huntersville.

The no-action alternative would result in the loss of the taxes attributable to McGuire as well

as the loss of plant payrolls 20 years earlier than if the OLs were renewed. Given the

relatively low percentage of revenue in Mecklenburg County and the town of Huntersville

derived from McGuire, the property tax revenue would have a SMALL to MODERATE

impact on the ability of the two jurisdictions to provide public services such as schools and

road maintenance.

There would also be an adverse impact on housing values and the local nearby economy if

McGuire were to cease operations. 

Duke employees working at McGuire currently contribute time and money toward

community involvement, including schools, churches, charities, and other civic activities. It

is likely that with a reduced presence in the community following decommissioning,

community involvement efforts by Duke and its employees in the region would be less.

  Historic and Archaeological Resources. The potential for future adverse impacts to

known or unrecorded cultural resources at McGuire following decommissioning will

depend on the future use of the site. Following decommissioning, the site would likely

be retained by Duke for other corporate purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the site,

however, could result in adverse impacts to cultural resources if the land-use pattern

changes dramatically. Notwithstanding this possibility, the impacts of this alternative on

historic and archaeological resources are considered SMALL.

  Environmental Justice. Current operations at McGuire have no disproportionate impacts

on the minority and low-income populations of Mecklenburg and surrounding counties,

and no environmental pathways have been identified that would cause disproportionate

impacts. Closure of McGuire would result in decreased employment opportunities and

tax revenues in Mecklenburg County and surrounding counties, with possible negative
Alternatives

(a) A greenfield site is assumed to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction.

(b) In the combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gases in a combustion turbine rotate the turbine to

generate electricity. Waste combustion heat from the combustion turbine is routed through a heatrecovery boiler to make steam to generate additional electricity.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-4 December 2002 |

and disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. Because McGuire

is located in a relatively urban area with extensive employment opportunities, the

environmental justice impacts under the no-action alternative are considered SMALL to

MODERATE.

Impacts for all other impact categories would be SMALL, as shown in Table 9-1. In some

cases, impacts associated with the no-action alternative would be positive. For example,

closure of McGuire would eliminate any impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish and

also eliminate any negative impacts resulting from thermal discharges to Lake Norman.

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources

This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric

| power to replace the power generated assuming that the McGuire OLs are not renewed. The

order of presentation of alternative energy sources in Section 8.2 does not imply which

alternative would be most likely to occur or to have the least environmental impacts. The

following generation alternatives are considered in detail:

  coal-fired generation at the McGuire site and at an alternate greenfield(a) site

(Section 8.2.1)

  natural-gas-fired generation at the McGuire site and at an alternate greenfield site

(Section 8.2.2)

  nuclear generation at the McGuire site and at an alternate greenfield site

(Section 8.2.3).

The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated at McGuire

is discussed in Section 8.2.4. Other power generation alternatives and conservation

| alternatives considered by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for McGuire

are discussed in Section 8.2.5. Section 8.2.6 discusses the environmental impacts of a

combination of generation and conservation alternatives.

Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), issues an Annual Energy Outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2002, EIA

projects that combined-cycle(b) or combustion turbine technology fueled by natural gas is likely
Alternatives

(a) A baseload plant normally operates to supply all or part of the minimum continuous load of a system

and consequently produces electricity at an essentially constant rate. Nuclear power plants are

commonly used for baseload generation; that is, these units generally run near full load. |

December 2002 8-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

to account for approximately 88 percent of new electric generating capacity through the year

2020 (DOE/EIA 2001a). Both technologies are designed primarily to supply peak and

intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology can also be used to meet baseload(a)

requirements. Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to account for approximately 9 percent of

new capacity during this period. Coal-fired plants are generally used to meet baseload

requirements. Renewable energy sources, primarily wind, geothermal, and municipal solid

waste units, are projected by EIA to account for the remaining 3 percent of capacity additions. 

EIA’s projections are based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity will

seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable environmental requirements. Combined-cycle

plants are projected by EIA to have the lowest generation cost in 2005 and 2020, followed by

coal-fired plants and then wind generation (DOE/EIA 2001a).

EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little new generation capacity in the United

States through the year 2020 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies

(DOE/EIA 2001a).

EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation

capacity in the United States through the year 2020 because natural gas and coal-fired plants

are projected to be more economical (DOE/EIA 2001a). In spite of this projection, a new

nuclear plant alternative for replacing power generated by McGuire is considered in Section

8.2.3. Since 1997, the NRC has certified three new standard designs for nuclear power plants

under the procedures in 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. These designs are the U.S. Advanced |

Boiling Water Reactor (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, |

Appendix B), and the AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix C). The submission to the |

NRC of these three applications for certification indicates continuing interest in the possibility of

licensing new nuclear power plants. NRC has established a New Reactor Licensing Project |

Office to prepare for and manage future reactor and site licensing applications (NRC 2001b).

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

The coal-fired alternative is analyzed for both the McGuire site and an alternate greenfield site. 

The staff assumed construction of four 600-megawatt electric [MW(e)] units, which is consistent

with Duke’s environmental report (ER) for McGuire (Duke 2001a). This assumption will slightly

overstate the impacts of replacing the 2258 MW(e) from McGuire. |

Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are

from the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to 

environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only up to an |
Alternatives

(a) In a typical wet scrubber, lime (calcium hydroxide) or limestone (calcium carbonate) is injected as a

slurry into the hot effluent combustion gases to remove entrained sulfur dioxide. The lime-based

scrubbing solution reacts with sulfur dioxide to form calcium sulfite, which precipitates out and is

removed in sludge form.

(b) Heat rate is a measure of generating station thermal efficiency. In English units, it is generally

expressed in British thermal units (Btu) per net kilowatt-hour (kWh). It is computed by dividing the

total Btu content of fuel burned for electric generation by the resulting net kWh generation.

(c) The capacity factor is the ratio of electricity generated, for the period of time considered, to the

energy that could have been generated at continuous full-power operation during the same period.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-6 December 2002 |

| additional 20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered

(as a reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired plant).

Coal and lime or limestone for a coal-fired plant sited at McGuire would most likely be delivered

by railroad. The McGuire site is served by an existing rail line. Lime(a) | or limestone is used in

the scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide emissions. Rail delivery would also be the

most likely option for delivering coal and lime/limestone to an alternate inland greenfield site for

the coal-fired plant. Barge delivery of coal and lime/limestone is potentially feasible only for a

coastal site. A coal slurry pipeline is also a technically feasible delivery option; however, the

associated cost and environmental impacts make a slurry pipeline an unlikely transportation

alternative. Construction at an alternate site could necessitate the construction of a new 

transmission line to connect to existing lines and a rail spur to the plant site. 

The coal-fired plant is assumed to utilize tangentially fired, dry-bottom boilers and consume

bituminous, pulverized coal with an ash content of approximately 10 percent by weight

| (Duke 2001a). Annual coal consumption would be approximately 5.76 million MT/yr

(6.35 million tons/yr) (Duke 2001a). The McGuire ER assumes a heat rate(b) of 2.7 J fuel/J

electricity (9364 Btu/kWh) and a capacity factor(c) of 0.8. After combustion, 99.9 percent of the

ash (approximately 572,000 MT/yr [630,000 tons/yr]) would be collected and disposed of at the

plant site. In addition, approximately 304,000 MT/yr (335,000 tons/yr) of scrubber sludge would

be disposed of at the plant site (Duke 2001a). 

8.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling System

For purposes of this SEIS, the staff assumed that a coal-fired plant located at the McGuire site

would use the existing once-through system as a source of cooling. An alternate greenfield site

could use either a closed-cycle or a once-through cooling system. 

The overall impacts of the coal-fired generating system are discussed in the following sections

and summarized in Table 8-2. The extent of impacts at an alternate site would depend on the

location of the particular site selected.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 8-2. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using OnceThrough Cooling at McGuire and an Alternate Greenfield Site

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE to

LARGE

Uses unused portion of McGuire site for

plant, infrastructure, and waste disposal. 

Additional offsite land would also likely be

needed. Additional offsite land impacts

for coal and limestone mining.

MODERATE to

LARGE

Uses up to 1000 ha

(2460 ac) for plant,

infrastructure, and waste

disposal; additional land

impacts for coal and

limestone mining; possible

impacts for transmission

line and rail spur.

Ecology MODERATE to

LARGE

Uses undeveloped areas at McGuire site

plus some offsite land. Potential habitat

loss and fragmentation and reduced

productivity and biological diversity.

MODERATE to

LARGE

Impact depends on location

and ecology of the site,

surface water body used for

intake and discharge, and

transmission line route;

potential habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

Water Use and

Quality

SMALL Uses existing once-through cooling

system

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn

and discharged and the

characteristics of the

surface water body.

Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides

  5757 MT (6346 tons)

Nitrogen oxides

  7196 MT/yr (7932 tons/yr)

Particulates

  288 MT/yr (317 tons/yr) of total

suspended particulates which would

include 192 MT/yr (212 tons/yr) of

PM10

Carbon monoxide

  1439 MT/yr (1586 tons/yr)

Small amounts of mercury and other

hazardous air pollutants and naturally

occurring radioactive materials – mainly

uranium and thorium

MODERATE Potentially same impacts as

the McGuire site, although

pollution control standards

may vary.

Waste MODERATE Total waste volume would be

approximately 900,000 MT/yr

(1 million tons/yr) of ash, spent catalyst,

and scrubber sludge requiring

approximately 307 ha (760 ac) for

disposal during the 40-year life of the

plant.

MODERATE Same impacts as McGuire 

site; waste disposal

constraints may vary.

Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain, but considered

SMALL in the absence of more

quantitative data.

SMALL Same impact as McGuire 

site.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-8 December 2002 |

Table 8-2 (contd)

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Category

Impact Impact Comment Impact Comment

SocioeconomicsMODERATE to

LARGE 

During construction, impacts would be

MODERATE. Up to 2500 workers during

the peak of the 5-year construction

period, followed by reduction from current

McGuire work force of 1345 to 250. Tax

base preserved. Impacts during

operation would be SMALL. 

Transportation impacts associated with

construction workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation

impacts associated with trains trips to and

from the plant would be MODERATE to

LARGE.

MODERATE to

LARGE 

Construction impacts

depend on location, but

could be LARGE if plant is

located in a rural area. 

Mecklenburg County and

the town of Huntersville

would experience loss of

Units 1 and 2 tax base and

employment with potentially

MODERATE impacts. 

Impacts during operation

would be SMALL. 

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE.

For rail transportation of

coal and lime/limestone, the

impact is considered

MODERATE to LARGE. 

For barge transportation,

the impact is considered

SMALL.

Aesthetics MODERATE Exhaust stacks will be visible from nearby

local parks and the Cowan’s Ford Wildlife

Refuge. 

Rail transportation of coal and

lime/limestone would have a MODERATE

aesthetic impact.

Noise impact from plant operations would

be MODERATE.

MODERATE to

LARGE

Impact would depend on

the site selected and the

surrounding land features. 

If needed, a new

transmission line or rail spur

could have a LARGE

aesthetic impact.

Rail transportation of coal

and lime/limestone would

have a MODERATE

aesthetic impact. Barge

transportation of coal and

lime/limestone would have

a SMALL aesthetic impact.

Noise impact from plant

operations would be

MODERATE.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 8-2 (contd)

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Category

Impact Impact Comment Impact Comment

Historic and

Archeological

Resources

SMALL Some construction would affect previously

developed parts of McGuire site; cultural

resource inventory should minimize any

impacts on undeveloped lands.

SMALL Alternate location would

necessitate cultural

resource studies.

Environmental

Justice

 SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts on minority and low-income

communities should be similar to those

experienced by the population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing may occur

during construction; loss of 1095

operating jobs at McGuire could reduce

employment prospects for minority and

low-income populations.

SMALL to

MODERATE 

Impacts at alternate site

vary depending on

population distribution and

makeup at site. 

Mecklenburg County and

the town of Huntersville

would lose tax revenue

which could have a SMALL

to MODERATE impact on 

minority and low-income

populations.

  Land Use

The existing facilities and infrastructure at the McGuire site would be used to the extent

practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the

staff assumed that the coal-fired replacement plant alternative would use the existing oncethrough cooling system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way. Some

additional land beyond the current McGuire site boundary may be needed to construct a

new coal-fired plant while the existing nuclear units continue to operate. |

The coal-fired generation alternative would necessitate converting a significant quantity of

land to industrial use for the plant, coal storage, and landfill disposal of ash, spent selective

catalytic reduction catalyst (used for control of nitrogen oxide emissions), and scrubber

sludge. It is unlikely that there would be enough land within the present boundary of the

existing McGuire site to dispose of all waste products in landfills. Disposal of ash and

scrubber sludge over a 40-year plant life would require approximately 307 ha (760 ac). 

Additional land-use changes would occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining area to

supply coal for the plant. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 8900 ha

(22,000 ac) would be affected for mining the coal and disposing of the waste to support a

1000-MW(e) coal plant during its operational life (NRC 1996). A replacement coal-fired

plant for McGuire Units 1 and 2 would be 2400-MW(e) and would affect proportionately

more land. Partially offsetting this offsite land use would be the elimination of the need for

uranium mining to supply fuel for McGuire Units 1 and 2. In the GEIS, the staff estimated

that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected for mining and processing uranium

during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear power plant (NRC 1996). |
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-10 December 2002 |

The impact of a coal-fired generating unit on land use at the McGuire site is best

characterized as MODERATE to LARGE. The impact would definitely be greater than the

alternative of renewing the OLs.

In the GEIS, the staff estimated that a 1000-MW(e) coal-fired plant would require

approximately 700 ha (1700 ac) (NRC 1996). Duke believes that this acreage would be

sufficient for a 2400-MW(e) coal-fired generation alternative at an alternate site

(Duke 2001a). Additional land could be needed for a transmission line and for a rail spur to

the plant site. Depending particularly on transmission line and rail line routing requirements,

this alternative would result in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts.

 Ecology

Locating a coal-fired plant at the McGuire site would alter ecological resources because of

the need to convert most of the currently unused land at the site to industrial use for the

plant, coal storage, and ash and scrubber sludge disposal. However, some of this land

would have been previously disturbed. Additional offsite land would likely be needed for

disposal of waste products.

Siting a coal-fired plant at McGuire would have a MODERATE to LARGE ecological impact

that would be greater than renewal of McGuire OLs.

At an alternate site, the coal-fired generation alternative would introduce construction

impacts and new incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously

disturbed area, the impacts would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat

loss, reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. 

Use of cooling makeup water from a nearby surface water body could have adverse aquatic

resource impacts. If needed, construction and maintenance of a transmission line and a rail

spur would have ecological impacts. Overall, the ecological impacts at an alternate site

would be MODERATE to LARGE.

  Water Use and Quality

The coal-fired generation alternative at the McGuire site is assumed to use the existing

once-through cooling system, which would minimize incremental water use and quality

impacts. Surface water impacts are expected to remain SMALL; the impacts would be

sufficiently minor that they would not noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
Alternatives

(a) Existing criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates, sulfur

dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxide. Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are set out at |

40 CFR Part 50.

December 2002 8-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

The staff assumed that a coal-fired plant at McGuire would follow the current practice of

obtaining process and fire-protection water from Lake Norman and potable water from the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (Duke 2001a). The six groundwater wells that

supply limited specific uses at the McGuire site would also likely continue to be used. Use |

of groundwater for a coal-fired plant at an alternate site is a possibility. Groundwater

withdrawal at an alternate site could require a permit. Some erosion and sedimentation

would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996).

For a coal-fired plant located at an alternate greenfield site, the impact on the surface water

would depend on the discharge volume and the characteristics of the receiving body of

water. Intake from and discharge to any surface body of water would be regulated by the

State. The impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

  Air Quality

The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation vary considerably from those of nuclear

generation due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates,

carbon monoxide, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring

radioactive materials.

Mecklenburg County is in the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

(40 CFR 81.75). Mecklenburg County is in compliance with the national ambient air quality

standards for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, sulfur dioxide,

and ozone (40 CFR 81.334).

A new coal-fired generating plant located at the McGuire site would likely need a prevention

of significant deterioration (PSD) permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. 

The plant would need to comply with the new source performance standards for such plants

set forth in 40 CFR 60 Subpart Da. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and |

opacity (40 CFR 60.42a), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43a), and NOx (40 CFR 60.44a).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has various regulatory requirements for

visibility protection in 40 CFR 51 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of

any new major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassified under

the Clean Air Act. Mecklenburg County is classified as attainment or unclassified for criteria

pollutants.(a)
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-12 December 2002 |

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas

when impairment results from man-made air pollution. In addition, the EPA issued a new

regional haze rule cited in the Federal Register on July 1, 1999, as 64 FR 35714

| (EPA 1999]). The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located

within a state, the state must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards

achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an

improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation

plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period

| (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new coal-fired power station were located close to a mandatory

Class I area, additional air pollution control requirements could be imposed. However, the

mandatory Class I Federal areas closest to the McGuire site are the Linville Gorge

Wilderness Area approximately 116 km (72 mi) northwest, the Shining Rock Wilderness

| Area approximately 179 km (111 mi) west, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park

approximately 236 km (147 mi) west (40 CFR 81.422). 

In 1998, the EPA issued a rule requiring 22 eastern states, including North Carolina, to

revise their state implementation plans to reduce NOx emissions. NOx emissions contribute

| to violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone (40 CFR 50.9). The total

amount of NOx | that can be emitted by each of the 22 states in the year 2007 ozone season

(May 1 through September 30) is set out at 40 CFR 51.121(e). For North Carolina, the

amount is 149,708 MT (165,022 tons). Any new coal-fired plant sited in North Carolina

would be subject to this limitation. For South Carolina, the amount is 111,656 MT (123,105

tons).

Impacts for particular pollutants are as follows:

Sulfur oxides. Duke states in its ER that an alternative coal-fired plant located at the

McGuire site would use wet scrubber technology utilizing lime/limestone for flue gas

desulfurization (Duke 2001a). 

A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements in Title IV of the Clean

Air Act. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx, the two principal

precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from power plants. 

Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO2 emissions and imposes controls on SO2

emissions through a system of marketable allowances. EPA issues one allowance for each

ton of SO2 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive allowances but are

required to have allowances to cover their SO2 emissions. Owners of new units must

therefore acquire allowances from owners of other power plants by purchase or reduce SO2

emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future

years. Thus, a new coal-fired power plant would not add to net regional SO2 emissions,
Alternatives

December 2002 8-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

although it might do so locally. Regardless, SO2 emissions would be greater for the coal

alternative than the OL renewal alternative.

Duke estimates that by using the best technology to minimize SO2 emissions, the total

annual stack emissions would be approximately 5757 MT (6346 tons) of SO2 (Duke 2001a). 

Nitrogen oxides. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act establishes technology-based emission

limitations for NOx emissions. The market-based allowance system used for SO2 emissions

is not used for NOx emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new

source performance standards for such plants at 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation,

issued on September 16, 1998 and cited in the Federal Register as 63 FR 49442 |

(EPA 1998), limits the discharge of any gases that contain nitrogen oxides (expressed as |

NO2) in excess of 200 ng/J of gross energy output (1.6 lb/MWh), based on a 30-day rolling

average.

Duke estimates that by using low-NOx burners with overfire air and selective catalytic

reduction, the total annual NOx emissions for a new coal-fired power plant would be

approximately 7196 MT (7932 tons) (Duke 2001a). This level of NOx emissions would be

greater than the OL renewal alternative.

Particulates. Duke estimates that the total annual stack emissions would include 288 MT

(317 tons) of filterable total suspended particulates (particulates that range in size from less

than 0.1 micrometer [m] up to approximately 45 m). The 288 MT (317 tons) would

include 192 MT (212 tons) of PM10 (particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less

than or equal to 10 m). Fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators would be used for control

(Duke 2001a). In addition, coal-handling equipment would introduce fugitive particulate |

emissions. Particulate emissions would be greater under the coal alternative than the OL

renewal alternative.

During the construction of a coal-fired plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In addition,

exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the

construction process.

Carbon monoxide. Duke estimates that the total carbon monoxide emissions would be

approximately 1439 MT (1586 tons) per year (Duke 2001a). This level of emissions is

greater than the OL renewal alternative.

Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory

findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units

(EPA 2000b). These findings were cited in the Federal Register as 65 FR 79825. The EPA |

determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units are significant

emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power plants were found by EPA to emit
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-14 December 2002 |

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead,

manganese, and mercury (EPA 2000b). The EPA concluded that mercury is the hazardous

air pollutant of greatest concern. The EPA found that (1) there is a link between coal

consumption and mercury emissions; (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the

largest domestic source of mercury emissions; and (3) certain segments of the

U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating populations) are

believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects due to mercury exposures resulting

from consumption of contaminated fish (EPA 2000b). Accordingly, EPA added coal- and

oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units to the list of source categories under Section

112(c) of the Clean Air Act for which emission standards for hazardous air pollutants will be

issued (EPA 2000b).

Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are

generally in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million. Thorium concentrations are generally

about 2.5 times greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is that

a typical coal-fired plant released roughly 4.7 MT (5.2 tons) of uranium and 11.6 MT

(12.8 tons) of thorium in 1982 (Gabbard 1993). The population dose equivalent from the

uranium and thorium releases and daughter products produced by the decay of these

isotopes has been calculated to be significantly higher than that from nuclear power plants

(Gabbard 1993).

| Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant also would have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions

that could contribute to global warming.

Summary. The GEIS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants but

implied that air impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentioned global warming

from unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOx and NOx emissions as

| potential impacts (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects, such as cancer and

emphysema, have been associated with the products of coal combustion. The appropriate

characterization of air impacts from coal-fired generation would be MODERATE. The

impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality.

Siting a coal-fired generation plant at a site other than McGuire would not significantly

change air-quality impacts, although it could result in installing more or less stringent

pollution-control equipment to meet applicable local requirements. Therefore, the impacts

would be MODERATE.

  Waste

Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air

pollution generates additional ash, spent selective catalytic reduction catalyst, and scrubber
Alternatives

December 2002 8-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

sludge. Four 600-MW(e) coal-fired plants would generate approximately 900,000 MT

(1 million tons) of this waste annually. The ash and scrubber sludge would be disposed of

onsite, accounting for approximately 307 ha (760 ac) of land area over the 40-year plant life. 

There would not be sufficient space on the existing McGuire site for this quantity of waste.

Spent selective catalytic reduction catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. 

Waste impacts to groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of

the plant if leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste

could noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality but, with appropriate management

and monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and

revegetation, the land could be available for other uses. 

In May 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels” in the Federal Register as 65 FR 32214 (EPA 2000a). The

EPA concluded that some form of national regulation is warranted to address coal

combustion waste products because (1) the composition of these wastes could present

danger to human health and the environment under certain conditions; (2) EPA has

identified eleven documented cases of proven damages to human health and the

environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills and surface

impoundments; (3) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, these wastes were

being managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without

reasonable controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (4) EPA

identified gaps in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. Accordingly, EPA announced

its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste under subtitle D of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Construction-related debris would be

generated during construction activities.

|

For all the reasons described above, the appropriate characterization of impacts from waste

generated from burning coal is MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable but

would not destabilize any important resource.

Siting the coal-fired plant at a site other than McGuire would not alter waste generation,

although other sites might have more constraints on disposal locations. Therefore, the

impacts would be MODERATE.

  Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker

and public risks from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risks from

disposal of coal combustion wastes, and public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. 

Emission impacts can be widespread and health risks difficult to quantify. The coal

alternative also introduces the risk of coal pile fires and attendant inhalation risks.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-16 December 2002 |

The staff stated in the GEIS that there could be human health impacts (cancer and

emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but did not

| identify the significance of these impacts (NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of

uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological doses in

excess of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993). 

Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, set air emission standards and

requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific

emission limits as needed to protect human health. As discussed previously, the EPA has

recently concluded that certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus

and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse

health effects due to mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants. 

However, in the absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological

doses and inhaling toxins and particulates generated by burning coal are characterized as

SMALL.

  Socioeconomics

Construction of the coal-fired alternative would take approximately 5 years. The staff 

assumed that construction would take place while McGuire Units 1 and 2 continued

operation and would be completed by the time the units permanently cease operations. The

work force would be expected to vary between 1200 and 2500 workers during the 5-year

construction period (NRC 1996). These workers would be in addition to the approximately

1345 workers employed at McGuire. During construction of the new coal-fired plant,

| communities near the McGuire site would experience demands on housing and public

services that could have MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be tempered because

McGuire is in a relatively urban area and workers could commute to the site from many

communities. After construction, the nearby communities would be impacted by the loss of

the construction jobs. Duke estimates that the completed coal plant would employ

approximately 250 workers (Duke 2001a).

If a coal-fired replacement plant were constructed at the McGuire site and Units 1 and 2

| decommissioned, there would be a loss of approximately 1095 permanent high-paying jobs

(1345 for the two nuclear units down to 250 for the coal-fired plant), with a commensurate

reduction in demand on socioeconomic resources and contribution to the regional economy. 

The coal-fired plants would provide a new tax base to offset the loss of tax base associated

with decommissioning of the nuclear units. For all of these reasons, the appropriate

characterization of nontransportation socioeconomic impacts for an operating coal-fired

plant constructed at the McGuire site would be MODERATE; the socioeconomic impacts

would be noticeable but would be unlikely to destabilize the area.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

During the 5-year construction period for a replacement coal-fired plant, up to

2500 construction workers would be working at the site in addition to the 1345 workers at |

Units 1 and 2. The addition of these workers could place significant traffic loads on existing

highways near the McGuire site. Such impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE. |

For transportation related to commuting of plant operating personnel, the impacts are 

considered SMALL. The maximum number of plant operating personnel would be

approximately 250. The current work force for McGuire Units 1 and 2 is approximately

1345. Therefore, traffic impacts associated with plant personnel commuting to a coal-fired

plant would be expected to be SMALL compared to the current impacts from McGuire |

operations.

The McGuire site is served by an existing rail spur. Coal would likely be delivered by rail |

trains of approximately 115 cars each. Each open-top rail car holds about 90 MT (100 tons)

of coal. Additional rail cars would be needed for lime/limestone delivery. In all,

approximately 690 trains per year would deliver the coal and lime/limestone for the four

units. An average of roughly 26 train trips per week on the rail spur would be needed,

because for each full train delivery there would be an empty return train. On several days

per week, there could be four trains per day using the rail spur to the site. Socioeconomic

impacts associated with rail transportation, such as delays at rail crossings, would likely be

MODERATE to LARGE.

Construction of a replacement coal-fired power plant at an alternate site would relocate

some socioeconomic impacts but not eliminate them. The communities around the McGuire |

site would experience the impact of McGuire operational job loss, and Mecklenburg County |

and the town of Huntersville would lose tax base. These losses would have SMALL to

MODERATE socioeconomic impacts, given the relatively low proportion of the tax base in

these jurisdictions attributable to McGuire (see Section 8.1). Communities around the new

site would have to absorb the impacts of a large, temporary work force (up to 2500 workers

at the peak of construction) and a permanent work force of approximately 250 workers. 

The staff stated in the GEIS that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than

at an urban site, because more of the peak construction work force would need to move to

the area to work (NRC 1996). Alternate greenfield sites would need to be analyzed on a

case-by-case basis. Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site could be LARGE. 

Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an

alternate site are site dependent, but could be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation

impacts related to commuting of plant operating personnel would also be site-dependent but

can be characterized as SMALL to MODERATE.

Coal and lime/limestone would likely be delivered by rail, although barge delivery is feasible

for an alternate coastal location. Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation

would likely be MODERATE to LARGE. 
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-18 December 2002 |

  Aesthetics

The four coal-fired power plant units could be as much as 60 m (200 ft) tall and be visible in

daylight hours offsite. The four exhaust stacks would be as much as 185 m (600 ft) high

(Duke 2001a). The stacks would likely be highly visible in daylight hours for distances up to

16 km (10 mi). The stacks would be visible from a number of local parks and wildlife

| refuges in the vicinity of the McGuire site including the Cowan’s Ford Waterfowl Refuge,

Blythe Landing County Park, Ramsey Creek Park, and Jetton Road Park. The plant units

and associated stacks would also be visible at night because of outside lighting. The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally requires that all structures exceeding an

overall height of 61 m (200 ft) above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not to

impair aviation safety (FAA 2000). Visual impacts of a new coal-fired plant could be

mitigated by landscaping and color selection for buildings that is consistent with the

environment. Visual impact at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting, provided

the lighting meets FAA requirements, and appropriate use of shielding. Overall, the addition

of the coal-fired units and the associated exhaust stacks at the McGuire site would likely

have a MODERATE aesthetic impact.

