Draft Environmental Impact

Statement 

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the 

North Anna ESP Site

Draft Report for Comment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

NUREG-1811
 

 NUREG-1811

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at

the North Anna ESP Site

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: November 2004

Date Published: November 2004 

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. 

Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please

specify the report number NUREG-1811, draft, in your comments, and send them by

March 1, 2005, to the following address:

Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop T6-D59

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by the Internet at NorthAnna_ESP@nrc.gov.

For any questions about the material in this report, please contact:

J. Cushing

OWFN 11 F-1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Phone: 301-415-1424

E-mail: JXC9@nrc.gov
November 2004 iii Draft NUREG-1811

1 Abstract

2

3

4 This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an

5 application submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Dominion Nuclear

6 North Anna, LLC (Dominion), for an early site permit (ESP). The proposed action requested in

7 Dominion’s application is for the NRC to (1) approve a site within the existing North Anna Power

8 Station (NAPS) boundaries as suitable for the construction, and operation, of new nuclear

9 power generating facilities, and (2) issue an ESP for the proposed site located at NAPS. The

10 proposed action does not include any decision or approval to construct or operate one or more

11 units; these are matters that would be considered only upon the filing of applications for a

12 construction permit and an operating license, or an application for a combined license. The

13 application does propose a plan for redressing the environmental effects of certain site

14 preparation and preliminary construction activities (i.e., those activities allowed by

15 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)) performed by an ESP holder under 10 CFR 52.25. In accordance with the

16 plan, the site would be redressed if the NRC issues the requested ESP (containing the site

17 redress plan), the ESP holder performs these site preparation and preliminary construction

18 activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application for a construction permit or combined

19 license, and no alternative use is found for the site. This draft EIS includes the NRC staff’s

20 analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of constructing and operating two

21 nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site, or at alternative sites, and mitigation measures

22 available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the staff’s preliminary

23 recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action.

24

25 The staff’s preliminary recommendation is that the ESP should be issued. This preliminary

26 recommendation is based on (1) the Environmental Report submitted by Dominion, as revised;

27 (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent

28 review; (4) the staff’s consideration of comments received during the public scoping process

29 and; (5) the assessments summarized in this draft EIS, including the potential mitigation

30 measures identified in the ER and in the EIS. In addition, in making its preliminary

31 recommendation, the staff has concluded that there are no environmentally preferable or

32 obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff has preliminarily concluded that the site preparation

33 and preliminary construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) will not result in any

34 significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed.
1
November 2004 v Draft NUREG-1811

1 Contents

2

3

4 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

5

6 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

7

8 Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv

9

10 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

11

12 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

13 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

14 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

15 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

16 1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

17 1.6 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

18 1.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

19

20 2.0 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

21

22 2.1 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

23 2.2 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

24

25 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

26 2.2.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

27 2.2.3 The Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

28

29 2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

30

31 2.3.1 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

32

33 2.3.1.1 Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

34 2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

35 2.3.1.3 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

36 2.3.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

37 2.3.1.5 Severe Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

38 2.3.1.6 Meteorological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

39
Draft NUREG-1811 vi November 2004

1 2.3.2 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2

3 2.4 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

4 2.5 Radiological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

5 2.6 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

6

7 2.6.1 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

8

9 2.6.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

10 2.6.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

11 2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

12

13 2.6.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

14

15 2.6.2.1 Surface Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

16 2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

17

18 2.6.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

19

20 2.6.3.1 Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

21 2.6.3.2 Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

22 2.6.3.3 Thermal Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

23 2.6.3.4 Chemical Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

24

25 2.7 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

26

27 2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

28

29 2.7.1.1 Biological Communities of the North Anna Site . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

30 2.7.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . 2-28

31 2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

32

33 2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

34

35 2.7.2.1 Biological Communities of Lake Anna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

36 2.7.2.2 Biological Communities of the WHTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40

37 2.7.2.3 Biological Communities of the North Anna River . . . . . . . . . . 2-40

38 2.7.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

39 2.7.2.5 Aquatic Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44

40
November 2004 vii Draft NUREG-1811

1 2.8 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

2

3 2.8.1 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

4

5 2.8.1.1 Transient Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

6 2.8.1.2 Migrant Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50

7

8 2.8.2 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50

9

10 2.8.2.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50

11 2.8.2.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57

12 2.8.2.3 Property Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

13 2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61

14 2.8.2.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-62

15 2.8.2.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-66

16 2.8.2.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-69

17

18 2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-70

19

20 2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-70

21 2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at North Anna Power Station . . . . . . . 2-72

22 2.9.3 Native American Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-73

23

24 2.10 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-74

25 2.11 Related Federal Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-78

26 2.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-79

27

28 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

29

30 3.1 External Appearance and Site Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

31 3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

32

33 3.2.1 Plant Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

34

35 3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

36 3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

37

38 3.2.2 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

39

40 3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

41 3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

42
Draft NUREG-1811 viii November 2004

1 3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 

2

3 3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

4

5 3.3 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

6

7 3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

8

9 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

10

11 4.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

12

13 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

14 4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

15

16 4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

17

18 4.2.1 Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

19 4.2.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

20

21 4.3 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

22

23 4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

24 4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

25 4.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

26

27 4.4 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

28

29 4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

30 4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

31 4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

32

33 4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

34

35 4.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

36

37 4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

38 4.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

39 4.5.1.3 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

40 4.5.1.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

41
November 2004 ix Draft NUREG-1811

1 4.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

2 4.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

3

4 4.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

5 4.5.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

6 4.5.3.3 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

7 4.5.3.4 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

8 4.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

9 4.5.3.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

10 4.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

11

12 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

13 4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

14 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

15

16 4.8.1 Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

17 4.8.2 Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

18 4.8.3 Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

19 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

20

21 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

22

23 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

24 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

25 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

26 4.9.4 Total Dose to the Site Preparation Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

27 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

28

29 4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction 

30 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

31 4.11 Site Redress Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

32 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

33 4.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-51

34

35 5.0 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

36

37 5.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

38

39 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

40 5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

41
Draft NUREG-1811 x November 2004

1 5.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

2 5.3 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

3

4 5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5 5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

6 5.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

7 5.4 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

8

9 5.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

10

11 5.4.1.1 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

12 5.4.1.2 Avian Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

13 5.4.1.3 Shoreline Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

14 5.4.1.4 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

15 5.4.1.5 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

16

17 5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

18

19 5.4.2.1 Intake System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

20 5.4.2.2 Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

21 5.4.2.3 Entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21

22 5.4.2.4 Aquatic Thermal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25

23 5.4.2.5 Striped Bass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29

24 5.4.2.6 Shoreline Erosion and Other Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31

25 5.4.2.7 Summary of Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32

26

27 5.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33

28

29 5.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33

30 5.4.3.2 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34

31

32 5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34

33

34 5.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34

35

36 5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35

37 5.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

38 5.5.1.3 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

39 5.5.1.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

40

41 5.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-38

42 5.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-39
November 2004 xi Draft NUREG-1811

1 5.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-40

2 5.5.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41

3 5.5.3.3 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41

4 5.5.3.4 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-43

5 5.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-45

6 5.5.3.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-46

7 5.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-47

8

9 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-48

10 5.7 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-49

11 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

12

13 5.8.1 Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-52

14 5.8.2 Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53

15 5.8.3 Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53

16 5.8.4 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-54

17 5.8.5 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-54

18 5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

19

20 5.9 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

21

22 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

23 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-59

24 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61

25 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers .................................. 5-64

26 5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-64

27 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-67

28

29 5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-67

30

31 5.10.1 Design-Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-69

32 5.10.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-73

33 5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-83

34

35 5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation . . . . . . . . . 5-83

36 5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-85

37 5.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-88

38

39 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

40

41 6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

42
Draft NUREG-1811 xii November 2004

1 6.1.1 Land Use Light-Water Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

2

3 6.1.1.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

4 6.1.1.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

5 6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

6 6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

7 6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

8 6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

9 6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

10 6.1.1.8 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

11 6.1.1.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17

12 6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17

13

14 6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

15 6.1.2.2 Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

16 6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

17 6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

18 6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

19 6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

20 6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination and

21 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

22 6.1.2.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

23

24 6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

25

26 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

27

28 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

29 6.2.1.2 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-28

30

31 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29

32

33 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29

34 6.2.2.2 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-33

35 6.2.2.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37

36

37 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37

38 6.2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-38

39

40 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40

41 6.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-41

42
November 2004 xiii Draft NUREG-1811

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

2 7.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

3 7.2 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

4 7.3 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

5 7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

6 7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7 7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice . . . . 7-6

8 7-7 Nonradiological Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7

9 7-8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7

10 7-9 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

11 7-10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

12

13 8.0 Impacts of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

14

15 8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

16 8.2 System Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

17

18 8.2.1 Plant Cooling System: Wet Cooling Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

19 8.2.2 Plant Cooling System: Dry Cooling Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

20

21 8.3 Alternative Sites, Region of Interest, and Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

22

23 8.3.1 Dominion’s Region of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

24 8.3.2 Dominion’s Alternative Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

25 8.3.3 Greenfield and Brownfield Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

26

27 8.4 Generic Issues Consistent Among Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

28

29 8.4.1 Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

30 8.4.2 Nonadiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

31

32 8.4.2.1 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

33 8.4.2.2 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

34

35 8.4.3 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12

36

37 8.4.3.1 Radiation Doses and Health Impacts to Members of

38 the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12

39 8.4.3.2 Occupational Doses to Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

40 8.4.3.3 Impacts to Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

41

42 8.4.4 Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14
Draft NUREG-1811 xiv November 2004

1 8.5 Evaluation of Surry Power Station Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15

2

3 8.5.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18

4 8.5.2 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

5 8.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

6 8.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24

7 8.5.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

8 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27

9

10 8.5.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27

11 8.5.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28

12 8.5.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

13 8.5.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36

14 8.5.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

15

16 8.6 Evaluation of the Portsmouth ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

17

18 8.6.1 Land Use including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

19 8.6.2 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

20 8.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

21 8.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

22 8.6.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

23 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

24

25 8.6.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

26 8.6.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

27 8.6.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

28 8.6.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-57

29 8.6.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-57

30

31 8.7 Evaluation of the Savannah River Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-58

32

33 8.7.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-61

34 8.7.2 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-64

35 8.7.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-64

36 8.7.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-67

37 8.7.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

38 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-68

39

40 8.7.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-68

41 8.7.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-69

42 8.7.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-70
November 2004 xv Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.7.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-78

2 8.7.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-80

3

4 8.8 Summary of Alternative Site Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-80

5 8.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-83

6

7 9.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . 9-1

8

9 9.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

10 9.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

11

12 9.2.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

13 9.2.2 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

14

15 9.3 Obviously Superior Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

16 9.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

17 9.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

18

19 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

20

21 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3

22 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8

23 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

24 Productivity of the Human Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8

25 10.4 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

26 10.5 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

27 10.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10

28

29 Appendix A - Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

30 Appendix B - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

31 Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

32 Related to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s Application for 

33 Early Site Permit at North Anna Nuclear Plant Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

34 Appendix D - Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

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

36 Appendix F - Key Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

37 Appendix G - Data/Information to Support Specific Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

38 Appendix H - Authorizations and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

39 Appendix I - Plant Parameter Envelope Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

40
Draft NUREG-1811 xvi November 2004

1 Figures

2

3

4 2-1 North Anna ESP Site Boundaries within the Existing NAPS Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

5 2-2 Location of North Anna Power Station, 80-km (50-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

6 2-3 North Anna Power Station Vicinity Map, 16-km (10-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

7 2-4 Lake Anna and the North Anna Power Station Waste Heat Treatment Facility . . . . . 2-6

8 2-5 Diagram of Lake Anna Showing the Upper and Lower Reach of the North Anna

9 River, Contrary Creek, the North Anna Waste Heat Treatment Facility (sections 1,

10 2, and 3), and the North Anna Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

11 2-6 North Anna Census Environmental Justice Minority Within and 80-km (50-mi) 

12 Radius of the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-76

13 2-7 North Anna Census Environmental Justice Low Income Within and 80-km (50-mi) 

14 Radius of the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-78

15

16 3-1 Proposed Major ESP Structures (Units 3 and 4) in Relation to Existing 

17 Units 1 and 2 Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

18 3-2 Location of Transmission Lines for North Anna Power Station, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 . . 3-12

19

20 4-1 Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

21 4-2 Schematic View of Pump Intake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

22 4-3 Lake Anna and the Rivers and Creeks in the Vicinity of North Anna Power Station

23 and the WHTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

24

25 5-1 Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the Existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the

26 ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

27 5-2 North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Minority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

28 5-3 North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Low Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

29 5-4 Exposure Pathways to Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57

