NUREG-1437

Supplement 9

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 9

Regarding 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: November 2002

Manuscript 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 will neither destabilize nor

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

December 2002 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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. In the GEIS (and its

Addendum 1), the staff 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

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

CFR Part 54 (Duke 2001a). This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that 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 impacts. It also includes the staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action.

Neither Duke nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any 

issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions and that apply to Catawba Units 1

and 2. The staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did not call

into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of

renewing the Catawba 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 from

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

Each of the remaining issues applicable to Catawba is addressed in this SEIS. For each |

applicable issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental effects

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 scoping process 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 Catawba are not so great that preserving the
Abstract

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 iv December 2002 |

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

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 9 |

Contents

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

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

Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent

Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . 2-9

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent 

Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

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

2.1.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 vi December 2002 |

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

2.2.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

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

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

2.2.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

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

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.2.8.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

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

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

2.2.8.5 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

2.2.8.6 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at Catawba . . . . . . . . 2-47

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50

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

3.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

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

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

4.1.1 Water-Use Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

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

December 2002 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License

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

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

4.5.1 Groundwater-Use Conflicts (makeup water) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

4.6.1 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of

Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

4.8 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

4.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

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

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

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

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

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for Catawba, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 viii December 2002 |

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 Design Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

5.2.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Design Improvements . . . . . 5-11

5.2.3.2 Staff Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.2.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Design Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

5.2.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Design Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.2.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20

5.2.6.1 Duke Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20

5.2.6.2 Staff Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

5.2.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28

5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29

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

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22
Contents

December 2002 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

8.2.2 Oil and Natural-Gas-Fired (Combined Cycle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

8.2.5 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.2.5.2 Wind Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.2.5.3 Solar Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

8.2.5.4 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-55

8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-56

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
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 x December 2002 |

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal

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

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

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

Appendix F - GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Catawba Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
December 2002 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Figures

2-1 Location of Catawba 80-km (50-mi) Region (Duke 2001a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 |

2-2 Location of Catawba 10-km (6-mi) Region (Duke 2001a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 |

2-3 Catawba Exclusion Area (Duke 2001a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 |

2-4 Catawba Transmission Lines and Rights-of-Way (Duke 2001a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 |

4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas) |

Within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba Based on Census 2000 Block Group 

Data and Individual Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded |

areas) Within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba Based on Census 1990 Block |

Group Data and Individual Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xii December 2002 |

Tables

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

2-1 Catawba Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

| 2-2 Aquatic Species Listed as Endangered or Threatened by the FWS and Species

that are Candidates for FWS Listing as Threatened or Endangered or are Considered

Species of Concern by FWS Potentially Occurring in Gaston, Mecklenburg, and

Union Counties in North Carolina, and York, Cherokee, Lancaster, and Chester 

Counties in South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2-3 Terrestrial Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, or Federal

Species of Concern by the FWS, South Carolina, or North Carolina that Occur

or Potentially Occur at Catawba or Its Associated Transmission 

Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2-4 Catawba Permanent and Contractor Employee Residency by County . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2-5 Catawba Permanent and Contractor Employee Residency 

by County and City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

2-6 Total, Occupied, and Vacant (Available) Housing Units by 

County 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

2-7 Population Growth in York County, South Carolina, and Mecklenburg and

Gaston Counties, North Carolina, 1970 to 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2-8 Major Public Water Supply Systems in York County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2-9 York County School District Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

2-10 Land Use in York County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

2-11 Population Distribution from 2000 to 2040 Within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba . . . . . 2-37

2-12 Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

2-13 Major Employment Sectors in York County, South Carolina in 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

2-14 Visitors to Lake Wylie: 1999 and Projected 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

2-15 Economic Base for York County by Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

2-16 Commuting Patterns of York County Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

2-17 Catawba Contribution to York County Property Tax Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

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 Catawba Cooling

System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

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

System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
Tables

December 2002 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

4-3 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Catawba Transmission Lines During the

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

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

the Catawba 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 . . . . . 4-21

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

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

4-8 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the 

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

4-9 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the |

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

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

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

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 Catawba Core Damage Frequency (Revision 2b of PRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 |

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

(Total dose = 0.314 person-Sv [31.4 person-rem] per year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8 |

5-5 SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs that Reduce CDF . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5-6 SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs that Improve 

Containment Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5-7 Sensitivity Results for Hydrogen Control SAMAs

(all benefits based on eliminating early failures only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

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 Catawba Following the |

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

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

8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at Catawba

and an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7 |

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

Greenfield Site with Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22
Tables

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xiv December 2002 |

8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Oil and Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

at Catawba and an Alternate Greenfield Site Using a Closed-Cycle 

Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25

8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Oil and Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

at an Alternate Site with a Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36

8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation at Catawba

and at an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

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

Alternate Greenfield Site with Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

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

and Acquisition Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-52

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

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

Other Approvals for Catawba, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2

F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Catawba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 9 |

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 Catawba

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba) 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 December 6, 2024, for

Unit 1, and February 24, 2026, 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, 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 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 Catawba site in October 2001 and held public scoping meetings

on October 23, 2001, in Rock Hill, South Carolina. The staff reviewed the Duke 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 (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 in preparation of this Supplemental Environmental Impact |

Statement (SEIS) for Catawba. 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.

A draft SEIS was published for comment in May 2002. The staff held two public meetings in |

Rock Hill, South Carolina, on June 27, 2002, to describe the results of the NRC environmental |

review and to answer questions to provide members of the public with information to assist

them in formulating their comments on the draft SEIS. All of the comments received on the |
Executive Summary

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xvi December 2002 |

| draft SEIS were considered by the staff in developing the final SEIS. These comments are

| addressed in Appendix A, Part II, of this SEIS.

| This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that 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 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
Executive Summary

December 2002 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) [“Temporary storage of spent

fuel after cessation of reactor operation–generic determination of no significant

environmental impact”] and in accordance with § 51.23(b).

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. It evaluates 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 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 analysis in the GEIS reached 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 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 not likely

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.
Executive Summary

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xviii December 2002 |

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 OLs for Catawba) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on

projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information

Administration (EIA), gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely powergeneration alternatives if the power from Catawba is replaced. These alternatives are

evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the

Catawba site or some other unspecified location.

Duke and the 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 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 nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to Catawba that has a

significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the GEIS

for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to Catawba.

Duke’s license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues 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. Six

Category 2 issues are not applicable, because they are related to plant design features or site

| characteristics not found at Catawba. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS,

because they are specifically related to refurbishment. Duke has stated that its evaluation of

structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant

refurbishment activities or modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of

Catawba 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 NRC’s 1983 Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
Executive Summary

December 2002 xix NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Eleven Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are

discussed in detail in this SEIS. Four of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply |

to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and are discussed in this SEIS |

only 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. Based on its review of the SAMAs for Catawba Units 1 and 2 and the plant

improvements already made, the staff concludes that two of the candidate SAMAs are cost |

beneficial.

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

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

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

If the current Catawba OLs are not renewed and the units cease operation on or before 

expiration of their OLs, the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not be smaller than those

associated with continued operation of Catawba. 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 Catawba 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. |
NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xx December 2002 |
December 2002 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Abbreviations/Acronyms

7Q10 the estimated 7-day minimum flow occurring on the average once in 10 years |

μCi microcurie(s)

μCi/mL microcuries per milliliter

μGy microgray(s)

μm micrometer(s)

μSv microsieverts

AADT annual average daily traffic (count)

ac acre(s)

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AOC averted offsite property damage costs

AOE averted occupational exposure

AOSC averted onsite costs

APE averted public exposure

APRC averted power replacement cost

ATWS anticipated transient without SCRAM

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

Bq becquerel(s)

Bq/ml becquerels per milliliter

BMT basemat melt-through

Btu British thermal unit(s)

C degrees Celsius

Catawba Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

CCW component cooling water

CDF core damage frequency 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CET containment event tree |

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFS cubic feet per second or ft3

/s

CHRS containment heat removal system

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

COE cost of enhancement

COPC chemicals of potential concern

CVCS chemical and volume control system

CWA Clean Water Act
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xxii December 2002 |

DG diesel generator

DBA design-basis accident

DCH direct containment heating

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DPR demonstration project reactor

DSM demand-side management

Duke Duke Energy Corporation

ECCS emergency care cooling system 

EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)

EIS environmental impact statement

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field

EOP Emergency Operating Procedure

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPZ Emergency Planning Zone

EQ equipment qualification

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESRP Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants:

Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

|

F degrees Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FES Final Environmental Statement

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

ft foot/feet

ft3 | cubic feet

ft3/yr cubic feet per year

ft3

/s cubic feet per second

F-V Fussell-Vesely (importance measures used in risk analysis)

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act of

1977)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

gal gallon

GDC general design criteria

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

NUREG-1437
Abbreviations/Acronyms

December 2002 xxiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

GI-LLI gastrointestinal tract-lower large intestine

gpm gallons per minute

GSI generic safety issue |

ha hectare(s)

HHSI high head safety injection

HLW high-level waste

hr hour(s)

Hz Hertz

in. inch(es)

IPE Individual Plant Examination |

IPEEE Individual Plant Examination for External Events |

ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation |

ISLOCA Interfacing Systems Loss of Coolant Accident |

kg kilogram(s)

km2 square kilometers |

km kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kV/m kilovolt per meter

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

lb pound

LNG liquefied natural gas

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOOP loss of offsite power

L/s liters per second

LWR light-water reactor

M million |

m meter(s)

m/s meter(s) per second

m2 square meters |

m3 cubic meters |

m3/d cubic meters per day

m3

/s cubic meter(s) per second

mA milliampere(s)

MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program |

MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xxiv December 2002 |

mi mile(s)

mGy milligray(s)

MGD million gallons per day

mL milliliter(s)

mph miles per hour

mrad millirad(s)

mrem millirem(s)

mSv millisievert(s)

MT metric ton(s) (or tonne[s])

MTU metric ton(s)-uranium

MW megawatt(s)

MWd/MTU megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

MWh megawatt hour(s)

NA not applicable

| NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources

NCI National Cancer Institute

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESC National Electric Safety Code

ng/J nanogram per joule

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NWPPC Northwest Power Planning Council

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL(s) operating license(s)

PAR passive autocatalytic recombiners

PDS(s) plant damage state(s)

| PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter

| PM10 particulate matter, 10 micrometers or less in diameter

ppt parts per thousand
Abbreviations/Acronyms

December 2002 xxv NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment

PSA Probabilistic Safety Assessment

PSD prevention of significant deterioration

PSW plant service water

PWR pressurized water reactor

PW present worth

RAB reactor auxiliary building

RAI request for additional information

RCP reactor coolant pump

RCS Reactor Coolant System

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

RWST Refueling Water Storage Tank

ry reactor year

s second(s)

SAG Severe Accident Guideline

SAMA(s) Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative(s)

SAMDA Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternative

SAMG Severe Accident Management Guideline

SAR Safety Analysis Report

SBO station blackout

SC South Carolina

SCH South Carolina Highway

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SGTR steam generator tube rupture

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

SCIAA South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxide(s)

SSS standby shutdown system

Sv sieverts |

TBq terabecquerel

UDB urban development boundary

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 xxvi December 2002 |

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

| USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UST upper storage tank

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 licenses for Catawba, 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 9 |

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. The GEIS

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

process.

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

(Catawba) in north-central South Carolina under OLs NPF-35 and NPF-52, which were issued

by the NRC. These OLs will expire in December 2024 for Unit 1 and in February 2026 for

Unit 2. On June 13, 2001, Duke submitted an application to the NRC to renew the Catawba

OLs for up to an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54 (Duke 2001a). 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 2001b) 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 Catawba license renewal application. This SEIS is a supplement to the GEIS because it

relies, in part, on the findings of the GEIS. The staff will also prepare a separate safety

evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 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 Catawba, (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 the public

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 Catawba.
Introduction

December 2002 1-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 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 |

affected population or resource, (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 applied 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 9 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 not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

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

required in this 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 two 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
Introduction

December 2002 1-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

assurance 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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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 Units 1 and 2 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

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

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 1-6 December 2002 |

valid with respect to Catawba. 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

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 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 Catawba. 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 to the environmental impacts of alternatives. 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 (NRC 2001a)

on August 15, 2001. On September 20, 2001, the staff published a Notice of Intent to prepare

| an EIS and conduct scoping. This notice was cited in the Federal Register as 66 FR 48489

(NRC 2001b). Two public scoping meetings were held on October 23, 2001, in Rock Hill,

South Carolina. Comments received during the scoping meetings were summarized in the

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report – Catawba Units 1 and 2,

| Rock Hill, South Carolina (NRC 2002a). Comments received during scoping that are applicable

| to this environmental review are presented in Part I of Appendix A.
Introduction

December 2002 1-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

The staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). 

The staff and contractors retained to assist the staff visited the Catawba site on October 22 and

23, 2001, to gather additional 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. Other documents related to Catawba also were reviewed and are referenced.

On May 21, 2002, the NRC published the Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS (67 FR 35839), |

beginning a 75-day comment period (NRC 2002b). During the comment period members of the |

public could comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff’s review. During this |

comment period, two public meetings were held near Catawba on June 27, 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 Catawba draft SEIS ended |

August 9, 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. The NRC responses to these |

comments also are provided.

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

environmental effects of the proposed renewal of the Catawba OLs , 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 Catawba, Units 1 and 2. Catawba is

located in north-central South Carolina, in northeastern York County on the shore of Lake

Wylie, approximately 29 km (18 mi) southwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, and 10 km (6 mi)

north of Rock Hill, South Carolina, the nearest town. The current OL for Unit 1 expires on

December 6, 2024, and for Unit 2 the OL expires on February 24, 2026. By letter dated

June 13, 2001, Duke submitted an application to the NRC (Duke 2001a) 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 1129 megawatts electric (MW[e]). Plant

cooling is provided by six mechanical draft cooling towers that discharge into Lake Wylie. 

Units 1 and 2 produce electricity to supply the needs of more than 619,000 homes. 
Introduction

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

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 (GEIS 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.

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 its 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 Catawba. 

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.
Introduction

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

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-35 (Unit 1)

NPF-52 (Unit 2)

December 6, 2024

(Unit 1)

February 24, 2026

(Unit 2)

Operation of

Catawba Units 1

and 2

FWS and

NMFS

Endangered

Species Act,

Section 7

Consultation NA Consultation initiated

December 2001 

Operation during

renewal term

FWS Migratory

Bird Treaty

Act

Permit DPRD 757484 Annual Depredation permit

SCDHEC Clean Water

Act,

Section 402

NPDES

wastewater

permit

SC0004278 June 30, 2005 Discharge of |

wastewater and

cooling water into

Lake Wylie

SCDHEC Clean Water

Act,

Section 402

NPDES

stormwater

permit

Permit Cert. No: |

SCR003773

January 31, 2003 Collection,

treatment, and

discharge of

stormwater

SCDHEC Clean Air Act Air emissions 

and operating

permits

2440-0070 December 31, 2005 Emissions from

diesel emergency

generators,

miscellaneous

diesel engines, and

other miscellaneous

units

SCIAA

and

SHPO

National

Historic

Preservation

Act,

Section 106

Consultation NA Consultation initiated

October 24, 2001

Impact on sites

listed or eligible for

listing in the

National Register of

Historic Places

FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

NA - Not applicable

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SCIAA - South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology

SHPO - State Historic Preservation Office (located at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History)

SCDHEC - South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Introduction

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 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 ER states that Duke is in compliance with applicable environmental

standards and requirements for Catawba. 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. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses,

Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

License Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

Clean Water Act [CWA]).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 16 USC 703-712.

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

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

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.
Introduction

December 2002 1-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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, Catawba |

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

and Conduct Scoping Process.” 66 FR 48489. September 20, 2001. |

|

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

Scoping Process: Summary Report – Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2, Rock Hill, South |

Carolina. Washington, D.C. |

|

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

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 9 to the Generic |

Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for License Renewal of Catawba Units 1 |

and 2.” 67 FR 35839. May 21, 2002. |
December 2002 2-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site

and Plant Interaction with the Environment

The Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), owned by Duke Energy Corporation

(Duke), is located in York County, South Carolina. It is situated on a peninsula that protrudes

into Lake Wylie, a man-made lake created by the Wylie Dam. Both units are the subject of this

action. Each reactor is a pressurized light-water reactor (LWR) with four steam generators

producing steam that turns turbines to generate electricity. Each unit has six mechanical draft

cooling towers for heat removal. The station and its environs are described in Section 2.1, and

its interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2.

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant

Operation During the Renewal Term

Catawba is located on 158 ha (391 ac) of Duke-owned land in rural north-central South

Carolina (Duke 2001a). Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the site location and features within

80 and 10 km (50 and 6 mi), respectively. Duke refuels each Catawba nuclear unit on an 18- to

24-month schedule. During these refueling periods, site employment increases by as many as

500 workers for temporary duty over a 30- to 40-day period. Catawba has approximately

1218 full-time workers employed by Duke and site contractors during normal plant operations. 

The plant is located approximately 29 km (18 mi) southwest of Charlotte, North Carolina. Rock

Hill, South Carolina, the nearest city, is about 10 km (6 mi) south of the site.

Lying within the Piedmont physiographic province, the Catawba site is characterized by rolling

hills and numerous small streams and rivers. The site and surrounding area vary in elevation

from 174 to 193 m (570 to 632 ft), are dominated by Iredell soils, and harbor typical piedmont |

plant communities and land cover types, predominantly pine and pine-mixed hardwoods

(Duke 2001a).

Four parks, three located in and owned by York County (Ebenezer Park, Pitcarin Cove Park,

and Wind Jammer Beach Park) and one located in and owned by Mecklenburg County

(McDowell Park), are within a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the Catawba site. Eight state parks

(Andrew Jackson State Park, Chester State Park, Croft State Park, Crowders Mountain State

Park, Kings Mountain State Park, Lake Norman State Park, Rosehill Plantation State Park, and

South Mountains State Park), Cowpens National Battlefield, Kings Mountain National Military

Park, and the Catawba Indian Reservation are located within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba

(Duke 2001a).
Plant and the Environment

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

Figure 2-1. Location of Catawba 80-km (50-mi) Region (Duke 2001a)
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Figure 2-2. Location of Catawba 10-km (6-mi) Region (Duke 2001a)
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-4 December 2002 |

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

Catawba consists of two reactor buildings, two turbine buildings, two diesel generator buildings,

six mechanical draft cooling towers, one shared service building, one auxiliary building, one

water chemistry building, and one switchyard. The cooling water intake and discharge

structures and standby nuclear service water pond are shared features (Duke 2001a).

The Catawba site lies within the Piedmont physiographic province, a northeast trending zone

from Georgia through Virginia that varies in width from about 129 to 193 km (80 to 120 mi)

| (Duke 2001a). The site is underlain by a variety of low-quartz granite known as adamellite. 

| The Piedmont physiographic province is an area of infrequent earthquakes of only moderate

| intensity (AEC 1973). The Piedmont physiographic province is bounded on the northwest by

| the Blue Ridge province and on the southeast by the Atlantic Coastal Plain province (AEC

| 1973).

2.1.2 Reactor Systems

The Catawba site is shown in Figure 2-3. Units 1 and 2 are pressurized LWRs with four reactor

coolant loops, each of which contains a steam generator that produces steam and turns

turbines to generate electricity. Each unit 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]). The nuclear steam supply system for each unit and the

Unit 2 steam generators were supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The current

Unit 1 steam generators, installed in 1996, were supplied by Babcock & Wilcox International.

The reactor containment 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, and 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. 

The Catawba reactors are licensed for fuel that is slightly enriched uranium dioxide, up to

| 5.00 percent by weight uranium-235 (although to date the highest percent used at Catawba is

4.73 percent by weight uranium-235). Catawba has several different fuel designs that are used

|
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Figure 2-3. Catawba Exclusion Area (Duke 2001a)
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-6 December 2002 |

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 approved fuel pin

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

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

Catawba uses water from Lake Wylie for cooling and process water. The average daily

withdrawal from Lake Wylie for the cooling water and other service water systems is 386 million

liters per day (L/d) (102 million gallons per day [MGD]). The average daily discharge back into

Lake Wylie from Catawba is 230 million L/d (60.7 MGD). The consumptive water losses result

from evaporation and drift from the six mechanical-draft cooling towers that provide cooling for

the condenser circulating water system.

Water from Lake Wylie is taken in through two intake structures. The low pressure service

water intake structure is located on the Beaver Dam Creek arm of Lake Wylie (Figure 2-3;

RL Intake). Trash racks and traveling screens are used to remove trash and debris from this

intake water. The intake structure is designed for a maximum water velocity of 0.15 m/s

(0.5 ft/s) in front of the trash racks at the maximum design drawdown of Lake Wylie. The low

pressure service water system supplies water for various functions on the secondary side of the

plant. The nuclear service water intake structure also is located in the Beaver Dam Creek arm

(Figure 2-3; RN Intake). This intake supplies cooling water to various heat loads in the primary

side of the plant and supplies water to the standby nuclear service water pond. 

Catawba does not use cooling ponds for normal operations; however, it does have a standby

nuclear service water pond. The purpose of this pond is to provide an ultimate heat sink in the

event of a rapid decline in water level in Lake Wylie. The pond is isolated from the plant service

water during normal plant operations.

The discharge structure is located on the Big Allison Creek arm of Lake Wylie (Figure 2-3;

RL/RN Discharge Structure). This structure is designed to allow warm discharge water to float

on the surface with a minimum amount of mixing. Approximately 1.48 million L/d (0.39 MGD)

from the conventional waste water treatment system and from the sewage treatment system is

discharged to Lake Wylie.

| Catawba obtains potable water from the city of Rock Hill. In addition, there are a total of three

groundwater supply wells at the Catawba site. These wells supply water on a periodic basis to

remote locations and for seasonal irrigation. The average annual groundwater withdrawal rate

from these wells is 1.89 L/s (30 gallons per minute [gpm]).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems

Catawba 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 operations. These

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

environment. The waste disposal systems for Catawba meet the design objectives of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix I (Numerical Guide for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for

Operation to Meet the Criterion “As Low as is Reasonably Achievable” for Radioactive Material

in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents). These systems 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 mostly are contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small

quantities escape 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 may be 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.

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, and refueling outages are staggered so both units are not in an outage at the same

time. Spent fuel is stored onsite in one of the two spent fuel pools. Each unit has its own spent

fuel pool and fuel storage facility. Although an independent spent fuel storage installation

(ISFSI) is planned, Catawba does not currently have an ISFSI facility.

The waste gas and solid waste systems are common to both units. Portions of the liquid

radioactive waste system are shared.

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for Catawba (Duke 2001b) describes the

methods used for calculating radioactivity concentrations in the environment and the estimated
Plant and the Environment

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

potential offsite doses associated with liquid and gaseous effluents. 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/yr

(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, of 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 nuclear facility operations will not

exceed the maximum limits of 40 CFR Part 190 (less than 0.25 mSv [25 mrem]) and

10 CFR Part 20 (i.e., less than or equal to 5 mSv [500 mrem] in a year and less than or

equal to 0.02 mSv [2 mrem] in any hour).

The systems used for processing liquid waste, gaseous waste, and solid waste are described in

the following sections.
Plant and the Environment

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

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 deaerated reactor- or primary-grade liquids containing

fission product gases and other radioactive materials, including tritium, are collected in the

reactor coolant drain tank in the reactor building or in the waste drain tank in the auxiliary

building and then are recycled. The liquid radwaste system collects aqueous solutions from

equipment flush and drain lines, floor drains, decontamination sink drains, ultrasonic cleaner

drains, laundry drains, and ventilation equipment drains. These potentially contaminated liquid

wastes are collected in storage tanks in the auxiliary building and waste monitor tank building

for processing by filtration or demineralization or both. Wastes from the auxiliary building and

from secondary system drains are processed in the waste monitor tank building. Waste input

streams are segregated based on radioactivity content and disposed of depending on the

concentration of radioactive material in the waste. Those waste streams containing little

measurable activity above background levels are discharged to Lake Wylie. 

Further processing by filtering, chemical treatment, or demineralization is required for other

waste streams. Following treatment, effluents that meet regulated radioactivity levels for

release are discharged into Lake Wylie. Wastes with higher radioactive material concentrations

are packaged and shipped to an offsite vendor for further waste processing or for disposal in a

licensed burial.

The ODCM (Duke 2001b) 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 recycle monitor tank release line, the auxiliary

monitor tank release lines, and conventional waste water treatment system release line. 

During 2000, there were 192 batch releases of liquid effluents for the two units with a total

volume of 5060 m3 (1.33×106

 gal) prior to dilution. The combined liquid waste volume prior to |

dilution for batch and continuous releases for 2000 was 305,000 m3 (8.05×107

 gal). The liquid |

waste holdup capacity for the plant is approximately 840 m3

 (221,500 gal) (Duke 2001a). In this

liquid waste, there was a total fission and activation product activity of 0.003 TBq (0.083 Ci)

and a total tritium activity of 26.6 TBq (718 Ci). These volumes and activities are typical of

past years. The actual liquid waste generated is reported in the Catawba Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2, 2000 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (Duke 2001d). See

Section 2.2.7 for a discussion of the theoretical doses to the maximally exposed individual as

a result of these releases.

Duke does not anticipate any increase in liquid waste releases during the renewal period.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-10 December 2002 |

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 to contain these gases. Fission gases are removed from other systems to the

maximum extent possible and are contained in the waste gas system. The system is designed

so storage and the subsequent decay of activity of these gases reduces to a large extent the

need for regularly scheduled discharge of radioactive gases into the atmosphere during normal

plant operation. There are times, however, when the release of radioactive gas may be

necessary. As a result, there are provisions to sample and isolate each of the decay tanks.

The waste gas decay tanks, containment building purges, auxiliary building ventilation, and flow

from the condenser air ejectors exhaust into the two unit vents. These four contributors to the

unit vent exhaust are discussed below. The unit vents are the primary (major) gaseous release

points from the plant and contain radiation monitors and flow rate measuring instrumentation

(Duke 2001b).

  The waste gas system in the auxiliary building 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 2000a). Gases are

allowed to decay in these tanks, then are released at permissible rates and activity to

the vent as prescribed by the ODCM (Duke 2001b).

  Within the containment building, nonrecyclable reactor coolant leakage gases are

released through the containment air release and addition system or through the

containment purge system. The containment atmosphere is discharged through

charcoal absorbers before its release.

  Gases collected inside the auxiliary building are released to the environment without

further decay. Ventilation exhaust from potentially contaminated areas is passed

through charcoal adsorbers before release.

  Gases from the condenser air ejectors are monitored continuously and discharged into

the unit vent.

A separate gaseous effluent release point is the auxiliary monitor tank building. This effluent is

normally considered nonradioactive. However, because of the potential for its release of

radioactive effluents, ventilation of process areas pass through particulate and charcoal filters.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Radioactive gaseous wastes from Catawba are released primarily through the Unit 1 and Unit 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 unit vents are continuously monitored for noble gases, radioiodines, and

particulate activity. 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

established in 10 CFR Part 20 for gaseous effluents (Duke 2001b). See Section 2.2.7 for a

discussion of the theoretical doses to the maximally exposed individual as a result of these

releases.

During 2000, there was a total fission and activation gas activity of 2.3 TBq (60.3 Ci), a total

iodine activity of 7.77×10-7 TBq (2.1×10-5 Ci), a total particulate activity of 7.40×10-7 TBq |

(2.00×10-5 Ci), and a total tritium activity of 9.36 TBq (2.1×102

 Ci) released from the two units. |

These releases are typical of past years.

Duke does not anticipate any increase in gaseous releases during the renewal period.

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing

Solid radioactive wastes from Catawba consist of spent resin and spent filters used in treating

and separating radionuclides from gases and liquids; reactor components, equipment, and tools

removed from service; contaminated oils and sludges; and contaminated protective clothing,

paper, rags, and other trash generated from routine plant operations and from design

modification and maintenance activities (Duke 2001a). The solid radwaste system is shared by

the two units to contain and store radioactive waste materials and prepare them for shipment to

a waste processor for volume reduction before disposal or for shipment directly to the licensed

burial site. 

Spent resin is flushed from plant demineralizers into spent resin storage tanks. The spent resin

is processed by dewatering or solidification and packaged in a cask liner. Spent filter cartridges

are removed from their housing and transferred to a shielded filter storage bunker where they

are lowered into a disposal drum (Duke 2000a). Contaminated oils and sludges either are

pumped to a processing area for solidification in cement or are shipped to an offsite vendor for

processing prior to disposal.

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

such as those in Barnwell, South Carolina, or Envirocare in Utah. Higher-activity wastes (i.e.,

spent resins) are typically sent directly to a licensed disposal facility such as Barnwell, South

Carolina (Duke 2001a). Onsite disposal within the owner-controlled area of slightly
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-12 December 2002 |

contaminated materials, of which secondary resins is an example, is approved by the NRC and

the State of South Carolina in a process described in 10 CFR 20.2002 for materials confirmed

to have acceptably low radionuclide concentrations.

Disposal and transportation of solid wastes are performed in accordance with the applicable

requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 and Part 71, respectively. There are no releases to the

environment from radioactive solid wastes created at Catawba. 

Approximately 90 solid waste shipments containing contaminated parts, tools, and equipment

and 10 radwaste shipments containing dry active waste, dewatered resins, and irradiated

hardware are made from Catawba each year as reported in the Catawba ER (Duke 2001a). 

The average yearly radioactive contaminated waste generated is about 250 m3

 (8825 ft3). The

volume shipped for burial averages about 50 m3

 (1750 ft3) per year. These quantities may vary

significantly from year to year.

In 2000, Catawba made five shipments of radwaste with a volume of 26.6 m3

 (938 ft3) to a

disposal facility. This includes the volume but not the shipment numbers sent for brokered dry

active waste treatment and waste reduction. The combined waste contained a total activity of

| 50 TBq (1343 Ci) (Duke 2001d). Catawba has been aggressively reducing volume and

minimizing waste for several years and intends to do so in the future. 

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

Nonradioactive solid wastes from Catawba are disposed of in the onsite landfill or in other

approved landfills. The onsite landfill typically handles the following types of wastes: asbestos,

empty paint containers, and oil-contaminated materials. This landfill is permitted by the South

| Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC; Duke 2001a). General

office trash and cafeteria wastes are collected and transported to an offsite permitted landfill. 

Construction wastes are hauled to a county construction and demolition debris landfill. Items

such as paper, aluminum cans, and scrap metal are sent to a recycler.

| Nonradioactive liquid wastes are sampled and treated according to the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued to Catawba by the SCDHEC. These

wastes originate from system drainage/leakage, water treatment activities, housekeeping and

cleaning wastes, stormwater runoff, and floor and yard drains. These wastes are treated by

sedimentation, skimming, precipitation, neutralization, and mixing before being discharged to

Lake Wylie (Duke 2001a). Sanitary wastes are treated in an aerated facultative lagoon

followed by an effluent polishing basin. The treated sanitary wastes are discharged into

Lake Wylie through the station discharge structure (NRC 1983).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance

Routine maintenance performed on plant systems and components is necessary for safe and

reliable operation. Maintenance activities conducted at Catawba 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, but others require that the plant be shut down. Long-term 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 Catawba units every 18 to 24 months

(Duke 2001a). Each outage is typically scheduled to last approximately 30 to 40 days, and the

outage schedules are staggered so that both units are not shut down at the same time. Onethird of the core is replaced at each refueling. Approximately 500 additional workers are onsite

during a typical outage (Duke 2001a).

Duke provided an appendix in Duke Energy Company Catawba Nuclear Station Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report (Duke 2000a) regarding the aging management review to manage the

effects of aging on systems, structures, and components in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. 

Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the Catawba license renewal application specify the programs

and activities that will manage the effects of aging during the license renewal period

(Duke 2001a). Duke expects to conduct activities related to the management of aging effects

during plant operation or during normal refueling and other outages, but no outages specifically

for refurbishment activities are planned. Duke has no plans to add additional full-time staff

(non-outage workers) at the plant during the period of the renewed licenses.

2.1.7 Power Transmission System

Catawba has five 230-kV transmission lines leaving the site from the switch yard (NRC 1983; |

Duke 2001a). The five lines (Table 2-1) are contained within rights-of-way ranging from 35 to

46 m (115 to 150 ft) in width and from 1 to 40 km (0.7 to 24.4 mi) in length covering a total of

75.7 km (42.4 mi) and approximately 295 ha (730 ac) (Duke 2001a; NRC 1983). The rights-of- |

way extend out from Catawba to the north, south, and west (Figure 2-4). The lines and

rights-of-way were constructed or rebuilt between 1973 and 1983.

Duke owns less than 10 percent of the rights-of-way and has easements for the remaining

90 percent. Vegetation in the rights-of-way is managed through a combination of mechanical

and herbicide treatments (Duke 2001a). Initial treatments include mowing and/or treatment with

Arsenal (imazapyr) and Accord (glyphosate). Spot treatments then are applied once every

3 years using Arsenal, Accord, Garlon4A, and Krenite. Herbicide treatments in wetlands are

limited to Arsenal and Accord, which are approved for use in wetlands. In addition, Duke

cooperates with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) regarding 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-14 December 2002 |

Table 2-1. Catawba Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Line

Length Width Area

Direction kV km (mi) m (ft) ha (ac)

Catawba-Allen N 230 17.5 (10.9) 46 (150) 80 (198)

Catawba-Ripp W 230 39.3 (24.4) 44 (145) 173 (426)

Catawba-Pacolet(a) W 230 1.9 (1.2) 46 (150) 9 (22)

Newport (Allison

Creek)

S 230 1.1 (0.7) 43 (140) 5 (12)

Newport (Newport) S 230 8.4 (5.2) 35 (115) 29 (72)

Total 75.7 (42.4) 296 (731)

(a) An additional 64.4 km (40.1 mi) of line existing prior to construction of Catawba is shared but is not part of

Catawba transmission system.

| protection of rare species and partners with The Wildlife Federation on vegetation management

in some portions of the rights-of-way.

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

The Catawba site is located in the north-central portion of South Carolina 1.6 km (1 mi) west of

the North Carolina-South Carolina state line and is situated within the Piedmont physiographic

province. The power station is in northeastern York County, adjacent to Lake Wylie, and is

approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast of York, the county seat. The site is situated in the

center of a peninsula about 1.6-km (1-mi) wide and 4.8-km (3-mi) long that protrudes into Lake

Wylie, a body of water extending 45 km (28 mi) in length between dams and having a surface

| area of 4917 ha (12,149 ac) at normal operating level. Lake Wylie was formed by impounding 
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Figure 2-4. Catawba Transmission Lines and Rights-of-Way (Duke 2001a)
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-16 December 2002 |

| the water of the Catawba River. The lake was initially impounded in 1904. Present full pond

| was obtained in 1924 when an increase in the dam height raised the water level and increased

| the size of the lake. Duke either owns the land under the lake or the flood rights to that land. 

The lake level fluctuates in accordance with hydroelectric generation needs. Lake Wylie is a

source of drinking water for several municipalities and supports extensive recreational use by

fisherman, boaters, water skiers, and swimmers.

The total land area occupied by the site is 158 ha (391 ac) of which 106 ha (262 ac) is nonforested and contains generation, maintenance, and distribution facilities; a visitors center and

| lookout area; parking lots; open water; roads; and a railroad line. A recreation park and boat

launch for Duke employees is located on a small peninsula protruding into Lake Wylie. Plans

for an independent spent fuel storage installation are in the early stages of development and

involve use of land presently used for other station purposes. There are approximately 51 ha

(125 ac) of pine and pine-mixed hardwood forests. Forests cover the majority of the land area

in the region surrounding the site. Most of the land within 8 km (5 mi) of the station is level to

rolling with elevations ranging from 183 to 213 m (600 to 700 ft) above mean sea level with a

few hills reaching 244 m (800 ft) in elevation. 

The land occupied by Catawba is in unincorporated York County. York County and its

municipalities currently have land-use plans and zoning requirements that govern development

activities within the county. 

2.2.2 Water Use

Catawba uses water from Lake Wylie for cooling and service water. Lake Wylie is the seventh

of 11 impoundments in the 410-km (255-mi) Catawba-Wateree Project managed by Duke and

licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Lake Wylie extends 45 km

(28 mi) upstream from Wylie Dam to Mountain Island Dam. Flow through the CatawbaWateree Project is managed by Duke to optimize hydroelectric generation, provide flood

control, meet FERC minimum release requirements, and maintain a constant and reliable water

supply for thermoelectric generating stations, surrounding communities, and industry. Lake

Wylie has a storage volume of 3.48×108

 m3 | (281,900 ac-ft) and a mean depth of 7 m (23 ft). 

The minimum daily release from Wylie Dam is 11.6 m3

/s (411 cfs).

As mentioned in Section 2.1.3, during operation, the average daily withdrawal from Lake Wylie

is 380 million L/d (102 MGD), and the average daily discharge back into Lake Wylie from

Catawba is 230 million L/d (60.7 MGD). During full-power operation, the water loss of

156 million L/d (41.3 MGD), or equivalently 1.81 m3

/s (64 cfs), results from evaporation and drift

from the cooling towers. From 1997 through 1999, the average overall annual consumptive use

of water from the Catawba River by Catawba was approximately 1.47 m3

/s (52 cfs). The mean
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

flow in the Catawba River (below Wylie Dam) is 124 m3

/s (4390 cfs); therefore, evaporation and

drift from Catawba from 1997 to 1999 represented a decrease of 1.46 percent in the long-term

mean annual flow below Wylie Dam.

There are a total of three groundwater supply wells at the Catawba site. These wells supply

water on a periodic basis to remote locations and for seasonal irrigation. The average annual

groundwater withdrawal rate from these wells is 1.89 L/s (30 gpm). In addition to the

groundwater wells, a dewatering system is used to reduce the hydrostatic pressures on the

reactor and auxiliary buildings. The drainage system permanently maintains a groundwater

level at or near the base of the foundation mat and basement walls, thus eliminating the

hydrostatic forces. This groundwater drainage system consists of foundation underdrains and

continuous exterior wall drains. The foundation underdrains and exterior wall drains discharge

into three sumps. On a yearly basis, the average groundwater drainage discharge from these

sumps is 2.15 L/s (34 gpm); therefore, total average annual groundwater use at Catawba is

4.04 L/s (64 gpm).

Potable water for Catawba is provided by the city of Rock Hill.

2.2.3 Water Quality

As Lake Wylie is situated in both North Carolina and South Carolina, both states are involved in

the protection, from a watershed perspective, of the Lake Wylie’s water quality. Lake Wylie

exhibits thermal and oxygen dynamics similar to other southeastern reservoirs of comparable

size, depth, flow conditions, and trophic status. Lake Wylie supports a good warm-water

fishery. 

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1977, also known as the

Clean Water Act, the water quality of the plant effluents is regulated through the NPDES. The |

SCDHEC is the agency delegated to issue NPDES permits. The current permit (SC0004278) |

was issued April 30, 2001, and is due to expire June 30, 2005. Any new regulations |

promulgated by EPA or the SCHDEC would be included in future permits.

The temperature of the discharge to Lake Wylie is one aspect of the discharge regulated by the

NPDES permit. For temperature, discharge limitations are specified as an allowable

temperature rise (between intake and discharge) of 5.6C (10F) for the months of April

through September and 7.8C (14F) from October through March. 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-18 December 2002 |

2.2.4 Air Quality

The site is located in the north-central region of South Carolina at the very southern end of a

region known as the Piedmont. In this region, the basic climatic classification is subtropical

where a majority of the rainfall occurs in the summer creating some periods of unpleasantly

humid conditions. The winter season is generally pleasant and attracts migratory birds. A

feature unique to this climatic area is the occasional entry of very cold air masses during the

winter season plunging temperatures well below freezing with resulting calamitous effects on

the vegetation in the region. Temperatures in the region rarely exceed 35C (95F) or fall

below -12C (10F). The best available extreme temperature data for the region (Charlotte,

North Carolina) indicates the highest recorded temperature being 40C (104F), with the lowest

reported temperature being -20.5C (-5F). The average precipitation in the region is 109 cm

(43.1 inches) per year, which is evenly distributed throughout the year.

Normally, about 42 thunderstorms per year occur in the region (NOAA 1983). A vast majority of

these storms occur during the months of May through September (34 of the 42). The most

recent severe weather event was Hurricane Fran in August 1996. Based on statistics for the

30 years from 1954 through 1983, on the average, only 9 tornadoes are expected to occur in

the state of South Carolina during the course of a year (Ramsdell and Andrews 1986). The

probability of a tornado striking the site is calculated to be about 1x10-4 | per year.

The wind energy resource in the vicinity of the site is limited, with the annual average wind

| power rated as 1 on a scale of 1 to 7 (Elliott et al. 1986). Wind turbines are economical for wind

power classes 4 through 7 that have average wind speeds of 5.6 to 9.4 m/s (12.5 to 21.1 mph;

DOE 2001a). Areas suitable for wind turbine application in South Carolina are limited to the

ridges along the Blue Ridge Mountains in the extreme northwest corner of the state.

The Catawba site is located in Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Air Quality Control region

(40 CFR 81.75). This region is designated as in-attainment or unclassified for all criteria

pollutants in 40 CFR 81.334 except for the EPA’s reinstated 1-hr ozone standard. The County

| is at risk of being classified as non-attainment regarding ozone when a new 8-hr standard is

implemented. The Cape Romain Area is the only area in South Carolina designated in

40 CFR 81.426 as a mandatory Class I Federal area in which visibility is an important value. 

There are more Class I areas located in North Carolina (40 CFR 81.422), but a vast majority

are located in the region of the North Carolina-Tennessee border in the Smoky Mountains. 

None of these areas are within 80 km (50 mi) of the site.

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.)
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Diesel generators, boilers, and other activities and facilities associated with Catawba

operations emit various pollutants. Emissions from these sources are regulated under air

quality permit number 2440-0070 issued by SCDHEC (Appendix E). This permit expires on

December 31, 2005.

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic resources in the vicinity of Catawba are associated with Lake Wylie and the Catawba

River. Lake Wylie, which serves as the cooling water source for Catawba, extends 45 km

(28 mi) in length between Mountain Island Dam in North Carolina and Wylie Dam in South

Carolina. Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie, which are part of the Catawba-Wateree

Project, are owned and operated by Duke and are licensed by FERC as FERC Project 2232. |

The Catawba-Wateree Project consists of 11 lakes on the Catawba River, which are operated

for hydroelectric power. Lake Wylie is the third largest lake in the Catawba River chain

(Duke 2001a). Tributaries for Lake Wylie include the Catawba River, Allison Creek, Mill Creek,

Crowders Creek, and the South Fork Catawba River (NCDENR 1999; SCDHEC 1999).

Upon leaving Lake Wylie, the Catawba River flows about 40 km (25 mi) south to Landsford

Canal (Figure 2-1). This reach is a substantial portion of the 67 km (42 mi) of the Catawba

River’s total 360 km (225 mi) upstream of Lake Wateree Dam that remains free-flowing

(Duke 2000b). The Catawba River then continues to Lake Wateree, the lowermost lake of the

Catawba-Wateree Project, which is about 80 km (50 mi) south of Wylie Dam. Lake Wylie and

the Catawba River are part of the Santee-Cooper drainage unit (Warren et al. 2000). Counties

directly adjacent to Lake Wylie, adjacent to the immediate reaches of the Catawba River

upstream and downstream of Lake Wylie, or with tributaries into the immediate adjacent

reaches of the Catawba River include Gaston, Mecklenburg, and Union Counties in North

Carolina and York, Chester, and Lancaster Counties in South Carolina. Besides serving as the

cooling water source for Catawba, Lake Wylie is the source of municipal drinking water for

several cities in the region and is used extensively by fisherman, boaters, water skiers, and

swimmers (Duke 2001a).

Lake Wylie was formed from the impoundment of the Catawba River by Duke’s Wylie Dam and

initially achieved full pond volume in 1904; however, the dam was raised 15 m (50 ft) in 1924

(NRC 1983). It is reasonably shallow (mean depth of 7 m [23 ft], maximum depth of 28.4 m

[93.2 ft]) and has a full pond surface area of 4916 ha (12,139 ac), a full pond volume of

348 million m3

 (281,900 ac-ft), a shoreline length of 526 km (327 mi), and a drainage area of

7822 km2

 (3020 mi2). The annual mean flow at Wylie Dam is 106.9 m3/s (3774 ft3/s) with a

minimum average daily flow (as specified by FERC) of 11.6 m3

/s (411 ft3/s). Maximum

drawdown is 3 m (10 ft) (Duke 2001a).
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-20 December 2002 |

Lake Wylie is typical of many shallow impoundments in the Piedmont physiographic province

region. Since impoundment, it has gone through the typical ecological succession experienced

by all man-made reservoirs in which the biotic community initially is highly productive and then

decreases in production until it reaches ultimate stability (Paterson and Fernando 1970;

Voschell and Simmons 1978). Lake Wylie had achieved a degree of stability by the time initial

aquatic studies were conducted (NRC 1983). More recent monitoring shows the aquatic

community remains relatively stable (Duke 2001a, 2002a,b).

Duke’s periodic biota monitoring program at Lake Wylie includes surveys of phytoplankton,

zooplankton, and fisheries (Duke 2002a). The lake shows a pattern of aquatic organism

distribution between up-lake and down-lake locations that is atypical from similar lakes. 

Up-lake locations are typically more diverse and productive due to the influx of nutrients from

upstream, which are consumed further down-lake. However, the South Fork Catawba River, a

major tributary, contributes substantial nutrient loads to lower Lake Wylie, and thus contributes

to the unusual distribution of aquatic organisms (Duke 2001a).

Lake Wylie supports numerous phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macroinvertebrate

communities. Ten phytoplankton classes comprising 114 genera and 293 species and varieties

| have been recorded (Duke 1993). Cryptophyic algae, blue-green algae, green algae, and

diatoms dominate, forming a generally stable community whose densities and relative

importance change seasonally (Duke 1993, 2001a). The dominant zooplankton genera in Lake

Wylie are primarily planktonic or limnetic species characteristic of most North American

reservoirs (NRC 1983). Thirty-three taxa have been identified, with major groups including

Rotifera (rotifers), Copepoda (copepods), and Cladocera (cladocerans) (Duke 1993).

A total of 88 macroinvertebrate taxa have been reported from Lake Wylie in the vicinity of

Catawba (NRC 1983). Midges (Chironomidae) are the most diverse group, typically dominating

macroinvertebrate assemblages (Duke 1993). The most abundant chironomid genera are

Coelotanypus, Chironomus, Tanytarsus, Ablesmyia, and Cryptochironomus (Duke 1993). 

There are a few native freshwater mussels (primarily Unionids) in Lake Wylie (Duke 1988,

| 2001a). The only mussel of any abundance is the introduced Asiatic clam (Corbicula sp.). No

consistent spatial trend in the Asiatic clam standing crop has been observed in Lake Wylie in

previous studies (Duke 1993). Current Asiatic clam monitoring focuses on clam densities at the

| intake screen conducted to assess impacts to plant operations.

| A total of 49 fish species from 10 families have been reported in Lake Wylie since sampling

began in 1973 (Duke 1988). Dominant species include threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense),

gizzard shad (D. cepedianum), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus

salmoides), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), redear sunfish

(L. microlophus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white catfish (Ameiurus catus),

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Data collected
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

between 1978 and 1979 found largemouth bass accounted for the greatest biomass of all

species collected at locations near the Catawba site, whereas threadfin shad were the most

numerous (NRC 1983). In studies conducted through 1993, gizzard shad, threadfin shad, and

bluegill were the dominant species observed in cove rotenone sampling, white catfish and

gizzard shad were the species captured most frequently in gill netting, and bluegill and

redbreast sunfish most frequently captured during electro-fishing (with threadfin shad and

gizzard shad occasionally common). Threadfin shad was the dominant forage fish from 1993 to

1997 and comprised from 99.8 to 100 percent of the forage fish in purse seine hauls (Duke

2002a). Forage fish densities ranged from 1692 in 1997 to 115,432 fish/ha in 1993 (677 to |

46,173 fish/ac, respectively). Total population estimates ranged from about 15 million in 1997 |

to 403 million in 1993. Between 1993 and 1997, the Lake Wylie littoral (shoreline) fish |

community, measured as mean total biomass, ranged from approximately 70 to160 kg fish/

1000 m (250 to 570 lbs/mi) of shoreline electro-fished with a trend of decreasing biomass

progressively downstream (Duke 2002b). Sunfish, catfish, and common carp (Cyprinus carpio)

compose the majority of the biomass at all shoreline locations (Duke 2002b). Historic

differences in species composition can be attributed to differences in areas sampled, sampling

frequency, and sampling technique. Current fish monitoring consists of hydroacoustic and

purse sein sampling and shoreline electro-fishing at 3-year intervals at locations that allow

comparison to historic data (Duke 2002a, 2002b).

Lake Wylie supports a good warm-water fishery. The resident species generally favor the

relatively stable water levels that are maintained in the reservoir (Duke 2001a). Game fish of

the family Centrarchid (sunfish family – redbreast sunfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, redear |

sunfish, largemouth bass, and black crappie) – need relatively stable water levels during their |

springtime spawning seasons. Duke, in cooperation with SCDNR, implements a reservoir water

level stabilization program each spring to ensure stable water levels during the spawning

season for largemouth bass and other members of the family Centrarchidae (Duke 2001a). |

White bass (Morone chrysops, a member of the family Percichthyidae) is the only fish species |

that makes an appreciable spawning run in Lake Wylie. This spawning run, which occurs

during the February through April time period, is most evident in the area of Dutchman’s Creek,

which enters Lake Wylie on the extreme northwestern side of the reservoir. In the past few

years, both blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) have

established populations in Lake Wylie (Duke 2001a). These fish are apparently migrants from

upstream reservoirs and are presently represented by sparse populations. However, both

populations are expanding and their predatory nature may eventually impact other species of

fish (primarily other ictalurids) in Lake Wylie.

Table 2-2 lists Federal special status aquatic species found in Gaston, Mecklenburg, and

Union Counties in North Carolina and York, Cherokee, Lancaster, and Chester Counties in 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-22 December 2002 |

| Table 2-2. Aquatic Species Listed as Endangered or Threatened by the FWS and Species that

are Candidates for FWS Listing as Threatened or Endangered or are Considered

Species of Concern by FWS Potentially Occurring in Gaston, Mecklenburg, and

Union Counties in North Carolina, and York, Cherokee, Lancaster, and Chester

Counties in South Carolina

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a)

Fish

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter SOC SC-SOC

Freshwater mollusks

| Lasmigona deciorata Carolina heelsplitter E NC-E

SC-E

Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater SOC NC-E

SC-SOC

(a) SC = South Carolina, NC = North Carolina, E = endangered, SOC = species of concern

| South Carolina (Gaddy 2001; SCDNR 2001; North Carolina Atlas of Freshwater Mussels and

| Endangered Fish 2001; FWS 2002). No Federally listed fish species occur in counties

immediately adjacent to Lake Wylie, counties adjacent to the Catawba River immediately

upstream or downstream of Lake Wylie, or tributary streams crossed by Catawba transmission

| lines (York and Cherokee Counties). The Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), a Federally listed

| species of concern, has been found in small to medium-size streams 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m)

deep from backwater pools or near stream banks in slow moving water (Collette 1962). It has

not been collected from Lake Wylie in the vicinity of Catawba.

The Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a Federally listed endangered freshwater

mollusk that is also listed as endangered by both North and South Carolina, occurs downstream

of Lake Wylie. All known populations of this species occur in the Pee Dee, Catawba, and

Savannah River systems (FWS 1996; FWS 2001). All known populations in the Catawba River

system occur in tributary streams to the Catawba River downstream of Lake Wylie. Areas

containing these populations comprise two of the six units proposed as critical habitat

| (FWS 2001) including a 20-km (12-mi) stretch of Waxhaw Creek in Union County, North

Carolina. Waxhaw Creek enters the Catawba River just above Landsford Canal (Figure 2-1),

| about 24 to 32 km (15 to 20 mi) downstream of Wylie Dam. Another population unit consists of

a 10-km (6-mi) stretch of Gill Creek in Lancaster County, South Carolina. Flow from Gill Creek

combines with Bear Creek just outside of the town of Lancaster (Figure 2-1), then joins Crane

Creek before entering the Catawba River just below Landsford Canal about 48 km (30 mi)

downstream from Wylie Dam. Three locations in the Catawba River downstream of Wylie Dam

were surveyed for Carolina heelsplitter on October 26, 2001, by the FWS, NCDENR, and the
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

North Carolina Department of Transportation (Duke 2002c). The locations surveyed included

the river immediately below Lake Wylie Dam and the river at the Interstate Highway 77 (I-77) |

bridge. The Catawba River at Landsford Canal State Park could not be surveyed due to high

turbidity. No Carolina heelsplitter were found in this survey, and none have been observed in

monitoring programs or surveys of Lake Wylie.

In addition, there are several aquatic species identified by North and South Carolina as state

species of concern (rare species that have no legal protection) with potential to occur in the

Catawba River system in counties in the vicinity of Lake Wylie. None of the species have been

reported in monitoring or survey data from Lake Wylie.

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources

The Catawba site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province (Bailey 1980). Common |

vegetation types on the Catawba site and the transmission line rights-of-way are pine (Pinus

sp.), pine-mixed hardwood, mixed hardwoods, and bottomland hardwoods (Duke 2001a). 

Currently, ornamental plantings, parking areas, and facilities make up about 67 percent of the

183-ha (450-ac) Catawba Site. Thirty-two percent is forest habitat; and less than one percent is

wetland habitat (Duke 2001a). Several of the ravines have mature mixed hardwood stands that

include chalk maple (Acer leucoderme). In addition, many of the chalk maple stands in open

dry bluff areas are dominated by black oak (Quercus velutina) rather than the more typical

chestnut oak (Quercus prinus). The wetlands on the site are associated with beaver ponds,

seeps, creeks, artificial impoundments, and Lake Wylie (Duke 2001a). Duke’s environmental

policies prohibit construction work in the wetlands and limit activities in woodlands.

Disturbed pastures and old fields are the dominant vegetation types in the transmission line

rights-of-way with bluestems (Andropogon sp.), wire-grasses (Aristida sp.), asters (Aster sp.),

sunflowers (Helianthus sp.), and goldenrods (Solidago sp.). Trees such as tag alder (Alnus

serrulata) and black willow (Salix nigra) are common around seeps and ponds. These

herbaceous communities in the transmission line rights-of-way are maintained by mowing and

spot herbicide treatments.

Wetlands are found on portions of the transmission line rights-of-way and at the power station. 

These wetlands are small, and at the power station, they primarily are associated with Lake

Wylie. Duke avoids these areas when possible during vegetation management activities,

transmission line maintenance, and site maintenance, and consults with the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers as needed to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Eleven Federal and 14 State-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species occur or

potentially may occur at Catawba or along the transmission line rights-of-way (Duke 2001a; |

North Carolina 2001a; South Carolina 2001; FWS 2002). In addition, there are many species |
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-24 December 2002 |

identified as species of concern (rare species that have no legal protection) that potentially may

occur at the Catawba site or along the transmission line rights-of-way. Based on field surveys

(Duke 2001a), no protected species, critical habitat, or species of concern are known to occur

on the Catawba site or the transmission line rights-of-way, with the exception of the bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Eagles rarely are sighted near Catawba, and there are no known

nesting sites on the site or its transmission line rights-of-way (Duke 2001a). Dwarf-flowered

heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) has been identified in Cherokee County and habitat exists within

| the transmission line corridors. However, no H. naniflora have been observed on Catawba or

the transmission line corridors. Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) has been found near the

| Allison Creek transmission line corridor, however, no A. georgianus have been found in any of

the corridors or at the Catawba site. Table 2-3 lists the State- and Federal-protected species

and their status.

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts

Duke has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) around the

Catawba site since 1981 (Duke 2001c). The radiological impacts to workers, the public, and

the environment have been routinely monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate

standards. The objectives of the REMP are:

  provide surveillance of detailed effluent monitoring to evaluate the significance, if any, of

the contributions to the existing environmental radioactivity levels that result from station

operation (Duke 2001c)

  detect and identify changes in environmental levels as a result of station operations

(Duke 2001c)

  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 (Duke 2000a)

  implement Section IV.B.2 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 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 2000a). 