Coal-fired generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

offsite. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation are classified as

continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment

associated with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related

to coal handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and lime/limestone

delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. The

incremental noise impacts of a coal-fired plant compared to existing McGuire Units 1 and 2

operations are considered to be MODERATE. 

At an alternate greenfield site, there would be an aesthetic impact from the buildings and

exhaust stacks. There would be an aesthetic impact that could be LARGE if construction of

a new transmission line and/or rail spur is needed. Noise impacts associated with rail

delivery of coal and lime/limestone would be most significant for residents living in the

vicinity of the facility and along the rail route. Although noise from passing trains

significantly raises noise levels near the rail corridor, the short duration of the noise reduces

the impact. Nevertheless, given the frequency of train transport and the fact that many

people are likely to be within hearing distance of the rail route, the impacts of noise on

residents in the vicinity of the facility and the rail line is considered MODERATE. Noise

associated with barge transportation of coal and lime/limestone would be SMALL. Noise

and light from the plant would be detectable offsite. Aesthetic impacts at the plant site

would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other power
Alternatives

December 2002 8-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

plants. Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with locating at an alternate site can be

categorized as MODERATE to LARGE.

  Historic and Archaeological Resources

At the McGuire site or an alternate site, a cultural resources inventory would likely be

needed for any onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any,

that are acquired to support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural

resources, identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and

possible mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to

physical expansion of the plant site.

Before construction at the McGuire site or an alternate greenfield site, studies would likely

be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant

construction on cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of

potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new

construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-ofway). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively managed

and as such are considered SMALL.

  Environmental Justice

No environmental pathways or locations have been identified that would result in

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income

populations if a replacement coal-fired plant were built at the McGuire site. Some impacts

on housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Replacement of McGuire, |

Units 1 and 2 with a coal-fired plant would result in a decrease in employment of |

approximately 1095 operating employees. Resulting economic conditions could reduce

employment prospects for minority or low-income populations. However, McGuire is located

in a relatively urban area with many employment possibilities. Overall, impacts are

expected to be SMALL to MODERATE.

Impacts at other sites would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

distribution. If a replacement coal-fired plant were constructed at an alternate site,

Mecklenburg County and the town of Huntersville would experience a loss of property tax

revenue, which could affect their ability to provide services and programs. However,

because the tax revenue attributable to McGuire is a relatively small percentage of total tax

revenue for each jurisdiction, the impacts to minority and low-income populations are

expected to be SMALL to MODERATE.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-20 December 2002 |

8.2.1.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a coal-fired generation system at an alternate

greenfield site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers are essentially the same as the

impacts for a coal-fired plant using the once-through system. However, there are some

environmental differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. 

Table 8-3 summarizes the incremental differences. Although minor differences exist for closedcycle cooling systems, the staff’s findings regarding the environmental impacts of coal-fired

generation with once-through cooling remain bounding.

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an Alternate

Greenfield Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling System Utilizing Cooling Towers

Impact Category Change in Impacts from

Once-Through Cooling System

Land Use 10 to 12 additional ha (25 to 30 ac) required for

cooling towers and associated infrastructure.

Ecology Impact would depend on ecology at the site. 

Additional impact to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift. Reduced impact to aquatic

ecology

Surface Water Use and Quality Discharge of cooling tower blowdown containing

dissolved solids. Discharge would be regulated

by the State. Decreased water withdrawal and

less thermal load on receiving body of water.

Consumptive use of water due to evaporation

from cooling towers.

Groundwater Use and Quality No change

Air Quality No change

Waste No change

Human Health No change

Socioeconomics No change

Aesthetics Introduction of cooling towers and associated

plumes. Natural draft towers could be up to

158 m (520 ft) high. Mechanical draft towers

could be up to 30 m (100 ft) high and also have

an associated noise impact.

Historic and Archaeological Resources No change

Environmental Justice No change
Alternatives

December 2002 8-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

The environmental impacts of the natural-gas-fired alternative are examined in this section for 

both the McGuire site and an alternate greenfield site. For the McGuire site, the staff assumed

that the plant would use the existing once-through cooling system.

The McGuire site is located within 3 km (2 mi) of the Williams Transco interstate natural gas

pipeline; however, a new pipeline would likely be needed to supply the gas capacities required

for a replacement baseload gas-fired plant at the McGuire site (Duke 2001a). Additionally,

Duke stated in its ER (Duke 2001a) that in the winter it may become necessary for a |

replacement natural-gas-fired plant to operate on fuel oil due to lack of gas supply. Operation

with oil would result in more stack emissions.

If a new natural-gas-fired plant were built elsewhere to replace McGuire, a new transmission

line could need to be constructed to connect to existing lines. In addition, construction or

upgrade of a natural gas pipeline from the plant to a supply point where a firm supply of gas

would be available could be needed. One potential source of natural gas is liquefied natural

gas (LNG) imported to either the Cove Point facility in Maryland or the Elba Island facility in

Georgia. Both facilities are expected to be reactivated in 2002 (DOE/EIA 2001a). The LNG

imported to either facility would need to be vaporized and transported to the plant location via

pipeline.

The staff assumed that a replacement natural-gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle

combustion turbines (Duke 2001a). The following additional assumptions are made for the

natural-gas-fired plant (Duke 2001a):

  five 482-MW(e) units, each consisting of two 172-MW combustion turbines and a 138-MW

heat recovery boiler

  natural gas with an average heating value of 56 MJ/kg (23,882 Btu/lb) as the primary fuel

  low-sulfur number 2 fuel oil as backup fuel

  heat rate of 2 J fuel/J electricity (6800 Btu/kWh) |

  capacity factor of 0.8

  gas consumption of 3.2 billion m3

/yr (113 billion ft3/yr).

Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used throughout this section

are from the McGuire ER (Duke 2001a). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to

environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only up to an |
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-22 December 2002 |

| additional 20 years, the impact of operating the natural-gas-fired alternative for 40 years is

considered (as a reasonable projection of the operating life of a natural-gas-fired plant).

8.2.2.1 Once-Through Cooling System

The overall impacts of the natural gas generating system are discussed in the following

sections and summarized in Table 8-4. The extent of impacts at an alternate site will depend

on the location of the particular site selected.

  Land Use

For siting at McGuire, existing facilities and infrastructure would be used to the extent

practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the

staff assumed that the natural-gas-fired replacement plant alternative would use the existing

| once-through cooling system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line right-of-way. At the 

| McGuire site, the staff assumed that approximately 20 ha (50 ac) would be needed for the

plant and associated infrastructure. There would be an additional land use impact if

construction of a new natural gas pipeline to the plant site is needed.

For construction at an alternate greenfield site, the staff assumed that 60 ha (150 ac) would

be needed for the plant and associated infrastructure (NRC 1996). Additional land could be

impacted for construction of a transmission line and/or natural gas pipeline to serve the

plant. For any new natural-gas-fired power plant, additional land would be required for

natural gas wells and collection stations. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that

approximately 1500 ha (3600 ac) would be needed for a 1000-MW(e) plant (NRC 1996). 

Proportionately more land would be needed for a natural-gas-fired plant replacing the

2258 MW(e) from McGuire Units 1 and 2. Partially offsetting these offsite land

requirements would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining to supply fuel for

McGuire Units 1 and 2. NRC staff states in the GEIS (NRC 1996) that approximately 400

ha (1000 ac) would be affected for mining the uranium and processing it during the

operating life of a 1000-MW(e) nuclear power plant. Overall, land-use impacts at both

McGuire and an alternate greenfield location would be MODERATE to LARGE.

  Ecology

At the McGuire site, there would be ecological land-related impacts for siting of the gas-fired

plant. If needed, there would also be significant ecological impacts associated with bringing

a new underground gas pipeline to the site. Ecological impacts at an alternate site would

depend on the nature of the land converted for the plant and the possible need for a new

transmission line and/or gas pipeline. Construction of a transmission line and a gas pipeline

to serve the plant would be expected to have temporary ecological impacts. Ecological 
Alternatives

December 2002 8-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at McGuire and an Alternate Greenfield Site

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE

to LARGE

20 ha (50 ac) for

powerblock, roads, and

parking areas. Additional

impact for construction of

an underground gas

pipeline.

MODERATE to

LARGE

60 ha (150 ac) for power- |

block, offices, roads,

switchyard, and parking

areas. Additional land

possibly impacted for

transmission line and/or

natural gas pipeline.

Ecology MODERATE

to LARGE

Uses undeveloped areas

at McGuire plus land for a

new gas pipeline.

MODERATE to

LARGE

Impact depends on

location and ecology of the

site, surface water body

used for intake and

discharge, and possible

transmission and pipeline

routes; potential habitat

loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and

biological diversity. 

Water Use and

Quality

SMALL Uses existing oncethrough cooling systemSMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume

of water withdrawal and

discharge and

characteristics of surface

water body.

Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides

  31 MT/yr (34 tons/yr)

Nitrogen oxides

  469 MT/yr (517

tons/yr)

Carbon monoxide

  437 MT/yr (482

tons/yr)

PM10 particulates

  260 MT/yr (287

tons/yr)

Some hazardous air

pollutants 

MODERATE Same emissions as

McGuire site.

Waste SMALL Minimal waste product

from fuel combination.

SMALL Minimal waste product

from fuel combination.

Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.

SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-24 December 2002 |

Table 8-4 (contd)

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Socioeconomics MODERATE During construction,

impacts would be

| MODERATE. Up to 800

additional workers during

the peak of the 3-year

construction period,

followed by reduction from

current McGuire work

force of 1345 to 150; tax

base preserved. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL.

Transportation impacts

associated with

construction workers

would be MODERATE.

MODERATE During construction,

impacts would be

MODERATE. Up to

| 800 additional workers

during the peak of the

3-year construction period. 

Mecklenburg County and

the town of Huntersville

would experience loss of

McGuire tax base and

employment associated

with Units 1 and 2 with

potentially MODERATE

impacts. Impacts during

operation would be

SMALL.

Transportation impacts

associated with

construction workers would

be MODERATE.

Aesthetics MODERATE MODERATE aesthetic

impact. Exhaust stacks

will be visible from nearby

local parks and the

Cowan’s Ford Wildlife

Refuge. 

Noise impact from plant

operations would be 

MODERATE.

MODERATE to

LARGE

Impact would depend on

the site selected and the

surrounding land features. 

If needed, a new

transmission line or rail

spur could have a LARGE

aesthetic impact.

Noise impact from plant

operations would be

MODERATE.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be effectively

managed. 

SMALL Same as McGuire site; any

potential impacts can likely

be effectively managed. 

Environmental

Justice

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts on minority and

low-income communities

should be similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing

may occur during

construction; loss of 1195

operating jobs at McGuire

could reduce employment

prospects for minority and

low-income populations.

SMALL to

MODERATE 

Impacts at alternate site

vary depending on

population distribution and

makeup at site. 

Mecklenburg County and

the town of Huntersville

would lose tax revenue

which could have SMALL

to MODERATE impacts on 

minority and low-income

populations.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

impacts to the plant site and utility easements could include impacts on threatened or

endangered species, wildlife habitat loss and reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation,

and a local reduction in biological diversity. At an alternate site, the cooling makeup water

intake and discharge could have aquatic resource impacts. Overall, the ecological impacts

are considered MODERATE to LARGE at either location.

  Water Use and Quality

Each of the natural-gas-fired units would include a heat-recovery boiler from which steam

would turn an electric generator. Steam would be condensed and circulated back to the

boiler for reuse. A natural-gas-fired plant sited at McGuire is assumed to use the existing

once-through cooling system. 

The staff assumed that a gas-fired plant located at the McGuire site would follow the current |

practice of obtaining process and fire-protection water from Lake Norman and potable water

from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD; Duke 2001a). The six |

groundwater wells that supply limited specific uses at the McGuire site would also likely |

continue to be used and impacts would, therefore, be SMALL.

For alternate sites, the impact on the surface water would depend on the discharge volume

and the characteristics of the receiving body of water. Intake from and discharge to any

surface body of water would be regulated by the State. A natural-gas-fired plant sited at an

alternate site may use groundwater. For a natural-gas-fired plant at an alternate site, the

impacts on groundwater would vary depending upon site-specific characteristics, including

competitive uses in the aquifer and plant design. Withdrawal from groundwater aquifers

would also be regulated by the State. Therefore, impacts to groundwater would range from

SMALL to MODERATE.

Water-quality impacts from sedimentation during construction of a natural-gas-fired plant

was characterized in the GEIS as SMALL (NRC 1996). NRC staff also noted in the GEIS

that operational water quality impacts would be similar to, or less than, those from other

generating technologies.

Overall, water-use and quality impacts at an alternate greenfield site are considered SMALL

to MODERATE.

  Air Quality

Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. The gas-fired alternative would release similar

types of emissions but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-26 December 2002 |

A new gas-fired generating plant located at the McGuire site would likely need a PSD permit

and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new combined-cycle natural gas power

plant would also be subject to the new source performance standards for such units at

| 40 CFR 60, Subparts Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for

particulates, opacity, SO2, and NOx.

| The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in

an area designated as attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. Mecklenburg

County is classified as attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing

future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas

| when impairment results from man-made air pollution. On July 1, 1999, the EPA issued a

| new regional haze rule in the Federal Register as 64 FR 35714 (EPA 1999). The rule

specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the State

must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility

conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for

the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no

degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period

| (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a natural-gas-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class

I area, additional air pollution control requirements could be imposed. However, the closest

mandatory Class I Federal areas to the McGuire site are the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area

located approximately 116 km (72 mi) northwest, the Shining Rock Wilderness Area located

| approximately 179 km (111 mi) west, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park located

approximately 236 km (147 mi) west (40 CFR 81.422).

In 1998, the EPA issued a rule requiring 22 eastern states, including North Carolina, to

revise their state implementation plans to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. Nitrogen oxide

emissions contribute to violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone

(40 CFR 50.9). The total amount of nitrogen oxides which can be emitted by each of the

22 states in the year 2007 ozone season (May 1 through September 30) is set out at

40 CFR 51.121(e). For North Carolina, the amount is 149,708 MT (165,022 tons) and for

South Carolina, the amount is 111,674 MT (123,105 tons). Any new natural-gas-fired plant

sited in North Carolina or South Carolina would be subject to these limitations.

Duke projects the following emissions for the natural-gas-fired alternative (Duke 2001a):

  sulfur oxides - 31 MT/yr (34 tons/yr)

  nitrogen oxides - 469 MT/yr (517 tons/yr)
Alternatives

December 2002 8-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

  carbon monoxide - 437 MT/yr (482 tons/yr)

  PM10 particulates - 260MT/yr (287 tons/yr).

A natural-gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

contribute to global warming.

In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air

pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units (EPA 2000b). Natural-gas-fired power

plants were found by EPA to emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (EPA 2000b). Unlike

coal-and oil-fired plants, EPA did not determine that regulation of emissions of hazardous

air pollutants from natural-gas-fired power plants should be regulated under Section 112 of

the Clean Air Act.

Construction activities would result in temporary fugitive dust. Exhaust emissions would

also come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process.

The preceding emissions would likely be the same at the McGuire site or at an alternate |

greenfield site. Impacts from the above emissions would be clearly noticeable but would not |

be sufficient to destabilize air resources as a whole. The overall air-quality impact for a new

natural gas-generating plant sited at McGuire or at an alternate greenfield site is considered

MODERATE.

  Waste

There will be small amounts of solid-waste products (i.e., ash) from burning natural gas fuel. 

In the GEIS the staff concluded that waste generation from gas-fired technology would be

minimal (NRC 1996). Gas firing results in very few combustion by-products because of the

clean nature of the fuel. Waste generation at an operating gas-fired plant would be largely

limited to typical office wastes; impacts would be so minor that they would not noticeably

alter any important resource attribute. Construction-related debris would be generated

during construction activities. Overall, the waste impacts would be SMALL for a naturalgas-fired plant sited at McGuire or at an alternate greenfield site.

In the winter, it may become necessary for a replacement baseload natural-gas fired plant

to operate on fuel oil due to lack of gas supply. Combustion of No. 2 fuel oil generates

minimal waste products. Overall, the waste impacts associated with fuel oil combustion at a

combined cycle plant are expected to be SMALL.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-28 December 2002 |

  Human Health

In the GEIS, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks from gasfired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NOx emissions that contribute to

ozone formation, which in turn contribute to health risks. NOx emissions from any plant

would be regulated. For a plant sited in North Carolina, NOx emissions would be regulated

by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Human health

effects are not expected to be detectable or sufficiently minor that they would neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. Overall, the impacts

on human health of the natural-gas-fired alternative sited at McGuire or at an alternate

greenfield site are considered SMALL.

  Socioeconomics

| Construction of a natural-gas-fired plant would take approximately 3 years. Peak

employment could be up to 800 workers (Duke 2001a). The staff assumed that

construction would take place while Units 1 and 2 continue operation and would be

completed by the time they permanently cease operations. During construction, the

communities immediately surrounding the McGuire site would experience demands on

housing and public services that could have MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be

tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from more distant cities. After

construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of jobs. The current McGuire

work force (1345 workers) would decline through a decommissioning period to a minimal

maintenance size. The new natural-gas-fired plant would replace the nuclear plant tax base

of McGuire or provide a new tax base at an alternate greenfield site and provide

approximately 150 permanent jobs. Siting at an alternate greenfield site would result in the

loss of the nuclear plant tax base in Mecklenburg County and the town of Huntersville and

associated employment, with potentially SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impacts.

In the GEIS, the staff concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a naturalgas-fired plant would not be very noticeable and that the small operational work force would

have the lowest socioeconomic impacts of any nonrenewable technology (NRC 1996). 

Compared to the coal-fired and nuclear alternatives, the smaller size of the construction

workforce, the shorter construction time frame, and the smaller size of the operations work

force would mitigate socioeconomic impacts. 

Transportation impacts associated with construction personnel commuting to the plant site

would depend on the population density and transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of

the site. The impacts can be classified as MODERATE for siting at McGuire or at an

alternate greenfield site. Impacts associated with operating personnel commuting to the

plant site would be SMALL.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Overall, socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction of a natural-gas-fired plant at

McGuire would be MODERATE. For construction at an alternate greenfield site,

socioeconomic impacts would also be MODERATE.

  Aesthetics

The turbine buildings and stacks (approximately 60 m [200 ft] tall) would be visible during

daylight hours from offsite. The gas pipeline compressors also would be visible. Noise and

light from the plant would be detectable offsite. At the McGuire site, these impacts would

result in a MODERATE aesthetic impact. 

At an alternate greenfield site, the buildings and stacks would be visible offsite. If a new

transmission line is needed, the aesthetic impact could be as much as LARGE. Aesthetic

impacts would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other

power plants. Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with a replacement natural-gasfired plant at an alternate greenfield site are categorized as MODERATE to LARGE, with

site-specific factors determining the final categorization.

  Historic and Archaeological Resources

At both the McGuire site and an alternate greenfield site, a cultural resource inventory would |

likely be needed for any onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other

lands, if any, that are acquired to support the plant would also likely need an inventory of

field cultural resources, identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological

resources, and possible mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing

actions related to physical expansion of the plant site.

Before construction at the McGuire site or an alternate greenfield site, studies would likely

be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant

construction on cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of

potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new

construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission and pipeline corridors, or other rights-ofway). Impacts to cultural resources can be effectively managed under current laws and

regulations and kept SMALL.

  Environmental Justice

No environmental pathways or locations have been identified that would result in

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income

populations if a replacement natural-gas-fired plant were built at the McGuire site. Some

impacts on housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Replacement of McGuire |
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-30 December 2002 |

| Units 1 and 2 with a natural-gas-fired plant would result in a decrease in employment of

approximately 1195 operating employees, possibly offset by general growth in the

immediate area. Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for

minority or low-income populations. Overall, impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Impacts at an alternate greenfield site would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby

population distribution. If a replacement natural-gas-fired plant were constructed at an

alternate site, Mecklenburg County and the town of Huntersville would experience a loss of

property tax revenue which would affect their ability to provide services and programs. 

However, since these revenues are a relatively small portion of total tax revenue

(see Section 8.1), the overall impacts to minority and low-income populations would be

SMALL to MODERATE.

8.2.2.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a natural-gas-fired generation system at an alternate

greenfield location using a closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers are essentially the

same as the impacts for a natural-gas-fired plant using once-through cooling. However, there

are some environmental differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling

systems. Table 8-5 summarizes the incremental differences. Although minor differences exist

for closed-cycle cooling systems, the staff’s findings regarding the environmental impacts of

natural-gas-fired generation with once-through cooling remain bounding.

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation

Since 1997, the NRC has certified three new standard designs for nuclear power plants under

| 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. These designs are the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

| (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix B), and the

| AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix C). All of these plants are light-water reactors. 

Although no applications for a construction permit or a combined license based on these

certified designs have been submitted to the NRC, the submission of the design certification

applications indicates continuing interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants. 

In addition, recent volatility in prices of natural gas and electricity have made new nuclear power

plant construction more attractive from a cost standpoint. Consequently, construction of a new

nuclear power plant at the McGuire site using the existing once-through cooling system and at

an alternate greenfield site using both closed- and open-cycle cooling are considered in this

section. The staff assumed that the new nuclear plant would have a 40-year lifetime. 

The NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in

Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are representative of the impacts

that would be associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the certified

designs at the McGuire site or at an alternate greenfield site. The impacts shown in Table S-3
Alternatives

December 2002 8-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

are for a 1000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be adjusted to reflect replacement of McGuire

Units 1 and 2, which have a capacity of 2258 MW(e). The environmental impacts associated

with transporting fuel and waste to and from a light-water cooled nuclear power reactor are

summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The summary of NRC’s findings on NEPA issues

for license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A, |

Appendix B, is also relevant, although not directly applicable, for consideration of environmental 

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with ClosedCycle Cooling Utilizing Cooling Towers at an Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact Category

Change in Impacts from

Once-Through Cooling System

Land Use 10 to 12 additional ha (25 to 30 ac) required for

cooling towers and associated infrastructure.

Ecology Impact would depend on ecology at the site. 

Additional impact to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift. Reduced impact to

aquatic ecology. 

Surface Water Use and Quality Discharge of cooling tower blowdown containing

dissolved solids. Discharge would be regulated

by the State. Decreased water withdrawal and

less thermal load on receiving body of water. 

Consumptive use of water due to evaporation

from cooling towers.

Groundwater Use and Quality No change

Air Quality No change

Waste No change

Human Health No change

Socioeconomics No change

Aesthetics Introduction of cooling towers and associated

plumes. Possible noise impact from operation of

cooling towers.

Historic and Archaeological Resources No change

Environmental Justice No change

impacts associated with the operation of a replacement nuclear power plant. Additional

environmental impact information for a replacement nuclear power plant using once-through

cooling is presented in Section 8.2.3.1 and using closed-cycle cooling in Section 8.2.3.2.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-32 December 2002 |

8.2.3.1 Once-Through Cooling System

The overall impacts of the nuclear generating system are discussed in the following sections. 

The impacts are summarized in Table 8-6. The extent of impacts at an alternate greenfield site

will depend on the location of the particular site selected.

  Land Use

The existing facilities and infrastructure at the McGuire site would be used to the extent

practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the

staff assumed that a replacement nuclear power plant would use the existing cooling

system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way. A replacement nuclear

power plant at McGuire would require approximately 200 ha (500 ac), some of which may

be previously undeveloped land. Some additional land beyond the current site boundary

may be needed to construct a new nuclear power plant while the existing McGuire units

continue to operate.

There would be no net change in land needed for uranium mining because land needed for

the new nuclear plant would offset land needed to supply uranium for fuel for the existing

McGuire Units 1 and 2.

The impact of a replacement nuclear generating plant on land use at the McGuire site is

best characterized as MODERATE. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal

alternative.

Land-use requirements at an alternate greenfield site would be approximately 200 to

400 ha (500 to 1000 ac) plus the possible need for a new transmission line (NRC 1996). In

addition, it may be necessary to construct a rail spur to an alternate site to bring in

equipment during construction. Depending particularly on transmission line routing, siting a

new nuclear plant at an alternate greenfield site could result in MODERATE to LARGE landuse impacts.

 Ecology

Locating a replacement nuclear power plant at the McGuire site would alter ecological

resources because of the need to convert land to an industrial use. Some of this land,

however, would have been previously disturbed.

Siting at the McGuire site would have a MODERATE ecological impact that would be

| greater than renewal of the existing Unit 1 and 2 OLs.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using OnceThrough Cooling at McGuire and an Alternate Greenfield Site

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use MODERAT

E

Requires approximately 200

ha (500 ac) for the plant

MODERATE

to LARGE

Requires approximately

200 to 400 ha (500 to

1000 ac) for the plant.

Possible additional land

if a new transmission

line is needed.

Ecology MODERAT

E

Uses undeveloped areas at

current McGuire Nuclear

Station site plus additional

offsite land. Potential habitat

loss and fragmentation and 

reduced productivity and

biological diversity on offsite

land.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Impact depends on

location and ecology of

the site, surface water

body used for intake and

discharge, and

transmission line route;

potential habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and

biological diversity.

Water Use and

Quality

SMALL Uses existing once-through

cooling system

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on

the volume of water

withdrawn and

discharged and the

characteristics of the

surface water body.

Air Quality SMALL Fugitive emissions and

emissions from vehicles and

equipment during construction. 

Small amounts of emissions

from diesel generators and

possibly other sourcyes during

operation.

SMALL Same impacts as

McGuire site

Waste SMALL Waste impacts for an |

operating nuclear power plant

are set out in 10 CFR Part 51, |

Appendix B, Table B-1. Debris

would be generated and

removed during construction.

SMALL Same impacts as

McGuire 

Human Health SMALL Human health impacts for an |

operating nuclear power plant

are set out in 10 CFR Part 51, |

Appendix B, Table B-1.

SMALL Same impacts as

McGuire site.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-34 December 2002 |

Table 8-6 (contd)

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Socioeconomics MODERAT

E to LARGE

During construction, impacts

would be MODERATE to

LARGE. Up to 2500 workers

during the peak of the 5-year

construction period. Operating

work force assumed to be

similar to McGuire Nuclear

Station. Mecklenburg County

and town of Huntersville tax

base preserved.

Transportation impacts

associated with commuting

construction workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts during

operation would be SMALL.

MODERATE

to LARGE

| Construction impacts

depend on location. 

Impacts at a rural

location could be

LARGE. Mecklenburg

County and the town of

Huntersville would

experience loss of tax

base and employment

with MODERATE

impacts.

Transportation impacts

associated with

commuting construction

workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts

during operation would

be SMALL to

MODERATE.

Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERAT

E

No exhaust stacks or cooling

towers would be needed. 

Daytime visual impact could be

mitigated by landscaping and

appropriate color selection for

buildings. Visual impact at

night could be mitigated by

reduced use of lighting and

appropriate shielding. Noise

impacts would be relatively

small and could be mitigated. 

SMALL to

LARGE

Similar to impacts at

McGuire site. Potential

LARGE impact if a new

transmission line is

needed.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be effectively managed. 

SMALL Any potential impacts

can likely be effectively

managed. 

Environmental

Justice

SMALL Impacts on minority and lowincome communities should be

similar to those experienced by

the population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing may

occur during construction.

SMALL to

MODERATE 

Impacts will vary

depending on population

distribution and makeup

at the site. Mecklenburg

County and the town of

Huntersville would lose

tax revenue which could

have a SMALL to

MODERATE impact on

minority and low-income

populations.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

At an alternate site, there would be construction impacts and new incremental operational

impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the impacts would alter the

ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced productivity, habitat

fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Use of cooling water from a

nearby surface water body could have adverse aquatic resource impacts. If needed,

construction and maintenance of the transmission line would have ecological impacts. 