30 5-5 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-58

31

32 6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

33

34 8-1 Surry Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17

35 8-2 Surry Power Station Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

36 8-3 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

37 8-4 Potential New Nuclear Station Site at Portsmouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

38 8-5 Savannah River Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-60

39 8-6 Potential New Nuclear Station Site at SRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-62
November 2004 xvii Draft NUREG-1811

1 Tables

2

3

4 2-1 Land Use in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

5 2-2 Terrestrial Species Known or Likely to Occur in Countries Adjacent or

6 Downstream from the North Anna Reservoir (Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania,

7 Caroline, and Hanover Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

8 2-3 Fish Collected from Lake Anna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35

9 2-4 Federally or State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Known

10 or Likely to Occur in Counties Adjacent or Downstream from the North Anna

11 Reservoir (Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and Hanover Counties) . . . . . 2-43

12 2-5 Population Distribution from 2000 to 2040 Within 80 km (50 mi) of the Early Site

13 Permit Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46

14 2-6 Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

15 2-7 Population Growth in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties,

16 and the City of Richmond–1980 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

17 2-8 Estimated Transient Population Recreating at Lake Anna Facilities and

18 Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

19 2-9 Percent Unemployment, Individual Poverty, and Median Household Income . . . . 2-51

20 2-10 Major Employers in Louisa County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51

21 2-11 Regional Employment Trends – 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52

22 2-12 County and City Employment by Proprietorship and by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52

23 2-13 Aggregated Employment by Industry or Business Type for Henrico, Louisa,

24 Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53

25 2-14 Level-of-Service Designation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59

26 2-15 Property Tax Revenues Generated in Louisa County; Property Taxes Dominion

27 Paid to Louisa County; and Operating Budgets for Louisa, Orange, and

28 Spotsylvania Counties – 1995 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

29 2-16 Visitor and Boat Launches at Lake Anna State Park – 1998 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 2-62

30 2-17 North Anna Power Station – Permanent Employee Residence Information by

31 Four-County Area of Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63

32 2-18 Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County – 1990

33 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-64

34 2-19 Vacant Housing Units for Henrico, Louisa, and Spotsylvania Counties and the

35 City of Richmond – 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-65

36 2-20 Major Public Water Supply Systems in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and

37 Spotsylvania Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-66

38

39 3-1 North Anna Power Station Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

40

41 4-1 Characterization of Impacts from Construction of Units 3 and 4 at the

42 North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

43
Draft NUREG-1811 xviii November 2004

1 5-1 Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Impinged

2 per Month at North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 from 1979 to 1983 . . . . . . . 5-17

3 5-2 Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Impinged

4 Per Month at the proposed North Anna ESP, Unit 3 Using a Once-Through

5 Cooling System (Using Worst-Case Assumptions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

6 5-3 Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Impinged

7 per Month with Units 1 and 2 and a New Unit 3 Using a Once-Through Cooling 

8 System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

9 5-4 Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Entrained

10 per Month from 1979 to 1983 with Existing North Anna Power Station,

11 Units 1 and 2 Operating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

12 5-5 Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Entrained

13 per Month with New North Anna, Unit 3 Using a Once-Through Cooling System . . 5-23

14 5-6 Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Entrained

15 per Month with Existing North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 and a New

16 Unit 3 Using a Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

17 5-7 Temperature Requirements of Important Fish Species of Lake Anna . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

18 5-8 Liquid Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individuals at Lake Anna . . . . . . . . . 5-60

19 5-9 Gaseous Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61

20 5-10 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

21 Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part50, Appendix I, Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 5-62

22 5-11 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

23 Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-63

24 5-12 Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposal ESP Units to 40 CFR Part 190 . . . . . . . 5-66

25 5-13 Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposal ESP Units to IAEA Studies . . . . . . . . . . 5-66

5-14 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (P/Q, s/m3 26 ) for the North Anna ESP Site 

27 Design-Basis Accident Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-70

28 5-15 Design-Basis Accident Doses for an ABWR Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-72

29 5-16 Design-Basis Accident Doses for the Surrogate AP1000 Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-72

30 5-17 Mean Environmental Risks from ABWR Severe Accidents at the North Anna

31 Power Station ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-76

32 5-18 Mean Environmental Risks from the Surrogate AP1000 Severe Accidents at

33 the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-78

34 5-19 Comparison of Environmental Risk for New Units at the North Anna ESP Site

35 with Risks for Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-79

36 5-20 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by 

37 Internal Events for an ABWR and a Surrogate AP1000 at the North Anna ESP 

38 Site with Risks Initiated by Internal Events for 28 Current Operating Plants 

39 Undergoing License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-81

40 5-21 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . 5-85

41
November 2004 xix Draft NUREG-1811

6-1 Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data(a) 1 – Taken From Table S–3

2 (Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement (WASH-1248 [AEC 1974]) or

3 Reference Reactor Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

4 6-2 Comparison of Annual Average of Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources. 6-14

5 6-3 Fuel Cycle of Environmental Impacts from Gas-Cooled Reactor Designs for

6 the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

7 6-4 Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced

8 Reactor Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26

9 6-5 Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced

10 Reactor Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-27

11 6-6 Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the

12 Public from Shipping Spent Fuel from Potential Early Site Permit Sites to a

13 Spent Fuel Disposal Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30

14 6-7 Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation,

15 Normalized to Reference Light-Water Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31

16 6-8 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for

17 Each Advanced Reactor Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-34

18 6-9 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

19 Normalized to Reference 1000 – MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation . . . . . . . . 6-36

20 6-10 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39

21

22 8-1 Dominion Site Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

23 8-2 Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Permanent Employee Residence by

24 County/Independent City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

25 8-3 Federally and Stated-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

26 Reported Within Surry County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

27 8-4 Federally and Stated-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

28 Potentially Near the Portsmouth ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

29 8-5 Federal and State Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species Potentially

30 Occurring in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-65

31 8-6 Characterization of Adverse Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . 8-81

32 8-7 Characterization of Adverse Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . . 8-82

33

34 9-1. Comparison of the Construction Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative

35 Early Site Permit Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

36 9-2. Comparison of the Operational Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Early

37 Site Permit Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

38

39 10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5

40 10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7
Draft NUREG-1811 xx November 2004

1 10-3 Summary of Environmental Significance of Station Location at the North Anna

2 Power Station Early Site Permit Site, at Alternative Sites, and for the 

3 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10

4
November 2004 xxi Draft NUREG-1811

1

2 Executive Summary

3

4

5 On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an

6 application from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit (ESP)

7 for a location adjacent to the North Anna Power Station (NAPS), Units 1 and 2. Dominion

8 submitted revisions to the environmental report (ER) on October 2, 2003, July 15, 2004, and 

9 September 7, 2004. Any reference in this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to the ER

10 refers to Revision 3, unless otherwise stated. The North Anna ESP site is located in Louisa

11 County, Virginia, approximately 10 km (6 mi) northeast of the town of Mineral. An ESP is a

12 Commission approval of a location for siting one or more nuclear power facilities and is a

13 separate action from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP) or a combined

14 construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for such a facility. An ESP

15 application may refer to a reactor’s or reactors’ characteristics or a plant parameter envelope,

16 which is a set of postulated design parameters that bound the characteristics of a reactor or

17 reactors that might be built at a selected site; alternatively an ESP may refer to a detailed

18 reactor design. The ESP is not a license to build a nuclear power plant; rather, the application

19 for an ESP initiates a process undertaken to assess whether a proposed site is suitable should

20 the applicant decide to pursue a CP or COL.

21

22 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs

23 that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that

24 significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Subpart A of Title 10 of the Code of

25 Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to ESPs. The NRC

26 has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. As set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the

27 Commission has determined that an EIS will be prepared during the review of an application for

28 an ESP. The purpose of Dominion’s requested action, issuance of the ESP, is for the NRC to

29 determine whether the North Anna ESP site is suitable for new nuclear units by resolving certain

30 safety and environmental issues before Dominion incurs the substantial additional time and

31 expense of designing and seeking approval to construct such facilities at the site. Part 52 of

32 Title 10 describes the ESP as a “partial construction permit.” An applicant for a CP or COL for a

33 nuclear power plant or plants to be located at the site for which an ESP was issued can

34 reference the ESP, thus reducing the review of siting issues at that stage of the licensing

35 process. However, a CP or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a major

36 federal action that requires its own environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

37

38 Three primary issues – site safety, environmental impacts, and emergency planning – must be

39 addressed in the ESP application. Likewise, in its review of the application, the NRC assesses

40 the applicant’s proposal in relation to these issues and determines if the application meets the

41 requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations. This draft environmental impact

42 statement addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed action.

43
Draft NUREG-1811 xxii November 2004

1 Dominion requested in its application authorization to perform certain site preparation activities

2 after the ESP is issued. The application, therefore, included a site redress plan that specifies

3 how the applicant would stabilize and restore the site to its preconstruction condition (or

4 conditions consistent with an alternative use) in the event a nuclear power plant is not

5 constructed on the approved site. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), the applicant did not

6 address the benefits of the proposed action (e.g., the need for power). In accordance with 

7 10 CFR 52.18, the EIS is focused on the environmental effects of construction and operation of

8 a reactor, or reactors, which have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters. 

9

10 Upon acceptance of the Dominion ESP application, the NRC began the environmental review

11 process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent

12 (68 FR 65961) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff visited the North Anna ESP

13 site during December 2003 and held a public scoping meeting on December 8, 2003, in Mineral,

14 Virginia. Subsequent to the site visit and the scoping meeting and in accordance with NEPA

15 and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff has determined and evaluated the potential environmental

16 impacts of constructing and operating two nuclear power plants at the North Anna ESP site. 

17 Included in this draft EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s preliminary analyses, which

18 consider and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action (issuance of the ESP) and

19 of constructing and operating two nuclear units at the ESP site; ( 2) mitigation measures for

20 reducing or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives, and (4) the

21 staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.

22

23 During the course of preparing this draft EIS, the staff reviewed the Environmental Report

24 submitted by Dominion, consulted with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies, and followed

25 the guidance set forth in review standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site

26 Permits, to conduct an independent review of the issues. The review standard draws from the

27 previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plans for the Review of Safety Analysis

28 for Nuclear Power Plants, and NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental

29 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. In addition, the staff considered the public comments

30 related to the environmental review received during the scoping process. These comments are

31 provided in Appendix D of this draft EIS.

32

33 In following the precedent of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

34 of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) and supplemental license renewal EISs, environmental issues

35 are evaluated using a three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE –

36 developed by NRC using guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality. Table B-1 of

37 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three

38 significance levels:

39

40 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

41 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

42
November 2004 xxiii Draft NUREG-1811

1 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

2 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

3

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

5 important attributes of the resource.

6

7 Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are presented in the

8 appropriate sections.

9

10 The staff plans to conduct a public meeting near the ESP site to describe the preliminary results

11 of the NRC environmental review, answer questions and to provide members of the public with

12 information to assist them in formulating comments on this draft EIS. After the comment period,

13 the staff will consider and disposition all comments received. These comments will be

14 addressed in Appendix E of the final EIS.

15

16 The staff’s preliminary recommendation is that the ESP should be issued. This preliminary

17 recommendation is based on (1) the Environmental Report submitted by Dominion, as revised;

18 (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent

19 review; (4) the staff’s consideration of comments received during the public scoping process

20 and; (5) the assessments summarized in this draft EIS, including the potential mitigation

21 measures identified in the ER and in the EIS. In addition, in making its preliminary

22 recommendation, the staff has concluded that there are no environmentally preferable or

23 obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff has preliminarily concluded that the site preparation

24 and preliminary construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) will not result in any

25 significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed. 
Draft NUREG-1811 xxiv November 2004

Abbreviations/Acronyms

ABWR advanced boiling water reactor 

ac acre(s)

ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ACR-700 Advanced CANDU Reactor

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

ALWR advanced light-water reactor

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

Bq becquerel(s)

Btu British thermal unit(s)

BWR boiling water reactor

C Celsius

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

COL combined license

CP construction permit

CWA Clean Water Act of 1977 (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

CWIS cooling water intake system

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

d day

DBA design-basis accident

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EAB exclusion area boundary

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER environmental report

ESBWR economic simplified boiling water reactor

ESE east-southeast

ESP early site permit
November 2004 xxv Draft NUREG-1811

F Fahrenheit

FR Federal Register

ft foot/feet

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act of 1977)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

gal gallon(s)

GEIS generic environmental impact statement

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

GT-MHR gas turbine-modular helium reactor

ha hectare(s)

HLW high-level waste

HPS Health Physics Society

hr hour(s)

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

in. inch(es)

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

IRIS international reactor innovative and secure

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

LAAC Lake Anna Advisory Committee 

lb pound(s)

LLW low-level waste

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOS level-of-service

LPZ low population zone

LWR light-water reactor

m meter(s)

m/sec meter(s) per second

m3

/d cubic meter(s) per day
Draft NUREG-1811 xxvi November 2004

m3/s cubic meter(s) per second

MBq megaBecquerel(s)

mGy/yr milligray per year

MGD million gallons per day

mi mile(s)

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

mL milliliter(s)

mph miles per hour

mrad millirad(s)

mrem millirem(s)

MSL mean sea level

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

NAPS North Anna Power Station

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NCHS National Center for Health Statistics

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NESC National Electric Safety Code

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NNE north-northeast

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxide(s)

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL operating license

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PBMR pebble bed modular reactor

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
November 2004 xxvii Draft NUREG-1811

PPE plant parameter envelope

PWR pressurized water reactor

RCIC reactor core isolation cooling

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

rms root mean square

ROI region of interest

RRY reference reactor-year

RSA Rapidan Service Authority

Ryr-1 per reactor year

s second

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

SER safety evaluation report

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SODI Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative

SOx sulfur oxide(s)

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure

SR State Route

SSAR Site Safety Analysis Report

SSE south-southeast

Sv sievert(s)

SWR Service Water Reservoir

SWU separative work units

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

TRU transuranic (waste)

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UCO uranium oxycarbide

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

UHS ultimate heat sink

U.S. United States

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEC United States Enrichment Corporation, Inc.