Radiological releases are summarized in the annual reports Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1

and 2, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (Duke 2001c) and Catawba 
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 2-3. Terrestrial Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, or Federal

Species of Concern by the FWS, South Carolina, or North Carolina that Occur or

Potentially Occur at Catawba or Its Associated Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal

Status(a)

State

Status(a)

Reptiles

Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T NC-T

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T SC/NC-E

Picoides borealis red-cockaded

woodpecker E SC/NC-E

Mammals

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis SOC SC-T

Vascular Plants

Amphianthus pusillus pool sprite T SC-T

Aster georgianus Georgia aster C NC-T

Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur SOC NC-E

Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E SC/NC-E |

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitiz’s sunflower E SC/NC-E

Hexastylis naniflora dwarf-flowered heartleaf T SC/NC-T

Hymenocallis coronaria shoals spider-lily SOC SC/SOC

Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort SOC NC-SOC

Isoetes melanospora black-spored quillwort E SC-E

Lotus helleri Heller’s trefoil SOC NC-T

Oxypolis canbyi Canby’s dropwort E SC-E

Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E NC-E

Rudbeckia heliopsidis sun-facing coneflower SOC SC-SOC

(a) SC = South Carolina, NC = North Carolina, E = endangered, T = threatened, C = candidate, |

SOC = species of concern
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 Catawba has two operating reactor units.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-26 December 2002 |

Nuclear Station Annual 2000 Radioactive Effluent Release Report (Duke 2001d). The limits for

all radiological releases are specified in the Catawba ODCM (Duke 2001b), and these limits are

designed to meet Federal standards and requirements. The REMP includes monitoring of the

air, direct radiation, surface water, drinking water, groundwater, shoreline sediment, milk, fish,

broadleaf vegetation, and food products in about a 24-km (15-mi) radius of the station.

Review of historic data on releases and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the doses

to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of the Catawba 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 that data were available), dose estimates

| were calculated based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data and on measured

concentrations of radionuclides from the REMP (Duke 2001c). 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 Catawba site boundary from

| effluent-based releases and environmental-based releases for the year 2000 was summarized 

| by Duke (2001c) as follows:

  Total body dose from liquid effluent-based estimates was 4.37x10-4 | mSv (0.0437 mrem)

compared to 7.31x10-4 | mSv (0.0731 mrem) from environmental-based estimates. 

These estimates were approximately 1 percent of the 0.06-mSv (6-mrem) dose limit(a). 

| The maximum total organ dose for the liquid effluent-based estimates was 0.00121 mSv

| (0.121 mrem) to the adult gastrointestinal tract-lower large intestine (GI-LLI) compared

| to 0.328 mSv (0.328 mrem) to the adult GI-LLI from the environmental-based estimates. 

These estimates were between 0.6 and 1.6 percent of the 0.20-mSv (20-mrem) dose

limit (Duke 2001c).

  The air dose due to noble gases in gaseous effluents was 3.38x10-4 | mGy (0.0338 mrad)

gamma (0.17 percent of the 0.20-mGy [20-mrad] gamma dose limit)(a) and 7.37x10-4 |

mGy (0.0737 mrad) beta (0.18 percent of the 0.40-mGy [40-mrad] beta dose limit;

Duke 2001c). Noble gases are not collected as part of the REMP; therefore, an

environmental-based estimate was not calculated (Duke 2001c).

  The critical organ dose from gaseous effluents due to iodine-131, iodine-133, tritium,

| and particulates with half-lives greater than 8 days is 0.0121 mSv (1.21 mrem), which is

4 percent of the 0.30-mSv (30-mrem) dose limit (Duke 2001c).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

The applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or

exposures from Catawba operations during the renewal period, and therefore, the impacts to

the environment are not expected to change.

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors

The staff reviewed the Catawba ER (Duke 2001a) and information obtained from several

county, city, and economic development staff during a site visit to York County from October 22

through 26, 2001. The following information describes the economy, population, and

communities near the Catawba site.

2.2.8.1 Housing

The full-time work force at Catawba is approximately 1218 employees, which includes

permanent and contractor staff. As shown in Table 2-4, approximately 55 percent of these |

employees live in York County, South Carolina; 15 and 14 percent live in Gaston and

Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina, respectively; and the rest live in other locations |

(Duke 2001a). Table 2-5 presents a further breakdown of employee residency by city and |

county. Since over half of the Catawba employees live in York County, the focus of the

socioeconomic analysis for the most part is on that county.

Duke refuels each reactor at Catawba on an 18- to 24-month cycle. During refueling outages,

an average of 1400 workers are onsite during the day shift, compared to a norm of 900 workers

onsite during normal plant operations (Duke 2001a).

Table 2-6 provides the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies for York, Gaston,

and Mecklenburg Counties for 1990 and 2000. York County has an urban development

boundary within which development is to take place, but otherwise, it does not have growthmanagement controls.

Table 2-4. Catawba Permanent and Contractor Employee Residency by County

County Number of Personnel Percent of Total Personnel

York (SC) 673 55

Gaston (NC) 188 15

Mecklenburg (NC) 166 14

Other – NC 112 9 |

Other – SC 79 7 |

Total 1218 100

Source: Duke 2001a.; Duke 2002d |
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-28 December 2002 |

Table 2-5. Catawba Permanent and Contractor Employee Residency by County and City

County and City Duke Power

YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Clover 76

Fort Mill 52

Lake Wylie 13

Rock Hill 362

York 131

Other Cites and Towns 39

Total York County 673

GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Belmont 34

Dallas 11

Mount Holly 15

Stanley 8

Gastonia 104

Other Cites and Towns 16

Total Gaston County 188

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Charlotte 141

Huntersville 6

Matthews 11

Pineville 6

Other Cites and Towns 2

Total Mecklenburg County 166

CHEROKEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Gaffney 27

Other Cites and Towns 4

Total Cherokee County 31

CHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Chester 13

Other Cites and Towns 7

Total Chester County 20

LANCASTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Lancaster 16

Other Cites and Towns 3

Total 19

UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Other Cites and Towns 17
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 2-5. (contd)

County and City Duke Power

CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Concord 6

Harrisburg 5

Kannapolis 3

Total 14

CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

King’s Mountain 15 |

Shelby 7

Other Cites and Towns 3

Total 25

LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Denver 7

Lincolnton 15

Other Cites and Towns 3

Total 25

Other Counties |

North Carolina 31

South Carolina 9

Total 1,218

Source: Duke 2001a.

Table 2-6. Total, Occupied, and Vacant (Available) Housing Units by County 1990 and 2000

1990 2000

Approximate

Percentage Change

YORK COUNTY, South Carolina

Housing Units 50,438 66,061 31.0

Occupied Units 47,006 61,051 29.9

Vacant Units 3,432 5,010 46.0

GASTON COUNTY, North Carolina

Housing Units 69,133 78,842 14.0

Occupied Units 65,347 73,936 13.1

Vacant Units 3,786 4,906 29.6

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, North Carolina

Housing Units 216,416 292,780 35.3

Occupied Units 200,219 273,416 36.6

Vacant Units 16,197 19,364 19.6

Sources: USCB 2000; USCB 1990.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-30 December 2002 |

Table 2-7 contains data on population, estimated population, and annual growth rates for York

County, South Carolina, and Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, North Carolina.

Table 2-7. Population Growth in York County, South Carolina, and Mecklenburg and Gaston

Counties, North Carolina, 1970 to 2020

York County Mecklenburg County Gaston County

Population

Annual

Growth

Percent(a) Population

Annual

Growth

Percent Population

Annual

Growth

Percent

1970 85,216 -- 354,656 -- 148,415 --

1980 106,720 2.3 404,270 1.3 162,568 0.9

1990 131,497 4.4 511,433 2.4 175,093 0.7

2000 164,614 2.3 695,454 2.5 190,365 0.8

2010 184,800 1.2 888,137 2.5 203,623 0.7

2020 211,500 1.4 1,089,258 2.1 215,587 0.6

(a) Annual percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade.

-- = Data not available.

| Sources: USCB 2000; USCB 1990; North Carolina 2001b; South Carolina 2000.

2.2.8.2 Public Services

Public services include water supply, education, and transportation.

  Water Supply

Table 2-8 summarizes the daily consumption and areas served for each of the two water

systems within York County, the county most impacted by the re-licensing of Catawba. The

county is served by two interconnected water systems–the eastern and western systems. 

The western system includes the town of York water treatment plant. The municipal water 

reservoir, which produces malodorous water when it turns over once each year, is the only

source of drinkable water for the town of York. The town will soon remedy the problem

through the construction of a new water treatment plant (York County 1999).

Water treated by the town of York is purchased by York County for the unincorporated parts

of the county. From the town of York, York County mains carry water through the central

part of the county. The system branches off along Mount Gallant Road to Museum Road,

where it connects to the city of Rock Hill water system and becomes the eastern part of the

system. The central portion of the western system also branches off to the Catawba site

and serves the Lake Wylie area. 
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 2-8. Major Public Water Supply Systems in York County

Water

System Source

Maximum Daily

Capacity

m3

/day (MGD)

Average Daily

Capacity

m3/day (MGD) Areas Served

City of Rock

Hill(a)

Lake

Wylie

75,400 (20.0) 52,780 (14.0) Rock Hill, Fort Mill, and unincorporated

parts of York County

Town of

York(b)

Lake

Wylie

9048 (2.4) 4524 (1.2) York, Lake Wylie, Catawba site, and

unincorporated parts of York County

(a) Personal communication, Susan Featherstone, city of Rock Hill, South Carolina, November 28, 2001.

(b) Personal communication, Charles Helms, Director of Public Works, town of York, South Carolina, 

December 3, 2001.

The city of Rock Hill also has a water treatment plant and serves the eastern part of the

county. York County purchases water from Rock Hill, and Rock Hill also sells water to the

town of Fort Mill, which transports the water through its own lines to the York County water

district where it is sold (York County 1999).

In addition, York County buys water from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility District, North

Carolina. This arrangement was initiated as a standing emergency agreement that began

in the summer of 1998. Since then, water has been purchased as needed under the

arrangement (York County 1999).

  Education

There are four school districts in York County. The Rock Hill School District is the largest

with a total enrollment (elementary through high school) of 14,468 students. There are

27 elementary, 11 middle, and 7 high schools in the county. Catawba is located within the |

Clover School District, which receives 75 percent of the taxes paid by Catawba. The

remaining 25 percent of this tax revenue is apportioned between York County and the

remaining school districts. Table 2-9 presents summary information on each of the four

school districts.

In addition, York County is the home of three colleges, all of which are located in Rock Hill. 

Winthrop University is the only comprehensive teaching university in South Carolina with

100 percent accreditation for all eligible programs. It offers programs in four broad areas: 

arts and sciences, business, visual and performing arts, and education. Total enrollment is

approximately 6100 students (The Herald 2001).
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-32 December 2002 |

Table 2-9. York County School District Profile

York School

District

Clover School

District

Rock Hill

School District

Fort Mill

School District

Total enrollment 4,955 4,488 14,468 4,817

Number of schools

Elementary 4 5 14 4

Middle 2 3(a) 4 2

High 2(b) 1 3(c) 1

Expenditures ($1000) 25,444 30,218 77,057 23,647

(a) Includes the Crowders Creek Elementary/Middle School complex.

(b) Includes the Floyd Johnson Vocational Center.

(c) Includes the Applied Technology Center.

Source: The Herald 2001.

York Technical College is a 2-year college with total enrollment of 3600 students. The

college has 96 full-time faculty and offers 68 degree programs. It also offers certificates in

business, computer, arts and sciences, health and human services, and industrial and

engineering technology (The Herald 2001). Clinton Junior College is a 2-year college that

offers course work in the liberal arts and business. It also offers a certificate in church

ministry. Its total enrollment is less than 100 students (The Herald 2001).

  Transportation

| There are 24 counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Catawba site: 11 in South

| Carolina and 13 in North Carolina. The 24-county area is served by 3 major interstate

freeways. Interstate 85 (I-85) enters the region from the northeast and connects Charlotte,

North Carolina, with points in Georgia to the southwest. Interstate 77 runs in a north-south

direction, passes through Charlotte into South Carolina through York County, and continues

on to Columbia, South Carolina. Interstate 40 (I-40) lies in an east-to-west direction,

bypassing Charlotte on the north.

York County is traversed by several highways. In addition to I-77, the county is traversed by

several other Federal highways including U.S. Highways 21 and 321, which are north-south

thoroughfares, and South Carolina Highway (SCH) 274. Major east-west highways are

SCHs 5 and 161.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

In June 1997, the citizens of York County passed a 1 percent sales tax for the purpose of |

generating funds for roadway improvements. New roadways and roadway improvements

are currently on-going throughout the County. The tax was expected to raise approximately

$100 million over a 7-year period. Tax revenues collected and accounted for to date have

exceeded projections; therefore, the maximum amount of the tax ($100 million) that could |

be collected over the 7-year period has been collected (York County 1999). Tax collection

for the roadway improvements, therefore, has been terminated.

Access to the Catawba site is via Concord Road, a two-lane road leading to the plant

entrance. The average annual daily traffic (AADT) count on the road numbers 3000

(Duke 2001a). Other roads lead to turnoffs for Concord Road from both North Carolina

(State Route 49, the most heavily traveled route with AADT counts of 23,000 [Duke 2001a])

and South Carolina (SCHs 49, 274, 80, 55, and others). Level-of-service designations for

these roads were not available (Duke 2001a).

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use

Land use designations have been applied in York County except for unincorporated areas. The

county is divided into six major planning sectors for land use planning designations. Table 2-10

presents the major land use designations for York County.

Table 2-10. Land Use in York County

Land Use Hectares Acres Percent of Total

Forest (all types) 118,570 292,990 66 |

Scrub/shrub(a) 18,600 45,970 10

Agriculture/grasslands 26,100 64,480 14

Water 4560 11,270 3

Urban/built up 10,780 26,640 6

Barren disturbed land 1910 4730 1 |

Total 180,520 446,080 100

(a) Scrub/shrub class of land may include pasture or fallow farmland. |

Note: Land use based on satellite imagery from 1988 to 1990.

Source: South Carolina 1998.
Plant and the Environment

| (a) York County 1999. York County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element. Planning and

Development Services. York, South Carolina. 

<http://www.yorkcountygov.com/departments/Planning Development/docs/land%20use.pdf>

(Accessed November 21, 2001). 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-34 December 2002 |

Each of the planning sectors, and the predominant land use characteristics in each sector, are

briefly discussed below.

The Fort Mill Planning Sector encompasses the northern part of York County along the

I-77 corridor. The presence of I-77, combined with the proximity of Fort Mill to the metropolitan

area of Charlotte, North Carolina, and its municipal airport, which provides major airline service

to other parts of the country, has resulted in substantial growth in population over the last

20 years. The last decade has seen growth in light industrial/commercial type development,

including an office space buildup near I-77. Lake Wylie provides recreational and scenic

amenities and a water supply, which increases the value of homes and encourages the

development of high quality, residential property.(a)

The Rock Hill East Planning Sector encompasses the area east of Rock Hill, both south and

west of the Catawba River and north to the adjoining Chester County border. Land use in this

sector is impacted by I-77, the developing Catawba Indian Nation Reservation, and the

Catawba River. Major employers in this planning sector include the Celanese-Acetate

| Corporation; AMP, Inc.; State Farm Insurance; and Bowater, Inc. Major focal points of

development include the intersection of SCH 161 and I-77. Land use has been historically rural

but is transitioning to residential/subdivision use with building lots being 0.4 to 1.2 ha (1 to 3 ac)

in size. Other communities located in the area include Leslie, Harmony, and Catawba, all of

which are located along SCH 21 and the CSX railroad.(a) |

The Rock Hill West Planning Sector is bounded on the north by Lake Wylie and on the east by

the western portion of the city of Rock Hill. The more rural portion of this sector is the area

along the Chester/York County boundary. The soils in this area tend to shrink/swell with wet

and dry cycles, so for that reason, the county is discouraging intense residential development in

| the area (York County 1999). Factors affecting land use patterns in this sector include the

Rock Hill-York County Airport, which is surrounded by a mix of land uses including residential,

commercial, and rural.(a)

The Bethel/Lake Wylie Planning Sector is bordered by Lake Wylie and Mecklenburg County,

North Carolina, to the east and Gaston County, North Carolina, on the north. Given good road

access, this area historically has encouraged the location of residential commuters to the

sector’s northern part. Parts of the area are in rapid transition from rural use to residential

development. Relatively more dense residential development is occurring around Lake Wylie. 
Plant and the Environment

(a) York County 1999. York County Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element. Planning and |

Development Services. York, South Carolina. 

<http://www.yorkcountygov.com/departments/Planning Development/docs/land%20use.pdf>

(Accessed November 21, 2001). 

December 2002 2-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Historically, the sector has lacked open space and recreational land, but this situation has been

remedied with acquisition of the Ferguson’s/Nanny’s Mountain area, which has been of prime,

historical significance from colonial times when it served as a source of iron products during the

Revolutionary War.(a)

The Clover/Kings Mountain Planning Sector has an observable difference between the more |

established and economically developed portions of eastern York County and the more rural

sectors of the western part of the county. The area encompasses land that extends from the

western town limits of the town of Clover to the boundary between Cherokee and York

Counties. The predominant land use is agricultural conservation. The more developed,

suburban/residential parts of the county lie to the east. Growth is projected to occur more to

the east of Clover than to the west. Most of the workers from this section commute to Gaston

and Mecklenburg Counties in North Carolina for employment. In recent years there have been

ongoing attempts to foster growth within the town of Clover in hopes of reducing the amount of |

commuting.(a)

The York/McConnells/Broad River Planning Sector includes the town of York, which is the

county seat. The town of York is the principal urban land use influence within the sector. It has

pursued aggressively the installation of water and sewer lines to the east of town along SCHs

161 and 5. Wal-Mart has opened a facility to the east of town, which is expected to be an area |

of further economic development. It is anticipated that SCH 5 to the west will be widened to five

lanes and, when completed, will evolve into an east-west connector between I-85 and I-77.(a)

The areas to the south (McConnells) and west (Smyrna) of the town of York are predominantly

rural and designated for agricultural conservation, and have been characterized as York

County’s last frontier. However, improved roads, which enable easier and faster access to the

western part of the county, may lead to economic development similar to that experienced in

the eastern part of the county (Bair 2001). Much of the land around McConnells is still farmed,

and tree farming is the main economic activity in the land west of McConnells and north to |

Smyrna. York County, in its update to the County-wide land use plan, will be placing increased |

emphasis on the preservation of rural lands. The Broad River, which has designated scenic

status by the state of South Carolina, forms the sector’s western boundary.(a)
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-36 December 2002 |

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise

Catawba is located on the shores of Lake Wylie, a reservoir on the Catawba River that

separates North and South Carolina and one of a series of impoundments on the Catawba

| River. Lake Wylie has a full-pond surface area of approximately 4917 ha (12,149 ac) and is the

third largest lake in the Catawba chain of reservoirs. It serves as a recreational resource for

Charlotte, North Carolina, and York County, South Carolina; a source of cooling water for

Catawba; and a source of drinking water for several cities in the region (Duke 2001a).

The Catawba site covers 158 ha (391 ac). Several transmission lines cut across the landscape

leading to the site. Land use around the site is rural/suburban and wooded with houses. 

Visibility of the site when approaching by land from access off Concord Road is limited until

close to the plant boundary. Condensation from the cooling towers is visible from many miles

on cooler mornings.

From onsite, a panoramic view can be seen from the visitor’s center (Energy Quest), which

overlooks the site.

The nuclear station and its cooling towers also can be seen from Lake Wylie. Noise from

Catawba, at both the Energy Quest building and on the lake, is noticeable but not obtrusive.

2.2.8.5 Demography

Population was estimated from the Catawba site out to 80 km (50 mi) in 16-km (10-mi) rings. 

Population estimates for the 80-km (50-mi) area surrounding the site are based on information

provided by the University of North Carolina (Duke 2002c), derived from the 2000 census data. 

NRC Guidance calls for the use of the most recent United States Census Bureau (USCB)

| decennial census data, which in the case of the Catawba site, was the 2000 census

(USCB 2000; Duke 2001a).

  Resident Population within 80 km (50 mi). Table 2-11 presents the population

distribution within 80 km (50 mi) of the Catawba site for population estimates in 10-year

increments starting with 2000 and ending with 2040.

In 2000, an estimated 2,041,465 people lived within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba. Between

2000 and 2010, total population within the 80-km (50-mi) radius is projected to increase by

24 percent. Between 2010 and 2020, the population is expected to increase by 21 percent. 

The growth rate then will experience a slight downward trend through 2030 and 2040,

during which time the growth is projected to be 18 and 16 percent, respectively.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 2-11. Population Distribution from 2000 to 2040 Within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba

0 to 16 km

(0 to 10 mi)

16 to 32 km

(10 to 20

mi)

32 to 48 km

(20 to 30

mi)

48 to 64 km

(30 to 40

mi)

64 to 80 km

(40 to 50

mi) Total

Total 2000 140,760 586,474 524,292 406,417 383,522 2,041,465 |

Total 2010 182,527 694,129 694,243 504,540 449,202 2,524,641 |

Total 2020 228,349 814,999 875,273 612,428 528,018 3,059,067

Total 2030 276,446 944,688 1,061,916 726,321 614,635 3,624,006

Total 2040 326,238 1,080,791 1,252,307 844,328 706,416 4,210,080

Source: Duke 2002c

All or parts of 24 counties, one major city (Charlotte, North Carolina), and many small towns |

are located within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba. Lake Wylie lies within a 16-km (10-mi) radius,

as do the towns of Rock Hill (population 49,800), York (population 7000), and Fort Mill

(population 7600). Over the past 25 years, York County has been ranked as one of the

fastest growing counties in South Carolina, and between 1990 and 2000, the county

experienced a population growth of 25.2 percent (USCB 2000, 1990).

The largest population center within a portion of the 32-km (20-mi) area is Charlotte, North

Carolina, which is northwest of Catawba. The population of Charlotte in 2000 was 541,000

(USCB 2000).

Table 2-12 lists the projected age distribution for York (South Carolina), Gaston (North

Carolina), and Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Counties in 2000 compared to the general age

distribution of South and North Carolina. The population age distribution in York County

tracks fairly closely with the general distribution for the State of South Carolina. The biggest

difference is in the 65-and-over age bracket where York County’s percentage of population

is 10.4 percent compared to 12.1 percent for the general population in South Carolina. 

Gaston County’s population age distribution closely parallels North Carolina’s general

population distribution. The exception is in the 18-to-24 age bracket where Gaston County

lags North Carolina by 1.8 percent. Mecklenburg County has a higher percentage of its

population in the 25-to-44 age group than North Carolina (36.4 versus 31.1 percent,

respectively). Mecklenburg County slightly exceeds North Carolina in the under-18 age

bracket (25.1 versus 24.4 percent, respectively) and is less than the North Carolina general

population in the 65-and-over age bracket.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-38 December 2002 |

Table 2-12. Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000

York County,

S.C. South Carolina

Gaston County,

N.C.

Mecklenburg

County, N.C. North Carolina

| Age Group Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Under-18 43,284 26.3 1,009,641 25.2 46,874 24.6 174,249 25.1 1,964,047 24.4

18-to-24 15,557 9.5 407,851 10.2 15,700 8.2 67,336 9.7 806,821 10.0

| 25-to-44 51,123 31.1 1,185,955 29.6 59,013 31.0 252,803 36.4 2,500,535 31.1

45-to-64 37,578 22.8 923,232 23.0 44,710 23.5 141,342 20.3 1,808,862 22.5

| 65-and-Over 17,072 10.1 485,333 12.0 23,985 12.5 59,724 8.5 969,048 12.0

Total 164,614 4,012,012 190,365 695,454 8,049,313

Source: USCB 2000.

|  Transient Population. The transient population in the vicinity of the Catawba site can be

characterized as daily or seasonal. Daily transients are associated with places where a

large number of people gather regularly, such as local businesses, industrial facilities,

and schools. Table 2-13 presents information on the major employment sectors and

number of employees by sector for York County.

Seasonal transients also result from part-time residents’ pursuit of recreational activities. 

Lake Wylie is a major source of recreation in York (South Carolina) and Mecklenburg

(North Carolina) Counties. The daily and seasonal population associated with recreation on

the lake is listed in Table 2-14.

Lake Wylie is located west to southwest of Charlotte in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties

in North Carolina and in the northeast part of York County in South Carolina. The lake has

| a full-pond surface area of approximately 4917 ha (12,149 ac) and 526 km (327 mi) of

shoreline at full pond elevation (Duke 2001a).

| Duke owns eight developed public recreational access locations on Lake Wylie. Two of

these access locations are leased. There are several county and city parks. Three

undeveloped county parks are owned by Mecklenburg County. Twelve commercial nonresidential marinas and one commercial/residential marina provide additional public access

to the lake (Duke 2000b).
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 2-13. Major Employment Sectors in York County, South Carolina in 1999

Employment Sector Number of Employees

Services 22,380

Retail trade 14,641

Manufacturing 12,733

Government and government enterprises 10,393

Source: BEA 1999.

Table 2-14. Visitors to Lake Wylie: 1999 and Projected 2050

Recreational Activity Estimated 1999 Projected 2050

Boating – all types 1,076,299 2,550,256

Bank/pier fishing 299,132 733,461

Lake swimming 252,173 678,044

Tailrace fishing 26,460 64,878

Backpacking 1967 8132

Hunting 12,783 20,136

Tent/vehicle camping 17,699 80,996

Windsurfing 1967 4506

Bicycling 9833 28,985

Picnicking 112,514 359,466

Sightseeing 90,375 310,981

Hiking 29,797 106,673

Wildlife viewing 57,032 211,249

Use of playgrounds 10,816 33,497

Total 1,998,846 5,191,260

Source: Duke 2000b.
Plant and the Environment

(a) USCB 1990 decennial census data was used because the 2000 census was not available at the

time the recreational study was undertaken.

(b) Henry Nunnery and Rusty Thompson, personal communication, Clemson University Agricultural

Extension Service, York, S.C. October 24, 2001.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-40 December 2002 |

In 1999, Duke undertook a study to estimate recreational use on Lake Wylie (Duke 2000a). 

Visitation figures were derived based on estimates of the traffic entering the Duke-owned

public access areas. During the 1999 study period, the estimated number of visits was

839,531. A visit is considered a vehicle or vehicle/trailer entering the site for any part of a

day. From survey data, a ratio of 1.3 to 1 occupants per vehicle was observed for those

respondents claiming use of both public and private access areas. Employing the 1.3 to

1 ratio, Duke estimated that overall recreational visitation for Lake Wylie during the 1999

| study period totaled 1,076,299 visits for boating (including fishing, canoeing, jet skiing,

kayaking, sailing, and water skiing/tubing; see Table 2-14).

Using population projections for the counties within 80 to 96 km (50 to 60 mi) of Lake Wylie

(the impact zone) from 1999 to 2050 in 10-year increments, Duke estimated future

recreational use on the reservoir (Duke 2000a). Population projections to 2050 used a

| combination of 1970 to 1990 population data and 2000 and 2010 population projections

from USCB data.(a)

The recreational use projections were estimated by computing the projected population

increase for each impact zone and incorporating indexed values for future recreational use

| for the various activities. The indices are based on models that incorporate a number of

variables, including age structure of the population, income, race, sex, population density,

| and other explanatory variables (Cordell 1999). For the year 2050, Duke has estimated that

recreational use of the lake will total 5,191,260 visitors. Of this total, boating-related

activities will account for 2,550,256 visitor days, or 49 percent. Table 2-14 presents

information on the estimated use of Lake Wylie by recreational activity for 1999 and

projections to 2050.

  Migrant Labor. Migrant workers typically are members of minority or low-income populations. Their travels, and the fact that they can temporarily spend a significant amount of

time in an area without being an actual resident, means they may be unavailable for

census counts. If this occurs, these workers would be “underrepresented” in minority

and low-income population counts undertaken by the USCB.

In 1997, York County had 726 individual farms. Nursery and greenhouse crops are

increasing substantially, and migrant labor is used in these farming operations. There are

about 500 migrant workers who reside in the county most of the year, and they work 8 to

10 months of the year.(b) | The workers also may work in other lower paying occupations
Plant and the Environment

(a) During the 9-year period, there was a net increase in employment within the county of approximately |

17,370.

December 2002 2-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

besides agriculture. Given the fact that they are not concentrated in a single location and

their numbers are small, migrant workers probably do not materially change the population

characteristics of any particular census tract in York County.

2.2.8.6 Economy

The prosperity of York County is closely linked to the economy of Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Charlotte (population 541,000) (USCB 2000) is one of the fastest growing regions in the Nation. |

It is a major financial center for the southeastern United States and is the home of corporate

headquarters for Bank of America, Wachovia Bank, and Duke Energy Corporation.

In 2000, York County was the sixth fastest growing county in South Carolina (York

County 2001). Population in York County is expected to grow a total of 11 percent from 2000 to

2015. This is more than twice the general growth rate predicted for South Carolina, which is

expected to grow a total of approximately 5 percent during the same time period. New job

creation in the county increased from a little less than 500 per year in 1990 to 1500 per year in

2000. Capital investment increased from an annual $50 million (1990 dollars) to $250 million

(2000 dollars).

From an economic standpoint, York County was a county in transition during the decade of the

1990s. Like many areas of the southeastern United States, the County has lost some of its

manufacturing base, primarily in textiles and mining. Table 2-15 lists the major industrial

groups by a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, their employment levels in 1990 and |

1999, and the percentage change in employment. Significant increases in employment

occurred in three major categories: (1) agricultural services, forestry, fishing and other;

(2) retail and wholesale trade; and (3) services. Increases in employment more than offset

losses in employment during the 9-year period.(a) |

Still, York County is a net exporter of workers to surrounding counties linked to the economy of

Charlotte. For example in 1990, 49 percent of the workers commuted to jobs outside York

County with most of the commuters traveling to jobs in Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties in

North Carolina. Table 2-16 presents information on York County labor commuting patterns

between 1980 and 1990, which is the latest data available.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-42 December 2002 |

Table 2-15. Economic Base for York County by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code

Business Sector

Employment

1990

Employment

1999

Percent

Change

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 584 951 62.8

Mining 50 66 32.0

Construction 3994 4971 24.5

Manufacturing 14,858 12,733 -14.3

Transportation and public utilities 4070 3954 -2.9

Wholesale trade 2212 4397 98.8

Retail trade 10,367 14,641 41.2

Finance, insurance, and real estate 2711 3589 32.4

Services 13,783 22,380 62.4

Government and government enterprises 8207 10,393 26.6

Farm 1045 1174 12.3

Totals 61,881 79,249

| 1999.

Table 2-16. Commuting Patterns of York County Workers

1980 1990 % Change

Residents working in York County 33,425 42,675 27.7

Residents commuting to:

Mecklenburg County, N.C. 8057 16,849 109.1

Gaston County, N.C. 1359 2745 102.0

Chester County, S.C. 559 952 70.3

Lancaster County, S.C. 292 482 65.1

Workers commuting to York County from:

Mecklenburg County, N.C. 1047 2389 128.2

Gaston County, N.C. 864 2166 150.7

Chester County, S.C. 1334 1780 33.4

Lancaster County, S.C. 969 917 -5.4

Source: York County 1999.
Plant and the Environment

(a) Personal communication Henry Nunnery and Rusty Thompson, Clemson University Agricultural

Extension Service, October 24, 2001.

December 2002 2-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Economic development in York County is concentrated along the I-77 corridor running from

Rock Hill north to the North Carolina border. This corridor is the location of the greatest

commercial/industrial development and is home to new office parks and product distribution

centers. Also, there is a concentration of new residential development paralleling I-77 and in a

band roughly encompassed by the town of York and the city of Rock Hill. Along I-77, Fort Mill is

experiencing a high level of mid-scale ($150,000 average per home) residential development. 

To the west and northwest, development is influenced by Lake Wylie. Clean water, recreation

opportunities, and an excellent fishery have led to construction of numerous upscale ($250,000-

plus per home) residential developments around the lake.

The western part of the county, generally defined as that half of the county to the west of the

towns of York and McConnell, is rural with agriculture and timber production being the

predominant economic factors. Large farms and tracts of undeveloped land predominate, with

a few residential developments and houses with acreage.

The economic contribution of agriculture to the economy of York County is significant. The

market value of agricultural products produced and sold in York County increased from about

$22 million in 1992 (1992 dollars) to $41 million in 1997 (1997 dollars) (USDA 1997). The

main crop grown within York County is timber ($14.981 million in value in 1997) (South |

Carolina 2000) with approximately 118,560 ha (293,000 ac) (South Carolina 1998) in production |

during the 1990s.

Production of nursery and greenhouse crops is also increasing substantially. There are

20 greenhouse operations in the county.(a) Crop sales in 1992 were $5 million (1992 dollars) |

and increased by 173 percent to approximately $14 million (1997 dollars) in 1997 (USDA 1997). 

The increasing residential development in the county provides major market for the nurseries. 

Other crops of importance in the county are soybeans, hay, oats, and wheat (South

Carolina 2000). |

The unemployment rate for York County was at 3.6 percent at the beginning of 1990. It rose to

a high of 8.1 percent as the economic ramifications of the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NFTA) began to be felt in the southeastern part of the United States. 

Manufacturing in York County started to decline in 1992, and textile companies left to start

plants in Mexico and other places. By December 2000, the unemployment rate in York County
Plant and the Environment

(a) Personal communication and supporting data from Matt Snellgrove, York County (South Carolina)

Economic Development, November 28, 2001.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-44 December 2002 |

was at 2.7 percent(a) as the county continued its transition to a different type of employment

base and economy.

In 1990, the average per capita personal income in York County was $17,480 (1990 dollars). 

This average compares to the South Carolina average of $16,050 and the U.S. average of

$19,585. By 1999, the average per capita income in York County had increased to $24,575 (an

increase of 41 percent in nominal terms), while the increases in South Carolina and the United

States were to $23,540 (47 percent increase) and $28,545 (46 percent increase), respectively

| (BEA 1999). 

The percent of York County’s population identified in poverty status remained fairly constant at

10.3 percent of the population in 1989 (compared to 15.4 percent for South Carolina) versus

| an estimated 11 percent in 1997 (compared to 14.9 percent for South Carolina) (South

Carolina 2000).

The growth that has occurred in York County may change the significance of Catawba’s

influence on the County’s economy. If the economy continues to grow at the past-decade rate,

which seems likely given the rising importance and significant impact of Charlotte on the

regional economy, it is likely that the importance of Catawba as an employer and property tax

payer in York County may decline. Catawba will continue to be an important contributor to the

economic stability of the County and the surrounding region, particularly the Clover School

District for which Catawba will continue to be a major economic benefactor. But the relative

importance of its contribution will decline as the economic base of the region and county

continues to grow and diversify.

Catawba currently pays a significant amount of annual property taxes to York County. There

are five owners of the Catawba facility, and Duke’s ownership share is approximately

9.6 percent. Table 2-17 presents information on the total real and personal property taxes paid

by Catawba to York County, the total real and personal property taxes collected by the county,

and the proportion of the total Catawba property taxes paid as it relates to the county total. 

This percentage declined between 1996 and 2000.

Approximately 75 percent of the property taxes paid by Catawba are allocated to support the

schools in York County School District 2 (Clover District), the school district within which

Catawba is located. The remaining 25 percent of the tax revenue from Catawba supports

countywide operations and the three other school districts.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 2-17. Catawba Contribution to York County Property Tax Revenues

Year

Real and Personal Taxes

Paid by Catawba ($)

Percent of Total

County Property

Taxes

Total County Real and Personal

Property Taxes Collected ($)

1996 33,322,651 27.1 123,179,094

1997 35,377,146 26.4 133,762,343

1998 35,796,436 25.5 140,404,832

1999 35,957,979 23.4 153,351,879

2000 35,861,194 21.9 163,503,134

Source: Isaiah Boyd, York County Auditor, November 6, 2001.

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known and potential historic and

archaeological resources at Catawba and in the immediate surrounding area.

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background

The area around the Catawba plant is rich in prehistoric and historic Catawba Native American

and historic Euro-American resources; although, in some cases the cultural periods have not

been extensively documented. This is particularly true for the archaeological resources in the

immediate area of the plant. General historical aspects of the Catawba Indians can be found in

regional overviews (Brown 1966; Hudson 1970; Merrell 1989). More recently, the Catawba

Indian Nation has initiated both archaeological (Kenion and May 1995) and historical projects

through the Catawba Cultural Preservation Project to document the cultural resources both on

the current reservation and the larger area of former occupation. Non-Indian history of the

county, including information on historic properties, also has been documented (Shankman

et al. 1983; Kissane and Kissane 1993; Thomas 1995).

  Prehistoric Period

The prehistoric Native American occupation of the region that encompasses the Catawba

site includes three periods: the Paleo-Indian period (about 10,000 to 8000 B.C.), the

Archaic period (about 8000 to 1000 B.C.), and the Woodland period (about 1000 B.C. to

A.D. 1600). Toward the end of the Woodland period from about A.D. 1500 to 1675, a

transitional episode known as the Protohistoric period occurred during which initial contacts

with Europeans and cultural changes associated with subsequent European settlement of

the area took place.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-46 December 2002 |

The prehistoric periods were marked by initial reliance on big game hunting subsistence,

followed by increased use of smaller game animals and plant foods in the Archaic era. 

Major environmental changes in the Archaic period led to an increasingly more sedentary

lifestyle, focused primarily in riverine settings. Late in the Archaic era, more sedentary

villages and an increasing reliance on cultivated crops became the norm, and the

subsequent Woodland period was characterized by larger base camps in the river valleys

with subsistence based on agriculture, hunting and gathering, and intergroup trade. The

latter part of the Woodland period is primarily identified by the added presence of European

trade goods.

  Native American Historic Period

At the time of European contact and subsequent intrusion into the area surrounding

Catawba, the lands on both sides of the Catawba River in what would become North and

South Carolina were occupied by the Catawba Indian Nation. Initial contact between the

Catawba Indians and European explorers occurred in the 1560s, although European

colonization of the region did not take place until nearly a century later. Following hostilities

in the French and Indians Wars, a 39 km2

 (15 mi2) reservation was established in 1763 for

the Catawba Nation in South Carolina. This reservation was located in what would

eventually become York and Lancaster Counties. The northern boundary line of the

reservation was located just south of the current Catawba site. As a result of an 1840 treaty

between the Catawba Nation and the State of South Carolina, the state purchased all of the

land within the original reservation, much of which had already been leased by the Indians

to white settlers. In 1850, a tract of some 254 ha (630 ac) of land on the west side of the

Catawba River was purchased for the Catawba, including the reservation that continues to

be occupied today. The reservation is located about 8 km (5 mi) southeast of the plant site. 

In 1962, the tribe was disbanded, and lands were divided among its members. The

Catawba Tribe reorganized in 1973 and was awarded renewed Federal recognition in 1993.

  Euro-American Historic Period

In 1785, following the Revolutionary War, York County became one of the original counties

in the newly created state of South Carolina. In a census taken 5 years later, the County

had a population of just over 6600. Cotton was introduced to the area in the 1790s and

quickly dominated the economy and land-use patterns of the County. Though interrupted

by the Civil War, depletion of the County’s soils as a result of intensive cultivation, and

recurring ups and downs in the agricultural economy, cotton remained the primary crop into

the first few decades of the 1900s when other crops, such as soybeans, became more

prevalent.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

An important event in the history of York County was the beginning of construction of the

Catawba Dam and Power Plant in 1900. The completion of the dam and the newly formed

Lake Wylie were instrumental in subsequent development of other dams and hydropower

projects on the Catawba River and in sparking industrialization of the river corridor,

including the beginnings of the Duke Power Company.

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at Catawba

To assess known and potential cultural resource sites at Catawba, several existing literature

and database sources were consulted, along with direct contacts at several organizations (see

Appendix D). In addition to the sources included in Appendix D, electronic database searches

were conducted at the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places Information

System and the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record

listings.

Examination of the National Register listings did not disclose any listed or potentially eligible

properties in proximity to the plant site. The closest potentially eligible property is the location

of the Revolutionary-War-era Hill’s Ironworks. This property is located near the point where

SCH 274 crosses Allison Creek, about 2 miles southwest of the Catawba site. Similarly,

discussions with personnel at the Catawba Cultural Preservation Project did not reveal the

presence of any known archaeological or other traditional cultural properties at the Catawba

site that might be of interest to the Catawba Indian Nation.

Examination of archaeological and historic site files at the South Carolina Department of

Archives and History and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology

(SCIAA) indicated that no prehistoric or historic properties have been recorded at the Catawba

site itself. However, no formal archaeological surveys have been completed at the plant. The

nearest recorded archaeological sites are located along Catawba transmission line rights-ofway, southwest of the site, which were surveyed in 1978 (Brockington 1980), and by a more |

recent survey along SCH 274, running north-south to the west of the plant site (Joy and

Stine 2000). There are six archaeological sites within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the plant, the closest

being situated in a transmission line right-of-way at a distance of about 1 km (0.6 mi). None of

these sites has been evaluated as being potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places.

Examination of historical maps and aerial photographs that include the Catawba site reveal the

past presence of several historic properties either close to or within the plant site boundaries. 

Copies of these maps are located at either the South Carolina Department of Archives and 
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-48 December 2002 |

History or the Historical Center of York County. Documents examined, along with results,

include the following:

  York District, South Carolina Map, Surveyed by Gordon Moore, 1820, Improved for Mills

Atlas 1825. This map shows the location of Hill’s Old Ironworks on the south side of

Allison Creek, southwest of the Catawba site and the Thorn’s Ferry and Road that

passed in an east-west direction to the south of the site. The ferry landing was located

at the south end of Long Island, southeast of the site, and now is inundated by Lake

Wylie. The boundary of the 1763 Catawba Indian Nation Reservation also is indicated.

  Map of York District Post Offices, 1802 - 1861. There are no post offices indicated

within the Catawba site during this period. The closest post offices were at Hill’s

Ironworks, Clay Hill, and McElwee’s Store, all to the southwest near Allison Creek.

  Grants of Land Made by Commissioner of Locations for York District, South Carolina,

During the Years 1841-42 in the Catawba Indian Boundary, prepared by Mr. and

Mrs. J. Thomas Williams, 1983. This map shows lands in the vicinity of the site being

owned by the Biggers, Faris, Mitchell, and Partlow families.

  Geonostic Map of York District, 1858. This map shows churches and mineralogical,

geological, and agricultural features. Nothing in these categories was shown at the

current Catawba site.

  York County South Carolina, Geological and Agricultural Map, 1873. This map shows

the Thorn’s Ferry Road south of the plant site, along with the location of Mason’s Ferry

just upriver from the plant. A road from Allison Creek to this ferry crossed just northwest

of the present Catawba site.

  York County, South Carolina, copyright 1910 by Jones and Walker, Rock Hill, South

Carolina. This map was the first to show the Concord Church and Cemetery, along with

several residences that once existed on lands now included within the Catawba site. 

Several homes, along with family names, are shown along Concord Road and along a

road that extended north from the Concord Church vicinity through the site and across

| Beaver Dam Creek. In addition to the church, some 12 homes and/or structures are

| indicated within the plant boundary. The Concord Cemetery, which is located adjacent

to the Catawba site boundary, is discussed below.

  U.S. Geological Survey Clover, SC - NC, 15' Quadrangle Map, 1947. This map shows

the location of the Concord Road and Church, along with 12 homes or structures that

were located either within or very close to the Catawba site.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Map of York County, South Carolina, 1961. 

This map, actually an aerial photograph, shows the location of Concord and the

associated road, cleared field or pasture areas along the road, and the presence of at

least six structures in the vicinity of the Catawba site.

The Concord Cemetery is the only acknowledged cultural resource property adjacent to the |

Catawba site today, although the historical records listed above indicate that a church was once

situated adjacent to the cemetery, and there were several residences in proximity along the Old

Concord Road. Presently, the cemetery is located just north of the northwest corner of the

plant’s cooling tower yard and is fenced and protected within the plant site boundary. Since

1974 the cemetery has been owned and managed (including access) by the Concord Cemetery

Association. Two tombstone surveys (Caldwell and Hart 1997; Hill 2001) have been conducted |

and indicate that over 150 persons are buried in the cemetery, the earliest occurring in 1834

and the most recent in 1995. The earliest interments were members of the Faris family, owners

in the 1840s of parts of Long Island and other tracts south of the Catawba site.

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies (including FERC)

might impact the renewal of the Catawba OLs. Any such activities could result in cumulative

environmental impacts and the possible need for such a Federal agency to become a

cooperating agency in the preparation of this SEIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)). |

Duke’s McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire) is located approximately 48 km (30 mi) north of

Catawba. Duke also is requesting that the NRC renew the OLs for McGuire. |

The Federal Power Commission, now FERC, issued a license (FERC Project No. 2232) to

Duke Power Company on September 17, 1958, for the Catawba-Wateree Project. This license

expires in 2008, and Duke plans to seek a renewal of the license. The Catawba-Wateree

Project consists of 11 lakes on the Catawba River, which were formed by hydroelectric power

plant dams. Lake Wylie, from which Catawba draws water, extends 45 km (28 mi) between

Mountain Island Dam and Wylie Dam. This lake was formed by impounding the water of the

Catawba River in 1904. Following an increase in dam height in 1924, the lake now covers |

4917 ha (12,149 ac) at a normal operating level, though fluctuations exist based on |

hydroelectric generation needs.

The Federal lands closest to the Catawba site are within the Kings Mountain National Military |

Park. The park is located near Blacksburg, South Carolina, and is operated by the

U.S. National Park Service. The park is approximately 27 km (17 mi) northwest of Catawba.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-50 December 2002 |

The Native American land closest to the Catawba site is a section of the Catawba Indian

Reservation, north of the city of Rock Hill, approximately 10 km (6 mi) southeast of Catawba. 

After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of Catawba, the staff determined there were

no Federal project activities that could result in cumulative impacts or would make it desirable

for another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for preparing this SEIS.

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

environmental impact involved. NRC consulted with FWS, and the consultation

correspondence is included in Appendix E.

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 50, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

| 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulation, 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.”

| 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part

190, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

|

Bailey, R.G. 1980. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391. Washington, D.C.

| Bair, Karen. October 21, 2001. “Special Report: Western York County – Vanishing Eden.” 

The Herald. Rock Hill, South Carolina.

|

Brockington, Paul E. 1980. Test Pits in the Piedmont: An Archaeological Survey of Duke

Power Company’s Proposed Catawba Transmission Lines. Institute of Archaeology and

Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Brown, Douglas S. 1966. The Catawba Indians: The People of the River. University of South

Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1999. Regional Accounts Data. 1990 and 1999. |

<http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/> (Accessed April 9, 2002).

Caldwell, T. J. and J. E. Hart, Jr. 1997. “Concord Cemetery.” The York County Genealogical |

and Historical Society Quarterly, December 1997.

Collette, B. B. 1962. “The swamp darters of the subgenus Hololepis (Pisces, Percidae).” |

Tulane Studies in Zoology 9(4):115-211.

Cordell Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply

Trends 1999. As cited in Duke Power. Draft Shoreline Management Plan Update for the

Catawba – Wateree Hydro Project. FERC No. 2232. Group Health and Safety Department,

Lake Management. September 22, 2000.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 1988. Catawba Nuclear Station 316(a) Demonstration Two

Unit Operational Report. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 1993. Catawba Nuclear Station Supplemental 316a

Demonstration Data. Duke Power Company, York, S.C. January 1993.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2000a. Duke Energy Company Catawba Nuclear Station

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Revised April 8, 2000. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2000b. The Catawba: An Update on the Catawba River

Basin and the Catawba Reservoirs. Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

License Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001b. Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, Offsite Dose

Calculation Manual (ODCM). Rev. 43, January 2001. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001c. Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report 2000. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001d. Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, 2000

Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (January 1, 2000 Through December 31, 2000). 

Charlotte, North Carolina.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-52 December 2002 |

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002a. Application to Renew the Operating Licenses of the

McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Power Stations. ”Attachment 2: Catawba River Forage Fish

Densities, Population Estimates and Species Composition: 1993-1997.” Response to a

request for additional information. Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, and 50-414. 

February 8, 2002. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002b. Application to Renew the Operating Licenses of the

| McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Power Stations. “Attachment 3: Number and Percent

Composition of Fishes Collected in Electrofishing Samples at Locations 215 and 216 on Lake

Wylie during 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996.” Response to a request for additional

information. Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, and 50-414. February 8, 2002. Charlotte,

North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002c. Application to Renew the Operating Licence of

| McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations. “Attachment 1: Responses to NRC Request for

Additional Information Concerning the Catawba Environmental Report.” In response to NRC

letter dated December 12, 2001. Charlotte, North Carolina.

| Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002d. Letter from M.S. Tuckman of Duke Power to U.S.

| Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Subject: Comments on draft plant-specific Supplement 9 to

| NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement of License Renewal of Nuclear Power

| Plants” Catawba Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, August 9, 2002.

| 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.

| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1977, as amended, 33 USC 1251 et seq. 

(Also known as Clean Water Act).

| Gaddy, L. L. 2001. “Biological Assessment for Endangered, Threatened, and Noteworthy

Species, Wetlands, and Significant Natural Areas in Association with the Catawba Nuclear

Station and Related Power Transmission Lines.” Terra Incognita. Columbia, South Carolina.

Hill, Jim. 2001. Old Concord Presbyterian Cemetery.

<http://ns1.rfci.net/wdfloyd/oconcord.html> (Accessed April 9, 2002).

Hudson, Charles. 1970. The Catawba Nation. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Joy, Deborah and Linda France Stine. 2000. Archaeological Survey Report: Improvements to

SC 274 between Newport and Five Points, York County, South Carolina. Legacy Research

Associates, Durham, North Carolina.

Kenion, Rita and J. Alan May. 1995. An Archaeological Survey of the Catawba Indian

Reservation: Archaeological Sites on an Ancient Landscape. Catawba Indian Nation,

Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Kissane, Amy C. and John A. Kissane. 1993. York County Historical and Architectural

Inventory – 1992. The Jaeger Company, Gainesville, Georgia.

Merrell, James H. 1989. Indian’s New World: The Catawbas and Their Neighbors from

European Contact through the Era of Removal. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,

North Carolina.

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

NOAA. 1983. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data – Charlotte,

NC. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service,

Asheville, North Carolina.

North Carolina Atlas of Freshwater Mussels and Endangered Fish. 2001. 

<http://www.ncwildlife.com/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7b1.htm> (Accessed April 9, 2002).

North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 1999. 

Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section.

North Carolina. 2001a. North Carolina Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Inventory

for Gaston and Cleveland Counties, North Carolina. <http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/> 

(Accessed April 9, 2002).

North Carolina. 2001b. North Carolina State Demographics. Population Overview: 

2000-2020. Updated: May 16, 2001. <http://demog.state.nc.us/> (Accessed October 9, 2001).

Paterson, C. G. and C. H. Fernando. 1970. “Benthic fauna colonization of a new reservoir with |

particular reference to the chironomidae.” J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 27:213-232.

Ramsdell, J. V. and G. L. Andrews. 1986. Tornado Climatography of the Contiguous Unites

States. NUREG/CR-4461, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-54 December 2002 |

Shankman, Arnold, E. Thomas Crowson, C. Jack Tucker, and Joel Nichols. 1983. York

County, South Carolina: Its People and Its Heritage. The Donning Company, Norfolk, Virginia.

South Carolina. 1998. South Carolina Statistical Abstract. South Carolina Land Use/Land

Cover by County: 1988-1990 - Parts A, B. South Carolina’s Information Highway. 

<http://www.sciway.net/statistics/scsa98/ag/ag12a.html> (Accessed April 9, 2002).

|

South Carolina. 2001. South Carolina Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Inventory

for York and Cherokee Counties, South Carolina. Updated September 10, 2001

<http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/pls/heritage/county_species.list?pcounty=cherokee> (Accessed

April 9, 2002).

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 1999. 

Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy: Catawba-Santee Basin. Technical Report

No. 002-96. Watershed Strategy Coordinator. Columbia, South Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2001. South Carolina Rare,

Threatened and Endangered Species Inventory. 

<http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map> (Accessed

April 9, 2002).

| South Carolina Statistical Abstract. 2000. Population Projections at Five Year Intervals for

South Carolina Counties: 1990 Census and Projections. 2000-2025 Revised. Updated on

8/14/01. <http://www.ors.state.sc.us/abstract_99/chap14/pop4.htm> (Accessed April 9, 2002).

| The Herald. February 18, 2001. The Herald’s York County Magazine.

Thomas, Samuel N., Jr. 1995. Historical Properties of York County, South Carolina. York

County Historical Commission, McConnells, South Carolina.

|

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Proposed Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2, Duke Power Company. Docket Nos. 50-413

and 50-414, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990. American Fact Finder. 1990 Census. Housing Units. 

By County in South Carolina. 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF1_

GCTHA_ST2&_geo_id=04000US45> (Accessed April 9, 2002).

|
Plant and the Environment

December 2002 2-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. American Fact Finder. 2000 Census. Population and

Housing by County in South Carolina. 2000.

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet> (Accessed April 9, 2002).

|

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. 1997 Census of Agriculture. South Carolina |

County-Level Data. Volume 1: Part 40, Chapter 2. 

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/sc-40/toc297.htm> (Accessed

April 9, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001. “U.S. Wind Energy Resource Map.” |

<http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/we_map.html> (Accessed April 8, 2002).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996. Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 30 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. “Proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the

lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife.” 64 FR 36453. |

July 11, 2002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” 66 FR 36229. |

July 11, 2001. |

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Letter from R. L. Banks (FWS) to E. A. Carpenter

(NRC). (Re: Request for list of species within the area under evaluation for the Catawba

Nuclear Station License Renewal. February 12, 2002. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Final Environmental Statement Related to

the Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414. |

NUREG-0921, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. Offsite Dose Calculations Manual

Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors. 

NUREG-1301, Washington, D.C.

Voshell, J. R. and G. M. Simmons , Jr. 1978. ”The Odonota of a new reservoir in the

southeastern United States.” Odonatologia 7(1):67-76.
Plant and the Environment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 2-56 December 2002 |

Warren, Jr., M. L., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier,

B. J. Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 

2000. Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the

Southern United States. Fisheries 25(10): 7-29. October 2000.

York County. 1999. York County Comprehensive Planning. Planning and Development

Services. York, South Carolina.

York County. 2001. York County Economic Development – Future Trends in Economic

Development. Fort Mill, South Carolina.
(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 9 |

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 do not meet one or more of the criteria for 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 9 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 Catawba

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba) because they are related to plant design features or

site characteristics not found at Catawba are listed in Appendix F.

The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the

analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned. Duke Energy

Corporation (Duke) indicated that it has performed an evaluation of structures and components

pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 and, “based on that 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”

(Duke 2001). Duke stated that routine replacement of certain components are within the

bounds of normal plant maintenance and they will not affect the environment outside the

bounds of plant operations as evaluated in the final environmental statement (NRC 1983). 
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

December 2002 3-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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.

Duke’s evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify |

any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued

operation of Catawba beyond the end of the existing operating licenses. Therefore,

refurbishment is not considered in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. |
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 3-4 December 2002 |

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.”

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

License Renewal Stage Catawba Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Final Environmental Statement Related to

the Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Duke Power Company, et al. Docket

Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, NUREG-0921, 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.
(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 9 |

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant 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, 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 not likely

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 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 the Catawba

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba). Section 4.1 addresses issues applicable to the

Catawba cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses issues related to transmission lines and onsite

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 potential new information that was raised during the scoping period. The

results of the evaluation of environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-2 December 2002 |

are summarized in Section 4.8. Finally, Section 4.9 lists the references for Chapter 4. 

Appendix F list Category 1 and Category 2 issues that are not applicable to Catawba because

they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at Catawba.

4.1 Cooling System

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

to Catawba cooling system operation during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. Duke

Energy Corporation (Duke) stated in its Environmental Report (ER; Duke 2001) that it is not

aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the Catawba

operating licenses (OLs). The staff has not identified any significant new information during its

independent review of the Catawba 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 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 of

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, for each of these issues follows Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Catawba 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 4.2.1.2.2; 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
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 4-1. (contd)

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections |

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

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (PLANTS WITH COOLING-TOWER-BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3

Heat shock 4.3.3

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 4.3.4

Cooling tower impacts on native plants 4.3.5.1

Bird collisions with cooling towers 4.3.5.2

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6

Noise 4.3.7

  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.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-4 December 2002 |

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba 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 at intake and discharge structures 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.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba 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

thermal stratification of lakes during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

that there are no impacts of scouring caused by discharged cooling water 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 Catawba 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.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba 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 Catawba, or discussion with the NPDES compliance office. Therefore, the staff

concludes that there are no impacts of discharges 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 Catawba ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available

information including the NPDES permit for Catawba, or discussion with the 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.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-6 December 2002 |

  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 Catawba ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available

information including the NPDES permit for Catawba, or discussion with the 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.