Overall, the ecological impacts at an alternate greenfield site would be MODERATE to

LARGE.

  Water Use and Quality

The replacement nuclear plant alternative at the McGuire site is assumed to use the existing

cooling system, which would minimize incremental water-use and quality impacts. Surfacewater impacts are expected to remain SMALL; the impacts would be sufficiently minor that

they would not noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

The staff assumed that a replacement nuclear plant located at the McGuire site would follow

the current practice of obtaining process and fire-protection water from Lake Norman and

potable water from the CMUD (Duke 2001a). The six groundwater wells that supply limited

specific uses at the McGuire site would also likely continue to be used. Therefore, the |

impacts of a replacement nuclear plant on groundwater would be SMALL.

For alternate sites, the impact on the surface water would depend on the discharge volume

and the characteristics of the receiving body of water. Intake from and discharge to any

surface body of water would be regulated by the state of North Carolina. Overall, the

impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

For a nuclear power plant at an alternate site, the impacts on groundwater would vary

depending upon site-specific characteristics, including competitive uses in the aquifer and

plant design. Withdrawal from groundwater aquifers would also be regulated by the State. 

Therefore, impacts to groundwater would range from SMALL to MODERATE.

  Air Quality

Construction of a new nuclear plant at the McGuire site or an alternate site would result in

fugitive emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions would also come

from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process. An operating

nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel generators. These

emissions would be regulated. Emissions from a plant sited in North Carolina would be

regulated by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

Overall, emissions and associated impacts are considered SMALL.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-36 December 2002 |

  Waste

The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant are set out in

| Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B. In addition to the impacts shown in

Table B-1, construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities and

removed to an appropriate disposal site. Overall, waste impacts are considered SMALL.

Siting the replacement nuclear power plant at a site other than the McGuire site would not

alter waste generation. Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL.

  Human Health

| Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant are set out in 10 CFR Part 51

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. Overall, human health impacts are considered SMALL.

| Siting the replacement nuclear power plant at a site other than the McGuire site would not

alter human health impacts. Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL.

  Socioeconomics

The construction period and the peak work force associated with construction of a new 

nuclear power plant are currently unquantified (NRC 1996). In the absence of quantified

data, the staff assumed a construction period of 5 years and a peak work force of 2500. 

The staff assumed that construction would take place while the existing McGuire units

continue operation and would be completed by the time McGuire permanently ceases

operations. During construction, the communities surrounding the McGuire site would

experience demands on housing and public services that could have MODERATE to

LARGE impacts. These impacts would be tempered by construction workers commuting to

the site from more distant communities and the fact that McGuire is located in a relatively

urban area. After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the

construction jobs. 

The replacement nuclear units are assumed to have an operating work force comparable to

| the approximately 1345 workers currently working at McGuire Units 1 and 2. The

replacement nuclear units would provide a new tax base to offset the loss of tax base

associated with decommissioning of McGuire. The appropriate characterization of

nontransportation socioeconomic impacts for operating replacement nuclear units

constructed at the McGuire site would be SMALL. 

During the 5-year construction period, up to 2500 construction workers would be working at

the McGuire site in addition to the 1345 workers at Units 1 and 2. The addition of the
Alternatives

December 2002 8-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

construction workers could place significant traffic loads on existing highways, particularly

those leading to the McGuire site. Such impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts related to commuting of plant operating personnel would be similar

to current impacts associated with operation of McGuire and are considered SMALL.

Construction of a replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate site would relocate some

socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. The communities around McGuire

would still experience the impact of McGuire Units 1 and 2 operational job loss and the loss

of tax base with potentially MODERATE impacts. The communities around the new site

would have to absorb the impacts of a large, temporary work force (up to 2500 workers at

the peak of construction) and a permanent work force of approximately 1345 workers. 

In the GEIS, the staff noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger

than at an urban site because more of the peak construction work force would need to

move to the area to work (NRC 1996). The McGuire site is not considered a rural site. 

Alternate sites would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Socioeconomic

impacts at a rural site could be LARGE. Transportation-related impacts associated with

commuting construction workers at an alternate greenfield site are site dependent, but could

be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation impacts related to commuting of plant operating

personnel would also be site dependent, but can be characterized as SMALL to

MODERATE.

  Aesthetics

The containment buildings for a replacement nuclear power plant sited at McGuire and

other associated buildings would likely be visible in daylight hours, especially from the north. 

Visual impacts could be mitigated by landscaping and selecting a color for buildings that is

consistent with the environment. Visual impact at night could be mitigated by reduced use

of lighting and appropriate use of shielding. No exhaust stacks would be needed. No

cooling towers would be needed, assuming use of the existing once-through cooling

system.

Noise from operation of a replacement nuclear power plant would potentially be audible

offsite in calm wind conditions or when the wind is blowing in the direction of the listener. 

Mitigation measures, such as reduced or no use of outside loudspeakers, can be employed

to reduce noise level and keep the impact SMALL to MODERATE.

At an alternate site, there would be an aesthetic impact from the buildings. There would

also be a significant aesthetic impact if a new transmission line were needed. Noise and

light from the plant would be detectable offsite. The impact of noise and light would be

mitigated if the plant is located in an industrial area adjacent to other power plants. Overall,

the aesthetic impacts associated with locating at an alternative site can be categorized as

SMALL to MODERATE; however, the impact could be LARGE if a new transmission line is

needed to connect the plant to the power grid.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-38 December 2002 |

  Historic and Archaeological Resources

At both the McGuire site and an alternate site, a cultural resources inventory would likely be

needed for any onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any,

that are acquired to support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural 

resources, identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and

possible mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to

physical expansion of the plant site.

Before construction at the McGuire site or another site, studies would likely be needed to

identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction

on cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new construction

would occur (e.g., roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic

and archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively managed and as such are

considered SMALL.

  Environmental Justice

No environmental pathways or locations have been identified that would result in

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income

populations if a replacement nuclear plant were built at the McGuire site. Some impacts on

housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. After completion of

construction, it is possible that the ability of the local government to maintain social services

could be reduced at the same time as diminished economic conditions reduce employment

prospects for minority and low-income populations. Overall, however, impacts are expected

to be SMALL. 

Impacts at an alternate greenfield site would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby

population distribution. If a replacement nuclear plant were constructed at an alternate site,

Mecklenburg County and the town of Huntersville would experience a loss of property tax

revenue, which could affect their ability to provide services and programs. However,

because the tax revenue attributable to McGuire is a relatively small percentage of total tax

revenue for each jurisdiction, the impacts to minority and low-income populations are

expected to be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.2.3.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a nuclear power plant at an alternate greenfield site

using closed cycle cooling with cooling towers are essentially the same as the impacts for a
Alternatives

December 2002 8-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

nuclear power plant using once-through cooling. However, there are minor environmental

differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-7

summarizes the incremental differences. Although minor differences exist for closed-cycle

cooling systems, the staff’s findings regarding the environmental impacts of a nuclear power

plant with once-through cooling remain bounding.

Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant Sited at an

Alternate Greenfield Site with Closed-Cycle Cooling

Impact Category

Change in Impacts from

Once-Through Cooling System

Land Use 10 to 12 additional ha (25 to 30 ac) required for

cooling towers and associated infrastructure.

Ecology Impact would depend on ecology at the site. 

Additional impact to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift. Reduced impact to aquatic

ecology. 

Surface Water Use and Quality Discharge of cooling tower blowdown containing

dissolved solids. Discharge would be regulated

by the state of North Carolina. Decreased water

withdrawal and less thermal load on receiving

body of water. Consumptive use of water due to

evaporation from cooling towers.

Groundwater Use and Quality No change

Air Quality No change

Waste No change

Human Health No change

Socioeconomics No change

Aesthetics Introduction of cooling towers and associated

plume. Natural draft towers could be up to 158 m

(520 ft) high. Mechanical draft towers could be

up to 30 m (100 ft) high and also have an

associated noise impact.

Historic and Archaeological Resources No change

Environmental Justice No change

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power

If available, purchased power from other sources could potentially obviate the need to renew

the McGuire Units 1 and 2 OLs. Duke currently purchases power from other generators, and |

overall, North Carolina is a net importer of electricity. 
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-40 December 2002 |

Duke includes future power purchases in its Annual Plan (Duke 2001b). The Plan indicates

how Duke will meet customers’ energy needs through existing generation, customer demandside options, short-term purchase power transactions, and new generating resources

constructed by Duke. The 2001 Plan shows power purchases of 1144 MW for the summer of

2002, gradually decreasing to 121 MW in the summer of 2007 (Duke 2001b). Duke purchases

additional capacity in the short-term power market as necessary.

Imported power from Canada or Mexico is unlikely to be available for replacement of McGuire 

capacity. In Canada, 62 percent of the country’s electricity capacity is derived from renewable

energy sources, principally hydropower (DOE/EIA 2001b). Canada has plans to continue

developing hydroelectric power, but the plans generally do not include large-scale projects

(DOE/EIA 2001b). Canada’s nuclear generation is projected to increase by 1.7 percent by

2020, but its share of power generation in Canada is projected to decrease from 14 percent

| currently to 13 percent by 2020 (DOE/EIA 2001b). The EIA projects that total gross U.S.

imports of electricity from Canada and Mexico will gradually increase from 47.9 billion kWh in

year 2000 to 66.1 billion kWh in year 2005 and then gradually decrease to 47.4 billion kWh in

year 2020 (DOE/EIA 2001b). On balance, it is unlikely that electricity imported from Canada or

Mexico would be able to replace the McGuire capacity.

| If power to replace McGuire capacity were to be purchased from sources within the United

States or a foreign country, the generating technology likely would be one of those described in

this SEIS and in the GEIS (probably coal, natural gas, or nuclear). The description of the

environmental impacts of other technologies in Chapter 8 of the GEIS is representative of the

environmental impacts associated with purchased electrical power alternative to renewal of the

McGuire OLs. Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental impacts of imported

power would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another

country.

8.2.5 Other Alternatives

Other generation technologies are discussed in the following subsections.

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation

The EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in

the United States through the year 2020 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies

(DOE/EIA 2001a). Oil-fired operation is more expensive than nuclear or coal-fired operation. 

In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly

more expensive than coal-fired generation. The high cost of oil has prompted a steady decline

| in its use for electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS, the staff estimated that

construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 48 ha (120 ac) (NRC 1996). 
Alternatives

December 2002 8-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Additionally, operation of oil-fired plants would have environmental impacts (including impacts

on the aquatic environment and air) that would be similar to those from a coal-fired plant.

8.2.5.2 Wind Power

Most of North Carolina is in a wind power Class 1 region (average wind speeds at 10-m [30-ft] |

elevation of 0 to 4.4 m/s [9.8 mph]). Class 1 has the lowest potential for wind energy

generation (DOE 2001a). Wind turbines are economical in wind power Classes 4 through 7

(average wind speeds of 5.6 to 9.4 m/s [12.5 to 21.1 mph] [DOE 2001a]). Aside from the

coastal areas and exposed mountains and ridges of the Appalachians, there is little wind

energy potential in the East Central region of the United States. for current wind turbine |

applications (Elliott et al. 1986). Wind turbines typically operate at a 25 to 35 percent capacity |

factor compared to 80 to 95 percent for a baseload plant (NWPPC 2000). Nine offshore wind |

power projects are currently operating in Europe, but such projects have not been developed in

the United States. The European plants together provide approximately 90 MW, which is far |

less than the electrical output of McGuire (British Wind Energy Association 2002). For the |

preceding reasons, the staff concludes that locating a wind-energy facility on or near the

McGuire site or offshore as replacement for McGuire’s generating capacity would not be |

economically feasible given the current state of wind energy generation technology. |

8.2.5.3 Solar Power

Solar technologies use the sun's energy and light to provide heat and cooling, light, hot water,

and electricity for homes, businesses, and industry. Solar power technologies, photovoltaic and

thermal, cannot currently compete with conventional fossil-fueled technologies in gridconnected applications due to higher capital costs per kilowatt of capacity. The average

capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent (NRC 1996), and the capacity factor for

solar thermal systems is about 25 percent to 40 percent (NRC 1996). Energy storage

requirements limit the use of solar-energy systems as baseload electricity supply.

There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic

impacts) from construction of solar-generating facilities. As stated in the GEIS, land

requirements are high—14,000 ha (35,000 ac) per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic (NRC 1996)

and approximately 5700 ha (14,000 ac) per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal systems (NRC 1996). 

Neither type of solar electric system would fit at the McGuire site, and both would have large

environmental impacts at a greenfield site.

The McGuire site receives approximately 4 to 5 kWh of direct normal solar radiation per square

meter per day compared to 7 to 8 kWh of solar radiation per square meter per day in areas of

the western United States such as California, which are most promising for solar technologies
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-42 December 2002 |

(DOE/EIA 2000). Because of the natural resource impacts (land and ecological), the area’s

relatively low rate of solar radiation, and high cost, solar power is not deemed a feasible base-

| load alternative to renewal of McGuire OLs. Some onsite generated solar power (e.g., from

| rooftop photovoltaic applications) may substitute for electric power from the grid. 

Implementation of solar generation on a scale large enough to replace McGuire’s generating

| capacity would likely result in LARGE environmental impacts.

8.2.5.4 Hydropower

North Carolina has an estimated 1458 MW of undeveloped hydroelectric resource (INEEL

1997). This amount is less than needed to replace the 2258 MW(e) capacity of McGuire. As

stated in Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS, hydropower’s percentage of U.S. generating capacity is

expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a result of

public concern about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of natural river

courses. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that land requirements for hydroelectric power are

approximately 400,000 ha (1 million ac) per 1000 MW(e) (NRC 1996). Replacement of

McGuire generating capacity would require flooding more than this amount of land. Due to the

relatively low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in North Carolina and the large

land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting

| hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace McGuire’s generating capacity the staff

concludes that local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to renewal of the McGuire Unit 1

and 2 OLs. Any attempts to site hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace McGuire’s

| generating capacity would result in LARGE environmental impacts.

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload

power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload

generation due to the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status of

the technology (NRC 1996). As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GEIS, geothermal plants are

most likely to be sited in the western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii where

hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent. There is no feasible eastern location for geothermal

capacity to serve as an alternative to McGuire Units 1 and 2. The staff concludes that

geothermal energy is not a feasible alternative to renewal of the McGuire Units 1 and 2 OLs.

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste

A wood-burning facility can provide baseload power and operate with an average annual

capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). 

The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A significant barrier to the use of wood waste
Alternatives

December 2002 8-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

to generate electricity is the high delivered-fuel cost and high construction cost per MW of

generating capacity. The larger wood-waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. 

Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impact per MW of installed

capacity should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities

using wood waste for fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996). Like coal-fired plants,

wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same

type of combustion equipment.

Due to uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a baseload generating facility, ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and

loss of wildlife habitat), and high inefficiency, the staff has determined that wood waste is not a

feasible alternative to renewing the McGuire Units 1 and 2 OLs.

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal waste combustors incinerate the waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam,

hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to

90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2001). Municipal waste

combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived

fuel (DOE/EIA 2001c). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United

States. This group of technologies process raw municipal solid waste “as is,” with little or no |

sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. The initial capital costs for municipal solidwaste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities. 

This is due to the need for specialized waste-separation and waste-handling equipment for |

municipal solid waste (NRC 1996). 

Growth in the municipal waste combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after

rapid growth during the 1980s. The slower growth was due to three primary factors: (1) the

Tax Reform Act of 1986, which made capital-intensive projects such as municipal waste

combustion facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal alternative

such as landfills; (2) the 1994 Supreme Court decision (C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of

Clarkstown), which struck down local flow control ordinances that required waste to be

delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills that may have

had lower fees; and (3) increasingly stringent environmental regulations that increased the

capital cost necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities

(DOE/EIA 2001c).

Municipal solid waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash

residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers to that portion of the

unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash represents the small

particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash is generally

removed from flue-gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (DOE/EIA 2001c).
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-44 December 2002 |

| Currently, there are approximately 102 waste to energy plants operating in the United States. 

These plants generate approximately 2800 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e)

per plant (Integrated Waste Services Association 2001). The staff concludes that generating

electricity from municipal solid waste would not be a feasible alternative to replace the

2258 MW(e) baseload capacity of McGuire and, consequently, would not be a feasible

alternative to renewal of the McGuire Units 1 and 2 OLs.

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling

electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol,

and gasifying crops (including wood waste). In the GEIS, the staff stated that none of these

technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being

reliable enough to replace a baseload plant such as McGuire (NRC 1996). For these reasons,

such fuels do not offer a feasible alternative to renewal of the McGuire Units 1 and 2 OLs. 

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells work without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is produced

electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air over a cathode and

separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and carbon dioxide.

Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam

under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen. 

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. These are

commercially available today at a cost of approximately $4500 per kW of installed capacity

(DOE 2002). Higher-temperature second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity

and thermal efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give

the second-generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and

| combined-cycle operations. DOE has a performance target that by 2003, two secondgeneration fuel cell technologies using molten carbonate and solid oxide technology,

| respectively, will be commercially available in sizes up to approximately 3 MW at a cost of

$1000 to $1500 per kW of installed capacity (DOE 2002). For comparison, the installed

capacity cost for a natural-gas-fired combined-cycle plant is approximately $450 per kW

| (DOE/EIA 2001a). As market acceptance and manufacturing capacity increase, natural-gasfueled fuel cell plants in the 50- to 100-MW range are projected to become available

(DOE 2002). At the present time, however, fuel cells are not economically or technologically

competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Fuel cells are,

consequently, not a feasible alternative to renewal of the McGuire OLs.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement

Duke Power’s 2001 Annual Plan includes a list of Duke generating facilities projected to be

retired (Duke 2001b). Through the year 2008, Duke projects that 23 generating units with a

total capacity of 584 MW will be retired (Duke 2000). Delayed retirement of these 23 units

would not come close to replacing the 2258 MW(e) capacity of McGuire. For this reason, |

delayed retirement of Duke generating units would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of

the McGuire OLs.

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation

Duke has developed residential, commercial, and industrial programs to reduce both peak

demands and daily energy consumption. These programs are commonly referred to as

demand-side management (DSM). These DSM savings are part Duke’s long-range plan for

meeting projected demand, and thus are not available offsets of McGuire capacity. |

Duke currently has two residential DSM programs (Duke 2001b). The effects of the DSM

programs are captured in the customer load forecast in the Duke Annual Plan (Duke 2001b). 

The water heater program allows a customer to be billed at a lower rate for all water heating

energy consumption in exchange for allowing Duke to control the water heater. The air

conditioning control program allows customers to receive billing credits during July through 

October in return for allowing Duke to interrupt electric service to their central air conditioners. 

The special needs energy product loan program provides loans to low-income customers for 

heat pumps, central air conditioning systems, and energy efficiency measures such as

insulation, tune-ups of heating and air conditioning systems, and sealing of duct systems. The

two residential programs are reflected in Duke’s plan for meeting customer loads (Duke 2001b).

Duke also operates two programs for commercial and industrial customers to provide a source

of interruptible capacity (Duke 2001b). Participants in the standby generator control program

contractually agree to transfer electrical loads from Duke to their standby generators when

requested by Duke. Participating customers receive payments for capacity and/or energy

based on the amount of capacity and/or energy transferred to their generating units. 

Participants in the interruptible power service program agree to reduce their electrical loads to

specified levels when requested by Duke. The two programs are not reflected in Duke’s

customer load forecast because load control contribution depends upon actuation

(Duke 2001b). 

The staff concludes that additional DSM, by itself, would not be sufficient to replace the

2258 MW(e) capacity of McGuire; therefore it is not a reasonable replacement for renewing the |

McGuire OLs. |
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-46 December 2002 |

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives

Even though individual alternatives to renewing the McGuire OLs might not be sufficient on

| their own to replace McGuire’s generating capacity due to the small size of the resource or lack

of cost-effective opportunities, it is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be costeffective. 

As discussed in Section 8.2, McGuire Units 1 and 2 have a combined average net capacity of

2258 MW(e). For the natural gas combined-cycle alternative, Duke assumed five 482-MW

units in its ER as potential replacements for the two McGuire units. 

There are many possible combinations of alternatives. Table 8-8 contains a summary of the

environmental impacts of an assumed combination of alternatives consisting of 1928 MW(e) of

combined-cycle natural-gas-fired generation at the McGuire site using the existing oncethrough cooling system and at an alternate greenfield location using closed-cycle cooling, 165

MW(e) purchased from other generators, and 165 MW(e) gained from additional DSM

measures. The impacts associated with the combined-cycle natural-gas-fired units are based

on the gas-fired generation impact assumptions discussed in Section 8.2.2, adjusted for the

reduced generating capacity. While the DSM measures would have few environmental

impacts, operation of the new gas-fired plant would result in increased emissions and

environmental impacts. The environmental impacts associated with power purchased from

other generators would still occur but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or

another country as discussed in Section 8.2.4. The environmental impacts associated with

purchased power are not shown in Table 8-8. The staff concludes that it is very unlikely that

the environmental impacts of any reasonable combination of generating and conservation

| options could be reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the McGuire OLs.

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered

The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the McGuire OLs, are SMALL for

all impact categories (except collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not

assigned). Alternative actions (i.e., the no-action alternative [discussed in Section 8.1], new

| generation alternatives [from coal, natural gas, and nuclear discussed in Sections 8.2.1 through

8.2.3, respectively], purchased electrical power [discussed in Section 8.2.4], alternative

technologies [discussed in Section 8.2.5], and the combination of alternatives [discussed in

Section 8.2.6]) were considered.

| The no-action alternative would require replacing electrical generating capacity by (1) DSM and

energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers, (3) generating

| alternatives other than McGuire Units 1 and 2, or (4) some combination of these options that 
Alternatives

December 2002 8-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table 8-8. Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of Generating and

Acquisition Alternatives 

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site |

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE to

LARGE

24 ha (40 ac) for powerblock, 

roads, and parking areas. 

Possible additional impact for

construction of an

underground gas pipeline.

MODERATE

to LARGE

58 ha (144 ac) for powerblock, offices, roads, and

parking areas. Additional

impact for construction of

an underground natural

gas pipeline and a

transmission line.

Ecology MODERATE to

LARGE

Uses undeveloped areas at

McGuire site plus land for a

new gas pipeline.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Impact depends on

location and ecology of the

site, surface water body

used for intake and

discharge, and

transmission and pipeline

routes; potential habitat

loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and

biological diversity;

impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling tower

drift.

Water Use and

Quality

SMALL Uses existing once-through

cooling system.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume

of water withdrawal and

discharge and

characteristics of surface

water body. Discharge of

cooling tower blowdown

will have impacts.

Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides

  25 MT/yr (28 tons/yr)

Nitrogen oxides

  375 MT/yr (414 tons/yr)

Carbon monoxide

  350 MT/yr (386 tons/yr)

PM10 particulates

  208 MT/yr (230 tons/yr)

Some hazardous air pollutants

MODERATE Same as siting at McGuire.

Waste SMALL Small amount of ash

produced.

SMALL Small amount of ash

produced.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-48 December 2002 |

Table 8-8 (contd)

McGuire Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.

SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.

Socioeconomics

|

MODERATE During construction, impacts

would be MODERATE. Up to

1200 additional workers during 

the peak of the 3-year

construction period, followed

by reduction from current

McGuire Units 1 and 2

workforce of 1345 to

approximately 120; tax base

preserved. Impacts during

operation would be SMALL.

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be

MODERATE.

MODERATE Construction impacts

depend on location, but

could be significant if

location is in a rural area. 

Mecklenburg County and

the town of Huntersville

would experience loss of

tax base and employment

with potentially

MODERATE impacts. 

Impacts during operation

would be SMALL.

Transportation impacts

associated with 

construction workers would

be MODERATE.

Aesthetics MODERATE MODERATE aesthetic impact

from plant and stacks. 

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE impact from

plant, stacks, and cooling

towers and associated

plumes. Additional impact

that could be LARGE if a

new transmission line is

needed.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be effectively managed. 

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be effectively

managed. 

Environmental

Justice

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts on minority and lowincome communities should

be similar to those

experienced by the population

as a whole. Some impacts on

housing may occur during

construction; loss of

approximately 1225 operating

jobs at McGuire could reduce

employment prospects for

minority and low-income

populations. 

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts vary depending on

population distribution and

makeup at site. 

Mecklenburg County and

the town of Huntersville

would lose tax revenue

which could have SMALL

to MODERATE impacts on

minority and low-income

populations.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

would result in decommissioning McGuire Units 1 and 2. For each of the new generation

alternatives (coal, natural gas, and nuclear), the environmental impacts would not be less than

the impacts of license renewal. For example, the land-disturbance impacts resulting from

construction of any new facility would be greater than the impacts of continued operation of

McGuire Units 1 and 2. The impacts of purchased electrical power would still occur, but would

occur elsewhere. Alternative technologies are not considered feasible at this time and it is very

unlikely that the environmental impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and

conservation options could be reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the

McGuire OLs. |

The staff concludes that the alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may have

environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE

significance.

8.4 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing |

of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits; |

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, |

“National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, |

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.”

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, |

“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.”

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, |

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

British Wind Energy Association. 2002. <http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/else.html>

(accessed March 5, 2002).

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, (U.S. Supreme Court 1994).
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-50 December 2002 |

Clean Air Act (CAA). 42 USC. 7491, et seq.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001a. Applicant’s Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage - McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001b. The Duke Power Annual Plan. September 1, 2001. 

Charlotte, North Carolina.

Elliott, D.L., G.G. Holladay, W.R. Barchet, H.P. Foote, and W.F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind

Energy Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4.

<http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/titlepg.html> (accessed March 25, 2002)

Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger,” Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Summer/Fall

1993. <http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html> (accessed

December 10, 2001).

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1997. U.S. Hydropower

Resource Assessment for North Carolina. DOE/ID-10430(NC). Idaho Falls, Idaho. October

1997. <http://hydropower.inel.gov/state/nc/nc.pdf> (accessed December 10, 2001).

Integrated Waste Services Association. 2001. “About Waste to Energy.” 

<http://www.wte.org/waste.html> (accessed February 20, 2002).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

|

| Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. “Northwest Power Supply

| Adequecy/Reliability study Phase I Report.” <http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2000/2000-

| 4a.pdf> (Accessed April 3, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2000. Energy

Consumption and Renewable Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands. 

SR/CNEAF/2000-01. Washington, D.C. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/renew.html>

(accessed February 19, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001a. Annual

Energy Outlook 2002 With Projections to 2020. DOE/EIA-0383(2002). Washington, D.C. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/fore_pub.html> (accessed February 19, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001b. 

International Energy Outlook 2001. DOE/EIA-0484(2001). Washington, D.C.

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/fore_pub.html> (accessed February 19, 2002).
Alternatives

December 2002 8-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001c. Renewable

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628(2000). Washington, D.C. 

<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf> (accessed February 19, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001a. “U.S. Wind Energy Resource Map.” 

<http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/we_map.html> (accessed March 25, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. “Fuel Cell Technology.”

<http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/fuelcells/index.shtml> (accessed March 27, 2002).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. "Revision of Standards of Performance

for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions

to Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam

Generating Units, Final Rule.” 63 FR 49422. September 16, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. "Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule"

64 FR 35714. July 1, 1999. |

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on

Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” 65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. |

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. “Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.” 65 FR 79825. |

December 20, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Municipal Solid Waste Disposal.” 

<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disposal.htm> (accessed February 19, 2002).

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. “Obstruction Marking and Lighting.” 

Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report. “Section 6.3—Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001a. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. Draft Supplement Dealing with

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586 Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 8-52 December 2002 |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001b. “NRC Organizes Future Licensing

Project Organization.” Press Release No. 01-035, March 30, 2001.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 9-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

9.0 Summary and Conclusions

By letter dated June 13, 2001, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted an application to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses (OLs) for McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) up to an additional 20-year period (Duke 2001b). If

the OLs are renewed, State regulatory agencies and Duke will ultimately decide whether the |

plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters

within the State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OLs are not renewed, the

plant must be shut down at or before the expiration of the current OLs, which expire June 12,

2021, for Unit 1, and March 3, 2023, for Unit 2.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs that an

environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly

affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA

in 10 CFR Part 51, which identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In

10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS

for renewal of a reactor OL; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal

stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a)

Upon acceptance of the McGuire application, the NRC began the environmental review process

described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

scoping (66 FR 44386 [NRC 2001]) on August 23, 2001. The staff visited the McGuire site in

September 2001 and held public scoping meetings on September 25, 2001, in Huntersville,

North Carolina (NRC 2001). The staff reviewed the Duke Environmental Report (ER;

Duke 2001a) and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, and conducted an

independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1555,

Supplement 1, the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff also considered the

public comments received during the scoping process for preparation of this Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for McGuire. The public comments received during the

scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are

provided in Appendix A, Part I, of this SEIS. |

On May 10, 2002, the NRC published the Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS in 67 FR 31846 |

(NRC 2002). A 75-day comment period began on the date of publication of the U.S. |

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS, to allow members of |

the public to comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff’s review. During the |
Summary and Conclusions

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 9-2 December 2002

comment period, the staff held two public meetings in Huntersville, North Carolina, on June 12,

| 2002, to describe the preliminary results of the NRC SEIS, to answer questions, and to provide

members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments. At the

| end of the comment period, the staff considered and dispositioned all of the comments

| received. These comments are addressed in Appendix A, Part II, of this SEIS. 

| This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis in which the staff considers and weighs the

environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the

proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It

| also includes the staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The NRC has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from

the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an OL) is to provide an

option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear

power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs

may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC)

decisionmakers.

The goal of the staff’s environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is

to determine

... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great

that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would

be unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether a licensee 

continues to operate a nuclear power plant beyond the period of the OL.

| NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage
Summary and Conclusions

(a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is “Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operations–

generic determination of no significant environmental impact.”

December 2002 9-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the

proposed action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for

the facility within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in

accordance with § 51.23(b).(a)

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. In the GEIS, the NRC staff

evaluated 92 environmental issues using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance—

SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE—developed using the Council on Environmental Quality

guidelines. The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the

footnotes to Table B-1 of 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.

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the staff made the following findings: 

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

These 69 issues were identified by the staff in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence

of new and significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting
Summary and Conclusions

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 9-4 December 2002

information in the GEIS for issues designated Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B.

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must also be addressed in a

plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

This SEIS documents the staff’s evaluation of all 92 environmental issues considered in the

GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The

alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

renewing the McGuire OLs) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on

projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information

Administration (EIA), natural-gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely powergeneration alternatives if the power from McGuire is replaced. These alternatives were

evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the

McGuire site or some other unspecified location.

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action—License Renewal

Duke and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating

the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. 

Neither Duke nor the staff has identified any information that is both new and significant related

to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly,

neither the scoping process, Duke, nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to

McGuire that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the

conclusions of the GEIS for all Category 1 issues that are applicable to McGuire.

Duke’s license renewal application presents analyses of the Category 2 issues that are

applicable to McGuire plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic

fields. The staff has reviewed the Duke analysis for each issue and has conducted an

independent review of each issue. Five Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are

related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at McGuire. Four Category 2

issues are not discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment. 

Duke (2001a) has stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10
Summary and Conclusions

December 2002 9-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as

necessary to support the continued operation of McGuire for the license renewal period. In

addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection activities are within the

bounds of normal plant component replacement and, therefore, are not expected to affect the

environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final Environmental

Statement Related to the Proposed William B. McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2, Duke

Power Company (AEC 1972).

Eleven Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and one related to postulated |

accidents during the renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of

electromagnetic fields, are discussed in detail in this SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and

environmental justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and

are only discussed in this SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 12

Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential

environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the

GEIS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not

reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. 

Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to

identify and evaluate SAMAs. Although one of the SAMAs related to hydrogen control in station

blackout sequences is cost beneficial and offers a level of risk reduction, this SAMA does not

relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. 

Therefore, it need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54,

although it is being pursued as a Generic Safety Issue for the current operating license.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable

commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the

environment and long-term productivity.

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review

conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license

renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts

associated with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have
Summary and Conclusions

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 9-6 December 2002

already occurred. The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those

associated with refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term.

The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL

significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The

adverse impacts of likely alternatives if McGuire ceases operation at or before the expiration of

the current OLs will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of these

units, and they may be greater for some impact categories in some locations.

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

| Consideration of the commitment of resources related to construction and operation of McGuire

during its current license period was made when the plant was built. The resource

commitments to be considered in this SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant

| for up to an additional 20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for

plant maintenance and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately,

permanent offsite storage space for the spent fuel assemblies.

The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are

the fuel and the permanent storage space. Duke replaces approximately 63 fuel assemblies in

| each of the two units during every refueling outage, which occurs on an 18-to 24-month cycle. 

Assuming no change in use rate, about 1638 spent fuel assemblies would be required for

operation during a 20-year license renewal period (Duke 2001a).

The likely power generation alternatives if McGuire ceases operation on or before the expiration

of the current OLs will require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement

plants as well as for fuel to run the plants.

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the

McGuire site was set when the plants were approved and construction began. That balance is

| now well-established. Renewal of the OLs for McGuire and continued operation of the plant will

not alter the existing balance, but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. 

Denial of the application to renew the OLs will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the

balance in a manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the

environmental consequences of turning the McGuire site into a park or an industrial facility are

quite different.
Summary and Conclusions

December 2002 9-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of

License Renewal and Alternatives

The proposed action is renewal of the OLs for McGuire. Chapter 2 describes the site, power

plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no

refurbishment and no refurbishment impacts are expected at McGuire. Chapters 4 through 7

discuss environmental issues associated with renewal of the OLs. Environmental issues

associated with the no-action alternative, and alternatives involving power generation and use

reduction are discussed in Chapter 8.

The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the

application for renewal of the OLs), the no-action alternative (denial of the application),

alternatives involving nuclear, or coal- or gas-fired generation of power at the McGuire site and

an unspecified “greenfield site,” and a combination of alternatives are compared in Table 9-1. 

Continued use of a once-through cooling system for McGuire is assumed for Table 9-1.

Substitution of a cooling tower for the once-through cooling system in the evaluation of the

nuclear and gas- and coal-fired generation alternatives would result in some greater

environmental impact differences in some impact categories. For example, use of cooling

towers would have a greater aesthetic impact than once-through cooling.

Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action are

SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal for which a single significance level was not

assigned [see Chapter 6]). The alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may

have environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or

LARGE significance.

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendation

Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996, 1999), (2) the ER submitted by

Duke (Duke 2001a), (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the

staff’s own independent review, and (5) the staff’s consideration of public comments, the |

recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determined that the adverse environmental |

impacts of license renewal for McGuire are not so great that preserving the option of license

renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 9-8 December 2002

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alt

Methods of Generation Proposed Action– License Renewal No Action Alternative– Denial of Renewal Coal-Fired Generation Natural-Gas-Fired Generation New Nuclear Generation 

Impact Category McGuire Site Greenfield Site(a) McGuire Site Greenfield Site(a) McGuire Site Greenfield Site(a) McG

Land Use SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE MOD

to LA

Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE MOD

to LA

Water Useand Quality

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMA

Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL MODWaste SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMAHumanHealth(b)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMA

Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MOD

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toLARGE

MOD

Historic andArchaeologicalResources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMA

Environmental Justice

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMAMOD

(a) A greenfield site is assumed, for the purpose of bounding potential impacts, to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction.(b) Excludes collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent-fuel disposal, for which a significance level was not 

6 for details.
Summary and Conclusions

December 2002 9-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

9.4 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for |

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001a. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating

License Renewal Stage McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001b. Application to Renew the Operating Licenses of 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and Catwba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Charlotte,

North Carolina.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et. seq.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Proposed William B. McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2, Duke Power Company. Docket Nos.

50-369 and 50-370, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report. “Section 6.3–Transportation, Table 9.1 

Summary of Findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. “Duke Energy Corporation, McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

and Conduct Scoping Process.” 66 FR 44386. August 23, 2001. |
Summary and Conclusions

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 9-10 December 2002

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. “Duke Energy Corporation, McGuire

| Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 8 to the Generic 

| Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of McGuire

| Units 1 and 2.” 67 FR 31846. May 10, 2002.
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review
December 2002 A-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I - Comments Received During Scoping

On August 23, 2001, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of

Intent in the Federal Register (66 FR 44386), to notify the public of the staff’s intent to prepare |

a plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the renewal

application for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) operating licenses and to |

conduct scoping. This plant-specific supplement to the GEIS has been prepared in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

guidelines, and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process

by issuing the Notice of Intent. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, Native American |

Tribal, and local government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the |

scoping process by providing oral comments at scheduled public meetings and/or submitting

written suggestions and comments no later than October 21, 2001.

The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Central

Piedmont Community College in Huntersville, North Carolina, on September 25, 2001. More |

than 100 individuals attended the meetings. Each session began with NRC staff members

providing brief overviews of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. After the

NRC’s prepared statements, the meetings were opened for public comments. Twenty-six |

attendees (five of whom spoke at both sessions) provided either oral statements that were

recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter or written statements. The meeting

transcripts are an attachment to the scoping meeting summary dated October 12, 2001. In

addition to the comments provided during the public meetings, five e-mail messages were

received by the NRC in response to the Notice of Intent.

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractors reviewed the

transcripts and all written material received to identify specific comments and issues. Each set

of comments from an individual was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID), so that the 

comments could be traced back to the original transcript or e-mail containing the comment. 

Specific comments were numbered sequentially within each comment set. Several

commenters submitted more than one set of comments (i.e., they made statements in both the

afternoon and evening scoping meetings). In these cases, there is a unique Commenter ID for

each set of comments.

Table A-1 identifies the individuals who provided comments applicable to the environmental |

review and the Commenter ID associated with each set of comments. Individuals who spoke at |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-2 December 2002 |

the scoping meetings are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting, and

individuals who provided comments by letter or e-mail are listed in alphabetical order. To

maintain consistency with the scoping summary report, (McGuire Scoping Summary Report,

dated March 27, 2002), the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments is

retained in this report. 

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

Commenter

ID

Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source

A James Harrill Mayor, Stanley, NC Afternoon Scoping Meeting

B Wayne Broome Director, Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Emergency Management 

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

C Larry Dickerson Iredell County Emergency Management Afternoon Scoping Meeting

D Thurman Ross Cornelius, NC Afternoon Scoping Meeting

E Brew Barron Site Vice President, McGuire Nuclear

Station

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

F Dayna Herrick Engineering Supervisor, McGuire

Nuclear Station

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

G Melanie O’ConnellUnderwoodMooresville-South Iredell Chamber of

Commerce

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

H John Gibb Afternoon Scoping Meeting

I Rosemary Hubbard Charlotte Women for Environmental

Justice/Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

J Allen Hubbard Afternoon Scoping Meeting

K Scott Hinkle Executive Director, Lake Norman Times Afternoon Scoping Meeting

L Sally Ashworth Chairwoman, Lake Norman Convention

and Visitors Bureau

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

M Constance Kolpitcke Afternoon Scoping Meeting

N Catherine Mitchell Blue Ridge Environmental Defense

League

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

O Joan Bodonheimer Teacher, Long Creek Elementary

School

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

P Don Moniak Organizer, Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Q Lou Zeller Community Organizer, Blue Ridge

Environmental Defense League

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

R Don Moniak Organizer, Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Evening Scoping Meeting

S Tommy Almond Deputy Fire Marshall, Gaston County

Emergency Management

Evening Scoping Meeting

T Brew Barron Site Vice President, McGuire Nuclear

Station

Evening Scoping Meeting
Appendix A

December 2002 A-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table A-1 (contd) |

Commenter

ID

Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source

U Dayna Herrick Engineering Supervisor, McGuire

Nuclear Station

Evening Scoping Meeting

V Tim Gestwicki North Carolina Wildlife Federation Evening Scoping Meeting

W Lou Zeller Community Organizer, Blue Ridge

Environmental Defense League

Evening Scoping Meeting

X Donna Lizenby Catawba Riverkeeeper Evening Scoping Meeting

Y Bill Russell President, Lake Norman Chamber of

Commerce

Evening Scoping Meeting

Z Paul Smith President, Mooresville-South Iredell

Chamber of Commerce

Evening Scoping Meeting

AA Mitch Eisner Principal, Catawba Springs Elementary

School

Evening Scoping Meeting

AB Catherine Mitchell Blue Ridge Environmental Defense

League

Evening Scoping Meeting

AC Jim Gilpin Private Environmental Consultant Evening Scoping Meeting

AD Bob Mahood Evening Scoping Meeting

AE Dan Faris Evening Scoping Meeting

AF Alton Beasley Electronic mail

AG Dottie Toney Electronic mail

AH Mark Gilliss Mechanical Engineer Electronic mail

AI Jim Matthews Electronic mail

AJ Hager Electronic mail

Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific

objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by the commenters. 

The comments fall into one of several general groups. These groups include: |

• Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC

environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address Category 1

or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They also address

alternatives and related federal actions. 

• General comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license renewal or

(2) on the license renewal process, the NRC’s regulations, and the regulatory process. 

These comments may or may not be specifically related to the McGuire license renewal

application.

• Questions that do not provide new information.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-4 December 2002 |

• Specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically excluded

from the purview of NRC environmental regulations. These comments typically address

issues such as the need for power, emergency preparedness, current operational safety

issues, and safety issues related to operation during the renewal period.

Each comment applicable to this environmental review is summarized in this section. This

information, which was extracted from the McGuire Scoping Summary Report, is provided for

the convenience of those interested in the scoping comments applicable to this environmental

review. The comments that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review for

McGuire are not included here. More detail regarding the disposition of general or

nonapplicable comments can be found in the summary report. The ADAMS accession number

| for the summary report is ML020870574. 

These accession numbers are provided to facilitate access to the document through the Public

| Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

The following pages summarize the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping

process that are applicable to this environmental review, and discuss the disposition of the

comments and suggestions. The parenthetical alpha-numeric identifier after each comment

refers to the comment set (Commenter ID) and the comment number. 

Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

A.1.1 Comments Concerning Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Issues

|

A.1.2 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

|

A.1.3 Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues

|

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues

|

A.1.5 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues

|

A.1.6 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

A.1.7 Comments Concerning Postulated Accident Issues

|

A.1.8 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

|

A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

A.1.10 Comments Concerning Environmental Justice

|

A.1.11 Comments Concerning Related Federal Projects

|

A.1.12 Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of License Renewal

|

A.1.13 Questions

A.1 Comments Received during Scoping Process that are Applicable to

this Environmental Review

A.1.1 Comments Concerning Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Issues |

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 water quality issues include:

• Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality

 Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use

 Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures

 Altered salinity gradients

 Altered thermal stratification of lakes

 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity

 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water

 Eutrophication

 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides

 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills

 Discharge of other metals in waste water

 Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-6 December 2002 |

Comment: Duke Energy has conducted water quality and aquatic ecology testing on Lake

Norman since the early 1970s. The areas that we study include water quality, water flow at the

intake and discharge structures, and aquatic ecology. (F-2)

Comment: We had clean water and clean air. Over these many years, however, we have seen

a tremendous degradation of our groundwater, our rivers, our streams, and our air. And Duke

Energy has been a great contributor to that. (I-3)

Comment: In terms of the environmental impact of the plant, which is incredibly, and

remarkably negligible, Lake Norman is among the most cleanest, it is among the most cleanest

and environmentally sound bodies of water in the eastern United States. It is a wonderful

resource for thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands of people use each and every

day. It is an incredibly clean source of drinking water for our communities. (K-2)

Comment: The areas that we routinely study include water quality, water flow at the intake and

discharge structures, and aquatic ecology. (U-2)

Response: The comments are noted. Surface water quality is a Category 1 issue and will be

discussed in Chapter 2 of the SEIS. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the

comments will not be evaluated further.

| A.1.2 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 aquatic ecology issues include:

Category 1

 Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota

 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton

 Cold shock

 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish

 Distribution of aquatic organisms

 Premature emergence of aquatic insects

 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)
Appendix A

December 2002 A-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge

 Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

stresses

 Stimulation of nuisance organisms

Category 2

 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages

 Impingement of fish and shellfish

 Heat shock

Comment: Our evaluation of the historical data has indicated that we have made no changes

to the aquatic resources on Lake Norman. And our continued operation will not have an

adverse impact on the lake or the river. (F-3)

Comment: Our evaluation of this data has shown that we have made no changes to Lake

Norman’s aquatic resources, and our continued operations will continue that. We will not

adversely impact the lake or the river. (U-3)

Comment: The second point I would like to address is the protection of the water resources. 

Duke has taken several steps to preserve this resource through continuing biological studies of

the lakes. (AC-3)

Response: The comments are noted and are supportive of license renewal at McGuire. 

Aquatic ecology will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. The comments provide no

new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further. 

Comment: First of all, McGuire Nuclear does not have cooling water structures of any kind. It

was built several years before Catawba. Catawba has cooling water structures. And so some

kind of cooling water structure on McGuire would profoundly decrease the thermal shock, and

the chronic thermal temperature impacts on Lake Norman. Finally, I wanted to bring to your

attention that I believe the failure to have any kind of cooling water intake, a cooling water

structure on McGuire is an inequitable application of the law in the United States. Many other

nuclear facilities are required to have cooling water structures. Catawba has them, and

particularly in the southeast where our temperatures are high in the summertime, we need

some kind of cooling water structure on McGuire Nuclear. A substantial component of the -- it
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-8 December 2002 |

should revolve around, not if cooling structures are needed, but should be required as a

condition of the relicense. (X-1)

Comment: Duke Energy, Duke Power also has an NPDES, which is national pollution

discharge elimination system permit variance for their delta T above state standards for hot

water discharge. And also above EPA recommended levels for hot water discharges. McGuire

has, I believe, and you all correct me if I'm wrong, but you all have, the NPDES permit provides

an unlimited discharge of non-contact cooling water for North Carolina, is that right? No, I'm

talking volume, not temperature. I'm pretty sure it is an unlimited discharge volume metrically. 

I just wanted to say that there are profound environmental impacts on aquatic life due to chronic

effects of thermal impact from hot water into the aquatic environment. And I will give everyone

here three brief examples that are well noted in the literature. Let's take, for example, the

zooplankton Ceriodaphnia. Ceriodaphnia can survive about 108 days when water temperature

is approximately 45 degrees. However, they only typically survive about 26 days when water

temperature is about 82 degrees. I take the Riverkeeper patrol boat into the discharge areas of

all of McGuire's plants, and we call them hot holes, here locally. And there are a lot of

fishermen there, typically. And it is not uncommon for me to see water coming out of those hot

water discharges at 95 degrees. And that is a profound environmental impact. Not only does it

affect zooplankton, and provide lethal thermal shock, as well as chronic lethal effects, it also

affects reproduction, and has lethal impacts for other aquatic species. For example, the upper

lethal limit for bass is about 85 degrees Fahrenheit. And, typically, as I've said in the

summertime it is not uncommon, and even in the winter, for me to find the water coming out of

many of Duke's plants above 90 degrees. Hot water discharges also affects reproductivities of

aquatic life. For example, the release of glocchidia from Corbicula. And for those non- science

people, the release of immature young from clams relies on environmental cues. Specifically

they rely on water temperature cues, as they rise in the spring, it triggers reproduction. And so

hot water discharges, like the one from McGuire, can create a profound environmental impact. 

Additionally cooling water structures provide for recycling of water. The intake structures are

huge, and the outflow structures are huge. And when there is a cooling water intake structure,

a cooling water structure of some kind that cools the non-contact water, what happens is that

the water, because it is non-contact, can be recirculated, rather than having to continuously

withdraw water from the Catawba river, run it through the system once, and discharge it. And

so some kind of cooling water structure on McGuire would profoundly decrease the thermal

shock, and the chronic thermal temperature impacts on Lake Norman. (X-2)

Comment: When we also look at McGuire nuclear in relation to its cumulative impact on Lake

Norman, we find that Marshall steam station has a very large hot water discharge above

McGuire. And so the EIS, and the relicensing process, should take into account the impact of

Marshall. It should take into account the cumulative impact to all of Lake Norman, considering

the other thermal impacts from other discharges in the Lake Norman reservoir. Finally I would

also like to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a detailed analysis for the thermal
Appendix A

December 2002 A-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

impacts, and the need for cooling structure at McGuire, including the cumulative impacts of

Marshall upstream. (X-3)

Comment: In talking with the gentlemen from Duke, they indicated that the proper venue for

this discussion of thermal impacts was through the NPDES permitting process. I respectfully

disagree with the gentlemen, and I believe it should be included in the relicensing discussions

and documentation, and the environmental scoping documents, the impact statements, and

would like to see that included. (X-4)

Comment: I think Donna's comments were pretty much on mark, of looking at the possibility of

cooling water, and cooling towers. (AC-4)

Comment: The high temperature of the water discharged into Lake Norman is a negative

effect that cannot be ignored. Instead of fixing the problem, Duke merely lobbied for an

exemption from the law. Skirting the law is becoming all to common for Duke Energy. (AI-4)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments pertain to heat shock, which is a

Category 2 issue and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. 

A.1.3 Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues |

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 terrestrial resource issues include:

 Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation

 Cooling tower impacts on native plants

 Bird collisions with cooling towers

 Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial resources

 Power line rights-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application)

 Bird collisions with power lines

 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees,

wildlife, livestock)

|

 Floodplains and wetland on power line rights-of-way
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-10 December 2002 |

Comment: And I can tell you that they are very viable, and apparently very healthy members

of the accipiter family, buteo family, as well as the osprey, along Lake Norman, along Lake

Wiley. So from my personal observations, at least as far as the birds of prey are concerned,

not only are they viable, but they are healthy. (C-2)

Comment: However, McGuire has a thriving population of osprey, wild turkey, deer, and

numerous other species. And we have many ongoing environmental initiatives that we manage

in cooperation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Wildlife Federation,

Mecklenburg County Parks and Rec, and the Wild Turkey Federation. We are also wildlife and

industry, together, certified by the North Carolina Wildlife Federation. We have a certified

backyard habitat. We have a wood duck pond, a blue bird trail, an herbivore pond, a fish

friendly pier, and numerous other wildlife areas on-site. Based on our review of our operating

history, and a look at our continued operation, we have concluded that we will not adversely

impact the plants and animals on-site. (F-5)

Comment: However, we do have a thriving population of wild turkey, osprey, deer, and

numerous other species. We have many ongoing environmental initiatives that we manage in

cooperation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Wildlife Federation,

Mecklenburg County Parks and Rec, and Wild Turkey Federation. We are wildlife and industry

together certified by the North Carolina Wildlife Federation. We have a certified backyard

habitat, bluebird trails, wildlife food plots, a herbivore pond, a fish friendly pier, and I can go on,

the wildlife areas that we maintain on the McGuire site. Based on our review of our operating

history, and a look at continued operation, again, we conclude that we will not adversely impact

plants and animals at McGuire. (U-5)

Comment: McGuire Nuclear Station is the second corporate site in North Carolina to be

certified as a Wildlife and Industry Together Site. This unique program recognizes companies

across our state that exhibit wildlife stewardship on their properties. For example at McGuire

instead of excess parking lots, there are planted food plots for turkey and deer. Instead of

underutilized fescue acreage, there are butterfly gardens, songbird meadows, and bluebird, owl

and hawk nesting boxes. An osprey platform has also been erected down by the lake. (V-1)

Comment: Most importantly McGuire has fostered relationships with the communities in the

area. McGuire allows public wildlife viewing, and educational opportunities in the areas

throughout their site. Just one example is McGuire's nature trail, which coincidentally goes

through one of the first areas ever designated by the National Audubon Society as a very

important bird designation area. I think that the signs at the front entrance of McGuire tell it all. 

They proudly proclaim, in big bold letters, wildlife habitat enhancement program, and wildlife

and industry together. (V-3)
Appendix A

December 2002 A-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Comment: Simply put the folks at McGuire have embraced their surroundings. They have

sought to enhance their property, and their community relations through wildlife enhancement

and education. They have realized that these concerns serve not only the betterment of wildlife

itself, but of the community as a whole. (V-4)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments discuss the participation of Duke in

programs to protect the environment. They provide no new information and will not be

evaluated further. The appropriate descriptive information regarding the plant-specific ecology

of the site will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues |

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 2 threatened or endangered species issues

are:

 Threatened or endangered species

Comment: As part of our study Duke Energy worked with Dr. L.L. "Chick" Gaddy, a well known

environmental scientist, to conduct a survey of threatened and endangered species around the

McGuire site. And the results of that study showed that there are no endangered or threatened

species at the McGuire site. (F-4)

Comment: The second category is plants and animals. As part of our study we worked with

Dr. L. L. "Chick" Gaddy, a well-known environmental scientist, to do a survey of threatened and

endangered species around McGuire. The results of that study is that there are no federally or

state listed threatened or endangered species on the McGuire site. (U-4)

Response: The comments are noted. They provide no new information and will not be

evaluated further. The appropriate descriptive information regarding the plant-specific ecology

of the site will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

A.1.5 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues |

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 air quality issues include:

 Air quality effects of transmission lines

Comment: The third category we looked at was air quality. For the past 20 years McGuire has

not adversely impacted the air quality in this region. And there is nothing associated with

license renewal that would change that. (F-6)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-12 December 2002 |

Comment: We had clean water and clean air. Over these many years, however, we have

seen a tremendous degradation of our groundwater, our rivers, our streams, and our air. And

Duke Energy has been a great contributor to that. (I-3)

Comment: The third category we looked at was air quality. You may not know, but nuclear

power provides almost 50 percent of Duke Energy's total electric generation in the Piedmont

Carolinas, and because of that overall emissions from that generation system are well below

the national average. For the past 20 years McGuire has not adversely impacted the air quality

in this region, and there is nothing about continued operations, or license renewal that will

change that. (U-6)

Comment: And then this happens. Going and lobbying and saying, let's not have these

stringent regulations, we don't have to have air that clean. So that shakes me. (AD-3)

Response: The comments are noted. Air quality impacts from plant operations were

evaluated in the GEIS and found to be minimal. These emissions are regulated through

permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State. Air quality effects

are a Category 1 issue as evaluated in the GEIS and will be discussed in Chapter 2 of the

SEIS. The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

| A.1.6 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 socioeconomic issues include:

Category 1

 Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation

 Public services, education (license renewal term)

 Aesthetics impacts (refurbishment)

 Aesthetics impacts (license renewal)

 Aesthetics impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term)

Category 2

 Housing impacts

 Public services: public utilities
Appendix A

December 2002 A-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

 Public services, education (refurbishment) |

 Offsite land use (refurbishment)

 Offsite land use (license renewal term)

 Public services, transportation

 Historic and archaeological resources

Comment: So from a personal point I think they are good neighbors. We have even been out

to their grounds for gatherings, family gatherings, and church gatherings. (D-1)

Comment: We do a number, they participate in a number of community support activities.

Catawba Spring School, Long Creek Elementary School, clean cast fishing events for local

children, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts events, United Way and Arts and Science Council

campaigns. Supporting the community is a priority for them. (E-4)

Comment: As Brew mentioned earlier, our employees spend thousand of hours, every year,

volunteering for school, and civic, and church programs, and groups. We are proud to be part

of this community. (F-9)

Comment: I cannot tell you the impact, as far as economic impact, that Duke Power does, and

represents with our hospitality industry. We are looking at exit 36 to exit 18. (L-1)

Comment: And the economic impact that they do on our hospitality industry, and as Scott

Hinkle has just said, with the tragedy that happened two weeks ago, it still remains, we have to

have somebody like that, that keeps our hotels running as well as they have. (L-4)

Comment: About five years ago Duke Power adopted our school and initiated a Pony Express

writing program, where the students have a pen pal. As you can see, Duke Power is very

actively involved I our community, and it is a very important part of our school at Long Creek

Elementary. (O-1)

Comment: At Christmas time the pen pals come to our school bringing gifts for each child. 

They also have expanded their program to help needy families at our school. (O-2)

Comment: We do a lot of things in the community. Our employees give a lot of their time to

the betterment of their communities and their neighbors. We have had an 11-year partnership

with the Catawba Springs Elementary School providing help in math and reading and computer

skills; a pen pal partnership with the Long Creek Elementary School; we hold clean cast fishing
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-14 December 2002 |

events for local children; we hold Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts events; we hold annual United

Way and Arts and Science Council drives. Last year the McGuire employees contributed

160,000 dollars to their communities through United Way agencies, and the United Way

campaign. (T-4)

Comment: As Brew mentioned earlier, our employees spend thousands of hours every year

volunteering for church, community, school, civic groups, and programs. We are proud to be

part of this community. (U-9)

Comment: McGuire has been instrumental in creating many of these learning opportunities. 