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VAC Virginia Administrative Code

VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Draft NUREG-1811 xxviii November 2004

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation 

VDSS Virginia Department of Social Services

VEC Virginia Employment Commission

VEPCo Virginia Electric and Power Company

VNHP Virginia Natural Heritage Program

VPDES Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

yd yard(s)

yr year(s)

WHTF Waste Heat Treatment Facility
November 2004 1-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1

2 1.0 Introduction

3

4

5 On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an applica6 tion from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit (ESP) for an

7 ESP site (the North Anna ESP site) located within the existing North Anna Power Station

8 (NAPS) site near Mineral, Virginia. The September 25, 2003, Environmental Report (ER) of this

9 application was revised by letters dated October 2, 2003 (Revision 1), July 15, 2004 (Revision

10 2), and September 7, 2004 (Revision 3). Any reference in this draft environmental impact

11 statement (EIS) to the ER refers to Revision 3 (Dominion 2004a), unless otherwise stated. 

12 Under the NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 and in

13 accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 51, which are the NRC regulations

14 implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the NRC is required to

15 prepare an EIS as part of its review of an ESP application. In preparing the EIS, the NRC staff

16 is required to publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (68 FR 65961) to prepare an

17 EIS, conduct scoping, and publish a draft EIS for public comment. The final EIS will be issued

18 after considering public comments on the draft. A separate safety evaluation report will also be

19 prepared in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52.

20

21 1.1 Background

22

23 An ESP is a Commission approval of a site or sites for one or more nuclear power facilities. 

24 The filing of an application for an ESP is a process that is separate from the filing of an applica25 tion for a construction permit (CP) and a operating license (OL) or a combined license (COL) for

26 such a facility. The ESP application and review process makes it possible to evaluate and

27 resolve safety and environmental issues related to siting before the applicant makes large

28 commitments of resources. If the ESP is approved, the applicant can “bank” the site for up to

29 20 years for future reactor siting. In addition, if the ESP includes a site redress plan, the ESP

30 holder can conduct certain site preparation and preliminary construction activities allowed by 10

31 CFR 50.10 (e)(1). An ESP does not authorize construction or operation of a nuclear power

32 plant. To construct or operate a nuclear power plant, an ESP holder must obtain a CP and an

33 OL, or a COL.

34

35 As part of its evaluation of the environmental aspects of the action proposed in an ESP applica36 tion, NRC prepares an EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18. Because site suitability encom37 passes construction and operational parameters, the EIS addresses impacts of both

38 construction and operation of reactors and associated facilities. In a review separate from the

39 EIS process, NRC analyzes the safety characteristics of the proposed site and emergency

40 planning information. These latter two analyses are documented in a safety evaluation report

41 that presents the conclusions reached by NRC regarding whether there is reasonable assur42 ance that a reactor or reactors, having characteristics that fall within the parameters for the site
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1811 1-2 November 2004

1 can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public,

2 whether there are significant impediments to the development of emergency plans, and whether

3 site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and measures can be developed. In

4 addition, if the applicant proposes major features of emergency plans, or complete and

5 integrated emergency plans, the safety evaluation report will document whether such major

6 features are acceptable, or whether the complete and integrated emergency plans provide

7 reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of

8 a radiological emergency. The applicant has chosen to propose major features of emergency

9 plans. 

10

11 Plant Parameter Envelope

12

13 The applicant for an ESP need not provide a detailed design of a reactor or reactors and the

14 associated facilities but should provide sufficient bounding parameters and characteristics of the

15 reactor or reactors and the associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can be

16 made. Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a plant parameter envelope (PPE) as a

17 surrogate for a nuclear power plant and its associated facilities.

18

19 A PPE is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound

20 the design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be constructed at a given site. 

21 The PPE values are a surrogate for actual reactor design information. Analysis of

22 environmental impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the

23 selection of a reactor design until the CP or COL stage. The PPE reflects upper bounds of the 

24 values for each parameter that it encompasses rather than the characteristics of any specific

25 reactor design. The PPE is discussed in more detail in section 3.2 of this report.

26

27 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities

28

29 The holder of an ESP, or an applicant for a CP (10 CFR Part 50) or a COL (Subpart C of

30 10 CFR Part 52) that references an ESP with an approved site redress plan, may in accordance

31 with 10 CFR 52.25(a) perform the site preparation and preliminary construction activities

32 allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), provided that the final ESP EIS concluded that the activities will

33 not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be redressed. 

34 Dominion provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application (Dominion 2004b). 

35 Activities permitted under an ESP include preparation of the site for construction of the facility,

36 installation of temporary construction support facilities, excavation for facility structures,

37 construction of service facilities, and construction of certain structures, systems, and

38 components that do not prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents (10 CFR

39 50.10(e)(1)).

40
Introduction

November 2004 1-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 ESP Application and Review

2

3 In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), Dominion submitted an ER as part of its ESP applica4 tion (Dominion 2004a). The ER focused on the environmental effects of construction and

5 operation of reactors with characteristics that fall within the PPE. The ER also includes an

6 evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is an obviously superior alternative to

7 the proposed site. The ER is not required to include, nor did it include, an assessment of the

8 benefits of the proposed action (e.g., the need for power) or a discussion of energy alternatives.

9

10 The NRC standards for review of the ESP application are outlined in 10 CFR 52.18. As with the

11 ER, this draft EIS focuses on the environmental effects of construction and operation of reactors

12 that have characteristics that fall within the PPE developed by Dominion and includes an

13 evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is an obviously superior alternative to

14 the proposed North Anna ESP site. The EIS does not include an assessment of the benefits of

15 the proposed action or an assessment of energy alternatives.

16

17 The NRC staff conducts its reviews of ESP applications in accordance with guidance set forth in

18 review standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (NRC 2004). The

19 review standard draws from the previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plans for

20 the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1987), and NUREG-1555,

21 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants (ESRP),

22 (NRC 1999). RS-002 provides guidance to NRC staff reviewers to help ensure a thorough,

23 consistent, and disciplined review of any ESP application. As stated in RS-002, an applicant

24 may elect to use a PPE approach instead of supplying specific design information. The staff’s

25 June 23, 2003, responses to comments received on draft RS-002 (ML031710698) provide addi26 tional insights on the staff’s expectations and potential approach to the review of an application

27 employing the PPE approach (NRC 2003). Specifically, the NRC staff and its contractor tasked

28 to perform the environmental review have been trained on using the guidance in the ESRP and

29 RS-002, and on incorporating the PPE concept into their review. The reviewers understood the

30 need to adapt the ESRP review guidance to the PPE concept. The findings in this EIS reflect

31 the adaptation of the ESRP guidance to the PPE approach. 

32

33 During the review of any future COL application referencing an ESP, the staff will assess the

34 environmental impacts of the construction and operation of a specific plant design. If the

35 environmental impacts addressed in the EIS written at the ESP stage are found to be bounding

36 by the staff, no additional analysis of these impacts is required, even if the ESP applicant

37 employed the PPE approach. However, environmental impacts not considered or not bounded

38 at the ESP stage will be assessed at the CP or COL stage. In addition, measures and controls

39 to limit adverse impacts should be identified and evaluated for feasibility and adequacy in

40 limiting adverse impacts at the ESP stage, where possible, and at the CP or COL stage. As a

41 result of the staff’s environmental review of the ESP application, the staff may determine that

42 conditions or limitations on the ESP may be necessary in specific areas, as set forth in
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1811 1-4 November 2004

1 10 CFR 52.24. Therefore, the staff has identified in the EIS when and how assumptions and

2 bounding values limit its conclusions on the environmental impacts to a particular resource.

3

4 Following requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the guidance in RS-002, the NRC

5 environmental staff (and technical experts from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory retained

6 to assist the staff) visited the North Anna ESP site during December 2003 to gather information

7 and to become familiar with the site and its environs. During the site visits, the staff and its

8 contractors met with Dominion staff, public officials, and with members of the public. A scoping

9 meeting was held on December 8, 2003, to obtain public input on the scope of the

10 environmental review. The staff reviewed the comments received during the scoping meeting

11 and also contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. A

12 list of the organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B. Other documents related to the

13 North Anna ESP site were reviewed and are listed as references where appropriate.

14

15 To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative actions,

16 NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts using Council on Environmental

17 Quality (CEQ) guidance (40 CFR 1508.27). Using this approach, NRC has established three

18 significance levels – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – which are defined below:

19

20 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

21 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

22

23 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

24 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

25

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

27 important attributes of the resource.

28

29 This draft EIS presents the staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts

30 of the proposed action at the North Anna ESP site, including the environmental impacts associ31 ated with construction and operation of reactors at the site, the impacts of constructing and

32 operating reactors at alternative sites, the environmental impacts of alternatives to granting the

33 ESP, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

34 This draft EIS also provides the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission

35 regarding the suitability of the North Anna ESP site for construction and operation of reactors

36 with characteristics that fall within the PPE.

37
Introduction

November 2004 1-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 A 75-day comment period will commence on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental

2 Protection Agency Notice of Filing of EIS to allow members of the public to comment on the

3 results of the NRC staff’s review. A public meeting will be held near the site during the public

4 comment period. During this public meeting, the staff will describe the results of the NRC

5 environmental review, answer questions related to the review, and provide members of the

6 public with information to assist them in formulating their comments.

7

8 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

9

10 The proposed Federal action is the issuance, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, of an

11 ESP for the North Anna ESP site for additional nuclear power facilities with characteristics that

12 fall within the PPE. In addition, the application proposes a plan for redressing the environmental

13 effects of certain site preparation and preliminary construction activities (i.e., those activities

14 allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)) performed by an ESP holder under 10 CFR 52.25. In

15 accordance with the plan, the site would be redressed if the NRC issues the requested ESP

16 (containing the site redress plan), the ESP holder performs these site preparation and

17 preliminary construction activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application for a construction

18 permit or combined license, and no alternative use is found for the site. While the applicant is

19 not currently proposing construction and operation of new units, this EIS analyzes the

20 environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of two new nuclear

21 units at the North Anna ESP site, or at three alternative sites. These impacts are analyzed to

22 determine whether the proposed ESP site is suitable for the addition of new units and whether

23 there is an alternative site that is obviously superior to the proposed site.

24

25 The North Anna ESP site proposed by Dominion is located in Louisa County in central Virginia,

26 near the town of Mineral. It is completely within the confines of the current NAPS site, which is

27 located on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna approximately 8 km (5 mi) upstream

28 of the North Anna Dam. Lake Anna is approximately 27 km (17 mi) long with 435 km (272 mi)

29 of shoreline. The lake was created in 1971 by the construction of a dam on the main stem of

30 the North Anna River. Virginia Electric and Power Company, a subsidiary of Dominion

31 Resources, Inc., owns the land above and below the lake surface and around the lake up to the

32 expected high-water mark.

33

34 No specific plant design has been selected by Dominion for the ESP site; instead, a set of

35 bounding plant parameters has been specified to envelope future site development. This plant

36 parameter envelope (PPE) is based on the addition of power generation from two distinct units,

37 to be designated as North Anna Units 3 and 4. Each unit represents a portion of the total

38 generation capacity to be added and would consist of one or more reactors or reactor modules.