  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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  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.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba 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 Catawba 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

plume barriers 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 Catawba 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 distributions of aquatic organisms during the renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-8 December 2002 |

  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 Catawba 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 of aquatic insects during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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 in the discharge during the renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  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 Catawba 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 sublethal stresses

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  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 Catawba 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 regarding

stimulation of nuisance organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

  Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages (cooling-tower-based heat

dissipation). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with this type of cooling system 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 Catawba 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 regarding

entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-10 December 2002 |

  Impingement of fish and shellfish (cooling-tower-based heat dissipation). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with this type of cooling system 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 Catawba 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 regarding

impingement of fish and shellfish during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

  Heat shock (cooling-tower-based heat dissipation). Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with this type of cooling system 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 Catawba 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 regarding

heat shock during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with

cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower

impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  Cooling tower impacts on native plants. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with

cooling tower operation 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 Catawba ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower

impacts on native vegetation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

  Bird collisions with cooling towers. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

These collisions 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 Catawba 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 regarding

bird collisions with cooling towers 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

exposures.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba 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

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.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-12 December 2002 |

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba 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 Catawba are listed in Table 4-2 and are discussed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Catawba Cooling System

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

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE

Water-use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or

cooling towers using make-up water from a

small river with low flow)

4.3.2.1, 4.4.2.1 A 4.1.1

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (public health)

(plants using lakes or canals, or cooling towers

or cooling ponds that discharge to a small river)

4.3.6 G 4.1.2

4.1.1 Water-Use Conflicts

Consumptive water use can adversely impact riparian vegetation and associated animal

communities by reducing the amount of water available for plant growth, maintenance, and

reproduction. While changes, albeit small, in average annual stream flow downstream of Lake

Wylie are inevitable due to the decrease in the total water supply, any changes that might occur

in the pool elevation in Lake Wylie are less clear.

Under average conditions, the effect of Catawba consumptive use is a decrease of about

1.2 percent in outflow from Lake Wylie. Water levels in the Catawba River downstream of

Lake Wylie Dam fluctuate on a daily basis as a result of releases from the Lake Wylie Hydro

| Station. However, using the rating table for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge 02146000,

the reduction in outflow attributable to Catawba operations results in a stage decrease of 6 mm

(0.2 in.) for the Catawba River downstream of Lake Wylie under average conditions. Under low

flow conditions, Catawba consumptive use does not affect downstream conditions because of

the minimum release requirement. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Lake Wylie is the seventh of eleven impoundments in the 410-km (255-mi) Catawba-Wateree

Project managed by Duke and licensed by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

The Catawba-Wateree Project releases water from its dams to optimize hydroelectric

generation, provide flood control, and meet minimum release requirements while maintaining a

constant and reliable water supply for thermoelectric stations, surrounding communities, and

industry. Consumptive water demand by Catawba is only one of numerous considerations in

the overall operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project that will define the pool elevation of

Lake Wylie.

Total evaporative losses for Lake Wylie are estimated to be 3.68 m3

/s (130 cfs). Consumptive

use by Catawba represents 1.47 m3

/s (52 cfs) (1997 through 1999 average) of the total. Since

Lake Wylie is managed to maintain a stable pool elevation, consumptive uses by Catawba do

not affect pool elevations as long as there is adequate inflow. Under 7Q10 (the estimated

7-day minimum flow occurring on the average once in 10 years) conditions, total outflow from

Lake Wylie would be 0.71 m3

/s (25 cfs) greater that inflow. The 7Q10 inflow into the lake is

estimated to be 14.6 m3

/s (516 cfs), and the total outflow would be 15.3 m3/s (541 cfs),

including the 11.6 m3

/s (411 cfs) minimum release from Lake Wylie Hydro Station and

3.68 m3

/s (130 cfs) for natural and forced evaporative losses. If Lake Wylie lost 0.71 m3/s

(25 cfs) for 7 days, the lake level would decline 9 mm (0.4 in.). Low water levels in Lake Wylie

could be a factor for these riparian areas if prolonged drawdown occurs. However, as indicated

above, such drawdowns do not occur. Rather, water levels are quite stable year-round. Under

average conditions, Catawba operations do not affect lake levels, and during 7Q10 conditions,

the effect of the operations on Lake Wylie pool elevations would be small.

Lake Wylie does not have the typical riparian areas found alongside a river. Most of the

shoreline adjoins upland settings; however, there are extensive areas of riparian vegetation

adjacent of the headwaters of the reservoir in the area of Interstate 85 and at confluences with

major tributaries such as the South Fork River, Catawba Creek, Crowder’s Creek, Big Allison

Creek, and Little Allison Creek. There are smaller areas of riparian vegetation at the head of

some shallow coves. These riparian zones are dominated by species typical of piedmont

bottomlands and shallow water areas and include river birch (Betula nigra), buttonbush

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), cattail (Typha

latifolia), Joe Pye weed (Eupatorium sp.), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardenalis), pickerel weed |

(Pontederia cordata), and numerous sedges (Carex sp.) and rushes (Juncus sp.). |

White bass (Morone chrysops) is the only fish species that makes an appreciable spawning run

in Lake Wylie. This spawning run is most evident in the Dutchman’s Creek area, which enters

Lake Wylie on the extreme northwestern side of the reservoir. Because of the relatively stable

lake levels, coupled with the fact that white bass make their spawning migration in the

February-April time period, the time of the highest rainfall in the area, the impact of any

consumptive loss from Catawba plant operations is considered negligible.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-14 December 2002 |

There are a few native freshwater mussels (primarily unionids) in Lake Wylie, but because

water levels do not fluctuate significantly, mussel stranding is not an issue. The only mussel of

| any abundance in Lake Wylie is the nonindigenous Asiatic Clam (Corbicula spp.), and this

organism is considered a nuisance organism.

Catawba consumptive use of water is not expected to change during the period of the proposed

license renewal. It is impossible to reliably predict the quantity of future withdrawals over the

| renewal term. However, State and Federal regulations are in place to ensure future

withdrawals do not adversely impact the aquatic and riparian communities in Lake Wylie and

downstream. The impact of the consumptive use of water by Catawba on these and other

aquatic communities in Lake Wylie is SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.1.2 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health)

The Catawba River, which was impounded to form Lake Wylie, has an annual average flow rate

of 123 m3

/s (4390 ft3/s). Catawba uses Lake Wylie as a source of condenser cooling and

station service water. The station uses closed-loop cooling towers, and the distance from the

discharge canal to the nearest dock is approximately 440 m (1360 ft).

Duke, in consultation with public health staff from the SCDHEC, conducted an assessment of

whether continued operation of Catawba would induce public health impacts due to the

enhancement of thermophilic organisms. Based on Catawba-specific experience, a review of

available technical literature on thermophilic organisms, and the fact that there is little heated

| discharge from Catawba as it utilizes cooling towers, such impacts seem unlikely. A letter from

| SCDHEC states:

The potential public health hazard from pathogenic microorganisms whose abundance

might be promoted by artificial warming of recreational waters is largely theoretical and

not substantiated by available data. There is some justification for providing appropriate

respiratory and dermal protection for workers regularly exposed to known contaminated

water, but there seems no significant health threat to off-site persons near such heated

recreational waters.

There has been no known impact of Catawba’s operation on public health related to

thermophylic microorganisms, and consultation with the SCDHEC indicates that the impact of

deleterious microbiological organisms during continued operation of the plant during the

renewal term are low.

The staff concludes that the potential impacts to public health from microbiological organisms

resulting from operation of the plant cooling water discharge system to the aquatic environment

on or in the vicinity of the site are SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

4.2 Transmission Lines

Catawba has five, 230-kV transmission lines leaving the site from the switchyard (NRC 1983; |

Duke 2001). As shown in Table 2-1, the five lines are contained within rights-of-way ranging |

from 35 to 46 m (115 to 150 ft) in width and from 1 to 40 km (0.7 to 24.4 mi) in length covering

a total of 75.7 km (42.4m) and approximately 295 ha (730 ac) (Duke 2001; NRC 1983). The |

rights-of-way, which were constructed or rebuilt between 1973 and 1983, extend out from

Catawba to the north, south, and west (Figure 2-4). The vegetation in the rights-of-way is

managed through a combination of mechanical and herbicide treatments. Initial treatments

include mowing and/or treatment with Arsenal and Accord. Spot treatments then are applied

once every 3 years using Arsenal, Accord, Garlon4A, and Krenite. Herbicide treatments in

wetlands are limited to Arsenal and Accord, which are approved for use in wetlands. In

addition, Duke cooperates with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources regarding

conservation easements and partners with The Wildlife Federation on vegetation management

in some portions of the rights-of-way.

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

transmission lines from Catawba are listed in Table 4-3. Duke stated in the Catawba ER

(Duke 2001) that it is not aware of any new or significant information associated with the license

renewal of Catawba. The staff has not identified any significant new information during its

independent review of the Catawba 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 related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues,

the GEIS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Catawba 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, livestock)

4.5.6.3

Flood plains and wetland 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
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-16 December 2002 |

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 rights-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 Catawba ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussion with the FWS, or its

evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts

regarding power line rights-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 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 Catawba ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 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 Catawba ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

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.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  Flood plains 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 Catawba ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts regarding flood plains

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 the 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 Catawba ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

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.

  Onsite land use. Based on the 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 Catawba ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

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 rights-of-way would continue with no change in

restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-18 December 2002 |

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of

the Catawba ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of power line rights-ofway on land use 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 Catawba 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 the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria (Institute

of Electrical and Electronic Engineers [IEEE] 1997), it is not possible to determine the

significance of the electric shock potential. Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is

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 the transmission lines may

have changed, or the 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 for the specific purpose of

connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the

NESC for preventing electric shock from induced currents.

The Catawba 230-kV switchyard is connected to the primary Duke transmission system by five

230-kV, double-circuit, overhead transmission lines. An evaluation was performed to determine

if the transmission lines meet the requirements of NESC. Duke completed an evaluation of the

transmission lines and determined that, for all spans, the measured clearances from the

sagged plan and profile of each of the five 230-kV transmission lines exceed the original design

vertical clearance requirement (Duke 2001). The utility did not perform any specific modeling or

experimental studies to determine if induced currents would exceed requirements established in

NESC. However, upon review of the information provided by Duke, the staff concluded the
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

assessment was adequate to meet the intent of 10 CFR 51.53. The staff also 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 so designated 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

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 |

Catawba in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-5. Duke stated in the Catawba

ER that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

Catawba OLs. No significant new information has been identified by the staff in its independent

review. 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 additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently

beneficial to be warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-20 December 2002 |

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 Catawba 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.

  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 Catawba 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. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 the

Catawba ER that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with renewal

of the Catawba OLs. The staff has not identified any significant new information during its

independent review of the Catawba 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 related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS (NRC 1996). For these

issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plantspecific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

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

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 Catawba 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, social services, and tourism and recreation during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-22 December 2002 |

  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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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 of

transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Table 4-7 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues that require plant-specific analysis and

environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS.

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations

In determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS

(NRC 1996), which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors,

“sparseness” and “proximity.” Sparseness measures population density within 32 km (20 mi) of

the site, and proximity measures population density and city size within 80 km (50 mi). Each

factor has categories of density and size (GEIS Table C.1), and a matrix is used to rank the

population category as low, medium, or high (GEIS Figure C.1).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 4-7. Environmental Justice 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

environmental report and the staff’s supplemental environmental impact statement.

In 2000, the population living within 32 km (20 mi) of Catawba was estimated to be |

approximately 727,200 (Duke 2002a). This total converts to a population density of about

225 persons/km2

 (580 persons/mi2) living on the land area within a 32-km (20-mi) radius of

Catawba. This concentration falls into the GEIS sparseness Category 4 (i.e., having greater

than or equal to 46 persons/km2

 [120 persons/mi2]).

In 2000, an estimated 2,041,465 people lived within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba, equating to a

population density of around 100 persons/km2

 (260 persons/mi2) on the available land area 

(Duke 2001, 2002a). Applying the GEIS proximity measures (NRC 1996), Catawba is classified

as Category 4 (i.e., having greater than or equal to 73 persons/km2

 [190 persons/mi2] within

80 km [50 mi] of the site). According to the GEIS, these sparseness and proximity scores

identify the nuclear units as being located in a high-population area.

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. Catawba is located in a high-population area and

York County is not subject to growth-control measures that would limit housing development,

although the county does have zoning requirements that govern development in the county. 

Based on the NRC criteria, Duke expects housing impacts to be SMALL during continued |

operations of Catawba (Duke 2001). |

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). In the GEIS, the staff
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) The multiliplier used for York County is 2.2239. This is the South Carolina employment multiplier for

electrical utilities (BEA 1999).

(b) This assumes 55 percent of the new hires reside in York County (see Section 2.2.8.1).

(c) The estimate of 162 housing units (90 units for York County) is likely to be an extreme “upper bound”

estimate. Most of the potential new jobs would most likely be filled by existing area residents, thus

creating no, or little, net demand for housing.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-24 December 2002 |

assumes that an additional staff of 60 permanent workers per unit might be needed during the

| license renewal period to perform routine maintenance and other activities. Duke expects to

perform these routine activities during scheduled outages and does not plan to add additional

| employees to their permanent staff during license renewal at Catawba (Duke 2001). However,

to establish an upper bound on possible increased employment during the license renewal

term, staff assumes the hiring by Duke of 60 additional permanent workers, plus 73 indirect

jobs,(a) would result in an increased demand for a total of 162 housing units around the Catawba

site (or approximately 90 housing units for York County).(b)

The demand for housing units could be met with the construction of new or use of existing,

unoccupied housing. Civilian jobs were projected to be approximately 572,000 in 1996 within a

48-km (30-mi) radius of Rock Hill, South Carolina, and the civilian population was around

| 1.0 million in 2000 (York County 1999). The increase in projected demand for housing units

would not create a discernible change in housing availability, change in rental rates or housing

values, or spur new construction or conversion.(c)

The staff reviewed the available information relative to housing impacts and the conclusions

stated in the Catawba ER (Duke 2001). Based on this review, the staff concludes that the

impact on housing during the license renewal period would 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 build

| additional 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 indicates 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).

Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered both plant demand and plantrelated population growth. Section 2.2.2 describes the permitted water withdrawal rate and
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) Calculated by assuming that the average number of persons per household is 2.4 (133 jobs

x 2.4 = 319). Average persons per household is calculated by dividing the population of York (South

Carolina) and Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Counties by the total number of households in the

Counties (USCB 2000).

(b) Calculated assuming that the average American uses between 50 and 80 gallons of water for

personal use per day: 319 people x 80 gallons per person/day = 96 m3

/day (0.026 MGD).

(c) Personal communication and data provided by Matt Snellgrove, York County (South Carolina)

Economic Development, November 28, 2001.

December 2002 4-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

actual use of water. Duke plans no refurbishment at Catawba, so plant demand for water would

not change beyond current needs (Duke 2001).

The staff assumed an increase of 60 employees during the license renewal period, the |

generation of 133 new jobs, and a net overall population increase of approximately 319 as a

result of those jobs.(a) The impact of this increase in the number of workers onsite is expected

to be SMALL. The plant-related population increase would require an additional 60 to 96

m3

/day (0.016 to 0.026 MGD) of potable water.(b) Catawba receives its domestic water through |

the York County west system. In 2000, the town of York provided water services from January

through August, and the city of Rock Hill provided domestic water services for the remainder of |

the year (Duke 2001). The marginal increase in domestic water Catawba would use per year

as a result of a hypothetical increase in employment of 60 license renewal employees is well

within the residual capacity of the city of Rock Hill water treatment plant.(c) However, at times |

the town of York’s water treatment plant utilization exceeds capacity and, during these times,

the town of York could not supply Catawba’s needs for water. The town of York is in the

process of building a new treatment plant and reservoir to meet expanded needs. However, the

city of Rock Hill has more than enough excess capacity to meet the marginal increase in needs

represented by an increase of 60 employees. The staff reviewed the available information

relative to impacts on public utility services and Duke’s conclusions. Thus the staff finds that |

the impact of increased water use is SMALL and mitigation is not warranted.

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 notes that “significant changes in land use may

be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal.”

In Sections 3.7.5 and 4.7.4 of the GEIS, the staff defined 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.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-26 December 2002 |

LARGE – Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern.

The staff has identified a maximum of 60 additional employees during the license renewal term

plus an additional 73 indirect jobs (for a total of 133 jobs) in the community. In Section 3.7.5

| of the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff stated that if plant-related population growth is less than

5 percent of the study area’s total population, offsite land-use changes would be SMALL,

especially if the study area has established patterns of residential and commercial

development, a population density of at least 23 persons/km2

 (60 persons/mi2), and at least one

urban area with a population of 100,000 or more within an 80-km (50-mi) radius. In this case,

population growth will be less than 5 percent of the area’s total population, the area has

established patterns of residential and commercial development, a population density of well

over 23 persons/km2

 (60 persons/mi2), and at least one urban area (Charlotte) with a population

of 100,000 or more within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. Consequently, the staff concludes that

population changes resulting from license renewal are likely to result in SMALL offsite land-use

impacts.

Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public

services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. In

| Section 4.7.4.1 of the GEIS, the staff stated 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. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to

the community's total revenue, tax-driven land-use changes during the plant's license renewal

term would be SMALL, especially where the community has pre-established patterns of

development and has provided adequate public services to support and guide development. In

| Section 4.7.2.1 of the GEIS, the staff stated that if tax payments by the plant owner are less

than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdictions revenue, the significance level 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 changes would be MODERATE.

York County is the only jurisdiction that taxes Catawba directly, and the Clover School District

receives 75 percent of the tax revenue as a result of Catawba’s presence. Because no major

refurbishment or new construction activities are associated with license renewal, no new

sources of plant-related tax payments are expected that could significantly influence land use in

York County. However, continued operation of the plant would provide a significant continuing

source of tax revenues to York County and the Clover School District. As discussed in

| Section 2.2.8.6 and shown in Table 2-17, Catawba paid an average of $35.3 million in taxes to

York County over the 5-year period from 1996 to 2000, or approximately 25 percent of the total

property taxes collected by the county. These payments represent a substantial, positive

impact on the fiscal condition of York County and the Clover School District.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

York County has experienced an increase in population of approximately 25 percent over the

last decade (see Table 2-7). The growth is not related directly to the presence of Catawba. |

York County does not have growth control measures that limit housing. Land use projections

for York County show that new commercial and industrial developments are expected to be

concentrated in the eastern part of the county, along the I-77 corridor. New residential

development is being encouraged in areas of the county that are already developed or

undergoing development. The rest of the county (particularly the more rural western part) is

expected to remain in agricultural and forest use. In combination, these two factors (lack of

growth directly related to the presence of Catawba and directed growth locations) would be

expected to result in SMALL land-use impacts from Catawba-related taxes.

The continued collection of taxes from Catawba will help keep tax rates below the levels they

otherwise would have to be to fund the schools (particularly in Clover) and the county

government. This source of revenue also provides for a higher level of public infrastructure and

services than otherwise would be possible. All of these factors contribute to York County’s

attractiveness as a place to live. 

No adverse effects on offsite land use will occur because of license renewal. Consequently, the

staff concludes that offsite land-use impacts are likely to 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 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). |

In the year 2000, most of the roadways within York County operated at acceptable levels of

service. As discussed in Section 2.2.8.5, the area of greatest potential population growth in

York County may be in its western part, even though there is a concerted effort at the county

level to preserve the natural resources of the county’s western half. The overall county

population is expected to increase by 28.5 percent, between 2000 and 2020 (see Table 2-7). It |

is the intent of the county government to channel this growth into areas already developed in its

eastern part. Continued population growth in areas adjacent to Catawba is expected, thus

necessitating increases in road construction to handle the increased demand.

However, none of this expected growth is due directly to increases in employment at Catawba. 

The permanent employment associated with Catawba is currently 1218 employees including

Duke employees and contractors (Duke 2001). During periods of refueling, which occur at

approximately 18- to 24-month intervals and take 30 to 40 days to complete, an additional

500 workers are hired on a temporary basis (Duke 2001). The “upper bound” potential increase
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-28 December 2002 |

in permanent staff during the license renewal term is 60 additional workers, or approximately

4.9 percent of the current permanent and contract workforce of 1218. The level of access to

the Catawba site is over secondary, as opposed to primary, roads. Based on these facts, Duke

concluded that the impacts on transportation during the license renewal term would be SMALL,

and no mitigative measures would be warranted.

The staff reviewed Duke’s assumptions and resulting conclusions and conducted independent

onsite interviews and observations of transportation conditions around the Catawba site. The

staff concludes that any impact of Catawba license renewal 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), as amended through 1992, requires that

Federal agencies take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on historic

properties. The historic review process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in

| regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 36 CFR Part 800, as

| amended. Renewal of an OL for a nuclear power plant is an undertaking that could possibly

affect either known or potential historic properties that may be located at the plant. Therefore,

in accordance with the provisions of NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to

identify historic properties in the areas of potential effects. If no historic properties are present

or affected, the 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.

| On May 30, 2000 Duke wrote to the South Carolina SHPO requesting its comment on the

| Catawba license renewal process and on the determination by Duke that the continued

| operation of Catawba would have no effect on historic properties (Huff 2000). In a response

| dated May 30, the South Carolina SHPO stated that relicensing should not have an effect on

| National Register eligible or listed properties (Brock 2000).

Areas within a nuclear plant site boundary can be placed into one of the following three

categories:

(1) Areas with no potential for historic or archaeological resources include areas where past

disturbances related to construction of the power station and appurtenant facilities have

taken place to such an extent that any cultural resources that once existed are no longer

present. No further archaeological investigations are recommended for these areas.

(2) Areas with low potential for historic or archaeological resources include areas that are

relatively undisturbed but possess characteristics which would normally indicate a low
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

probability for most types of cultural resources to occur. For the most part, these lands

have a degree of slope greater than 15 percent. For most of these areas, further

archaeological work would not be necessary, although there could be smaller areas within

the larger zone where specific ground conditions could require investigation.

(3) Areas with moderate-to-high potential for archaeological resources include areas that are

relatively undisturbed by past activities and that have a likelihood for prehistoric and historic

archaeological sites according to local models of prehistoric and historic land use and

settlement patterning. Archaeological investigation is recommended prior to undertaking

any ground-disturbing activities in these areas.

According to the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the plant site is small in terms of total acreage, and

consequently, plant features take up much of the available landscape. The plant includes about

122 ha (301 ac) that is covered by water or highly disturbed by past construction of power

generation and maintenance facilities, parking lots, and roads. The remaining acreage (60 ha

[149 ac]) consists of either pine or mixed hardwood-pine forested areas. Forested or generally

undisturbed areas occur primarily along the southern and eastern sectors of the exclusion zone. 

Given the potential for historical period archaeological resources (e.g., dwelling and outbuilding

foundations, dumps, privies, etc.; see Section 2.2.9.2), forested areas within the exclusion zone

should be treated as having moderate-to-high potential for historic or archeological resources.

Duke has indicated that no additional land-disturbing activities at the plant site or along the

existing transmission line rights-of-way are planned for the license renewal period. In the event

that ground disturbance should occur, Duke stated that it will ensure that any archaeological

and historical resources that might be encountered will be protected by adherence to existing

conditions in the Catawba Nuclear Site Environmental Work Practices (Duke 2001). This work |

practice calls for construction activities to halt immediately until Duke Environmental

Management staff at the site and State Historic Preservation Office personnel have been

notified and the issue has been resolved.

Based on the presently known cultural resources status at Catawba, the existence of written

procedures to provide immediate reaction and notification in the event of inadvertent discovery

of cultural resources, and the staff’s cultural resource analysis and consultation, it is the staff’s

conclusion that the potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources during the

license renewal period are expected to be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines “minority” as American

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaii or other Pacific Islander, or Black races, or Hispanic

ethnicity. “Other” races and multi-racial individuals may be considered as a separate minority

category as well as multi-racial individuals (NRC 2001).

(b) York County was the focus of this inquiry because Catawba is located in the County. The staff

contacted several organizations working with low-income and minority populations, including the

Catawba Indian Tribe through their Catawba Cultural Center. The staff concluded that any findings

of environmental justice issues in the county would warrant further field of inquiries in the

neighboring Counties. For reasons stated later in this section, further investigation was not

warranted.

(c) 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 for 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

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-30 December 2002 |

4.4.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy in which Federal actions should not result in

disproportionately high and adverse impacts 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 compliance with the executive order is not

mandatory for independent agencies, the NRC has voluntarily committed to undertake

environmental justice reviews. Specific guidance is provided in NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation Office Instruction LIC-203, “Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental

Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues” (NRC 2001).

The staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within

80 km (50 mi) of Catawba, employing the 1990 Census (USCB 1991) for low-income

populations and the 2000 Census (USCB 2000) for minority populations. The populations

within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of Catawba encompassed counties in both North and South

Carolina. The analysis was also supplemented by field inquiries to the planning department

and a social service agency in York County.(b)

For the purpose of the staff’s review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage

of each minority and aggregated minority category within the census block groups potentially

affected by the license renewal of Catawba exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities

in the entire states of North and South Carolina 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(c) exceeds the corresponding percentage of low-income population in the entire states of
Environmental Impacts of Operation

with Census Bureau guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. 

Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2001).

December 2002 4-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

North and South Carolina 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 Catawba, the percentage of minority and low-income

populations is compared to the percentage of minority and low-income populations in North and

South Carolina as applicable.

Duke followed the convention of employing census block groups and included the groups

located in or partially in the 80-km (50-mi) radius of Catawba (Duke 2001). Using this

convention, the 80-km (50-mi) radius includes 1407 and 1461 census block groups in the 2000

and 1990 censuses, respectively. The “more than 20 percentage points above the comparison

area” criterion was used to determine whether a census tract should be counted as containing a

minority or low-income population (Duke 2001). Because the 20 percentage points is a lower

threshold, the 50 percent criteria was not needed.

The staff followed the convention of employing census block groups and counts of individuals in

minority or low-income status. Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of minority populations

(shaded areas) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. Minority populations are concentrated to the

southeast, south, and southwest of the site. Beginning initially at approximately 42 km (26 mi)

from the site, minority populations are concentrated in Fairfield, Lancaster, Kershaw, Chester,

and Union Counties. Minority populations exist east of Catawba in Anson County along the 80-

km (50-mi) radius. Pockets of minority populations exist in York County (around Rock Hill and

the town of York) and in other counties around the Catawba site. A fairly large block of minority

populations exists in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, which encompasses much of the

Charlotte metropolitan area.

Data from the 1990 census characterize low-income populations within an 80-km (50-mi) radius

of Catawba in North and South Carolina (USCB 1991). Applying the NRC criterion of more |

than 20 percentage points above the comparison areas, the census block groups containing |

low-income populations were identified. Figure 4-2 shows the locations of the low-income

populations within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba. Census block groups containing low-income

populations are concentrated around Charlotte, North Carolina. There is a small pocket of lowincome population group in York County, South Carolina, around the town of York. Also,

between approximately 64 to 80 km (40 to 50 mi) to the south of the Catawba plant, there is a

concentration of low-income population in Union and Chester Counties. To the southeast and

slightly on and extending outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius, there are low-income populations in

Fairfield and Kershaw Counties.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-32 December 2002 |

Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas)

| Within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba Based on Census 2000 Block Group Data and

Individual Counts
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas) 

Within 80 km (50 mi) of Catawba Based on Census 1990 Block Group Data and |

Individual Counts
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-34 December 2002 |

With the locations of minority and low-income populations identified, the staff proceeded to

evaluate whether any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these

populations in a disproportionately high and adverse manner. Based on staff guidance

(NRC 2001), air, land, and water resources within about 80 km (50 mi) of the Catawba site were

examined. Within that area, a few potential environmental impacts could affect human

populations. All of these were considered SMALL for the general population.

The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with Catawba license

renewal can affect human populations are discussed in each associated section. The staff then

evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by

these impacts. The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as

subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which the populations could be

disproportionately affected. In additions, the staff did not identify any location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations. The staff

concludes that offsite impacts from Catawba to minority and low-income populations would be

SMALL, and no special mitigation actions are warranted.

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

The Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that is applicable

to Catawba groundwater use and quality is listed in Table 4-8. Duke stated in its ER 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

Catawba 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 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.

Table 4-8. 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
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues 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, Catawba 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 Catawba 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.

The Category 2 issue related to groundwater use that is applicable to Catawba is listed in

Table 4.9 and discussed in Section 4.5.1.

Table 4-9. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality 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 |

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using

cooling towers withdrawing

makeup water from a small river)

4.8.1.3, 4.4.2.1 A 4.5.1

4.5.1 Groundwater-Use Conflicts (makeup water)

Reductions in the total surface water supply in Lake Wylie and downstream could reduce the

water available to groundwater users. In some regions, surface water is a significant source of

recharge to groundwater aquifers. However, the geohydrology and relatively stable pool of

Lake Wylie make such impacts negligible for Catawba.

Catawba is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of the southeastern United States. 

Groundwater in this area is derived predominately from infiltration of local precipitation. 

Therefore, groundwater resources are less impacted by recharge from surface water than from

local precipitation.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-36 December 2002 |

As stated in Section 4.1.1, the lake level will decline only 9 mm (0.4 in.) in 7 days under drought

conditions as a result of consumptive use by Catawba. Such a small change in the lake surface

elevation would have no detectable impact on groundwater users. Also, as stated in

Section 4.1.1, consumptive use of water by Catawba operations results in a stage decrease of

6 mm (0.24 in.) for the Catawba River downstream of Lake Wylie under average conditions. 

Such a small change in river elevation would have no detectable impact on groundwater users.

| Catawba consumptive use of surface water is not expected to change during the period of the

proposed license renewal. It is impossible to reliably predict the quantity of future withdrawals

| and groundwater demands by other water users over the renewal term. However, there are

State and Federal regulations in place to ensure future withdrawals do not adversely impact the

groundwater resources around Lake Wylie and downstream. The impact of the consumptive

| use of surface water by Catawba on groundwater use is considered to be SMALL, and

additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

Threatened or endangered species are 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.

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

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. The presence of threatened or

endangered species in the vicinity of Catawba is discussed in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6.

Duke maintains contacts with agencies responsible for protected and sensitive species to

ensure compliance of its activities. In addition to its on-going dialogues, Duke provided

information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding license renewal application. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

With respect to Catawba, the FWS (Banks 2001) responded that, based on its review of the

GEIS

the Service believes that all issues concerning fish and wildlife resource have been

adequately identified.

The staff sent a letter to FWS requesting a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed

species, and critical habitat (NRC 2001). The FWS responded with a letter dated February 12, |

2002 (FWS 2002), which is provided in Appendix E of the SEIS. Because there is likely no |

effect on threatened or endangered species or critical habitat from the continued operation of |

Catawba during the renewal period, no further consultation under 50 CFR Part 402 or further |

discussion with USFWS is necessary. |

4.6.1 Aquatic Species

The Carolina heelsplitter is the only Federal- or State-listed aquatic species with the potential to

occur in Lake Wylie or in streams in the transmission line rights-of-way. All known occurrences

of this species in the Catawba River system are limited to small tributary streams located

downstream of Lake Wylie (FWS 1996). An October 2001 survey conducted by Duke in the |

Catawba River downstream of Lake Wylie failed to locate the species (Duke 2002b); thus, it is

highly unlikely this species could be found in Lake Wylie as a consequence of downstream

movement of spawn. This species has not been observed in Lake Wylie or in streams along

the transmission line rights-of-way.

The staff has conducted a site visit, reviewed the information provided by the applicant and

other available reports, and contacted the FWS, the South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources (SCDNR), and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (NCDENR). Based on this information, it is the staff’s conclusion that the impacts

on aquatic endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species of up to an additional 20 |

years of operation and maintenance of Catawba and associated transmission lines would be

SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species

The bald eagle is the only Federal- or State-listed terrestrial species observed at Catawba or

along the transmission line rights-of-way. Bald eagles are rarely observed as transients at the

Catawba site or along the transmission line rights-of-way. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf and

Georgia aster are the only other species known to occur in the vicinity of the Catawba site or

the transmission line rights-of-way, but neither of the species have been observed in these

areas during field surveys. The towers and transmission lines do not pose a hazard to birds. 

There have been no reports of collisions or electrocutions of endangered or threatened species

along the transmission lines or at the cooling towers. Transmission line maintenance activities
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-38 December 2002 |

are conducted so as to minimize impacts. Vegetation management protocols for the

transmission lines have been developed in cooperation with the SCDNR. In addition, Duke has

conducted several rare species surveys along the transmission line rights-of-way, the most

recent in the spring of 2001.

The staff has reviewed the information provided by the applicant and has contacted the FWS,

the SCDNR, and the NCDENR. Based on the site visit, review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001),

other reports, and consultation with the FWS, the SCDNR, and the NCDENR, it is the staff’s

| conclusion that the impacts on endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species of up

to an additional 20 years of operation and maintenance of Catawba and associated

transmission lines would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

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 has 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 Section 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 the Catawba 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 additional plant-specific mitigation

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 10 Category 2 issues applicable to

Catawba operation during the renewal term and for environmental justice. For nine issues and

environmental justice, the staff concluded that the potential environmental impact of renewal

term operations of Catawba would be of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set

| forth in the GEIS and that mitigation would not be warranted. For offsite land use (license

| renewal), the staff determined that impact to tax-driven land use changes would be
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MODERATE and no mitigation is warranted. In addition, the staff determined that a consensus

has not been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects

from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no evaluation of this issue is required.

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 Preservations.” |

50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, |

“Interagency Cooperation – Endangered Species of 1973.” |

Banks. 2001. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to B. Miller, Duke Power Company. 

Subject: Duke Power License Renewal Application for McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations

(April 24, 2001). 

Brock, D. 2002. Letter from Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, South Carolina |

Department of Cultural Resources, to J. R. Huff, Duke Power. May 30, 2000. |

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1999. BEA RIMS II Regional Multipliers. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001. Applicants Environmental Report – Operating License

Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002a. Application to Renew the Operating License of

McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations. “Responses to NRC Request for Additional

Information Concerning the Catawba Environmental Report.” Attachment to NRC Letter dated

December 12, 2001. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002b. Application to Renew the Operating License of

McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations. “Attachment 2: Catawba River Fish Forage Densities,

Population Estimates, and species Composition 1993-1997.” Response to request for

additional information. Dockets Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, and 50-414. February 8, 2002,

Charlotte, North Carolina.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 4-40 December 2002 |

| Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and

| Low-Income Populations.” 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994.

| Huff, J. R. 2000. Letter from Scientist-Duke Power, to Ms. Nancy Brock, State Historic

| Preservation Office, South Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. May 30, 2000. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 1997. National Electrical Safety

Code. New York.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 

Washington, D.C.

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

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 16 USC 470 et seq.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIESH Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. National

Institutes of Health: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1991. 1990 Census-Population and Housing; Public Law 94-171

Data. Washington D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). American Fact Finder. 2000 Census. Population and Housing

by County in South Carolina. 2000. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet/>

(accessed April 9, 2002).

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Glossary - Definition and Explanations–Decennial Census

terms. http://www.census.gov/main/www.glossary.html (Accessed November 21, 2001).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996. Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to C.

| Carpenter, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 12, 2002. (Copy included in

| Appendix E.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Final Environmental Statement Related to

| the Operations Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414. 

NUREG-0921, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

December 2002 4-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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). 2001. “Procedural Guidance for Preparing

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues.” Attachment D to NRR

Office Instruction LIC-203, June 21, 2001, Washington D.C.

York County. 1999. York County Comprehensive Planning. Planning and Development

Services. South Carolina.
(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 Addendum 1.

December 2002 5-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents are 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 characteristic.

(2) 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 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 below. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-2 December 2002 |

Design-Basis Accidents

In order to receive approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate a

nuclear power facility, an applicant 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 NRC 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 NRC 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 license 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). The 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. The early

resolution of the DBAs make them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the current

licensing basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and,
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

therefore, under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal. 

The issue applicable to Catawba is listed in Table 5-1.

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.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) stated in its Environmental Report (ER; Duke 2001a) that it is |

not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the OLs for

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba). The staff has not identified any significant

new information during its independent review of the Catawba 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 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

specifically considered for the Catawba site in the GEIS (NRC 1996). However, in the GEIS,

the staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by 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 9 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. The issue applicable to Catawba

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 Catawba 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 severe accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS. However,

in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs) for Catawba. The results of its review are discussed in Section 5.2.

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

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 environmental impact statement (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 Catawba;

therefore, the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

5.2.1 Introduction

Duke submitted an assessment of SAMAs for Catawba as part of the ER (Duke 2001a). The

assessment was based on Revision 2b of the Catawba Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

(Duke 2001b), 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 Company 1992), and the external events analysis is |

based on the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) model (Duke Power |

Company 1994). In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, Duke took into consideration

the insights and recommendations from the Catawba PRA, as well as other studies, such as the |

Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternative (SAMDA) analysis for Watts Bar (NRC 1995a) |

and NUREG-1560 (NRC 1997c). In the ER, Duke concluded that none of the candidate |

SAMAs evaluated were cost-effective for Catawba.

After reviewing Duke’s 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. Duke submitted additional information by a letter dated February 1, 2002 (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 information in a telephone conference call with the staff 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 two SAMAs are costbeneficial under the assumptions presented. One cost-beneficial SAMA 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. Duke has not implemented this SAMA at

Catawba; 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 other costbeneficial SAMA involves installing a watertight wall around the 6900/4160 V transformers in

the basement of the turbine building. Duke has not implemented this SAMA at Catawba; this

issue has been identified for follow-up as a current operating plant issue at Catawba. By letter |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-6 December 2002 |

| dated August 8, 2002, Duke committed to designing and scheduling the installation of flood

| protection for the 6900/4160 V transformers (Duke 2002c).

The staff’s assessment of SAMAs for Catawba follows.

| 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for Catawba, Units 1 and 2

Duke’s estimates of offsite risk at Catawba 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 Catawba PRA model, which forms the basis for the SAMA analysis, is a Level 3 risk

analysis; that is, it includes the treatment of core damage frequency, containment performance,

and offsite consequences. The model, which Duke refers to as PRA, Revision 2b

(Duke 2001b), consists of an internal events analysis based on an updated version of the

| original IPE (Catawba PRA, Revision 1; Duke Power Company 1992) and an external events

| analysis based on the current version of the IPEEE (Duke Power Company 1994). The

calculated total core damage frequency (CDF) for internal and external events in Revision 2b of

the Catawba PRA is 5.8×10-5 | per year.

| The Catawba 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. The CDF for internal and external events was

reduced from 7.8×10-5 per year (Revision 1) to 5.8×10-5 | per year (Revision 2b). The Level 1

PRA changes associated with the Catawba PRA Revision 2b 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 plant enhancement incorporated was providing back-up cooling to one of

the two high-head charging pumps. In an event in which normal cooling to the high-head

charging pumps is lost, a means to provide back-up cooling from the drinking water supply was

implemented to reduce the likelihood of a reactor coolant pump seal loss-of-coolant accident

(LOCA). Another important change occurred in the interfacing systems LOCA (ISLOCA)

evaluation. The generic database adopted for the Revision 2b analysis had significantly higher
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

failure rates for valve ruptures. This resulted in a significant increase in the CDF contributed by

the ISLOCA, an important risk contributor.

The breakdown of the CDF from Revision 2b to the PRA is provided in Table 5-3. Internal

event initiators represent about 80 percent of the total CDF and are composed of transients

(24 percent of total CDF), LOCAs (29 percent of total CDF), internal flood (24 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

20 percent of the total CDF and are composed of seismic initiators (15 percent of total CDF),

tornado initiators (4 percent of total CDF), and fire initiators (2 percent of the total CDF). 

Although not explicitly reported in Table 5-3, SBO events account for 43 percent of the total

CDF for internal and external events in Revision 2b of the PRA (Duke 2002a). 

Table 5-3. Catawba Core Damage Frequency (Revision 2b of PRA)

Initiating Event Frequency (per year) |

Percent of Total |

CDF

Transients 1.4x10-5 24 |

Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 1.7x10-5 29 |

Internal flood 1.4x10-5 24 |

Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) 3.0x10-7 <1 |

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 3.6x10-8 <1 |

Reactor pressure vessel rupture 1.0x10-6 2 |

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 2.5x10-7 <1 |

CDF from internal events 4.7x10-5 81 |

Seismic 8.5x10-6 15 |

Tornado 2.1x10-6 4 |

Fire 1.2x10-6 2 |

CDF from external events 1.1x10-5 19 |

Total CDF 5.8x10-5 100

The Level 2 (also called containment performance) portion of the Catawba PRA model,

Revision 2b, is essentially the same as the IPE Level 2 analysis. However, the following

changes were made:
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-8 December 2002 |

  modification of the containment event tree (CET) logic regarding the potential for corium

contact with the containment liner

  recognition that the refueling water storage tank inventory would drain through a failed

reactor vessel in some sequences (e.g., SBO); this was factored into the CET logic.

These changes resulted in 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 Catawba site from all

| initiators (internal and external) to be 0.314 person-sieverts (Sv) (31.4 person-rem) per year

(Duke 2001a). The breakdown of the total population dose by containment end-state is

summarized in Table 5-4. Internal events account for approximately 0.21 person-Sv

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment End-State

| (Total dose = 0.314 person-Sv [31.4 person-rem] per year)

Containment End State

Percent of Total

Dose – Internal

Initiators

Percent of Total

Dose – External

Initiators

Percent of Total

Dose – All

Initiators

STGR(a) | 0.2 <0.1 0.2

ISLOCA(a) | 8.3 0.0 8.3

Containment isolation failure <0.1 1.0 1.0

Early containment failure 13.2 9.9 23.1

Late containment failure 45.1 22.1 67.2

Basemat melt-through <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

No containment failure 0.1 <0.1 0.1

Total 66.9 33.1 100

(a) Containment bypass events

| (21.0 person-rem) per year, and external events account for approximately 0.104 person-Sv

| (10.4 person-rem) per year. As can be seen from this table, early and late containment failures

account for the majority of the population dose.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

5.2.2.2 Review of Duke’s Risk Estimates

Duke’s determination of offsite risk impacts at Catawba is based on the Revision 2b of the

Catawba PRA and a separate MACCS2 analysis. For the purposes of this review, the staff

considered the Catawba study in terms of the following major elements:

  the Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the September 1992 IPE submittal

(Duke Power Company 1992) |

  the major modifications to the IPE models that have been incorporated in Revision 2b of

the PRA (Duke 2001b)

  the external events models that form the basis for the June 1994 IPEEE submittal

(Duke Power Company 1994) |

  the analyses performed to translate fission product release frequencies from the Level 2

PRA model into offsite consequence measures (Duke 2001a).

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 Catawba IPE is described in a staff report dated June 7, 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 Catawba for severe accident vulnerabilities and not specifically on the detailed findings

or quantification estimates. Overall, the staff concluded that the Catawba 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 Catawba IPEEE is described in a safety evaluation report dated April |

12, 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 9 5-10 December 2002 |

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

containment release category and the major input assumptions used in the offsite consequence

analyses. This information is provided in Section 6.3 of Duke’s IPE submittal. Duke used the

Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) code to analyze postulated accidents and develop

radiological source terms for each of 29 containment release categories used to represent the

containment end-states. These source terms were incorporated as input to the MACCS2

analysis. The staff reviewed Duke’s source term estimates for the major release categories

and found these predictions to be in reasonable agreement with estimates of 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 Catawba reactor core radionuclide

inventory, emergency response evacuation modeling based on Catawba evacuation time

| estimate studies, release category source terms from the Catawba PRA, Revision 2b, 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 Catawba SAMA analysis, the

meteorological data was obtained from the meteorological tower located on the Catawba site;

the meteorological data used in MACCS2 contained data for one year, January 1 through

December 31, 1991.

| The Catawba PRA, Revision 2b, 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

(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 was

developed from information given in the latest update to the Catawba evacuation time estimate

study for the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The evacuation schemes include

additional information such as evacuation distance, average evacuation speed, sheltering, and

shielding considerations. In the Catawba 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 5-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

The staff reviewed the Duke responses (Duke 2002a) to questions regarding meteorological

data, population data, and emergency planning. The responses confirmed that Duke used

appropriate values for the consequence analysis.

The staff also reviewed the Duke responses (Duke 2002a) to questions regarding the low

frequency of steam generator tube ruptures (SGTR) accidents (3.6×10-8 per year). Duke |

explained the low value as largely due to the use of IPE success criteria, under which

sequences are categorized as successes if core damage occurs beyond 24 hours, an

assumption not in accordance with current, generally accepted industry practice. Duke

indicated that the next revision of the Catawba PRA will reflect this correction. The staff notes

that the impact of this correction can be sizable, as demonstrated in Duke’s revision to the

McGuire PRA, in which the frequency of SGTR accidents increased by a factor of 600

(NRC 2002d). However, even with the higher SGTR frequency, the maximum benefit

associated with completely eliminating SGTR events at McGuire was estimated to be about

$100,000 (present worth for the 20-year license renewal period). Previous analyses of severe

accidents mitigation alternatives (e.g., for advanced light water reactors) have shown that

implementation costs for alternatives to prevent or mitigate SGTR events would be expensive

(on the order of several million dollars). The staff concludes it is unlikely that a cost-beneficial

alternative could be implemented to substantially reduce SGTR risk given the low expected

benefits and the high implementation costs.

The staff concludes that the methodology used by Duke to estimate the CDF and offsite

consequences for Catawba 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. Accordingly, the staff bases its

assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and population doses reported by Duke.

5.2.3 Potential Design 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 Design Improvements

Duke’s process for identifying potential plant improvements consisted of the following elements:

  The core damage cut sets from Revision 2b of the Catawba PRA were reviewed to

identify potential SAMAs that could reduce CDF.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-12 December 2002 |

  The Fussell-Vesely (F-V) importance measures were evaluated for the basic events

(including initiating events, random failure events, human error events, and

maintenance/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 Catawba

(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 generic 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 0.08 percent contribution to the total CDF. Additionally, some cut sets contributing as

little as 0.01 percent to the total CDF were considered. Duke reviewed the cut sets to identify

potential SAMAs that could reduce CDF. A cutoff value of 5.8×10-7 | per year (for internal and

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 response to the requests for

additional information (RAIs) that the estimated CDF for the 200 cut sets is 4.1×10-5 | per year,

| which is about 71 percent of the total CDF (Duke 2002a).

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 $2000 per person-rem ($200,000 per person-Sv) conversion factor,

a discount factor of 7 percent, and a 20-year license renewal period. This process was

repeated for each of the remaining seismic initiator cut sets above the cutoff frequency. The

present worth of averted risk for all of the seismic cut sets combined was estimated to be about

$316,000 (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 (0.08 person-Sv [8.0 person-rem]) and the large costs associated with substantial

seismic upgrades (estimated at several million dollars), Duke eliminated seismic SAMAs from

further consideration.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Duke reviewed the F-V Basic Event Importance Ranking presented in the Catawba PRA report,

Revision 2b, and identified several basic events for further consideration. These included

seismic-related events, initiating events, equipment failures, and human-error events. 

Seismic-related events were not evaluated further for reasons discussed above. Five potential

enhancements for reducing CDF were identified through this process and are presented in

Table 5-5.

In the ER, Duke stated that two design options – installing a watertight wall around the |

6900/4160 V transformers in the turbine building basement and moving the 6900/4160 V

transformers – were evaluated as part of a previous design study for Catawba to address

concerns raised in the IPE over a turbine building flood causing an extended loss of offsite

power. Neither of these options were considered cost-effective at that time. At the staff’s

request (NRC 2001), Duke provided further information regarding the addition of a watertight

wall as a potential SAMA (Duke 2002a; NRC 2002a). This plant modification is included as an |

additional SAMA in Table 5-5.

Duke also considered potential alternatives to reduce containment failure modes of concern for

Catawba. 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,

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

were either (1) already implemented at Catawba or (2) not applicable to the Catawba

containment. 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 5-6.

In the Catawba 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 5-6. This effectively reduces the number of containment-related SAMAs to

eight.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-14 December 2002

Table 5-5. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs that Reduce CDF Potential Alternative Sequences/Failures Addressed Risk Reduction Total Benefit (per unit) 

CDF 

(a) Population Dose (b) (person-rem (c))

| Man standby shutdown system

(SSS) 24 hours/day with trainedoperator

Turbine building flood with a failureof diesel generators to run andoperators fail to initiate SSS sealinjection following a loss of offsitepower (LOOP) event

5.4 x10-6 4.1 $241,000 

| Install automatic swap-over to high

pressure recirculation

LOCA cut sets with failure ofoperators to establish high pressurerecirculation

1.5 x10-5 1.1 $448,000 

| Replace reactor vessel with

stronger vessel

Failure of reactor pressure vesselwith failure to prevent core damagefollowing a reactor pressure vesselbreach

1.0 x10-6 < 0.1 $30,000 

| Install third diesel generator LOOP events, which includes

turbine building flood and LOOPinitiators.

1.6 x10-5 14.0 $754,000 

| Install automatic refill to upper

storage tank 

Loss of instrument air with a failureof nuclear service water systemsources and operators fail to refillUST from condensate gradesources

4.0 x10-6 0.3 $120,000 

| Install watertight wall around the

6900/4160 V transformers in turbinebuilding basement

Turbine building flood causing anextended loss of offsite power

1.4 x10-5 12.4 $663,000 

(a) Total CDF = 5.8x10-5 | per year

| (b) Total population dose = 31.4 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 per unit basis. In order to provid

comparison with the estimated benefits (which are per unit), the estimated site costs were divided by two.

| (e) M = million
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 Table 5-6. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis – SAMAs that Improve

2 Containment Performance

3

4 Risk Reduction

5 Potential Alternative CDF

Population

Dose 

(person-rem)(a)

Total Benefit

(per unit)

Cost of

Enhancement

(per unit)

6 Install independent containment spray

7 system

N/A 28.4 $918,000(b) >$1 M(c) |

8 Install filtered containment vent system N/A 28.4 $918,000(b) >$1 M

9 Install back-up power to igniters and

10 install back-up power to air-return fans

N/A 28.4 $918,000(b) $540,000 |

11 Install containment inerting system N/A 28.4 $918,000(b) >$1 M

12 Install additional containment bypass

13 instrumentation (ISLOCA)

N/A 2.6 $84,000 >$1 M

14 Add independent source of feedwater

15 to reduce induced SGTR

N/A < 0.1 < $3,200 >$1 M

16 Install reactor cavity flooding system N/A 7.3 $239,000 >$1 M

17 Install core retention device N/A < 0.1 < $3,200 >$1 M

18 (a) One person-Sv = 100 person-rem

19 (b) Total benefit based on eliminating all early and late containment failures

20 (c) M = million |

21

22 5.2.3.2 Staff Evaluation

23

24 It should be noted that Duke has made extensive use of PRA methods to gain insights

25 regarding severe accidents at Catawba. Risk insights from various Catawba risk assessments

26 have been identified and implemented to improve both the design and operation of the plant. 

27 For example, using the IPE process, Duke identified and implemented modifications to

28 procedures to (1) provide back-up cooling water to the centrifugal charging pumps, (2) improve

29 plant personnel’s awareness of the standby shutdown system importance, (3) improve standby

30 shutdown system availability by administratively controlling and limiting the times when the

31 standby shutdown system may be taken out of service, and (4) decrease the time required for

32 service water system and component cooling water system maintenance. Examples of plant

33 improvements being planned for implementation by Duke based on IPEEE findings are: 

34

35 (1) addition of spacers and stiffening of side rails on the diesel generator battery racks

36

37 (2) relocation of an instrument to avoid a potential seismic interaction with adjacent piping

38

39 (3) replacement of a valve to eliminate seismic spatial interaction with a nearby spent fuel

40 cooling line

41

42 (4) addition of instructions in the pre-fire plan for the electrical bus switching area
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-16 December 2002 |

1 (5) replacement of reciprocal air compressors with centrifugal compressors, and routing cables

2 for the new compressors to give sufficient redundancy in case of fires

3

4 (6) reinstallation of missing door bolts in the auxiliary shutdown panel cabinets (NRC 1999).

5

6 The implementation of such improvements reduced the risk associated with the major

7 contributors identified by the Catawba PRA and contributed to the reduced number of candidate

8 SAMAs identified as part of Duke’s application for license renewal.

9

10 Duke’s effort to identify potential SAMAs focused on areas found to be risk-significant in the

11 Catawba PRA. The list of SAMAs generally coincide with accident categories that are dominant

12 CDF contributors or with issues that tend to have a large impact on a number of accident

13 sequences at Catawba. Duke made a reasonable effort to use the Catawba PRA to search for

14 potential SAMAs and to review insights from other plant-specific risk studies and previous

15 SAMA analyses for potential applicability to Catawba. The staff reviewed the set of potential

16 enhancements considered in Duke’s SAMA identification process. These enhancements

17 include improvements oriented toward reducing the CDF and risk from major contributors

18 specific to Catawba and improvements identified in the previous SAMDA review for Watts Bar

19 (NRC 1995a) that would be applicable to Catawba.

20

21 The staff notes that most of the SAMAs involve major modifications and significant costs and

22 that less expensive design improvements and procedure changes could conceivably provide

23 similar levels of risk reduction. The staff requested additional information (NRC 2001) from

24 Duke on less expensive alternatives that would yield similar benefits. In response, Duke

25 provided additional information on (1) the cost to provide alternative power to hydrogen igniters

26 for SBO, (2) the cost to provide passive autocatalytic recombiners (PARs) as an alternative to

27 igniters, (3) the cost to install a dedicated line from the Wylie hydroelectric station as an

28 alternative source of ac power, and (4) the cost to install a watertight wall around the 6900/

29 4160 V transformers. This information was responsive to the staff’s requests and provided

30 additional depth to the SAMAs considered. These additional alternatives are further evaluated,

31 along with the other SAMAs, in the sections that follow.

32

33 The staff concludes that Duke has used a systematic process for identifying potential design

34 improvements for Catawba and that the set of potential design improvements identified by Duke

35 is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable.

36

37 5.2.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Design Improvements

38

39 Section 4.3 of Attachment H to the Catawba ER describes the process used by Duke to

40 determine the risk reduction potential for each enhancement.

41
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 For each seismic initiator cut set, Duke calculated the associated offsite risk based on the

2 population dose and CDF for the PDSs attributable to the seismic initiator. Implementation of

3 the plant enhancement was assumed to completely eliminate the seismic risk associated with

4 the cut set. For each (non-seismic) sequence/enhancement, Duke evaluated the severe

5 accident sequences. In general, where an alternative impacted more than one severe accident

6 sequence, Duke determined the cumulative risk reduction achievable by each SAMA. This was

7 performed by identifying which basic events in the cut sets would be affected by the

8 implementation of the particular SAMA and assuming that implementation of the basic event(s)

9 would be completely eliminated by the SAMA. For each containment-related improvement,

10 Duke assumed that all of the population dose associated with the release categories impacted

11 by the SAMA would be eliminated. For those alternatives that benefit more than one

12 containment failure mode (i.e., independent containment spray system, filtered containment

13 vent, back-up power to igniters, back-up power to air-return fans, containment inerting system,

14 and reactor cavity flooding system), the total population dose for all affected failure modes was

15 assumed to be completely eliminated by implementing the alternative. For example, installation

16 of a standpipe in containment for reactor cavity flooding, which could reduce the likelihood of

17 both early containment failure associated with reactor vessel breach and late containment

18 failure due to basemat melt-through, was assumed to completely eliminate the associated early

19 and late containment failures.

20

21 The staff questioned Duke (NRC 2001) regarding the estimated risk reduction associated with

22 addition of a third diesel generator (DG). This SAMA was estimated to provide about a

60 percent reduction in the CDF for SBO sequences (from 2.5×10-5 per year to 9.0×10-6 23 per |

24 year). Duke indicated that the risk reduction was based on eliminating all failures to start, |

25 failures to run, and common cause failures of the existing two DGs. However, it was assumed

26 that the third DG would not be seismically qualified; therefore, it would not be effective in

27 seismic events. Since seismic events account for approximately one-third of the SBO CDF, the

28 limited risk reduction estimated for the third DG appears reasonable. Duke also considered the

29 additional benefit if the third diesel were seismically qualified similar to the existing DGs. Duke

estimated that an additional reduction in CDF of about 4.0×10-7 30 per year would be achieved by |

31 eliminating all random failures of DGs in seismic events. This risk reduction is limited because

32 the seismic results are dominated by seismic failures in the 4-kV power system for which

33 improving diesel generator availability provides no benefit. The staff concludes that Duke’s risk

34 reduction estimates for this SAMA are reasonable.