Opportunities such as learning about wildlife habitat, and then actually putting that knowledge to

use, like the students at East Lincoln High School, who created a backyard wildlife habitat at

McGuire, and were subsequently recognized by the National Wildlife Federation for this honor.

And all the kids that get to learn about water quality and fishing do collaborative family fishing

days that McGuire hosts. And the kids that are introduced to safe, ethical sportsmen activities

through the nationally recognized JAKES, juniors acquiring knowledge, ethics, and

sportsmanship, also hosted and sponsored by McGuire. These wildlife education programs

require a commitment and rely on enduring partnerships. That is why McGuire is recognized as

a Wildlife and Industry Together Site. McGuire has developed and sustained partnerships that

allow continuing wildlife projects, such as the annual butterfly and bird inventories with

Mecklenburg Parks, hosting composting workshops with county waste reduction, hosting

environmental workshops for our state's educators, in conjunction with the state, through

project WILD. (V-2)

Comment: In addition to assisting with the business and industry recruitment, McGuire has

been an annual sponsor of the Chamber's leadership program by inviting participants to spend

a day on-site learning about electric supply and the McGuire station. (Z-3)

Comment: Furthermore, Duke Energy, McGuire, we've had a partnership for 11 years now,

with our school. We have seen many individuals come to our school from McGuire in many

capacities, helping the children. They have provided assistance with grant opportunities for the

school systems. They have provided assistance in developing a computer lab, provided coats

for children, assisted in grading our land. They've assisted with volunteers in our school. (AA-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at

McGuire. Public services were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. 

Information regarding the impact on education will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. 

Socioeconomic issues will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. The comments

provide no new information; therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.
Appendix A

December 2002 A-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Comment: It (McGuire) is a great impact on our economy. It brings in a lot of money, a lot of

good employees in this area. (A-2)

Comment: As far as the economic around here, I have a lot of friends that work at Duke

Power. They have been at Duke for a while, and it is a huge impact on the economy. (D-3)

Comment: Over the last five years we've paid nine million annually in property taxes to

Mecklenburg County. We have 1,100 employees that helped maintain a strong economy in the

area. And our annual payroll of over 77 million, helps to support local business and industry.

(F-8)

Comment: The McGuire nuclear plant employs over 1,000 employees. And I'm a little off in

the statistics you just gave, but approximately 80 percent of these employees live within a 30

mile drive of the facility. Their payroll alone, which is close to 80 million, only multiplies as it is

spent in our community. (G-2)

Comment: The property taxes to our neighboring county, Mecklenburg, of now eight million,

are paying significant contributions in our schools, roads, libraries, police, fire, and it just keeps

going. (G-3)

Comment: In addition to being safely operated we provide many benefits to the community. 

Over the last five years we’ve paid nine million, annually in property taxes to Mecklenburg

county. We have 1,100 employees who help to maintain a strong economy in this area. And

our annual payroll of over 77 million helps to support local business and industry. (U-8)

Comment: As President of the Chamber I'm very interested in attracting new business to our

area. Reliable and affordable electricity is always a major factor for business who are

considering a location. Duke Power has attractive rates, and the power has been reliable for

Lake Norman Regional. My understanding from Duke is that 20 percent of their generation

comes from McGuire. It makes good business sense to keep that supply source around for an

additional 20 years. (Z-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at

McGuire. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category 2 issues and will be

addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the

comments will not be evaluated further.

A.1.7 Comments Concerning Postulated Accident Issues |

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1, postulated accidents issues include:
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-16 December 2002 |

 Design basis accidents

 Severe accidents



The environmental impacts of design basis accidents is a Category 1 issue in the GEIS. Also,

the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted environmental consequences

from severe accidents (i.e., beyond design basis accidents) are small for all plants but that

alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not

considered such alternatives. See 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii)(L).

Comment: In the event of a severe accident, when the reactor fuel melts, the risk that reactor

containment will rupture, and large releases of radioactive material get into the environment, will

occur at significantly greater at Catawba and McGuire than at other pressured water reactors

with other types of containment. There is no backup system for reactor containment. The steel

containment vessel is the only one. Other plant systems may have backups. (Q-7)

Response: The comment is noted. Severe accidents were evaluated in the GEIS and the

impacts were determined to be small for all plants. A site-specific analysis of Severe Accident

Mitigation Alternatives will be performed by the NRC staff in the SEIS for McGuire. The

comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment will not be evaluated further. 

| A.1.8 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 uranium fuel cycle and waste management

issues include:

 Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and

high level waste)

 Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects)

 Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal)

 Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle

 Low level waste storage and disposal

 Mixed waste storage and disposal
Appendix A

December 2002 A-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

 On-site spent fuel

 Nonradiological waste

 Transportation

Comment: I don't think we should renew any of our nuclear plants licenses across the country

until there has been a solution of what to do with the nuclear radioactive waste that is

accumulating. There is nothing to be done with it. So if you don't have a solution to a problem,

why keep adding to the problem and keep creating more waste, with nobody knowing what to

do with it? (M-1)

Comment: It (spent fuel) is a potential fire bomb if a terrorist comes in with a plane and just

suicides, kamikaze-like, into these ceramic, whatever enclosures are housing this waste, that

as I understand is sitting outdoors on concrete pads. But let's don't sacrifice the lives of our

posterity. Maybe it won't happen for another 100, 200, 300 years, but do we want to be

responsible for letting some disaster happen, when we don't have to? (M-2)

Comment: Spent fuel, is that within the scope of the EIS, or outside? (R-15)

Comment: The first is the long-term handling and storage of the radioactive waste, particularly

the high level radioactive waste generated with the spent fuel rod assemblies. I have asked the

question, and you have heard from others here, how open Duke Power is on asking questions,

and their answering them. I asked the question, I said, how good is your long term storage?

And here is the reply I got. Approximately 50 fuel rod assemblies are replaced each year,

although not every 365 days, but on a different schedule. And they are currently permitted at

the McGuire site for on-site storage for up to about 2,200 fuel rod assemblies. If one does a

quick math, you can figure out that they've got just about a 40 year permitted area for the spent

fuel rods on-site. And that does not include the possible disposal of central facility, that we

have already talked about, with Yucca Mountain. (AC-2)

Comment: Is the waste stored inside the reactor shell which is so strong, and all that, or is it in

another building, or is it in fact sitting around outdoors, the way it is at some nuclear plants?

(AD-6)

Comment: The spent fuel storage problem is reason enough to decline the license renewal

request. The Nitrogen-16 EMF radiation detectors at McGuire are picking up gamma rays from

the spent fuel dry casks. This was not supposed to happen. What other little surprises will

develop from storing spent fueling dry casks? The problem is not getting better; it is getting

worse. (AI-8)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-18 December 2002 |

Response: The comments are noted. Onsite storage and offsite disposal of spent nuclear fuel

are Category 1 issues. The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel

onsite has been evaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule, the

NRC generically determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant

environmental impact. In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent

fuel can be stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may

include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be

moved to a permanent repository. The GEIS is based upon the assumption that storage of the

spent fuel onsite is not permanent. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS regarding

license renewal for Catawba will be prepared based on the same assumption. The comments

provide no new information; therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

| A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

Comment: And part of this analysis we reviewed various alternatives to license renewal. We

looked at solar, wind, conventional fossil generation, as methods to be able to replace McGuire. 

But none of those alternatives were selected. We didn't select them because of their high cost,

relatively low electrical output, land use impacts, and other environmental impacts. (E-7)

Comment: I believe in nuclear generation, I believe it is the environmentally responsible way to

create electricity. It is obviously, cleaner than fossil. And it is, obviously, an economical way to

create electricity. (K-7)

Comment: I think we need to concentrate on developing alternative energy sources. A

gentleman spoke that they had eliminated, they had looked at solar, and other forms of energy,

and had discounted it. Maybe it will cost us more, maybe we will have to pay more for our

energy. Maybe we will have to conserve, maybe we will have to share rides, maybe we will

have to walk, maybe we will have to move closer to our jobs. Let's put our resources into

developing the sustainable energy resources. (M-3)

Comment: Duke says that they believe that combined cycle technology is the most

economically attractive baseload technology. I think that this is -- I don't know what

economically attractive means to anyone in the room here, but I don't think that Duke did a

sufficient analysis to be able to tell us if their comparison with other forms of renewable energy,

including wind power, and solar power, had been compared alongside of the continued use of

the Catawba or the McGuire reactors, in this case. (Q-1)

Comment: I might point out, as a dramatic point, that the consideration of safety issues in

terrorism with regards to wind powered generators almost seems ridiculous, because there are

no issues with regard to safety and terrorism, with regard to wind energy generators. This is a

significant omission in their application process. (Q-2)
Appendix A

December 2002 A-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Comment: As for alternative sources of energy, Duke did not conduct an analysis that looked

into the future. They looked at existing sources of energy and the current technologies. But

just as the United States essentially subsidized the entire nuclear energy industry with its

research and development, now they are sinking tens of millions of dollars into this thing called

clean coal. Well, what does clean coal mean, and what would a clean coal plant mean? And

that needs to be in this EIS, what would be the environmental impacts of a clean coal plant,

because I'm really dying to find out what they are. I've only seen it kind of talked about in vague

terms by the labs. (R-14)

Comment: We evaluated alternatives, we evaluated replacing McGuire’s economical baseload

electric generation with other sources of power. We looked at wind, we looked at solar, we

looked at other forms of conventional fossil generation. We did not select those alternatives. 

We did not select them based on their cost, based on their limited electrical output, and relative

basis, on their land use requirements, and on other environmental impacts. (T-7)

Comment: Okay, now to the questions. If the license is not renewed, would the nuclear plants

be total write-offs, or could they be converted to operation by gas as a fuel, or some other form

of energy? (AD-4)

Comment: This point is one I already made, so I won't make it again. The final point is, I think

we are reaching a new era. A power plant that works on wave power. Solar power suggestions

as well. (AD-11)

Response: The comments are noted. The GEIS included an extensive discussion of

alternative energy sources. Environmental impacts associated with various reasonable

alternatives to renewal of the operating licenses for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, will

be discussed in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.

A.1.10 Comments Concerning Environmental Justice |

Comment: But nonetheless there are tens, and tens of thousands of families who are very

poor, not as well educated as we would like Americans to be, living in this most polluted part of

town. We are also home, mostly, to poor whites, blacks, and Latinos. The NRC begged you to

consider all this, because you will further burden these many scores of thousands of families,

unless you rein in Duke Power's ability to carry out their plans for using this plutonium. (I-4)

Response: The comment is noted. Environmental Justice is an issue specific to the plant and

will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. 
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-20 December 2002 |

| A.1.11 Comments Concerning Related Federal Projects

Comment: And my understanding was the license originally was that Duke Energy had the

right to dam the Catawba River at Lake Wiley, and Lake Norman, to produce energy. And

since this was given by the federal government, the citizens gave them that right to do that, they

had certain responsibilities about the water, and the land surrounding those lakes that they

created, and where they were creating power. And I'm not sure, in today's nuclear age, how

that original license fits into what this process is talking about today, about these two units. 

Because my concerns are about the environmental impact. So this is talking about two units,

I'm talking about the whole picture for relicensing, which involves Duke Energy's responsibility

to the citizens that gave them the right to dam the rivers and produce energy. (AE-1)

Comment: When I was growing up I had friends who had a lease on property on Lake Wiley,

we loved to go out there, had a great time growing up as a child. We were known as river rats. 

Some of you have heard that expression before. And we just had a wonderful time. My

understanding is the license doesn't just apply to these plants on the lakes. When the original

license was given Duke had the responsibility of helping maintain the water, and the land

adjacent to the lakes. And this is a question. It seems to me they lost that power to control the

quality of the water, and maybe some of the air, too. When instead of having these leases they

started selling off the land to private owners. And so now you heard the people talking about all

the wonderful things they are doing at the sites, the sites, the sites. Well, yes, because I guess

they don't have control of the property right on the lakes, and so the local governments are

trying to get buffers now, get people to agree to buffers. So my question is, has Duke

inadvertently abandoned what the federal government licensed them to do by giving up this

buffer of leasing? If someone is not doing what they should be doing as far as protecting the

water and so forth in their lease, it seems to me Duke could have some say so, I don't know,

I'm just asking that question. (AE-2)

Response: The comments are noted. These comments relate to Duke Energy Corporation

(Duke) hydro power operations that fall under the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC). Related Federal projects such as the FERC license will be discussed in

Chapter 2 of the SEIS.

| A.1.12 Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of License Renewal

Comment: Neutron bombardment, silting from fission reaction degrades the metal parts of the

reactor, the metal becomes brittle. Reactor embrittlement increases with age. And an

embrittled reactor may look unchanged, but it will not perform as well under extreme conditions. 

In the event of a drop in the level of reactor coolant, the heated water is replaced by cold water

from outside the reactor. The cold water can cause embrittled reactor parts to fail, and minor
Appendix A

December 2002 A-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

reactor failure becomes a major one. Embrittlement of reactor parts is a well known

phenomenon, and has caused premature closing of commercial power reactors. (W-5)

Comment: Having directly been involved with the design and installation of nuclear power

plants I can testify that the original design was never intended to operate beyond a 40 year life. 

Operating these plants beyond the design life is clearly an experiment in stress and corrosion

analysis, cycling fatigue and resulting fatigue failure. The granting of operating licenses to

extend the life of a nuclear power plant within close proximity of densely populated area is

analogous to playing Russian roulette with the health and safety of the public. (AH-1)

Response: The comments are noted. The NRC’s environmental review is confined to

environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. 

To the extent that the comments pertain to safety of equipment and aging within the scope of

license renewal, these issues will be addressed during the parallel safety analysis review

performed under 10 CFR Part 54. Operational safety issues are outside the scope of 10 CFR

Part 51 and will not be evaluated further in this SEIS. The comments provide no new

information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the context of the environmental

review. However, the comments will be forwarded to the project manager for the license

renewal safety review for consideration.

A.1.13 Questions |

The following comment was presented in the form of a question during the scoping process. 

The staff will take note of the questions to the extent that the question applies to the issues

discussed in the SEIS. However, the question did not provide new information and will not be

evaluated further.

Cumulative Impacts

Comment: Are you going to consider the cumulative impacts as if all four reactors were running

at once? (R-6)

Response: The SEIS will include a consideration of cumulative impacts considering both the

two-unit McGuire plant and the two-unit Catawba plant.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-22 December 2002 |

Part II - Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

| Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

| for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Draft

| Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 8, referred to as the draft SEIS) to Federal,

| State, and local government agencies as well as interested members of the public. As part of

| the process to solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the staff

|

|  placed a copy of the draft SEIS into the NRC’s electronic Public Document Room, its

| license renewal Website, and at the J. Murrey Atkins Library at the University of North

| Carolina – Charlotte in Charlotte, North Carolina 

|

|  sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant, members of the public who requested

| copies, and certain Federal, State, and local agencies

|

|  published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register on

| May 10, 2002 (67 FR 31846)

|

|  issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and

| postings in public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS 

|

|  announced and held two public meetings in Huntersville, North Carolina, on June 12,

| 2002, to describe the results of the environmental review and answer related questions

|

|  issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of

| the draft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft

| SEIS

|

|  established a website to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the Internet. 

|

| During the comment period, the staff received a total of four comment letters in addition to the

| comments received during the public meetings. 

|

| The staff has reviewed the public meeting transcripts and the four comment letters that are part

| of the docket file for the application, all of which are available in the NRC’s electronic Public

| Document Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.2, contains a summary of the comments and

| the staff’s responses. Related issues are grouped together. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.3,

| contains excerpts of the June 12, 2002, public meeting transcripts, the written statements

| provided at the public meetings, and comment letters. 

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Each comment identified by the staff was assigned a specific alpha-numeric identifier (marker). |

That identifier is typed in the margin of the transcript or letter at the beginning of the discussion |

of the comment. A cross-reference of the alpha-numeric identifiers, the speaker or author of |

the comment, the page where the comment can be found, and the section(s) of this report in |

which the comment is addressed is provided in Table A-2. The eight speakers at the meetings |

are listed in speaking order along with the page of the transcript excerpts in this report on which |

the comment appears. These comments are identified by the letters A through H followed by a |

number that identifies each comment in approximate chronological order in which the comments |

were made. The four written comment letters are identified by the letters I through L. The |

accession number is provided for the written comments to facilitate access to the document |

through the Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) http://www.nrc.gov/reading- |

rm/adams/login.html. |

|

The staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following: |

|

(1) A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general |

(or specifically for McGuire) or that made a general statement about the license renewal |

process. It may have made only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or |

Category 2 issues. In addition, it provided no new information and does not relate to safety |

considerations reviewed under 10 CFR Part 54. |

|

(2) A comment regarding environmental safety issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54. |

|

(3) A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or the |

DSEIS. |

|

(4) A comment regarding the severe accident mitigation alternative analysis. |

|

(5) A comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54). |

|

Comments without a supporting technical basis or without any new information are discussed in |

this appendix, and not in other sections of this report. Relevant references that address the |

issues within the regulatory authority of the NRC are provided where appropriate. Many of |

these references can be obtained from the NRC Electronic Public Document Room. |

|

Within each section of Part II of this appendix (A.2.1 through A.2.13), similar comments are |

grouped together for ease of references, and a summary description of the comment is given, |

followed by the staff’s response. Where the comment or question resulted in a change in the |

text of the draft report, the corresponding response refers to the reader to the appropriate |

section of the Supplement where the change was made. Revisions to the text of the draft report |

are designated by vertical lines beside the text. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-24 December 2002 |

|

| Table A-2 Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

| Comment

| No. | Commenter Comment Source | Page of| Comment

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| A-1 L. Zeller | Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02)

| ML021780452 | A-43 A.2.1

| A-2 L. Zeller Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-45 A.2.11

| A-3 L. Zeller Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-51 A.2.13

| A-4 L. Zeller Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-51 A.2.11

| B-1 B. Anderson Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-47 A.2.12

| C-1 J. Peel Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-50 A.2.2

| C-2 J. Peel Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-50 A.2.2

| C-3 J. Peel Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-50 A.2.2

| D-1 B. Mahood Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-52 A.2.1

| D-2 B. Mahood Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-52 A.2.13

| D-3 B. Mahood Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-53 A.2.13

| D-4 B. Mahood Afternoon Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-54 A.2.13

| E-1 J. Collins | Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02)

| ML021780452 | A-55 A.2.6

| F-1 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-56 A.2.10

| F-2 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-57 A.2.10

| F-3 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-61 A.2.13

| F-4 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-63 A.2.13

| F-5 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-64 A.2.13

| F-6 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-64 A.2.13

| F-7 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-64 A.2.13

| F-8 B. Mahood Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-64 A.2.13

| G-1 G. Knox Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-59 A.2.13

| G-2 G. Knox Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-61 A.2.13

| H-1 B. Barron Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-62 A.2.2

| H-2 B. Barron Evening Meeting Transcript (06/12/02) A-62 A.2.2

| I-1 G. Hogue Letter (07/26/02) ML022560053 A-66 A.2.2

| I-2 G. Hogue Letter (07/26/02) A-66 A.2.4

| I-3 G. Hogue Letter (07/26/02) A-66 A.2.5

| I-4 G. Hogue Letter (07/26/02) A-66 A.2.6
Appendix A

December 2002 A-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Table A-2 (contd) |

Comment |

No. | Commenter Comment Source | Page of |Comment |

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

J-1 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) ML022210223 A-68 A.2.4 |

J-2 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-68 A.2.4 |

J-3 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-69 A.2.4 |

J-4 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-69 A.2.4 |

J-5 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.7 |

J-6 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.7 |

J-7 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.7 |

J-8 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.7 |

J-9 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.7 |

J-10 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.10 |

J-11 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.10 |

J-12 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-70 A.2.10 |

J-13 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-71 A.2.10 |

J-14 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-71 A.2.10 |

J-15 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-71 A.2.10 |

J-16 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-71 A.2.10 |

J-17 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-71 A.2.10 |

J-18 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-71 A.2.10 |

J-19 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-71 A.2.10 |

J-20 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-21 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-22 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-23 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-24 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-25 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-26 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-27 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-72 A.2.10 |

J-28 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-73 A.2.11 |

J-29 M. Tuckman Letter (08/02/02) A-73 A.2.3 |

K-1 H. Mueller Letter (08/02/02) ML022270355 A-73 A.2.9 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-26 December 2002 |

| Table A-2 (contd)

| Comment

| No. | Commenter Comment Source | Page of| Comment

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| K-2 H. Mueller Letter (08/02/02) A-73 A.2.2

| K-3 H. Mueller Letter (08/02/02) A-73 A.2.13

| K-4 H. Mueller Letter (08/02/02) A-74 A.2.13

| K-5 H. Mueller Letter (08/02/02) A-74 A.2.3

| K-6 H. Mueller Letter (08/02/02) A-74 A.2.8

| L-1 B. Barron Letter (08/19/02) ML022470024 A-75 A.2.10

| L-2 B. Barron Letter (08/19/02) A-75 A.2.10

|

| A.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft SEIS

|

| Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

|

| A.2.1 General Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process

|

| A.2.2 Comments in Support of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 

|

| A.2.3 Comments Concerning Groundwater Use and Quality

|

| A.2.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

|

| A.2.5 Comment Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues

|

| A.2.6 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues

|

| A.2.7 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

|

| A.2.8 Comments Concerning Historic and Archaeological Resources

|

| A.2.9 Comments Concerning Human Health/Radiological Issues

|

| A.2.10 Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis

|

| A.2.11 Comment Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

|

| A.2.12 Comment Concerning Alternatives To License Renewal
Appendix A

December 2002 A-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

A.2.13 Comments Concerning Issues Outside of the Scope of the Environmental Review for |

License Renewal: Emergency Response and Planning; Need For Power; and |

Safeguards and Security |

|

A.2.1 General Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process |

|

Comment: I thought of this question, just before you stood up Jim. It actually maybe refers to |

the previous presentation, but before we got too far along here I wanted to ask about the |

Commission's decision on April the 12th to change, reverse, or alter the findings of the Atomic |

Safety Licensing Board. How often does something like that happen, and where has it |

happened? I'm just curious to find out, the procedure, or the process, or perhaps there is a |

citation within the rules and regulations which outline how a sitting Atomic Safety Licensing |

Board, or actually any other board of that nature, would have a process underway as was |

described here shortly, a while ago. And the Commission, which set up that panel, to |

essentially reverse, or alter, or have any saying before the procedure, before the process had |

been completed. (A-1) |

|

Comment: The whole strange thing about this process is that you are still completely bound by |

regulations, the original regulations from about 1954, I suppose with some revisions. (D-1) |

|

Response: These comments concern the license renewal process in general. The |

Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be |

conducted to review a license renewal application. While the comments refer to the process, |

they do not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, they |

will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of |

these comments. |

|

A.2.2 Comments in Support of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 |

|

Comment: I assure you that we strongly believe that the McGuire plant is a worthy candidate |

for license renewal. (C-1) |

|

Comment: I want to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for having developed a process |

which is thorough and effective. That process has been described by at least two of the |

speakers before me. (C-2) |

|

Comment: After reviewing the draft statement, and I'm referring specifically to Supplement 8, |

Duke Power agrees with the conclusions of that draft. (C-3) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-28 December 2002 |

| Comment: Reading through the results of the draft environmental impact statement, the

| thoroughness, the completeness with which the Staff and the contractors have performed their

| work is very apparent. (H-1)

|

| Comment: We are still reviewing the draft EIS. Initially it looks like we very much agree with

| the conclusions that have been reached. We do have our technical experts continuing to go

| through the report. (H-2)

|

| Comment: We are pleased with the level of detail provided in the Draft Supplemental

| Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and are glad the proposal includes regular monitoring

| following relicensing. (I-1)

|

| Comment: Based on the sufficiency of information, alternatives evaluation, and potential

| environmental impacts over which EPA has authority, the document received a rating of “EC-1,”

| (Environmental Concerns - Adequate Information). (K-2)

|

| Response: The comments were supportive of license renewal at McGuire Nuclear Station

| Units 1 and 2, and are general in nature. The comments did not provide significant, new

| information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, they will not be evaluated further. There

| were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of these comments.

|

| A.2.3 Comments Concerning Groundwater Use and Quality

|

| Comment: Page 4-35 discusses groundwater use and quality. The document mentions that

| the facility uses <100 gpm from six existing groundwater wells (page 2-8). However, Appendix

| E does not list information pertaining to the regulatory status of these groundwater wells. (K-5)

|

| Response: This is a Category 1 issue as discussed in Section 4.5 of this SEIS. These wells

are regulated by the State of South Carolina and draw at total of less than 0.068 m3 | /S 100 gpm. 

| The regulatory status of these wells is not included in Appendix E due to the small amount of

| water drawn and the infrequency of use. The comment did not provide significant, new

| information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There

| were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of this comment.

|

| Comment: Page E-2, line 11: Draft permit was issued May 30, 2002. Comments have been

| submitted to NCDENR for final approval. (J-29)

|

| Response: The comment addresses groundwater use and quality. The Supplement has been

| revised as appropriate.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

A.2.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues |

|

Comment: Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms. One of several issues |

identified at McGuire includes impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms at the cooling |

water intake. Previous studies at the site by Duke found impingement of some fishes, mostly |

threadfin shad, some bluegill, and alewife, particularly during periods of cold water. Although |

the DSEIS concludes that the impacts were SMALL, we recommend that the licensee establish |

a regular monitoring program and develop a strategy to reduce impingement and entrainment. |

These periodic reports of findings should be forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |

(FWS). (I-2) |

|

Response: The comment relates to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms at the |

cooling water intake. The staff reviewed the licensee’s most recent impingement and |

entrainment data for McGuire; this issue is addressed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of the |

Supplement. The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this |

Supplement and, therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in the |

Supplement as a result of this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-19 line 19: Line reads: “The primary fish caught in the nearshore littoral |

zone include sunfish (Lepomis spp.), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and catfish including the blue |

catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), snail bullhead (Ameiurus brunneus), white catfish (I. catus), and flat |

bullhead (I. platycephalus). “The inclusion of blue catfish as inhabitants of the nearshore littoral |

zone is incorrect as these fish are considered largely pelagic in nature and are only occasionally |

caught inshore. Additionally snail bullhead, white catfish, and flat bullhead are no longer found |

in significant numbers due in large part we believe by blue catfish and flathead catfish |

predation. |

|

Correct the sentence to read, “The primary fish caught in the nearshore littoral zone include |

sunfish (Lepomis spp.), largemouth bass, crappie, and carp (Cyprinus carpio). Numbers of |

previously abundant catfish species like snail bullhead (Ameiurus brunneus), white catfish |

(I. catus), and flat bullhead (I. platycephalus) have dwindled significantly due to suspected |

predation by blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris).” (J-1) |

|

Comment: Page 2-19, line 27-29: Lines read. “In 1999, 135 species of phytoplankton were |

collected, the dominant types being cryptophytes and diatoms (Duke 2001a).” |

|

It is more accurate to use the words ‘varieties and forms’ instead of species. Correct the |

sentence to read “In 1999, 135 varieties and forms of phytoplankton were collected, the |

dominant types being cryptophytes and diatoms (Duke 2001a).” (J-2) |

|

Comment: Page 2-20 line 5-8: Lines read: “....--and three mussel species- Carolina |

heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), dwarf threetooth (Triodopsis fulciden), and Carolina |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-30 December 2002 |

| creekshell (Villosa vaughnaniana)- could inhabit the region around McGuire (Table 2-1). 

| ”Although the word ‘could’ is used in this sentence, it creates the impression these mussels

| might be found in the area. This likelihood is extremely remote due to the lack of flowing water

| habitats around McGuire. Concurrence with this professional judgment is even stated in the

| SEIS on page 4-36, lines 25-28, “As described in Section 2.2.5, the only Federally or State-

| listed threatened or endangered aquatic species with the potential to inhabit waters near

| McGuire, the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), is not present in the vicinity of the

| plant (Fridell 2001) and does not occur in impounded water.” 