39 These multiple reactors or modules (the number of which may vary depending on the reactor

40 type selected) would be grouped into distinct operating units. The total nuclear generating

41 capacity to be added would not exceed 4300 MW(t) per unit. This draft EIS documents the

42 staff’s evaluation of the proposed ESP site for construction and operation of North Anna Units 3
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1811 1-6 November 2004

1 and 4. Cooling water for Unit 3, the first of the proposed new units, would be provided by Lake

2 Anna. Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers.

3

4 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

5

6 The purpose and need for the proposed action (ESP issuance) is to provide stability in the

7 licensing process by addressing safety and environmental issues before the plants are built,

8 rather than after construction is completed. The ESP process allows for early resolution of

9 many safety and environmental issues that may be identified for the ESP site. In the absence of

10 an ESP, safety and environmental reviews of applications for operating licenses under

11 10 CFR Part 50 continue during plant construction. Alternatively, all safety and environmental

12 issues would have to be addressed at the time of the staff’s review of a combined license

13 submitted under 10 CFR Part 52 if no ESP for the site were referenced. Although actual

14 construction and operation of the facility would not take place until a COL is granted, certain

15 lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring certain components and materials

16 necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COL is granted. As a result, without the

17 ESP review process, there could be a considerable expenditure of funds, commitment of

18 resources, and passage of time before site safety and environmental issues are finally resolved.

19

20 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

21

22 Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA states that EISs will include a detailed statement on alternatives

23 to the proposed action. The NRC regulations for implementing Section 102(2) of NEPA provide

24 for inclusion of a chapter in an EIS that discusses the environmental impacts of the proposed

25 action and the alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A). Chapter 8 of this draft

26 EIS discusses the environmental impacts of three categories of alternatives: (1) alternative

27 sites, (2) system design alternatives, and (3) the no-action alternative. The Commission

28 determined that evaluation of energy alternatives is not required for an ESP.

29

30 The three alternative sites that are considered in detail in this draft EIS include lands within

31 Dominion’s Surry Power Station in Virginia, the U.S. Department of Energy Portsmouth

32 Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio, and the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site in

33 South Carolina. Chapter 8 also includes sections discussing (1) Dominion’s region of interest

34 for identification of alternative plant sites, (2) the methodology used by Dominion to select the

35 proposed ESP site and alternative sites, and (3) generic issues that are consistent among the

36 alternative sites. Chapter 9 compares the environmental impacts at the North Anna ESP site to

37 the alternative sites and to the no-action alternative, and qualitatively determines whether an

38 obviously superior alternative site to the proposed site exists.

39
Introduction

November 2004 1-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 1.5 Compliance and Consultations

2

3 Prior to construction and operation of a new reactor or reactors, Dominion is required to hold

4 certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet relevant Federal and

5 State statutory requirements. In its ER, Dominion provided a list of environmental approvals

6 and consultations associated with the North Anna ESP. Because an ESP is limited to

7 establishing the acceptability of the proposed site for future development, the authorizations

8 Dominion will need from Federal, State, and local authorities for construction and operation are,

9 with the exception of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) certification, not yet neces10 sary; therefore, they have not been obtained. Dominion plans to submit its request for CZMA

11 certification after the issuance of this draft EIS (Dominion 2004c). Dominion will need to obtain

12 the necessary authorizations in order to conduct the site preparation and preliminary

13 construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). Authorizations and consultations

14 potentially relevant to the proposed ESP are included in Appendix H. The information provided

15 is based on guidance from NUREG-1555.

16

17 The staff reviewed the list and contacted the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to

18 identify any compliance, permit, or significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing

19 agencies that may impact the suitability of the North Anna ESP site for the construction and

20 operation of the reactors that fall within the PPE.

21

22 1.6 Report Contents

23

24 The subsequent chapters of this draft EIS are organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the

25 proposed site and discusses the environment that would be affected by the addition of new

26 reactor units. Chapter 3 examines the power plant characteristics to be used as the basis for

27 evaluation of the environmental impacts. Chapters 4 and 5 examine site suitability by analyzing

28 the environmental impacts of construction (Chapter 4) and operation (Chapter 5) of the pro29 posed new units. Chapter 6 analyzes the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, transportation

30 of radioactive materials, and decommissioning, while Chapter 7 discusses the cumulative

31 impacts of the proposed action as defined in 40 CFR Part 1508. Chapter 8 explains how the

32 alternative sites were selected, and analyzes the alternative sites and systems. Chapter 9

33 compares the proposed action with the alternatives, Chapter 10 summarizes the findings of the

34 preceding chapters, and presents the staff’s preliminary recommendation with respect to (1) the

35 Commission’s approval of the proposed site for an ESP based on the staff’s evaluation of

36 environmental impacts and (2) the site redress plan.

37
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1811 1-8 November 2004

1 The appendices to the EIS provide the following additional information.

2

3 C Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

4

5 C Appendix B – Organizations Contacted

6

7 C Appendix C – Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related

8 to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s Application for Early Site Permit at North Anna

9 Nuclear Plant Site

10

11 C Appendix D – Scoping Comments and Responses

12

13 C Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses

14

15 C Appendix F – Key Correspondence

16

17 C Appendix G – Data and Information to Support Specific Analyses

18

19 C Appendix H – Authorizations and Consultations

20

21 C Appendix I – Plant Parameter Envelope Values

22

23 1.7 References

24

25 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

26 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

27

28 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

29 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

30

31 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

32 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

33

34 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,

35 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.”

36

37 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit

38 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 3, Richmond, Virginia.

39

40 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. North Anna Early Site Permit

41 Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 3, Richmond, Virginia.
Introduction

November 2004 1-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004c. Response to Virginia Department of

2 Environmental Quality Comment Letter. June 28, 2004.

3

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

5

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plans for the Review of

7 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

8

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

10 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.

11

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Response to comments on Draft RS-002

13 Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (ML031710698).

14

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

16 Permits. RS-002, Washington, D.C.
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-1

1 2.0 Affected Environment

2

3

4 The site proposed by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit

5 (ESP) is located in Louisa County, Virginia, within the existing boundaries of the currently

6 operating North Anna Power Station (NAPS) (Dominion 2004a). Virginia Electric and Power

7 Company (referred to as Virginia Power or VEPCo) and Dominion are wholly owned

8 subsidiaries of Dominion Resources, Inc. The site is on the shore of Lake Anna approximately

9 64 km (40 mi) north-northwest of Richmond. Two operating nuclear generating units, Units 1

10 and 2, are currently located on the NAPS site, and a small hydroelectric power plant is located

11 at the base of the North Anna Dam. The station location is described in Section 2.1, followed by

12 a description of associated land, meteorology and air quality, geology, radiological environment,

13 hydrology, ecology, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice

14 in Sections 2.2 through 2.10, respectively. Section 2.11 examines related Federal projects, and

15 references are presented in Section 2.12.

16

17 2.1 Site Location

18

19 Dominion’s proposed ESP location is wholly within the NAPS site and is west of and adjacent to

20 the existing facilities of NAPS Units 1 and 2 (see Figure 2-1). The NAPS site is located in rural

21 Louisa County, which had a population of about 25,000 in 2000. The plant is located within a

22 triangle formed by the cities of Richmond, Charlottesville, and Fredericksburg. Figure 2-2

23 shows the location of NAPS in relation to the counties and important cities and towns within an

24 80-km (50-mi) radius. Interstate 95 passes within 26 km (16 mi) of the NAPS site, and

25 Interstate 64 passes within 29 km (18 mi). The nearest incorporated community is the town of

26 Mineral, which is approximately 10 km (6 mi) southwest of NAPS. Louisa, the county seat, is

27 19 km (12 mi) west of the site. NAPS is situated on a peninsula on the southern shore of

28 Lake Anna, approximately 8 km (5 mi) upstream from North Anna Dam. The normal surface

29 elevation of Lake Anna is about 76 m (250 ft) above mean sea level (MSL). NAPS occupies

30 approximately 422 ha (1043 ac) of land. In addition, the waste heat treatment lagoons cover

31 approximately 1400 ha (3400 ac), as shown in Figure 2-3. All site land, subsurface lands, and

32 mineral rights are owned by Virginia Power, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc. No public

33 or commercial highways, railroads, or waterways traverse the site. Virginia Power also owns

34 and operates the North Anna Hydroelectric Project, an 855-kW-capacity hydroelectric power

35 plant at the base of North Anna Dam.

36

37 Lake Anna, which was created as a source of cooling water for NAPS, has become a popular

38 recreation area, and the dam provides downstream flood control. The lake is not used as a

39 source of potable or industrial water, except for the NAPS Units 1 and 2. Virginia Power owns

40 the land below the surface and around the lake up to the 78-m (255-ft) high-water mark above

41 MSL. Since its completion, recreational, residential, and retirement development has grown

42 significantly around Lake Anna.
November 2004 2-2 Draft NUREG-1811

12 Figure 2-1. North Anna ESP Site Boundaries within the Existing NAPS Site
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-3

1 Figure 2-2. Location of North Anna Power Station, 80-km (50-mi) Region
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-4

1 Figure 2-3. North Anna Power Station Vicinity Map, 16-km (10-mi) Region
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-5

1 A final Lake Anna Special Area Plan was developed by local jurisdictions to coordinate planning

2 efforts by Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties for the Lake Anna region and watershed.

3 The plan was released in March 2000 (Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee 2000).

4

5 2.2 Land

6

7 This section discusses land-related issues for the North Anna ESP site. Section 2.2.1 describes

8 the site and the vicinity around the site. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing electric power

9 transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as

10 the area within 80 km (50 mi) of the NAPS boundary.

11

12 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity

13

14 The plant site proposed by Dominion in its ESP application is located in Louisa County in north15 eastern Virginia. The proposed site is wholly within the existing boundaries of the NAPS site. 

16 The proposed Units 3 and 4 would be sited adjacent to Dominion’s existing Units 1 and 2.

17

18 The NAPS site is situated on a peninsula of Lake Anna’s southern shore at the end of State

19 Route (SR) 700. Lake Anna, an artificial reservoir, was created in 1971 by Virginia Power by

20 erecting a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River. The reservoir was filled by

21 December 1972. Downstream of the dam, the North Anna River flows southeasterly, joining the

22 South Anna River to form the Pamunkey River about 43 km (27 mi) southeast of the site. The

23 earthen dam that creates Lake Anna is about 8 km (5 mi) southeast of NAPS. 

24

25 Lake Anna is divided into two distinct bodies of water, the reservoir and the Waste Heat

26 Treatment Facility (WHTF), which is composed of three waste heat treatment lagoons

27 (Figure 2-4). The lagoons have a total surface area of approximately 1400 ha (3400 ac) and are

28 separated from the rest of Lake Anna by a series of dikes. The main body of the lake is

29 approximately 27 km (17 mi) long with 435 km (272 mi) of irregular shoreline and approximately

30 3900 ha (9600 ac) of water surface. The land adjacent to Lake Anna is becoming increasingly

31 residential as the area is developed. No new transportation routes (roads or railroad lines) or

32 new industrial activities are currently planned in the vicinity of NAPS.

33

34 Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative own, and Virginia Power controls, all of

35 the land within the NAPS boundary, both above and beneath the water surface, including those

36 portions of Lake Anna and the waste heat treatment lagoons that lie within the site boundary. 

37 The NAPS property comprises 729 ha (1803 ac), about 307 ha (760 ac) of which are covered by

38 water. Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative also own all the land outside the

39 NAPS boundary that forms Lake Anna, up to the expected high-water mark (i.e., elevation 78 m

40 [255 ft] above MSL). The NAPS site and all supporting facilities, including Lake Anna and the

41 waste heat treatment lagoons, the earthen dam that forms Lake Anna, dikes, railroad spur,
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37 Figure 2-4. Lake Anna and the North Anna Power Station Waste Heat Treatment Facility
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-7

1 and roads constitute approximately 7544 ha (18,643 ac). Virginia Power also owns and

2 operates the North Anna Hydroelectric Project, an 855-kW(e)-capacity hydroelectric power plant

3 at the base of the dam that forms Lake Anna.

4

5 The primary land cover on the NAPS site is pine and pine-hardwood mixed forest (70 percent). 

6 Approximately 20 percent of the site is used for nuclear power station facilities and activities

7 including electricity generation, maintenance and distribution facilities, warehouses, training and

8 administration buildings, lagoons and settling basin, parking lots, roads, a railroad line, informa9 tion center, and the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). About 10 percent of the

10 site is cleared area that includes the landscaped ground, open areas, laydown areas, three

11 historic cemeteries, a weapons range used for security training, and a recreation and picnic

12 area used by employees of Dominion Resources, Inc., and its subsidiaries.

13

14 Geographically, NAPS is located within the central Piedmont Plateau Physiographic Province. 

15 The topography of the site is characterized as a gently undulating surface that varies from 60 m

16 (200 ft) to 152 m (500 ft) above MSL. The Blue Ridge Mountains lie approximately 73 km (45

17 mi) northwest of the site.