35

36 An estimate of the risk reduction for the SAMA involving installation of a dedicated power line to

37 the Wylie hydroelectric station was not provided in Duke’s RAI response. However, the risk

38 reduction would be comparable to that for adding a third DG, because the seismic fragility of

39 the hydroelectric unit is expected to be similar to that for the seismically qualified DGs.

40
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-18 December 2002 |

1 | The staff notes that Duke evaluated the risk reduction potential for each SAMA in a bounding

2 fashion. Each SAMA was assumed to completely eliminate all sequences that the specific

3 enhancement was intended to address; therefore, the benefits are generally overestimated and

4 conservative, including SAMAs related to SGTR events. Accordingly, the staff based its

5 estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on Duke’s risk reduction estimates.

6

7 5.2.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Design Improvements

8

9 Duke’s estimated costs for each potential design enhancement are provided in Tables 4-1, 4-2,

10 and 5-1 of Attachment H to the ER. For most of the SAMAs, Duke estimated the cost of

11 implementation to be greater than $1 million based on cost estimates developed in previous

12 industry studies. For one SAMA, which involved installing a third DG, Duke developed plant13 specific cost estimates because there was no readily available information on the estimated

14 cost to implement similar alternatives and because the basic events associated with this

15 alternative were found to have a high importance in the Catawba PRA. Because the safety

16 benefits ($754,000) of the potential SAMA was significantly less than the estimated

17 implementation costs ($2 million), the cost estimate was not further refined.

18

19 The staff compared Duke’s cost estimates with estimates developed elsewhere for similar

20 improvements, including estimates developed as part of the evaluation of SAMDA for operating

21 reactors and advanced LWRs. The staff notes that Duke’s estimated implementation costs of

22 $1 million or greater are consistent with the values reported in previous analyses for major

23 hardware changes of similar scope and are not unreasonable for the SAMAs under

24 consideration, given that these enhancements involve major hardware changes and impact

25 safety-related systems. For example, Duke estimated the cost to install a third DG to be

26 approximately $2 million; this value is less than the cost estimates reported in previous SAMDA

27 analyses for a similar design change.

28

29 Duke’s estimate of the cost to install a dedicated line from the Wylie hydroelectric station as an

30 alternate source of ac power also appears reasonable. This line would be buried to eliminate

31 weather-related common cause failures. The estimated cost ($8 million) is greater than, but

32 comparable to the cost estimates for a similar modification provided by Duke (Duke 2002b) for

33 the McGuire Nuclear Station ($3 million) and by Dominion Power (NRC 2002c) for the Surry

34 Nuclear Power Station ($2 to 5 million). Even the lowest of these estimates is far greater than

35 the calculated benefit of $750,000 for Catawba.

36

37 The staff questioned Duke regarding the costs of less expensive alternatives that could offer

38 similar risk reduction benefits, particularly with regard to installation of a watertight wall to

39 | address turbine flooding events and to improvements to control hydrogen in SBO events. 

40 Duke’s estimate of the cost to install a watertight wall around the 6900/4160 V transformers in

41 the turbine building basement is $250,000 per unit (NRC 2002a). The estimated cost
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 breakdown is $75,000 for engineering, $25,000 for materials, and $150,000 for installation

2 labor. These costs appear reasonable given the constraints in installing the modification in an

3 existing plant.

4

5 In a February 1, 2002, response to staff RAIs (Duke 2002a), Duke provided additional

6 information on the costs associated with installing a passive hydrogen control system based on

7 the use of PARs in lieu of the present ac-dependent hydrogen igniters and the costs of

8 powering a subset of the current hydrogen igniters from a back-up generator. For scoping

9 purposes, Duke provided supplementary information regarding the cost of back-up power to the

10 igniters and air-return fans in response to a follow-up RAI (NRC 2002a).

11

12 Duke’s estimate of the cost to establish a capability to power a subset of igniters from a back13 up generator was $205,000 for each unit. This modification, as defined by Duke, would involve |

14 pre-staging a single, dedicated generator for each unit outdoors on a concrete pad (for |

15 ventilation and exhaust considerations), and supplying the necessary power cables and circuit

16 breakers to enable connection to the igniter branch circuits. The breakdown of this cost is

17 $5,000 for engineering, $50,000 for materials, $110,000 for installation labor, and $40,000 for

18 maintenance and operation. This cost estimate does not include an enclosure, tornado

19 protection for the generator, or any seismic design. Duke further noted that providing electric |

20 power to hydrogen igniters during a SBO will not be effective without also powering at least one |

21 of the containment air-return fans and that this will further increase the cost of this option. 

22 When one air-return fan is added to this estimate, the combined cost is $540,000 per unit. The |

23 breakdown of this cost is $50,000 for engineering, $210,000 for materials, $240,000 for

24 installation labor, and $40,000 for maintenance and operation. Duke points out there will be

25 additional costs not included in these estimates. |

26

27 The staff requested additional information on PARs because PARs are to be installed in French |

28 PWRs by 2007 to mitigate the consequences of hydrogen combustion events. In response |

29 (Duke 2002a), Duke estimated that the installation of PARs would cost more than $750,000 per

30 unit, which is well above the estimated benefit (see Table 5-7, Section 5.2.6.2). This cost

31 estimate is consistent with independent staff cost estimates for installing PARs. 

32

33 The staff asked for further information on the basis for the greater than $1 million cost estimate

34 for installing an automatic swap-over to high pressure recirculation. Duke (NRC 2002a)

35 referenced NUREG-0498, Supp. 1 (NRC1995a), which estimated a cost of about $2.1 million

36 for a similar alternative (i.e., “automate the alignment of emergency care cooling system

37 [ECCS] recirculation to the high-pressure charging and safety injection pumps”). This would

38 reduce the potential for related human errors made during manual realignment. This cost

39 estimate is considerably higher than the estimated averted risk benefit for Catawba of about

40 $448,000. (Benefits are discussed further in Section 5.2.6.)

41
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-20 December 2002 |

1 The staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by Duke are reasonable and adequate for

2 the purposes of this SAMA evaluation. As noted in Section 5.2.6.2, further attention will be

3 placed on the costs associated with SBO-related plant improvements by the NRC as part of

4 | the resolution of Generic Safety Issue 189 (GSI-189) - Susceptibility of Ice-Condenser and

5 | Mark III Containments to Early Failure from Hydrogen Combustion During a Severe Accident

6 (NRC 2002b). Also, as noted in Section 5.2.6.2, the need for additional evaluation and possible

7 implementation of the watertight wall around the 6900/4160 V transformers has been identified

8 | as a current operating plant issue. Duke has made a commitment to design and install flood

9 | protection around these transformers (Duke 2002c).

10

11 5.2.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

12

13 The cost-benefit comparison as evaluated by Duke and the staff evaluation of the cost-benefit

14 analysis are described in the following sections.

15

16 5.2.6.1 Duke Evaluation

17

18 In the analysis provided by Duke in the ER, Duke did not include the following factors in its cost19 benefit evaluation: replacement power costs for SAMAs that have the potential to reduce CDF

20 and averted offsite property damage costs for SAMAs that have the potential to improve

21 containment performance. In view of the significant impact of these averted costs on the

22 estimated benefit for a SAMA, the staff requested that Duke include these factors in the

23 cost-benefit analysis for each affected SAMA. In response to the RAI (Duke 2002a), Duke

24 updated the benefit estimates to include averted replacement power costs and averted offsite

25 property damage costs.

26

27 The methodology used by Duke was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing cost28 benefit analysis (i.e., NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook

29 [NRC 1997b]). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA according to

30 the following formula:

31

32 | Net Value = (APE + AOEC +AOE + AOSC) - COE

33

34 | where APE = present value of averted public exposure ($)

35 | AOEC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($)

36 | AOE = present value of averted onsite exposure costs ($)

37 | AOSC = present value of averted onsite cleanup costs ($)

38 | COE = cost of enhancement ($)

39
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

2 benefit associated with the SAMA, and it is not considered cost-beneficial. Duke’s derivation of

3 each of the associated costs is summarized below.

4

5 Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

6

7 The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

8

9 APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (person-rem/year) |

10 x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

11 x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period 

12 with a 7-percent discount rate) |

13

14 As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), it is important to note that the monetary value of

15 the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

16 health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

17 losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

18 Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an

19 accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

20 potential future losses to present value. Duke used the following expression when calculating

21 the APE for the 20-year license renewal period:

22

APE = $2.20×104 23 x (Change in public exposure) |

24

25 Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

26

27 For SAMAs that reduce CDF, the AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

28

29 AOC = Annual CDF reduction

30 x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

31 x present value conversion factor |

32

33 Duke derived the values for averted offsite property damage costs based on information

34 provided in Section 5.7.5 of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b). A discount factor of 7 percent and

35 a 4-percent rate of inflation were used. Duke used the following expression when calculating

36 the AOC for the 20-year license renewal period:

37

AOC = $3.92×109 38 x (Change in annual CDF) |

39

40 Originally, as part of the ER, Duke did not include the AOC for containment-related SAMAs. In

41 response to staff RAIs (Duke 2002a), Duke incorporated AOC as follows.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-22 December 2002 |

1 For containment-related SAMAs (which impact population dose but not CDF), Duke estimated

2 the combined AOC and APE costs based on a conversion factor of $3000/person-rem, which

3 Duke attributed to NUREG/CR-6349 (NRC 1995b). Duke used the following expression when

4 calculating these costs (for containment-related SAMAs) for the 20-year license renewal period:

5

AOC + APE = $3.23×104 6 | x (Change in public exposure)

7

8 Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

9

10 The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

11

12 AOE = Annual CDF reduction

13 x occupational exposure per core damage event

14 x monetary equivalent of unit dose

15 | x present value conversion factor

16

17 Duke derived the values for averted occupational exposure based on information provided in

18 Section 5.7.3 of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b). Best estimate values provided for immediate

19 occupational dose 33 person-Sv (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose

20 [200 person-Sv (20,000 person-rem) over a 10-year cleanup period] were used. The present

21 value of these doses was calculated using the equations provided in NUREG/BR-0184 in

22 conjunction with a monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a discount rate of

23 7 percent, and a time period of 20 years to represent the license-renewal period. Duke used

24 the following expression when calculating the AOE for the 20-year license renewal period:

25

AOE = $3.1×108 26 | x (Change in annual CDF)

27

28 Averted Onsite Cleanup Costs (AOSC) (Not Including Replacement Power Costs)

29

30 The AOSCs, as calculated by Duke, include averted cleanup and decontamination costs. 

31 NUREG/BR-0184, Section 5.7.6.2 states that long-term replacement power costs must also be

32 considered (NRC 1997b). Duke did not include this cost in the ER. However, Duke did add it in

33 the responses (Duke 2002a) to the staff’s RAIs.

34

35 Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) are calculated using the following formula:

36

37 ACC = Annual CDF reduction

38 x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

39 x present value conversion factor

40
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b) as $1.5×109 2 (undiscounted). This value was converted to |

3 present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed

4 license extension. Duke used the following expression when calculating the ACC for the 

5 20-year license renewal period:

6

ACC = $1.18×1010 7 x (Change in annual CDF) |

8

9 Averted Power Replacement Cost (APRC)

10

11 The Duke estimate of the annual power replacement cost for Catawba is based on an assumed

12 discount rate of 7 percent for the 20-year license renewal period.

13

14 The estimated present power replacement costs of a severe accident occurring in each year of

15 the license renewal period is given by (equation from NUREG/BR-0184, page 5.44):

16

PVRP = [$1.2×108/0.07][1 – exp(-0.07 x 20)]2 17 |

18

PVRP = $9.73×108 19 |

20

21 Then, to estimate the net present value of power replacement over the 20-year license renewal

22 (equation from NUREG/BR-0184, page 5.44):

23

URP = [PVRP/0.07][1 – exp(-0.07 x 20)]2 24

25

URP = $7.89×109 26 |

27

APRC = URP 28 x (Change in annual CDF)

29

30 Since the APRC from the NUREG is in 1990 dollars, an assumption is made to include a

31 4 percent inflation rate over 11 years to bring the value into 2001 dollars; therefore,

32

APRC = $1.21×1010 33 x (Change in annual CDF) |

34

35 Duke Results

36

37 The total benefit associated with each of the 14 SAMAs evaluated by Duke (six that reduce

38 CDF and eight that improve containment performance) is provided in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. Two

39 of the SAMAs have a positive net value (i.e., the total benefit is greater than the cost of the

40 enhancement). These SAMAs involve installing a watertight wall around the 6900/4160 V

41 transformers and installing back-up power to igniters and air-return fans. All of the remaining
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-24 December 2002 |

1 SAMAs have a negative net value even given the bounding risk reduction benefits inherent in

2 these estimates.

3

4 5.2.6.2 Staff Evaluation

5

6 The cost-benefit analysis provided by Duke (Duke 2001a; Duke 2002a) was based primarily on

7 NRC’s Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (NRC 1997b). In the original

8 Catawba ER, Duke did not include averted replacement power costs for SAMAs that reduce

9 CDF and averted offsite property damage costs for SAMAs that improve containment

10 performance. However, the impact of these factors was included in supplemental analyses

11 | provided by Duke in response to the staff’s RAIs (Duke 2002a; NRC 2002a). The APRC were

12 assessed appropriately and the values calculated by Duke are consistent with independent staff

13 assessments.

14

15 Duke used a conversion factor of $3,000/person-rem to determine the averted offsite property

16 | damage and APE costs. This effectively assumes a $1,000/person-rem conversion factor as a

17 surrogate for averted offsite property damage, in addition to the accepted $2,000/person-rem

18 conversion factor for averted offsite public exposure costs. Because offsite property damage

19 costs are plant and site-specific, it would be more consistent with standard practice to actually

20 calculate the property damage using the MACCS code. Nevertheless, the averted offsite costs

21 values (for health effects and property damage) calculated by Duke provide reasonably good

22 agreement with typical site values and are acceptable for purposes of estimating the value of

23 containment-related SAMAs. Inclusion of averted replacement power and offsite property

24 damage costs did not result in identification of any additional cost-beneficial SAMAs, and would

25 not call into question Duke’s decision to eliminate seismic SAMAs from consideration given the

26 large costs associated with seismic SAMAs. 

27

28 | Based on the staff evaluation, two SAMAs (which involve installing a watertight wall around the

29 | 6900/4160 V transformers and installing back-up power to igniters and air-return fans) are

30 | potentially cost-beneficial and are discussed below. Several of the containment-related SAMAs

31 (Table 5-6) have total benefits that are only slightly less than the estimated cost to implement

32 the enhancement, specifically, installation of an independent containment spray system, a

33 filtered containment vent system, and a containment inerting system. However, the estimated

34 risk reduction in Table 5-6 is based on the bounding assumption that all early and late

35 containment failures would be completely eliminated. Realistically, only a small fraction of the

36 total risk would be eliminated by any one SAMA. Also, the cost to implement any of these three

37 SAMAs would be substantially (i.e., a factor of 5) greater than $1 million, as each SAMA would

38 involve a major hardware modification. Thus, these three SAMAs would not be cost-beneficial. 

39 All of the remaining SAMAs have costs that are at least a factor of two higher than the dollar

40 equivalent of the associated benefits. This difference is considered to provide ample margin to

41 cover uncertainties in the risk and cost estimates since estimates for these factors were
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 generally evaluated in a conservative manner. This is true even when considering the 3-

2 percent versus 7-percent discount rate sensitivity case or the use of a 40-year versus 20-year |

3 time period. |

4

5 The positive net value of the watertight wall is due in part to the relatively large (approximately

6 24 percent) contribution of internal floods to total CDF. Duke assumed that the watertight wall |

7 would completely eliminate the turbine building flood initiators. The net value of this SAMA is

8 approximately $400,000 (the difference between the estimated benefit and estimated cost in

9 Table 5-5). This value is based on risk reduction estimates derived from PRA Revision 2b, and

10 is consistent with the NRC’s Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (NRC 1997b): 

11 the value assumes a 7-percent discount rate and includes averted onsite costs and averted |

12 power replacement costs.

13

14 Duke (NRC 2002a) provided a revised risk reduction estimate for the watertight wall based on

15 an updated PRA model which accounts for recently installed reactor coolant pump seals that

16 use O-ring materials that perform better at high temperature. This plant modification is

17 expected to reduce the probability of a reactor coolant pump seal LOCA following a loss of seal

18 cooling. Since a large fraction of the core damage sequences initiated by the turbine building

19 flood involve seal LOCAs, the modification will reduce the CDF contribution from the flood and

20 the risk reduction associated with the watertight wall. Using the revised PRA model, Duke

estimates that the watertight wall will provide a CDF reduction of 1.0×10-5 21 per year and a |

22 population dose reduction of 0.151 person-Sv (15.1 person-rem) per year. |

23

24 Based on the revised risk reduction values, the watertight wall would have an estimated benefit

25 of $550,000 (positive net value of $300,000). Use of a 3-percent discount rate would increase |

26 the net value to about $500,000. If averted onsite costs and averted power replacement costs

27 are neglected in the analysis, the estimated benefit would be approximately $214,000 (negative

28 net value of $36,000). However, using either a 3-percent discount rate or 40-year time period, |

29 the net value would remain positive even when averted onsite costs and averted power

30 replacement costs are neglected. Based on this information, the staff concludes that the

31 installation of the watertight wall would be cost-beneficial. The need for additional evaluation

32 and possible implementation of the watertight wall around the 6900/4160 V transformers will be

33 addressed as a current operating plant issue. Duke has made a commitment to design and |

34 install flood protection around these transformers (Duke 2002c). |

35

36 The positive net value of installing back-up power to igniters is due in part to the relatively high

37 frequency of SBO events for Catawba (which account for 43 percent of the total CDF of

5.8×10-5 38 per year based on Revision 2b of the PRA), combined with the vulnerability of |

39 ice-condenser containments to hydrogen combustion in SBO events, as described in

40 NUREG/CR-6427 (NRC 2000). This NUREG provided a simplified Level 2 analysis for the |

41 purpose of investigating the importance of direct containment heating (DCH). The NUREG |
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-26 December 2002 |

1 found that early containment failure is dominated by hydrogen combustion events rather than

2 DCH events and that no ice-condenser plant is inherently robust to all credible DCH or

3 hydrogen combustion events in station blackout. The study concluded that all ice-condenser

4 plants would benefit from reducing SBO frequency or from providing some means of hydrogen

5 | control that is effective in SBO events. It should be noted that the NUREG contains several

6 | assumptions that may be justified for purposes of dispositioning the DCH issue but are not

7 | necessarily consistent with the best-estimate philosophy of PRA (such as a bounding

8 | assumption that random ignition prior to vessel breach will not occur). Accordingly, the NUREG

9 | is useful for understanding the uncertainties associated with early containment failure

10 | probabilities, but should not be interpreted as providing a realistic or best-estimate evaluation of

11 | the potential for early containment failure as a result of hydrogen combustion during SBO

12 | events.

13

14 In light of the issues raised in NUREG/CR-6427 concerning the likelihood of early containment

15 failure in SBO events, the staff requested Duke to provide a reevaluation of the benefits

16 associated with the hydrogen control measures (install back-up power to igniters and air-return

17 fans) assuming a containment response consistent with the findings in NUREG/CR-6427 (i.e.,

18 using the containment failure probabilities for DCH and non-DCH events reported in the study,

19 in place of the conditional failure probabilities implicit in the baseline PRA). Under these

20 assumptions, Duke estimated that the averted population dose from eliminating early

21 | containment failures would rise from a base case value of 0.073 person-Sv (7.3 person-rem)

22 | per year to 0.12 person-Sv (12.0 person-rem) per year. The benefit values based on use of the

23 NUREG/CR-6427 containment failure probability for Catawba are reported in Table 5-7. Also

24 | shown are the benefit values for the sensitivity case involving use of a 3-percent discount rate

25 instead of a 7-percent discount rate. All of the values in Table 5-7 include averted offsite

26 property damage.

27

28 A number of points are worth noting regarding the Duke base case results and these sensitivity

29 assessments:

30

31 • Not all early and late releases can be eliminated by providing hydrogen control. For

32 example, late failures due to long-term containment over-pressure could still occur. Also,

33 the non-safety related, non-seismic back-up power source may not be available in large

34 seismic and tornado events if it is not designed to withstand such events. An upper bound

35 estimate can be provided by assuming that all containment failures, early and late, would be

36 eliminated. More realistically, most of the early and some of the late releases would be

37 eliminated. The assumption that hydrogen control would eliminate all early failures is

38 considered to provide a reasonable estimate of the risk reduction benefit. Accordingly, the

39 estimated benefits shown in Table 5-7 are based on eliminating all early containment

40 failures.

41
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 Table 5-7. Sensitivity Results for Hydrogen Control SAMAs

2 (all benefits based on eliminating early failures only)

3

4 SAMA

Estimated

Cost

(per unit)

Estimated Benefits for Hydrogen Control SAMAs Under Various

Assumptions (per unit)

Based on Revision 2b

of the PRA

Based on conditional

containment failure

probabilities from

NUREG/CR-6427

Based on a 3%

discount rate

compared to a 7%

discount rate in the

base case

5 Back-up power

6 to igniters and

7 air-return fans

$540,000 $236,000 $387,000 $329,000 |

8 PARs $750,000 $236,000 $387,000 $329,000

9 Back-up power

10 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

11 |

12

13 • It is Duke’s position that powering the igniters without also powering the air-return fans

14 would not achieve effective hydrogen control. According to Duke, in order to realize the

15 stated benefits, the air-return fans must also have a back-up power source. More than half

16 of the cost of the SAMA to provide back-up power to igniters and air-return fans comes from

17 powering the fans. Based on available technical information, it is not clear that operation of

18 the air-return fans is necessary to provide effective hydrogen control. The need to also

19 supply back-up power to the air-return fans is being further assessed by the NRC as part of

20 the resolution of GSI-189. If only the igniters need to be powered during SBO, a less- |

21 expensive option of powering a subset of igniters from a back-up generator, addressed by

22 Duke in responses to RAIs (Duke 2002a; NRC 2002a), is within the range of averted risk |

23 benefits and would warrant further consideration.

24

25 • If a 3-percent discount rate is assumed in contrast to the 7-percent discount rate assumed |

26 in the base case analysis, the SAMA is cost-beneficial if back-up power to the air-return |

27 fans is not needed. This further supports the position that the benefits are large and that a |

28 hydrogen-related SAMA may be cost-beneficial.

29

30 • The effect of implementing the SAMA in the near term rather than delaying implementation

31 until the start of the license renewal period (i.e., use of a 40-year rather than a 20-year

32 period in the value analyses) is bounded by the sensitivity study that assumed a 3-percent |

33 discount rate.

34
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-28 December 2002 |

1 The NRC has recognized that ice-condenser containments like Catawba’s are vulnerable to

2 hydrogen burns in the absence of power to the in-place hydrogen ignitor system. This is

3 sufficiently important for all PWRs with ice-condenser containments that NRC has made the

4 issue a Generic Safety Issue, GSI-189 - Susceptibility of Ice-Condenser and Mark III

5 Containments to Early Failure from Hydrogen Combustion During a Severe Accident

6 (NRC 2002b). As part of the resolution of GSI-189, NRC is evaluating potential improvements

7 to hydrogen control provisions in ice-condenser plants to reduce their vulnerability to hydrogen8 related containment failures in SBO. This will include an assessment of the costs and benefits

9 of supplying igniters from alternate power sources, such as a back-up generator, as well as

10 containment analyses to establish whether air-return fans also need an ac-independent power

11 source, as part of this modification. The need for plant design and procedural changes will be

12 resolved as part of GSI-189 and addressed for Catawba and other ice-condenser plants as a

13 current operating license issue.

14

15 5.2.7 Conclusions

16

17 Duke completed a comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate potential cost-beneficial plant

18 enhancements to reduce the risk associated with severe accidents at Catawba. As a result of

19 this assessment, Duke concluded in the ER that no additional mitigation alternatives are cost20 beneficial and warrant implementation at Catawba. Based on its review of SAMAs for Catawba,

21 | the staff concludes that two of the SAMAs are cost-beneficial under certain assumptions. 

22 These SAMAs involve installing a watertight wall around the 6900/4160 V transformers and

23 providing back-up power to the hydrogen igniters for SBO events.

24

25 | Based on the analyses presented, the staff concludes that installing a watertight wall around the

26 transformer is cost-beneficial. However, as this SAMA does not relate to adequately managing

27 the effects of aging during the period of extended operation, it need not be implemented as part

28 of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. The staff intends to pursue this matter as a

29 | current operating license issue. By letter dated August 8, 2002, Duke committed to designing

30 | and scheduling the installation of flood protection for the 6900/4160 V transformers

31 | (Duke 2002c).

32

33 Duke’s position, regarding the SAMA that would establish hydrogen control in SBO events by

34 providing back-up power to igniters, is that this SAMA is not cost-effective because back-up

35 power would need to be supplied to the air-return fans from ac-independent power sources in

36 order to ensure mixing of the containment atmosphere, and the cost of powering both the

37 igniters and the air-return fans would exceed the expected benefit. However, based on

38 available technical information, it is not clear that operation of air-return fans is necessary to

39 provide effective hydrogen control. If only the igniters need to be powered during SBO, a less40 expensive option of powering a subset of igniters from a back-up generator, addressed by Duke

41 | in responses to RAIs (Duke 2002a; NRC 2002a), is within the range of the averted risk benefits
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 and would warrant further consideration. Even if air-return fans are judged to be necessary to

2 ensure effective hydrogen control in SBOs, the results of sensitivity studies suggest that this

3 combined SAMA might also be cost-beneficial.

4

5 The staff concludes that the SAMA that would establish hydrogen control in SBO events by

6 providing back-up power to igniters is cost-beneficial under certain assumptions, which are

7 being examined in connection with resolution of GSI-189. However, this SAMA does not relate

8 to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. 

9 Therefore, it need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. 

10 The need for plant design and procedural changes will be resolved as part of GSI-189 and

11 addressed for Catawba and all other ice-condenser plants as a current operating license issue.

12

13 5.3 References

14

15 10 CFR Part 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of |

16 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

17

18 10 CFR Part 51, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

19 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

20

21 10 CFR Part 54, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for |

22 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

23

24 10 CFR Part 100, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site |

25 Criteria.”

26

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

28 License Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

29

30 Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001b. Probabilistic Risk Assessment Revision 2b, Catawba

31 Nuclear Station, dated April 18, 2001.

32

33

34 Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002a. Letter from M. S. Tuckman of Duke Energy

35 Corporation to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to Request for

36 Additional Information in Support of the Staff Review of the Application to Renew The Facility

37 Operating Licenses of McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station

38 Units 1 and 2, February 1, 2002.

39
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-30 December 2002 |

1 Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002b. Letter from M. S. Tuckman of Duke Energy

2 Corporation to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Response to Request for

3 Additional Information in Support of the Staff Review of the Application to Renew The Facility

4 Operating Licenses of McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 and Catawba Nuclear Station

5 Units 1 and 2, January 31, 2002.

6

7 | Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2002c. Letter from Gary R. Peterson of Duke Power to U.S.

8 | Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Subject: Duke Energy Corporation, Catawba Nuclear Station,

9 | Units 1 and 2, Docket Numbers 50-413 and 50-414, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives,

10 | August 8, 2002.

11

12 | Duke Power Company. 1992. Letter from M. S. Tuckman, (Duke) to Document Control Desk

13 (NRC). Subject: Catawba Units 1 and 2 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Submittal, dated

14 September 10, 1992.

15

16 | Duke Power Company. 1994. Letter from D. L. Rehn, (Duke) to Document Control Desk

17 (NRC). Subject: Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal, Catawba

18 Nuclear Station, dated June 21, 1994.

19

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, “Individual Plant

21 Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” November 23, 1988.

22

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks - An Assessment

24 for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C.

25

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. "Individual Plant Examination of External

27 Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities," Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20,

28 June 28, 1991.

29

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1994. Letter from Robert E. Martin (NRC) to

31 David L. Rehn (Duke Power Company), Subject: Safety Evaluation of Catawba Nuclear Station,

32 | Units 1 and 2, Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Submittal, June 7, 1994.

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995a. Final Environmental Statement Related

35 to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement 1. 

36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

37

38 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995b. Cost-Benefit Considerations in

39 Regulatory Analysis. NUREG/CR-6349. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,

40 D.C. 

41
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

December 2002 5-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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

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

3

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. SECPOP90: Sector Population, Land

5 Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. NUREG/CR-6525, Washington, D.C.

6

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical

8 Evaluation Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

9

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. Individual Plant Examination Program:

11 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

12

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

14 Statement for License Renewal fo Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 - Transportation,

15 Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,

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

17

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Letter from Peter S. Tam (NRC) to

19 G. R. Peterson (Duke Energy Corporation), Subject: Catawba Nuclear Station–Review of

20 Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE), April 12, 1999. |

21

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Assessment of the DCH Issue for Plants

23 with Ice-Condenser Containments. NUREG/CR-6427, Washington, D.C.

24

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Letter from J. H. Wilson (NRC) to

26 M. S. Tuckman (Duke Energy Corporation), Subject: Request for Additional Information

27 Related to the Staff’s Review of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for

28 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, December 10, 2001.

29

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Note to File from J. H. Wilson (NRC). 

31 Subject: Information Provided by Duke Energy Corporation Related to Severe Accident

32 Mitigation Alternatives in its License Renewal Application for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1

33 and 2, March 14, 2002 (Accession No. ML020740179).

34

35 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Memorandum from F. Eltawila (NRC) to

36 A. Thadani (NRC), Subject: Generic Issue Management Control System Report - First Quarter

37 FY 2002, February 13, 2002.

38

39

40
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 5-32 December 2002 |

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002c. Note to file from A. Kugler (NRC). 

2 Subject: Information Provided by VEPCo in Relation to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

3 in Its License Renewal Application for the Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, January

4 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 9 |

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 (NRC 1996, 1999)(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 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 [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 for 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 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

(Catawba). 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),
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 6-2 December 2002 |

Table S-4, "Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One

Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." The GEIS also addresses the impacts from

radon-222 and technetium-99. 

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

Catawba 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

ISSUE–10 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 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

disposal)

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
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) stated in its Environmental Report (ER; Duke 2001) that it is

not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the Catawba

operating licenses (OLs). The staff has not identified significant new information during its

independent review of the Catawba 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 these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues,

the staff concluded in the GEIS 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 additional 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 Catawba 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 (with regard to individual effects from other

than the disposal of spent fuel and HLW) during the renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

  Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). In the GEIS, the staff concluded 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 United States. 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
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 6-4 December 2002 |

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.

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 Catawba 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 radioactive nuclides

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
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 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

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 1000 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

the 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’s] 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 1000 premature cancer deaths worldwide 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
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 6-6 December 2002 |

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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(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 (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 Commission 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) 0.15mSv/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 groundwater will not

exceed (a) 0.19 Bq/L (5 pCi/L) (radium-226 and radium-228), (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 the receipt of a recommendation by the Secretary,

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 Catawba 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 with regard to spent fuel and HLW disposal

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  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 Catawba 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.

  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 Catawba 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
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 6-8 December 2002 |

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 Catawba 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.

  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 Catawba 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 Catawba 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
Fuel Cycle

December 2002 6-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 § 51.52.

Catawba meets the fuel-enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the

GEIS. The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent

review of the Catawba 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

transportation impacts associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management.

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 63, 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 Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.”

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

License Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 USC 10101, et seq.

|
Fuel Cycle

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 6-10 December 2002 |

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS 00046-G,

Volumes 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.

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.
(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 9 |

1

2 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

3

4

5 Environmental issues associated with decommissioning, which result from continued plant

6 operation during the renewal term, were discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) 7 . 

8 The GEIS included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could

9 be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues

10 were assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 |

11 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

12

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

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

15 specified plant or site characteristic.

16

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

18 impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high19 level waste and spent fuel disposal).

20

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

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

23 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

24

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

26 required unless new and significant information is identified.

27

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

29 therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required. There are no Category 2

30 issues related to decommissioning Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba).

31

32 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

33 to Catawba decommissioning following the renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. Duke Energy

34 Corporation (Duke) stated in its Environmental Report (ER; Duke 2001) that it is aware of no

35 new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of Catawba license

36 renewal. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

37 review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

38 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

39 impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues,
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 7-2 December 2002 |

1 | Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Decommissioning of Catawba

2 Following the Renewal Term

3

4 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

5 DECOMMISSIONING

6 Radiation doses 7.3.1; 7.4

7 Waste management 7.3.2; 7.4

8 Air quality 7.3.3; 7.4

9 Water quality 7.3.4; 7.4

10 Ecological resources 7.3.5; 7.4

11 Socioeconomic impacts 7.3.7; 7.4

12

13 the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific

14 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

15

16 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

17 each of the issues follows:

18

19  Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

20

21 Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless

22 of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase

23 no more than 1 man-rem [0.01 person-Sv] caused by buildup of long-lived

24 radionuclides during the license renewal term.

25

26 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

27 review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

28 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

29 radiation doses associated with decommissioning following license renewal beyond those

30 discussed in the GEIS.

31

32  Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

33

34 Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate

35 no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in

36 the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

37
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

December 2002 7-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

2 review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

3 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

4 impacts of solid waste associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term

5 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

6

7  Air quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

8

9 Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at

10 the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

11

12 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

13 review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

14 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

15 impacts of license renewal on air quality during decommissioning beyond those discussed

16 in the GEIS.

17

18  Water quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

19

20 The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no

21 greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period

22 or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available

23 to avoid such impacts.

24

25 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

26 review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

27 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

28 impacts of the license renewal term on water quality during decommissioning beyond those

29 discussed in the GEIS.

30

31  Ecological resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

32

33 Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year

34 license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.

35

36 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

37 review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

38 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

39 impacts of the license renewal term on ecological resources during decommissioning

40 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 7-4 December 2002 |

1

2  Socioeconomic impacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

3

4 Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The

5 impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a

6 20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and

7 economic growth.

8

9 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

10 review of the Catawba ER (Duke 2001), the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its

11 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

12 impacts of license renewal on the socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning beyond

13 those discussed in the GEIS.

14 |

15 7.1 References

16

17 | 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

18 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

19

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

21 License Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

22

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

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

25

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

27 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. “Section 6.3–Transportation, Table 9.1,

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

29 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 9 |

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 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2

(Catawba); the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to replace power

generated by Catawba 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 Catawba. |

The environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s

(NRC’s) three-level standard of significance (i.e., 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

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 Catawba OLs, and Duke Energy Corporation

(Duke) would then decommission both units when plant operations cease. Replacement of
Alternatives

(a) The NRC staff is currently supplementing NUREG-0586 for reactor decommissioning. In October

| 2001, the staff issued 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 9 8-2 December 2002 |

Catawba’s electricity generation capacity would be met by (1) demand-side management and

energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers, (3) generating

alternatives other than Catawba, Units 1 and 2, 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 Catawba 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, NUREG0586 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. In some cases, impacts associated with the no-action alternative would

be positive. For example, closure of Units 1 and 2 would eliminate any impingement and

entrainment of fish and shellfish and any negative impacts resulting from thermal discharges to

Lake Wylie.

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
Alternatives

December 2002 8-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  Socioeconomic: When Catawba ceases operation, there will be a decrease in employment and tax revenues associated with the closure. Impacts on employment (primary

and secondary) and population would occur over a wide area. Employees at Catawba

reside in a number of counties in South and North Carolina. The majority live in York |

County, South Carolina (55 percent) and Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, North

Carolina (15 and 14 percent, respectively) (Duke 2001). 

Tax-related impacts would occur in York County and the town of Clover, which is within York

County. In 2000, Duke paid property taxes for Catawba to York County in the amount of

$35,861,194, or 21.9 percent of the real and personal property taxes paid in the county (see

Table 2-17). Approximately 75 percent of the property taxes paid by Catawba are allocated |

in support of the Clover School District in York County.

The no-action alternative would result in the loss of the taxes attributable to Catawba as well

as the loss of plant payrolls 20 years earlier than if the OLs were renewed. Given the

relatively large percentage of revenue in York County and the Clover School District derived

from Catawba, the decline in property tax revenue would have a LARGE impact on the

school district and SMALL to MODERATE impact on the county depending on future

economic growth in the county. The ability of the two jurisdictions to provide public services

and road maintenance (York County) and school services (Clover School District and to a

lesser extent the remaining three school districts) would be adversely impacted.

There would also be an adverse impact on housing values (probably concentrated in upper

scale homes due to the higher salaries and wages paid by Catawba) and the York County

economy if Catawba were to cease operations. 

Duke employees working at the Catawba site currently contribute time and money to |

community activities, including schools, churches, charities, and other civic activities. It is

likely that with a reduced presence in the community following decommissioning, community

involvement 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 the Catawba site following decommissioning |

will depend on the future use of the land occupied by the existing plant. Following

decommissioning, the land occupied by the Catawba site probably would be retained by |

Duke for other corporate purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the land occupied by

Catawba, however, could result in adverse impacts to cultural resources if the land-use

pattern were changed too dramatically. Catawba is located on Lake Wylie and is

surrounded by upscale housing developments. Land use at the site could change to

residential-housing use should Duke sell or transfer the site. However, given the site’s

small size of approximately 158 ha (391 ac), of which 106 ha (262 ac) is nonforested
Alternatives

(a) A greenfield site is assumed to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-4 December 2002 |

and contains the generation and maintenance facilities, parking lots, open water, and

roads and the fact that the site is free of significant archaeological and historical sites,

the impacts of this alternative on historic and archaeological resources are considered

SMALL.

  Environmental Justice: Current operations at Catawba have no disproportionate

impacts on the minority and low-income populations of York County and the other

counties surrounding the plant, and no environmental pathways have been identified

that would cause disproportionate impacts on these populations. Closure of Catawba

would result in decreased employment opportunities in York County and surrounding

counties, thus tax revenues would decrease possibly leading to negative and

disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. Because Catawba 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.

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources

This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric

| power to replace the power generated by Catawba, assuming that the 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 Catawba site and at an alternate greenfield site(a)

(Section 8.2.1)

  natural-gas-fired generation at the Catawba site and at an alternate greenfield site

(Section 8.2.2)

  nuclear generation at the Catawba site and at an alternate greenfield site

(Section 8.2.3).

The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated at Catawba

is discussed in Section 8.2.4. Other power generation and conservation alternatives considered

by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for Catawba are discussed in

Section 8.2.5. Section 8.2.6 discusses the environmental impacts of a combination of

generation and conservation alternatives. 
Alternatives

(a) In a 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.

(b) 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 (i.e., these units generally run near full load).

December 2002 8-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department

of Energy (DOE), issues an annual energy outlook. The latest report, Annual Energy Outlook

2002 with Projections to 2020, was issued in December 2001 (DOE/EIA 2001a). In this report,

EIA projects that combined-cycle(a) or combustion turbine technology fueled by natural gas is

likely to account for approximately 88 percent of new electric generating capacity between the

years 2000 and 2020. Both technologies are designed primarily to supply peak and

intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology can also be used to meet baseload(b)

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 through 2020, followed

by coal-fired plants and then wind generation (DOE/EIA 2001a).

EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of new generation capacity in the

United States during the 2000 to 2020 time period because of higher fuel costs and lower

efficiencies (DOE/EIA 2001a). However, oil as a back-up fuel to natural-gas-fired generation

(combined cycle) is considered.

EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation

capacity in the United States during the 2000 to 2020 time period 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 Catawba 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).
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 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 9 8-6 December 2002 |

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

The coal-fired alternative is analyzed for both the Catawba site and an alternate greenfield site. 

The staff assumed the construction of four 600 megawatt electric (MW[e]) units, which is consistent with the Catawba Environmental Report (ER; Duke 2001). This assumption will slightly

overstate the impacts of replacing the 2258 MW(e) generated by Catawba. 

Coal and lime or limestone for a coal-fired plant sited at Catawba most likely would be delivered

by railroad via the existing rail line. Lime(a) or limestone is used in the scrubbing process for

control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Rail delivery also would be the most likely option for

delivering coal and lime/limestone to an alternate greenfield site for the coal-fired plant. 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 2001). Annual coal consumption would be approximately 5.76 million MT/yr (6.35 million

tons/yr) (Duke 2001). The Catawba ER (Duke 2001) 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 2001). 

Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are

from the Catawba ER (Duke 2001). 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

| 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).
Alternatives

December 2002 8-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

For purposes of this SEIS, the staff assumed that a coal-fired plant located at Catawba would

use the existing closed-cycle cooling system. The staff also assumed that an alternate

greenfield site would use a closed-cycle 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 greenfield site would

depend on the location of the particular site selected.

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at Catawba and |

an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling

Catawba Nuclear Station Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Land Use MODERATE to

LARGE

Use of unused portion of

Catawba site plus additional

offsite, undisturbed land

would be needed. 

Additional offsite land

impacts for coal and

limestone mining. Degree of

impact depends on

characteristics of land being

converted: MODERATE for

a previously disturbed site;

LARGE for an undisturbed

site.

SMALL to

LARGE

Uses up to 700 ha (1700 ac) for

plant infrastructure and waste

disposal; additional land impacts

for coal and limestone mining;

possible impacts for transmission

line and rail spur. Degree of

impact dependent on whether

alternate site is previously

disturbed: SMALL to MODERATE

for a previously disturbed site;

LARGE for a greenfield site.

Ecology MODERATE to

LARGE

Uses undeveloped areas at

Catawba plus significant

amount of previously

undisturbed offsite land. 

Potential for habitat loss and

fragmentation and reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impact depends on whether site is

previously developed (SMALL) or

greenfield (MODERATE to

LARGE). Factors to consider

include 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.

Surface Water

Use and Quality 

SMALL Closed-cycle cooling would

use existing intake

structures; surface water

use should remain the same

as current uses for Catawba.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the volume

of water withdrawn and discharged

and the characteristics of the

surface water body; new intake

structures required.
Alternatives

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

Table 8-2. (contd)

Catawba Nuclear Station Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Groundwater

Use and Quality

SMALL Less groundwater withdrawn

for potable use because of

smaller workforce.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts SMALL if groundwater

used only for potable water;

MODERATE to LARGE if

groundwater used as makeup

cooling water (impacts would be

site/aquifer specific).

Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides

 5757 MT (6346 tons/yr)

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

MODERATE Potentially same impacts as the

Catawba site, although pollution

control standards may vary.

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.

Waste MODERATE Total waste volume would

be approximately

907,300 MT/yr

(1 million tons/yr) of ash,

spent catalyst, and scrubber

sludge requiring

approximately 227 ha

(560 ac) for disposal during

the 40-year life of the plant.

MODERATE Same impacts as Catawba 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 Catawba site.
Alternatives

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

Table 8-2. (contd)

Catawba Nuclear Station Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

SocioeconomicsSMALL to

LARGE

During construction, impacts

would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to 2500

workers during the peak of

the 5-year construction

period, followed by reduction

from current Catawba workforce of 1218 to 250. Tax

base preserved. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL. 

SMALL to

LARGE

Construction impacts depend on

location, but could be SMALL to

LARGE. If plant is located in a

rural area impacts could be

LARGE. Tax impacts on receiving

county could be SMALL to LARGE. 

York County would experience loss

of Catawba tax base and

employment with potentially

MODERATE to LARGE impacts. 

Impact to Clover School District

(York County) would be LARGE. 

Impacts during operation would be

SMALL. 

Transportation impacts of

commuting operating

personnel would be SMALL

due to a smaller workforce. 

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts

associated with train trips to

and from the plant would be

MODERATE to LARGE.

Transportation impacts during

operation would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Transportation

impacts associated with

construction workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE. For rail

transportation of coal and

lime/limestone, the impact is

considered SMALL to MODERATE. 

For barge transportation, the

impact is considered SMALL.

Aesthetics MODERATE MODERATE aesthetic

impact. Exhaust stacks and

stack emissions visible from

offsite, would impact

residential developments

around Lake Wylie. Rail

transportation of coal and

lime/limestone would have a

MODERATE aesthetic

impact. Noise impact from

plant operations would be

MODERATE. Mechanical

noise associated with coal

handling and plant operation

would be audible offsite.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impact would depend on the site

selected and the surrounding land

features and could be LARGE if a

greenfield site was selected. If

needed, a new transmission line or

rail spur would add to the aesthetic

impact. Rail transportation impact

of coal and lime/limestone would

be SMALL to MODERATE, again

depending on the characteristics of

the alternate site. Barge

transportation of coal and

lime/limestone would have a

SMALL aesthetic impact. Noise

impact from plant operations would

be MODERATE. 
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-10 December 2002 |

Table 8-2. (contd)

Catawba Nuclear Station Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Some construction would

affect previously developed

parts of the Catawba site;

cultural resource inventory

should minimize any

impacts on undeveloped

lands. Studies would likely

be needed to identify,

evaluate, and address

mitigation of the potential

impacts of new plant

construction on

undeveloped land for

cultural resources at the

existing site.

SMALL Alternate location would

necessitate cultural resource

studies. Studies would likely be

needed to identify, evaluate, and

address mitigation of the potential

impacts of new plant construction

on undeveloped sites for cultural

resources.

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 968

operating jobs at Catawba

could reduce employment

prospects for minority and

low-income populations. 

Impacts dependent on the

economic vitality and

expansion of Charlotte and

surrounding area, including

York County.

SMALL to

LARGE 

Impacts at alternate site vary

depending on population

distribution and makeup at site. 

Could be SMALL to LARGE. York

County would lose tax revenue and

673 jobs with SMALL to

MODERATE impacts. Clover

School District (York County) would

be significantly impacted, which

may have a MODERATE to

LARGE impact on minority and

low-income populations.

  Land Use

The existing facilities and infrastructure at the Catawba site would be used to the extent

practicable. Specifically, the staff assumed that the coal-fired replacement plant alternative

would use the existing closed-cycle cooling system, switchyard, offices, and transmission

line rights-of-way. Additional land beyond the current Catawba site of 158 ha (391 ac)

| would be needed to construct a new coal-fired plant while the existing nuclear units continue

| to operate. In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff estimated that approximately 700 ha (1700

ac) would be needed to construct a 1000-MW(e) coal plant at a greenfield site. If a coal-

| fired station with a capacity of more than 2200 MW(e) were built while the nuclear units

| were still in operation, the use/conversion of more land than is available at the Catawba site

would be required. 
Alternatives

December 2002 8-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

The coal-fired generation alternative would require 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 Catawba site for landfill disposal of all waste products. Disposal of scrubber

sludge, alone, over a 40-year plant life would require approximately 227 ha (560 ac) |

(Duke 2001). Additional land-use changes would occur offsite in an undetermined coalmining area to supply fuel 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 Catawba Units 1 and 2 would have a total generating |

capacity of 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

Catawba Units 1 and 2. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 405 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 (NRC 1996).

If the assumption is made that 700 ha (1700 ac) would be enough to accommodate the |

expansion and addition of four 600-MW(e) coal fired units at the Catawba site while Units 1

and 2 are still in operation and then decommissioned, then an impact on previously |

undisturbed lands could occur (Duke 2001). The degree of impact would be dependent on

the characteristics of the land being converted. The impact of a coal-fired generating unit

on land use at the Catawba site is best characterized as MODERATE to LARGE. The

impact would definitely be greater than the OL-renewal alternative.

In the GEIS, the staff estimates that a 1000-MW(e) coal-fired plant would require

approximately 700 ha (1700 ac) (NRC 1996). For an alternate greenfield site, Duke

believes that 700 ha (1700 ac) is a sufficient size to accommodate a 2400-MW(e), coal-fired

generation plant (Duke 2001). Land at the site would be used for an ash and sludge waste |

area. Additional land could be needed for a transmission line and for a rail spur to the plant

site, depending on the infrastructure in existence at the alternate site. This alternative

would result in SMALL to LARGE land-use impacts, depending on whether the alternate site

had been developed previously or not and what new infrastructure might be required.

  Ecology

Locating a coal-fired plant at the Catawba site would alter ecological resources because of

the need to convert most of the currently unused land 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, undisturbed land amounting to 405 ha
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-12 December 2002 |

(1000 ac) would need to be converted to industrial use for the plant, coal storage, and ash

and scrubber sludge disposal (Duke 2001). Use of the existing closed-cycle cooling and

intake/ discharge system would limit operational impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. There

could be potential habitat loss and fragmentation, and reduced productivity and biological

diversity could result from disturbing previously undisturbed land.

Siting a coal-fired plant at Catawba would have a MODERATE to LARGE ecological impact

| that would be greater than renewal of the OLs.

At an alternate greenfield 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 may alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife

habitat loss, reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological

diversity. Use of makeup cooling 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 are dependent on whether a site had been previously developed (SMALL) or an

undeveloped greenfield site (MODERATE to LARGE impact).

  Water Use and Quality

Surface water. The coal-fired generation alternative at the Catawba site is assumed to use

a closed-cycle cooling system, which would minimize incremental water use and quality

impacts (Duke 2001). 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.

For a coal-fired plant located at an alternate site, the staff assumed that a closed-cycle

cooling system would be employed (Duke 2001). New intake structures to provide water

needs for the facility would have to be constructed. Impacts would be dependent on the

volume of water withdrawn for makeup relative to the amount of water available from the

intake source and the characteristics of the surface water. Plant discharges would comply

with all appropriate permits (Duke 2001). Some erosion and sedimentation would likely

occur during construction (NRC 1996). The overall impacts are characterized as SMALL to

MODERATE.

| Groundwater. The staff assumed that a coal-fired plant located at the Catawba site would

follow the current practice of obtaining cooling and service water from Lake Wylie and

potable water from the Rock Hill Utilities Department (Duke 2001). The three groundwater

| wells that supply limited specific uses at the Catawba site probably would continue to be

used. The overall impacts are characterized as SMALL.
Alternatives

(a) Any withdrawal of water in South Carolina that exceeds approximately 0.004 m3/sec (0.007 cfs) must

be reported to South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). If the

well is located in Beaufort, Jasper, Georgetown, Horry, or Colleton counties, it must be permitted. 

(Personal communication with Charles Williams, Geologist, Bureau of Water (SCDHEC),

December 19, 2001.

(b) 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 8-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Use of groundwater for cooling at a coal-fired plant located at an alternate site is a

possibility. Consumptive use is estimated by Duke to be less than 1.5 m3

/s (52.2 cfs), which

is based on the evaporation rates at Catawba’s existing once-through cooling system |

(Duke 2001). Groundwater withdrawal at an alternate site may require a permit from the

appropriate State agency.(a) The impacts of withdrawal for the coal-fired plant on the aquifer |

would be site specific and dependent on aquifer recharge and other withdrawals. The

overall impacts could be SMALL to LARGE.

  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, and hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring

radioactive materials.

The Catawba site is located in the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Air Quality Control

Region (40 CFR 81.75). This region is designated as in attainment or unclassified for all

criteria pollutants in 40 CFR 81.334.(b) However, the county is at risk as being classified as

nonattainment regarding ozone in the future, pending implementation of a new 8-hour

standard.

A new coal-fired generating plant located at the Catawba 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 Part 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). 

Obtaining air permits for construction of a conventional coal-fired plant potentially could

require emission offsets from other Duke generating facilities. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-14 December 2002 |

under the Clean Air Act. As previously mentioned, York County is classified as attainment

or unclassified for criteria pollutants, except ozone.

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. EPA issued a new regional haze rule

| on July 1, 1999 cited in the Federal Register (FR) 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 toward 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)).

South Carolina has only one area (Cape Romaine Wildlife Area) designated in 40 CFR

81.426 as a mandatory Class I Federal area in which visibility is an important value. There

are more Class I areas in the region of the North Carolina-Tennessee border in the Smoky

Mountains. None of these Class I areas are within 80 km (50 mi) of the Catawba site. 

In 1998, EPA issued a rule requiring 22 eastern states, including South Carolina, to revise

their state implementation plans to reduce NOx emissions. Nitrogen oxide emissions

contribute to violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The total

amount of NOx that can be emitted by each of the 22 states in the year 2007 ozone season

(May 1 to September 30) is specified in 40 CFR 51.121(e). For South Carolina, the amount

| is 111,656 MT (123,105 tons). Any new coal-fired plant sited in South Carolina would be

| subject to this limitation. For North Carolina, the amount is 149,708 MT (165,022 tons).

Impacts for particular pollutants are as follows:

Sulfur oxides. Duke states in the Catawba ER that an alternative coal-fired plant located at

the Catawba site would use wet scrubber technology utilizing lime/limestone for flue gas

desulfurization (Duke 2001). 

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
Alternatives

December 2002 8-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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,

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 from a coal-fired plant would be approximately 5757 MT (6346 tons)

of SO2 (Duke 2001). 

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 specified in 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This

regulation, issued on September 16, 1998 and cited 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 2001). 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 (μm) up to approximately 45 μm). The 288 MT would include 192 MT

(212 tons) of PM10 (particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to

10 μm). Fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators would be used for particulate control

(Duke 2001). In addition, coal-handling equipment would introduce fugitive particulate

emissions. Particulate emissions would be greater under the coal alternative than the OL

renewal alternative.

Fugitive dust would be generated during construction of a coal-fired plant. In addition,

exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during

construction.

Carbon monoxide. Duke estimates that the total carbon monoxide emissions would be

approximately 1439 MT (1586 tons) per year (Duke 2001). This level of emissions is

greater than the OL renewal alternative.

Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, EPA issued regulatory

findings (65 FR 79825) on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam |
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-16 December 2002 |

generating units (EPA 2000a). EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility steamgenerating units are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power plants

were found by EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen

chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (EPA 2000a). EPA concluded

that mercury is the hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern. EPA, also found that (1)

there is a link between coal use 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 2000a). 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 2000a).

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 analysis in 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 Catawba 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

are deemed similar to those utilizing the existing Catawba site, or MODERATE.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

  Waste

Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air

pollution generates additional ash, spent selective catalytic reduction catalysts, and

scrubber sludge. Four 600-MW(e) coal-fired plants would generate approximately

907,300 MT (1 million tons) of this waste annually. The waste would be disposed of onsite,

accounting for approximately 227 ha (560 ac) of land area over the 40-year plant life. There

would not be sufficient space on the existing Catawba site for disposal of this quantity of

waste. 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. 

Construction-related debris will also be generated during construction activities.

In May 2000, EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels” cited as 65 FR 32214 (EPA 2000b). 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 11 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 to 70 percent of landfills and surface

impoundments without reasonable controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater

monitoring; and (4) gaps in State oversight of coal combustion wastes have been identified. 

Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal

combustion waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA).

For all of the preceding reasons, 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 Catawba 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 exposes workers to risks from coal and limestone mining,

worker and public risks from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risks
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-18 December 2002 |

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.

| In the GEIS, the staff stated that there could be human health impacts (cancer and

emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates from coal-fired plants, 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 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, 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 the Catawba nuclear units continue

operation and would be completed by the time Units 1 and 2 permanently cease operations. 

The workforce 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 1218

| workers currently employed at the Catawba site. During construction of the new coal-fired

plant, communities near Catawba would experience demands on housing and public

services that could have SMALL to MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be

tempered because Catawba is in an urban area and workers could commute to the site

from many communities. Nearby communities to Catawba would be impacted by the loss of

the construction jobs once construction is completed. Duke estimates that the completed

coal plant would employ approximately 250 workers (Duke 2001).

If the coal-fired replacement plant were constructed at the Catawba site and Units 1 and 2

were decommissioned, there would be a loss of 968 permanent high-paying jobs (1218 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. These

impacts may be offset by nearness to the Charlotte metropolitan area and the overall

economic growth taking place in York County. The coal-fired plant would provide a new
Alternatives

December 2002 8-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 operating a coal-fired plant constructed at the Catawba site is

considered SMALL. 

Construction of a replacement coal-fired power plant at an alternate site would relocate

some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. York County, and particularly

the Clover School District, would bear the brunt of Catawba operational job losses and

would lose a large amount of its tax base. These losses could have potentially SMALL to

MODERATE socioeconomic impacts to the county but LARGE impacts to the Clover School

District. Communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a large,

temporary workforce (up to 2500 workers at the peak of construction) and a permanent

workforce of approximately 250 workers. In the GEIS, the staff stated that socioeconomic |

impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an urban site, because more of the peak

construction workforce would need to move to the area to work (NRC 1996). Alternate sites

would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site

could be MODERATE to LARGE, depending on the relative location of the site to towns and

cities which might be able to accommodate such impacts. 