|

| Revise sentence to read “.... --and three mussel species- Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona

| decorata), dwarf threetooth (Triodopsis fulciden), and Carolina creekshell

| (Villosa vaughnaniana)- could inhabit the region around McGuire (Table 2-1), but practically

| speaking the probability is extremely unlikely because of lack of lotic environments.” (J-3)

|

| Comment: Page 2-20, line 32-34: Lines read: “Menhinick (1991) lists the highfin carpsucker

| from Lake Norman considerably north of the study area and lists only historic records for the

| Santee chub in Lake Norman, but north of the study area (Gaddy 2001). “Although the above

| sentence is not factually incorrect, it leaves the impression that perhaps the highfin carpsucker

| and maybe even the Santee chub may exist in Lake Norman. It is well worth noting however

| that in the NC Heritage Program records the highfin carpsucker documentation is extremely

| sketchy and the EORANK (Element Occurrence Rank) designation is O (Obscure-date,

| location, and/or quality of the occurrence is unknown) and the survey date is listed only as pre-

| 1991. The same paucity of rigorous documentation and species records is also true for the

| Santee Chub.”

|

| Revise sentence to read “Menhinick (1991) lists the highfin carpsucker from Lake Norman

| considerably north of the study area and lists only historic records for the Santee chub in Lake

| Norman, but north of the study area (Gaddy 2001). However, detailed and thorough historical

| documentation on both species in the NC Natural Heritage Program records is incomplete or

| non-existent and there have been no citings of these species at all in the recent past.” (J-4)

|

| Response: The comments address aquatic ecology. The Supplement has been revised as

| appropriate.

|

| A.2.5 Comment Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues

|

| Comment: Migratory birds and raptors. We do not agree that there is enough information to

| conclude that the impacts of potential bird collisions, or electrocution, are small in significance.

| We believe that a monitoring program should be developed consistent with the draft

| Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NRC for migratory

| birds. Since bald eagles, osprey, black and turkey vultures, and herons frequent the project

| vicinity, we recommend lines crossing wetlands and large bodies of water should be maintained
Appendix A

December 2002 A-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

to maximize visibility of the line to raptors by one of the following design modifications: (1) |

remove the static line; (2) enlarge the static line to improve visibility to raptors; or (3) mount |

aviation balls or similar markers on the static line. (I-3) |

|

Response: This is a Category 1 issue as discussed in Section 4.2 of this SEIS. The GEIS |

determined that “mortality resulting from bird collisions with transmission lines associated with |

license renewal and up to an additional 20 years of operation will not cause long-term reduction |

in bird populations and thus will be of small significance. Further, little potential for significance |

due to cumulative impacts is indicated.” The licensee is required to report any migratory bird |

that has been found dead around the plant. Maintenance crews report on bird-related outages |

and that report is printed quarterly and sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Atlanta. |

Licensee employees have a 24-hour Migratory Bird Hot Line to report bird encounters occurring |

during their work. The transmission lines addressed in this action are relatively short (an |

average length of 1.2 km [4000 ft]), and they do not span high quality waterfowl or aquatic |

raptor habitat. The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this |

Supplement and, therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this |

Supplement as a result of this comment. |

|

A.2.6 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues |

|

Comment: Talking with a curator at the NC State University, I understand that the sunflowers |

are very a man-friendly plant that likes to seed environments. And it does very well in and |

around transmission lines, because of all the upheaval in the soils. I also understand that most |

energy utility companies are using herbicides now along their transmission lines to keep back |

growth, rather than cut it. How does that affect any possibility for the growth of Schweinitz’s |

sunflower? (E-1) |

|

Response: Most herbicide application on transmission line rights-of-way is targeted to specific |

plants that will interfere with transmission lines such as trees rather than broadcast use. The |

appropriate descriptive information regarding transmission lines and the plant-specific ecology |

of the site was addressed in Sections 4.2 and 4.6.2 of this Supplement. The comment did not |

provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, it will not be |

evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of this |

comment. |

|

Comment: Endangered species. We have reviewed our records and visited the site, and |

notwithstanding the above comments, we concur with the determination that the proposed |

project is not likely to affect endangered species. Therefore, we believe the requirements under |

Section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be |

reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect |

listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-32 December 2002 |

| subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species

| is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action. (I-4)

|

| Response: The staff is aware of the provisions on Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

| The appropriate descriptive information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species is

| addressed in Section 4.6.2 of this Supplement. The comment did not provide significant, new

| information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There

| were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of this comment.

|

| A.2.7 Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

|

| Comment: Page 2-31 line 37: Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge should be Cowan’s Ford

| Waterfowl Refuge. (J-5)

|

| Comment: Page 2-33 line 1: Cowan’s Ford Wildfowl Refuge should be Cowan’s Ford Wildlife

| Refuge. (J-6)

|

| Comment: Page 2-33, line 2: Line should read: “... within an oxbow bend in the riverine

| section of Mountain Island Lake.” (J-7)

|

| Comment: Page 2-33, line 1-6: Section does not mention Crowder’s Mountain State Park.

| Crowder’s Mountain State Park is located approximately 24 miles south-west of McGuire. (J-8)

|

| Comment: Page 4-29, line 19-25: McGuire’s main entrance (west entrance) has been closed

| as a result of the events of Sept.11, 2001. This will probably be a permanent closure. All

| entrance and exit traffic must use the east entrance with the traffic light. (J-9)

|

| Response: The comments address land use issues. The Supplement has been revised as

| appropriate.

|

| A.2.8 Comments Concerning Historic and Archaeological Resources

|

| Comment: We note that the licensee should take care that historic properties are not

| inadvertently impacted during normal operational and maintenance activities. (K-6)

|

| Response: Historic and archaeological issues are addressed in Section 2.2.9 of this

| Supplement. The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this

| Supplement and, therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There was no change made in this

| Supplement as a result of this comment.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

A.2.9 Comments Concerning Human Health/Radiological Issues |

|

Comment: EPA Region 4's review of this Draft GEIS [SIC] found no issues related to nuclear |

or environmental radiation which were significant enough to comment on or ask for clarification. |

However, EPA does not regulate the radioactive component of any waste streams; that is the |

responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC regulates the alpha, |

beta, and gamma radioactivity of all the waste streams at nuclear plants. (K-1) |

|

Response: This is a Category 1 issue and is discussed in Section 4.3 of this SEIS. The |

comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, |

therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There was no change made in this Supplement as a |

result of this comment. |

|

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis |

|

Comment: I was a little bit puzzled by the definition of benefit. Reading over it, it seemed that |

if you want to be totally cynical about it, benefit would be the protection of the public's health |

and safety, whereas the cost would be what it would cost Duke if the balance to the public |

health and safety exceeded a certain point. And since Duke is ensured by the Price-Anderson |

Act, and has a cap on its liabilities, that definitely lowers Duke's cost a great deal, although the |

impact on the public health and safety might be considerable. And so that if you look at it as |

sort of a suspicious way, which is the way I think that the informed public should look at just |

about everything, it seems to be saying that as long as the damages that the power company |

would have to pay don't exceed the cost of preventing any damage to the public, then it is better |

to avoid, well, it is better for the bottom line, simply not to spend the extra money to protect the |

public. That is one impression one could gain from this, and correct me if I'm wrong. (F-1) |

|

Comment: I'm sorry, but we seem to be in a little bit of a semantic muddle here, because I'm |

speaking of the cost, I thought that in the document cost referred to the cost to the nuclear |

industry to do what is necessary to protect the public. And the benefit is the protection of the |

public, and you are speaking of the cost to the public, so we are getting a little -- muddled here, |

because I'm talking about the cost of protecting the public, the cost of...(F-2) |

|

Response: The costs refer to the cost for a utility to implement a potential design |

enhancement that could reduce the risk of a severe accident and associated offsite property |

damage. The benefit is the averted public exposure, occupational exposure, cleanup and |

decontamination costs and power replacement costs associated with preventing or mitigating a |

major accident. The comments did not provide significant, new information relevant to this |

Supplement and, therefore, they will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in |

this Supplement as a result of these comments. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-34 December 2002 |

| Comment: Page 5-6, line 23: Line reads: “... comments received during the McGuire peer

| review process, ...” Including the above phrase in this location may lead a reader to assume that

| the peer review comments were incorporated into Revision 2 of the PRA which was used for the

| SAMA analysis. This is not the case; the peer review occurred after Revision 2 was complete.

| Suggest that the reference to the peer review be deleted here. (J-10)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.2.1 has been revised, as suggested by the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 5-8, line 22: 0.006 should be 0.06. (J-11)

|

| Comment: Page 5-8, line 23: 0.0075 should be 0.07. (J-12)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.2.1 has been revised; the decimal has been corrected.

|

| Comment: Page 5-10, line 22: The Revision 3 results provided at the time of the RAI response

| were preliminary and somewhat changed in the final approved version of Revision 3. Values 

| from the final approved version of Revision 3 are provided in the following comment. (J-13)

|

| Comment: Page 5-11, Table 5-5: The Revision 3 results provided by Duke at the time of the

| RAI were preliminary and somewhat changed in the final approved version of Revision 3. Values

| from the final approved version of Revision 3 are provided below. The format for these values is

| the same as provided in the RAI response dated January 31, 2002. (J-14)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.2.2 and Table 5-5 have been revised to include the CDFs from the final

| approved version of Revision 3 of the McGuire PRA.

|

| Comment: Page 5-11, Table 5-5 line 18: The seismic CDF listed under the column heading

| PRA, Rev. 1 (IPE) is given as 1.1E-05. This is the value from the IPEEE not the IPE (1.4E-05).

| This should be more clearly identified in the table. (J-15)

|

| Response: Table 5-5 has been annotated to show that the CDFs under PRA, Rev. 1, for

| external initiators came from the IPEEE, as suggested by the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 5-11, Table 5-5, line 20: Table 8.1-1 of Revision 1 of the McGuire PRA (IPE),

| lists the fire CDF as 8.1E-08, not 2.3E-07. The IPEEE estimate of the fire CDF is 2.3E-07.

| Clarify which value and reference are intended. (J-16)

|

| Response: Table 5-5 has been annotated to show that the CDFs under PRA, Rev. 1, for

| external initiators came from the IPEEE, as suggested by the comment.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Comment: Page 5-16, Table 5-6: Line in Table 5-6 reads: “align reactor vessel (RV) |

cooling/other Unit RN”...The Duke table used RV cooling. In this case RV is not an acronym for |

reactor vessel. RV is the shorthand notation for the Containment Ventilation Cooling Water |

System. This description should be added to the RV entry on page xxiii |

Abbreviations/Acronyms. (J-17) |

|

Comment: Page 5-16, Table 5-6: The zeros in the CDF column should be replaced with the |

CDF values from Table 4-2, found in Attachment K of the McGuire ER. (J-18) |

|

Response: Table 5-6 and the abbreviations/acronyms have been revised as suggested by the |

comments. |

|

Comment: Page 5-19, line 27: The Revision 3 results provided at the time of the RAI response |

were preliminary and somewhat changed in the final approved version of Revision 3. Values |

from the final approved version of Revision 3 are provided Comment Number 14. (J-19) |

|

Response: Section 5.2.4 has been revised to show that the reference for final Revision 3 of the |

PRA is the August 2, 2002, letter. |

|

Comment: Page 5-17, Tabel 5-7 and Page 5-21, line 28: The cost estimate provided by Duke |

($205,000) is a per unit cost and should not be divided by 2. One of the major cost categories |

for the candidate modification is in the installation labor, primarily pulling cables. It was judged |

that finding a location for the diesel that would allow it to serve either unit would dramatically |

increase the cable pulling cost component. As such, it was judged that having a diesel for each |

unit would be less expensive (given the low cost of the hardware) than pulling cables to both |

units from a single location. (J-20) |

|

Response: Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6.2 and Tables 5-7 and 5-8 have been revised as suggested |

by the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 5-21, line 29: Note that the pre-staged option was selected in order to provide |

confidence that the alignment could be established within a time frame that would allow |

mitigation for fast as well as slow station blackouts. Without pre-staging, the time needed to |

power the igniters would be long and may not be effective for all sequences. The estimated |

benefit would be reduced by some amount if a pre-staged diesel was not assumed. (J-21) |

|

Response: This comment provided additional information but did not result in changes to |

Section 5.2.5. |

|

Comment: Page 5-21, line 39: The cost estimate provided by Duke ($540,000) is a per unit |

cost and should not be divided by 2. (J-22) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-36 December 2002 |

| Comment: Page 5-22, line 9: replace “reactor vessel cooling” with “the Containment Ventilation

| Cooling Water System” (J-24)

|

| Comment: Page 5-22, line 15-16: The two cost estimates, $275,000 and $291,000, are in the

| reverse order of the 2 SAMAs, (1) and (2), discussed earlier in the same paragraph. This may

| lead a reader to associate the costs incorrectly with the SAMAs. (J-25)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.5 has been revised as suggested by the comments.

|

| Comment: Page 5-22, line 3-5: The sentence, “Duke further noted that ...” should be modified.

| The discussion that Duke provided relative to powering the air-return fans was in the context of

| powering the igniters. The mixing afforded by the fans may or may not be significant to the

| effectiveness of PARs, but in any case Duke provided no position on the need for fans when

| using PARs. (J-23)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.5 has been revised as suggested by the comment. The sentence in

| question now only addresses igniters and was moved to the preceding paragraph.

|

| Comment: Page 5-25, line 4: 3.81E+08 should be 3.1E+08. See page 12 of Attachment K,

| McGuire ER. (J-26)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.6.1 has been revised as suggested by the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 5-27, line 17: Update CDF discussion based on final Revision 3 results

| provided in Comment Number 14. (J-27)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.6.2 has been revised as suggested by the comment

|

| Comment: Section 5.2.7 of Reference 1 identifies one Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative

| (SAMA) that would provide back-up power to the hydrogen igniters for Station Blackout (SBO)

| event...McGuire concurs with the NRC that this SAMA is not within the scope of license renewal

| and should be addressed separate from any license renewal proceedings. (L-1)

|

| Comment: McGuire concurs with the NRC staff that there may be a cost-beneficial plant design

| modification that can provide alternative power to the hydrogen ignition system during a SBO

| event. (L-2)

|

| Response: The comments concur with the staff’s analysis. The comments did not provide

| significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, they will not be evaluated

| further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of these comments.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

A.2.11 Comment Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues |

|

Comment: Page 6-6, line 25: This page presents a brief chronology of events that have |

occurred in the area of high level waste disposal subsequent to the GEIS being published in |

1996. The chronology ends at the President’s recommendation in February 2002. While it may |

seem a bit odd for this type of information to be contained in an environmental document, Duke |

believes that the chronology should remain in the SEIS and should be updated to reflect |

significant events that have taken place since then. For example: “On April 8, 2002, Governor |

Guinn of Nevada issued a “Notice of Disapproval” regarding the recommendation of the |

President. As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the matter was then referred to the |

Congress. Subsequently, [insert final decision of Congress and date].” (J-28) |

|

Response: The comment addresses uranium fuel cycle and waste management issues. The |

Supplement has been revised as appropriate. |

|

Comment: I have a question about the impacts which have to do with the collective off-site |

radiological impacts from the fuel cycle high level waste, and spent fuel. It says here, in the |

document, within the Category 1 issues, that they are not assigned a significance level, and it |

also says back in Section 8, under the Category 2 analysis for the draft statement, that they are |

not assigned a significance level there, either. Where are they considered, and why not? (A-2) |

|

Comment: The other issue has to do with the one that I raised during the presentations, and it |

has to do with high level waste. On advice of the staff I did go back to reread Chapter 6 here |

about single significance levels, which are not assigned to high level waste. In that the |

Commission, and this is again from Page 6-5 in supplement, in Supplement 8 to the draft of |

today, it says: The Commission concludes these impacts are acceptable, and that the impacts |

would not be sufficiently large. I would submit that the lack of a single significance level at this |

point, and this is a lone exception, so far as I can tell, every other impact in this document is |

considered small. The impacts here are not small, they are not moderate, they are large. And |

there seems to be a reluctance to say large impacts in this case, particularly in the case before |

us, which is license renewal extension. The high level waste would increase, the impacts would |

increase for an additional 20 years. I think that before this process can move forward there must |

be a better analysis of the impacts from high level waste. It is not reassuring to me that the staff |

does not consider a change in its position necessary with regards to high level waste disposal, |

and consideration of the Category 1 issue. I wonder what it would take, considering that the |

document here mentions the possibility of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide, for a |

100,000 metric ton repository. (A-4) |

|

Response: Environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are discussed in detail in Section |

6.1 of this Supplement. The single significance level was not assigned because at the time that |

the GEIS was written there were no regulatory limits for offsite releases of radioactive nuclides |

for the candidate repository site, but enough information was available to assign the designation |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-38 December 2002 |

| of “Generic.” Since the GEIS was originally issued in 1996, the EPA has published radiation

| protection standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Commission has subsequently published

| its regulations at 10 CFR Part 63, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic

| Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” The comments did not provide significant, new

| information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, they will not be evaluated further. There

| were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of these comments.

|

| A.2.12 Comment Concerning Alternatives To License Renewal

|

| Comment: I just have a question concerning the definitions of small, moderate and large. As

| far as your take on if the effect is to be large, is it your -- are you wanting to make a change so

| that it goes down to the small level? Because that goes to your last slide, but on alternatives it

| said that some of the alternatives also include no-action. And some of the no-action are

| currently in the moderate or large significance. And if they are currently in the large then are you

| taking a look at those issues? There again maybe I'm reading this wrong. But when it says

| including no- action alternatives, no-action to me means that it stays the same. (B-1)

|

| Response: Environmental impacts associated with various reasonable alternatives to renewal

| of the operating licenses for McGuire were discussed in Chapter 8 of the Supplement. In this

| case, “no-action” alternative refers to not renewing the applicant’s operating license and

| decommissioning the plant when the current license expires. The staff does not evaluate the

| potential for mitigation of impacts for the alternative actions including the no-action alternative. 

| Mitigation is only considered for the action being evaluated (renewal of the operating licenses for

| McGuire for a period of up to an additional 20 years). The comment did not provide significant,

| new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

| There was no change made in this Supplement as a result of this comment.

|

| A.2.13 Comments Concerning Issues Outside of the Scope of the Environmental Review

| for License Renewal: Emergency Response and Planning; Need For Power; and

| Safeguards and Security

|

| Emergency Response and Planning

|

| Comment: It is noted here, in the draft report for comment, Supplement 8, that Duke completed

| a comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate the potential cost benefit plans enhancements to

| reduce the risk associated with severe accidents at McGuire. As a result, Duke concluded no

| additional mitigation alternatives are cost-beneficial. Among these analysis are averted public

| exposure costs. Recently there has been a lot of concern about off-site exposures from

| accidents. And, of course, the provision of such tablets as these here, the potassium iodide

| tablets to the public. That licensees have the obligation to confirm that off-site authorities have

| considered the use of potassium iodide as supplemental protective action for the general public. 

| It also makes a supplemental point here, and I'm reading from the NRC, it will also require the
Appendix A

December 2002 A-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

licensees to use this information in developing protective action recommendations for off-site |

agencies. I have two questions for the record. One, has Duke Energy fulfilled the Nuclear |

Regulatory Commission requirement with regard to off-site authorities? And, two, how has Duke |

used this information in protective action recommendations? I see nothing to that effect in the |

document before us today. (A-3) |

|

Comment: But what I would submit to you is that while there may be no new information, there |

are a couple of new circumstances that I don't think can be ignored when the time comes to |

consider whether to go on with the nuclear industry. One of these, which is specific to McGuire, |

and also to Catawba plant, is that we have had an enormous population explosion here, and it is |

not stopping, it is continuing to go on. Whereas we have not had anything like an enormous |

improvement in the evacuation routes. And hardly anyone in this region believes that they could |

actually get out. And FEMA doesn't seem, which is the agency that is most responsible, or |

supposed to be responsible for this, seems to be thinking entirely in pre-9/11 terms. (D-2) |

|

Comment: So you can see that this region is just not prepared for an eventuality like that. And |

the change in circumstances as to the population density, this is going to keep on changing. So |

here this renewal comes up 20 years from now. What do you think it is going to look like around |

these plants 20 years from now? It seems to me that it would be the responsible thing to do, to |

make some recommendations to the communities around here, to the governments around here, |

to put a moratorium on any further building in your evacuation zone, until the roads can be |

improved to the point where a quick evacuation is possible. And it seems to me that somebody |

needs to take this responsibility, whether it is Duke Power, whether it is the NRC, or whether it is |

FEMA, somebody needs to be advising local governments that they can't go on just packing |

people around these plants indefinitely, if you want to go on operating for another 40 years. |

(D-4) |

|

Comment: And although your document says repeatedly there is no new information about |

most of the issues here, about safety, and these are mostly about the operational requirements, |

and that sort of thing, I do feel that there are now new circumstances. One of the new |

circumstances is the enormous population explosion that is taking place around here, and which |

is ongoing. So that instead of a few thousand people around the plant, living around the plant |

when the plant was first licensed, we now have hundreds of thousands of people living around |

both the McGuire and Catawba plants. And the evacuation possibilities have increased |

enormously because there has been much improvement in the roads around here. And I expect |

that some of our visitors from Washington may have been caught in a traffic jam or two between |

this afternoon's meeting and this evening's, so you know what I'm talking about. (F-4) |

|

Comment: And it turned out, well, he was only thinking in terms of evacuating a 10-mile radius. |

Well, if a plane is driven into the spent fuel containment areas, there isn't going to be hours and |

hours to evacuate. We are going to have to get out immediately, the sooner the better, 5 |

minutes would be ideal. (F-5) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-40 December 2002 |

| Comment: But I think that communities need to start passing ordinances that say you can't

| build any more houses, and bring any more people into harm's way, if you can't get out in at

| least 2 hours from the evacuation zone, whether it be a 10-mile radius, or a 25-mile radius, or

| 50-mile radius...Right now we are making this area into a better and juicier, and juicier, and

| juicier target, by selling more and more subdivisions to people, crowding them into the areas

| around here. And we are talking about a license renewal 20 years from now, to go on for

| another 20 years. What do you think it is going to look like around here 20 years from now, if we

| just go on building, and building, and building? And what is it going to look like 30 years from

| now, when there is still 10 years to go? We need to do something visible, and tangible, to avert

| a tragedy in this area. Thank you very much. (F-6)

|

| Comment: That is, the review identified environmental impacts which should be avoided, in

| order to fully protect the environment. Specifically, the possibility of environmental impacts

| resulting from a release due to a severe accident are a concern. However, we understand that

| NRC along with DOE, FEMA, and EPA are taking additional steps to ensure that nuclear plants

| are prepared for such an occurrence. (K-3)

|

| Response: The staff evaluated impacts under current population conditions. Emergency

| preparedness is an ongoing process at all plants, including McGuire. Each nuclear plant must

| have an approved emergency plan, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, that is revised periodically

| and required to be up to date. Emergency planning is part of the current operating license and is

| outside the scope of the environmental analysis for license renewal. The comments did not

| provide new information relevant to this Supplement and they do not pertain to the scope of

| license renewal as set in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54, therefore, they will not be evaluated

| further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of these comments. 

|

| Need For Power

|

| Comment: The document does not mention whether power demands on the McGuire facility are

| expected to change significantly from present levels during the license renewal period (up to 20

| years). If consumer power needs in the service area increase significantly, please clarify how

| this would this (sic) affect operations, particularly with regard to the cooling system, effluent

| release, and waste quantity. The anticipated growth rate of the service area during the renewal

| period should be taken into consideration. (K-4)

|

| Response: The need for power is specifically directed to be outside the scope of license

| renewal (10 CFR 51.95 (c)(2)). The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an

| operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the

| term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

| as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than

| NRC) decisionmakers. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this

| Supplement and it does not pertain to the scope of license renewal as set in 10 CFR Part 51 and
Appendix A

December 2002 A-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Part 54; therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There was no change made in this |

Supplement as a result of this comment. |

|

Safeguards and Security |

|

Comment: But if a plane is driven into your spent fuel deposits, whether they are in dry casks, |

or in pools of water, they are outside the containment domes. So all the things that you've been |

saying about how strong the domes are, and how -- what great safeguards you have against |

operational failures, become completely irrelevant in the case of an attack by even a fairly small |

plane, a moderately small plane on the spent fuel containment. And it seems to me that that |

would have, if that happened, it would have something of an environmental impact, in that there |

is about 20 or 30 times as much fissionable material outside of your highly fortified domes, as |

there is inside of them...And he said, yes, but we only need to evacuate a ten mile radius. Well, |

you know, that would be totally inadequate in such an accident. Well, not accident, but such an |

attack. (D-3) |

|

Comment: Suppose the week after next, or the month after next, the new National Security |

Agency, or whatever they call themselves, were to impose new NRC regulations taking post-9/11 |

into account. Would this process go on just as before, or on the same schedule, or would the |

whole thing sort of start over again? (F-3) |

|

Comment: That is something that we haven't heard about, really. If a plane crashed into the |

spent fuel pools and casks which contain 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 times as much radioactive |

material as is actually contained inside these domes, which are highly touted for being so well |

fortified. The other point I would like to make is that it may well not be any funny looking guy |

with a beard, and a big nose, and a strange name like Kai Al Hicby, or something like that, who |

does the job. There have already been precedents. An Egyptian pilot probably deliberately |

drove a plane full of passengers into the ocean. A Chinese pilot probably deliberately drove his |

plane into the ground with all passengers on board. There are 800 people, about five, who are |

seriously disturbed. And some of them can be airline pilots, or Air Force pilots, Coast Guard |

pilots, and so on. So the person who actually does this thing may well be American, is not |

suspected by anybody, with an ordinary name like John Wayne. And everyone will say, |

afterwards, he seemed like such a nice, straight-forward, reliable guy, with a good work record, |

and everything. (F-7) |

|

Comment: We need to be prepared against that type of thing. And I would like to see some |

visible preparation. I would like to see them starting to lay down very thick concrete above all of |

the spent fuel depositories, as soon as possible. I would also like to see something visible in the |

way of protection of the nuclear plants, such as the balloons that we used in World War II to |

protect London against the Nazi planes, only these will have to be anchored at 9000 feet, and |

5000, and 12,000, they only need to be anchored at maybe 500 feet or less, 300 feet, maybe. |

So it shouldn't be expensive at all, and it would be a visible sign to the public that something, |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-42 December 2002 |

| something is being done against this threat. It would also be a sign to the crazy guy in the

| airplane, that this is not such a good target. (F-8)

|

| Comment: Looking at the application, the CFR Part 54, or Section 10, whatever, the renewal

application process began prior to September 11th | . Is there a supplement to this report as it

| relates to new findings, new information?... I would not ever dramatize that element, as much as

| I would if you look at the conclusion, and read it verbatim, it says that additional plant

| improvements to further mitigate severe accidents are not required at McGuire units, etcetera, as

| part of the license renewal pursuant to. I'm assuming those guidelines were written prior to

| September 11th, the application process started since then, I think we live in a new world. My

| question is, is this conclusion, or its draft, been amended or changed since that day?...There are

| additional findings, and the request for additional information will not be, I'm assuming that

| supplement, whenever it is going to appear, would be available to the public, as part of the

| application?...I think you did answer my question, the events of September 11th are not part of

| the renewal license application? (G-1)

|

| Comment: My question is, I would like to separate – the security issues I believe, are separate

| and prudent from relative to whether or not improvements for security and severe accident

| mitigation need to be addressed. Apparently you are saying that because we have the current

| regulations they don't need to be addressed? Security needs to be addressed, but I think it

| would be my opinion that we should be leery as opposed to – (G-2)

|

| Response: NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented

| initiatives to evaluate and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists, including the use of

| aircraft against commercial nuclear power plants and independent spent fuel storage

| installations (ISFSIs). Malevolent acts remain speculative and beyond the scope of a NEPA

| review. NRC routinely assesses threats and other information provided to them by other Federal

| agencies and sources. The NRC also ensures that licensees meet appropriate security levels. 

| The NRC will continue to focus on prevention of terrorist acts for all nuclear facilities and will not

| focus on site-specific evaluations of speculative environmental impacts. While these are

| legitimate matters of concern, they should continue to be addressed through the ongoing

| regulatory process as a current and generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities and

| many activities conducted at nuclear facilities. The NRC has taken a number of actions to

| respond to the events of September 11, 2001, and plans to take additional measures. However,

| the issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power plants is not unique to

| facilities that have requested a renewal to their license and, therefore, is not within the scope of

| this Supplement. The comments do not provide new information relevant to this Supplement,

| and they do not pertain to the scope of license renewals set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54,

| therefore they will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as

| a result of these comments. 