18

19 Louisa County has two incorporated towns, Louisa and Mineral. Louisa is the county seat and

20 has a population of approximately 1400. Mineral has a population of approximately 425 and is

21 the largest community within 16 km (10 mi) of NAPS. The county is largely rural with a population density of about 43 people/mi2 22 . About 10 percent of the county is developed as urban,

23 residential, or industrial; 71 percent is natural and planted forest lands; 16 percent is crop,

24 pasture, and open land; and 3 percent is covered by water (Louisa County 2003).

25

26 Each Virginia county is required to have a comprehensive plan for the physical development of

27 the territory within its jurisdiction by Section §15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia. The compre28 hensive plan for Louisa County was issued in September 2001 (Louisa County 2001); the

29 Spotsylvania County Plan was issued in February 2002 (Spotsylvania County 2002); and the

30 Orange County comprehensive plan was issued September 1999 (Orange County 1999). The

31 Lake Anna Special Area Plan was issued in March 2000 (Lake Anna Special Area Plan

32 Committee 2000).

33

34 Louisa County’s comprehensive plan identifies two existing mining activities in the county

35 (Louisa County 2001). Virginia Vermiculite Ltd. operates a vermiculite facility at the western end

36 of the county (between the town of Louisa and the community of Boswells Tavern). A granite

37 mining activity exists west of U.S. Highway 522 at the north end of the county. Various other

38 mining activities have been proposed (Louisa County 2001).

39

40 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) requires

41 applicants for Federal permits to conduct an activity in a coastal zone area to provide to the

42 permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-8

1 policies of the state’s coastal zone program. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

2 (VDEQ) oversees this program for the Chesapeake Bay Coastal Zone Management Area. 

3 NAPS is not within Virginia’s coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act

4 (VDEQ 2004a). However, Spotsylvania County and the associated portion of Lake Anna within

5 Spotsylvania County are included within the Virginia coastal zone (VDEQ 2004a). Therefore,

6 Dominion is required to provide a Coastal Zone Management Act certification to the

7 Commonwealth of Virginia (VDEQ 2004b).

8

9 Dominion submitted a certification to the VDEQ in November 2003 stating that issuance of an

10 ESP for the NAPS site would be consistent with Virginia’s Federally approved coastal zone

11 management program and requested the Department’s concurrence with this determination. 

12 VDEQ requested that Dominion withdraw the certification and resubmit it after the draft

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) environmental impact statement (EIS) is issued so

14 that the State can more fully evaluate the certification with the benefit of the NRC staff’s impact

15 assessment. Accordingly, on January 12, 2004, Dominion withdrew its certification request and

16 is expected to resubmit the certification around the time the draft EIS is issued by NRC.

17

18 2.2.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

19

20 One 230-kV transmission line and three 500-kV transmission lines leave the NAPS site switch21 yard. Each transmission line occupies a separate right-of-way, which ranges in width from 37 to

22 84 m (120 to 275 ft) and 24 to 66 km (15 to 41 mi) in length, covering a total of approximately

23 1174 ha (2900 ac) (Dominion 2004a). The transmission line rights-of-way extend from NAPS to

24 the north, south, east and west, terminating in Morrisville, Midlothian, Ladysmith, and at the

25 South Anna non-utility generator, respectively, as shown in Figure 2-2.

26

27 The NAPS transmission line rights-of-way were constructed between 1973 and 1984, and pass

28 through typical north-central Virginia land, such as row crops, pastures, forests and old fields,

29 hardwood forests, and shrub bogs. No areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

30 (FWS) or VDEQ as “critical habitat” for endangered species exist at the ESP site or in any of the

31 associated transmission line rights-of-way. The rights-of-way do not cross any State or Federal

32 parks, wildlife refuges, or wildlife management areas.

33

34 Virginia Power maintains rights-of-way in timberlands and in the vicinity of road crossings on a

35 3-year mowing cycle. In areas inaccessible to mowers, non-restricted herbicides are used. In

36 areas of dense vegetation or wetlands, maintenance by hand treatments may be used.

37

38 Areas of rare or sensitive plant species are identified and avoided, or modified treatment

39 practices are used to avoid adverse impacts. Vegetation treatments have been developed in

40 cooperation with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Natural

41 Heritage Program.

42
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-9

1 Initial evaluation by Dominion shows that any two of the 500-kV transmission lines together with

2 the 230-kV line would have sufficient capacity to carry the total output of the proposed power

3 capacity of the new units in addition to the existing units. If Dominion were to decide to proceed

4 with development of the proposed ESP units, a system study (load flow) modeling these lines,

5 including the additional power from the proposed new units, would be performed.

6

7 2.2.3 The Region

8

9 Regionally, NAPS is approximately 64 km (40 mi) north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia; 58 km

10 (36 mi) east of Charlottesville, Virginia; 35 km (22 mi) southwest of Fredericksburg, Virginia; and

11 112 km (70 mi) southwest of Washington, D.C. Interstate Highways 95 and 64 pass within

12 26 km (16 mi) to the east and 29 km (18 mi) to the south of the site, respectively. U.S. Route 1

13 is 24 km (15 mi) east of the site.

14

15 The region, defined as up to 80 km (50 mi) beyond the NAPS boundary, includes all or portions

16 of the following counties in Virginia: Amelia, Albemarle, Buckingham, Caroline, Chesterfield,

17 Culpeper, Cumberland, Essex, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Hanover, Henrico,

18 King and Queen, King George, King William, Louisa, Madison, New Kent, Orange, Page,

19 Powhatan, Prince William, Rappahannock, Richmond, Rockingham, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and

20 Westmoreland. The region also includes a portion of Charles County in Maryland. Major

21 waterways, highways, roads, railroads, and other transportation routes in the region are shown

22 in Figures 2-2 and 2-3.

23

24 Land use within the region varies with distance from major population centers and high-use

25 transportation corridors. The metropolitan areas of Richmond, Fredericksburg, and

26 Charlottesville, and the transportation corridors associated with I-95 and I-64 contain the highest

27 density of residential, commercial, and industrial land-use. Land use in the immediate vicinity of

28 NAPS and the areas outside the noted metropolitan areas and transportation corridors is

29 primarily forest and agriculture. The region, comprising about 20 percent of the total area of

30 Virginia, encompasses four main land-use classes: to the north are mainly urban areas

31 surrounding Washington, D.C., and cropland; to the east is primarily cropland; to the south is a

32 mixture of cropland and pasture; and to the west is a mixture of forests and pasture.

33

34 Land uses for the three counties that border on Lake Anna – Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania and

35 nearby Henrico county – are provided in Table 2-1.

36

Table 2-1. Land Use in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties(a) 37

38

39 County and Land Use Hectares Acres Percent of Total

40 Henrico

41 Residential 14,865 36,732 23.5

42 Commercial 2094 5175 3.3

43 Industrial 1451 3586 2.3
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-10

 Undeveloped(b) 1 27,744 68,554 43.9

2 Water 1757 4341 2.8

 Other(c)) 3 15,303 37,812 24.2

4 Total Henrico 63,214 156,200 100.0

5 Louisa

6 Residential 7322 17,655 5.0

7 Agriculture 31,979 79,019 23.5

8 Forest 92,474 228,500 68.0

9 Water 3994 9868 3.0

 Other(d) 10 649 1604 0.5

11 Total Louisa 136,418 336,646 100.0(e)

12 Orange

 Developed land(f) 13 4597 11,360 5.0

14 Agriculture 34,021 84,064 37.0

15 Forest 53,330 131,776 58.0

16 Water N/A N/A

17 Total Orange 91,948 227,200 100.0(e)

18 Spotsylvania

19 Residential 22,793 56,320 22.0

 Developed land(g) 20 3108 7680 3.0

21 Agriculture 18,649 46,080 18.0

22 Forest 53,874 133,120 52.0

23 Other 5180 12,800 5.0

24 Total Spotsylvania 103,604 256,000 100.0

25 (a) The City of Richmond is heavily developed. For this reason, the land use of this jurisdiction is not discussed.

26 (b) Includes land being used for agricultural purposes.

27 (c)) Includes public and semi-public (churches, schools, parks, etc.) and miscellaneous land classifications (rights-of-way,

28 utilities, transportation and communications facilities).

29 (d) Includes commercial and industrial lands.

30 (e) Numbers have been adjusted to achieve a total of 100 percent.

31 (f) Developed land is defined to include residential, commercial, industrial, and public use.

32 (g) Developed land is defined to include industrial and commercial.

33 N/A not available

34 Source: NRC 2002.

35

36 Two major airports operate within the region: Richmond International Airport and

37 Charlottesville-Albemarle County Airport, approximately 72 km (45 mi) southeast and 64 km

38 (40 mi) west of NAPS, respectively. Three smaller airports are located within 24 km (15 mi) of

39 NAPS: Lake Anna Airport, Louisa County Airport, and Cub Field. The airports are located

40 11 km (7 mi) south-southwest, 18 km (11 mi) west-southwest, and 16 km (10 mi) southwest of

41 the site, respectively.

42

43 2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

44

45 Section 2.3 describes the general climate of the proposed ESP site and the regional meteoro46 logical conditions that were used as the basis for evaluating design and operational conditions

47 for the prospective new units at the NAPS site, and to evaluate construction and operational

48 impacts. General climate information was obtained from data published through the National
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-11

1 Climatic Center in Asheville, North Carolina. Information for onsite meteorological conditions

2 was obtained from the meteorological stations that serve NAPS.

3

4 The onsite primary meteorological tower is located about 530 m (1750 ft) east-northeast from

5 the NAPS Unit 1 containment building (Dominion 2004a). The wind speed, wind direction,

6 ambient and dew point temperatures, and atmospheric stability data are collected from sensors

7 located on the tower. These data are considered representative of the ESP site.

8

9 2.3.1 Climate

10

11 The site is located in the Piedmont region of Virginia. The climate in this region is considered

12 continental. Summers are generally warm and humid, while winters are generally mild. Tem13 peratures in the region rarely exceed 37.8°C (100°F) or fall below -18°C (0°F). The Blue Ridge

14 Mountains located west of NAPS act as a partial barrier to episodes of cold, continental air in

15 the winter. These mountains also tend to channel regional wind flow along a general north16 south orientation.

17

18 Data from Richmond Airport are considered representative of long-term climate conditions at the

19 site (NOAA 2001). Based on data presented in the ER (Dominion 2004a), Richmond receives

20 an annual average rainfall of 109.6 cm (43.16 in.). Normal monthly rainfall is equally distributed

21 throughout the year with maximum amounts of 12.8 cm (5.03 in.) and 11.2 cm (4.40 in.)

22 occurring in July and August, respectively, and the minimum of 7.5 cm (2.96 in.) during April. 

23 The maximum monthly rainfall amounting to 47.9 cm (18.87 in.) occurred in July 1945, and the

24 minimum amounting to 0.03 cm (0.01 in.) occurred in October 2000.

25

26 Richmond averages about 41.4 cm (16.3 in.) of snowfall annually with the majority occurring in

27 January and February. The maximum monthly snowfall was 71.9 cm (28.3 in.), which occurred

28 in January 1940. The maximum snow depth recorded from a single event was 51 cm (20 in.) in

29 February 1922.

30

31 The annual average temperature for the Richmond airport is 14.3°C (57.7°F). July has the

32 highest annual average monthly temperature of 25.6°C (78.0°F). The highest recorded

33 temperature is 40.6°C (105.0°F), which occurred in July 1977, while the lowest recorded

34 temperature is -24.4°C (-12°F), which occurred in January 1940 (NOAA 2001).

35

36 2.3.1.1 Wind

37

38 Based on data collected from the onsite meteorological station starting as early as 1974, the

39 prevailing winds are from the south-southwest at both the 10- and 48.4-m levels

40 (Dominion 2004a). On a seasonal basis, the prevailing winds are from the south-southwest at

41 both levels in the summer. During the winter, the prevailing winds are from the northwest for the

42 lowest level, and north for the upper level. For the spring and fall, the prevailing winds at the
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-12

1 two observation levels vary, with the lower-level winds from the north or northwest, while the

2 upper-level winds are from the south-southwest. This information is consistent with local

3 topography and regional climatic activities.

4

5 The mean annual wind speeds at the North Anna ESP site are 2.8 m/s (6.3 mph) and 3.8 m/s

6 (8.6 mph) at the lower- and upper-tower levels, respectively (Dominion 2004a). The mean wind

7 speed varies seasonally. For both levels, the highest wind speeds occur during the spring while

8 the lowest occur during the summer. The annual frequency of calm wind speed conditions are

9 0.4 and 0.8 percent for the lower- and upper-tower levels, respectively (Dominion 2004a).