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 compared to the current commuting workforce of 1218. 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 Catawba operations.

However, during the 5-year construction period of the replacement coal-fired units, up to

2500 construction workers would be working at the site in addition to the 1218 workers

currently at the Catawba site. The addition of these workers could place significant traffic |

loads on existing highways near the Catawba site. Such impacts would be MODERATE to

LARGE.

Coal and lime/limestone would likely be delivered to the Catawba site by trains of |

approximately 115 cars each on the site’s rail spur. 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 550 trains per year would deliver the coal and lime/limestone for the 4

coal-fired units. An average of roughly 22 train trips per week would occur, because for

each full train delivery, there would be an empty return train. On several days per week,

there could be three 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. 
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-20 December 2002 |

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 due to a smaller workforce.

At an alternate site, 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 SMALL in a rural area and MODERATE in a more

crowded suburban area.

  Aesthetics

The four coal-fired power plant units could be as much as 60 m (200 ft) tall and would be

visible in daylight hours over many miles. The four exhaust stacks would be as much as

185 m (600 ft) high (Duke 2001). The stacks would likely be highly visible in daylight hours

for distances up to 16 km (10 mi). Emissions from the stack would be a factor not present

with the current nuclear units. The new stacks, and the associated stack emissions, would

have a significant impact for the Lake Wylie community surrounding the Catawba site.

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 Catawba site

would 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 operations 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 Catawba operations are

considered to be MODERATE. 

At an alternate site, there would be an aesthetic impact from the buildings and exhaust

stacks. This impact could be LARGE if a greenfield site is selected. There would also be

an aesthetic impact if 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
Alternatives

December 2002 8-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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. In a more suburban location, the impacts are considered

MODERATE. This is due to the frequency of train transport, the fact than many people are

likely to be within hearing distance of the rail route, and the impacts of noise on residents in

the vicinity of the facility and rail line. At a more rural location, the impacts could be SMALL. 

Noise and light from the plant would be detectable offsite. Noise associated with barge

transportation of coal and lime/limestone would be SMALL. Aesthetic impacts at the plant

site would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other power

plants or industrial facilities. Overall the aesthetic impacts associated with locating at an

alternate site can be categorized as SMALL to LARGE, depending on the characteristics of

the site. 

  Historic and Archaeological Resources

At the Catawba site, or an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would likely be |

needed for any property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands acquired to |

support the existing Catawba site 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 Catawba site or at an alternate 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 line rights-of-way, rail lines, or other

rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively

managed and as such are considered SMALL for both the existing Catawba site (and land

purchased to support the site) or at an alternate greenfield site.

  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 Catawba site. Some impacts on housing

availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could disproportionately

affect minority and low-income populations. Closure of Catawba Units 1 and 2 would result |

in a decrease in employment of approximately 968 operating employees. Resulting

economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income

populations. However, Catawba is located in an urban area with many employment

possibilities. Overall, impacts are expected to be SMALL to MODERATE.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-22 December 2002 |

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, York

County, and in particular the Clover School District, would experience a loss of tax revenue

that could affect their ability to provide services and programs. York County would also lose

673 jobs. These impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE for York County and

MODERATE to LARGE for the Clover School District. Impacts at the alternate site would

vary between SMALL to LARGE, depending on the population makeup and distribution and

the economy.

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System

This section discusses the environmental impacts of constructing a coal-fired generation

system at an alternate site using a once-through cooling system. The impacts (SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE) of this option are the same as the impacts for a coal-fired plant using

the closed-cycle cooling system. However, there are some environmental differences between

the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-3 summarizes the incremental

differences.

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

Greenfield Site with Once-Through Cooling

Impact Category Change in Impacts from Once-Through Cooling System

Land Use Reservoir or other sufficient cooling source required

Ecology Impact dependent on ecology at the site

Surface Water Use and Quality Increased water withdrawal and more thermal load on receiving body of water

Groundwater Use and Quality No change

Air Quality No change

Waste No change

Human Health No change

Socioeconomics No change

Aesthetics Elimination of cooling towers

Historic and Archaeological Resources No change

Environmental Justice No change
Alternatives

(a) Duke does not consider fuel oil a viable, stand-alone fuel because it is not price-competitive when |

natural gas is readily available. Duke views the fuel oil option as an emergency, backup fuel source

during the winter season and is likely to ensure adequate fuel supplies, especially where baseload

generation is required (Duke 2001). As such, Duke does not consider the air emissions from fuel oil

in their analysis. Aesthetics and other potential impacts from oil transmission lines and oil storage

are considered.

December 2002 8-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

8.2.2 Oil and Natural-Gas-Fired (Combined Cycle)

The environmental impacts of the oil and natural-gas-fired alternative are examined in this

section for both the Catawba site and an alternate site(a). For this alternative, Duke considered

two variations on the natural gas theme: (1) an oil and natural gas combined-cycle and

(2) natural gas alone in a combined-cycle plant. 

The staff reviewed the environmental impacts of each option described in the Catawba ER and

independently verified Duke’s conclusions. The staff decided to report on its findings for the oil |

and natural gas (combined-cycle) option because the environmental and socioeconomic

impacts of both options are almost identical. Two exceptions were identified. The first

exception is the oil storage tank, which would be needed at either the Catawba site or the |

alternate site. The second exception is the need to construct an oil pipeline to the Catawba

site. Whether an oil pipeline would be required at an alternate site would depend on the

characteristics and infrastructure at the site.

For the Catawba site, the staff assumed that the plant would use the closed-cycle cooling

system. The plant would consist of five 482-MW(e) combined-cycle units to replace the current

power generated by Units 1 and 2. The total generation from the replacement power source

would be 2410 MW(e) and, as such, would slightly overestimate the impacts from an exact

replacement of Catawba’s 2258 MW(e) generating capacity (Duke 2001).

The Catawba site is not located near a natural gas pipeline capable of supplying the quantities

of gas required to operate the new gas-fired units. The nearest interstate pipeline is located |

26 km (16 mi) from the site. However, a new pipeline would likely be needed to supply the gas

capacities required for a replacement baseload gas-fired plant located at Catawba (Duke 2001). 

If a new natural-gas-fired plant were built elsewhere to replace Catawba, a new transmission

line may be needed to connect to existing lines. In addition, construction or upgrade of a

natural gas pipeline from the plant to a supply point where an adequate and reliable supply of

gas would be available also may be required. 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). 
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-24 December 2002 |

LNG imported to either facility would need to be vaporized and transported to the South

Carolina location via pipeline.

It is assumed that a replacement natural-gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle combustion

turbines (Duke 2001). The following assumptions are made for the oil and natural-gas-fired

plants (Duke 2001):

  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

  use of low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil as backup fuel

  heat rate of 2 J fuel/J electricity (6,800 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 in Section 8.2.2 are

from the Catawba ER (Duke 2001). 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

additional 20 years, the impact of operating the natural-gas-fired alternative for 40 years is

considered a reasonable projection of the operating life of the plant.

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The overall impacts of the combined-cycle fuel oil/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

The Catawba site is adequate to support a combined-cycle facility (Duke 2001). For siting

at Catawba, existing facilities and infrastructure would be used to the extent practicable,

thus limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the staff

assumed that the oil/natural-gas-fired replacement plant alternative would use the existing

closed-cycle cooling system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way. 
Alternatives

December 2002 8-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Oil and Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

 at Catawba and an Alternate Greenfield Site Using a Closed-Cycle

 Cooling System

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

Catawba site sufficient

to accommodate new

plant. Use existing

infrastructure to

maximum extent

possible. Construction

of both oil and gas

pipelines required. Up

to 235 ha (582 ac)

potentially disturbed for

each right-of-way. 

Impacts would be less

if pipelines are

constructed in existing

rights-of-way.

MODERATE

to LARGE

81 ha (200 ac) for power-block,

offices, roads, switchyard, and

parking areas required. 

Additional land (up to 1500 ha

[3600 ac]) possibly impacted for

transmission line, oil and

natural-gas pipelines, and rail

spur. Use of previously

undeveloped greenfield site

increases impacts.

Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Uses undeveloped

areas at Catawba site

plus land for a new oil

and 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 oil/gas pipeline

routes; potential habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity. Undeveloped

greenfield site may increase

impacts.

Water Use

and Quality

(Surface Water)

SMALL Uses existing closedcycle cooling system

including existing intake

and discharge

structures. Surface

water use should be

less than current uses

at Catawba,

Units 1 and 2.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn and

discharged and the

characteristics of the surface

water body. New intake and

discharge structures required. |
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-26 December 2002 |

Table 8-4. (contd)

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Water Use and

Quality

(Groundwater)

SMALL Less groundwater

withdrawn for potable

use because of smaller

workforce.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts SMALL if groundwater

used only for potable purposes;

MODERATE to LARGE if

groundwater employed as

makeup cooling water. Impacts

would be site/aquifer specific.

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 Potential impacts are the same

as for the Catawba site,

although pollution control

standards may vary.

Waste SMALL Minimal waste products

from fuel combustion.

SMALL Minimal waste products from

fuel combustion. Impacts from

combustion of No. 2 fuel oil as a

backup are considered SMALL.

Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to

be minor.

SMALL Impacts considered to be minor.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 8-4. (contd)

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

SocioeconomicsSMALL to

MODERATE 

During construction,

impacts would be

SMALL to MODERATE. 

Up to 800 additional

workers during the

peak of the 2- to 3-year

construction period,

followed by reduction

from the current 1218

Catawba workforce to

150. Tax base

preserved. Impacts

during operation would

be SMALL to

MODERATE, due to

loss of employment in

York County, which

may be offset by

proximity to Charlotte

economy.

Transportation impacts

during operation would

be SMALL due to the

smaller workforce. 

Transportation impacts

associated with

construction workers

would be MODERATE. 

Up to 800 additional

workers during the

peak of the 2- to 3-year

construction period in

addition to workers

currently employed at

Catawba. 

SMALL to 

LARGE

Impacts depend on site

characteristics. During

construction, impacts would be

SMALL to MODERATE. Tax

impacts on receiving county

could be SMALL to LARGE. Up

to 800 additional workers during

the peak of the 3-year

construction period. York

County would experience loss of

Catawba tax base and

employment with potentially

MODERATE to LARGE impacts. 

Clover School District in York

County would be significantly

impacted.

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be SMALL to

LARGE and would be

dependent on population density

and road infrastructure at

alternate site. Impacts during

operation would be SMALL due

to smaller workforce.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-28 December 2002 |

Table 8-4. (contd)

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERATE 

Lake Wylie area

impacted. SMALL to

MODERATE aesthetic

impact from plant and

stacks, fuel oil storage

tanks, lighting, and

mechanical noise

associated with

operation.

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL if previously developed

site and site disturbance

minimal. Impacts increased to

strongly MODERATE with

construction of a transmission

line and oil/gas pipeline to

previously developed site. 

LARGE impact if a greenfield

site used.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts

can be effectively

managed. 

SMALL Same as Catawba site; any

potential impacts can 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 1016 operating

jobs at Catawba could

reduce employment

prospects for minority

and low-income

populations. Nearness

to Charlotte economic

area may mitigate

impacts.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts at alternate site vary

depending on population

distribution and makeup at site

could be SMALL to LARGE. 

York County would lose tax

revenue and jobs, which could

have a MODERATE impact. 

Impact on Clover School District

would be LARGE. Nearness to

Charlotte economic area may

mitigate impacts.

Additional land-use impacts could come from gas and oil construction rights-of-way. Up to

235 ha (582 ac) could be potentially disturbed for each right-of-way. The nearest trunk oil

| line is 24 km (15 mi) from the Catawba site. The nearest interstate gas pipeline is located

26 km (16 mi) from the Catawba site. Land-use impacts from the construction of the

| pipelines are considered SMALL to MODERATE and would depend on whether the

pipelines can use existing rights-of-way or not. If new land has to be disturbed, then the

impacts could be MODERATE.

For construction at an alternate site, Duke assumed that less than 81 ha (200 ac) would be

needed for the plant and associated infrastructure (Duke 2001). Additional land could be

impacted for construction of a transmission line and natural gas and oil pipelines to serve

the plant. In the GEIS, the staff estimates that approximately 1500 ha (3600 ac) would be
Alternatives

December 2002 8-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

needed for a 1000 MW(e) plant (NRC 1996). As reported by Duke in the Catawba ER

(Duke 2001), “the environmental impacts of providing both gas and fuel oil for a very large |

baseload facility would be substantial.” If legislation requiring reduction of CO2 levels were

passed, conversion of combustion facilities to natural gas would be required to meet the

new standards. Natural gas may not be available in the quantities that would be required to

offset CO2 emissions from coal-fired-gas generation. The present interstate natural gas

pipeline system in the Duke service area is not capable of supporting the quantities of gas

required by this size station operating at 90 percent capacity factor.

Selection of a greenfield site also would increase the impact of the new facility. Partially

offsetting these offsite land use requirements would be the elimination of the need for

uranium mining to supply fuel for Catawba Units 1 and 2. In the GEIS, the staff estimates |

that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected for mining and processing the

uranium during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear power plant (NRC 1996). 

Overall, land-use impacts at an alternate location would be MODERATE to LARGE.

  Ecology

At the Catawba site, there would be ecological, land-related impacts for siting of the gasfired plant; however, the impacts would be SMALL considering the smaller footprint of the

new facility (compared to the existing nuclear facilities) and the fact that land at the site is

previously disturbed. Significant ecological impacts could be associated with bringing a new

underground gas and oil pipeline to the Catawba site. Impacts could include wildlife habitat

loss and reduced productivity, and habitat fragmentation and local reduction in biological

diversity. The degree of impact would depend on where and how the pipelines are

constructed and the ecological state of the areas through which the pipelines traverse (e.g.,

existing or new rights-of-way, above or belowground). Potential impacts are rated SMALL

to MODERATE.

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 oil and gas pipelines. 

Construction of a transmission line and an oil and gas pipeline to serve the plant would be

expected to have temporary ecological impacts. Ecological impacts are the same as with

the existing Catawba site and could be exacerbated if threatened or endangered species

were involved. A previously undisturbed greenfield site may only heighten the impacts. At

an alternate site, the cooling water intake and discharge could have aquatic resource

impacts. Overall, the ecological impacts of this alternative are considered MODERATE to

LARGE.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-30 December 2002 |

  Water Use and Quality

Surface water. The gas-fired generation alternative at the Catawba site is assumed to use

a closed-cycle cooling system, which would minimize incremental water use and quality

impacts (Duke 2001). Modifications to meet EPA requirements for altered cooling systems

would be undertaken. Water requirements for combined-cycle generation are much less

than for conventional steam electric generators, and evaporation from combined cycle

| cooling towers would be less than from the existing Catawba nuclear units (Duke 2001). 

There also would be sediment impacts to adjacent waters during construction. Surface

water impacts are expected to remain SMALL. 

For a gas-fired plant located at an alternate site, it is assumed that a closed-cycle cooling

system would be employed (Duke 2001). New intake structures to provide water needs for

the facility would need to be constructed. Impacts would be dependent on the volume of

water withdrawn for makeup relative to the amount of water available from the intake source

and the characteristics of the surface water. Plant discharges would comply with all

appropriate permits (Duke 2001). Some erosion and sedimentation probably would occur

during construction (NRC 1996). The overall impacts to surface water quality are

characterized as SMALL to MODERATE.

Groundwater. The staff assumed that a gas-fired plant located at Catawba would follow the

current practice of obtaining cooling and service water from Lake Wylie and potable water

from the Rock Hill Utilities Department (Duke 2001). The three groundwater wells that

supply limited special uses at the Catawba site probably would continue to be used. The

overall impacts are characterized as SMALL.

A natural-gas-fired plant at an alternate site may use groundwater. Consumptive use is

estimated by Duke to be considerably less than the 63,515 m3

/day (16.8 mgd), which is

based on the evaporation rates at Catawba’s existing cooling system for conventional steam

electric generation (Duke 2001). Groundwater withdrawal at an alternate site may require a

State permit. The impacts of such a withdrawal rate on an aquifer would be site specific

and dependent on the recharge rate and other withdrawal rates from the aquifer. The

overall impacts could be SMALL to LARGE.

  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. Hence, it would

be subject to the same type of air quality regulations as a coal-fired plant.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

A new gas-fired generating plant located at Catawba 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 Part 60, Subparts Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for

particulates, opacity, SO2, and NOx. York County is at risk of being in ozone nonattainment. 

Obtaining air permits for construction of a combined-cycle plant would potentially require

emission offsets from other Duke generating facilities.

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 (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 Catawba site are the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area located |

approximately 145 km (90 mi) northwest, the Shining Rock Wilderness Area located |

approximately 283 km (175 mi) west, and the Great Smoky Mountains National park located |

approximately 310 km (193 mi) west (40 CFR 81.422). |

In 1998, the EPA issued a rule requiring 22 eastern states, including South 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 2001):

  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).
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-32 December 2002 |

A natural-gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

contribute to global warming.

In December 2000, EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants

from electric utility steam-generating units (EPA 2000a). Natural-gas-fired power plants

were found by EPA to emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (EPA 2000a). 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 Catawba site or at an alternate

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

oil/natural-gas-fired generating plant sited at Catawba or at an alternate site is considered

MODERATE.

  Waste

A small amount of solid waste (i.e., ash), will result from burning natural gas fuel. Duke

expects to produce approximately 42 m3

 (1500 ft3) of spent SCR catalyst used for NOX

| control (Duke 2001). 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 byproducts because of the clean nature of the fuel. Waste generation at an operating gasfired plant would be largely limited to typical office wastes. Construction-related debris

would also be generated during construction activities. Overall, the waste impacts would be

| SMALL for a natural-gas-fired plant sited at the Catawba site or at an alternate site; impacts

would be so minor that they would not noticeably alter any important resource attribute.

In the winter, it may become necessary for the 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 as well. 

  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 contributes to health risks. NOx emissions from the plant
Alternatives

December 2002 8-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

would be regulated by the SCDHEC or comparable agency in another state. Human health |

effects are not expected to be detectable or would be 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 the Catawba site or at |

an alternate site are considered SMALL.

  Socioeconomics

Construction of an oil and natural-gas-fired plant would take approximately 2 to 3 years. 

Peak employment could be as many as 800 workers (Duke 2001). The staff assumed that

construction would take place while Catawba Units 1 and 2 continue operation and would be

completed by the time they permanently cease operations. During construction, the

communities immediately surrounding the Catawba site would experience demands on

housing and public services that could have SMALL to MODERATE impacts. These

impacts would be tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from cities and

towns comprising the Charlotte metropolitan area. After construction, the communities

would be impacted by the loss of jobs. The current Catawba workforce (1218 workers)

would decline through the decommissioning period to a minimal maintenance size. The

new natural-gas-fired plant would replace the nuclear plant tax base at Catawba in York

County. Approximately 1068 jobs would be lost because only 150 workers would be

needed to operate the gas plant. The impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE and could

be moderated by Catawba’s location in the economically prosperous Charlotte area. 

At an alternate or greenfield site, construction would take approximately 2 to 3 years, take

place while the existing nuclear plant continued operation, and would be completed by the

time the Catawba nuclear units cease operations (Duke 2001). The size of the construction |

and operational personnel remain the same as at the Catawba site. Siting at an alternate

site would result in the loss of tax revenue and employment in York County with potentially

MODERATE to LARGE socioeconomic impacts. Impacts to the Clover School District in

York County would be particularly significant. Socioeconomic impacts from locating the

facilities at an alternate site would be dependent on the characteristics of the site. Impacts

of construction could range between SMALL to MODERATE. Impacts during plant

operation would be SMALL (fewer employees) and the tax impacts could be SMALL to

LARGE, depending on the relative proportion of taxes paid by the plant to total county taxes

at the new location. In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff concluded that socioeconomic |

impacts from constructing a natural-gas-fired plant would not be very noticeable and that

the small operational workforce would have the lowest socioeconomic impacts of any

nonrenewable technology. Compared to the coal-fired and nuclear alternatives,

socioeconomic impacts would be mitigated by the smaller size of the construction

workforce, the shorter construction time frame, and the smaller size of the operational

workforce. 
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-34 December 2002 |

| Overall, socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction of a natural-gas-fired plant at

| the Catawba site would be SMALL to MODERATE, and may be offset by the continued

growth of the economy in the Charlotte and surrounding area. For construction at an

alternate site, socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL to LARGE, depending on the

characteristics of the alternate site.

Transportation impacts associated with construction and operating personnel commuting to

| the Catawba site would be SMALL to MODERATE. The impacts can be classified as

SMALL to LARGE for siting at an alternate site and would be dependent on the

characteristics of the alternate site, including transportation infrastructure.

  Aesthetics

The five power plant units with their stacks (approximately 60-m [200-ft] tall) would be

visible for several miles in the vicinity of Lake Wylie. Visual impacts from stack emissions

also would be present. Fuel oil storage tanks also would be visible offsite, and noise and

light from the plant would be detectable offsite (Duke 2001). Construction of the required

| gas and oil pipelines would also contribute to aesthetic impacts. At the Catawba site, these

impacts would result in a SMALL to MODERATE aesthetic impact.

At an alternate site, the buildings and stacks could be visible offsite. Aesthetic impacts

could be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other power

plants or industrial facilities. Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with a replacement

natural-gas-fired plant at an alternate site are categorized as SMALL. The impacts would

be greater if new transmission lines and oil/gas pipelines had to be constructed to the

alternate site. These impacts are considered MODERATE. The impacts could be LARGE if

a greenfield site is developed.

|  Historic and Archaeological Resources

At both the Catawba site and at an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would likely

be needed for any onsite property that has not been surveyed previously. Other lands, if

any, that are acquired to support the plant also would likely need an inventory of field

cultural resources, an 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 Catawba plant site.

Before construction at an alternate site, similar studies would likely be needed and

undertaken. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the

proposed plant site and along associated rights-of-way where new construction would occur

(e.g., roads, transmission lines, pipeline, or other rights-of-way). Hence, impacts to cultural
Alternatives

December 2002 8-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

resources can be effectively managed under current laws and regulations and kept SMALL

at either the existing Catawba site or at an alternative site. |

  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 Catawba site. Some |

impacts on housing availability and prices during construction might occur in York County,

which could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Closure of

Catawba would result in a decrease in employment of approximately 1068 permanent

operating employees at the site. Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment

prospects for minority or low-income populations in York County. The impacts could be

offset by projected economic growth and the ability of affected workers to commute to other

jobs in the county or nearby Charlotte. Overall, impacts are expected to be SMALL to

MODERATE. 

Impacts at an alternate site would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

distribution. Low-income and minority populations at the alternate site could benefit from

the plant’s relocation, through improvements in job prospects and increased tax base

enabling more services to be provided to these populations. These impacts could be

SMALL to LARGE. However, if a replacement natural-gas-fired plant were constructed at

an alternate site, York County would experience a loss of property tax revenue, as well as

approximately 670 jobs of Catawba workers living in the county. This could affect the

county’s ability to provide services and programs. The Clover School District would

experience a significant loss of tax revenue that could affect their ability to provide services

and programs to low-income and minority children. Impacts to minority and low-income

populations in York County could be MODERATE to LARGE, again potentially offset by

other economic growth in the area not related to Catawba.

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System

This section discusses the environmental impacts of constructing a natural-gas-fired generation

system at an alternate location using a once-through cooling system. The impacts (SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE) of this option are the same as the impacts for a natural-gas-fired plant

using closed-cycle cooling. However, there are minor environmental differences between the

closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8.5 summarizes the incremental

differences.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-36 December 2002 |

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Oil and Natural-Gas-Fired Generation at

an Alternate Site with a Once-Through Cooling System

Impact Category

Change in Impacts from

Once-Through Cooling System

Land Use Reservoir or other sufficient cooling source required

Ecology Impact would depend on ecology at the site

Surface Water Use and Quality Increased water withdrawal and higher thermal load

on receiving body of water

Groundwater Use and Quality No change

Air Quality No change

Waste No change

Human Health No change

Socioeconomics No change

Aesthetics Elimination of cooling towers

Historic and Archaeological Resources No change

Environmental Justice No change

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 NRC, the submission of the design certification

applications indicates continuing interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants. 

In addition, recent escalation 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 Catawba site using the existing closed-cycle cooling system

and at an alternate 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. 

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 sited

at Catawba or an alternate site. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are for a 1000-MW(e) reactor

and would need to be adjusted to reflect replacement of Catawba, Units 1 and 2, which have a

total 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
Alternatives

December 2002 8-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

10 CFR 51.52. The summary of NRC’s findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear

power plants in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, is relevant also, although |

not directly applicable, for consideration of environmental impacts associated with the operation

of a replacement nuclear power plant. Additional environmental impact information for a

replacement nuclear power plant using closed-cycle cooling is presented in Section 8.2.3.1 and

using once-through cooling in Section 8.2.3.2.

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle 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 site will

depend on the location of the particular site selected.

  Land Use

The existing facilities and infrastructure at the Catawba 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 Catawba would require approximately 200 ha (500 ac) of new land some of

which may be previously underdeveloped land. Additional land beyond the current Catawba

site boundary may be needed to construct a new nuclear power plant while the existing

Units 1 and 2 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

Catawba reactors.

The impact of a replacement nuclear generating plant adjacent to the existing Catawba site

is best characterized as SMALL to 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 deliver

equipment during construction. Depending on new transmission line routing, siting a new

nuclear plant at an alternate site could result in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts,

and probably would be LARGE for a previously undisturbed greenfield site.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-38 December 2002 |

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation at Catawba and

at an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

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. 

MODERATE impact for

previously disturbed

alternate site; LARGE

impact for a greenfield site.

Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas at

current Catawba 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

(Surface Water)

SMALL Uses existing closed-cycle

cooling system.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn

and discharged and the

characteristics of the

surface water body.

Water Use and

Quality

(Groundwater)

SMALL Total water usage similar to

current Catawba use.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts SMALL if

groundwater used only for

potable purposes;

MODERATE to LARGE if

groundwater employed as

makeup cooling water. 

Impacts would be

site/aquifer specific.

Air Quality SMALL Fugitive emissions and

emissions from vehicles

and equipment during

construction. Small amount of

emissions from diesel

generators and possibly other

sources during operation. 

Emissions are similar to current

releases from Catawba.

SMALL Same impacts as at

Catawba.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 8-6. (contd)

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

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 at

Catawba.

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 at

Catawba.

Socioeconomics SMALL to |

LARGE 

During construction, impacts

would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to 2500

workers during the peak of the

5-year construction period. 

Operating workforce assumed

to be similar to Catawba. Tax

base preserved. 

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

and ongoing operation of

Catawba could be MODERATE

to LARGE. Transportation

impacts of commuting plant

operating personnel considered

SMALL.

SMALL to

LARGE

Construction impacts

depend on location. 

Impacts at a rural,

greenfield location could be

LARGE. York County would

experience loss of tax base

and employment with

MODERATE to LARGE

impacts, possibly offset by

economic growth in the

Charlotte metropolitan area. |

Transportation impacts

associated with comuting

construction workers could

be MODERATE to LARGE. 

Impacts during operation

would be SMALL to

MODERATE.

Aesthetics SMALL 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

Impacts would depend on

the characteristics of the

alternate site. Impacts

would be SMALL if the plant

is located adjacent to an

industrial area. New

transmission lines would

add to the impacts and

could be MODERATE. If a

greenfield site is selected,

the impacts could be

LARGE.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can likely

be managed effectively. 

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be managed

effectively. 
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-40 December 2002 |

Table 8-6. (contd)

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

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

LARGE

Impacts will vary depending

on population distribution

and makeup at the site. 

Impacts to minority and lowincome residents of York

County associated with

closure of Catawba could be 

MODERATE to LARGE. 

Impacts to receiving County

is site specific and could

range from SMALL to

LARGE.

  Ecology

Locating a replacement nuclear power plant at the Catawba site would alter ecological

resources because of the need to convert additional land to industrial use. Potential habitat

loss and fragmentation and reduced productivity and biological diversity could result. Some

| of this land, however, may have been previously disturbed. Siting at the Catawba site would

have a MODERATE ecological impact that would be greater than renewal of the OLs for the

existing reactors.

At an alternate site, there would be construction impacts and new incremental operational

impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the impacts could 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 impacts on aquatic resources. 

Construction and maintenance of a new transmission line could also have ecological

impacts. Overall, the ecological impacts at an alternate site would be MODERATE to

LARGE.

  Water Use and Quality

Surface water. A replacement nuclear plant alternative at the Catawba site would most

likely use the existing closed-cycle cooling system. Thus, the environmental impacts would

| be similar to the existing Catawba nuclear units. For a new nuclear plant, water makeup

requirements due to evaporative losses in the cooling towers would be comparable to that

currently experienced at Catawba (Duke 2001). There would be sediment impacts to

adjacent waters during construction. Surface water impacts are expected to remain
Alternatives

December 2002 8-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

SMALL; the impacts would be sufficiently minor that they would not noticeably alter any

important attribute of the resource.

For a replacement nuclear plant located at an alternate site, the staff assumed that a

closed-cycle cooling system would be employed (Duke 2001). New intake structures to

provide water needs for the facility would need to be constructed. Impacts would depend on

the volume of water withdrawn for makeup relative to the amount of water available from the

intake source and the characteristics of the surface water. Plant discharges would comply

with all appropriate permits (Duke 2001). Some erosion and sedimentation would likely

occur during construction (NRC 1996). The overall impacts are characterized as SMALL to

MODERATE.

Groundwater. The staff assumed that a replacement nuclear plant located at Catawba

would follow the current practice of obtaining cooling and service water from Lake Wylie and

potable water from the Rock Hill Utilities Department (Duke 2001). The three groundwater

wells that supply limited special uses at the Catawba site would also likely continue to be

used. The overall impacts to groundwater are characterized as SMALL.

A nuclear power plant sited at an alternative site may use groundwater. Consumptive use is

estimated by Duke to be 63,500 m3

/day (16.8 mgd), which is based on the evaporation

rates at Catawba’s existing cooling system (Duke 2001) for conventional steam electric

generation. Groundwater withdrawal at an alternate site may require a permit from the

SCDHEC or comparable agency in another state. The impacts of such a withdrawal rate on

an aquifer would be site specific and dependent on aquifer recharge and other withdrawal

rates from the aquifer. The overall impacts could be SMALL to LARGE.

  Air Quality

Construction of a new nuclear plant sited at the Catawba or alternate site would result in

fugitive emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions also would come

from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process. An operating

nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel generators. Emissions

would be regulated by the SCDHEC or comparable agency in another state. Overall, |

emissions and associated impacts are considered SMALL.

  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, Table B-1. Construction-related

debris generated during construction activities would be removed to an appropriate disposal

site. Overall, impacts from waste are considered to be SMALL.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-42 December 2002 |

Siting the replacement nuclear power plant at a site other than Catawba would not alter

waste generation. Therefore, the impacts for that alternative also 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 Catawba would not alter

human health impacts. Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL.

  Socioeconomics

The construction period and the peak workforce associated with construction of a new

nuclear power plant are currently unquantified (NRC 1996). The staff assumed that in the

absence of quantified data, a construction period of 5 years and a peak of workers of 2500

would be employed. This workforce would be in addition to the 1218 individuals already

employed at the plant. The staff assumed that construction would take place while the

| existing Catawba units continue operation and would be completed by the time the existing

| units permanently cease operations. During construction, the communities surrounding the

Catawba site would experience demands on housing and public services that could have

SMALL to MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be tempered by construction

workers commuting to the site from the cities and towns comprising the Charlotte

metropolitan area. After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the

construction jobs. 

Alternate plant sites would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. In the GEIS

| (NRC 1996), the staff noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than

at an urban site because more of the peak construction workforce would need to move to

the area to work. Construction of a replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate site

would relocate some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. York County

would still experience the impact of Catawba operational job loss and loss of tax base, and

the communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a large,

temporary workforce (up to 2500 workers at the peak of construction) and a permanent

workforce of up to 1218 workers. For the Clover School District (York County), the

socioeconomic impacts could be MODERATE to LARGE. The socioeconomic impacts to

the county at the alternate location could be SMALL to LARGE depending on the degree of

economic development, the proportion of the County’s property tax base represented by the

new plant, etc.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

During the 5-year construction period, up to 2500 construction workers would be working at

the Catawba site in addition to the 1218 workers already employed there. The addition of

the construction workers could place significant traffic loads on existing highways,

particularly those leading to the 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 the existing reactors and are considered

SMALL.

Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an

alternate location 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 and other associated

buildings sited at Catawba would likely be visible in daylight hours over many miles. Visual

impacts could be mitigated by landscaping and by selecting a building color 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. Cooling

towers would be visible assuming a closed-cycle cooling system is used.

Noise inputs from operations at a replacement nuclear power plant potentially could be

heard offsite under calm wind conditions or when the wind is blowing in the direction of the

listener. Mitigation measures, such as reduced or non-use of outside loudspeakers, can be

employed to reduce the noise level and keep the impact SMALL.

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 is 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, or industrial

facilities, in which case the impact is SMALL. The impact could be MODERATE if a

transmission line needs to be built to the alternate site. The impact could be LARGE if a

greenfield site is selected.

  Historic and Archaeological Resources

At both the Catawba site and an alternate 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
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-44 December 2002 |

possible mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to

physical expansion of the plant site.

| Before construction at the Catawba 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 line corridors where new

construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission line rights-of-way, 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 Catawba site. Some impacts on

housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. However, this situation is

expected to be mitigated by Catawba’s proximity to Charlotte. 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 the minority and low-income populations. However, the economic health of

York County and the Clover School District should improve as the tax base of the older

nuclear units are replaced by the new, higher valued (i.e., less depreciated) plant. Hence,

| the ability of the County to provide social services should improve because of the higher tax

| base, assuming assessment rates remain stable. Overall, impacts are expected to be

SMALL.

Impacts at an alternate site would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

distribution. If a replacement nuclear plant were constructed at an alternate site, York

County and the Clover School District would experience a significant loss of property tax

revenue which could affect their ability to provide services and programs. Impacts to

minority and low-income populations in York County could be MODERATE to LARGE, but

potentially could be offset by other related economic growth in the area. Impacts to the

receiving county could be SMALL to LARGE depending on the relative increase to the tax

base resulting from the new plant’s construction.

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System

This section discusses the environmental impacts of constructing a nuclear power plant at an

alternate site using once-through cooling. The impacts (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of
Alternatives

December 2002 8-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

this option are the same as the impacts for a nuclear power plant using the closed-cycle

system. However, there are minor environmental differences between the closed-cycle and

once-through cooling systems. Table 8-7 summarizes the incremental differences.

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

Alternate Greenfield Site with Once-Through Cooling

Impact Category

Change in Impacts from

Once-Through Cooling System

Land Use Reservoir or other cooling source required

Ecology Impact would depend on ecology at the site

Surface Water Use and Quality Increased water withdrawal and more thermal load

on receiving body of water

Groundwater Use and Quality No change

Air Quality No change

Waste No change

Human Health No change

Socioeconomics No change

Aesthetics Elimination of cooling towers

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 Catawba OLs. Duke currently purchases power from other generators, but because there

is no certainty that imported power will be available, it does not consider the power-purchase

option to be a reasonable replacement for the license renewal alternative (Duke 2001).

Duke includes future power purchases in its Annual Power Plan (Duke 2000). The Plan

indicates how Duke will meet customers’ energy needs through existing generation, customer

demand-side options, short-term purchase power transactions, and new generating resources

constructed by Duke. The 2000 plan shows power purchases of 1243 MW for the summer of |

2001, gradually decreasing to 121 MW in the winter of 2006 (Duke 2000).
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-46 December 2002 |

Imported power from Canada or Mexico is unlikely to be available for replacement of Catawba

generating 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). 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 will decrease gradually to 47.4 billion kWh in year 2020

(DOE/EIA 2001b). Consequently, it is unlikely that electricity imported from Canada or Mexico

would be able to replace the Catawba generating capacity.

If power to replace Catawba generating capacity were to be purchased from sources within the

United States or a foreign country, the generating technology would likely 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 purchased electrical power alternative to renewal of the Catawba OLs. Thus, the

environmental impacts of imported power would still occur, but would be located elsewhere

within the region, the 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

EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in the

United States from 2000 to 2020 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies (DOE/

EIA 2001a). Oil-fired operation is more expensive than nuclear or coal-fired operation. 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 50 ha (120 ac). 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 South 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 [0 to 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
Alternatives

December 2002 8-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

(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 30 to 35 percent capacity

factor compared to 90 to 95 percent for a power plant (NWPPC 2000). Nine offshore wind

power projects are currently operating in Europe. The European plants together provide

approximately 90 MW, which is far less than the electrical outputs of Catawba (British Wind

Energy Association 2002). For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that locating a windenergy facility on or near the Catawba site or offshore 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, currently cannot 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 (NRC 1996),

land requirements are high—14,000 ha (35,000 ac) per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic and

approximately 6000 ha (14,000 ac) per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal systems. Neither type of

solar-electric system would fit at the Catawba site, and both would have LARGE environmental

impacts at a greenfield site.

The Catawba 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

(DOE/EIA 2000). Because of the natural-resource impacts (land and ecological), the area’s |

relatively low rate of solar radiation, and its high system cost, solar power is not considered to

be a feasible baseload alternative to renewal of the Catawba 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 Catawba’s

generating capacity would likely result in LARGE environmental impacts.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-48 December 2002 |

8.2.5.4 Hydropower

South Carolina has an estimated 1133 MW of undeveloped hydroelectric resource

(INEEL 1997). This amount is less than the amount needed to replace the 2258 MW(e)

capacity of Catawba. 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 (NRC 1996), the staff estimated that land requirements for

hydroelectric power are approximately 400,000 ha (1 million ac) per 1000 MW(e). Replacement

| of Catawba’s generating capacity would require flooding more than this amount of land. Due to

the relatively low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in South Carolina and the large

land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting

| hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Catawba’s generating capacity, the staff

concludes that local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Catawba OLs. 

Any attempts to site hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Catawba 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 the 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 renewal of the Catawba OLs. The staff concludes that

geothermal energy is not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Catawba 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

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 suggested 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.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 Catawba 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. Because of the need for specialized wasteseparation and waste-handling equipment for municipal solid waste, the initial capital costs for

municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at

wood-waste facilities (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

alternatives 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).

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 Catawba and, consequently, would not be a feasible

alternative to renewal of the Catawba OLs.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-50 December 2002 |

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 Catawba (NRC 1996). For these reasons,

such fuels do not offer a feasible alternative to renewal of the Catawba 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. Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation

technology. 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 projects that by 2003, two second-generation fuel cell technologies using molten

carbonate and solid oxide technology, respectively, will be commercially available in sizes up to

2 MW at a cost of $1000 to $1500 per kW of installed capacity (DOE 2001b). For comparison,

the installed capacity cost for a natural-gas-fired combined-cycle plant is on the order of $500 to

$600 per kW (NWPPC 2000). As market acceptance and manufacturing capacity increase,

natural-gas-fueled fuel cell plants in the 50- to 100-MW range are projected to become

| available (DOE 2001b). At the present time, however, fuel cells are neither economically nor

technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. 

Consequently, fuel cells are not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Catawba OLs.

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement

Through the year 2014, Duke projects that 23 of its 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 Catawba. For this reason, delayed retirement of

Duke generating units would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the Catawba OLs.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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). The effects of the DSM programs are captured in the

customer load forecast in the Duke Power Plan (Duke 2000).

Duke currently has two residential DSM programs (Duke 2000). 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 special needs energy products

loan program provides loans for heat pumps, central air conditioning systems, and energyefficiency 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 2000). Because these DSM savings are part of the long-range plan for

meeting projected demand, they are not available offsets for Catawba. 

Duke operates two programs for commercial and industrial customers to provide a source of

interruptible capacity (Duke 2000). 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 generator. 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 2000). 

The staff concludes that additional DSM, by itself, would not be sufficient to replace the

2258 MW(e) capacity of Catawba and that it is not a reasonable replacement for the OL

renewal alternative.

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives

Even though individual alternatives to renewing the Catawba OLs might not be sufficient on |

their own to replace Catawba’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, Catawba Units 1 and 2 have a combined average net capacity of |

2258 MW(e). There are many possible combinations of alternatives to replace that power. 

Table 8-8 contains a summary of the environmental impacts of an assumed combination of

alternatives consisting of 1928 MW(e) of combined-cycle oil/natural-gas-fired generation at the |

Catawba site, using four 482-MW(e) combined-cycle, natural gas units. The existing
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-52 December 2002 |

| closed-cycle cooling system would be used at the Catawba site. Closed-cycle cooling would

also be employed at an alternate location. Purchases from other power generators could

account for 165 MW(e) of power, and 165 MW(e) could be gained from additional DSM

measures. The impacts associated with the combined-cycle, oil/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 Catawba OLs.

Table 8-8. Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of

Generating and Acquisition Alternatives

Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

Catawba site is sufficient to

accommodate new plant

(16 ha [40 ac] needed for

power block, roads, and

parking area). Possible

additional impact for

construction of an

underground oil/gas

pipeline—235 ha (582 ac)

potentially disturbed for rightsof-way.

MODERATE

to LARGE

50 ha (130ac) for powerblock, offices, roads,

switchyard, and parking

areas. Additional land (up to

705 ha [1742 ac]) possibly

impacted for transmission

line and for natural gas

pipeline— MODERATE. 

Use of previously

undeveloped greenfield site

increases impacts to

LARGE.

Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Uses undeveloped areas at

Catawba site, plus land for a

new gas pipeline.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impact depends on whether

greenfield or previously

developed site. Impact also

depends on ecology of the

site, surface water body

used for intake and

discharge, and possible

transmission and oil/gas

pipeline routes; potential

habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity. Use of

undeveloped greenfield site

increases impacts.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 8-8. (contd)

Catawba Nuclear Station Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Water Use and

Quality

(Surface Water)

SMALL Uses existing closed-cycle

cooling system existing intake

structures. Surface water use

should be less than current

uses with Catawba, Units 1

and 2.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn

and discharged and the

characteristics of the surface

water body. New intake and

discharge structures

required.

Water Use

and Quality

(Groundwater)

SMALL Less groundwater withdrawn

for potable use because of

smaller workforce.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts SMALL if

groundwater used only for

potable purposes. Impacts

MODERATE to LARGE if

groundwater employed as

makeup cooling water. 

Impacts would be

site/aquifer specific.

Air Quality SMALL Sulfur oxides

  25 MT/yr (27 tons/yr)

Nitrogen oxides

  375 (410 tons/yr)

Carbon monoxide

  350 MT/yr (382 tons/yr)

PM10 particulates

  208 MT/yr (227 tons/yr)

Some hazardous air

pollutants.

SMALL Potentially same impacts as

at the Catawba site,

although pollution control

standards may vary.

Waste SMALL Minimal waste product from

fuel combustion.

SMALL Minimal waste product from

fuel combustion.

Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.

SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-54 December 2002 |

Table 8-8. (contd)

Catawba Nuclear Station Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Socioeconomics SMALL to

MODERATE

During construction, impacts

would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to 640

additional workers during the

peak of the 3-year

construction period, followed

by reduction from current

Catawba Units 1 and 2

workforce by 1098 to around

120 workers; tax base

preserved. Impacts during

operation would be SMALL to

MODERATE, due to loss of

employment in York County

which may be offset by

proximity to Charlotte

economy.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts depend on site

characteristics. During

construction, impacts would

be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Tax impacts on receiving

county could be SMALL to

LARGE. Up to 640

additional workers during the

peak of the 3-year

construction period. York

County would experience

loss of Catawba Units 1 and

2 tax base and employment

with potentially MODERATE

to LARGE associated

impacts.

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Transportation

impacts during operation

would be SMALL due to

smaller workforce. During

construction, impacts would

be MODERATE. Up to 640

additional workers during the

peak of the 2- to 3-year

construction period in addition

to workers currently employed

at Catawba. Impacts during

operation would be SMALL.

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be

MODERATE.

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be SMALL to

LARGE and would depend

on population density and

road infrastructure at

alternate site. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL due to smaller

workforce.
Alternatives

December 2002 8-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table 8-8. (contd)

Catawba Nuclear Station Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Impact

Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERATE

Lake Wylie area impacted. 

SMALL to MODERATE

aesthetic impact from plant

and stacks, fuel oil storage

tanks, lighting, and

mechanical noise associated

with operation.

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL if previously

developed site is used and

site disturbance is minimal. 

Impacts increase to strongly

MODERATE with

construction of a

transmission line and oil/gas

pipeline to previously

developed site. LARGE if

greenfield site developed.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be managed effectively. 

SMALL Same as at Catawba; any

potential impacts can likely

be managed effectively. 

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 1098 operating

jobs at Catawba could reduce

employment prospects for

minority and low-income

populations. Nearness to

Charlotte economic area may

mitigate impacts.

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts at alternate site vary

depending on population

distribution and makeup at

site could be SMALL to

LARGE. Loss of tax

revenue for York County

could have a MODERATE

impact. Impact to Clover

School District would be

LARGE. Nearness of York

County to Charlotte

economic area may mitigate

impacts.

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered

The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the Catawba OLs, are SMALL for

all impact categories (except collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not assigned). Several

alternative actions were considered – no-action (discussed in Section 8.1), new generation

alternatives (from coal, oil/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).

The no-action alternative would require the replacing of electrical generating capacity by

(1) DSM and energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers,

(3) generating alternatives other than Catawba Units 1 and 2, or (4) some combination of these |

options that would result in decommissioning Catawba 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
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-56 December 2002 |

from construction of any new facility would be greater than the impacts of continued operation

| of Catawba 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

| Catawba 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 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 April 9, 2002).

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 511 U.S. 383, (U.S. Supreme

Court 1994).

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

Duke Energy Corporation. 2000. Annual Power Plan. The Plan is included as Attachment M in

Duke’s Environmental Report (Duke 2001).
Alternatives

December 2002 8-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001. Applicants Environmental Report – Operating License

Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Elliott, D.L. C.G. Holladay, W.R. Barchet, H.P. Foote, and W.F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind Energy |

Resource Atlas of the U.S. Pacific Northwest Laboratory DOE/CH10093-4, Richland,WA. <

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/ > (Accessed April 9, 2002).

Gabbard, Alex. 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

April 9, 2002).

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1997. U.S. Hydropower

Resource Assessment for North Carolina. DOE/ID-10430(NC). Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

< http://hydropower.inel.gov/state/nc/nc.pdf > (Accessed April 2, 2002).

Integrated Waste Services Association. 2001. “About Waste to Energy.”

< http://www.wte.org/waste.html > (Accessed April 2, 2002).

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

Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. “Northwest Power Supply Adequacy/

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://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/neaf0001.pdf > (Accessed April 9, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001a. Annual

Energy Outlook 2002 With Projections to 2020. DOE/EIA-0383(2001). Washington, D.C. 

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2002).pdf > (Accessed April 3, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001b. 

International Energy Outlook 2001. DOE/EIA-0484. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/fore_pub.html > (Accessed April 3, 2002).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001c. Renewable

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628. Washington, D.C. 

< http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf > (Accessed April 9, 2002).
Alternatives

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 8-58 December 2002 |

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001a. “U.S. Wind Energy Resource Map.”

< http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/we_map.html > (Accessed April 9, 2002)

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001b. “Advanced Fuel Cells.”

< http://www.fossil.energy.doe.gov/coal_power/fuelcells/index.shtml > (Accessed

April 3, 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 49442. 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. “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). 2000b. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on

| Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” 65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Municipal Solid Waste Disposal.” 

< http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disposal.htm > (Accessed April 9, 2002).

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. “Obstruction Marking and Lighting.” 

Advisory Circular AC70/7460-11, 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). 2001a. Draft Supplement Dealing with

Decommissioning of Nuclear Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1. Washington D.C.

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 9 |

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 Catawba

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba) for an additional 20-year period (Duke 2001a). 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, then the plant

must be shut down at or before expiration of the current OLs (i.e., December 6, 2024, for Unit 1

and February 24, 2026, 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 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 Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2001, |

and was cited as 66 FR 48489 (NRC 2001). The staff visited the Catawba site in October 2001,

and held public scoping meetings on October 23, 2001, in Rock Hill, South Carolina (NRC

2001). The staff reviewed the Catawba Environmental Report (ER; Duke 2001b) 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 Catawba. 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 21, 2002, the NRC published the Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS (67 FR 35839) |

beginning a 75-day comment period. During the comment period, members of the public could |

comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff’s review. During this comment period, the |
Summary and Conclusions

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

| staff held two public meetings in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on June 27, 2002, to describe the

| results of the NRC environmental review, to answer questions, and to provide members of the

| public with information to assist them in formulating their comments. At the end of comment

| period, the staff considered all of the comments received for revision of the draft SEIS. 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 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
Summary and Conclusions

(a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is “Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operationsgeneric determination of no significant environmental impact.”

December 2002 9-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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. It evaluates

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 analysis in the GEIS shows the following:

(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 [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.
Summary and Conclusions

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 9-4 December 2002 |

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 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 Catawba OLs) and alternative methods of power generation. These alternatives

are evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the

Catawba site or some other unspecified greenfield location.

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action –

License Renewal

Duke and the 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 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 Catawba 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 Catawba.

Duke’s license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are

applicable to Catawba, plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic

| fields. The staff reviewed the Duke analysis for each issue and conducted an independent

review of each issue. Six Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to

plant design features or site characteristics not found at Catawba. Four Category 2 issues are

| not discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment. Duke has

stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not

identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as necessary to support the
Summary and Conclusions

December 2002 9-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

continued operation of Catawba for the license renewal period (Duke 2001b). 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 Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (AEC 1983).

Ten 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 11 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. Based on its review of the SAMAs for Catawba, and the plant improvements already |

made, the staff concludes that two of the candidate SAMAs are cost-beneficial. Although the

staff concludes that these two SAMAs (providing back-up power to the igniters to establish

hydrogen control in SBO events and installing a watertight wall around the 6900/4160 V

transformers) are cost-beneficial and offer a level of risk reduction, these SAMAs do not relate

to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. 

Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part

54. However, the hydrogen control SAMA is being pursued as a Generic Safety Issue, and

both SAMAs are being evaluated further as current operating license issues. 

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
Summary and Conclusions

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 9-6 December 2002 |

associated with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have

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 Catawba 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 Catawba

during the 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 one third of the fuel

| assemblies in each of the two units during every refueling outage, which occurs on an 18- to

24-month cycle.

The likely power generation alternatives if Catawba 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

Catawba site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is

now well established. Renewal of the OLs for Catawba 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 Catawba site into a park or an industrial facility are

quite different.
Summary and Conclusions

December 2002 9-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of

License Renewal and Alternatives

The proposed action is renewal of the OLs for Catawba. 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 Catawba, 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- and gas-fired generation of power at the Catawba site

and an unspecified “greenfield site,” and a combination of alternatives are compared in

Table 9-1. Continued use of a closed-cycle cooling system for Catawba is assumed for

Table 9-1.

Substitution of once-through cooling for the recirculating cooling system in the evaluation of the

nuclear and gas- and coal-fired generation alternatives would result in somewhat greater

environmental impacts in some impact categories.

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 Recommendations

Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996, 1999); (2) the Catawba ER

(Duke 2001b); (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff’s own

independent review; and (5) the staff’s consideration of public comments received during the

scoping process, the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the |

adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for Catawba Units 1 and 2 are not so great

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

unreasonable.
December 2002 9-8 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9

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

and Alternative Methods of Generation Proposed Action No-Action Alternative Coal-Fired Generation Natural Gas-Fired Generation New Nuclear Generation Co

Impact Category License Renewal Denial of Renewal Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site Catawba Site Alternate Greenfield Site Ca

Land Use SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE SM

MO

Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE SM

MO

Water Use andQuality–SurfaceWater

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

S

Water Use andQuality–Groundwater

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

S

Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL SWaste SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SHuman Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL S

| Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

LARGE

SM

MO

Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

LARGE

SM

MO

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SM

MO

Historic andArchaeologicalResources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL S

EnvironmentalJustice

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SM

MO

(a) Except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent-fuel disposal, for which a significance level was not assigned. See C
Summary and Conclusions

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

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.”

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1983. Final Environmental Statement Related to

the Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2, Duke Power Company. Docket

Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Washington, D.C.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001a. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses,

Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

License Renewal Stage Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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, Catawba

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

and Conduct Scoping Process.” 66 FR 48489. September 20, 2001. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. “Duke Energy Corporation, Catawba |

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 9 to the Generic |

Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for License Renewal of Catawba Units 1 |

and 2.” 67 FR 35839. May 21, 2002. |
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review
December 2002 A-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I - Comments Received During Scoping

On September 20, 2001, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of

Intent in the Federal Register (66 FR 48489), 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 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba) 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), and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by |

Part 51, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. |

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 November 22, 2001.

The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held in the Council

Chamber at the City Hall, located at 155 Johnston Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina, on

October 23, 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 four attendees (six 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

November 29, 2001. In addition to the comments provided during the public meetings, two

e-mail messages and one letter 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 |
Appendix A

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

| Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source

A Doug Echols Rock Hill, SC Afternoon Scoping Meeting

B Vance Stine Clover, SC Afternoon Scoping Meeting

C Mike Channell York County Office of Emergency

Management

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

D Gary Peterson Catawba Nuclear Station Afternoon Scoping Meeting

E Margot Rott Catawba Nuclear Station Afternoon Scoping Meeting

F Dennis Merrill York Technical College Afternoon Scoping Meeting

G Mark Farris York County Economic

Development Board

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

H Janet Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

I Steve Taylor Palmetto Council Boy Scouts Afternoon Scoping Meeting

J Lou Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

K John Byrd Lower Lake Wylie Association Afternoon Scoping Meeting

L Tim Morgan York County Chamber of

Commerce

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

M Don Moniak Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

N Mike Bush Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden Afternoon Scoping Meeting

O Ann Barton York County Adult Day Care

Services

Afternoon Scoping Meeting

P Nate Barber Winthrop University Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Q Don Moniak Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Evening Scoping Meeting

R Mike Channell York County Office of Emergency

Management

Evening Scoping Meeting
Appendix A

December 2002 A-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table A-1. (contd) |

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source |

S Gary Peterson Catawba Nuclear Station Evening Scoping Meeting

T Margot Rott Catawba Nuclear Station Evening Scoping Meeting

U Angela Viney South Carolina Wildlife

Federation

Evening Scoping Meeting

V Gregg Jocoy Evening Scoping Meeting

W Janet Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Evening Scoping Meeting

X Lewis Patrie Physicians for Social

Responsibility

Evening Scoping Meeting

Y Mary Olson Nuclear Information and

Resource Service

Evening Scoping Meeting

Z Lou Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

Evening Scoping Meeting

AA Glenn Carroll Georgians Against Nuclear

Energy

Evening Scoping Meeting

AB Ed FitzGerald Evening Scoping Meeting

AC Trey Eubanks York, SC Evening Scoping Meeting

AD Judith Aplin Electronic mail

AE Hugh Jackson Public Citizen’s Critical Mass

Energy and Environment

Program

Electronic mail

AF Edmund FitzGerald Sierra Club Written comments at

Evening Scoping Meeting

AG Jesse Riley Carolina Environmental Letter

spoke at 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, (Catawba Scoping Summary Report,

dated March 27, 2002), the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments is
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-4 December 2002 |

retained in this report. 

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 Catawba license renewal application.

  Questions that do not provide new information.

  Specific comments that address issues that do not fall the 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 Catawba 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

| Catawba 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: ML020870376.

This accession number is 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. 
Appendix A

December 2002 A-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

A.1.1 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues |

|

A.1.2 Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues |

|

A.1.3 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues |

|

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues |

|

A.1.5 Comments Concerning Human Health 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 |

|

A.1.10 Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of License Renewal |

A.1 Comments and Responses

A.1.1 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues |

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 2 aquatic ecology issues include: |

  Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages

  Impingement of fish and shellfish

  Heat shock

Comment: Duke Energy has conducted water testing on Lake Wylie since the early 1970s. 

The areas we study include water quality, water flow at Catawba’s intake and discharge

structures and aquatic ecology. Our evaluation of historical data indicates no changes to

Lake Wylie’s aquatic resources as a result of Catawba’s operation. Using scientific data, we

concluded that our continued operation would not have an adverse effect on the Lake or River. 

(E-1)(T-1)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-6 December 2002 |

Comment: They’ve been an excellent steward, certainly, of Lake Wylie, a tremendous

resource for us from visitors and convention-related activities. We certainly place that as one of

our jewels in our environmental resources, and they’ve been an excellent steward of Lake Wylie

and the Catawba River. (G-3)

Response: The comments are noted and are supportive of license renewal at Catawba. 

| Aquatic ecology will be discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the SEIS. The comments

provide no new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further. 

| A.1.2 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

Comment: One of the other offshoots of the Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program is the WAIT

Program that Margot mentioned. And, in fact, Duke Power is one of the founding partners. 