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

A.3 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts and Comment Letters |

|

Transcript of the Afternoon Public Meeting on June 12, 2002, in Huntersville, North |

Carolina |

|

[Introduction, Mr. Cameron] |

[Presentation by Mr. Tappert] |

[Presentation by Ms. Franovich] |

[Presentation by Mr. Wilson] |

|

Mr. Zeller: My name is Lou Zeller, I'm with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. |

|

I thought of this question, just before you stood up Jim. It actually maybe refers to the previous |

presentation, but before we got too far along here I wanted to ask about the Commission's |

decision on April the 12th to change, reverse, or alter the findings of the Atomic Safety Licensing |

Board. |

|

How often does something like that happen, and where has it happened? |

|

Mr. Cameron: I'm not sure that either Jim or Rani are prepared to answer that. And we do have |

a representative here from our Office of the General Counsel, Susan Uttal. |

|

And she may not have those statistics for you, Lou, but let me see if Susan has anything she can |

offer on that. And if there is further discussion you need to have, you may need to do it offline. |

|

But, Susan, can you give us some information on Lou's questions? |

|

Ms. Uttal: I don't know the answer to that question. |

|

Mr. Cameron: The answer to the -- there were two questions, right, Lou? |

|

Mr. Zeller: Yes. |

|

Mr. Cameron: The second one was how often does it happen. And I take it you are saying that |

you really don't have any information on that? |

|

Ms. Uttal: I don't have any information on that. |

|

Mr. Cameron: The first part of that, Lou, was just to make sure that Susan knows what it was, |

can you just -- you don't have to repeat the whole thing, but just what the question part was. |

|

A-1
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-44 December 2002 |

A-1

cont

A-2

| Mr. Zeller: I'm just curious to find out, the procedure, or the process, or perhaps there is a

| citation within the rules and regulations which outline how a sitting Atomic Safety Licensing

| Board, or actually any other board of that nature, would have a process underway as was

| described here shortly, a while ago.

|

| And the Commission, which set up that panel, to essentially reverse, or alter, or have any saying

| before the procedure, before the process had been completed.

|

| Mr. Cameron: I think that that is a fairly simple answer from a procedural point of view, relating

| to the authority of the Commission to step into a proceeding and rule on something before the

| whole thing is over.

|

| Can you say anything about that, Susan? And, again, I don't want to get us down into a big legal

| discussion, but so that you can do this with Lou afterwards.

|

| But perhaps you could just tell us some of the basics on that? 

|

| Ms. Uttal: Well, first of all I'm not sure of the relevance to this particular meeting, to this

| information. Mr. Zeller's a party in the proceeding, and in the requirements of Part 2 of 10 CFR,

| there is a specific section that permits interlocutory appeals from decisions allowing the

| admission of contentions, and that appeal be made to the Commission.

|

| I don't happen to have the section in my mind at this time, but it is provided under the

| regulations. So I would refer you to Part 2 of the regulations, or perhaps you can ask your

| counsel about it.

|

| Mr. Cameron: Okay. We always want to try to provide some information on questions like that. 

| And I think from what Susan said, Lou, it is something called an interlocutory appeal, and there is

| basis in the Commission's regulations for that, and we can explore that in more detail later on.

|

| [Presentation by Ms. Harty]

|

| Mr. Zeller: I have a question about the impacts which have to do with the collective off-site

| radiological impacts from the fuel cycle high level waste, and spent fuel. 

|

| It says here, in the document, within the Category 1 issues, that they are not assigned a

| significance level, and it also says back in Section 8, under the Category 2 analysis for the draft

| statement, that they are not assigned a significance level there, either.

|

| Where are they considered, and why not? In a coal plant an analogy might be, you know, what

| comes out of the smoke stack is certainly part of the environmental impact as waste material.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Mr. Cameron: And, Becky, do you understand the question? This is, maybe, a Category 1 issue |

that was not assigned an impact. Do you understand the question? |

|

Ms. Harty: Yes, these are Category 1 issues that were discussed in the generic environmental |

impact statement, and they weren't assigned a significance level there. |

|

Mr. Cameron: So, in other words, if no significant new information was found to cause us to alter |

the Category 1 finding, then there would be no -- |

|

Ms. Harty: Then there is no further analysis. If there was information that we discovered during |

our analysis at McGuire that caused us to say, yes, that is new information, significant |

information, then we would have re-analyzed that issue and looked at further depth. And at that |

point we may have assigned it a significance level. |

|

Mr. Zeller: I understand, but maybe I didn't make myself clear, for neither Category 1 nor |

Category 2, for generic or site-specific impacts were significant levels attached to high level |

waste and spent fuel impacts. It says it right here. |

|

Ms. Harty: Right. But this is only a Category 1 issue. Where are you reading, exactly? |

|

Mr. Zeller: I'm inside of this book. |

|

Ms. Harty: Can you give me a page? |

|

Mr. Zeller: Yes, it is on Page iii, in the beginning, and then also on Page 8-49, under the |

summary of alternatives considered. |

|

Mr. Cameron: It may be a question of how the particular sentence was written, but let's see if we |

can get to the bottom of that. |

|

Ms. Harty: Let me take a stab at this, and if somebody from the NRC is more familiar with this, |

then you may ask them the basis for this. |

|

For Category 1 issues, they usually assign a single significance level for all the issues across all |

the plants it is always small, moderate, or large. And this particular disposal may be a case, |

from my understanding of this, where they did not assign the small, moderate, or large, but they |

still said it was generic across all the plants. |

|

Now, I don't know if I'm quite answering your question or not. It is something that you don't really |

get into unless you decide there is new and significant information at that plant, which throws it |

out of -- which takes it from the Category 1 where it can just stay generic, to where you have to |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-46 December 2002 |

| do a site-specific analysis, and then you would assign a specific, or a significance level at that

| point.

|

| Mr. Cameron: I guess that, let me ask Jim Wilson if he has any further explanation of this,

| because I gather from Lou's question that it was not just the Category 1 issue, because I think

| that is understandable.

|

| There is a reference, though, to Category 2, and no specific finding be attached. And --

|

| Ms. Harty: Well, I don't see that it referenced the Category 2, and maybe that is in the abstract.

|

| Mr. Cameron: Because I think that is the heart of Lou's point. Let's go to Barry and see. This is

| Barry Zalcman, NRC staff. 

|

| Mr. Zalcman: Let me try and put this in perspective. When Becky laid out the Commission's

| structure for determining Category 1 issues, we established certain criteria that may be common

| for all plants, that may be common for plants of a specific design, or that have certain attributes.

|

| It turns out for the cases that you are identifying the conditions are as discretion determined,

| even though it may not be the same at all plants, it was still going to categorize it as a Category

| 1 issue. 

|

| I think that is the complexity that you are struggling with right now, we are trying to eliminate that

| in the executive summary. And if you go into Chapter 6 I think you probably are going to have

| the best representation where we bring together the findings within the guidance, or we actually

| talk to the issues where the condition, even though it didn't meet the initial criteria for Category 1

| determination, elected to make it a Category 1 for that issue. 

|

| Mr. Cameron: Let me just, at a minimum, suggest that the NRC take that as a comment on this

| draft EIS to, at minimum, make it clear exactly what is going on so that the reader can

| understand it, okay?

|

| Ms. Harty: Sounds good.

|

| Mr. Cameron: All right. Other questions before we go to the severe accident aspect of it? Yes,

| sir.

|

| Mr. Anderson: My name is Bob Anderson. I just have a question concerning the definitions of

| small, moderate and large. As far as your take on if the effect is to be large, is it your -- are you

| wanting to make a change so that it goes down to the small level? 

|

B-1
Appendix A

December 2002 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Ms. Harty: I guess the best way of saying that is if it is large, you look at possibilities for |

mitigation. And in the case that we were in (license renewal), we only had small impacts. |

|

So we didn't find any areas where we needed to suggest any mitigation. |

|

Mr. Anderson: Because that goes to your last slide, but on alternatives it said that some of the |

alternatives also include no-action. And some of the no-action are currently in the moderate or |

large significance. |

|

And if they are currently in the large then are you taking a look at those issues? |

|

Ms. Harty: That is a very good question. Let me actually run down the -- I have a nice list here. |

|

In Chapter 9, actually there is a table in 9-1 where we look at the proposed action versus the no- |

action alternative, and then there are four other alternatives, coal fired generation, natural gas |

fired, new nuclear, and then a combination of alternatives. |

|

And to give you something specific we said, okay, for example if we -- if they decided not to |

renew the license at McGuire, but they needed to replace the energy anyway, and they decided |

let's put in a coal fired generation plant; when you get to issues such as land use, the land mass |

that is there for McGuire, they would end up having to take out some trees, maybe buy some |

additional land, or something like that. |

|

And, actually, the footprint of the plant will be larger than what it is now. So that is going to |

impact the land use, it is going to impact the ecology, and those impacts would be moderate or |

large. |

|

And at that time, if they did come in and say, we are going to use a coal fired plant instead of a |

nuclear power plant, the same EIS process would start all over. |

|

Pardon? Oh, you are right, that wouldn't be a federal action. |

|

Mr. Wilson: We looked at the -- we laid out the alternatives and we found significance levels |

that, for some issues, reached moderate or large impact. We didn't look at mitigation to reduce |

the impacts of the alternatives. We looked at the impacts of McGuire operation, which were |

found to be small for all issues, and no mitigation is required. |

|

We didn't go through the same process for each of the alternatives to the McGuire continuing- |

operation option. Is that clear? |

|

We look at mitigation for the proposed action. We don't look at mitigation for alternatives. We |

look at mitigation if it happened as an operating impact at McGuire. |

B-1

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-48 December 2002 |

|

| Mr. Anderson: There again maybe I'm reading this wrong. But when it says including no- action

| alternatives, no-action to me means that it stays the same.

|

| Ms. Harty: No-action means that they don't renew the licenses, and that the plant has been

| decommissioned.

|

| Mr. Cameron: So that is the key, I guess, is how you define a no-action alternative?

|

| Ms. Harty: And for that, for the no-action alternative, I will just tell you that on the impacts that

| were small or moderate on socioeconomics, because the plant is no longer going to be here,

| and the influence of the economics of the area, on an environmental justice.

|

| [Presentation by Mr. Palla]

|

| [Presentation by Mr. Wilson]

|

| Mr. Cameron: So it all gets married up, okay.

|

| We did, I think we have a clarification, or an answer for Lou Zeller's question from before. I'm

| going to ask Barry to help us with that. 

|

| Mr. Zalcman: Thanks, Chip. Again, this is Barry Zalcman, with the Staff. 

|

| I just wanted to add, for the record, so that others that may have heard the question raised by

| Mr. Zeller have some frame of reference, so that they can draw a conclusion regarding this. 

|

| In no way it diminishes our obligation to make sure that our environmental impact statement is

| written in plain and clear language, so we are taking back that issue. 

|

| But I would refer the readers to the generic environmental impact statement, which is a base

| document, on which site-specific supplements are created.

|

| The base document provided the basis for the license renewal rule that was made part of

| Part 51 in 1996, the generic environmental impact statement is a support document to that. 

|

| If I could refer users of the GEIS to Section 6.2.4, which deals with conclusions associated with

| uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management issues. The radiological, and I am going to

| read this from the document, “radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the

| uranium fuel cycle have been reviewed.”

|

B-1

cont
Appendix A

December 2002 A-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Later in that section it goes on with: “The doses are very small fractions of regulatory units, and |

even small fractions of natural background exposure to the same population. Thus standards |

exist that can be used to reach a conclusion as to the significance of the magnitude of the |

collective radiological effects. |

|

“Nevertheless, a judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implication of this issue should be made, |

and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case. |

|

“The Commission concludes that these impacts were acceptable, and that these impacts would |

not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion for any plant. that the option of |

extended operations under 10CFR54 should be eliminated. |

|

“Accordingly, while the Commission has allowed a site a single level of significance for collective |

effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.” That is as far as I'm going to read |

into the record. |

|

More importantly, the issue that you had raised deals with categorization, meaning is it a |

Category 1 or Category 2, non-significance, the Staff has, in fact, considered the significance. |

Thank you. |

|

Mr. Cameron: Thanks, Barry. And can you make sure that Lou has those specific page |

citations so that, and context on -- |

|

All right, thank you all very much for listening. And now we want to listen to you. And I'm going |

to ask Jack Peel, who is the manager of engineering at the McGuire station 2 for Duke Energy |

Corporation, to talk to us about Duke's vision and rationale in proceeding with the license |

renewal application. Jack? |

|

Mr. Peel: Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron. My name is Jack Peel, and I'm manager of |

engineering at the McGuire site. |

|

On behalf of Duke Power I would like to express public thanks and admiration for our |

employees. And I'm referring to the employees not only located at McGuire site, but also |

elsewhere in our company, for their excellent efforts, over the years, to make McGuire |

successful for an operating period of 21 years to date. |

|

And I would be remiss in not also recognizing our license renewal project team, some of those |

members are here listening today. I appreciate the work they have done to create our |

application, and to squire it along in the review cycle. |

|

I assure you that we strongly believe that the McGuire plant is a worthy candidate for license |

renewal. |

C-1
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-50 December 2002 |

| I want to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for having developed a process which is

| thorough and effective. That process has been described by at least two of the speakers before

| me.

|

| After reviewing, really just a cursory review of the draft supplemental environmental impact

| statement would reveal the thoroughness of the work that the NRC and the National Labs have

| done.

|

| After reviewing the draft statement, and I'm referring specifically to Supplement 8, Duke Power

| agrees with the conclusions of that draft. Now, we intend to do more detailed technical reviews

| in the weeks ahead, and we will fulfill, if we have any comments, we will provide them in writing,

| and fulfill the schedule date that Mr. Cameron mentioned, which is August 2nd of this year.

|

| Most importantly I want to express thanks to our neighbors here in the local community who

| have been so supportive of our operations over the years. We, at McGuire, have made a

| sincere effort to be a good neighbor.

|

| We take public safety very seriously. Public health and safety is our number one priority, and

| that is our unwavering commitment. 

|

| So we are glad to have the opportunity to go through this license renewal process; we are proud

| of our employees, proud of our plant, and proud of our operating history, and I thank you for your

| attention.

|

| Mr. Cameron: Thank you very much, Jack. Now we will go to Lou Zeller of the Blue Ridge

| Environmental Defense League, and then we will go to Mr. Robert Mahood.

|

| Mr. Zeller: Thank you. My name is Lou Zeller, I'm on the staff of the Blue Ridge Environmental

| Defense League.

|

| I have just two brief overviews that I would like to present here today, with regards to this license

| renewal. 

|

| One has to do with the provision of potassium iodide to residents living within the ten mile

| exclusion zone. It is noted here, in the draft report for comment, Supplement 8, that Duke

| completed a comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate the potential cost benefit plans

| enhancements to reduce the risk associated with severe accidents at McGuire.

|

| As a result, Duke concluded no additional mitigation alternatives are cost-beneficial. Among

| these analysis are averted public exposure costs.

|

C-2

C-3

A-3
Appendix A

December 2002 A-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Recently there has been a lot of concern about off-site exposures from accidents. And, of |

course, the provision of such tablets as these here, the potassium iodide tablets to the public. |

|

Of course these are available, actually the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stockpiled |

several million doses of these, and an 800,000 appropriation, which I think would make the cost |

of this virtually zero. |

|

The radioactive iodine-131 isotope contributes a major constituent in nuclear plant accidents. |

We could look back to Chernobyl, for example, 150 miles from the site iodine-131 was detected. |

|

In that case, the Food and Drug Administration decades ago, and continues to say that it is a |

safe and effective method. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Paul Zann saying that provision of |

iodine prevents 99 percent of the damage to the thyroid. |

|

In recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission publications it does talk about a rule regarding |

potassium iodide in emergency planning. This is from May the 13th of this year. |

|

That licensees have the obligation to confirm that off-site authorities have considered the use of |

potassium iodide as supplemental protective action for the general public. |

|

It also makes a supplemental point here, and I'm reading from the NRC, it will also require the |

licensees to use this information in developing protective action recommendations for off-site |

agencies. |

|

I have two questions for the record. One, has Duke Energy fulfilled the Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission requirement with regard to off-site authorities? |

|

And, two, how has Duke used this information in protective action recommendations? I see |

nothing to that effect in the document before us today. |

|

The other issue has to do with the one that I raised during the presentations, and it has to do |

with high level waste. On advice of the staff I did go back to reread Chapter 6 here about single |

significance levels, which are not assigned to high level waste. |

|

Within Chapter 6 it merely, I think, begs the question, because there is no analysis, and only a |

recapitulation of the regulatory limits. And I think Barry Zalcman read something read something |

from the generic environmental impact statement which essentially says the very same thing. |

|

In that the Commission, and this is again from Page 6-5 in supplement, in Supplement 8 to the |

draft of today, it says: The Commission concludes these impacts are acceptable, and that the |

impacts would not be sufficiently large. |

|

A-3

cont

A-4

A-4

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-52 December 2002 |

| I would submit that the lack of a single significance level at this point, and this is a lone

| exception, so far as I can tell, every other impact in this document is considered small.

|

| The impacts here are not small, they are not moderate, they are large. And there seems to be a

| reluctance to say large impacts in this case, particularly in the case before us, which is license

| renewal extension.

|

| The high level waste would increase, the impacts would increase for an additional 20 years. I

| think that before this process can move forward there must be a better analysis of the impacts

| from high level waste.

|

| It is not reassuring to me that the staff does not consider a change in its position necessary with

| regards to high level waste disposal, and consideration of the Category 1 issue. 

|

| I wonder what it would take, considering that the document here mentions the possibility of

| 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide, for a 100,000 metric ton repository. 

|

| Thank you very much.

|

| Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Lou. Let's go to Mr. Mahood. And I hope I've pronounced your name

| correctly.

|

| Mr. Mahood: You certainly have. It is a rare pleasure, thank you. 

|

| The whole strange thing about this process is that you are still completely bound by regulations,

| the original regulations from about 1954, I suppose with some revisions.

|

| And you talk about there being no new information, no new information, and for the most part I

| think that is perfectly true within the sort of frame of reference.

|

| But what I would submit to you is that while there may be no new information, there are a couple

| of new circumstances that I don't think can be ignored when the time comes to consider whether

| to go on with the nuclear industry. 

|

| One of these, which is specific to McGuire, and also to Catawba plant, is that we have had an

| enormous population explosion here, and it is not stopping, it is continuing to go on. Whereas

| we have not had anything like an enormous improvement in the evacuation routes.

|

| And hardly anyone in this region believes that they could actually get out. And FEMA doesn't

| seem, which is the agency that is most responsible, or supposed to be responsible for this,

| seems to be thinking entirely in pre-9/11 terms.

|

D-1

D-2
Appendix A

December 2002 A-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Because when you have a meltdown, if you start with a problem with the plant, and then you try |

to correct it, and then you find you are not succeeding, and so you send out the first warning, |

and then you are still not succeeding, and you send out a secondary, tertiary, quaternary |

warnings, and so on, you've got hours, and hours, and hours of this to start evacuating some |

things first, and all that. |

|

But if a plane is driven into your spent fuel deposits, whether they are in dry casks, or in pools of |

water, they are outside the containment domes. |

|

So all the things that you've been saying about how strong the domes are, and how -- what great |

safeguards you have against operational failures, become completely irrelevant in the case of an |

attack by even a fairly small plane, a moderately small plane on the spent fuel containment. |

|

And it seems to me that that would have, if that happened, it would have something of an |

environmental impact, in that there is about 20 or 30 times as much fissionable material outside |

of your highly fortified domes, as there is inside of them. |

|

I also note, just to back up what I said about evacuation, that Mr. Wayne Broome, I believe the |

name is, who is the local official that would do the evacuating, or take charge of evacuation here, |

talks entirely in pre-9/11 terms. |

|

He says, well, we figure we can get everybody out in under six hours, provided that first we had |

cleared the lakes, we had cleared the schools, and we cleared all the businesses. |

|

Well, that is kind of sort of a leisurely scenario that you have in a meltdown, but you don't have |

that in an instant attack on a plant, on the spent fuel depositories. |

|

I called the Charlotte Mecklenburg schools, and I found that they thought it would take them |

about an hour, or an hour and a half to evacuate. When I pinned them down I found out, |

because this is sort of unbelievable, to get everybody in the region out of the schools in an hour |

and a half, or something like that, when it takes buses many, many hours on the roads to get the |

kids to and from school every day, in three shifts. |

|

And he said, yes, but we only need to evacuate a ten mile radius. Well, you know, that would be |

totally inadequate in such an accident. Well, not accident, but such an attack. |

|

He also said that the private schools, of which there are many around here, were not included in |

the plans, they all have plans of their own. I called one of the private schools, got the secretary, |

and asked what their plan was. |

|

D-3

D-3

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-54 December 2002 |

| And she said, their safety man wasn't there, so I would have to wait for him to get back. And I

| said, well, what if the attack happened right now and your safety man isn't here? You must have

| the plan, it must be there. 

|

| And so she looked for it, and she couldn't find it. She said it was in her drawer, but she couldn't

| find it. The principal wasn't there, either. And then she got mad and pretty much hung up on

| me.

|

| So you can see that this region is just not prepared for an eventuality like that. And the change

| in circumstances as to the population density, this is going to keep on changing.

|

| So here this renewal comes up 20 years from now. What do you think it is going to look like

| around these plants 20 years from now? 

|

| It seems to me that it would be the responsible thing to do, to make some recommendations to

| the communities around here, to the governments around here, to put a moratorium on any

| further building in your evacuation zone, until the roads can be improved to the point where a

| quick evacuation is possible. 

|

| And it seems to me that somebody needs to take this responsibility, whether it is Duke Power,

| whether it is the NRC, or whether it is FEMA, somebody needs to be advising local

| governments that they can't go on just packing people around these plants indefinitely, if you

| want to go on operating for another 40 years.

|

| Thank you. 

|

| Mr. Cameron: Thank you very much for that information and those recommendations, Mr.

| Mahood.

|

| And I think that is all that we have in terms of formal comments for this afternoon session. We

| will be back tonight for a 7 o'clock meeting, and a 6 o'clock open house.

|

| And, for your information, we are going to be doing a similar set of meetings on the Catawba

| Nuclear Power Plant on June 27th at the Rock Hill, South Carolina City Hall.

|

| And thank you all for being here, and send us your written comments if you so desire. There are

| copies of this document out on the desk, and we are adjourned. Thank you. 

|

| (Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m. the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

|

D-4
Appendix A

December 2002 A-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Transcript of the Evening Public Meeting on June 12, 2002, in Huntersville, North Carolina |

|

[Introduction, Mr. Cameron] |

[Presentation by Mr. Tappert] |

[Presentation by Ms. Franovich] |

[Presentation by Mr. Wilson] |

[Presentation by Ms. Harty] |

|

Mr. Collins: My name is John Collins, I'm from the local paper here. I wanted to ask you why |

you skipped any presentation about the transmission lines, the Section 1.5? |

|

Ms. Harty: Well, I was just trying to hit some of the highlights. We have, in the past, done the |

full thing, and it takes quite a while. |

|

But let me, did you have specific questions on that? |

|

Mr. Collins: I do, yes. It has come up recently in Huntersville Board considerations because of |

an extension, a thoroughfare. Talking with a curator at the NC State University, I understand |

that the sunflowers are very a man-friendly plant that likes to seed environments. |

|

And it does very well in and around transmission lines, because of all the upheaval in the soils. I |

also understand that most energy utility companies are using herbicides now along their |

transmission lines to keep back growth, rather than cut it. |

|

How does that affect any possibility for the growth of Schweinitz’s sunflower? |

|

Ms. Harty: For this site the line is a very short transmission line area. It just goes across the |

road to the 525 and 230 KV switchyards. So in this case, for this plant, we were able to actually |

look at what was there. I mean, it was very easy to do, we are not talking hundreds of miles of |

right-of-way that we had to look at. |

|

So that was examined in depth. Now, these transmission lines do hook up to other lines that |

were, in one case we covered a lot of those lines for the Oconee plant. |

|

I'm not sure that is getting exactly at the answer to your question. |

|

Mr. Collins: Is there anybody else from the -- |

|

Ms. Harty: Actually, maybe Charlie, do you want to handle that one? |

|

Mr. Cameron: Charlie, do you have the -- |

|

E-1

E-1

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-56 December 2002 |

| Ms. Harty: This is Charlie Brandt, he is our terrestrial ecologist. So he was actually out there on

| the team, looking for sunflowers.

|

| Mr. Brandt: Well, it kind of depends on the different levels of the question that you want

| answered.

|

| First off, just for this plant what Becky said is correct, that the only aspect of the transmission

| line that is involved in this proposed action is that chunk between the plant itself and the

| switchyard. It is real short, and Chic Gaddy did a walk-through survey on that area, and did not

| identify any of those sunflowers, or any of the other sensitive plants in that zone.

|

| You are correct that Schweinitz’s sunflower does seem to favor, or at least maybe that is where

| people look for it, it seems to favor transmission lines.

|

| And I can't speak in general for the transmission line maintenance practices throughout the

| Duke Power system. But, generally, the us of herbicide is going more and more into restricted

| use, rather than broadcast use.

|

| So, in other words, it is focused right on specific plants that are targeted, the trees that are going

| to grow too tall, rather than a broadcast herbicide.

|

| That is another reason why a lot of these plants are found in right of ways, because of the

| maintenance program. 

|

| [Presentation by Mr. Palla]

|

| Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Bob. Any questions on the severe accident portion? Mr. Mahood,

| here you are.

|

| Mr. Mahood: Thank you. In reading the bits about cost benefits, which are dispersed

| throughout the paper that I received, the document here, I was a little bit puzzled by the

| definition of benefit. 

|

| Reading over it, it seemed that if you want to be totally cynical about it, benefit would be the

| protection of the public's health and safety, whereas the cost would be what it would cost Duke if

| the balance to the public health and safety exceeded a certain point.

|

| And since Duke is ensured by the Price-Anderson Act, and has a cap on its liabilities, that

| definitely lowers Duke's cost a great deal, although the impact on the public health and safety

| might be considerable.

|

F-1
Appendix A

December 2002 A-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

And so that if you look at it as sort of a suspicious way, which is the way I think that the informed |

public should look at just about everything, it seems to be saying that as long as the damages |

that the power company would have to pay don't exceed the cost of preventing any damage to |

the public, then it is better to avoid, well, it is better for the bottom line, simply not to spend the |

extra money to protect the public. |

|

That is one impression one could gain from this, and correct me if I'm wrong. |

|

Mr. Palla: Well, let me try to clarify that. To begin with the methodology is a well-developed and |

-reviewed methodology, and it has been in use for many years. |

|

Now, I can understand being skeptical about what assumptions go into this. My understanding |

of it is that insurance, even though Duke has insurance against accidents, do not come into play |

in this analysis. |

|

So they do not get credit for insurance. The cost of an accident is treated as a societal cost, that |

society has to pay. Even if they were insured, someone has to pay that. That is the concept |

there. |

|

So insurance is not a factor. And, similarly, damage to the public, the health effects, these are |

all, if you can avert them, these are all benefits. |

|

So if you can keep the plant online you actually don't need replacement power, so replacement |

power comes into play. That would be, you can avert an accident. That is another thing in your |

favor. |

|

But the insurance doesn't get any weight in this analysis, it can't be used as far as doing this |

analysis. |

|

Mr. Mahood: I'm sorry, but we are in kind of -- |

|

Mr. Cameron: Let's get you in the transcript, Mr. Mahood. |

|

Mr. Mahood: I'm sorry, but we seem to be in a little bit of a semantic muddle here, because I'm |

speaking of the cost, I thought that in the document cost referred to the cost to the nuclear |

industry to do what is necessary to protect the public. |

|

And the benefit is the protection of the public, and you are speaking of the cost to the public, so |

we are getting a little -- |

|

Mr. Palla: Well, let me try to -- |

|

F-2
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-58 December 2002 |

| Mr. Mahood: -- muddled here, because I'm talking about the cost of protecting the public, the

| cost of --

|

| Mr. Palla: The cost in this analysis is the cost to implement the fix, the improvement. The

| benefit is all of these risk elements that you can avert.