10

11 Wind persistence is defined as a continuous flow from a given direction or range of directions. 

12 This is determined by grouping continuous hourly wind direction readings into one of

13 16 22.5-degree cardinal range directions, such as north through north-northwest. The longest

14 wind persistence event at the lowest level is 26 hours from the north. However, events of 25

15 and 24 hours have occurred from the northwest and the north-northwest (Dominion 2004a). For

16 the upper level, the longest wind persistence occurrence was 33 hours from the west-northwest. 

17 At this level, three 30-hour wind persistence events have occurred from the north-northwest,

18 north, and south-southwest directions (Dominion 2004a).

19

20 2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability

21

22 Atmospheric stability can be determined by the magnitude of change in the ambient

23 temperature between vertical levels of the atmosphere, known as the delta-T method as defined

24 by NRC. These two measurement levels correspond to the two levels of the onsite

25 meteorological station at NAPS.

26

27 On an annual basis, the highest frequency of stability class occurrence is neutral (30.7 percent)

28 followed by slightly unstable (26.1 percent). The mean wind speeds with these two stability

29 classes are 3.1 m/s (7.0 mph) and 2.3 m/s (5.2 mph), respectively. Extremely unstable

30 conditions occur 20 percent of the time with a mean wind speed of 3.2 m/s (7.2 mph), while

31 extremely stable conditions occur only 5.46 percent of the time with a mean wind speed of

32 1.3 m/s (3.0 mph).

33

34 2.3.1.3 Temperature

35

36 Temperature measured at the lower level of the onsite meteorological station is considered

37 representative of onsite conditions. The average temperature at this level is 13.2°C (55.8°F),

38 while the normal temperature at the Richmond Airport is 14.3°C (57.7°F) (Dominion 2003a). 

39 A difference of several degrees is expected because the site is located in a rural area and

40 onsite temperatures are moderated due to the presence of Lake Anna, while the Richmond

41 Airport is located near a large city impacted by an urban heat-island effect. For comparison,
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-13

1 annual average temperatures for the nearby towns of Louisa and Partlow in the vicinity of the

2 NAPS site are 13.4°C (56.1°F) and 12.9°C (55.2°F), respectively.

3

4 2.3.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture

5

6 The moisture content of the atmosphere can be represented in a variety of ways. The most

7 recognized is relative humidity. However, that parameter is not measured at the NAPS site,

8 therefore data from Richmond is considered to be representative of the site. The normal annual

9 relative humidity for Richmond is 70 percent, with the higher values expected to occur in the

10 morning hours and lower values in the afternoon and evening (Dominion 2004a). Another

11 measured parameter is wet-bulb temperature, which is used for cooling-system modeling

12 studies. Based on a data record of 24 years (1973 to 1996), the 0.4 percent, 1 percent, and

13 2 percent wet-bulb temperatures measured in Richmond are 26.1°C (79°F), 25.6°C (78°F), and

14 25.0°C (77°F), respectively.

15

16 Fog is another relative indication of atmospheric moisture. Data collected at Richmond, based

17 on 73 years of data, indicate heavy fog will occur on an average of 27.1 days per year

18 (Dominion 2004a). Given the topography of the site compared to that of Richmond and

19 locations near Lake Anna, a higher occurrence of heavy fog at the NAPS site is expected.

20

21 2.3.1.5 Severe Weather

22

23 The site can experience severe weather in the form of thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, snow and

24 ice, and hurricanes. Other significant weather events also are associated with several of these

25 events, such as hail and lighting occurring with thunderstorms, and high winds associated with

26 tornadoes. The probability of occurrence of impact from a tropical storm at the site is far greater

27 than a hurricane given the fact that hurricanes lose intensity and degrade into tropical storms

28 soon after they make landfall.

29

30 The most representative long-term climatic data for thunderstorm occurrence at the site is data

31 from the Richmond Airport (NOAA 2001). On average, 36 thunderstorms are expected per

32 year. The maximum number (8 or more) is expected to occur in July with the minimum number

33 (much less than 1) occurring during the period from November through February. The site has

34 an expected 100-year return period of 1-hour and 24-hour rainfall total of 8.9 cm (3.5 in.), and

35 20.3 cm (8.0 in.), respectively (NCDC 2003). For perspective, with the passage of tropical

36 storm Gaston on August 30, 2004, the Richmond, Virginia area received up to 330 mm (13 in.)

37 of rainfall (NCDC 2004).

38

39 The occurrence of hail is typically associated with more organized thunderstorms. Recent data 

40 from the National Climatic Data Center indicated that 18 hail events have been reported for

41 Louisa County during the period from January 1, 1955, to July 31, 2003 (NCDC 2003). Each

42 occurrence was in either the afternoon or the early evening. In four occurrences, hailstones
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-14

1 with diameters of 4.4 cm (1.8 in.) were observed, and in one occurrence, 3.8-cm (1.5-in.)

2 diameter hailstones were reported. The other events produced hailstones typically around 2.5

3 cm (1.0 in.) in diameter.

4

5 For the period of January 1950 through July 31, 2003, the site was not on the path of either a

6 hurricane or tropical storm. This is not unexpected given the inland location of the site and the

7 fact that hurricanes making landfall along the Atlantic coast lose intensity and degrade into

8 tropical storms and then into a system of heavy rainfall before they fully dissipate. However, the

9 site area has experienced the impacts of tropical storms that have passed in its vicinity. The

10 one with the largest impact was Tropical Storm Floyd in September 1999. Rainfall at or

11 exceeding 15 cm (6 in.) from this storm was recorded at two locations near the site. This storm

12 produced a maximum 2-minute wind speed of 18 m/s (40 mph), which was recorded at the

13 Richmond Airport.

14

15 The site area is also susceptible to the occurrence of tornadoes and associated high winds. 

16 During the period from January 1, 1950, to July 31, 2003, a total of seven tornado sightings

17 were reported for Louisa County (NCDC 2003). The strongest winds were associated with the

18 tornado that occurred on August 9, 1962. Rotational wind speeds were estimated to be

19 between 51 m/sec (113 mph) and 70 m/sec (157 mph). The most recent tornado sighting in

20 Louisa County was on February 17, 1998.

21

22 Based on a 30-year data set of tornado occurrences in the United States, on the average, only

23 six tornadoes are expected to occur in Virginia annually (Ramsdell and Andrews 1986). The

probability of a tornado striking the NAPS site is estimated to be about 5 x 10-5 24 per year

25 (NRC 2002).

26

27 Louisa County has experienced 30 snow and ice events during the period from December 28,

28 1993, to July 31, 2003 (NCDC 2003). Of that total, two events are specifically listed as ice

29 storms with the most devastating occurring on December 23, 1998. That storm resulted in

30 $20 million in property damage in the county. The other events are listed as heavy snow, winter

31 storm, and winter weather/mix. The latter two events could have included some degree of icing,

32 but with a much smaller impact compared to those listed as ice storms.

33

34 2.3.1.6 Meteorological Monitoring

35

36 The meteorological monitoring for the proposed ESP site would consist of the current onsite

37 monitoring program for NAPS provided that the structures that would be constructed are at

38 distance no greater than 10 times its height. The primary meteorological monitoring system

39 consists of a Rohn Model 80 guyed 48.8-m (160-ft) tower instrumented at the 10-m (33-ft) and

40 the 48.4-m (159-ft) levels. Wind speed, wind direction, horizontal wind fluctuation, and ambient

41 temperature are measured at both levels. In addition, at the 10-m (33-ft) level, dew point

42 temperature data is measured. Temperature difference is measured between the two levels
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-15

1 with a separate temperature system, and precipitation data are collected at ground level. Data

2 are collected on a digital data recording system that is located in an insulated building at the

3 base of the tower. This system is interfaced with the intelligent remote multiplex system so it

4 can be transmitted into the control room for NAPS and to the utilities operations center in

5 Richmond for processing. The primary system is located approximately 530 m (1750 ft) east of

6 the NAPS Unit 1 containment building.

7

8 A backup monitoring system is also operational at the NAPS site. The system consists of a

9 Rohn Model 25 tower, a freestanding 10-m (33-ft) tower located 396 m (1300 ft) northeast of the

10 NAPS Unit 1 containment building. At the top of the tower, wind speed, wind direction, and

11 horizontal wind direction fluctuation data are collected. Data from this system are also collected

12 on a digital data recording system in the insulated building at the base of the tower and trans13 mitted into the control room for NAPS and to the utilities operations center in Richmond for

14 processing.

15

16 Data recovery rates for the period from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2001, for the primary

17 monitoring system, including reliable atmospheric stability information, ranged from 99.30 per18 cent for the upper-level wind data in 1996 to 90.9 percent for the same data set in 1997. For

19 each year in the data set the recovery rate exceeded 90 percent for both levels. The frequency

20 of wind speed, class wind direction, and stability class are available in the updated Final Safety

21 Analysis report for NAPS Unit 1 and 2 (VEPCo 2002a).

22

23 The meteorological data for the period of January 1, 1996, to December 31, 1998, were used to

24 generate atmospheric dispersion factors (i/Q values) used to estimate radiological impacts in

25 the areas surrounding the ESP site.

26

27 The NRC staff expects that the current monitoring systems would remain operational during the

28 site preparation and construction phases as well as during the operational phase. Any antici29 pated modifications to the system would be limited to transmitting appropriate meteorological

30 data to the additional control rooms.

31

32 The staff reviewed the available information relative to the onsite meteorological measurements

33 program and the data collected by the program. The staff concludes that the system provides

34 adequate data to represent onsite meteorological conditions as required by Title 10 of the Code

35 of Federal Regulations (CFR) 100.20. The onsite data also provides an acceptable basis for

36 making estimates of atmospheric dispersion for design-basis accidents and routine releases

37 from the plant to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

38
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-16

1 2.3.2 Air Quality

2

3 The county in which the ESP site is located, Louisa County, is within the Northeastern Virginia

4 Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. This region is designated as in attainment or unclassified

5 for all criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established

6 (Dominion 2004a). Attainment areas are areas where the ambient air quality levels are better

7 than designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

8

9 The Commonwealth of Virginia is also subject to a revised 8-hour ozone standard and a new

10 ambient air-quality standard for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or

equal to 2.5 nominal micrometers (designated as PM2.5 11 ). The EPA has promulgated the new

12 8-hour ozone standard, and Louisa County is classified as in attainment (Dominion 2004a). 

However, the EPA has yet to promulgate the standard for PM2.5 13 .

14

15 Within the Commonwealth of Virginia, the EPA has designated two Class 1 areas where

16 visibility is an important issue (40 CFR 81.433) – James River Face Wilderness and

17 Shenandoah National Park. The boundary of the closer of these areas, Shenandoah National

18 Park, is within 76 km (42 mi) of NAPS (NRC 2002).

19

20 VDEQ would regulate airborne emissions at the North Anna ESP site during construction

21 activities and for routine non-radiological emissions during operation. Currently, the applicant

22 holds an Exclusionary General Permit from VDEQ under Title 9 of the Virginia Administrative

23 Code for all non-radiological airborne emissions resulting from current plant operations. Under

24 this permit, no air emission or air quality monitoring is performed at the site. Compliance is

25 based on estimated emissions using fuel sulfur content and fuel consumption records with a

26 limit on the hours of operation for boilers and diesel generators. If Dominion anticipates that the

27 facility will exceed the emission limits specified as part of the permit, then it would be required to

28 apply for a permit application under Title V of Virginia’s Administrative Code and maintain more

29 stringent recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

30

31 Under the permit for the existing units, the site provides VDEQ with the necessary records and a

32 compliance certification on an annual basis. Based on the 2000 emission statement filed by

33 Dominion with VDEQ, estimated emissions were well below the limits established in the

34 Exclusionary Permit. Any emissions from the operation of the proposed units are not expected

35 to jeopardize compliance with requirements set forth under the current permit. However, addi36 tional records would have to be submitted along with a certification for all emission sources at

37 the North Anna ESP site. The additional emissions are expected to be limited to a short test

38 period. 

39
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-17

1 2.4 Geology

2

3 A description of the geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the proposed site

4 is provided in Section 2.6 of the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Dominion

5 (Dominion 2004a). This description was based on earlier reports prepared for the two existing

6 units at the site (VEPCo 2002; Dames and Moore 1969), the two units proposed but never

7 constructed (Dames and Moore 1971), and the independent spent fuel storage installation

8 (ISFSI) constructed for the two existing units (VEPCo 2002b). Additionally, results of subsur9 face investigations performed in 2002 as part of the ESP application provided further basis for

10 this description. The staff's description of site and vicinity geological features and the detailed

11 analyses and evaluation of geological, seismological, and geotechnical data as required for an

12 assessment of the site-safety issues related to the specific proposed ESP site will be included in

13 the staff's safety evaluation report.