Having worked to protect and enhance wildlife habitat at the World of Energy in Seneca in

1996, the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, the South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources and the National Wild Turkey Federation worked with Duke Power at that site and

was so impressed with the outcome that this new wildlife habitat education program was

created. (U-1)

Comment: The Catawba Nuclear Station is our most recent WAIT site, and they’ve gone over

and above the standard requirements in creating their WAIT site. They’ve hosted one of our

habitat steward classes in 2000 at Energy Quest. In addition, they initiated partnerships with
Appendix A

December 2002 A-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

three schools in the area. York Junior High School, Goldhill Elementary, and Goldhill Middle

School are being assisted in the creation of their schoolyard habitats, their outdoor classrooms,

by the staff of Catawba Nuclear Station. There are numerous wildlife habitat management and

protection initiatives at Catawba Nuclear Station to include osprey towers. To date, four have

been installed to encourage an osprey nest on-site. Wood duck boxes have been installed in

the standby nuclear service water pond. Wildlife food plots have been planted, wetlands within

the site boundary have been identified and signs posted. Selective mowing is in place to

provide meadows for wildlife habitat. Educational brochures are available at the visitors center

with information on butterfly gardens and native wild flowers. An educational nature trail is

available with a brochure to identify plants, trees and vines on the trail. (U-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments discuss the participation of Duke as a

steward of the environment. They provide no new information and will not be evaluated further. 

The appropriate descriptive information regarding the terrestrial ecology of the site will be

addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the Catawba SEIS.

A.1.3 Comment Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues |

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, the following is a Category 2 issue:

  Threatened or endangered species

Comment: The second category we evaluated is plants and animals. As part of our study,

Duke Energy worked with Dr. L.L. Gaddy, a well-known environmental scientist, to perform a

study of threatened and endangered species at the Catawba site. Results of the study indicate

there were no state or federally recognized threatened or endangered species identified; in fact,

Catawba has a thriving population of quail, beaver, bobcats, Canada geese, osprey, deer and

many other wildlife species. Catawba has many ongoing environmental initiatives managed in

cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the South Carolina

Wildlife Federation and the Wild Turkey Federation. The Catawba site is in the final stages of

becoming WAIT-certified by the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, and wait, W-A-I-T, stands

for Wildlife and Industry Together. Catawba hosts a butterfly garden and various other wildlife

areas. Based on review of our operating history and a look at our continued operation, we

conclude that license renewal will not adversely affect plants and animals. (E-2)(T-2)

Response: The comment is noted. The appropriate descriptive information provided by Duke

regarding the terrestrial ecology of the site will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
Appendix A

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

| A.1.4 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: Duke Power has an excellent record of maintenance, and the nuclear generation is

the cleanest way, I think, for us to address the major air quality problems which we have in the

Charlotte metro area. (A-4)

Comment: The third [environmental] category we evaluated is air quality. Nuclear power

provides about 50 percent of Duke Energy’s total electric generation in the Piedmont Carolinas. 

And by design, nuclear power is [a] clean air energy source. Data shows Catawba’s operation

has not adversely impacted the region’s air quality, and there are no plans associated with

license renewal that would alter the air quality. (E-3)(T-3)

Comment: I also think that the concept of clean air is an important one to look at. (N-2)

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 South Carolina. 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 and, therefore, will not be evaluated

further.

| A.1.5 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 human health issues include: 

  Radiation exposure to the public during refurbishment

  Occupational radiation exposure during refurbishment

  Microbiological organisms (occupational health)

  Noise

  Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term)

  Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term)
Appendix A

December 2002 A-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Comment: There are some real problems with describing nuclear power as clean, safe

technology. It may not produce the kinds of pollution that we see from Duke’s seven coal

plants in North Carolina, and I’m not sure how many in South Carolina, but it does produce

ionizing radiation. And this ionizing radiation is legally emitted from the Catawba Plants in dayto-day operations of the Plant. You can’t see it, you can’t taste it, you can’t feel it, but it’s there,

and legal emissions can cause, I think, excessive cancer deaths. In addition, ionizing radiation

causes birth defects, and it causes immune disorders. So the true health impacts of nuclear

power can’t be looked at in terms of what your ozone levels are. (H-1)

Comment: One of the specifics that we are looking at for the license extension is the number

of people that would be projected to die an early death from cancer from the additional nearly

two decades, right at two decades, or operation of the Catawba Plants. And at this point, in

looking at that date, we believe that that number exceeds what is allowed under Nuclear

Regulatory Commission rules. (H-2)

Comment: The EPA–just as an aside, a parenthetical piece here, the EPA, if you live near a

chemical plant, requires that that chemical plant kill no more than one person in a million from

cancer. The requirements for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear power plants are

much, much less rigid, so these can be very dangerous plants, and we want to know from the

NRC just how many people in this area can be expected to die an early death from the license

extension, and we will be presenting that analysis ourselves. (H-3)

Comment: Even the NRC admits that with no accident, no problem, just plain old routine

activities, 12 excess deaths will occur from 20 years of reactor operation at any reactor in the

United States, which is a ludicrous proposition to suggest that such a thing is totally linear and

totally quantifiable. But I’ll take the bait. Okay, 12 deaths from extending Catawba’s license. 

Well guess what? There’s 100 reactors looking for license extensions. That’s 1,200 deaths

from license extension, according to NRC. Not me. I’d multiply it by at least ten times. So that

takes us back to what I started with: acceptable end risk. NRC knows that [I have] never

accepted the same definition as acceptable. I can’t get up before you without reminding you

that you should be regulating to protect children. (Y-6)

Response: The comments are noted. Radiation exposure to the public and workers was

evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. The NRC’s regulatory limits

for radiological protection are set to protect workers and the public from the harmful health

effects of radiation on humans. The limits were based on the recommendations of standardsetting organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive scientific study by national and

international organizations (International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP],

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and National Academy of

Sciences) and are conservative to ensure that the public and workers at nuclear power plants
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-10 December 2002 |

are protected. The radiation exposure standards are presented in 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards

for Protection Against Radiation,” and are based on the recommendations in ICRP 26 and 30.

The comments provide no new information, and do not pertain to the scope of license renewal

as set forth in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54. 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)

  Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment)

  Aesthetic impacts (license renewal)

  Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term)

Category 2

  Housing impacts

  Public services: public utilities

  Public services, education (refurbishment)

  Offsite land use (refurbishment)

  Offsite land use (license renewal term)

  Public services, transportation

  Historic and archaeological resources

Comment: There are many economic advantages, I believe, to us having a reliable and clean

source of energy. (A-3)
Appendix A

December 2002 A-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Comment: The employees of Catawba are an important part of this community. They live and

work here, are active in supporting area civic, charitable and business endeavors. They

volunteer in the community, they contribute financially to organizations serving Rock Hill, York

County and this region. (A-6)

Comment: Duke Energy’s been a valued corporate citizen for many years. Its employees are

hardworking members of surrounding communities, active in our schools, churches and civic

organizations. In addition to the obvious asset of generating safe, reliable energy for our

homes and businesses, Duke Energy participates in the activities of our area, annually

supporting the efforts of the United Way, the Red Cross, Adopt-a-Highway Programs and other

civic activities. (AC-2)

Comment: They have been a good corporate citizen of our community. (B-1)

Comment: Duke Power and Catawba, as Mayor Echols and Mayor Stine have already

mentioned, have always been good citizens of York County. They’re a very big asset to York

County in our view. We are constantly working with Catawba on emergency planning issues,

on safety issues. (C-1)

Comment: We are active volunteers in the community. For 11 years, we’ve hosted Boy Scout

encampments where our employees teach classes in electricity, crime prevention, energy,

computers, electronics and communications. Over 1,000 boys have attended these events at

Catawba Station. Our employees are also part of the Junior Achievement Program, partnering

with local schools teaching business skills, providing tutors and mentors. And one thing I’m

particularly proud of is each year our employees collect coats and blankets for area shelters

and gather school supplies for area schools. They also volunteer hundreds of hours to United

Way agencies, and every year our employees donate well over $100,000 to area United Way

agencies. Catawba employees also are involved in blood drives and donate annually over

300 units of blood. And we’ve also hosted Women in the Outdoors and Jake’s Events and

partnered with local schools to create schoolyard habitats and nature trails. (D-2)(S-2)

Comment: In addition to being safely operated, Catawba has provided many benefits for the

community. For example, Duke Energy has contributed millions of dollars in property taxes to

York County. We have over 1,100 employees helping maintain a strong economy in this area. 

Our annual payroll of over $70 million helps support local businesses and industries. And as

Gary mentioned earlier, our employees spend hundreds of hours each year volunteering for

community, school, civic and church programs and projects. (E-5)(T-5)

Comment: I hope you’ll give appropriate positive recognition to the record, because I don’t

think anything speaks more loudly than the record-the record on participation in all of our

community and civic activities. (F-3)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-12 December 2002 |

Comment: Certainly, there are obvious benefits to having the Catawba Nuclear Station in York

County, primarily the tax benefits. (G-1)

Comment: Without a facility like this and other supporting industries, we would not have some

of the highest SAT scores, if not the highest, in the State of South Carolina. Our school

systems have the highest percentage of teachers with master’s degrees, and then we also have

the highest average teacher salary. It’s tremendously beneficial to us. And at a ten and a half

percent assessment, industries like Duke pay two and a half times the property taxes that our

residential development does. (G-2)

Comment: The Catawba Nuclear Power and the millions of dollars of revenue that’s been

generated from that Station has created an opportunity for York County to provide for the

health, safety and welfare of our citizens to a much greater extent than we would have without

it. (G-4)

Comment: They [scouts in York County and the Lancaster and Chester areas] have been

privileged to be invited to Duke Power property at the Catawba Nuclear Station for the last

11 years and accounting for 1,000 kids during that time to be taught a variety of different merit

badge skills. (I-1)

Comment: Duke Power Company, and Catawba Nuclear in particular, have been good

community stewards. They have been an outstanding community partner participating with us

locally as well as on a regional basis. When I think about the people that I know with Duke

Power Company, and in particular Catawba Nuclear Station, I know that they’ve taught kids first

aid, they’ve managed the Council’s web site, which was the first nationally accredited Boy

Scouts of America web site in the nation. They have constructed camp shelters at Camp

Bob Harden, they’ve managed major programs, they’ve provided untold hours of volunteer

community service and provided support services to the scouting leaders in the surrounding

areas as well. (I-2)

Comment: These are good community stewards, these are good people, these are our

neighbors, and these folks live here, they’re conscientious community partners. (I-3)

Comment: I think of Duke Energy as being at the top of that list as far as promoting a good

quality of life in this area. (L-1)

Comment: Duke, as it was said earlier, has a history of being a good corporate citizen here in

York County. The majority of the employees live in the community. Duke employees are not

only involved in most of the major community organizations, they are actively encouraged by
Appendix A

December 2002 A-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Management to become involved in their local communities. And I want to stress this goes

beyond financial involvement and includes what I would call human capital or leadership to

these organizations. (L-3)

Comment: [On behalf of York County Adult Day Services,] I have been very blessed to find

that these people [Catawba employees] repeatedly come back and try and serve the community

needs. They started out with building a concrete path for wheelchair vans to unload the clients,

they screened in porches at the facilities, they assisted with new renovations, and this was to

meet the new DEHAC regulations, and this included safety precautions and guidelines. (O-1)

Comment: I think that Catawba Nuclear for us has been a very good neighbor. They are there

with the know-how and the heart to get the job done in this community, and they are quite

aware of the community needs, and we’re proud of them. (O-2)

Comment: I think that Duke has been, and will hopefully continue to be, a good corporate

neighbor. (P-4)

Comment: I think that Catawba itself has proven to not only be an asset to our community by

generating power there, but I think they – but also because they are an active neighbor in our

area. They’re not just there as a corporation, they’re there as a neighbor as well. (R-1)

Comment: In conjunction with Catawba Nuclear Station efforts to partner with schools, they

have a program underway to supply every elementary and middle school near Catawba Nuclear

Site, within a ten-mile radius, with environmental workshop backpacks that will include kits for

environmental and wildlife monitoring. In all of these conversation education programs, the

Catawba Nuclear Station has developed and sustained partnerships with the South Carolina

Department of Natural Resources, the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, the National Wild

Turkey Federation, the Stowe Botanical Garden, the Piedmont Council of the Boy Scouts of

America and the schools in the area, specifically the ones I mentioned earlier. (U-3)

Comment: their (Duke) employees are good citizens. (AD-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at

Catawba, and are general in nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore,

they will not be evaluated further. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category 2

issues and will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

Comment: We are also wanting the NRC to evaluate some liability issues. Thanks to our

friend, Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, we were alerted that Duke

recently filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to set up a limited liability

corporation, thereby relieving them from the day-to-day operations liability at their nuclear
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-14 December 2002 |

power stations. We want the socioeconomic impacts of the potential for this new limited liability

corporation to be factored into a complete EIS. (W-5)

Comment: In this EIS, you’ve got to look ahead, and you’ve got to figure that sometime in the

next 20 years we’re not going to have a regulated energy market in the Southeast. And you’ve

got to look at Duke Power’s behavior in the West, and you’ve got to ask yourself what’s going to

happen to the municipalities and the co-ops when Duke is unregulated, and they have to sell at

their bond rate? And you’ve got to look at what kind of a white elephant Catawba’s going to be

for those communities. (Y-8)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments relate to corporate liability and energy

deregulation. These are NRC policy issues and are outside the scope of license renewal. The

comments provide no new information and, therefore, 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:

  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: [During a plant tour, we learned that] the Plant was designed to withstand

tremendous forces, both natural and unnatural–what we were told, certainly, was that

earthquake, hurricane and commercial jetliner crash had all been tested in the laboratory-type

testing to be concurrent. (N-5)

Response: The comment is noted. The comment states an awareness of the types of

| accidents that the Catawba Nuclear Station was designed to withstand. The comment provides

no new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further. 
Appendix A

December 2002 A-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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

  On-site spent fuel

  Nonradiological waste

  Transportation

Comment: The longer a reactor operates, the more nuclear waste it generates. The nation

still has no workable solution for the disposal of deadly nuclear waste. (AE-3)

Comment: The NRC “believes that there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined

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

sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for

operation of any reactor . . .” (10 CFR 51.23) What if there isn’t? Since the commission

rendered it’s belief, it’s become just as reasonable to assume that there may in fact not be a

geological repository in the first quarter of this century, or the first half of it, for that matter. 

What then? (AE-13)

Comment: If the NRC relicenses Catawba, nuclear waste, whether stored in pools or in dry

storage, would continue to accumulate over an additional 20 years of an extended license

period. What “reasonable,” to use the NRC’s word, grounds are there for preferring that option

to the no-option alternative in the Catawba SEIS? (AE-14)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-16 December 2002 |

Comment: The generic EIS, (6.4.6.7) states: ”Within the context of a license renewal review

and determination, the Commission finds that there is ample basis to conclude that continued

storage of existing spent fuel and storage of spent fuel generated during the license renewal

period can be accomplished safely and without significant, environmental impacts.” Does that

finding assume that a permanent repository will be built, or is the NRC stating that waste can be

stored safely, without impacts, indefinitely? (AE-15)

Comment: In previous nuclear power plant relicensing documents, the NRC has failed to

assign a level of significant impact to collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

and from high level waste and spent fuel disposal (NUREG 1437, Supplement 5, Chapter 6). If

the NRC is tempted to reach a similar conclusion with the Catawba SEIS, it raises the question: 

How can the NRC claim that relicensing is a preferable alternative to the no-action alternative,

when the waste disposal question is so uncertain that the NRC can’t even assign it a level of

significance? (AE-16)

Response: 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 comment provides no new information;

therefore, the comment will not be evaluated further.

| A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

Comment: We’re always looking at new alternatives to better serve our customers. During

this license renewal application process, we did look at many alternatives for providing-for

generating baseload electricity, such as conventional fossil generation, wind, solar and

photocells. But when compared to the amount of electricity generated by Catawba, these

alternatives were not selected because of environmental impacts, land use requirements,

inadequate electricity output and, finally, cost. (D-5)(S-5)

Comment: Any self-respecting environmental impact statement would have alternatives. And

alternatives to the licensing extension of the Catawba Plants would be the focus on safer

alternative energy, ones that would not be terrorist magnets, like wind farms. (H-9)
Appendix A

December 2002 A-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Comment: We need to look for other alternative types of things [energy sources] to move into

as our need for energy grows. (N-3)

Comment: As far as alternatives go, we heard earlier from Duke Energy that they evaluated

other sources of energy. However, what they didn’t tell you is that in the Nuclear Regulatory

Guide 1437, Volume 1, Section 0.81 [8.1], the NRC has determined that a reasonable set of

alternatives should be limited to analysis of single, discrete electric generation sources and only

electric generation sources that are technically feasible and commercially viable. So the

alternatives that were not considered as reasonable power, some of which Duke Energy earlier

claimed twice today, twice at McGuire that they did analyze and never really did, is [include]

wind, photovoltaic cells, solar thermal power, hydroelectric generation, geothermal, wood

waste, municipal solid waste, energy crops, delayed retirement of non-nuclear units, imported

power, conservation and combination of alternatives. The only thing they did analyze was for

replacement power alternatives is your basic centralized plants, such as conventional coal-fired,

oil- and gas-fired, gas-fired only, combined cycle, advanced light water nuclear reactor, even

though that’s not necessarily technically feasible at this time. That remains to be seen. I would

wager that the advances that have occurred in wind energy, although this isn’t the best part of

the world for it. (Q-4)

Comment: We also believe that energy alternatives have not been adequately addressed by

the Duke license extension application. And the NRC must do a much better job than Duke did

of evaluating realistic alternatives to a 19-year license extension of the Catawba and McGuire

reactors. (W-4)

Comment: So what are the alternatives? There are alternatives. Get it straight, guys. There

are alternatives, because we’re not talking about today’s jobs. We’re talking about jobs that

start, what, 20 years from now? Right. Well, guess what? All of the alternatives have jobs too. 

And guess what? Duke could provide them. So get it straight. Offshore wind is a great

potential. If there’s a single order for 500 megawatts of solar, it will be down below natural gas

in its kilowatt hour charge. Just make one big order for solar, and it’s going to be affordable. 

(Y-7)

Comment: I’d like to comment here tonight on the lack or the inadequate analysis done by

Duke Energy in its submission for the license renewal at Catawba, the inadequate job done in

analyzing alternative sources which could be used to generate the power, which is now

provided by the Catawba Nuclear Station. (Z-1)

Comment: The State of South Carolina has a huge wind potential located offshore, out of sight

of some of the beautiful beaches. (Z-2)

Comment: The National Environmental Policy Act requires that the NRC consider all
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-18 December 2002 |

reasonable alternatives to a proposal, including the no-action alternative. In this case, that

would mean not renewing the license for the Catawba units. Public Citizen believes that

inasmuch as the expiration dates on the current Catawba licenses are a staggering more-than

two decades away, the most prudent and wise course the NRC could take would be to adopt a

no-action alternative in the Catawba supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

What would be the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the no-action alternative? 

Given that the licenses at Catawba units 1 and 2 will expire in 2024 and 2026, respectively, it is

hard to imagine the no-action alternative could conceivably lead to any additional negative

environmental or socio-economic impacts on either the licensee, the community or the region’s

land, air and water. (AE-6)

Comment: How can the NRC justify the assertion (implicit if the relicensing alternative is

preferred) that the impacts from relicensing will be smaller than the impacts from the no-action

alternative, when relicensing is an event that as a practical matter doesn’t take effect for more

than two decades? (AE-9)

Comment: But wait-there’s more! Because if you relicense now, the NRC will throw in a bonus

analytical conclusion: no alternative energy sources are viable, and none will be–at least not for

40 years! (AE-11)

Comment: The generic EIS “assumes that conservation technologies produce enough energy

savings to permit the closing of a nuclear plant.” (NUREG-1437, Vol.1, 8.3.14). Is that true with

respect to the Catawba plant? (AE-17)

Comment: What is the projected energy conservation from demand-side management in the

Catawba service area over the next 20, 30 and 45 years? (AE-18)

Comment: By how much will new federal appliance energy standards, implemented or

adopted since the GEIS was written, effect energy conservation in the Catawba service area

over the next 20, 30 and 45 years? (AE-19)

Comment: The GEIS tends to dismiss solar and wind power as “baseline” sources of

replacement. What is the potential of solar and wind power as replacement if considered as

distributive sources, rather than baseline sources, over the next 20, 30 and 45 years? (AE-20)

Comment: What are the environmental and socio-economic impacts of solar and wind power if

considered as distributive sources rather than baseline sources, and within that scenario, why

would the impacts from the relicensing alternative be preferred. (AE-21)

Comment: Could a combination of alternatives, blending conservation, energy efficiencies,

distributive power, including fuel cells, and renewable energy sources constitute a cost-effective
Appendix A

December 2002 A-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

replacement for the Catawba capacity? Is the prospect of such combination being costeffective more, or less, likely in 20, 30 and 45 years? (AE-22)

Comment: In previous nuclear power plant relicensing documents, the NRC has dismissed

combination alternatives, such as a mix of conservation and distributive power, as “not

considered feasible at this time” (draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 5, 8.3). If the NRC is

tempted to reach a similar conclusion with regard to Catawba, it begs the question: why does

the NRC care what is feasible “at this time” when the applicant’s current licensing is not going to

expire for more than two decades? (AE-23)

Comment: If, after rigorous analysis of the questions raised above regarding alternative

energy sources, it is determined that those sources may likely constitute a cost-effective

alternative to relicensing, then, given the distant expiration dates of the applicant’s current

licensing, why is relicensing preferable to the no-action alternative? (AE-24)

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 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, will

be discussed in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.

Comment: We have another economic problem, and maybe the EIS surprises me. Analyze it. 

Because there’s a requirement to do cost/benefit analysis and comparison. Surprise me. Put

in the alternative energies. (AA-4)

Response: The comment is noted. A cost-benefit analysis is specifically excluded from the

analysis of the impacts of license renewal. However, environmental impacts associated with

various reasonable alternatives to renewal of the operating licenses for Catawba will be

discussed in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.

A.1.10 Comments Concerning Safety Issues Within the Scope of License Renewal |

Comment: A subsidiary of Duke has been rapidly developing the buffer zone. So the buffer

zone’s going away. It’s not–it’s new information that the NRC needs to look at. (H-7)

Comment: I want to briefly mention that our concerns encompass issues like the aging of

these reactors, impacts on the Catawba River, impacts on endangered species and microbial

impacts. (Y-2)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-20 December 2002 |

Comment: There are some things about Catawba and McGuire that are pretty obvious. The

containment system, the freeze-thaw cycle from the ice condenser technology, which is used is

causing warpage so that doors and valves do not open properly, which creates safety

conditions. (AA-1)

Comment: The Catawba Plant is one of the thin-walled, ice condenser designs and is more

vulnerable to a catastrophic early containment failure that would release radioactive materials

into the environment. (AB-3)(AF-3) 

Comment: Whereas, the Catawba and McGuire nuclear plants represent four of only nine

U.S. reactors with thin-walled, so called “ice-condenser” concrete containments that the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission estimates are significantly more vulnerable to a catastrophic early

containment failure that would release radioactive material to the environment. (AF-9)

Comment: Shortly after the Oconee Plant was relicensed, they found these initiation and

growth of significant cracks in PWR Alloy 600 weldments, apparently at growth rates that are

faster than previously modeled. So this represents what Dave Lockbaum, who’s a nuclear

scientist, nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the aging failures

that have occurred in the last few years indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that the aging

management programs in support of relicensing are inadequate because they are not

preventing equipment failures, such as the DC Summer hot leg nozzle to pipe weld crack that

had some potential generic issues, such as they found that they were due to extensive weld

repairs during construction occurred on those areas. It added stress to those. (Q-6)

Comment: Correct assessment of reactor vessel integrity. The reactor is currently limited to

200 refuelings, i.e. cycles of heating and cooling. It is subjected to the stress of internal

pressure and to stresses due to the thermal gradients from inside to outside making for a

differential in thermal expansion. Fatigue is the term used to characterize the losses of tensile

properties due to repeated cycles of stress. Tensile property losses are also caused by

irradiation from the reactor fuel. Coupons of the reactor metal are placed inside the reactor to

monitor tensile property losses. But they are not subject to stress fatigue. As a result they do

not accurately reflect the tensile properties of the fatigue-subjected reactor. (AG-1) 

Comment: The reactor stud bolts are exposed to greater stress than the reactor vessel. Are

they replaced at refuelings? Are they the same material as the vessel? On what evidence are

the tensile properties of the stud bolts based? (AG-2)

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 review performed
Appendix A

December 2002 A-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

under 10 CFR Part 54. Operational safety issues are outside the scope of 10 CFR Part 51 and

will not be evaluated further in the 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.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 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 Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, Draft

| Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 9, 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 in the NRC’s electronic Public Document Room,

| its license renewal website, and at the York County Library in Rock Hill, South

| 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 21, 2002 (67 FR 35839)

|

|  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 Rock Hill, South Carolina, on June

| 27, 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 27, 2002, public meeting transcripts, the written statements

| provided at the public meetings, and comment letters. 
Appendix A

December 2002 A-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 nine speakers at the meetings |

are listed 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 J 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 K through N. 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 Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2) 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 issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 51. |

|

(3) A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or |

the DSEIS |

|

(4) A comment regarding 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 reference, and a summary description of the comments 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 the reader to the appropriate section |

of this report where the change was made. Revisions to the text in the draft report are |

designated by vertical lines beside the text. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-24 December 2002 |

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

|

|

| Comment

| No.

Speaker or

Author Source

| Page of

Comment

Section(s) Where

Addressed

| A-01 Tony Jenetta Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002) ML022000610

A-60 A.2.13

| A-02 Tony Jenetta Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-61 A.2.13

| A-03 Tony Jenetta Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-62 A.2.13

| B-01 Gary Peterson Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-63 A.2.1

| B-02 Gary Peterson Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-63 A.2.3

| C-01 Ed Fitzgerald Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-64 A.2.13

| C-02 Ed Fitzgerald Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-64 A.2.13

| C-03 Ed Fitzgerald Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-64 A.2.13

| C-04 Ed Fitzgerald Afternoon Meeting Transcript

| (6/27/2002)

A-64 A.2.13

| D-01 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002)

| ML022000611

A-66 A.2.13

| D-02 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-66 A.2.13

| D-03 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-70 A.2.13

| D-04 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-71 A.2.13

| D-05 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-72 A.2.1

| D-06 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-75 A.2.11

| D-07 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-77 A.2.9

| D-08 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-79 A.2.10

| D-09 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-80 A.2.10

| D-10 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-86 A.2.1

| D-11 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-86 A.2.1

| D-12 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-86 A.2.1

| D-13 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-86 A.2.9

| D-14 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-86 A.2.9

| D-15 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-87 A.2.11

| D-16 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-87 A.2.13

| D-17 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-87 A.2.13

| D-18 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-88 A.2.1

| D-19 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-88 A.2.13

| D-20 Mary Olson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-88 A.2.10

| E-01 Peter Sipp Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-67 A.2.13

| E-02 Peter Sipp Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-89 A.2.13
Appendix A

December 2002 A-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Comment |

No. |

Speaker or

Author Source

Page of |

Comment

Section(s) Where

Addressed

E-03 Peter Sipp Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-90 A.2.13 |

E-04 Peter Sipp Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-90 A.2.11 |

E-05 Peter Sipp Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-90 A.2.12 |

E-06 Peter Sipp Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-90 A.2.2 |

F-01 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-68 A.2.13 |

F-02 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-68 A.2.1 |

F-03 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-72 A.2.1 |

F-04 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-74 A.2.12 |

F-05 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-74 A.2.9 |

F-06 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-75 A.2.6 |

F-07 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-81 A.2.10 |

F-08 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-93 A.2.1 |

F-09 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-94 A.2.11 |

F-10 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-94 A.2.2 |

F-11 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-94 A.2.10 |

F-12 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-95 A.2.11 |

F-13 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-95 A.2.11 |

F-14 Gregg Jocoy Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-96 A.2.11 |

G-01 Tony Jenetta Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-79 A.2.9 |

H–01 Joe Troutman Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-83 A.2.9 |

I-01 Greg Robinson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-85 A.2.3 |

I-02 Greg Robinson Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-85 A.2.3 |

J-01 Sherry Lorenz Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-91 A.2.13 |

J-02 Sherry Lorenz Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-91 A.2.12 |

J-03 Sherry Lorenz Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-91 A.2.2 |

J-04 Sherry Lorenz Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-92 A.2.13 |

J-05 Sherry Lorenz Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-92 A.2.11 |

J-06 Sherry Lorenz Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-92 A.2.13 |

J-07 Sherry Lorenz Evening Meeting Transcript (6/27/2002) A-93 A.2.13 |

K-01 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002)ML022270455 A-97 A.2.10 |

K-02 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-97 A.2.5 |

K-03 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-97 A.2.9 |

K-04 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-98 A.2.6 |

K-05 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-98 A.2.5 |

K-06 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-98 A.2.5 |

K-07 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-98 A.2.5 |

K-08 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-98 A.2.7 |

K-09 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-98 A.2.8 |

K-10 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-98 A.2.8 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-26 December 2002 |

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Comment

| No.

Speaker or

Author Source

| Page of

Comment

Section(s) Where

Addressed

| K-11 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.5

| K-12 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.5

| K-13 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.5

| K-14 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.7

| K-15 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.7

| K-16 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.5

| K-17 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.5

| K-18 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-99 A.2.5

| K-19 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-20 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-21 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-22 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-23 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-24 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-25 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-26 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-27 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-28 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-29 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-30 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-31 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-32 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-33 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-34 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-35 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-100 A.2.10

| K-36 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-37 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-38 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-39 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-40 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-41 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-42 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-43 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-44 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-45 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-46 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-47 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-48 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-101 A.2.10

| K-49 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-102 A.2.11

| K-50 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-102 A.2.12
Appendix A

December 2002 A-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Comment |

No. |

Speaker or

Author Source

Page of |

Comment

Section(s) Where

Addressed

K-51 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-102 A.2.12 |

K-52 M.S. Tuckman Letter (8/9/2002) A-102 A.2.5 |

L-01 Gregory Hogue Letter (8/13/2002) ML022380016 A-103 A.2.3 |

M-01 Gary Peterson Letter (8/8/2002) ML022330373 A-103 A.2.10 |

M-02 Gary Peterson Letter (8/8/2002) A-103 A.2.10 |

M-03 Gary Peterson Letter (8/8/2002) A-104 A.2.10 |

N-01 Heinz Mueller Letter (8/23/02) ML022000608 A-104 A.2.9 |

N-02 Heinz Mueller Letter (8/23/02) A-104 A.2.3 |

N-03 Heinz Mueller Letter (8/23/02) A-104 A.2.13 |

N-04 Heinz Mueller Letter (8/23/02) A-105 A.2.13 |

N-05 Heinz Mueller Letter (8/23/02) A-105 A.2.4 |

N-06 Heinz Mueller Letter (8/23/02) A-105 A.2.11 |

N-07 Heinz Mueller Letter (8/23/02) A-105 A.2.8 |

|

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 License Renewal Process |

|

A.2.2 Comments in Opposition to Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 |

|

A.2.3 Comments in Support of Catawba Nuclear Station |

|

A.2.4 Comments Concerning Groundwater Use and Quality |

|

A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues |

|

A.2.6 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues |

|

A.2.7 Comments Concerning Historic and Archaeological Resources |

|

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues |

|

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 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-28 December 2002 |

| A.2.12 Comment Concerning Alternatives To License Renewal

|

| A.2.13 Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of Environmental Review for License

| Renewal: Aging Management; NRC Role and Mission; Safeguards and Security; MOX

| Fuel; Hearings; Emergency Response and Planning; and Need for Power

|

| A.2.1 General Comments Concerning License Renewal Process

|

| Comment: I saw something in my incoming mail recently about a meeting that wouldn’t

| constitute formal public participation but which I believe will be open to the public when NRC is

| going to be meeting with Duke in Charlotte. Could you please share with us present about that

| meeting, if anybody in the room knows about it?

|

| It’s at headquarters at Duke in July and it’s on renewal. So if you don’t know about it, maybe I

| imagined it. But could somebody get back to me? (D-05)

|

| Response: The NRC considers public involvement in, and information about, our activities to

| be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry. We recognize the public’s

| interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities and provide opportunities for citizens to be

| heard. We encourage your participation and comments. Without more specifics about the

| meeting in question, the staff was not able to determine the exact meeting. The schedule for all

| public meetings can be found at

| http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/meeting-schedule.html. The comment did

| not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this

| comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a

| result of this comment.

|

| Comment: I want to mention briefly that NIRS finds that with the passage of the generic

| environmental impact statement on license renewal that what the Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission refers to as a stable and reliable – is that the words that were used – process –

| predictable and reliable process – stable and predictable? I’m mangling this, forgive me. Is

| largely because of the number of issues that the public is categorically excluded in bringing up

| in the process. And therefore, we have not prioritized it as an opportunity for our membership

| to be active. (D-10)

|

| Comment: So I just want to note that the participation that you see in this room this afternoon

| and this evening is fully due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s outreach efforts. (D-11)

|

| Response: The NRC considers public involvement in, and information about, our activities to

| be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry. We recognize the public’s

| interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities and provide opportunities for citizens to be
Appendix A

December 2002 A-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

heard. We encourage your participation and comments. The comments did not provide |

significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, these comments will not |

be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of these |

comments. |

|

Comment: Having said that, I want to step back and say I’m genuinely pleased and surprised |

by the results of this process in bringing up issues that I hear tonight the Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission staff is interested in pursuing, whether they are part of license renewal or not. |

These issues are that of hydrogen in ice condensers, hydrogen ignition, whether they should |

have backup power and whether the mixing of hydrogen and other gases in the atmosphere by |

fans and the backup power in the event of station blackout. |

|

So again, I take off my hat to the NRC for finding some issues where they must challenge their |

own regulations and consider changing them. I already mentioned earlier that the National |

Academy of Science has come out with a new report that basically says the grid in the United |

States cannot be safeguarded and so this doubles my appreciation of NRC staff for identifying |

station blackout issues as primary for ice condenser reactors, Catawba in particular. (D-12) |

|

Comment: The national labs and the NRC have put a lot of hard work into this report and as |

Rani Franovich pointed out, it’s the stable and predictable process that the NRC gave us that |

allowed us to feel comfortable going into license renewal and really spending our energies to |

put our materials together and have been able to work in a very predictable fashion questions |

and answers in a very stable manner with the NRC that has led to the report that you’re looking |

at tonight. (I-01) |

|

Comment: We also would like to recognize the NRC staff for their hard work that they have |

developed and implemented a very thorough, effective and efficient license renewal process |

accompanying extensive environmental and technical reviews that you’ve heard here today. |

(B-01) |

|

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 |

the comments. |

|

Comment: We respect the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in the review of |

security issues, we respect the fact that we probably will never know if any of our contentions |

were addressed. And yet, at what point does the public have the right to continue to assess |

these concerns in the context of public decision-making processes? (D-18) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-30 December 2002 |

| Response: This comment concerns 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. The NRC considers public involvement in, and

| information about, our activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear

| industry. We recognize the public’s interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities and

| provide opportunities for citizens to be heard. We encourage your participation and comments. 

| Additional information on public participation can be found at

| http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve.html. The comment did not provide significant, new

| information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated

| further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comment.

|

| Comment: It takes two years to go from the thought, why don’t I believe a gas power plant in

| my backyard, to having it back there generating electricity. So the fact that there’s a 10-year

| window for the process of building a nuclear power plant does not impact the supply of

| electricity, because you can go, as I say, from thought to producing electricity in two years. Do

| you guys have an opportunity to evaluate those kinds of questions in the process of...Today,

| we’ve gotten to the point to where that lead time is two years. So the rush to do this before

| they’re even halfway through their current license is no longer valid. If part of what you’re

| concerned about is we’re going to need a long lead time for nuclear stuff, there are alternatives

| to nuclear that can be done in two years, we can have generating capacity right away. (F-02)

|

| Response: This comment concerns 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. Applications for license renewal are submitted years in

| advance, for several reasons. If a utility decides to replace a nuclear power plant, it could take

| up to 10 years to design and construct new generating capacity to replace that nuclear power

| plant. In addition, decisions to replace or recondition major components can involve significant

| capital investment. As such, these decisions may involve financial planning many years in

| advance of the extended period of operation. The comment did not provide significant, new

| information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated

| further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comment.

|

| Comment: Forgive me if it sounds like this is a done deal to me, but it sounds like it’s a done

| deal. You guys have decided this is hunky-dory. Am I misunderstanding? Everything you’ve

| just said says we’ve decided this thing is cool. I’m just saying that you are telling us that as far

| as the staff of the NRC is concerned, there are no environmental problems with relicensure. I

| just want to make sure that we were clear that the NRC staff feels that there is no – that the

| options of not relicensing are worse than the option of relicensing. (F-03)

|

| Response: This comment concerns the license renewal process in general. The Commission

| has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be conducted to
Appendix A

December 2002 A-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

review a license renewal application. In the draft, it was the NRC staff’s preliminary |

recommendation that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of |

license renewal for Catawba Units 1 and 2 are not so great that preserving the option of license |

renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation |

was based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental 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 received during the |

scoping process. This recommendation has been adopted in this SEIS. The comment did not |

provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment |

will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of |

the comment. |

|

Comment: And I have to reiterate once again, don’t be persuaded by Duke Energy’s |

reputation in the community. Of course, they’re well-liked, they employ a lot people, they pay a |

lot of tax money. That doesn’t mean that the technical questions that you folks are supposed to |

be investigating are any less serious because Duke Energy has the support of the public. You |

have to get down to the brass tacks and make a decision about whether or not the things that |

are proposed are safe and sound for us and for our families. (F-08) |

|

Response: This comment concerns 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. The NRC’s mission is three-fold: to protect public health |

and safety; to protect the environment; and to provide for the common defense and security. |

The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, |

therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this |

Supplement as a result of the comment. |

|

A.2.2 Comments in Opposition to Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 |

|

Comment: Why then don’t we all stand up to them and say no more, no more deadly |

chemicals, no more playing with our future? Ladies and gentlemen, I am asking you why are |

you ready to throw your lives away for profits? Even the profits of a foreign country, a country |

that is hundreds and hundreds of miles away and doesn’t give a rip whether you’re dying of |

cancer or you’re blown into 1000 pieces. And by this, I mean France. (J-03) |

|

Comment: So I’m in favor of no new license. Sorry, but that’s not good enough, it really isn’t. |

(E-06) |

|

Comment: The contortions evident in this document are a testament to the inability of the |

Commission and its staff to admit the nuclear power plant impacts are not small. (F-10) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-32 December 2002 |

| Response: The comments oppose license renewal at Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1and 2,

| and are general in nature. The comments did not provide significant, new information relevant

| to this Supplement and, therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further. There were

| no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comments.

|

| A.2.3 Comments in Support of Catawba Nuclear Station

|

| Comment: And based on our initial review, Duke Power agrees with the conclusions of the

| report. (B-02)

|

| Comment: We have taken a look at the draft environmental impact statement, and from our

| initial review from specialists, we agree with the conclusions of the report. (I-02)

| Comment: The Department of the Interior has reviewed the referenced document and we have

| no comments to provide at this time. (L-01)

|

| 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). (N-02)

|

| Response: The comments were in support of the DSEIS’s conclusions. The comments did not

| provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, these

| comments will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a

| result of the comments.

|

| A.2.4 Comments Concerning Groundwater Use and Quality

|

| Comment: Section 4.5 discusses groundwater use and quality. The document (page 4-35)

| mentions that the facility uses <100 gpm from three existing groundwater wells (page 2-6). We

| note the statement on page 4-36 “It is impossible to reliably predict the quantity of future

| withdrawals and groundwater demands over the renewal term.” A similar statement on page 4-

| 14 is made regarding surface water withdrawals. Information regarding the anticipated growth

| rate in the consumer service area and other applicable factors may provide information on

| future power demands and consequently water needs. (N-05)

|

| Response: The comment addresses groundwater use and quality. The Supplement has been

| revised as appropriate.

|

| A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

|

| Comment: Page 1-9, Line 8: From Table 1-1, under Column reading “Permit Expiration or

| Consultation Date”: The permit expiration date is listed as “April 30, 2006”. The NPDES permit
Appendix A

December 2002 A-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

issue date was April 30, 2001, however the permit was not issued until well into the 5-year |

cycle. Therefore the expiration date on the permit is not the full 5 years from date of issue. |

Correct the permit expiration date to be “June 30, 2005”. (K-02) |

|

Comment: Page 2-14, Line 34: “4916 ha (12,139 ac)” should read “4,917 ha (12,149 ac)” |

(K-05) |

|

Comment: Page 2-14, Line 35: The statement “Full pond was achieved in 1904...” is |

somewhat misleading. Construction of a much smaller dam was completed in 1904. This dam |

was completely covered by the current and much larger Wylie dam which resulted in a |

significantly larger reservoir. Change the statement to read: “The lake was initially impounded |

in 1904. Present full pond was obtained in 1924 with an increase in the dam height. (K-06) |

|

Comment: Page 2-16, Line 1: “Duke owns the land that underlays the lake...” is not entirely |

correct. Change the statement to read: “Duke either owns the land under the lake or owns |

flood rights to the land under the lake”. (K-07) |

|

Comment: Page 2-36, Line 5: “4912 ha (12,139 ac)” should read “4,917 ha (12,149 ac)” (K- |

11) |

|

Comment: Page 2-38, Line 31: “4912 ha (12,139 ac)” should read “4,917 ha (12,149 ac)” |

(K-12) |

|

Comment: Page 2-38, Line 34: Duke owns eight (not nine) public recreational access |

locations on Lake Wylie and one additional access location immediately downstream of the |

lake. Of these nine access areas, only two (not 3) are leased to other operators. (K-13) |

|

Comment: Page 2-49, Line 22: Line Reads: “This lake was formed by impounding the water |

of the Catawba River, and full pond was achieved in 1904.” Correct the sentence to read: |

?This lake was formed by impounding the water of the Catawba River in 1904.” (K-16) |

|

Comment: Page 2-49, Line 24: “4912 ha (12,139 ac)” should read “4,917 ha (12,149 ac)” |

(K-17) |

|

Comment: Page 4-14, Line 40-41: Statement reads: Based on Catawba-specific experience, |

a review of available technical literature on thermophilic organisms, and the fact that there is |

little Heated. This sentence is incomplete. (K-18) |

|

Comment: Page E-2, Line 11: Expiration date of NPDES wastewater permit is 6/30/05 rather |

than 4/30/06. (K-52) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-34 December 2002 |

| Response: The comments concern aquatic resource issues. The Supplement has been

| revised as appropriate.

|

| A.2.6 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues

|

| Comment: What about the spider lily? I understood what you said about one of these

| endangered species–thank you so much, that’s a pretty picture – I think it was the little flower

| thing, the little plant there, you said is like not in Lake Wiley, it’s in tributaries further down, but it

| could potentially be in Lake Wiley if it were brought in, something like that? 

|

| The mussel, that’s the one, yeah. Is the same not true for the spider lily. Could it not be

| brought from Lansford Canal State Park and, you know – since it’s in tough straits, is that not a

| consideration too? (F-06)

|

| Response: The spider lily is a Federal and State-listed species of concern. Based on field

| surveys, this species is not known to occur on the Catawba site, the transmission line rights-of-

| way or at Lake Wylie, though there is potential habitat in these areas. The Carolina heelsplitter

| is a Federal and State-listed aquatic species with the potential to occur in Lake Wylie or in

| streams in the transmission line rights-of-way. All known occurrences of this species in the

| Catawba River system are limited to small tributary streams located downstream of Lake Wylie

| (FWS 1996). In addition, a survey conducted in the Catawba River downstream of Lake Wylie

| failed to locate the species (Duke 2002b); thus, it is highly unlikely this species could be found

| in Lake Wylie as a consequence of downstream movement of spawn. This species has not

| been observed in Lake Wylie or in streams along the transmission line rights-of-way. Current

| and future ecological surveys and monitoring programs conducted in these areas have the

| spider lily and the Carolina heelsplitter on a watch list. The comment did not provide significant,

| new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated

| further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-14, Line 14: The term “conservation easements” should be replaced with

| “protection of rare species”. Duke does not currently have conservation easements with

| SCDNR for transmission ROWs. (K-04).

|

| Response: The comment addresses threatened and endangered species issues. The

| Supplement has been revised as appropriate.

|

| A.2.7 Comments Concerning Historic and Archaeological Resources

|

| Comment: Page 2-16, Line 9: The fenced cemetery referenced as part of the site is not part

| of Catawba Nuclear site. The site is owned and operated by the Concord Cemetery

| Association. (K-08)
Appendix A

December 2002 A-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

|

Comment: Page 2-48, Line 25: The Concord Cemetery is not located within the Catawba site, |

but adjacent to it. The cemetery is owned and operated by the Concord Cemetery Association. |

(K-14) |

|

Comment: Page 2-48, Line 37: The Concord Cemetery is not located within the Catawba site, |

but adjacent to it. The cemetery is owned and operated by the Concord Cemetery Association. |

(K-15) |

|

Response: The comments address historic and archaeological resources issues. The |

Supplement has been revised as appropriate. |

|

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues |

|

Comment: Page 2-36 states that noise from the facility is “...noticeable but not obtrusive.” |

Please clarify this decibel level. (N-07) |

|

Response: The description of noise level from the facility is subjective. Although actual noise |

surveys were not conducted, by observation, the staff concluded that noise from the facility was |

noticeable but not obtrusive. 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 the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-27, Line 24-25: From Table 2-4, under Column reading “Number of |

Personnel”: Currently reads: |

Other – NC 95 |

Other – SC 96 |

In order to correctly reflect the number counts as given in Table 2-5, change to: |

Other - NC 112 |

Other - SC 79 |

(K-09) |

|

Comment: Page 2-32, Line 24-25: Lines Read: “There are 24 counties within the 80-km |

(50 mi) radius of the Catawba site: 13 in South Carolina and 10 in North Carolina. The 23- |

county area is served by 3 major interstate freeways.” Correct the sentences to read: “There |

are 24 counties within the 80-km (50 mi) radius of the Catawba site: 11 in South Carolina and |

13 in North Carolina. The 24-county area is served by 3 major interstate freeways.” (K-10) |

|

Response: The comments address socioeconomic issues. The Supplement has been revised |

as appropriate. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-36 December 2002 |

| A.2.9 Comments Concerning Human Health/Radiological Issues

|

| Comment: I gather from what you said that this monitoring is self-monitoring done by Duke, is

| that right? In the radiological impact section that you were doing? (F-05)

|

| Comment: In regards to the dosimeter readings of the individual receiving it away from the

| plant, who in addition would have authority to measure that within the county? Would the York

| County Emergency Preparedness agency have a role in that? Would there automatically be a

| procedure to measure this in addition to Duke measuring it on their own perimeter. Would

| Duke measure it beyond their perimeter or is there another agency that will constantly monitor

| to dosage for the individual? (G-01)

|

| Response: Radiological issues are Category 1 issues and are discussed in Section 2.2.7 of

| this SEIS. Duke has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP)

| around the Catawba site since 1981. The radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the

| environment have been carefully monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate

| standards. The REMP includes monitoring of the air, direct radiation, surface water, drinking

| water, groundwater, shoreline sediment, milk, fish, broadleaf vegetation, and food products in

| about a 24-km (15-mi) radius of the station. The South Carolina Department of Health and

| Environmental Control also performs radiological monitoring in the vicinity of Catawba. The

| comments did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and,

| therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this

| Supplement as a result of the comments.

|

| Comment: When it comes to radiological impacts, the Commission chooses to regulate in

| terms of millirems and I’d like you to tell me how I know how many millirems I got today. So it’s

| fair to say, however, that averages are used and models are used and that we don’t really know

| when it comes to the general public, how much we each get. Is that maximally exposed

| individual an infant or an adult? (D-07)

|

| Response: Radiation doses are routinely measured with a dosimeter in the nuclear industry. 

| The average dose equivalent to the U.S. population is 360 millirem/year. This comes from

| various sources including natural sources such as radon, environmental sources, consumer

| products and occupational exposure. While current radiation dose limits (NRC 1993) are based

| on the International Commission on Radiological Protection 1977 guidance (ICRP 1977) as

| published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1987), the evidence gathered

| since that time has not changed the risk assessment significantly. See, for example,

| summaries by National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP 2001) and

| United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 2001b). 

| These risk assessments, which incorporate the latest scientific research from around the world,
Appendix A

December 2002 A-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

generally rule out the existence of radiation risks that differ much from the ICRP guidance of |

1977. Managing radiation risks using current dose limits and ALARA programs is consistent |

with safety as defined by the political process in the United States. |

|

The regulations for protecting the public are intentionally conservative and provide adequate |

protection for the public, for all ages and radiosensitivity, including fetuses, infants, and |

children. The average dose to a member of the critical group is represented by the average of |

the doses for all members of the critical group, which in turn is assumed to represent the most |

likely exposure situation. For example, when considering whether it is appropriate to “release” |

a building (allow people to work in the building without restrictions) that has been |

decontaminated, the critical group would be the group of regular employees that would work in |

the building. If radiation in the soil is the concern, then the scenario used to represent the |

maximally exposed individual is that of a resident farmer. The assumptions used for this |

scenario are “prudently conservative” and tend to overestimate the potential doses. The added |

sensitivity of certain members of the population, such as pregnant women, infants, and |

children, are accounted for in the analysis. However, the most sensitive member may not |

always be the member of the population that receives the highest dose. This is especially true |

if the most sensitive member (for example, an infant) does not participate in specific activities |

that may provide the greatest dose or if he/she does not eat specific foods that cause the |

greatest dose. |

|

Additional information on radiation protection can be found at |

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation.html. Radiological issues are Category 1 issues and |

are discussed in Section 4.3 of this SEIS. The comment did not provide significant, new |

information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated |

further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comment. |

|

Comment: Baby teeth reminds me of the strontium-90 that’s building up in the teeth of children |

in this area most likely. The tooth fairy project undertaken by Jay Gould and others has shown |

that children who live downwind of nuclear reactors in the United States do in fact have more |

strontium 90 than children who live in other areas, even though atmospheric bomb testing is |

over. |

|

But we’re not allowed to bring that issue to the question of whether Catawba 1 and Catawba 2 |

should continue to operate in this neighborhood. We’re not allowed to bring that issue because |

it would be challenging current regulations. (D-13) |

|

Response: The comment implies the strontium-90 (Sr-90) measured in people near nuclear |

plants must have come from nuclear plants, which is not the case. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-38 December 2002 |

| Interpretation of measurements of radioactive materials in people is difficult unless one knows

| what each individual was exposed to, when the exposures occurred, and by what routes they

| occurred (ingestion, inhalation, etc). Travel of the individual being studied must be accounted

| for, since even a couple of days in a high-fallout area could swamp any effect of local

| exposures if inhalation were suspected to be a primary route. In particular for Sr-90, dietary

| contributions from foodstuffs produced out of the region must be considered. Finally, migration

| must be accounted for to interpret measurements, because people may have lived somewhere

| else for the better part of their lives.

|

| Substances in the human body are dynamic, not static. This includes radioactive and non-

| radioactive substances. The dynamic processes include intake of material; uptake to

| systematic circulation from the gastrointestinal tract, respiratory tract, or skin; translocation

| throughout the body system; retention over time; and elimination via excretion and radioactive

| decay. Thus, even in deciduous teeth, the time course of exposure leading to intake and all

| other dynamic processes must be considered to interpret measurements. Very little Sr-90 is

| released from a nuclear power reactor, and little if any Sr-90 found in the environment can be

| directly attributed to reactor effluents. Even in the event that any measurable Sr-90 can be

| found in a person living near Catawba or any other nuclear reactor, the Sr-90 cannot be

| absolutely attributed to the releases from the reactor. Radiological issues are Category 1

| issues and are discussed in Section 4.3 of this SEIS. The comment did not provide significant,

| new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated

| further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comment.

|

| Comment: But I cannot accept – and I have said before and I will say again – that the NRC’s

| own finding that the 20 years of operation of each of these reactors, when only considering the

| off-site dose, when considering routine releases, routine operations and no accidents, perfect –

| Duke delivering perfection – will result in 12 excess cancer deaths per 20 years of operations. 

| That, when you do the math, results in 24 people for two units for 20 additional years, and when

| you add the fact that each of these units already has 40 years of license, a total of 36 cancer

| deaths each. So now we come up with a total of 72, since there’s two units. And then,

| because there’s one non-fatal cancer for every fatal cancer generated with no accidents, with

| no problems, we’re talking about 144 cancers from these two units in their 60 years of

| operations. And this doesn’t even include handling the high level waste. (D-14)

|

| Response: There has been much concern and confusion regarding the statements in a

| Federal Register Notice (66 FR 39277) dated July 30, 2001 regarding potential long term health

| effects that may occur as a result of radiation doses from an additional 20 years of operation of

| nuclear power plants as a result of license renewal. According to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

| Appendix B, Table B-1, “... 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
Appendix A

December 2002 A-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

14,800 person-rem or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20 year power reactor operating |

term.” |

|

This calculated value of 12 additional deaths from fatal cancer over the 20 years of additional |

operation of a nuclear power plant is the result of several conservative assumptions. This value |

is, in fact, a calculated upper bound value. It does not mean that 12 people will die from cancer |

over the next 20 years of continued power plant operation. |

|

These calculations use the concept of collective dose. Collective dose estimates the effects |

across a very large population, assuming that a small amount of radiation dose spread out |

among a large population would yield similar effects of a larger amount of radiation dose to a |

much smaller population. The Health Physics Society, www.hps.org, published a white paper |

to explain collective dose. The paper states, “[b]elow the dose of ten rem, estimations of |

adverse health effect is speculative. Collective dose remains a useful index for quantifying |

dose in large populations and in comparing the magnitude of exposure from different radiation |

sources. However, for a population in which all individuals receive lifetime doses of less than |

10 rem above background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk |

and should not be quantified for the purposes of estimating population health risks.” According |

to NCRP Report 92, “Public Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Power Generation in the United |

States,” the collective effective dose equivalent to regional populations normalized to a 1 |

gigawatt power reactor operation is 4.8 person-rem per year. The total contribution from the |

complete uranium fuel cycle, which includes uranium mining and milling, is 136 person-rem per |

year. |

|

The cancer risk factors used in this calculation are also quite conservative. They are from the |

BEIR-V report, “Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation.” In this report, |

it is estimated that, “[i]f 100,000 persons of all ages received a whole body dose of 0.1 Gy (10 |

rad) of gamma radiation in a single brief exposure, about 800 extra cancer deaths would be |

expected to occur during their remaining lifetimes in addition to the nearly 20,000 cancer deaths |

that would occur in the absence of radiation. Because the extra cancer deaths would be |

indistinguishable from those that occurred naturally, even to obtain a measure of how many |

extra deaths occurred is a difficult statistical estimation problem. |

|

The NRC estimations of risk to arrive at the statistically calculated value of 12 deaths assumes |

tiny doses summed over large populations. It further assumes the “linear no threshold” theory |

that some effect will result from some dose, however small the dose, and it assumes that even |

these tiny doses have some statistically adverse health effect. As stated in Table B-1 of |

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, “In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility |

that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses.” Conversely, it cannot be sure that |

there will be any cancer fatalities from these low doses. The comment did not provide |

significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-40 December 2002 |

| evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the

| comment.

|

| Comment: I recently had a nuclear stress test done in Rock Hill here at a doctor’s office. They

| injected several radioactive isotopes into my blood while I was exercising and took pictures with

| special equipment and so forth. But I work at the Catawba station, I don’t, as you might

| understand, deal with radiation, I don’t go inside the radioactive areas. However, I was talking

| to some of the folks that administer the people that do, and just in conversation it came up that I

| received the number of micro-curies that’s really almost equivalent to the number of curies that

| would be allowed to be released by the Catawba station in a year, they injected it into my body

| for this test. But my question is would you be surprised to say that that would be accurate, that

| that number probably was fairly comparable to the limits that the Catawba station operates

| under? (H-01)

|

| Response: The doses received by patients during medical diagnostic procedures are in many

| cases much greater than would be allowed to workers in a year under NRC regulations and

| almost invariably much greater than doses NRC permits members of the public to receive from

| nuclear power plant operations. Radiological issues are Category 1 issues and are discussed

| in Section 4.3 of this SEIS. The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant

| to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no

| changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-4, Line 38: Line 38 should be revised to state: “....5.0 percent by weight

| uranium-235.” (K-03)

|

| Response: Section 2 has been revised as suggested by the comment.