|

| So we are weighing the cost to implement this thing against the savings you get by not exposing

| the public to risk, by not losing the plant, and having to have replacement power. All of these

| outside costs related to cleaning up, there are off-site costs related to property damage.

|

| These all, I know it may be confusing, but all of these costs get counted, you add them up and

| you compare them to the cost of implementing this thing. 

|

| So all of these different things that you avert are all collected on the same side of the equation,

| and then summed up and compared to the cost of the enhancement.

|

| Mr. Cameron: So when we use the term cost benefit either specifically in the SAMA evaluation,

| or cost benefit generally in the environmental impact statement context, it may have a very

| specific and narrower meaning than some of the broader costs and benefits that Mr. Mahood is

| referring to?

|

| Mr. Palla: Yes. Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that we basically add up these other

| costs, and then we label them as benefits. But we compare the cost of the fix to make this

| improvement, and then here are all these other averted costs which we count as a benefit of

| putting the fix in.

|

| And we basically look at that balance between the cost of making the improvement versus all of

| the benefits that you would reap from reducing the risk.

|

| Mr. Cameron: Does anybody else from -- thank you, Bob, for that. I think that helps. I just

| wondered if anybody else from the NRC team wanted to talk to how the term cost benefit is used

| in the environmental impact statement process?

|

| (No response.)

|

| Mr. Cameron: I would just say that after we are done tonight perhaps we could talk a little bit

| more with Mr. Mahood, in person, about that. 

|

| Are there any other questions on this particular aspect? Yes, sir?

|

| Mr. Knox: Good evening, my name is Gary Knox, I'm a resident of Cornelius, and have been

| fortunate enough to be part of this community for a long, long time.
Appendix A

December 2002 A-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

|

Looking at the application, the CFR Part 54, or Section 10, whatever, the renewal application |

process began prior to September 11th. Is there a supplement to this report as it relates to new |

findings, new information? |

|

I see in here request for additional information subsequent to September 11th. And that would |

be my question. |

|

Mr. Palla: I am probably not the best person to answer this. I think it goes to the scope of what |

is included in this, but I don't know if -- |

|

Mr. Cameron: Let me just see if we can get a little bit of clarification. Are you specifically |

concerned about security terrorism considerations? |

|

Mr. Knox: I would not ever dramatize that element, as much as I would if you look at the |

conclusion, and read it verbatim, it says that additional plant improvements to further mitigate |

severe accidents are not required at McGuire units, etcetera, as part of the license renewal |

pursuant to. |

|

I'm assuming those guidelines were written prior to September 11th, the application process |

started since then, I think we live in a new world. My question is, is this conclusion, or its draft, |

been amended or changed since that day? |

|

Mr. Palla: It has not been. This conclusion is based on existing regulations. And these other |

security concerns are being addressed in a separate action, and haven't been brought back into |

this process. |

|

Mr. Knox: There are additional findings, and the request for additional information will not be, |

I'm assuming that supplement, whenever it is going to appear, would be available to the public, |

as part of the application? |

|

Mr. Cameron: This is Rani Franovich. |

|

Ms. Franovich: Let me try to address your question. You are concerned about the implications |

of the events of September 11th. And what the Staff is looking at is the same concern you have, |

which is really a current issue, it is not unique to the extended operation. |

|

So the Staff is evaluating actions that need to be taken by the industry to address those |

concerns right now. So this is not a license renewal issue, it is a current issue that we are |

addressing via a separate process, under 10CFR Part 50. |

|

G-1

G-1

cont

G-1

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-60 December 2002 |

| Mr. Cameron: So, in other words, like any plant, whether they are under license renewal or not,

| is going to have to meet whatever comes out of the new evaluation? 

|

| Ms. Franovich: Precisely.

|

| Mr. Knox: I think you did answer my question, the events of September 11th are not part of the

| renewal license application? 

|

| Ms. Franovich: Correct. And as Jim indicated, the concern you have applies to all nuclear

| power plants, regardless of whether they are pursuing renewal, or not. So that is why we are

| pursuing it now.

|

| Mr. Knox: I understand. I may not be satisfied with the answer, but I understand. 

|

| Ms. Franovich: I think we are still trying to get our arms around the answer.

|

| Mr. Knox: I understand. 

|

| Mr. Cameron: And, again, that may be one of those issues that perhaps we could talk to this

| gentleman after the meeting. 

|

| But, John, do you want to add anything? 

|

| Mr. Tappert: Yes, just a couple of things. I don't want you to have the impression that the

| absence of us addressing this as part of license renewal process means we are not looking at

| safeguard issues in general.

|

| The Commission, and the whole federal government, has been mobilized since September 11th

| to address homeland security issues, and the Commission has done a number of things to

| address that issue.

|

| We've created a whole new organization in our agency just to look at safeguards issues. The

| Commission has ordered a top-to-bottom review, a complete look at all the safety requirements. 

|

| And while we are performing that assessment we've also issued orders to each and every power

| plant, including McGuire, to implement interim compensatory measures to address security

| concerns.

|

| So the fact that it is not a license renewal issue means that we don't want to wait 20 years to

| address it. It doesn't mean that the Commission doesn't take these issues seriously, and has

| taken serious steps to take them on.

|

G-1

cont

G-2
Appendix A

December 2002 A-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Mr. Knox: My question is, I would like to separate -- the security issues I believe, are separate |

and prudent from relative to whether or not improvements for security and severe accident |

mitigation need to be addressed. |

|

Apparently you are saying that because we have the current regulations they don't need to be |

addressed? Security needs to be addressed, but I think it would be my opinion that we should |

be leery as opposed to -- |

|

Ms. Franovich: I think what the answer to your question is, is that severe accidents, within the |

context of license renewal, do not involve terrorist threats. |

|

However, there are, of course, those implications outside of license renewal. That as John |

Tappert indicated, the Staff, the Commission, and the federal government, is in the process of |

addressing this. Does that answer your question? |

|

Mr. Knox: It does. |

|

Mr. Cameron: Thank you. |

|

Mr. Knox: Thank you very much. |

|

[Presentation by Mr. Wilson] |

|

Mr. Mahood: Sorry, but I do have one. Suppose the week after next, or the month after next, |

the new National Security Agency, or whatever they call themselves, were to impose new NRC |

regulations taking post-9/11 into account. |

|

Would this process go on just as before, or on the same schedule, or would the whole thing sort |

of start over again? |

|

Mr. Cameron: John, do you want to try that? |

|

Mr. Tappert: Yes. If the Commission may very well issue additional regulations addressing |

security issues in response to the 9/11 attacks, those will be taken on a plant by plant basis, for |

all 103 operating reactors, irrespective of which ones are at license renewal, or not. |

|

So the short answer is that this process will continue as it is, because this is addressing an |

extension issue, and an additional 20 years. The safeguards issues are today issues, and will |

be addressed today by all the operating reactors. |

|

F-3
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-62 December 2002 |

| Mr. Cameron: I think it is probably hard to speculate on what exactly the result would be. I

| suppose it is conceivable that new regulations would say, well, let's take a look back, a careful

| look at license renewal, or something like that. 

|

| I mean, it is hard to say what would happen. But thank you, John.

|

| Okay. Let's go to you for some more formal comment at this point. And we are going to hear

| first from Duke Energy Corporation, hear about the rationale for license renewal process, some

| of the vision behind that, and we are going to ask Mr. Brew Barron, who is the site vice president

| for the McGuire station, to come up and say a few words to us.

|

| Mr. Barron: Thank you, Chip, thank you for the opportunity. I just have a few short remarks, if I

| may.

|

| I really want to start off by giving some recognition to the hard working employees at McGuire,

| and throughout Duke Energy, that do work at McGuire. Over the past 21 years, it is their hard

| work, dedication, and contributions, that have made McGuire the safe, reliable, and world-class

| operating nuclear power plant that it is today.

|

| They are the folks that have done the hard work, that have achieved the great results, and really

| deserve all the credit. I would also like to thank the NRC, the Agency has defined and codified,

| and implemented a license renewal process which is both thorough and predictable.

|

| Reading through the results of the draft environmental impact statement, the thoroughness, the

| completeness with which the Staff and the contractors have performed their work is very

| apparent.

|

| But, just as importantly, they've completed that work on or ahead of their initial estimated

| schedule on that. And from a business standpoint, our ability to make timely and informed

| business decisions, that is also very important to us.

|

| And the Agency, both the Commission themselves, and the Staff, are to be commended on their

| very good work in that area. 

|

| We are still reviewing the draft EIS. Initially it looks like we very much agree with the

| conclusions that have been reached. We do have our technical experts continuing to go through

| the report.

|

| And any comments that we have we will provide in writing, and we will provide them on or before

| the requested date of August 2nd.

|

H-1

H-2
Appendix A

December 2002 A-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

I guess the last group I would like to address is our neighbors, the community. We appreciate |

the support that we've gotten at the facility over the past 21 years of operation. |

|

Being a good neighbor is very important to us at McGuire. The actions that we take to ensure |

that the plant is operated safely, that it is a reliable source of economical power to our customers |

is extremely important to us, and every decision we make, day in and day out, takes into account |

whatever we can do to minimize the environmental impact, any impact that we would have on |

the safety of the community around us. |

|

I thank the community for their support, and again thanks for the opportunity to get up and |

speak. |

|

Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Brew. Next I'm going to ask Mr. Robert Mahood to come up. Mr. |

Mahood, would you like to say a few words to us? |

|

Mr. Mahood: Thank you. I feel that both the people at Duke Power, and the people that work at |

NRC are in a very difficult position right now, because they are still having to deal with all these |

questions on the pre-9/11 regulations. |

|

And although your document says repeatedly there is no new information about most of the |

issues here, about safety, and these are mostly about the operational requirements, and that |

sort of thing, I do feel that there are now new circumstances. |

|

One of the new circumstances is the enormous population explosion that is taking place around |

here, and which is ongoing. So that instead of a few thousand people around the plant, living |

around the plant when the plant was first licensed, we now have hundreds of thousands of |

people living around both the McGuire and Catawba plants. |

|

And the evacuation possibilities have increased enormously because there has been much |

improvement in the roads around here. And I expect that some of our visitors from Washington |

may have been caught in a traffic jam or two between this afternoon's meeting and this |

evening's, so you know what I'm talking about. |

|

If I were an Al Qaeda operative I would make sure that there were a couple of accidents on I77, |

just to ensure that nobody got away expeditiously. |

|

The thinking of local branch of FEMA, which is the Mecklenburg emergency management office, |

is clearly, I have quotations on this from Mr. Broome, who is in charge of the office, via the |

television, that they are thinking in pre-9/11 terms. |

|

F-4
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 A-64 December 2002 |

| He says that, yes, we could probably evacuate everybody in less than six hours, assuming that

| we already cleared the lakes, we've already cleared the schools, we've already cleared all the

| business offices.

|

| Well, now you are talking about a long time. After hearing that I called the Charlotte

| Mecklenburg schools, and asked them how long, they gave me their safety officer, and he said,

| it would take about an hour and a half, an hour to an hour and a half to get all the kids

| evacuated.

|

| I couldn't understand that, because it takes hours, and hours, and hours, to get the kids to

| school, in three different shifts on the buses, plus parents driving them, and so on.

|

| And it turned out, well, he was only thinking in terms of evacuating a ten-mile radius. Well, if a

| plane is driven into the spent fuel containment areas, there isn't going to be hours and hours to

| evacuate. We are going to have to get out immediately, the sooner the better, five minutes

| would be ideal.

|

| But I think that communities need to start passing ordinances that say you can't build any more

| houses, and bring any more people into harm's way, if you can't get out in at least two hours

| from the evacuation zone, whether it be a ten-mile radius, or a 25-mile radius, or 50-mile radius.

|

| That is something that we haven't heard about, really. If a plane crashed into the spent fuel

| pools and casks which contain 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 times as much radioactive material as is

| actually contained inside these domes, which are highly touted for being so well fortified.

|

| The other point I would like to make is that it may well not be any funny looking guy with a beard,

| and a big nose, and a strange name like Kai Al Hicby, or something like that, who does the job.

|

| There have already been precedents. An Egyptian pilot probably deliberately drove a plane full

| of passengers into the ocean. A Chinese pilot probably deliberately drove his plane into the

| ground with all passengers on board. 

|

| There are 800 people, about five, who are seriously disturbed. And some of them can be airline

| pilots, or Air Force pilots, Coast Guard pilots, and so on. So the person who actually does this

| thing may well be American, is not suspected by anybody, with an ordinary name like John

| Wayne.

|

| And everyone will say, afterwards, he seemed like such a nice, straight-forward, reliable guy,

| with a good work record, and everything. 

|

F-5

F-6

F-7
Appendix A

December 2002 A-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

We need to be prepared against that type of thing. And I would like to see some visible |

preparation. I would like to see them starting to lay down very thick concrete above all of the |

spent fuel depositories, as soon as possible. |

|

I would also like to see something visible in the way of protection of the nuclear plants, such as |

the balloons that we used in World War II to protect London against the Nazi planes, only these |

will have to be anchored at 9,000 feet, and 5,000, and 12,000, they only need to be anchored at |

maybe 500 feet or less, 300 feet, maybe. |

|

So it shouldn't be expensive at all, and it would be a visible sign to the public that something, |

something is being done against this threat. It would also be a sign to the crazy guy in the |

airplane, that this is not such a good target. |

|

Right now we are making this area into a better and juicier, and juicier, and juicier target, by |

selling more and more subdivisions to people, crowding them into the areas around here. |

|

And we are talking about a license renewal 20 years from now, to go on for another 20 years. |

What do you think it is going to look like around here 20 years from now, if we just go on |

building, and building, and building? |

|

And what is it going to look like 30 years from now, when there is still ten years to go? We need |

to do something visible, and tangible, to avert a tragedy in this area. Thank you very much. |

|

Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Mahood. |

|

And anybody else, comment, any questions, before we break up tonight? Again, the NRC staff |

and our experts will be here. I was glad that we had a chance, at least, for one of them to |

expound on their area of expertise. But we do have others here. |

|

I would just thank all of you for taking the time out of your evening to come down and to share |

your comments, and concerns with us. |

|

And John, do you have anything you want to add at this point? Well, then we are adjourned for |

the evening, thank you all. |

|

(Whereupon, at 8:30 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) |

F-8

F-6

cont
NUREG-1437, Supplement 

8 A-6

6 December 2002

Appendix A

Letter I, page 1 Letter I page 2

I-1

I-2

I-3

I-4
December 2002 A-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Appendix A

Letter J, page 1 Letter J, page 2
NUREG-1437, Supplement 

8 A-6

8 December 2002

Appendix A

LetterJ, page 3 Letter J, page 4

J-1

J-2
December 2002 A-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Appendix A

LetterJ, page 5 Letter J page 6

J-3

J-4
NUREG-1437, Supplement 

8 A-7

0 December 2002

Appendix A

LetterJ, page 7 Letter J page 8

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

J-11

J-12
December 2002 A-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Appendix A

LetterJ, page 9 Letter J page 10

J-13

J-14

J-15

J-16

J-17

J-18

J-19
NUREG-1437, Supplement 

8 A-7

2 December 2002

Appendix A

LetterJ, page 11 Letter J page 12

J-20

J-21

J-22

J-23

J-24

J-25

J-26

J-27
December 2002 A-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Appendix A

LetterJ, page 13 Letter K page 1

J-28

J-29

K-1

K-2

K-3
NUREG-1437, Supplement 

8 A-7

4 December 2002

Appendix A

Letter K page 2 Letter K page 3

K-3 cont

K-4

K-5

K-6
December 2002 A-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Appendix A

Letter L page 1 Letter L page 2

L-1

L-1 cont

L-2
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement
December 2002 B-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The statement was

prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other

NRC organizations and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

James Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

John Tappert Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief

Duke Wheeler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management |

Jack Cushing Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management |

Thomas Kenyon Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management

Barry Zalcman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Monitor

Gregory Suber Nuclear Reactor Regulation Environmental Engineer

Robert Schaaf Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management

Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Aquatic Ecology

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Richard Emch, Jr. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Safety

Stacey Fox Nuclear Reactor Regulation Environmental Engineer

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Rebekah Harty Task Leader, Decommissioning

Daniel K. Tano Deputy Task Leader

James V. Ramsdell, Jr. Air Quality

Gregory A. Stoetzel Radiation Protection

Charles A. Brandt Terrestrial Ecology

Susan L. Sargeant Aquatic Ecology |

Paul L. Hendrickson Land Use, Alternatives

Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology

Andrea J. Currie/Cary Counts Technical Editor |

Lisa Smith,

Colleen Warnecke, and

Debbie Schulz

Document Production

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL

LABORATORY(b)

Charles Hall Socioeconomics
Appendix B

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 B-2 December 2002 |

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL

LABORATORY(c)

W. Bruce Masse Cultural Resources

ENERGY RESEARCH

INCORPORATED

Mohsen Khatib-Rahbar Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Michael Zavisca Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

LABORATORY

Kim Green Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Jim Meyer Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial

Institute.

(b) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of

California.

(c) Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of

California.
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence |

Related to Duke Energy Corporation’s Application for License

Renewal of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 |
December 2002 C-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence |

Related to Duke Energy Corporation’s Application for License

Renewal of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 |

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the NRC and Duke

Energy Corporation (Duke) and other correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental

review, under 10 CFR Part 51, of Duke’s application for renewal of the McGuire Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2 operating licenses. All documents, with the exception of those containing

proprietary information, have been placed in the Commission’s Public Document Room, at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, and are available electronically

from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following net address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Adams/index.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the

NRC’s Agency-wide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides

text and image files of NRC’s public documents in the Publicly Available Records component of

ADAMS.

June 12, 2001 Letter from NRC to Mrs. Tia Gozzi, J. Murrey Atkins Library,

regarding Maintenance of Documents Related to License Renewal

of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 . (Accession No.

ML011640049)

June 13, 2001 Letter from Duke to NRC forwarding application to renew the

operating licenses of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No.

ML01160138)

August 15, 2001 Letter from NRC to Duke forwarding Determination of Acceptability

and Sufficiency for Docketing, Proposed Review Schedule, and

Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding an Application from Duke

Energy Corporation for Renewal of the Operating Licenses for

McGuire, Units 1 and 2 and Catawba, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No.

ML012270107)

August 16, 2001 Letter from NRC to Duke forwarding Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process For

McGuire. (Accession No. ML012280471)

August 31, 2001 Letter from NRC to Catawba Indian Nation inviting participation in

scoping process for McGuire license renewal. (Accession No.

ML012430278)
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 C-2 December 2002

August 31, 2001 Letter from NRC to Eastern Band of Cherokee inviting participation

in scoping process for McGuire license renewal.

(Accession No. ML12430126)

August 31, 2001 Letter from NRC to Metrolina Native American Association inviting

participation in scoping process for McGuire license renewal. 

(Accession No. ML012430197)

September 7, 2001 Notice of public meeting to discuss environmental scoping process

for the McGuire Units 1 and 2 license renewal application. 

(Accession No. ML012500389)

October 10, 2001 Summary of public meeting held on September 25, 2001, on

environmental scoping for McGuire Units 1 and 2 license renewal. 

(Accession No. ML012850194) 

October 15, 2001 Letter to Mark Cantrell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding

preparation for informal consultation on McGuire Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2, license renewal environmental impact statement. 

(Accession No. ML012850245)

November 1, 2001 Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor,

Asheville Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina, to NRC regarding

informal consultation on McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. 

(Accession No. ML013550331)

November 19, 2001 Request for additional information related to the staff’s review of the

severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis for license renewal

at McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

(Accession No. ML013250535)

November 19, 2001 Request for additional information related to the staff’s review of the

license renewal environmental report for McGuire Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML013300544)

December 6, 2001 Telecommunication with Duke to discuss request for additional

information (RAIs) regarding severe accident mitigation alternatives

(SAMAs) for McGuire license renewal. 

(Accession No. ML013420001)

January 17, 2002 Duke’s response to request for additional information dated

November 19, 2001, related to the staff’s review of the

environmental report for license renewal at McGuire Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML020440709)
Appendix C

December 2002 C-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

January 31, 2002 Duke’s response to request for additional information dated

November 19, 2001, related to the staff’s review of severe accident

mitigation alternatives for license renewal at McGuire Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML020450466)

March 14, 2002 Note to files: Information provided by Duke related to severe

accident mitigation alternatives in its license renewal application for

the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

(Accession No. ML020740318)

March 27, 2002 Issuance of scoping summary report associated with the staff’s |

review of the application by Duke for renewal of the operating

licenses for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

(Accession No. ML020870574) |

May 6, 2002 Letter from NRC to Duke, requesting comments on draft plant- |

specific Supplement 8 to the Generic Environmental Impact |

Statement regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. |

(Accession No. ML021280559) |

May 6, 2002 Letter from NRC to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, filing |

draft Supplement 8 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. |

(Accession No. ML021280667) |

May 7, 2002 Letter from NRC to Duke, transmitting Notice of Availability of the |

Draft Plant-Specific Supplement to the Generic Environmental |

Impact Statement regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. |

(Accession No. ML021280687) |

May 28, 2002 Notice of public meeting to discuss the draft supplemental |

environmental impact statement (DSEIS) for license renewal at |

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. |

(Accession No. ML021280687) |

June 25, 2002 Summary of meeting held in support of the environmental review for |

the McGuire Units 1 and 2 license renewal application. |

(Accession No. ML021790742) |

July 26, 2002 Letter from U.S. Department of the Interior to NRC, transmitting |

comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement |

for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 8, |

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, NC |

(NUREG-1437). (Accession No. ML022560053) |
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 C-4 December 2002

| August 2, 2002

|

|

|

|

| Letter from Duke to NRC, transmitting comments on draft plantspecific Supplement 8 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental

Impact Statement of License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,

McGuire Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370.

(Accession No. ML022210223)

| August 2, 2002

|

|

|

|

Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to NRC,

transmitting comments regarding Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 8,

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

| (Accession No. ML022270355)

| August 19, 2002

|

|

|

|

Letter from Duke to NRC, transmitting Duke’s position on the staff’s

SAMA evaluation contained in Supplement 8 to the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

| (Accession No. ML022470024)
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted
December 2002 D-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

During the course of the staff’s independent review of environmental impacts from operations

during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were

contacted:

Charlotte Area Transit System, Charlotte, North Carolina

Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, Charlotte, North Carolina

Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte, North Carolina

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, North Carolina

City of Gastonia Planning Department, Gastonia, North Carolina

Gaston County Community Development and Technology Department, Gastonia, North

Carolina

Gaston County Economic Development Commission, Gastonia, North Carolina

Gaston County Manager, Gastonia, North Carolina

Gaston County Parks and Recreation Department, Gastonia, North Carolina

Gaston County Schools, Gastonia, North Carolina

Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Gastonia, North Carolina

Lincoln County Building and Land Development, Lincolnton, North Carolina

Lincoln County Manager, Lincolnton, North Carolina

Lincoln County GIS Land Records Manager, Lincolnton, North Carolina

Lincoln County GIS Mapping Division, Lincolnton, North Carolina

Lincoln County Public Works, Lincolnton, North Carolina

Mecklenburg County Administrator, Charlotte, North Carolina

Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Charlotte, North Carolina
Appendix D

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 D-2 December 2002 |

Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation, Charlotte, North Carolina

Mecklenburg County Planning Commission, Charlotte, North Carolina

Mecklenburg County Tax Office, Charlotte, North Carolina

Mecklenburg County Utilities Department, Charlotte, North Carolina

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Gastonia, North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources/North Carolina State Historic Preservation

Office, Raleigh, North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Revenue, Raleigh, North Carolina

North Carolina Wildlife Federation, Charlotte, North Carolina

Town of Huntersville Manager, Huntersville, North Carolina

Town of Huntersville Planning Department, Huntersville, North Carolina

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina
Appendix E

McGuire Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence |
| December 2002 E-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8

Appendix E

McGuire Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence |

The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State,

regional, and local authorities for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) are listed in

Table E-1.

Following Table E-1 is a reproduction of correspondence received during the evaluation |

process of the application for renewal of the operating licenses for McGuire.
Table E-1. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Appr

 McGuire Units 1 and 2

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date 

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

McGuire Unit 1

NPF-9 06/13/81 06/12/21 Au

Un

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

McGuire Unit 2

NPF-17 03/04/83 03/03/23 Au

Un

FWS Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(16 U.S.C. 703-712)

Permit DPRD 757484 De

Re

FWS Endangered Species Act Consultation FW

Ap

North Carolina Departmentof Cultural Resources

Section 106 of theNational HistoricPreservation Act (16U.S.C. 470f)

Consultation Letter from

David Brook,Deputy StateHistoric Officerto DukePower,01/31/00

ThPrFeintandisstrincincRePlCaCudeof an likpr

| NCDENR||

Clean Water Act, Section402

NPDES stormwaterpermit

NCS000020 Pending

NCDENRapproval

Repr

NCDENR Clean Water Act, Section

402

NPDES wastewaterpermit

NC0024392 02/28/05

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 E-2 December 2002
Table E-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date 

NCDENR RCRA, Section 3010 EPA identification

number for generationand storage ofhazardous waste

NCD 108 706029

08/31/99

NCDENR RCRA Subtitle IX Underground storage

tank permits

0-031536,0-013530

Re

NCDENR RCRA Subtitle D Landfill permit 60-04 07/30/92 Pe

fiv

NCDENR North Carolina

Sedimentation PollutionControl Act

Permit for petroleumcontaminated soilremediation site

06/04/99

NCDHHS 40 CFR Part 61,

Subpart M

Asbestos nonscheduledremoval permit

NC11014 Re

Qu

Mecklenburg County FireMarshall

Building standardshazardous materialspermits

F0834994,F0834996,F0835036,F0835017,F0835012,F0835030,F0684265,F0835032

Re

Mecklenburg CountyDepartment ofEnvironmental Protection

Clean Air Act,Section 501

Air quality permit toconstruct/operate

00-019-269 02/23/00 Re

CFR = Code of Federal RegulationsEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNCDENR = North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesNCDHHS = North Carolina Department of Health and Human ServicesNPDES = National Pollution Discharge Elimination SystemNRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery ActU.S.C. = United States Code

December 2002 E-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 E-4 December 2002
Appendix E

December 2002 E-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 E-6 December 2002
Appendix E

December 2002 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 E-8 December 2002
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter,

all references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

December 2002 F-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

Table F-1 lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) and 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are not applicable to McGuire Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2 (McGuire) because of plant or site characteristics.

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to McGuire

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2

4.4.2.2

The McGuire cooling system

does not discharge to an

estuary. Lake Norman is

fresh water.

Water-use conflicts (plants with cooling

ponds or cooling towers using makeup

water from a small river with low flow)

2 4.3.2.1

4.4.2.1

This issue is related to heat

dissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING TOWER BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early

life stages

1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.

Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.

Heat shock 1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.
Appendix F

NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 F-2 December 2002 |

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and

service water, and dewatering; plants

that use >100 gpm)

2 4.8.1.1

4.8.2.1

McGuire uses < 100 gpm of

groundwater.

Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using

cooling towers withdrawing makeup

water from a small river)

2 4.8.1.3

4.4.2.1

This issue is related to heat

dissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire or are

operated on bodies of water

that are much smaller than

Lake Norman.

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney

wells)

2 4.8.1.4 McGuire does not use Ranney

wells.

Groundwater quality degradation

(Ranney wells)

1 4.8.2.2 McGuire does not use Ranney

wells.

Groundwater quality degradation

(saltwater intrusion)

1 4.8.2.1 McGuire is located on Lake

Norman, a freshwater lake.

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling

ponds in salt marshes)

1 4.8.3 This issue is related to a heat

dissipation system that is not

installed at McGuire.

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling

ponds at inland sites)

2 4.8.3 This issue is related to a heat

dissipation system that is not

installed at McGuire.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling tower impacts on crops and

ornamental vegetation

1 4.3.4 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.

Cooling tower impacts on native plants 1 4.3.5.1 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.

Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.3.5.2 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial

resources

1 4.4.4 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at McGuire.
Appendix F

December 2002 F-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 8 |

F.1 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. “Section 6.3–Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.