14

15 The North Anna ESP site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Trapp and

16 Horn 2000). The Piedmont Province is bounded on the west by the Blue Ridge Province and on

17 the east by the Coastal Province. The boundary between the Coastal Province and the

18 Piedmont Province is the Fall Line. The Fall Line is a low east-facing cliff paralleling the Atlantic

19 coastline from New Jersey to the Carolinas. It separates hard Paleozoic metamorphic rocks of

20 the Appalachian Piedmont to the west from the softer, gently dipping Mesozoic and Tertiary

21 sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain. This erosional scarp, the site of many waterfalls, often

22 represents an obstruction to upstream passage of migratory fish.

23

24 The ESP site is underlain by rocks of the Ta River Metamorphic Suite, which extend thousands

25 of feet below the surface. The crystalline metamorphic rocks near the surface have undergone

26 extensive weathering to create a layer of saprolite about 30 m (100 ft) thick beneath the site. 

27 Unconfined aquifer systems exist in the saprolite and in fractures within the crystalline bedrock. 

28 The water table around the ESP site is a slightly subdued version of the topography, which is

29 characterized by a gently undulating surface varying in elevation from about 60 to 150 m (200 to

30 500 ft) above MSL.

31

32 Sulfide and gold deposits have been mined in the vicinity of the NAPS ESP site. Mining opera33 tions have resulted in significant degradation of Contrary Creek, which drains into Lake Anna. 

34 The low pH and high metal concentrations in Contrary Creek are quickly buffered and diluted as

35 Contrary Creek enters Lake Anna. The applicant states that the ESP site has not been, nor

36 would be expected in the future, to be affected by such mining activities.

37

38 The geotechnical properties of the saprolite beneath the site are unsuitable for use as a fill

39 material for plant construction. Therefore, fill material will need to be imported to the ESP site

40 during construction and excavated material will have to be removed to another location.

41
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-18

1 Given Dominion’s proposed use of best management construction practices, the gently rolling

2 terrain and geotechnical properties of the saprolite render landslides in the region of the site

3 unlikely. This conclusion is supported by a study of historical hillslope failures including field

4 reconnaissance, air-photo interpretation, a literature search for available information on land5 slides, review of existing literature, and discussions with researchers familiar with the site region

6 (Dominion 2004b).

7

8 2.5 Radiological Environment

9

10 A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the

11 NAPS site since 1976 (NRC 1977). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure

12 pathway, direct exposure pathway, water exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from

13 Lake Anna and the North Anna River, and ingestion exposure pathway in a 40-km (25-mi)

14 radius of NAPS. The preoperational environmental radiation monitoring program sampled

15 various media in the environment to establish a baseline to determine the magnitude and

16 fluctuation of radioactivity in the environment once the units began operation (AEC 1973). The

17 preoperational monitoring program included collection and analysis of samples of air

18 particulates, precipitation, milk, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt as well as

19 measurement of ambient gamma radiation. After operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 began, the

20 monitoring program continued to assess the radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the

21 environment. Modifications to the monitoring program are made based on changes in the area,

22 such as milk production, agricultural uses, changes in lake use, etc. Radiological releases are

23 summarized in the reports entitled Radiological Environmental Operating Program and Annual

24 Radioactive Effluent Release Report (Dominion 2004a); reports are issued annually. The limits

25 for all radiological releases for Units 1 and 2 are specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation

26 Manual (ODCM) (Dominion 2003).

27

28 The NRC staff reviewed historical data on releases and estimated occupational and population

29 doses. The data showed that doses to the maximally exposed individuals around NAPS were a

30 small fraction of the limits specified in Federal environmental radiation standards, 10 CFR

31 Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I; and 40 CFR Part 190.

32

33 2.6 Water

34

35 This section describes the hydrologic processes governing the movement and distribution of

36 water in the existing environment at the ESP site. The most limiting scenarios of the existing

37 environment with the current units in operation, was used throughout this analysis.

38
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-19

1 2.6.1 Hydrology

2

3 This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrological features of the existing

4 environment that could be altered by the construction, operation, or decommissioning of the

5 proposed Units 3 and 4. A description of the site's hydrological features was presented in

6 Section 2.3.1 of the ER (Dominion 2004a). The hydrological features of the site related to site

7 safety (e.g., probable maximum flood) are described by Dominion in the Site Safety Analysis

8 Report (SSAR) portion (Part 2) of the application.

9

10 2.6.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology

11

12 The dominant hydrological feature of the NAPS site is Lake Anna. The site is located on Lake

13 Anna's southern shore. Lake Anna was created by impounding the North Anna River behind

the North Anna Dam. The pool formed behind Lake Anna Dam has a volume of 3.76 x 108 m3 14

(3.05 x 105 15 acre-ft) at the normal pool level elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) above MSL. An

additional 3.02 x 108 m3 (2.45 105 16 acre-ft) are available for flood control storage up to the crest

17 of the dam at elevation 80.8 m (265 ft) above MSL. A spillway with three radial gates is capable

18 of regulating large releases from the pool and two skimmer gates are able to regulate small

19 releases. Generally, the gates are operated to maintain a steady pool elevation of 76.2 m

20 (250 ft) above MSL. The staff independently determined the stage-storage relationship of Lake

21 Anna using GIS methods and determined the values presented by Dominion within 2 percent

22 (Dominion 2004a, b).

23

24 The lake is divided into two sections by a series of three dikes that separate the WHTF from the

25 remainder of the lake. The WHTF receives the heated discharges from the existing units and,

26 because of time of travel and exposure to the atmosphere, dissipates some of the excess heat

27 to the atmosphere before the water is returned to the main body of the lake. The main body of

28 the lake is 3900 ha (9600 acres), whereas the WHTF is 1400 ha (3400 acres).

29

The watershed above Lake Anna drains 888 km3 (343 mi2 30 ) of the eastern slopes of the

31 southwestern mountains in the Appalachian Range. Water released from Lake Anna Dam

32 continues to flow down the North Anna River until it joins the South Anna River, to form the

33 Pamunkey River. Further downstream, the Pamunkey River joins the Mattaponi River to form

34 the York River. The York River enters Chesapeake Bay approximately 24 km (15 mi) north of

Hampton, Virginia. Virginia currently requires a minimum release of 1.1 m3 35 /s (40 cfs) from the

36 North Anna Dam, except under drought conditions. During a drought when the lake surface

falls below elevation 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL, a flow of 0.57 m3 37 /s (20 cfs) must be released

38 (VDEQ 2001).

39

40 In an average year at the site, precipitation exceeds evaporation. Evaporation from the large

41 surface area of Lake Anna reduces the total amount of water available to flow downstream of

42 the dam. An approximation of the natural mean monthly and annual evaporation was obtained
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-20

1 from van der Leeden et al. (1990) for an unnamed reservoir in nearby Richmond, Virginia [40 mi

2 (64 km) SSE of the site] in which the climate would be similar. The Van der Leeden et al. report

3 identified this reservoir as having an average evaporation rate of 99 cm (39 in.) per year with a

4 maximum average monthly evaporation of 15 cm (5.9 in.) in July. In addition to this natural

5 evaporation, Lake Anna experiences induced evaporation resulting from the heat added to the

6 lake from the once-through heat dissipation systems for NAPS Units 1 and 2. These two

7 components (presence of the lake plus waste reactor heat) combine to produce evaporation

8 rates that likely exceed the historical pre-impoundment evapotranspiration rates that would have

9 occurred in the area that the lake has inundated. Therefore, the presence of the lake and the

10 discharge of heat to the lake from Units 1 and 2 have increased evaporation and reduced the

11 total quantity of water available for release downstream of the dam. In drought years, the

12 decrease in precipitation is often paired with an increase in evaporation, resulting in significant

13 water deficits. It should be noted, however, that the dam provides a beneficial flow stabilization

14 impact, and the historical pre-dam minimum flows were less than the current post-dam minimum

discharges released from the dam, usually less than 0.14 m3 15 /s (5 cfs) during dry summer

16 months.

17

18 Seasonal patterns of precipitation and evaporation also impact water availability. While monthly

19 averages of precipitation are relatively constant, ranging from a maximum of 13.0 cm (5.14 in.)

20 in July to a minimum of 7.4 cm (2.9 in.) in April, monthly averages of evaporation from

21 Richmond, Virginia range from a maximum of 14 cm (5.6 in.) in July to a minimum of 3.3 cm

22 (1.3 in.) in January. Over an annual cycle this seasonal variability tends to result in a water

23 deficit during July, August, and September.

24

25 2.6.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology

26

27 The North Anna ESP site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Aquifers occur in

28 both the shallow saprolite layer and the deeper fractured crystalline rocks. Recharge of the

29 aquifers in this region is predominately from local infiltration. The water table is considered a

30 subdued reflection of the ground surface; therefore, the groundwater generally flows from ridges

31 to valleys.

32

33 The hydraulic connection between Lake Anna and nearby aquifers results in a rise of the water

34 table for those aquifers in proximity of the lake. Given the relatively small fluctuations of lake

35 water surface elevation, it is not expected that the water table in these aquifers would vary

36 significantly. No aquifers in the Piedmont Province of Virginia have been designated as sole

37 source aquifers by the EPA (2003).

38
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-21

1 2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring

2

3 This section describes the pre-application hydrological monitoring programs. Thermal and

4 chemical monitoring programs are discussed in Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4, respectively.

5

6 As a result of ongoing monitoring associated with the two existing units, Dominion was able to

7 consider this existing monitoring program as part of the pre-application monitoring program for

8 the ESP site. Many of these same monitoring activities would likely be continued, if the new

9 units were built, and would become part of the operational monitoring for the new units

10 (Dominion 2004a). Dominion collects the existing flow measurements directly associated with

11 the current site operation that are required under the terms of the applicant's existing VPDES

12 permit. Dominion also records lake level elevations at the dam and water elevations in 19

13 groundwater observation wells. Nine of the groundwater observation wells are maintained to

14 detect seepage from the service water reservoir for NAPS Units 1 and 2; one was installed near

15 the ISFSI, and nine pre-ESP-application wells were installed in 2002.

16

17 At various times in the past, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has maintained four

18 streamflow gauges in the vicinity of the plant. Two gauges measured streamflows of tributaries

19 draining into Lake Anna and two measured streamflows downstream of the Lake Anna Dam. 

20 The longest streamflow record exists for the North Anna River gauge near Doswell, Virginia. 

This gauge reflects the release from Lake Anna and runoff from an additional 250 km2 (97 mi2 21 )

22 of watershed downstream of the Lake Anna Dam. This gauge was recorded from April 1929

23 through October 1988. A streamflow gauge immediately downstream from the Lake Anna Dam

24 (North Anna River near Partlow, Virginia) was recorded from October 1978 to October 1995. 

The gauge on Contrary Creek, which drains into Lake Anna, reflects only 14 km2 (5.53 mi2 25 ) of

26 the watershed and has a record from October 1975 to January 1987. Another stream gauge

upstream of Lake Anna (Pamunkey Creek at Lahore, Virginia) records runoff from 105 km2 27

(40.5 mi2 28 ) of the Pamunkey Creek drainage for the period from August 1989 to July 1993. The

29 two upstream gauges on Contrary Creek and Pamunkey Creek, record flows representative of

120 km2 (46 mi2 30 ) or approximately 13 percent of the total upstream area contributing flow to

31 Lake Anna. Because of the limited inflow data, it is not possible to create a reliable water

32 budget for Lake Anna directly from inflow and discharge measurements.

33

34 Dominion records sufficient information to calculate discharge released through the dam by

35 providing lake elevation and release structure settings (e.g., skimmer gate and radial gate

36 openings). Such records are the only available discharge measurements for the North Anna

37 River immediately downstream of Lake Anna Dam since the Partlow gauge has been

38 discontinued.

39

40 No water velocity measurements within the WHTF or Lake Anna have been recorded. When

41 North Anna Dam was constructed, instruments for reliably measuring the relatively low current

42 velocities in lakes, such as Lake Anna, were unavailable. The only practical methods at that
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-22

1 time to measure currents were drogue or dye experiments. Velocity measurements are

2 important for both understanding of the hydrodynamics of the lake and to calibrate numerical

3 models of fluid and heat transport process in the lake. Velocity flow measurements will be used

4 in the hydrological evaluation at the CP/COL stage. 