|

| Comment: EPA Region 4's review of this DGSEIS 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. (N-01)

|

| Response: The comment concerns a Category 1 issue that is discussed in Section 4.3 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 the comment.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis |

|

Comment: Regarding postulated accidents and hydrogen explosions during loss of power, the |

SAMA should be implemented as a part of a license renewal. Section 5 – Environmental |

Impacts of Postulated Accidents... In the report, the staff concluded that the SAMA that would |

establish hydrogen control in SBO events by providing backup power to igniters must be cost |

beneficial. But the staff does verbal double back flip to avoid applying the analysis to license |

renewal, saying: “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 the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.” [Page 5-29]. The severe accident |

mitigation alternative should be implemented as a requirement in the Catawba license renewal |

process. (F-11) |

|

Response: The staff concluded that the SAMA that would establish hydrogen control in SBO |

events by providing back-up power to igniters is cost-beneficial under certain assumptions. |

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 Catawba and all other ice-condenser plants as a |

current operating license issue. |

|

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 the comment. |

|

Comment: At the same time, when and at what point will these cost/benefit analyses begin to |

be impacted by new information like the National Academy of Science’s report saying that the |

grid is highly vulnerable to attack and at what point does, you know, something like the |

dedicated line become cost effective? (D-08) |

|

Comment: And all I can say is that I offered in very good faith to Duke the idea of using |

hydroelectric generation on the site of the reactor as an ultimate form of insurance, as long as |

that dam is there, that the reactor could be cooled in the event of station blackout. And I think |

it’s time to take that teeter-totter and put the full weight of the national security issues on the |

other end of whether it is cost effective to back up Catawba 1 and 2 with its own on-site |

dedicated line to the electric generation that is also on site. (D-20) |

|

Response: The Commenter asks that the NRC consider national security issues and the |

vulnerabilities of the grid when it assesses the cost differences of a dedicated line for electrical |

supply. However, the staff’s position is that NEPA does not require the NRC to evaluate the |

effects or impacts of a speculative and unquantifiable event. Likewise, consideration of the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-42 December 2002 |

| costs associated with these events is also not required. Nevertheless, the methodology

| employed by Duke in conducting its SAMA analysis for Catawba did consider installation of a

| dedicated line from the nearby hydroelectric facility and concluded that it was not sufficiently

| cost-beneficial to merit further consideration. 

|

| 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 to this Supplement

| as a result of the comments.

|

| Comment: Since this power plant has been in operation for some period of time, how is it that

| you just now came to the conclusion that hydrogen control and installation of water tight wall

| being further evaluated as a current operating license issue was something that should be

| addressed? Didn’t this kind of work go on before? Didn’t someone throw up a red flag

| somewhere down the line and say, you know what, there’s one of these generators out here

| that doesn’t even have a water-tight wall around it? (F-07)

|

| Response: In accordance with Generic Letter 88-20, every licensee was required to perform

| an Individual Plant Examination (IPE) for both internally- and externally-initiated events at their

| plants. The major objective of these studies was to identify and eliminate any potential

| vulnerabilities in the design or operation of the plant that could lead to core damage or

| containment failure. Vulnerabilities identified through the studies were addressed by licensees,

| generally through hardware or procedure changes. Additional improvements to further reduce

| risk were also identified and evaluated by the licensee for possible implementation. 

| Enhancement of the hydrogen control system as well as installation of a water tight wall were

| considered by Duke as part of the IPE and a follow-up design study. However, these

| improvements were not implemented because neither was found to be cost effective by Duke

| based on their assessment. As part of license renewal, the NRC staff reevaluated these

| potential improvements using a cost/benefit methodology and assumptions consistent with NRC

| guidelines for performing regulatory analyses. Using this methodology, these plant

| improvements are cost-beneficial as discussed in Chapter 5 of this Supplement. By letter dated

| August 8, 2002, Duke committed to designing and scheduling the installation of flood protection

| for the 6900/4160 V transformers.

|

| The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and,

| therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in the

| Supplement as a result of the comment.

|

| Comment: But my other question I’d give you is can you reflect on when these cost/benefit

| analyses are done? You know, you balancing against potential fatalities, well, what’s the

| number? What’s the cost of a death? (D-09)

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Response: The cost benefit analysis presented in Chapter 5 was performed in accordance |

with NRC's guidelines for performing regulatory analysis. These guidelines are described in |

NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 3, "Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission," and NUREG/BR-0184, "Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook." |

The regulatory analysis provides a formal, reasoned analysis of a potential plant change, and |

contains estimates of benefits and costs that are quantified to the extent possible. Within the |

guidelines, a conversion factor of $2000 per person-rem has been adopted, which represents |

the product of the dollar value of a statistical life ($3 million) and a risk coefficiant that |

establishes the probability of stochastic health effects attributable to radiological exposure |

(approximately 7E-4). The basis for these values is described in NUREG-1530, |

"Reassessment of NRC's Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy." |

|

The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, |

therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in the |

Supplement as a result of the comment. |

|

Comment: Page xix, Line 12-14: The staff’s conclusion statement contained in these lines |

contradicts the staff conclusion statement contained in Section 5.2.7, page 5-28, lines 20-21. |

(K-01) |

|

Response: The Executive Summary has been revised to reflect the conclusions in |

Section 5.2.7. |

|

Comment: Page 5-6, Line 20: 5.8E-05/ry should be 5.8E-05/yr Duke’s reported risk estimates |

are base on a calendar year basis, not a reactor year basis. The capacity factor used in the |

PRA is 0.9. (K-19) |

|

Comment: Page 5-6, Line 25: (2 cases) “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-20) |

|

Comment: Page 5-7, Line 17: Table 5-3 - Heading “Frequency (per reactor-year)” should be |

Frequency (per year) (K-21) |

|

Comment: Page 5-8, Line 23" “reactor-year” should be “year” (K-22) |

|

Comment: Page 5-8, Line 26: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-23) |

|

Comment: Page 5-9, Line 2: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-24) |

|

Comment: Page 5-9, Line 3: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-25) |

|

Response: Section 5.2.2.1 has been revised as suggested by the comments. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-44 December 2002 |

| Comment: Page 5-11, Line 10: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-26)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.2.2 has been revised as suggested by the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 5-12, Line 25: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-27)

|

| Comment: Page 5-12, Line 29: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-28)

|

| Comment: Page 5-14, Table 5-5 Footnote (a): “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-29)

|

| Comment: Page 5-14, Table 5-5 Footnote (b): “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-30)

|

| Comment: Page 5-15, Line 10, Table 5-6: The cost of enhancement provided by Duke for the

| back-up power to the igniters ($540,000) 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. (K-31)

|

| Comment: Page 5-15, Line 22 Table 5-6: Delete Footnote (c) (K-32)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.3.1 has been revised as suggested by the comments.

|

| Comment: Page 5-17, Line 28: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-33)

|

| Comment: Page 5-17, Line 29: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-34)

|

| Comment: Page 5-17, Line 35: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-35)

|

| Response: Section 5.2.4 has been revised as suggested by the comments.

|

| Comment: Page 5-19, Line 17: “$205,000 per site” should be “$205,000 per unit” (K-36)

|

| Comment: Page 5-19, Line 24: “$540,000 per site” should be “$540,000 per unit” (K-37)

|

| Comment: Page 5-19, Line 27-29: The sentence, “In order to provide ...” should be deleted as

| it is not appropriate to divide these costs by 2. (K-38)

|

| Comment: Page 5-19, Line 36-38: The sentence, “Duke further noted that ...” should be

| modified. The discussion that Duke provided relative to powering the air-return fans was in the
Appendix A

December 2002 A-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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. (K-39) |

|

Response: Section 5.2.5 has been revised as suggested by these comments. In addition, the |

sentence addressed by Comment K-39 has been moved to the preceding paragraphs. |

|

Comment: Page 5-22, Line 34: 3.81E+08 should be 3.1E+08 see page 12 of Attachment H |

(K-40) |

|

Response: Section 5.2.6.1 has been revised as suggested by the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 5-25, Line 14: “30 percent” should be “24 percent”. See Table 5-3 of the |

SEIS. (K-41) |

|

Comment: Page 5-25, Line 29: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-42) |

|

Comment: Page 5-25, Line 30: “per reactor year” should be “per year” (K-43) |

|

Comment: Page 5-26, Line 3-5: The discussion concerning NUREG/CR-6427 should more |

accurately characterize the insights from the NUREG. This NUREG provided a simplified level |

2 analysis for the purpose of investigating the importance of DCH. The conservative |

assumptions applied in this analysis with regard to hydrogen generation and the probability of |

ignition make it useful for understanding the uncertainties associated with early containment |

failure probabilities. The NUREG should not be interpreted as the latest information with |

respect to a realistic or best-estimate evaluation of the potential for early containment failure as |

a result of hydrogen combustion during station blackouts. (K-44) |

|

Comment: Page 5-26, Line 3: “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-45) |

|

Comment: Page 5-26, Line 20: (2 cases) “per reactor-year” should be “per year” (K-46) |

|

Comment: Page 5-27, Line 5 and 9 Table 5-7: $270,000 should be $540,000 and $102,5000 |

should be $205,000. The cost provided by Duke are per unit costs and should not be divided |

by 2. (K-47) |

|

Comment: Page 5-27, Line 11-13 Table 5-7: Delete Footnote (a) (K-48) |

|

Response: Section 5.2.6.2 has been revised as suggested by the comments. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-46 December 2002 |

| Comment: Section 5.2.7 of Reference 1 identifies two Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

| (SAMAs): one to provide back-up power to the hydrogen igniters for Station Blackout (SBO)

| events and the other to install flood protection around the 6900/4160 volt transformers. 

| Catawba has reviewed these two SAMA’s and concurs with the NRC that these two SAMAs are

| not within the scope of license renewal and should be addressed separate from any license

| renewal proceedings. (M-01)

|

| Comment: For the first SAMA, concerning the installation of back-up power to the hydrogen

| ignition system during a SBO event, Catawba agrees with the NRC staff the depending on the

| design requirements there may be a cost-beneficial modification that provides sufficient

| alternative power during a SBO to the hydrogen ignition system. (M-02)

|

| Comment: For the second SAMA, concerning the installation of flood protection around the

| 6900/4160 volt transformers, Catawba also agrees with the NRC staff conclusion in

| Reference 1. (M-03)

|

| Response: The commentor agrees with the staff’s conclusions. The comments did not provide

| new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, these comment will not be

| evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the

| comments.

|

| A.2.11 Comment Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

|

| Comment: And can we talk about that waste, the fact that 20 more years of generation of

| electricity for two units is effectively a whole new 1000 – or we heard earlier 1129 megawatt –

| electrical generation reactor? Because, you know, 40 more years, that’s like a whole new unit. 

| That’s going to be a whole new unit’s worth of high level waste either staying here or traveling

| somewhere. But we can’t bring that up. (D-15)

|

| Comment: Nuclear power is a great thing, but the waste, what are we going to do with it? 

| Nobody wants it – oh, well. What are we going to do with it? Nobody wants it. Nevada sure

| doesn’t want it, they don’t even have a reactor in that state and oh, we’re going to put it out

| there. We’ll get it out of my yard, I don’t want it, put it somewhere in Nevada. (E-04)

|

| Response: Onsite storage and offsite disposal of spent nuclear fuel are Category 1 issues. 

| The safety and environmental effects of a 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
Appendix A

December 2002 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 |

Station, Units 1 and 2 is based on the same assumption. |

|

The comments did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, |

therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this |

Supplement as a result of the comments. |

|

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].” (K-49) |

|

Response: The comment addresses uranium fuel cycle and waste management issues. The |

Supplement has been revised as appropriate. |

|

Comment: Even if we don’t have a disaster of any kind, in our lifetime, the waste from nuclear |

power plants and weapons production will stay with us for hundreds and thousands of years. |

These deadly chemicals are already causing more cancers and disease, birth effects and death |

that we shouldn’t even be suffering. (J-05) |

|

Comment: Before license renewal proceeds, the Commission must resolve important |

questions about future impacts of the fuel cycle and high level waste. The draft report states |

that EPA performance standards “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 |

1000 premature cancer deaths worldwide for a 100,000 metric ton repository.” [Page 6-5] The |

impacts of license renewal – twenty years of additional operation, a 0-percent increase – will |

unquestionably increase. |

|

If and when a geological repository is built, these questions may be easier to resolve, but |

because of the insoluble nature of the problem and the large impacts of high level nuclear |

waste, the Commission must suspend or eliminate license renewal. (F-14) |

|

Response: There has been much concern and confusion regarding the statements in a |

Federal Register Notice (66 FR 39277) dated July 30, 2001 regarding potential long term health |

effects that may occur as a result of radiation doses from an additional 20 years of operation of |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-48 December 2002 |

| nuclear power plants as a result of license renewal. According to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

| Appendix B, Table B-1, “... 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 or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20 year power reactor operating

| term.”

|

| This calculated value of 12 additional deaths from fatal cancer over the 20 years of additional

| operation of a nuclear power plant is the result of several conservative assumptions. This value

| is, in fact, a calculated upper bound value. It does not mean that 12 people will die from cancer

| over the next 20 years of continued power plant operation.

|

| These calculations use the concept of collective dose. Collective dose estimates the effects

| across a very large population, assuming that a small amount of radiation dose spread out

| among a large population would yield similar effects of a larger amount of radiation dose to a

| much smaller population. The Health Physics Society, www.hps.org, published a white paper

| to explain collective dose. The paper states, “[b]elow the dose of ten rem, estimations of

| adverse health effect is speculative. Collective dose remains a useful index for quantifying

| dose in large populations and in comparing the magnitude of exposure from different radiation

| sources. However, for a population in which all individuals receive lifetime doses of less than

| 10 rem above background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk

| and should not be quantified for the purposes of estimating population health risks.” According

| to NCRP Report 92, “Public Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Power Generation in the United

| States,” the collective effective dose equivalent to regional populations normalized to a 1

| gigawatt power reactor operation is 4.8 person-rem per year. The total contribution from the

| complete uranium fuel cycle, which includes uranium mining and milling, is 136 person-rem per

| year.

|

| The cancer risk factors used in this calculation are also quite conservative. They are from the

| BEIR-V report, “Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation.” In this report,

| it is estimated that, “[i]f 100,000 persons of all ages received a whole body dose of 0.1 Gy (10

| rad) of gamma radiation in a single brief exposure, about 800 extra cancer deaths would be

| expected to occur during their remaining lifetimes in addition to the nearly 20,000 cancer deaths

| that would occur in the absence of radiation. Because the extra cancer deaths would be

| indistinguishable from those that occurred naturally, even to obtain a measure of how many

| extra deaths occurred is a difficult statistical estimation problem.”

|

| The NRC estimations of risk to arrive at the statistically calculated value of 12 deaths assumes

| tiny doses summed over large populations. It further assumes the “linear no threshold” theory

| that some effect will result from some dose, however small the dose, and it assumes that even

| these tiny doses have some statistically adverse health effect. As stated in Table B-1 of

| 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, “In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility
Appendix A

December 2002 A-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses.” Conversely, it cannot be sure that |

there will be any cancer fatalities from these low doses. The comments did not provide |

significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be |

evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the |

comments. |

|

Comment: We appreciate your commitment to reducing waste volume from the facility |

(page 2-12). (N-06) |

|

Response: The statement referred to by the comment is that “Catawba has been aggressively |

reducing volume and minimizing waste for several years and intends to do so in the future”. |

The staff does not view this as a commitment on either the staff’s part or the applicant’s part to |

reduce waste volume, rather it is viewed as the applicants intent. 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 the comment. |

|

Comment: The document offered for comment strains and ultimately exceeds the limits of |

comprehension in order to avoid assigning a single significance level of large in its analysis of |

environmental impacts of high level waste. The efforts of the staff and/or Commission to resist |

admitting that high-level waste and spent or irradiated fuel have a large impact on the |

environment and public health must not be permitted to obscure the facts. (F-09) |

|

Comment: Section 6 – Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle...Supplement 9 |

reports that the Duke Energy and NRC staff have found no information which is new or |

significant enough on any issue to alter conclusions found in the general environmental impact |

statement. |

|

The report makes two more exceptions, one for nuclear fuel and one for high level waste. |

However, despite the detailed exploration of the uncertainties of such estimates, both of these |

issues are swept off the Category 2 table, relegating them to Category 1 limbo. “Accordingly, |

while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effect of |

the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.” [Page 6-4.] 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. (F-12) |

|

Response: Environmental Impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are discussed in detail in |

Section 6.1 of this Supplement. The Commission has determined this is a Category 1 issue. |

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 of “Generic”. |

Since the GEIS was originally issued in 1996, the EPA has published radiation protection |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-50 December 2002 |

| 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 the comments.

|

| Comment: Nowhere in Section 6.1 does the NRC analyze the actual impacts of the fuel cycle

| and its waste products. Instead of investigating and quantifying the impacts of the fuel cycle

| and waste, the report merely recapitulates regulatory dose limits. Dose limits are an unreliable

| means of analysis because they are subject to change and have no meaning in the time frames

| necessary for the determination of long term radionuclide impacts of geological repositories. 

| Moreover, regulatory limits for some important aspects of waste disposition do not exist. (F-13)

|

| Response: This comment concerns the license renewal process in general, but did not provide

| new information. The Commission has determined that this is a Category 1 issue. The

| Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

| conducted to review a license renewal application. The information presented in Chapter 6 of

| this Supplement and is based on an analysis performed for the GEIS, NUREG-1437

| (NRC 1996, 1999). Chapter 6 refers the reader to this analysis. The comment did not provide

| significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be

| evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the

| comment.

|

| Comment: What type of fuel does Catawba use right now, 1 and 2, Catawba 1 and 2? And

| what is the requirement for a reactor to qualify for Category 1 consideration, particularly in

| radiological and off-site radiological analysis? There’s a qualifying condition in order for

| Category 1 issues to apply to a nuclear reactor, there’s an exclusionary clause in the GEIS. For

| radiological impacts and off-site radiological impacts particularly, GEIS says that they only apply

| to light water reactors using low enriched uranium fuel. Categorically. (D-06)

|

| Response: This comment concerns a Category 1 issue. The fuel used at Catawba is low-

| enriched (up to 4.73 percent by weight) uranium dioxide in the form of ceramic pellets contained

| in zirconium alloy fuel rods. The analysis in the GEIS is based on normal operation following

| license renewal and extends to all nuclear power reactors. Therefore it is generic to light water

| reactors. If the facility were to operate outside these bounds, then a separate analysis would

| have to be performed. The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to

| this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no

| changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comment.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

A.2.12 Comment Concerning Alternatives to License Renewal |

|

Comment: What is the baseload capacity of the Catawba reactors? The thermal just gets |

dumped into the lake, doesn’t it? I mean it doesn’t do anything for me – it doesn’t turn on a light |

bulb for me or anyone. Okay. The power plant they’re proposing for Fort Mills is 980 |

megawatts. (F-04) |

|

Response: Each generating unit is designed to operate at core power levels up to 3411 MW(t), |

which corresponds to a net electrical output of approximately 1129 MW(e). The energy that |

makes up the difference between the electric power output and thermal power output is, for the |

most part, released to the atmosphere as heat from the cooling towers. |

|

The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, |

therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this |

Supplement as a result of the comment. |

|

Comment: Wind, solar and hydrogen can and will end our dependency on nuclear power |

plants and other dangerous polluting plants. Why ignore safe and clean technology if it’s good |

for the good of Man? Why? I don’t understand it. Is it because of corporate greed, because of |

the fact that it is less profitable for big industry? I think I may be right. Isn’t this all about |

money? I think I may be right. Is corporate America truly concerned about our health and even |

the health of our own families and friends? (J-02) |

|

Response: Alternative power generation is addressed in Section 8 of this SEIS. Several |

alternative actions were considered—no action, new generation alternatives, purchased |

electrical power, alternative technologies (including wind and solar) and the combination of |

alternatives. Alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may have environmental |

effects in at least some impact categories such as ecology and land use, that reach |

MODERATE or LARGE significance. In comparison, the environmental impacts of the |

proposed action, renewal of the Catawba OLs, are SMALL for all categories (except collective |

offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which |

a single significance level was not assigned). |

|

The comment did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, |

therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this |

Supplement as a result of the comment. |

|

Comment: It says in here that Catawba site receives approximately four to five kilowatt hours |

of direct normal solar radiation per square yard – thank you very much – per day, of solar |

radiation. And then at the end it says implementation of solar generation on a large scale, |

enough to replace Catawba’s generating capacity, would likely result in large – and you had to |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-52 December 2002 |

| emphasize the word large – environmental impacts. Well, I thank you, but there’s no waste with

| making electric on somebody’s roof, there’s no waste at all. (E-05)

|

| Response: Solar power is discussed in Section 8.2.5.3 of this SEIS. Because of the natural

| resource impacts (land and ecological), the area’s relatively low rate of solar radiation, and its

| high cost, solar power is not deemed a feasible baseload alternative to renewal of the Catawba

| OLs. 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

| (NRC 1996), land requirements are high—14,000 ha (35,000 ac) per 1000 MW(e) for

| photovoltaic and approximately 6000 ha (14,000 ac) per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal systems. 

| Neither type of solar-electric system would fit at the Catawba site, and both would have LARGE

| environmental impacts at a greenfield site. Some onsite generated solar power, e.g., from

| rooftop photovoltaic applications, may substitute for electric power from the grid. The comment

| did not provide significant, new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this

| comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a

| result of the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-32, Line 23: Reference to SCDNR should be replaced with SCDHEC (K-

| 50)

|

| Comment: Page 8-41, Line 18 Reference to SCDENR should be replaced with SCDHEC 

| (K-51)

|

| Response: The Supplement has been revised as appropriate.

|

| A.2.13 Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of Environmental Review for

| License Renewal: Aging Management, NRC Role and Mission, Safeguards and

| Security, MOX Fuel, Hearings, Emergency Response & Planning, Need for Power

|

| Aging Management

|

| Comment: In regards to aging of equipment, you say that you’re not going to do a

| measurement aspect of the existing plant as it exists at this point. I’m worried about the

| containment, the containment walls and the existing plant over the years that it’s been in

| operation. Is there any kind of monitoring devices that measures the existing equipment and

| future equipment of the containment vessel itself as we go day to day? As we age, we weaken,

| whether it be a human being or a car. So this plant has been in operation over a period of

| years and so there’s certain fatigue in construction. Has Duke got the capability of monitoring

| this fatigue over the years that it’s been in operation? (A-01)

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Comment: And if extended 20 years more, how would this be measured in future development |

and building? (A-02) |

|

Comment: In regards to the follow up, and evaluating the components and the material and |

construction as the years go by, there needs to be public mandate in regards to Duke |

advocating if there’s a weakness of the years in certain structures. And NRC should maybe |

require more monitoring aspect or re-evaluating if there needs to be reconstruction of the Units |

1 or 2.That’s an ongoing thing as the units continue. Re-evaluation should be an ongoing |

scope of the– (A-03) |

|

Response: The NRC’s environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to |

the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Safety matters related to aging |

are outside the scope of this environmental review. An NRC safety review for the license |

renewal period is conducted separately. The comments will be forwarded to the project |

manager for the license renewal safety review for consideration. To the extent that these |

comments pertain to managing the effects of aging on components and structures specified in |

10 CFR 54.21 during the period of extended operation to ensure functionality, they will be |

addressed in the parallel safety review. The comments did not provide new information |

relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further. |

There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the comments. |

|

NRC Role and Mission |

|

Comment: So my question is what the precedent or regulatory basis since they are regulators, |

not promoters, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has used in order to make that |

decision to override the ASLB. The question is whether or not there’s any sort of precedent. I |

mean, to some degree, one could say that rewriting Part 70 should have triggered a |

programmatic EIS. (D-03) |

|

Response: The NRC’s environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to |

the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. The comment relates to the |

hearing process. It is beyond the scope of the staff’s environmental review. |

|

The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this |

comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a |

result of the comment. |

|

Comment: So I started to really see that word and when you say right there, “the |

environment,” when the word “the” used, it implies separation, but when we say “our,” ah-ha, it |

means I’ve got to have it to live, and that’s true, we can’t live very long without clean air and |

without clean water. And I wondered if you considered changing or going through the process, |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-54 December 2002 |

| I don’t know how long it would take, but if you would consider changing that. It takes the same

| amount of space in the sentence, take the “the” out of there and put “o-u-r” in its place. (E-01)

|

| Response: The staff appreciates this input on their mission statement. This comment will be

| forwarded to the appropriate group at NRC Headquarters. It does not, however, relate directly

| to license renewal. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement

| and, therefore, this comment will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this

| Supplement as a result of the comment.

|

| Comment: First of all, when Pete asked you about the mission statement, it’s my

| understanding – and correct me if I’m wrong – that the part of the challenge that the Nuclear

| Regulatory Commission faces is that you have the responsibility both to regulate and promote

| nuclear energy. Is that no longer the case? Was it not the case at one time? (F-01)

|

| Response: The Commission does not have a mission to promote nuclear energy. Today, the

| NRC’s regulatory activities are focused on reactor safety oversight and reactor license renewal

| of existing plants, materials safety oversight and materials licensing for a variety of purposes,

| and waste management of both high-level waste and low-level waste. The comment did not

| provide new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be

| evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the

| comment.

|

| Comment: I want to know from anyone that would know this, how much money does Catawba

| receive in subsidies. Does anybody know? Does Catawba receive tax dollars to be there? 

| (E-02)

|

| Response: The comment is beyond the scope of license renewal. The comment did not

| provide new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, this comment will not be

| evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the

| comment.

|

| MOX Fuel

|

| Comment: But I wanted to reiterate once again our concern that the projected operating life

| before decommissioning of the plant extends out to 2044. We question that strategy, but with

| the proposed introduction of MOX fuel, which throws some more questions into the equation

| about the longevity of the plant, we again are concerned about that issue which lies out in front

| of us. (C-01)

|

| Comment: Our major concern from the Sierra Club is again the introduction of MOX fuel,

| which has only been briefly mentioned here this afternoon, which will be – as planned by the
Appendix A

December 2002 A-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

operators, at least that’s what they’ve said, to become a major component of the fuel source. It |

is our belief and the belief of others who have studied that that the introduction of MOX fuel |

puts additional stresses and corrosive activities in the plant which would again question the |

likelihood of that plant being an integral part of alternatives process out to an additional 20 |

years. (C-02) |

|

Comment: The Sierra Club passed a resolution on this issue in October 2001, opposing the |

shipment in plutonium weapons-grade nuclear material from various places, including Rocky |

Flats, Colorado into the Savannah River Site for the ultimate conversion into MOX fuel. (C-03) |

|

Comment: We believe that the application for the license under scoping review – this issue |

today is the same as the scoping issue – that the Catawba Nuclear Station will ultimately use |

MOX as part of the fuel component, that the South Carolina Sierra Club views this application |

process today as seriously flawed because the real issue in front of us is really what’s going to |

happen down the road when they discuss introducing MOX. And all the statistics and all the |

information we heard today relates to conventional fuel, not to MOX. And that the Duke Energy |

withdraw its application and proceed to request the NRC for the license to use the introduction |

of MOX and then we’ll take the new information and we’ll object to that as well. (C-04) |

|

Comment: You succinctly stated it in (b), whether the use of MOX is relevant to the aging |

issues, which was the bone of our contention. (D-04) |

|

Comment: Where and when will the National Environmental Policy Act be applied to the use of |

this contractually obligated irradiation of plutonium? The answer is in a process by NRC staff, |

an environmental assessment, which may or may not ever be opened to a complete public |

access like this process for people who live in this community, unless they’re willing to litigate, |

unless they’re willing to either join up with the likes of me and go into court under the banner of |

an environmental organization or they’re able to hire their own attorney and step in at that point. |

So I’m basically wanting to put on record a few of the concerns that we have about the impacts |

that MOX would have, that are not reflected in the current document that we’re looking at |

tonight. Increased health hazards to the worker and public, both from routine and accident |

conditions; the reworking of that committed off-site dose that is responsible for 144 cancers for |

Catawba 1 and 2, what’s the difference with MOX fuel; the socio-economic impacts of asking |

those people in this area to pay for this increased hazard with their own tax dollars; the |

increased rate of aging that may result to the reactor pressure vessel and internals from the use |

of this different type of fuel; elevated thermal impacts impacting not only operations, but also |

the environment and also waste storage in handling and disposal including impacts on |

decommissioning which are not covered by the contract, by the way, and would be borne by |

who? Increased fission products in all forms of emissions and waste; increased plutonium in all |

emissions and all types of waste; impacts, as I said, on decommissioning; and finally, impact on |

security. (D-17) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-56 December 2002 |

| Comment: And we also can’t bring up the fact that Catawba is currently under contract with

| the Department of Energy that names Catawba 1 and 2 as mission reactors for the irradiation of

| weapons grade plutonium in MOX fuel. And by the way, I just want to read a very short portion

| of the contract. It says “The contractor may only propose to replace a mission reactor if (1) the

| reactor has been shut down for economic reasons or (2) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or

| the utility company has required the reactor to be shutdown for safety...and in either case, the

| shutdown will preclude accomplishment of the plutonium disposition mission schedule.”

|

| That’s very tight language saying that under only the NRC rejecting the safety of MOX fuel will

| this reactor not use it, if that fuel is produced. And yet, we are told that this very same time

| period, the studies that have been done on uranium fuel are all that will be considered. (D-16)

|

| Comment: We don’t need plutonium on our roads, whether it’s in South Carolina or anywhere

| else, because in essence, anywhere else is here too. A nuclear disaster has no borders, no

| boundaries, it will swiftly sicken and eventually exterminate everyone in its path, every human,

| every animal, every tree and every blade of grass. (J-04)

|

| Comment: However, when we start transporting MOX fuel over our highways and start burning

| it in our reactors, we may be crossing a point of no return. (J-06)

|

| Comment: Ladies and gentlemen, please nix MOX. (J-07)

|

| Response: The Commission has determined that MOX fuel issues are outside the scope of

| license renewal at Catawba. The use of MOX fuel will be addressed in a separate

| environmental review if an application to use MOX fuel at Catawba is received. The comments

| did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and, therefore, these comments

| will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of

| the comments.

|

| Safeguards and Security

|

| Comment: I am talking about the threat of a nuclear fallout from a reactor, a reactor that has

| exploded on its own, a terrorist attack, or an attack anywhere in the U.S. Terrorists confiscating

| plutonium from the sites it is stored or even holding up the trucks that are supposed to be

| transporting this lethal chemical across the roads of our cities, towns and neighborhoods. 

| (J-01)

|

| Comment: Catawba 1 and 2 are currently sitting there on line. If, heaven forbid, they were

| attacked while on line, there would be a Chernobyl type event if the core was breached and

| containment was breached. The International Atomic Energy Agency said that a week at

| September 11, that that would be the type of consequence. And yet, calculations have been
Appendix A

December 2002 A-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

done, have been published in the open press, that if a reactor is turned off for only 30 days, |

because such a large portion of the radioactivity is transient, is like that medical radioactivity |

that decays very quickly in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks – in 30 days, half of the |

radiological impact is gone if the same attack occurs – half. Now it does level out, we don’t see |

it go away in a couple of decades, we know that. You still have a big problem on your hands if |

irradiated fuel is attacked, but to look at the cost/benefit to this region in an era of terrorism is |

something that people have a right to know, whether those considerations have been made. |

(D-19) |

|

Comment: I understand that the containment for Catawba is only three-quarters of an inch |

plate. That’s not very much. That’s a real easy target for somebody who wants to make a |

mess in South Carolina. (E-03) |

|

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, 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 did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and, |

therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this |

Supplement as a result of the comments. |

|

Hearings |

|

Comment: How many hearings besides the Duke hearing have been granted across the fleet |

of license renewals so far? (D-01) |

|

Comment: And I personally am aware of at least six attempts to get hearings. Do you know if |

there have been any others over that? (D-02) |

|

Response: These comments relate to the hearing process. They are beyond the scope of the |

Supplement. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-58 December 2002 |

| therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this

| Supplement as a result of the comments.

|

| Emergency Response and Planning

|

| 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. (N-03)

|

| Response: The staff evaluated impacts under current population conditions. Emergency

| preparedness is an ongoing process at all plants, including the Catawba Nuclear Station. 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 comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and does not pertain

| to the scope of license renewal as set in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54, therefore, it will not be

| evaluated further. There were no changes made in this Supplement as a result of the

| comment.

|

| Need for Power

|

| Comment: The document does not mention whether power demands on the Catawba 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. (N-04)

|

| Response: As specified in 10 CFR 51.95 (c)(2), the issue of need for power is outside the

| scope of license renewal. 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 Part 54; therefore, it will not be evaluated further. There were no changes made in this

| Supplement as a result of the comment.
Appendix A

December 2002 A-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

A.3 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts and Comment Letters |

|

Transcript of the Afternoon Public Meeting on June 27, 2002 in Rock Hill, South Carolina |

|

[Introduction, Mr. Cameron] |

[Presentation, Ms. Franovich] |

[Presentation, Mr. Wilson] |

[Presentation, Ms. Parkhurst] |

[Presentation, Mr. Palla] |

|

MR. JENETTA: My name is Tony Jenetta. |

|

In regards to aging of equipment, you say that you’re not going to do a measurement aspect of |

the existing plant as it exists at this point. I’m worried about the containment, the containment |

walls and the existing plant over the years that it’s been in operation. Is there any kind of |

monitoring devices that measures the existing equipment and future equipment of the |

containment vessel itself as we go day to day? |

|

MR. CAMERON: I think we’re going to ask Rani to address that for you. Rani – and Rani, do |

you understand the question that the gentleman is asking? |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Well, I’m going to rephrase it to make sure I understand. Are you talking |

about concrete containment structure or are you talking about what is within containment? |

|

MR. JENETTA: As we age, we weaken, whether it be a human being or a car. So this plant |

has been in operation over a period of years and so there’s certain fatigue in construction. Has |

Duke got the capability of monitoring this fatigue over the years that it’s been in operation? |

|

And if extended 20 years more, how would this be measured in future development and |

building? |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Okay, as far as the future development and building, I’m not sure I |

understand how that pertains to the renewal of the existing plant. But you can follow up on that |

when I give you the answer to the previous questions you had. |

|

Duke is proposing aging management of the concrete structure as well as the safety-related |

equipment inside of containment. And they have different aging management programs for |

different pieces of equipment and it depends upon what the equipment is composed of, whether |

it’s steel, concrete, electronics, cables, and the environment that the equipment is in. So if you |

look at Duke’s license renewal application, you will see how they designate or identify all of the |

components and structures that meet the scoping criteria for the rule. They talk about what |

A-01

A-01

cont

A-02
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-60 December 2002 |

| materials they are constructed of, what environments they’re in and what the aging

| management program will be to manage or monitor their aging. The NRC taff is in the process

| now of determining whether or not what Duke proposes to do is adequate.

|

| You also mentioned fatigue. Fatigue is one of the time-limited aging analyses that I talked

| about during my presentation. And it’s really an analysis for the original plant life that’s revisited

| and re-approved for an additional 20 or however many years the extended period of operation

| will be. So that’s how they address the fatigue of certain components.

|

| Does that answer your question? 

|

| MR. CAMERON: And Rani, I take it that you’re – well go back to you in a minute, sir. I take it

| that what you’re saying is that there are various monitoring programs that Duke is proposing

| and that we’re reviewing to deal with aging and fatigue.

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: That’s correct. The program that they designate for monitoring or

| managing the effects of aging of different components really depends on what material it is –

| what the material of the component is and what the environment is. But the application has all

| of that information on what they propose to do and the staff is still in the process of evaluating

| the acceptability of what the applicant proposes.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Do you have a follow up on that, sir?

|

| MR. JENETTA: In regards to the follow up, and evaluating the components and the material

| and construction as the years go by, there needs to be public mandate in regards to Duke

| advocating if there’s a weakness of the years in certain structures. And NRC should maybe

| require more monitoring aspect or re-evaluating if there needs to be reconstruction of the Units

| 1 or 2. 

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: Okay.

|

| MR. JENETTA: That’s an ongoing thing as the units continue. Re-evaluation should be an

| ongoing scope of the –

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: The staff agrees with you – the staff agrees with you and, in fact, what

| we’ve built into the guidance documents that we’ve written for how applicants prepare their

| applications, involves an element called corrective action and that gets to exactly what you’re

| talking about. If there is an identified deficiency, degradation, aging, failure, then Duke is

| required to address it, take corrective action and make it safe again. So you’re absolutely right

| and our guidance documents address that and so does the application that Duke gave us. 

A-03

A-03

cont
Appendix A

December 2002 A-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

They talk about their corrective action element for each and every aging management program |

that they propose for monitoring and managing aging. So we agree with you. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you for that comment, sir, and thank you, Rani. |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Sure. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Other questions on either severe accident mitigation alternatives or other |

issues at this point? |

|

(No response.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Bob. |

|

[Presentation, Mr. Wilson] |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you very much, Jim. |

|

This is the part of the meeting where we ask members of the public to give us comments. And |

before we go to those comments, I’d like to ask Gary Peterson from Duke Energy – he’s the |

vice president at Catawba Nuclear Station, to just give us a little bit of background on the |

rationale for the license renewal application and whatever else that you’d like to share with us. |

Gary Peterson. |

|

MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Chip. |

|

I’d like to thank all the members of the public and the community who have taken the time out |

of their busy schedule today to come to this hearing. |

|

On behalf of Duke Power and the co-owners of Catawba Nuclear Station, I’d like to thank our |

employees and the license renewal team for their continuous dedication and steadfast |

commitment to making Catawba successful over the past 17 years of operation. They have |

truly made this station worthy of license renewal. |

|

We also would like to recognize the NRC staff for their hard work that they have developed and |

implemented a very thorough, effective and efficient license renewal process accompanying |

extensive environmental and technical reviews that you’ve heard here today. |

|

B-01
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-62 December 2002 |

| After reviewing the Catawba draft environmental impact statement, the completeness of their

| efforts is very evident. And based on our initial review, Duke Power agrees with the

| conclusions of the report.. Our technical staff is reviewing the report in detail and we will

| provide any written comments by the August 9 deadline.

|

| Finally, and most important, we want to thank our community for its support of our operations. 

| We work extremely hard to be a good neighbor and a responsible corporate citizen. The

| confidence our neighbors have demonstrated in our ability as nuclear professionals is well-

| founded.

|

| I can assure you that the safe operation of Catawba Nuclear Station is and always will be our

| top priority here in the community. We appreciate the opportunity to work through this license

| renewal process as it continues. We are extremely proud of our facility, our employees, our

| station and our operations. We look forward to the possibility of serving the community and our

| customers for the many years to come.

|

| Thank you.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Gary.

|

| Next we’re going to go to Mr. Ed Fitzgerald from the Sierra Club. Ed, would you like to share

| your thoughts with us? Thank you.

|

| MR. FITZGERALD: My name is Ed Fitzgerald and I’m the Chair of the South Carolina Sierra

| Club, and Chip, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the group again.

|

| I spoke at the October 23 scoping process and most of our thoughts are part of the public

| record. But I wanted to reiterate once again our concern that the projected operating life before

| decommissioning of the plant extends out to 2044. We question that strategy, but with the

| proposed introduction of MOX fuel, which throws some more questions into the equation about

| the longevity of the plant, we again are concerned about that issue which lies out in front of us.

|

| Our major concern from the Sierra Club is again the introduction of MOX fuel, which has only

| been briefly mentioned here this afternoon, which will be – as planned by the operators, at least

| that’s what they’ve said, to become a major component of the fuel source. It is our belief and

| the belief of others who have studied that that the introduction of MOX fuel puts additional

| stresses and corrosive activities in the plant which would again question the likelihood of that

| plant being an integral part of alternatives process out to an additional 20 years.

|

| The Sierra Club passed a resolution on this issue in October 2001, opposing the shipment in

| plutonium weapons-grade nuclear material from various places, including Rocky Flats,

C-01

B-02

C-02

C-03
Appendix A

December 2002 A-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Colorado into the Savannah River Site for the ultimate conversion into MOX fuel. If you watch |

the press and watch the national coverage of this, our Governor Hodges opposed that. He was |

unsuccessful at this point blocking the shipments by the Department of Energy. It’s going to |

going to go into court but it’s doubtful at this point whether the Governor is going to be able to |

contain the shipments to Savannah River, which should start shortly. |

|

We have actively supported to Governor in his stance on barring nuclear plutonium into South |

Carolina without a clear exit strategy, but at this point, we believe that issue is over with. |

|

Our position remains unchanged, I don’t want to bore you with all the information that’s already |

in the record, but once again, we believe that the application for the license under scoping |

review – this issue today is the same as the scoping issue – that the Catawba Nuclear Station |

will ultimately use MOX as part of the fuel component, that the South Carolina Sierra Club views |

this application process today as seriously flawed because the real issue in front of us is really |

what’s going to happen down the road when they discuss introducing MOX. And all the |

statistics and all the information we heard today relates to conventional fuel, not to MOX. And |

that the Duke Energy withdraw its application and proceed to request the NRC for the license to |

use the introduction of MOX and then we’ll take the new information and we’ll object to that as |

well. |

|

So once again, thank you very much, Chip. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you for giving us the views of South Carolina Sierra Club on that issue |

– on these issues. |

|

Is there anybody else who desires to make a comment to us this afternoon? |

|

(No response.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, we are going to be back for a 7:00 meeting tonight and a 6:00 open |

house for informal discussion. And in that vein, I would just ask the NRC staff, some of our |

expert consultants, to just make sure that they informally talk with any of the people here today |

who might have further questions, either on safety issues, on MOX implications, whatever. |

Make sure that we get the information that they might want out to them. |

|

And with that, I would just thank you for being here this afternoon and we’re adjourned until |

open house at 6:00. Thank you. |

|

(Whereupon, the afternoon session was concluded at 2:41 p.m.) |

|

|

C-04
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-64 December 2002 |

| Transcript of the Evening Public Meeting on June 27, 2002, Rock Hill, South Carolina

|

| [Introduction, Mr. Cameron]

| [Presentation, Ms. Franovich]

|

| MS. OLSON: May Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service. I haven’t had a chance

| to stay up on things and so this is an honest question on my part.

|

| How many hearings besides the Duke hearing have been granted across the fleet of license

| renewals so far?

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: I’m going to answer that question and let somebody correct me if I’m wrong,

| but I believe that Duke is the first license renewal application for which petitions have been

| granted a hearing.

|

| MS. OLSON: And I personally am aware of at least six attempts to get hearings. Do you know

| if there have been any others over that number?

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: I do not, but I’m not sure if I’m prepared to answer that – I don’t have a

| means of really knowing, off the top of my head.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Jared, do you have any information on this? This is Jared Heck from our

| Office of General Counsel.

|

| MR. HECK: I can’t answer to night how many have been filed and I’m not familiar with how

| many have been granted or denied to this point, but if you would like afterwards, you know, you

| can give me your information and I can get those numbers for you.

|

| MS. OLSON: Thank you.

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: Do you want us to get back to you on that, Mary?

|

| MS. OLSON: Yes.

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: Okay.

|

| MR. CAMERON: I think we know informally that there was a petition on Calvert Cliffs, on

| Oconee, on Turkey Point, and on McGuire – is that right?

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: That’s the same project.

|

D-01

D-02
Appendix A

December 2002 A-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MR. CAMERON: So it’s considered the same – |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Same application. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. But anyway, we’ll get together and clarify that for you. |

|

Any other questions? We know that some of this information you know very well, but in terms |

of updates or whatever. Peter, just give us your full name. |

|

MR. SIPP: My full name is Peter, my middle name is Fox and my last name is Sipp, S-i-p-p. |

|

Ms. Franovich, I want to ask you, would you read the beginning of the statement about – when |

you first started off, you talked about the statement from – I’m not remembering exactly, but at |

the beginning when you read the statement about what the NRC is about. |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Our mission? |

|

MR. SIPP: Yeah. |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: You want me to re-read that? |

|

MR. SIPP: Yeah, if you would. And when you get to a certain point, I want to ask you to stop – |

that’s why I’m asking you to read it. |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. The mission is three-fold – to ensure adequate protection of public |

health and safety, to protect the environment – |

|

MR. SIPP: That’s the point I want to mention to you. I didn’t really get this word until I left |

home and started doing my laundry and I read the box and it said this doesn’t contain |

phosphorus, so it won’t spoil our lakes and streams. Ah-ha. So I started to really see that word |

and when you say right there, “the environment,” when the word “the” used, it implies |

separation, but when we say “our,” ah-ha, it means I’ve got to have it to live, and that’s true, we |

can’t live very long without clean air and without clean water. And I wondered if you considered |

changing or going through the process, I don’t know how long it would take, but if you would |

consider changing that. It takes the same amount of space in the sentence, take the “the” out |

of there and put “o-u-r” in its place. |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Sure. |

|

MR. SIPP: Okay, thank you. |

|

E-01
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-66 December 2002 |

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Peter. 

|

| Gregg, did you have a question?

|

| MR. JOCOY: I’m Gregg Jocoy, that’s G-r-e-g-g J-o-c-o-y.

|

| I am about as ignorant about most of these matters as one can possibly be. I hear Mary say

| I’m not quite sure about something and I’m like, I’m totally not sure about most things. But you

| did mention a couple of things that I wanted to ask you about.

|

| First of all, when Pete asked you about the mission statement, it’s my understanding – and

| correct me if I’m wrong – that the part of the challenge that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

| faces is that you have the responsibility both to regulate and promote nuclear energy. Is that

| no longer the case?

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: No, it is not.

|

| MR. JOCOY: Was it not the case at one time?

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: At one time – P.T. can correct me if I’m wrong – but the Department of

| Energy had a role to promote and regulate and I think the NRC was established to separate

| those functions. So the NRC’s sole role is to regulate the industry and make sure that nuclear

| materials are used safely.

|

| MR. CAMERON: And we can’t emphasize that enough. We only have regulatory

| responsibilities by statute. We do not have any promotional – and I just want to make sure

| everybody understands that.

|

| MR. JOCOY: And I didn’t. I’m glad you cleared that up.

|

| The other thing that I wanted to mention was you indicate that Duke has been – has come

| forward with this application now, even though they’re not even halfway through their current

| 40-year license, because they need ample opportunity to prepare for an application if they’re

| going to put a new nuclear power plant on line to replace one that’s decommissioned after the

| year 2024 or 2026.

|

| That 10-year window is really irrelevant at this point. It takes two years to go from the thought,

| why don’t I believe a gas power plant in my backyard, to having it back there generating

| electricity. So the fact that there’s a 10-year window for the process of building a nuclear power

F-01

F-01

cont

F-02
Appendix A

December 2002 A-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

plant does not impact the supply of electricity, because you can go, as I say, from thought to |

producing electricity in two years. Do you guys have an opportunity to evaluate those kinds of |

questions in the process of – |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: The kinds of questions about how quickly would it take to build replacement |

generating capacity? |

|

MR. JOCOY: Alternative sources, right – not nuclear sources. |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Jim, is that part of the environmental review? |

|

MR. CAMERON: Yes, Jim is – |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: I think he’s going to talk about that in his–- don’t steal Jim’s thunder. |

(Laughter.) |

|

MR. WILSON: I think in the environmental review, we look at alternatives to replacing the |

baseload generating capacity. I don’t think we look at time scales or how long it takes to |

implement them or how much time is required to plan. We just evaluate what alternatives could |

be used on the same economic scale. I think there are technologies that are not mature yet |

and we discount them. |

|

But if you look in Section 8 of our draft environmental impact statement, you can see the |

alternatives that we did consider for this license renewal application. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Let’s go back and revisit that when Mary Ann Parkhurst talks to us, because |

we do that. But I want to clear up one perhaps misimpression that Rani’s statement about the |

time needed to plan for replacement power wasn’t the time needed to provide replacement |

power necessarily by a nuclear energy source, but for any energy source. In other words, if a |

license isn’t renewed, then there needs to be a long lead time to figure out how are you going to |

deal with that energy need by whatever way you do it. |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Exactly. |

|

MR. JOCOY: Which is exactly my point, Chip. Today, we’ve gotten to the point to where that |

lead time is two years. So the rush to do this before they’re even halfway through their current |

license is no longer valid. If part of what you’re concerned about is we’re going to need a long |

lead time for nuclear stuff, there are alternatives to nuclear that can be done in two years, we |

can have generating capacity right away. |

|

F-02

cont

F-02

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-68 December 2002 |

| MR. CAMERON: Okay. And I just want to emphasize that even though we’re doing questions

| now, comments that flow from those questions are fine and we will consider those as

| comments. In other words, it’s not just during that second part of the meeting. So we heard

| that comment.

|

| And Gregg, did you have another part? 

|

| MR. JOCOY: No.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Sherry, did you have anything that you wanted to ask?

|

| MS. LORENZ: I’ll have later comments, yes.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Later, all right. 

|

| And let’s go to Mary for another question to Rani. Mary.

|

| MS. OLSON: This is one of those areas where I understand we’re speaking about your

| employer, but I still have a question about it.

|

| As you mentioned, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted a contention for

| consideration on the mixed oxide fuel issue and, forgive me that I was a little bit distracted and I

| don’t remember whether you stated that Duke appealed that decision by the Atomic Safety and

| Licensing Board and the Commission upheld the Duke appeal and that that’s no longer a

| current contention before the hearing process.

|

| So my question is what the precedent or regulatory basis since they are regulators, not

| promoters, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has used in order to make that decision to

| override the ASLB.

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: And I’m going to defer to my legal counsel to answer that question, but I

| believe it’s in Part II. Jared, if you can field that one.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Yeah, Jared, are you ready for that one?

|

| MR. HECK: Yes.

|

| MR. CAMERON: All right.

|

D-03
Appendix A

December 2002 A-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MR. HECK: There are provisions in Part II for appealing decisions of the Licensing Board to the |

Commission, any party may do that under certain circumstances. And that’s the process that |

Duke used for their appeal. |

|

The Commission’s decision, as I recall, was based on standards in Part 54 which limit |

consideration of issues in license renewal to issues related to aging of certain components and |

structures. The Commission determined that MOX fuel use was outside the scope of license |

renewal. |

|

And if you would like, afterwards, I can refer you to the Commission’s decision and we can get |

together and I can give you a copy – point you to a copy of that. |

|

MS. OLSON: The question is whether or not there’s any sort of precedent. I mean, to some |

degree, one could say that rewriting Part 70 should have triggered a programmatic EIS. |

|

MR. CAMERON: But when you say precedent, I think that Jared needs to understand whether |

you mean precedent for the procedural mechanism that allowed the Commission to consider |

that, or whether you’re talking about precedent in terms of ruling on whether the use of MOX |

was relevant to the license renewal proceeding. Which one are you talking about? |

|

MS. OLSON: You succinctly stated it in (b), whether the use of MOX is relevant to the aging |

issues, which was the bone of our contention. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, Jared. |

|

MR. HECK: To my knowledge, this is the first time that question has been squarely addressed |

by the Commission, so there’s no prior decision where that was addressed. |

|

The authority for the decision drawn upon by the Commission comes from a rule in Part 54. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Jared. Jared obviously is with our Office of General Counsel, if |

we didn’t say that before. |

|

Are we ready to go to the environmental process? |

|

(No response.) |

|

[Presentation, Mr. Wilson] |

|

D-03

cont

D-04
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-70 December 2002 |

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, and while I’m going over to Mary... Jim, the requests for additional

| information, you did mention it but I take it that those were requests to the license renewal

| applicant, is that correct?

|

| MR. WILSON: Yes, they were requests from the staff to Duke to get information on the docket

| that we would need to include in our environmental impact statement that had not been

| provided in their initial application. We issued an RAI on SAMA and we issued an RAI on the

| rest of the environmental review.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks. Mary.

|

| MS. OLSON: This is a process question really. Again, I’m behind, I admit it. Capacity issues

| are catching up with us.

|

| I saw something in my incoming mail recently about a meeting that wouldn’t constitute formal

| public participation but which I believe will be open to the public when NRC is going to be

| meeting with Duke in Charlotte. Could you please share with us present about that meeting, if

| anybody in the room knows about it?

|

| MR. WILSON: I’m not resonating to your reference. Can you give me –

|

| MR. CAMERON: Let’s fine out if this is on the safety – it may be on the safety side rather than

| the environmental side. Rani.

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: There is to be an NRC inspection at the Catawba plant, at the McGuire

| plant.

|

| MS. OLSON: It’s at headquarters at Duke in July and it’s on renewal. So if you don’t know

| about it, maybe I imagined it. But could somebody get back to me?

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: Well, I’ll tell you what, if you want to give me a call Monday, if you can find

| what you may have seen, we’ll figure it out.

|

| MS. OLSON: I’ll find it in the next few minutes, I take it’s in my backpack.

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: Okay, yeah, let me know.

|

| MR. CAMERON: All right. Other questions for Jim, environmental review process, before we

| go to the draft EIS itself?

| (No response.)

|

D-05

D-05

cont
Appendix A

December 2002 A-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Jim. |

|

And we basically have two followup items here. One is the item on the – sort of the history of |

adjudicatory activity on license renewal applications and the second is what this meeting may |

have been in regard to license renewal. Okay? |

|

MS. OLSON: I know it’s not formal public participation, it’s an opportunity, however, for the |

public to attend. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Sure, sure, we understand that and we’ll find out. |

|

Mary Ann, would you like to come up and tell us about the draft environmental impact |

statement? Then we’ll go back out to you for questions. |

|

[Presentation, Ms. Parkhurst] |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, let’s go to Gregg, and Gregg, you had a question related to this last |

part before, but go ahead. |

|

MR. JOCOY: Forgive me if it sounds like this is a done deal to me, but it sounds like it’s a done |

deal. You guys have decided this is hunky-dory. |

|

Am I misunderstanding? Everything you’ve just said says we’ve decided this thing is cool. |

|

MS. PARKHURST: We made a very serious evaluation of the issues and we did not – |

|

MR. JOCOY: Oh, I’m not questioning that, I’m just saying that you are telling us that as far as |

the staff of the NRC is concerned, there are no environmental problems with relicensure. |

|

MS. PARKHURST: That there is not sufficient – Jim, what is the exact quote on that? |

|

MR. WILSON: You’re right, we concluded that the impacts of license renewal at Catawba were |

acceptable from an environmental standpoint. |

|

MR. CAMERON: But I guess let me just make sure everybody understands that this is a draft |

environmental impact statement. Secondly, there is another piece, safety review, that has to be |

done. The third piece, inspection findings, and finally, don’t under-estimate the fact that there is |

an adjudicatory hearing going on where people have raised contentions. So I don’t think you |

could say it’s a done deal, but I mean everybody can have their own opinion on that, of course. |

|

F-03

F-03

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-72 December 2002 |

| MR. JOCOY: Well, actually, I want to thank you, Chip, because I don’t mean to imply undue

| criticism in saying that. I just want to make sure that we were clear that the NRC staff feels that

| there is no – that the options of not relicensing are worse than the option of relicensing. You

| guys have made that basic decision, is the way I understand what you’re saying.

|

| I wanted to ask three real quicky questions. What is the baseload capacity of the Catawba

| reactors?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: Megawatts thermal or electric?

|

| MR. JOCOY: Electric.

|

| MS. PARKHURST: Electric?

|

| MR. JOCOY: How much electricity do they produce?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: I think it’s 1129 megawatts electric and 3411 megawatts thermal.

|

| MR. JOCOY: Well, the thermal just gets dumped into the lake, doesn’t it?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: There’s a cooling tower.

|

| MR. JOCOY: Well, I mean it doesn’t do anything for me – it doesn’t turn on a light bulb for me

| or anyone.

|

| MS. PARKHURST: 1121 megawatts electric.

|

| MR. JOCOY: Okay. The power plant they’re proposing for Fort Mill is 980 megawatts. 

|

| Anyway, I gather from what you said that this monitoring is self-monitoring done by Duke, is

| that right? In the radiological impact section that you were doing?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: There’s quite a process on what they have to supply and so on, and there

| are state measurements made as well. It’s not just Duke, but Duke does its own self-

| monitoring and there are outside sources that also monitor this. 

|

| MR. JOCOY: Okay, do they do that under contract to Duke?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: No.

|

| MR. JOCOY: Do they do that under contract to the NRC?

F-05

F-04

F-03

cont

F-04

cont

F-04

cont

F-04

cont
Appendix A

December 2002 A-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MS. PARKHURST: No, the state regulators. |

|

MR. JOCOY: Oh, oh, oh, like DHEC in South Carolina. |

|

MS. PARKHURST: Yes. |

|

MR. JOCOY: All right, last question. what about the spider lily? I understood what you said |

about one of these endangered species – thank you so much, that’s a pretty picture – I think it |

was the little flower thing, the little plant there, you said is like not in Lake Wiley, it’s in |

tributaries further down, but it could potentially be in Lake Wiley if it were brought in, something |

like that? |

|

The mussel, that’s the one, yeah. Is the same not true for the spider lily? Could it not be |

brought from Lansford Canal State Park and, you know – since it’s in tough straits, is that not a |

consideration too? |

|

MR. CAMERON: Let’s see if Tina wants to explain the differentiation between that. Tina, give |

your full name and all that. |

|

MS. CARLSON: Hi, I’m Tina Carlson, I’m an ecologist with Lawrence Livermore National |

Laboratory. I worked with the terrestrial ecologist, Ted Doerr, from Los Alamos, who did this |

analysis. Now the spider lily does not occur, you know, on the transmission lines or at Lake |

Wiley, but they were identified as some potential habitat that could. The spider lily is a species |

of concern, it’s not a listed species. But it hasn’t been identified at the site. But with their |

ongoing monitoring programs and their work with the transmission lines, it’s on their list to |

watch for. |

|

So genetic material does move around with plants and so it is something you do have to keep |

in mind, but at least at this point, it hasn’t been identified there. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Tina. Any other questions on this part? Let’s go over to |

Mary. |

|

MS. OLSON: Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service. |

|

I’d like to ask you a series of simple questions. They’re not intended to be trick questions, but I |

really want this on our transcript. |

|

What type of fuel does Catawba use right now, 1 and 2, Catawba 1 and 2? |

|

MS. PARKHURST: You mean uranium? |

D-06

F-06
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-74 December 2002 |

| MS. OLSON: Uranium – fuel, thank you. And what is the requirement for a reactor to qualify

| for Category 1 consideration, particularly in radiological and off-site radiological analysis?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: What was the first part of that analysis? 

|

| MS. OLSON: There’s a qualifying condition in order for Category 1 issues to apply to a nuclear

| reactor, there’s an exclusionary clause in the GEIS. 

|

| MS. PARKHURST: I’m sure I have been through it. Right off the top of my head, I’m not sure I

| remember, but is there somebody else that can –

|

| MR. CAMERON: Let me borrow that back from you, Mary. I think Mary is talking about what’s

| the standard for opening up a Category 1 issue to apply to a specific plant. You’re talking about

| the new and significant information standard?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: Actually in the document, there’s a number of times we go through what

| causes, what allows something to be considered Category 1 or Category 2. I would have to

| refer to it and read it out here, but let’s see – we’ve got small significance – 

|

| MR. CAMERON: We’re hoping we’re answering the right question.

|

| MS. OLSON: I’ll be quite patient and –

|

| MS. PARKHURST: Like I say, I know it’s in here several times and I think that I’ve got it right

| here but –

|

| MS. OLSON: I’ll tell you what it is and then maybe you could tell me that I’m right or you could

| get back to me somehow.

|

| MS. PARKHURST: Sure.

|

| MS. OLSON: For radiological impacts and off-site radiological impacts particularly, GEIS says

| that they only apply to light water reactors using low enriched uranium fuel.

|

| MS. PARKHURST: Right, okay.

|

| MS. OLSON: Categorically.

|

| MS. PARKHURST: That’s what we’re dealing with.

|

D-06

cont

D-06

cont

D-06

cont

D-06

cont
Appendix A

December 2002 A-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MS. OLSON: So you don’t disagree with me on that point. So I’ll reserve the rest of what I |

have to say about that for my comments because I don’t want to ask you to make comments in |

an area that’s been put off the table by the Commission. |

|

But finally, I do want to ask you, when it comes to radiological impacts, the Commission |

chooses to regulate in terms of millirems and I’d like you to tell me how I know how many |

millirems I got today. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Health physicist question. Mary Ann? |

|

MS. PARKHURST: How much you got today, if you had a device on you – if you were working |

in a nuclear facility and were expected to be receiving some radiation as a result of that–- |

exposure as a result of that work, then you would be wearing a dosimeter which can detect the |

radiation there. |

|

As far as what you receive in a day as a person in the public, you’re receiving radiation from |

cosmic and solar radiation, you’re receiving it from the radon from uranium in the soils that are |

naturally here, from the bricks in your home if you have them, granite and so on – |

|

MS. OLSON: Beyond that. |

|

MS. PARKHURST: Okay, beyond that. There’s – I suppose if a person wanted to know how |

much they got in a day, they could pay one of the manufacturers – one of the services that |

makes thermo-luminescent dosimeters and you could probably find a way to purchase and |

wear this as know actually how much you’re getting. As far as the facilities like in a nuclear |

plant, we know how much it is at the boundaries. These things are measured, so we know how |

much would be at that point, but I don’t know that that’s your question. |

|

VOICE: You may want to talk about how we estimate also. |

|

MR. KUGLER: I would just going to say the licensees are also required to estimate the dose to |

the maximally exposed individual based on releases from the plant, and any member of the |

public would be expected to receive less than that because they make some very conservative |

assumptions when they do that calculation. |

|

So we may not be able to tell you exactly what you got, but we can tell you that it’s no more |

than that amount. And that’s in their annual reports and we talk about it in the environmental |

impact statement, I think in 2-27? |

|

MS. PARKHURST: 2-27 and -41... |

|

D-07
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-76 December 2002 |

| MR. KUGLER: So there is information on that in the environmental impact statement. Is that

| what you were asking?

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay.

|

| MS. OLSON: So it’s fair to say, however, that averages are used and models are used and that

| we don’t really know when it comes to the general public, how much we each get.

|

| And finally, is that maximally exposed individual an infant or an adult?

|

| MR. CAMERON: I take it’s important that we answer this question so that people clearly

| understand what the situation is, and I don’t know who wants to do it. Why don’t you start and

| Mary Ann might complete.

|

| MR. KUGLER: I’m Andy Kugler, for the record, NRC.

|

| The reason we use the term “maximally exposed individual” is it’s a person – using some very

| conservative assumptions, it would be the maximum dose that somebody could get. It’s not an

| average. And that’s what I’m saying, that the actual dose to any individual would be lower than

| that. And what they try and do is they assume, you know, somebody stays in the worse place

| they could possibly stay, all the time, and therefore, they get a maximum exposure. And

| realistically, nobody would do that or could do that.

|

| So it’s a conservative number that, you know, estimates the dose higher than what any

| individual would actually receive, and therefore it’s basically a bounding sort of calculation.

|

| So the actual dose that any person will have received from the plant will be some number lower

| than that. So, you know, once you look at that number, you know, you’re somewhere below

| that. How far below that is hard to say.

|

| MS. OLSON: Adult?

|

| MR. KUGLER: That I’m not entirely sure about. Do you know?

|

| MS. PARKHURST: They do a lot of modeling of adult and infant because certainly the infants

| are more critical. However, what they’re looking at is what is the exposure level here and then

| they convert it to dose. And so they understand again what the maximum could be to anybody

| at the fence line of the facility.

|

| As far as annual doses, people in the U.S. get something along the lines of an average of

| 300 millirem a year. This is through, again, the solar, the cosmic, the indoor radon. Actually

D-07

cont
Appendix A

December 2002 A-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

radon is a pretty strong component of that, but we have a pretty good feel for what the variation |

is. And from nuclear plants, the numbers that you’re looking at on these lines, it’s so low – and |

you look at Page 2-26 in the document, it kind of goes through what’s from the gaseous, the |

liquid and critical organ doses and so on from the releases from the plants as a result of that. |

So that might be a place to look at it. But again, it’s about 300 millirem is considered average in |

this country. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, let’s go to this gentleman back here. Hi. Just tell us again who you |

are. |

|

MR. JENETTA: Tony Jenetta. In regards to the dosimeter readings of the individual receiving |

it away from the plant, who in addition would have authority to measure that within the county? |

Would the York County Emergency Preparedness agency have a role in that? |

|

MS. PARKHURST: Have authority or be able to help you get access to dosimetry? |

|

MR. JENETTA: Would there automatically be a procedure to measure this in addition to Duke |

measuring it on their own perimeter. Would Duke measure it beyond their perimeter or is there |

another agency that will constantly monitor to dosage for the individual citizen? |

|

MS. PARKHURST: Again, there are state agencies that – Ms. Mr. Gandy – okay, unfortunately |

– we had probably just the person to respond to that one, who is the state radiation protection |

officer from that organization, but yes, they do their own monitoring and they require Duke to do |

monitoring of the facility as well. So there’s a cross check of some of these off-site, in |

particular, types of facilities. And the state will look into like the milk – well, dairy products and |

fish and so on. So these things are again monitored by the state as well. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, let’s go to the severe accidents, which I think there’ll be some interest |

in. But thank you very much, Mary Ann. |

|

Bob Palla, are you ready? |

|

[Presentation, Mr. Palla] |

|

MR. CAMERON: Questions for Bob on severe accidents. Mary. |

|

MS. OLSON: First, I take my hat off to NRC staff for getting out a fine comb on this. |

|

My question though is there’s a recent release – I haven’t actually read the report yet, but from |

the National Academy of Sciences on the issue of the vulnerability of the electric grid to terrorist |

G-01

cont

G-01
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-78 December 2002 |

| attack. And I know we’re getting into safeguard issues here, so let me talk for a moment into a

| question that might or might not be answerable.

|

| We were really worried about Y2K and we were really thrilled that the National Electric

| Reliability Council was right and the grid did not go down. And we certainly don’t want to see

| the grid go down now. At the same time, when and at what point will these cost/benefit

| analyses begin to be impacted by new information like the National Academy of Science’s

| report saying that the grid is highly vulnerable to attack and at what point does, you know,

| something like the dedicated line become cost effective?

|

| MR. PALLA: Well, okay, this study was done today without any consideration of these potential

| events. The numbers that we generate for purposes of the cost/benefit comparison obviously

| don’t include that. I’m not sure if you – you know, just how much the data would change as a

| result of that.

|

| But this is, I think, a fair consideration when one looks at the merits of making these kinds of

| improvements for these kinds of containments.

|

| So I don’t have a good answer to your question about to what level would this change –

|

| MS. OLSON: No one has a good answer to questions about what ifs, but I’m putting it on the

| table because I take it’s real important and I also think that – I mean it’s not very often I go out

| of my way to try and help a nuclear utility, okay? But my other question I’d give you is can you

| reflect on when these cost/benefit analyses are done? You know, you balancing against

| potential fatalities, well, what’s the number? What’s the cost of a death?

|

| MR. PALLA: That’s a different question, but if you wanted to know how close are we to making

| a decision whether or not to do something, as documented in the environmental impact

| supplement for Catawba, this improvement appears to be cost beneficial just taking the case

| where igniters alone need to be supplied. That looks to be cost beneficial. And it also looks

| very close to being cost beneficial to supply both the igniters and the air return fans. This is

| separate from even considering these additional events that you’re referring to. So you may not

| even have to go further than we’ve done already, to justify doing the improvement.

|

| MS. OLSON: Glad to hear it.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Not to belabor this, but I think that Mary’s question, the heart of it goes to

| what’s the equation that we use – it may not be in loss of life or cancers or whatever. What

| equation do we use under the regulatory analysis guidelines?

|

D-08

D-09
Appendix A

December 2002 A-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MR. PALLA: We use the regulatory analysis guidelines. Now within the guidelines, values are |

assigned to person-rem, and certain numbers of person-rem are needed to result in a loss of |

life. And values for a loss of life are assigned within the methodology. So there is a |

conversion. It’s all implicit within the formula, so – |

|

MR. CAMERON: Could we give Mary – I don’t know if you need a citation or anybody needs a |

citation to the regulatory analysis guidelines. |

|

MR. PALLA: The regulatory analysis guidelines is NUREG/ BR-0184. |

|

MR. CAMERON: NUREG/BR-0184. |

|

MS. OLSON: Thank you. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Great. Any other questions before we go to Jim and the overall conclusion, |

again, draft environmental impact statement overall conclusion. |

Yes, Gregg. |

|

MR. JOCOY: Yeah, thank you very much. |

|

Tell me something – you folks went in, if I understand the process you went through correctly, |

you went in and said let’s screw up here, and if it’s something that we can screw up that we can |

identify, how much would it cost to keep it from screwing up and then is it worth paying that |

cost? |

|

MR. PALLA: Yeah, that’s basically it. |

|

MR. JOCOY: That being the case, since this power plant has been in operation for some |

period of time, how is it that you just now came to the conclusion that hydrogen control and |

installation of water tight wall being further evaluated as a current operating license issue was |

something that should be addressed? Didn’t this kind of work go on before? Didn’t someone |

throw up a red flag somewhere down the line and say, you know what, there’s one of these |

generators out here that doesn’t even have a water-tight wall around it? I mean, can you see |

how that creates some skepticism? |

|

MR. PALLA: Yeah, well, my explanation of that would be that the type of information that we |

used to reach these kinds of conclusions may have been there before. For example, Duke had |

identified previously that a water-tight wall could reduce the impacts of some of these internal |

flooding events. But they did not put this through a systematic cost/benefit analysis and even if |

they did, some of the basic assumptions that we make in the regulatory analysis guidelines are |

not the same assumptions that a licensee or utility might make. |

F-07

cont

F-07
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-80 December 2002 |

| So we basically ran this through the NRC set of assumptions, which give additional – it

| considers additional factors that a utility may not tend to look at because they may only look at

| certain economic factors and we bring in some additional factors, like replacement power costs,

| for example. When you put some of these other factors in, this frequently makes the difference

| between the improvement being cost beneficial or not beneficial. But the example of a water-

| tight wall, this was actually something that Duke had looked at before and didn’t make that

| decision to install it.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Bob, maybe we’ve left the impression too that this SAMA evaluation is only

| something that occurs in license renewal. But don’t we have a program outside of license

| renewal?

|

| MR. PALLA: Okay, well, there’s another – well, historically, looking back, there was a program

| where every plant was required to do an individual plant examination, which is essentially a

| PRA, Level 1 and 2 PRA. It doesn’t go to calculating off-site consequences, but it looks at

| basically ways that you could lead – accidents could lead to core damage and ways that

| releases could occur from containments. These are typically called Level 1 and Level 2 PRA. 

| We call this the IPE. The IPE was done I guess in the late ‘80s, early 1990s. Many

| improvements were identified and implemented as a result of that, and this was separate from

| renewal.

|

| And our assessment here basically started from that point and took – we took insights from

| some of these IPEs and subjected them – you know, a licensee when they looked at potential

| improvements, put some of the potential improvements identified in the IPE into this process

| here. so it’s not like this is the first time we’ve seen these, but it is really the first time that we’ve

| systematically crunched them through this regulatory analysis process, these guidelines.

|

| Okay, let’s have a final word from Rani on this and then let’s go to Jim. Rani.

|

| MS. FRANOVICH: I just think it might be important to clarify that even without these

| improvements to risk, they’re meeting all of the current requirements to operate even now. And

| what we’ve done is we’ve gone from a deterministic mode of regulating these plants to a risk-

| informed process. And that’s a fairly new – within the last four years or so – new way of

| regulating. So this is another way of improving safety at the plants by looking not so much at

| what they’re doing to meet the regulations, but what else can they do to make it even safer than

| it already is, by meeting current existing regulations.

|

| So I just wanted to clarify that a little bit too.

|

| [Presentation, Mr. Wilson]

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

MR. CAMERON: Before we go to questions, I don’t know if there are any, but Rani, can you tell |

us – Jim’s told us when the environmental review piece is going to be done. When is the safety |

review piece going to be done, so people know what to anticipate about when there might be a |

decision? |

|

MS. FRANOVICH: Right. Right now, we’re involved in some hearings. If the hearings |

progress through and go to fruition, we’re looking at a decision in December of ‘03, December |

of next year. |

|

So if the hearings do not proceed, then it’ll be sometime before, I’d say probably June next |

year. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Do we have questions on this last part before we go out to listen |

to some more from everyone here? |

|

(No response.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Just give us your name, please. |

|

MR. TROUTMAN: My name is Joe Troutman, I represent several of the owners at the Catawba |

Nuclear Station. I believe this would be for Mary Ann, and I probably should have asked it |

earlier but I didn’t really think about it. |

|

I recently had a nuclear stress test done in Rock Hill here at a doctor’s office. They injected |

several radioactive isotopes into my blood while I was exercising and took pictures with special |

equipment and so forth. But I work at the Catawba station, I don’t, as you might understand, |

deal with radiation, I don’t go inside the radioactive areas. However, I was talking to some of |

the folks that administer the people that do, and just in conversation it came up that I received |

the number of micro-curies that’s really almost equivalent to the number of curies that would be |

allowed to be released by the Catawba station in a year, they injected it into my body for this |

test. |

|

I was quite radioactive after this. I had to go by a monitor that they use at the plant for |

monitoring radioactivity, and I kind of thought it was going to jump off the wall and chase me |

down. |

|

But my question is would you be surprised to say that that would be accurate, that that number |

probably was fairly comparable to the limits that the Catawba station operates under? |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Joe. Mary Ann, can you talk to that for us? |

|

H-01

H-01

cont
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-82 December 2002 |

| MS. PARKHURST: I’m going to have to plead ignorance on that particular procedure. 

| However, one of the things about it is that it was a very short term exposure, the way they

| administer it, so that it’s not like it’s hanging around for a long time.

|

| But a lot of the exposures are much – the radiotherapies or radiodiagnostics, I didn’t mention as

| far as the average a person gets in a year. If you’ve got some of those medical treatments or

| therapies, the numbers can get very large.

|

| MR. CAMERON: And Rich, do you want to say anything more on that in terms of comparative

| aspects of a – obviously we don’t know what treatment Joe got, but in terms of –

|

| MR. TROUTMAN: It wasn’t really treatment, it was a test.

|

| MR. CAMERON: A test, I’m sorry.

|

| MR. EMCH: Hi, I’m Rich Emch, I’m environmental project manager with the Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission. 

|

| Most of my experience and knowledge is with reactors similar to what Mary Ann was saying, but

| I mean, I guess basically what you’ve said highlights the fact that the amount of radioactive

| material that’s released from Catawba in a year is a very small number, okay? and they do

| monitor what’s released in the liquid and gaseous pathways, and it is very small and it does

| provide to the maximum individual we were talking about earlier, a very small dose. And we’re

| happy that you’re still with us and I’m glad the test went well, or at least I hope it did. 

|

| MR. CAMERON: And we hope that the meeting doesn’t add to your stress levels.

|

| We’re going to start off public comment, more formal comment, by asking Duke Energy

| Corporation to just provide us with a little bit of information, their perspective on license

| renewal, and we have Greg Robison with us, who is the project manager for license renewal for

| Catawba. Is that correct, Greg? Please come up and talk to us and then we’re going to go to

| the rest of the people. 

|

| MR. ROBISON: Thank you, Chip. I’m Greg Robison, I am the project manager for license

| renewal for Catawba.

|

| What I’d like to do is just take a few minutes to thank some people and to recognize some

| people for some hard work. This evening, I’m speaking on behalf of both Duke and our co-

| owners at Catawba.

|
Appendix A

December 2002 A-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

I’d like to start by recognizing and thanking the foundation of the folks that really made this |

possible, and that’s our employees at Catawba. For over 17 years they’ve stayed focused and |

dedicated and I’m absolutely certain they’ll remain that way for the entire time we will be in |

license renewal. It is because of their foundation, because of their work, that we’re allowed to |

pursue renewal. And I’m happy to be associated with them. |

|

I in particular want to thank our environmental staff, who put together the environmental |

information that we did provide to the NRC and that the NRC has used to prepare their |

environmental impact statement. And also thank our staff for the support that they’ve given the |

staff and also the national labs in your site visits. |

|

The second group I’d like to recognize is the NRC themselves. The national labs and the NRC |

have put a lot of hard work into this report and as Rani Franovich pointed out, it’s the stable and |

predictable process that the NRC gave us that allowed us to feel comfortable going into license |

renewal and really spending our energies to put our materials together and have been able to |

work in a very predictable fashion questions and answers in a very stable manner with the NRC |

that has led to the report that you’re looking at tonight. |

|

And speaking of the report, we have taken a look at the draft environmental impact statement, |

and from our initial review from or specialists, we agree with the conclusions of the report. As |

Bob Palla had pointed out, there were some detailed discussions that we did have with the NRC |

staff and we are in the process now of doing detailed comments and we will provide those to |

the staff by August 9. |

|

The last group that I’d like to thank and recognize are our community and our neighbors. They |

have provided ongoing support for us and demonstrated their confidence in our ability as |

nuclear professionals. We interact with our neighbors often daily, we have our communications |

staff here with me tonight, who have continued to let me know of the number of times that |

they’ve worked with our neighbors and the strong support our neighbors have given us. |

|

As license renewal shows you, we will continue to stay focused on nuclear safety as our |

number one priority, and that’s because we want to continue to be a good neighbor here in the |

Rock Hill area and in the York County area. |

|

And with that, I thank you for your time. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you very much, Greg. |

|

We’re going to next go to Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service and then |

we’re going to go to Peter Sipp after Mary. Mary. |

|

I-01

I-02
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-84 December 2002 |

| MS. OLSON: Do we have a time limit tonight? I won’t be real long, but – I’m just trying to stay

| honest, Chip.

|

| MR. CAMERON: No, I know. Five to seven minutes, but, you know, take seven.

|

| MS. OLSON: My name is Mary Olson, I’m the Director of the Southeast Office of Nuclear

| Information and Resource Service. We’re a national organization based in Washington, D.C.

| and we represent approximately 1000 local grassroots activist groups across the country, that

| are primarily concerned with commercial nuclear power and its radioactive waste.

|

| I want to mention briefly that NIRS finds that with the passage of the generic environmental

| impact statement on license renewal that what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refers to as

| a stable and reliable – is that the words that were used – process – predictable and reliable

| process – stable and predictable? I’m mangling this, forgive me. Is largely because of the

| number of issues that the public is categorically excluded in bringing up in the process. And

| therefore, we have not prioritized it as an opportunity for our membership to be active. So I just

| want to note that the participation that you see in this room this afternoon and this evening is

| fully due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s outreach efforts. 

|

| Having said that, I want to step back and say I’m genuinely pleased and surprised by the results

| of this process in bringing up issues that I hear tonight the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

| staff is interested in pursuing, whether they are part of license renewal or not. That gives me,

| as a career professional in this field, some confidence and some renewed respect for the

| Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These issues are that of hydrogen in ice condensers,

| hydrogen ignition, whether they should have backup power and whether the mixing of hydrogen

| and other gases in the atmosphere by fans and the backup power in the event of station

| blackout.

|

| I am putting this down because the history is that well intentioned NRC staff are not always

| backed by their organization. And I sincerely hope that that the will not be the case and that we

| will see new regulatory basis for increasing the security and safety and health of the people of

| this area, because I believe they are at elevated risk due to the potential for ice condenser

| failure because of hydrogen.

|

| Now, having said that, I want to say a few other things. When I look in the mirror, my necklace

| reminds me of baby teeth – it’s not, I have no children, but they’re freshwater pearls. And you

| know, baby teeth reminds me of the strontium 90 that’s building up in the teeth of children in

| this area most likely. The tooth fairy project undertaken by Jay Gould and others has shown

| that children who live down wind of nuclear reactors in the United States do in fact have more

| strontium 90 than children who live in other areas, even though atmospheric bomb testing is

| over.

D-10

D-11

D-13

D-12

cont

D-12
Appendix A

December 2002 A-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

But we’re not allowed to bring that issue to the question of whether Catawba 1 and Catawba 2 |

should continue to operate in this neighborhood. We’re not allowed to bring that issue because |

it would be challenging current regulations. So again, I take off my hat to the NRC for finding |

some issues where they must challenge their own regulations and consider changing them. |

|

But I cannot accept – and I have said before and I will say again – that the NRC’s own finding |

that the 20 years of operation of each of these reactors, when only considering the off-site |

does, when considering routine releases, routine operations and no accidents, perfect – Duke |

delivering perfection – will result in 12 excess cancer deaths per 20 years of operations. That, |

when you do the math, results in 24 people for two units for 20 additional years, and when you |

add the fact that each of these units already has 40 years of license, a total of 36 cancer deaths |

each. So now we come up with a total of 72, since there’s two units. And then, because |

there’s one non-fatal cancer for every fatal cancer generated with no accidents, with no |

problems, we’re talking about 144 cancers from these two units in their 60 years of operations. |

And this doesn’t even include handling the high level waste. |

|

And can we talk about that waste, the fact that 20 more years of generation of electricity for two |

units is effectively a whole new 1000 – or we heard earlier 1129 megawatt – electrical |

generation reactor? Because, you know, 40 more years, that’s like a whole new unit. That’s |

going to be a whole new unit’s worth of high level waste either staying here or traveling |

somewhere. But we can’t bring that up. |

|

And we also can’t bring up the fact that Catawba is currently under contract with the |

Department of Energy – and I’m going to hand this over to our transcript in a moment, because |

I’d like it to go in the record, excerpts from the contract signed by Duke-Cogema-Stone & |

Webster, that names Catawba 1 and 2 as mission reactors for the irradiation of weapons grade |

plutonium in MOX fuel. And by the way, I just want to read a very short portion of the contract. |

It says “The contractor may only propose to replace a mission reactor if (1) the reactor has |

been shut down for economic reasons or (2) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the utility |

company has required the reactor to be shutdown for safety...and in either case, the shutdown |

will preclude accomplishment of the plutonium disposition mission schedule.” |

|

That’s very tight language saying that under only the NRC rejecting the safety of MOX fuel will |

this reactor not use it, if that fuel is produced. And yet, we are told that this very same time |

period, the studies that have been done on uranium fuel are all that will be considered. |

|

Where and when will the National Environmental Policy Act be applied to the use of this |

contractually obligated irradiation of plutonium? The answer is in a process by NRC staff, an |

environmental assessment, which may or may not ever be opened to a complete public access |

like this process for people who live in this community, unless they’re willing to litigate, unless |

D-14

D-17

D-12

cont

D-16

D-13

contd

D-15
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-86 December 2002 |

| they’re willing to either join up with the likes of me and go into court under the banner of an

| environmental organization or they’re able to hire their own attorney and step in at that point. 

|

| So I’m basically wanting to put on record a few of the concerns that we have about the impacts

| that MOX would have, that are not reflected in the current document that we’re looking at

| tonight.

|

| Increased health hazards to the worker and public, both from routine and accident conditions;

| the reworking of that committed off-site dose that is responsible for 144 cancers for Catawba 1

| and 2, what’s the difference with MOX fuel; the socio-economic impacts of asking those people

| in this area to pay for this increased hazard with their own tax dollars; the increased rate of

| aging that may result to the reactor pressure vessel and internals from the use of this different

| type of fuel; elevated thermal impacts impacting not only operations, but also the environment

| and also waste storage in handling and disposal including impacts on decommissioning which

| are not covered by the contract, by the way, and would be borne by who? Increased fission

| products in all forms of emissions and waste; increased plutonium in all emissions and all types

| of waste; impacts, as I said, on decommissioning; and finally, impact on security.

|

| And my final comments, I do want to make on security tonight. Nuclear Information and

| Resource Service intervened on the license renewal issues. Our petition to intervene was due

| on September 14. Needless to say, our application was deeply impacted by the events of

| September 11. We respect the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in the review of

| security issues, we respect the fact that we probably will never know if any of our contentions

| were addressed. And yet, at what point does the public have the right to continue to assess

| these concerns in the context of public decision-making processes? 

|

| Catawba 1 and 2 are currently sitting there on line. If, heaven forbid, they were attacked while

| on line, there would be a Chernobyl type event if the core was breached and containment was

| breached. The International Atomic Energy Agency said that a week at September 11, that

| would be the type of consequence. And yet, calculations have been done, have been published

| in the open press, that if a reactor is turned off for only 30 days, because such a large portion of

| the radioactivity is transient, is like that medical radioactivity that decays very quickly in

| seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks – in 30 days, half of the radiological impact is gone if the

| same attack occurs – half. 

|

| Now it does level out, we don’t see it go away in a couple of decades, we know that. You still

| have a big problem on your hands if irradiated fuel is attacked, but to look at the cost/benefit to

| this region in an era of terrorism is something that people have a right to know, whether those

| considerations have been made.

|

D-18

D-19
Appendix A

December 2002 A-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

I already mentioned earlier that the National Academy of Science has come out with a new |

report that basically says the grid in the United States cannot be safeguarded and so this |

doubles my appreciation of NRC staff for identifying station blackout issues as primary for ice |

condenser reactors, Catawba in particular. |

|

And all I can say is that I offered in very good faith to Duke the idea of using hydroelectric |

generation on the site of the reactor as an ultimate form of insurance, as long as that dam is |

there, that the reactor could be cooled in the event of station blackout. And I think it’s time to |

take that teeter-totter and put the full weight of the national security issues on the other end of |

whether it is cost effective to back up Catawba 1 and 2 with its own on-site dedicated line to the |

electric generation that is also on site. |

|

So having said that, we are still in litigation on some of these issues, we’ll see how it all comes |

out. I wish Duke the very best with the Fourth of July coming up, we’re all deeply concerned |

about the kinds of things we’re reading in a paper, and we encourage both the NRC and Duke |

Energy to do the utmost to secure and ensure public health and safety. |

|

Thank you. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mary. We’re going to go to Peter Sipp next. Okay? |

|

MR. SIPP: Thank you, Chip. |

|

I want to know from anyone that would know this, how much money does Catawba receive in |

subsidies. Does anybody know? |

|

MR. CAMERON: That’s a pretty broad question here. |

|

MR. SIPP: Okay, but does Catawba receive tax dollars to be there? |

|

MR. CAMERON: I don’t know. Why don’t you proceed with – |

|

MR. SIPP: Is Greg Robison still here? Do you know that, Greg? |

|

MR. ROBISON: I don’t know. |

|

MR. SIPP: Okay, when I was in the sixth grade in 1959, something we had to do in our class |

was to bring an article once a week, and I think I talked to you about it in Savannah, but it’s |

appropriate that I mention it now because there’s others that didn’t hear it. But my particular |

article that one day was about the NS at Savannah, and the NS stands for nuclear ship, and it |

was commissioned in 1959. I found out from an article in the Sandia National Lab that it was |

D-20

D-12

cont

E-02

cont

E-02
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-88 December 2002 |

| decommissioned in 1972 and it was decommissioned because it could not compete with the oil

| burners. And that’s a well kept secret by the nuclear industry and I ain’t keeping it a secret. It

| can’t compete, it couldn’t compete, that’s why there’s only one nuclear commercial ship ever

| built, it wasn’t getting this tax dollars, it’s parked in Charleston.

|

| So you folks that are trying to push nuclear power, it’s dead. You smile at me, Joe, but it’s

| dead, buddy – it’s dead.

|

| I understand that the containment for Catawba is only three-quarters of an inch plate. That’s

| not very much. That’s a real easy target for somebody who wants to make a mess in South

| Carolina. I wouldn’t be bragging on that I worked there.

|

| Nuclear power is a great thing, but the waste, what are we going to do with it? Nobody wants it

| – oh, well. What are we going to do with it? Nobody wants it. Nevada sure doesn’t want it,

| they don’t even have a reactor in that state and oh, we’re going to put it out there. We’ll get it

| out of my yard, I don’t want it, put it somewhere in Nevada. No, it’s a dead horse, sorry.

|

| We are just the right distance from the sun. If you think about Mercury, the closest planet to

| the sun, it’s very hot, and then go to the other extreme, Pluto, very cold. We’re the right

| distance. That was in my fourth grade child’s science book, it reminded me of that – very basic.

|

| I appreciate all you’re doing to keep it from having a meltdown and all this stuff in your generic

| environmental impact statement book on Page 8-47. So much depends on how we look at

| things. It says in here that Catawba site receives approximately four to five kilowatt hours of

| direct normal solar radiation per square yard – thank you very much – per day, of solar

| radiation. And then at the end it says implementation of solar generation on a large scale,

| enough to replace Catawba’s generating capacity, would likely result in large – and you had to

| emphasize the word large – environmental impacts. Well, I thank you, but there’s no waste with

| making electric on somebody’s roof, there’s no waste at all. Thank you very much.

|

| When you say that you’re not pro-nuclear, but when you say – you just don’t look at it right.

|

| So I’m in favor of no new license. Sorry, but that’s not good enough, it really isn’t.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Peter. Let’s go to Sherry Lorenz, Sierra Club, right now and

| then we’ll go to Gregg Jocoy. Sherry.

|

| MS. LORENZ: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Sherry Lorenz, and I live in

| Fort Mill.

|

E-04

E-05

E-03

E-06
Appendix A

December 2002 A-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Tonight I’m standing before you, not as an expert, but as a common citizen who deeply cares |

about family, friends, neighbors, animals, nature and the general wellbeing and future of this |

planet. |

|

I have all the scientific information on weapons grade plutonium, but I left it at home. I plan to |

talk to you as a friend and as a concerned citizen. |

|

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pained that I have to stand up here and talk and convince you of |

something that shouldn’t even be an issue, something that everyone should know is wrong, |

disastrous, outright insane and may very well one day spell the end of this entire planet as we |

know it. Why? Why would you or you or you or you want to endanger your children, your wife, |

your husband, your mother, your father, your sisters and brothers, your grandparents, your |

friends and neighbors, with a threat that will and can wipe everyone out? But worse yet, will |

cause immense pain and suffering first before death finally sets in. |

|

Ladies and gentlemen, I am talking about the threat of a nuclear fallout from a reactor, a reactor |

that has exploded on its own, a terrorist attack, or an attack anywhere in the U.S. Terrorists |

confiscating plutonium from the sites it is stored or even holding up the trucks that are |

supposed to be transporting this lethal chemical across the roads of our cities, towns and |

neighborhoods. You know as well as I know that for terrorists, nothing is an obstacle. Their |

motto is we will kill, no matter how, what, where, or when. They have proven it and they will |

prove it again. It’s just a matter of time. |

|

We may one day fry from our own invention, from the plutonium and uranium, we have so |

proudly created ourselves. Wouldn’t this be the ultimate reward for our smarts, our state of the |

art power generation and advanced technology? It just may be that one day, we will all have to |

swallow our own medicine – a very deadly one in this case. |

|

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want to see my children and grandchildren suffer. I don’t want to |

see my friends and neighbors suffer. I don’t want to see the world suffer. I don’t want to suffer |

and die myself. Everybody, everybody deserves a decent life on this earth. We are here for |

just a very short time and we deserve to have a good time, good quality time during our limited |

stay here on this planet. Ladies and gentlemen, people are suffering as it is, the world is |

already awash in pain and suffering. Why add to the misery, why make it worse? Why not be |

intelligent and utilize better ways to produce power, to create safe and clean industry, industry |

that would really verify our intelligence and technology that is good and safe for us and our |

world. |

|

Ladies and gentlemen, the knowledge is already available, it’s all here to be grabbed, to be |

utilized, to be taken advantage of. I’ll be glad to obtain any type of information for you on clean |

and safe energy, including the latest copy of the Sierra Club magazine called Sierra. |

J-01
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-90 December 2002 |

|

| Ladies and gentlemen, wind, solar and hydrogen can and will end our dependency on nuclear

| power plants and other dangerous polluting plants. Why ignore safe and clean technology if it’s

| good for the good of Man? Why? I don’t understand it. Is it because of corporate greed,

| because of the fact that it is less profitable for big industry? I think I may be right. Isn’t this all

| about money? I think I may be right. Is corporate America truly concerned about our health

| and even the health of our own families and friends? Maybe not. I think I may be right as well. 

|

| Why then don’t we all stand up to them and say no more, no more deadly chemicals, no more

| playing with our future? Ladies and gentlemen, I am asking you why are you ready to throw

| your lives away for profits? Even the profits of a foreign country, a country that is hundreds and

| hundreds of miles away and doesn’t give a rip whether you’re dying of cancer or you’re blown

| into 1000 pieces. And by this, I mean France.

|

| Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t need plutonium on our roads, whether it’s in South Carolina or

| anywhere else, because in essence, anywhere else is here too. A nuclear disaster has no

| borders, no boundaries, it will swiftly sicken and eventually exterminate everyone in its path,

| every human, every animal, every tree and every blade of grass. 

|

| The accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have proven the worst fears and nightmares

| about nuclear fallout. Thousands have died, many thousands more are suffering right now as

| we speak. Children are stricken with rare cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and other

| hellish diseases that are so terrible, it’s almost better to die than to suffer in total agony without

| hope of recovery.

|

| Ladies and gentlemen, even if we don’t have a disaster of any kind, in our lifetime, the waste

| from nuclear power plants and weapons production will stay with us for hundreds and

| thousands of years. These deadly chemicals are already causing more cancers and disease,

| birth effects and death that we shouldn’t even be suffering.

|

| Where is the end of this? When will we wake up and stop the insanity? I thought that we

| considered ourselves to be civilized people. I’m sorry, I’m sorry to say that this is not the case. 

| In my opinion – how could we call ourselves civilized if we self-destruct? Nuclear power,

| plutonium, uranium and other deadly chemicals cannot be considered progress or intelligent

| inventions. If something doesn’t promote health, happiness and a safe world, it is neither

| intelligent, nor progress.

|

| Ladies and gentlemen, let’s see the light, let’s stop before it’s too late, let’s do the right thing. 

| We may still have a chance now. However, when we start transporting MOX fuel over our

| highways and start burning it in our reactors, we may be crossing a point of no return. Let’s do

| the right thing now, let’s save our species from extinction. We already have enough plutonium

J-04

J-05

J-03

J-06

J-02
Appendix A

December 2002 A-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

and uranium to blow this planet to pieces many times over. Let’s start disposing of these hellish |

chemicals, let’s start making plans for a safe and good future. |

|

We should be meeting here today to discuss how to undo our mistakes, not make more of |

them. Let’s meet somewhere soon and discuss what’s really good for all of humanity. This |

shouldn’t be us versus you, this should be us working together to make this world a better |

place. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s rise to the occasion. You say it’s not that easy? Well, I |

have news for you. There is power in numbers and where there’s a will, there’s a way. If we all |

stand up and demand the same thing, to have a safe world, then the others will follow, because |

even the greedy, the rich and the mighty, can’t do it alone, after all. If they become the |

minority, they too will have to follow suit. They will have to do the right thing as well. They will |

have no choice. |

|

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask that you look deep into your soul. I know that you know the right |

answer to all of this. |

|

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s stop the insanity now, let’s stop it today. And let’s meet real soon |

to discuss a beautiful and safe future for us and our children. |

|

Ladies and gentlemen, please nix MOX. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Sherry. Could we attach that to transcript? |

|

MS. LORENZ: Pardon? |

|

MR. CAMERON: Could we attach that to the transcript? |

|

MS. LORENZ: Yes. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Great. If you have an extra copy or we can get a copy. Okay, thank you very |

much. |

|

We’re going to go to Gregg Jocoy at this point. Gregg is with the Blue Ridge Environmental |

Defense League. |

|

MR. JOCOY: Good evening, folks. Boy, that was great, Sherry. I heard a fellow on the radio |

today, who trains people in public speaking and so on like that, and he said if you don’t have |

J-07
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-92 December 2002 |

| butterflies in your stomach when you stand up to speak, you’re probably in trouble. So

| apparently I’m not in trouble because I’ve got the butterflies.

|

| I’m here today representing the Board of Directors of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense

| League and I’m simply going to read the statement. I want all of you folks who are on the NRC

| staff to understand once again I have to reiterate, this is my own personal opinion here, okay?

| This is not BREDL, this is Gregg’s opinion. 

|

| And I have to reiterate once again, don’t be persuaded by Duke Energy’s reputation in the

| community. Of course, they’re well-liked, they employ a lot people, they pay a lot of tax money. 

| That doesn’t mean that the technical questions that you folks are supposed to be investigating

| are any less serious because Duke Energy has the support of the public. You have to get down

| to the brass tacks and make a decision about whether or not the things that are proposed are

| safe and sound for us and for our families. I know that you all take that responsibility very

| seriously, but I want you to understand too that the folks from Duke Energy have literally

| hundreds of people who are on staff, paid whatever wages they’re paid, and I sell nuts and

| bolts for a living, Sherry sells something for a living, I’m not really quite sure that I understand

| what it is. You know, Mary and Pete, these are just average people who are really concerned

| that Duke Energy plans to screw up our lives.

|

| You know, take the resources that Duke has available to it, take the resources that the

| opposition has available to it, and use that as you weigh things. Sit there and say okay, Duke

| has given me 10,000 pages of why this is safe and over here from NIRS, I’ve got two pages

| that says there’s a problem. Maybe instead of spending my time going through those 10,000

| pages, I need to spend some of my time doing those two pages that NIRS has offered and find

| out if there’s something there, because if they’ve identified a potential problem, maybe it’s real

| and Duke has simply made an effort to hide those real concerns from you folks.

|

| Now on behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I submit these comments on

| NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 for Catawba Nuclear Station.

|

| The document offered for comment strains and ultimately exceeds the limits of comprehension

| in order to avoid assigning a single significance level of large in its analysis of environmental

| impacts of high level waste. The efforts of the staff and/or Commission to resist admitting that

| high-level waste and spent or irradiated fuel have a large impact on the environment and public

| health must not be permitted to obscure the facts. The contortions evident in this document are

| a testament to the inability of the Commission and its staff to admit the nuclear power plant

| impacts are not small. Regarding postulated accidents and hydrogen explosions during loss of

| power, the SAMA should be implemented as a part of a license renewal.

|

| Section 5 – Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents...

F-08

F-10

F-09

F-11
Appendix A

December 2002 A-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

In the report, the staff concluded that the SAMA that would establish hydrogen control in SBO |

events by providing backup power to igniters must be cost beneficial. But the staff does verbal |

double back flip to avoid applying the analysis to license renewal, saying: |

|

“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 the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.” [Page |

5-29]. |

|

The invocation of GSI-189 in the report notwithstanding, the logic here is akin to “However, the |

SAMA, the seatbelt alternative for mitigating auto accidents, does not relate to adequately |

managing the effects of tire and battery replacement. Therefore, it need not be implemented as |

part of the driver’s license renewal.” So no seatbelt is required? |

|

The severe accident mitigation alternative should be implemented as a requirement in the |

Catawba license renewal process. |

|

Section 6 – Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle... |

|

Supplement 9 reports that the Duke Energy and NRC staff have found no information which is |

new or significant enough on any issue to alter conclusions found in the general environmental |

impact statement. The report states the following: |

|

“For each of these issues, the GEIS conclusion is that the impact is of small |

significance” {except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle |

and from high-level waste from spent fuel, which were not assigned a single |

significance level). [Emphasis was added.] That’s from abstract page iii. |

|

Later in Chapter 6, the report again makes exceptions for assigning single significance levels |

for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high level waste on pages |

6-1 and 6-3. |

|

“For all those issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are small |

except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from |

HLW and spent fuel disposal, as discussed below.” [Again, emphasis added][pg |

6-3]. |

|

The report makes two more exceptions, one for nuclear fuel and one for high |

level waste. However, despite the detailed exploration of the uncertainties of |

such estimates, both of these issues are swept off the Category 2 table, |

relegating them to Category 1 limbo. |

F-11

cont

F-12
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 A-94 December 2002 |

| “Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of

| significance for the collective effect of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered

| Category 1.” [Page 6-4.]

|

| 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.”

|

| Nowhere in Section 6.1 does the NRC analyze the actual impacts of the fuel cycle and its waste

| products. Instead of investigating and quantifying the impacts of the fuel cycle and waste, the

| report merely recapitulates regulatory dose limits. Dose limits are an unreliable means of

| analysis because they are subject to change and have no meaning in the time frames

| necessary for the determination of long term radionuclide impacts of geological repositories. 

| Moreover, regulatory limits for some important aspects of waste disposition do not exist.

|

| Before license renewal proceeds, the Commission must resolve important questions about

| future impacts of the fuel cycle and high level waste. The draft report states that EPA

| performance standards “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 1000

| premature cancer deaths worldwide for a 100,000 metric ton repository.” [Page 6-5] “The

| impacts of license renewal – twenty years of additional operation, a 50-percent increase – will

| unquestionably increase these estimates.

|

| If and when a geological repository is built, these questions may be easier to resolve, but

| because of the insoluble nature of the problem and the large impacts of high level nuclear

| waste, the Commission must suspend or eliminate license renewal.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Gregg, and we’ll put that on to the end of the

| transcript.

|

| That’s the final speaker for tonight and we would just thank all of you for being here tonight, first

| of all. Thank you for our questions about various aspects of the process and thank you for your

| heartfelt comments tonight that we heard, and suggestions.

|

| And with that, I think we’re probably adjourned. The staff is available, our experts are available

| if you have time to talk about various issues. Thank you.

|

| (Whereupon, the public hearing was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.)

|

F-14

F-13
Appendix A

December 2002 A-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

COMMENT LETTERS |
Appendix A Letter K, page 1 Letter K, page 2
Appendix A

Letter K, page 3 Letter K, page 4

K-01K-02K-03
Appendix A Letter K, page 5 Letter K, page 6

K-09K-10
Appendix A

Letter K, page 7 Letter K, page 8

K-16K-17K-18
Appendix A

Letter K, page 9 Letter K, page 10

K-27K-28K-29K-30K-31K-32K-33K-34K-35
Appendix A

Letter K, page 11 Letter K, page 12

K-41K-42K-43K-44K-45K-46K-47K-48
Appendix A Letter K, page 13 Letter K, page 14

K-51K-52
Appendix A

Letter L, page 1 Letter M, page 1

M-01

M-01contdM-02
Appendix A Letter M, page 2 Letter N, page 1

N-01N-02N-03
Appendix A

Letter N, page 2 Letter N, page 3

N-04N-05N-06N-07
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement
December 2002 B-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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 (NRC). 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, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory.

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

John Tappert Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief

James Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

Barry Zalcman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Monitor

Gregory Suber Nuclear Reactor Regulation Environmental Engineer

Duke Wheeler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management

Robert Schaaf Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management 

Stacey Fox Nuclear Reactor Regulation Environmental Engineer

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Richard Emch Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Safety

Jack Cushing Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management |

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Mary Ann Parkhurst/Rebekah Harty Task Leaders |

Dan Tano/Amanda Stegen Deputy Task Leader |

Bill Sandusky Air Quality

Mary Ann Parkhurst Radiation Protection

John Jaksch Socioeconomics

Paul Nickens Cultural Resources

Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology

Cary Counts Technical Editor

Debora Schulz, Jean Cheyney, Lisa Smith Document Design

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory(b)

Tina Carlsen Aquatic Ecology

Los Alamos National Laboratory(c)

Ted Doerr Terrestrial Ecology

Argonne National Laboratory(d)

Bill Metz Land Use
Appendix B

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

Energy Research, Inc.

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 (DOE) by Battelle

Memorial Institute.

(b) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated for DOE by the University of California.

(c) Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated for DOE by the University of California.

(d) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the DOE by the University of Chicago.
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Duke Energy Corporation’s Application for

License Renewal of Catawba Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2
December 2002 C-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Duke Energy Corporation’s Application for

License Renewal of Catawba 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 Catawba Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2 operation 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, 15555 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. The ADAMS accession numbers for each document are included below.

June 12, 2001 Letter from NRC to Mr. David Lyon, York County Library System,

regarding Maintenance of Documents at the Former Catawba Local

Public Document Room Related to Application by Duke Energy for

License Renewal of Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, for an

Additional 20 Years. (Accession No. ML011660168)

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. ML011660138)

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)

September 14, 2001 Letter from NRC to Duke forwarding Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for

Catawba. (Accession No. ML012570124)
Appendix C

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

September 22, 2001 Letter from NRC to Catawba Indian Nation inviting participation in

scoping process for Catawba license renewal. (Accession No.

ML012690051)

September 22, 2001 Letter from NRC to Eastern Band of Cherokee inviting participation

in scoping process for Catawba license renewal. (Accession

No. ML012690057)

September 22, 2001 Letter from NRC to Metrolina Native American Association inviting

participation in scoping process for Catawba license renewal. 

(Accession No. ML012690059)

October 3, 2001 Notice of public meeting to discuss environmental scoping process for

the Catawba Units 1 and 2 license renewal application. (Accession

No. ML012760475)

November 13, 2001 Summary of site audit to support the review of license renewal

application for Catawba. (Accession No. ML013170360)

November 29, 2001 Summary of public meeting held in support of the environmental review 

for the Catawba Units 1 and 2 license renewal application. (Accession

No. ML013330257)

December 10, 2001 Request for additional information related to the staff’s review of the

severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis for license renewal at

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML013460491)

December 12, 2001 Request for additional information related to the staff’s review of the

license renewal environmental report for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units

1 and 2. (Accession No. ML013470594)

December 20, 2001 Letter from NRC to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting list of

protected species within the area under evaluation for the Catawba

Nuclear Station license renewal. (Accession No. ML013540336)

February 1, 2001 Letter from Duke Energy Corporation to NRC transmitting Duke’s

response to NRC staff’s request for additional information dated

December 10, 2001, related to the staff’s review of severe accident

mitigation alternatives for license renewal at Catawba Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML020450479)
Appendix C

December 2002 C-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

February 8, 2002 Duke Energy Corporation’s response to request for additional

information dated December 12, 2001, related to the staff’s review of the

environmental report for license renewal at Catawba Nuclear Station,

Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML020450547)

March 14, 2002 Note to File: Information Provided by Duke Energy Corporation related

to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives in its License Renewal

Application for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession

No. ML020740179)

March 27, 2002 Scoping Summary Report for supplemental environmental impact

statement for Catawba license renewal. (Accession No. ML020870376)

May 13, 2002 Letter from NRC to Duke, transmitting Notice of Availability of the Draft |

Plant-Specific Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact |

Statement regarding Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. |

(Accession No. ML021340817) |

|

May 13, 2002 Letter from NRC to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, filing draft |

Supplement 9 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement regarding |

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML021350068) |

|

May 14, 2002 Letter from NRC to Duke, requesting comments on the draft plant- |

specific Supplement 9 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

regarding Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession |

No. ML021350023) |

|

June 4, 2002 Notice of public meeting to discuss the draft supplemental environmental |

impact statement (DSEIS) for license renewal at Catawba Nuclear |

Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML021570597) |

|

July 17, 2002 Summary of public meetings held on June 27, 2002, to receive |

comments on draft Supplement 9 to the EEIS for license renewal at |

Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. (Accession No. ML022000608) |

|

August 8, 2002 Letter from Duke to NRC, transmitting Duke’s position on the staff’s |

SAMA evaluation contained in Supplement 9 to the Generic |

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants |

for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. (Accession |

No. ML022330373) |
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 C-4 December 2002 |

| August 9, 2002 Letter from Duke to NRC, transmitting comments on draft plant-specific

| Supplement 9 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact

| Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants for Catawba Nuclear

| Station. (Accession No. ML022270455)

|

| August 13, 2002 Letter from U.S. Department of the Interior to NRC, transmitting

| comments on Draft Generic EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

| Supplement 9, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-1437). 

| (Accession No. ML022380016)

|

| August 23, 2002 Letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the

| Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

| Nuclear Plants, Supplement 9, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. 

| (Accession No. ML022480009).
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted
December 2002 D-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

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:

Catawba Cultural Preservation Project, Rock Hill, South Carolina

Catawba Indian Nation Cultural Preservation Project, Rock Hill, South Carolina

Catawba Regional Planning Council, Rock Hill, South Carolina

Centralina Council of Governments, Charlotte, South Carolina

County Administrator, York, South Carolina

County Auditor, York, South Carolina

Historical Center of York County, York, South Carolina

Lake Wylie Chamber of Commerce, Lake Wylie, South Carolina

Museum of York County, Rock Hill, South Carolina

Salvation Army, Rock Hill, South Carolina

South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, South Carolina

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Rock Hill, South Carolina

South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South Carolina

South Carolina State Archaeologist, Columbia, South Carolina

South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, Columbia, South Carolina

Tuttle Real Estate, Rock Hill, South Carolina

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina
Appendix D

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

York Chamber of Commerce, Rock Hill, South Carolina

York County Economic Development, Fort Mill, South Carolina

York County Extension Agents, York, South Carolina

York County Historical Commission, York, South Carolina

York County Planning Department, Rock Hill South Carolina
Appendix E

Catawba Compliance Status and |

Consultation Correspondence
December 2002 E-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |

Appendix E

Catawba Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence |

The list of licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained form Federal, State,

regional, and local authorities for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba) are shown

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 Catawba.
Table E-1. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approva

| Catawba, Units 1 and 2

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiratio

n Date R

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

Catawba Unit 1

NPF-35 01/17/85 01/17/25 Authorizes ope

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

Catawba Unit 2

NPF-52 05/15/86 05/15/26 Authorizes ope

FWS Endangered Species Act Consultation FWS letter inc

(pp E-4 to E-7

| FWS Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(16 U.S.C. 703-712)

Permit DPRD 757484 Annual Annual Depredation p

annually. In C

SHPO Section 106 of the

National HistoricPreservation Act(16 U.S.C. 470f)

Consultation Letter from

Nancy Brock,Coordinator,Review andCompliancePrograms, SouthCarolinaDepartment ofArchives andHistory 05/30/00

05/30/00 None The National H

Act requires Ftake into accouundertaking on building, structincluded in or in the National Places. The SDepartment of determined thaCatawba OLs effect on Natioor listed prope

SCDHEC Clean Water Act,

Section 402

NPDES stormwaterpermit

SCR003773 06/01/01 01/31/03 In compliance

| SCDHEC Clean Water Act,

Section 402

NPDES wastewaterpermit

SC0004278 04/30/01 06/30/05 In compliance

SCDHEC RCRA, Section 3010 EPA identification

number forgeneration andstorage of hazardouswaste

SCD070619796 01/17/85 Annual EPA ID issues 

the facility and life of station. fee submitted In compliance

SCDHEC RCRA Subtitle IX Underground storage

tank permit

R-46-NN-09244 Annual Annual Renewed annu

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 E-2 December 2002
Table E-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiratio

n Date R

SCDHEC RCRA Subtitle D Landfill permit 463303-1601 Prior to

1989

UnderRevision

Issued prior to currently undeSCDHEC. In c

SCDHEC 40 CFR Part 61, 

Subpart M

Asbestos nonscheduled removalpermit

8044 Annual Annual The non-sched

permits are an1/1 through 12In compliance

SCDHEC Clean Air Act Air emissions and

operating permits

2440-0070 01/3/01 12/31/05 In compliance

CFR = Code of Federal RegulationsEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental ControlNPDES = National Pollution Discharge Elimination SystemNRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery ActSHPO = South Carolina State Historic Preservation OfficeU.S.C. = United States Code 

December 2002 E-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 |
Appendix E

| NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 E-4 December 2002
Appendix E

| December 2002 E-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9
Appendix E

| NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 E-6 December 2002
Appendix E

| December 2002 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 9
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to Catawba 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 9 |

Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to Catawba 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 Catawba Nuclear Station

Units 1 and 2, (Catawba) because of plant or site characteristics.

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Catawba

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

Catawba discharges into

fresh water, not into an

estuary.

Water-use conflicts (plants with oncethrough cooling systems)1 4.2.1.3 Catawba uses cooling towers

rather than once-through

cooling.

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH AND COOLING POND HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early

life stages

2 4.3.3 Catawba uses cooling towers

rather than once-through

cooling.

Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 4.3.3 Catawba uses cooling towers

rather than once-through

cooling.

Heat Shock 2 4.3.3 Catawba uses cooling towers

rather than once-through

cooling.
Appendix F

NUREG-1437, Supplement 9 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

4.8.1.2

Groundwater consumption at

Catawba is <100 gpm

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney

wells)

2 4.8.1.4 Catawba does not use

Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation

(Ranney wells)

1 4.8.2.2 Catawba does not use

Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation

(saltwater intrusion)

1 4.8.2.1 Not applicable due to the

location of Catawba.

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling

ponds in salt marshes)

1 4.8.3 Not applicable due to the

location of Catawba.

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling

ponds at inland sites)

2 4.8.3 Catawba does not use a

cooling pond heat dissipation

system.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial

resources

1 4.4.4 Catawba does not use

cooling ponds.

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, NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1,

Washington, D.C.