5

6 2.6.2 Water Use

7

8 Consideration of water use requires estimating the magnitude and timing of consumptive and

9 non-consumptive water use. Non-consumptive water use does not result in a reduction in the

10 water supply available. For instance, water used to rinse fish impinged on intake screens off

11 the screens would result in no change in the water supply, as the same volume of water

12 pumped from the lake would eventually be returned to the lake. Consumptive water use results

13 in a reduction of the water supply available. For instance, lake evaporation results in a transfer

14 of water from the lake to the atmosphere, thereby reducing the lake volume. The following two

15 sections describe the existing consumptive and non-consumptive uses of surface water and

16 groundwater.

17

18 2.6.2.1 Surface Water Use

19

20 The existing NAPS units are the largest users of water in the region. When both Units 1 and 2

are operating, eight circulating water pumps draw water from Lake Anna at a rate of 120 m3 21 /s

22 (4246 cfs). The large volume of water withdrawn from Lake Anna for condenser cooling is

23 entirely returned to the lake. While there is no consumptive use of water between the intake

24 and discharge, the elevated temperature of the discharged water does result in induced

25 evaporative losses from the WHTF and the remainder of Lake Anna.

26

27 In Section 2.3 of the ER, Dominion identifies surface water users within the North Anna River

28 drainage whose average daily withdrawal during any single month exceeds 38,000 L/d

29 (10,000 gpd). Dominion identified these users from the water-use database maintained by

30 VDEQ. Users include the NAPS existing units, Bear Island Paper Company, the Doswell Water

31 Treatment Plant, and St. Laurent Paper Products Corporation.

32

33 In Section 4.2.3 of the ER, Dominion discusses the upstream land-use changes that might alter

34 the inflow to Lake Anna and downstream development that may increase the downstream

35 demand for water. These projections are based on comprehensive plans for the three upstream

36 counties (Louisa, Spotsylvania, and Orange Counties) and the four downstream counties

37 (Hanover, Caroline, New Kent, and King William Counties).

38

39 Increases in development generally result in increased areas of impervious surfaces. Impervi40 ous surface result in less groundwater recharge and higher fractions of surface water runoff. 

41 Due to the limited projected development in the three upstream counties and policies promoting

42 the use of storm water management practices that limit the impact of impervious surfaces,
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-23

1 upstream land-use changes are not expected to appreciably alter the patterns of inflow to Lake

2 Anna. One of the three counties is relying on obtaining water from the North Anna River

3 drainage to satisfy their water demands.

4

5 Growth in downstream demands for water withdrawals could result in increased water conflicts,

6 particularly during drought periods. The Doswell Water Treatment Plant in Hanover County has

a capacity of 15,000 m3/d (4 MGD), which is the equivalent to a streamflow of 0.17 m3 7 /s

8 (6.1 cfs). One of the alternatives proposed by Hanover County to meet its projected water

supply needs would require an additional withdrawal of 1.3 m3 9 /s (46 cfs) from the North Anna

10 River. The minimum release from Lake Anna prescribed by VDEQ for normal conditions is

1.1 m3 11 /s (40 cfs). During drought conditions the release prescribed by VDEQ can be reduced to

0.57 m3 12 /s (20 cfs). Three of the downstream counties are considering using the North Anna

13 River or Pamunkey River as future water sources to meet projected growth.

14

15 The Virginia Surface Water Management Act of 1989 and associated regulations (9 VAC

16 25-220-10, et seq.) impose legal restrictions on surface water withdrawals where surface water

17 resources have a history of low-flow conditions that threaten important in-stream and off-stream

18 uses. The purposes of these regulations are to maintain surface water flow at minimum levels

19 during periods of drought, ensure assimilation of treated waste water, and support of aquatic

20 and other water-dependent wildlife. In an area designated by the State Water Control Board as

21 a surface water management area, water withdrawals of 3,000,000 L (300,000 gallons) per

22 month or more are required to have a surface water withdrawal permit. Permits and certificates

23 must include a conservation plan that is activated during low-flow surface water conditions. As

24 of October 2004, the Virginia State Water Control Board had not designated any surface water

25 management areas in the State.

26

27 2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use

28

29 Dominion describes groundwater use in the vicinity of the ESP site in Section 2.3.2.2 of the ER

30 (Dominion 2004a). Groundwater is primarily obtained from springs and wells in either the

31 saprolite or underlying crystalline bedrock. Most wells completed in the saprolite have been

32 excavated either by hand digging or augering. These wells are susceptible to becoming dry

33 because of seasonal fluctuations in the water table. Drilled wells generally extend through the

34 saprolite into the underlying bedrock. The production of groundwater in the vicinity of the ESP

35 site is generally not sufficient to satisfy large water demands because of the relatively low yield

36 of the aquifers. The majority of groundwater development in the area is for domestic and

37 agricultural use, with some public, light industrial, and commercial use.

38
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-24

1 2.6.3 Water Quality

2

3 The following sections describe the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in

4 the vicinity of the ESP site. Pre-application monitoring programs for thermal and chemical water

5 quality are also described.

6

7 2.6.3.1 Surface Water Quality

8

9 This section describes the water quality of Lake Anna, the tributaries draining into Lake Anna,

10 and the North Anna River downstream of the lake. Dominion presents a discussion of the water

11 quality conditions in Section 2.3.3.1 of the ER (Dominion 2004a). The thermal load discharged

12 into the lake from the two operating units results in localized elevated temperatures in the lake. 

13 These elevated temperatures are the most significant water-quality concern associated with

14 both the existing and the proposed ESP units. Operational impacts of proposed Unit 3 on Lake

15 Anna water quality are discussed in Section 5.2.2 of this draft EIS. Monitoring programs for

16 thermal and chemical water quality are discussed in Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4, respectively.

17

18 Eight of the tributaries draining into Lake Anna are on the Virginia Draft 2004 303(d) list as

19 impaired for one or more of the following attributes: fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and dissolved

20 oxygen. The source of impairment for one of the tributaries, Contrary Creek, is known to be an

21 abandoned mining operation. The specific source of the impairment for the other tributaries is

22 unknown. The lower portion of Lake Anna is listed as impaired due to polychlorinated biphenyl

23 (PCB) levels in fish tissues; a public health advisory has been issued regarding the

24 consumption of certain fish. The source of the PCBs is unknown at this time. Downstream of

25 Lake Anna, the discharge is not listed as impaired until it reaches the Chesapeake Bay estuary,

26 after first entering the Pamunkey River and then the York River.

27

28 Units 1 and 2 have a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit from the

29 VDEQ (VDEQ 2001b). Before Units 3 and 4 could begin to operate, Dominion would be

30 required to obtain a VPDES permit for discharges from these units. Dominion would also be

31 required to demonstrate to VDEQ that the thermal effluent limitations for Unit 3 is adequate to

32 ensure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and

33 wildlife through a Clean Water Act 316(a) demonstration. Unit 4 is expected to use dry cooling

34 towers which discharges the heat directly to the air.

35

36 2.6.3.2 Groundwater Quality

37

38 There are no site-specific data available for the chemistry of the groundwater underlying the

39 ESP site. In the Section 2.3.3.2 of the ER and in response to a Request for Additional

40 Information, Dominion provided a summary of published studies that characterize the water

41 quality of crystalline aquifers in the Piedmont Province (Dominion 2004a, b). The Piedmont

42 region aquifers provide good quality water (USGS 2000). As with most crystalline rocks, the
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-25

1 rocks of the Piedmont Province contribute relatively high levels of naturally occurring

2 radioactivity to the groundwater. Pursuant to 10 CFR 100.20(3), site-specific groundwater

3 chemistry data would be required as part of a construction permit (CP) application or in a

4 combined license (COL) application. Groundwater sampling undertaken in 1992 as part of the

5 Louisa County Water Testing Program has identified coliform contamination in aquifers near the

6 ESP site. This coliform contamination is likely attributable to private septic systems in the area.

7

8 2.6.3.3 Thermal Monitoring

9

10 This section describes pre-application and pre-operational thermal monitoring programs. The

11 applicant is able to consider an ongoing monitoring program associated with the existing Units 1

12 and 2 as part of the pre-application and pre-operational monitoring program at the ESP site. 

13 Many of the same monitoring activities would be continued if the ESP units were completed and

14 would become part of the operational monitoring for the ESP units. In Section 6.1 of the ER,

15 Dominion describes the existing lake temperature measurements directly associated with the

16 current site operation that are required under terms of its existing VPDES permit

17 (Dominion 2004a; VDEQ 2001a). 

18

19 The current temperature monitoring program includes both continuous fixed-location

20 temperature stations and temperature profile locations that are sampled twice per year. Ten

21 fixed-location temperature stations are located around Lake Anna, seven within the main body

22 of the lake, one at the discharge canal, and two within the WHTF. An additional fixed-location

23 station is located downstream of the Lake Anna Dam. The temperature profiling is conducted

24 during at least two quarters per year, such that one measurement quarter is always during the

25 July-to-September quarter, and the remaining quarter is alternated every year. All of the spot

26 profile locations are located in the main body of the lake.

27

28 2.6.3.4 Chemical Monitoring

29

30 This section describes the pre-application and operational chemical monitoring programs. As

31 a result of ongoing monitoring associated with the existing two units, the applicant is able to

32 consider this operational monitoring program as part of the pre-application and pre-operational

33 monitoring program for the ESP site. Many of these same monitoring activities would be

34 continued if Units 3 and 4 were completed and would likely become part of the operational

35 monitoring. In Section 6.6 of the ER, Dominion describes the chemical monitoring that is

36 required under terms of the applicant's existing VPDES permit (Dominion 2004a).

37

38 The NAPS Units 1 and 2, VPDES permit establishes chemical discharge limits at a variety of

39 locations internal to the NAPS facility and at the discharge from the WHTF into Lake Anna at

40 Dike 3. Chemical monitoring of a variety of constituents is required including pH, chlorine,

41 copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, suspended solids, oil and grease, and biological oxygen
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-26

1 demand. While temperature is monitored both inside and outside the WHTF, no chemical

2 monitoring is required outside the WHTF.

3

4 The Commonwealth of Virginia monitors Lake Anna, Lake Anna's tributaries, and the North

5 Anna River downstream from Lake Anna. Results from this monitoring program provide the

6 basis for the Virginia 303(d) list of impaired waters. Recent sampling by the State has resulted

7 in a public health advisory regarding the consumption of certain fish in Lake Anna and its

8 tributaries. The advisory was triggered by detecting PCBs in the tissue of certain fish.

9

10 Community-based monitoring of Lake Anna and WHTF water quality has been performed by

11 volunteers from the Lake Anna Civic Association. Water samples are collected and analyzed

12 for several standard water-quality metrics, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria and

13 dissolved oxygen. Results from this monitoring program are provided to Virginia and EPA.

14

15 2.7 Ecology

16

17 Much of the proposed North Anna ESP site construction area consists of dirt roads, cleared

18 areas, parking lots, buildings, and early succession habitats. The western portion of the current

19 and proposed laydown area can be classified as “old-field” habitat. None of the current or

20 proposed laydown area is forested. The area proposed for temporary offices is an existing

21 office complex; thus, undisturbed habitats are absent from this area. Approximately 32 ha (80

22 ac) of the 729-ha (1803 ac) proposed site is currently forested; most of the forested portion of

23 the site is within the area where cooling towers would be constructed. Generally, wildlife

24 species found in the forested portions of the ESP site and surrounding areas are those typically

25 found in the forested portions of the North Anna site and in upland Piedmont forests of north26 central Virginia. Wildlife species in the old-field habitat of the laydown area and in the

27 transmission line rights-of-way within the ESP site would include most of those found in the

28 adjacent wooded areas. A few small wetland areas and two intermittent streams exist on the

29 ESP site (Dominion 2004a).

30

31 Sections 2.7.1 through 2.7.6 provide general descriptions of the terrestrial and aquatic environ32 ments near the ESP site. They provide detailed descriptions, where needed, to support the

33 analysis of potential environmental impacts of construction, operation, and decommissioning of

34 new nuclear power generating facilities. The descriptions are provided to support mitigation

35 activities identified to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for potential impacts

36 during the assessment. Descriptions are provided to facilitate comparison of the alternatives

37 identified to the North Anna ESP site. Also included are descriptions of monitoring programs for

38 terrestrial and aquatic environments.

39
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-27

1 2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

2

3 The ESP site is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province as described by Omernik

4 (1987). Although forests in the Piedmont Province are nominally characterized by oak-hickory5 pine forest (Woods et al. 1999), this portion of north-central Virginia has been settled since the

6 colonial era, and therefore no longer contains virgin forests. Vegetative cover surrounding the

7 ESP site is an irregular patchwork of row crops, pastures, pine plantations, abandoned (old)

8 fields, and second growth forests of hardwoods and mixed pine-hardwoods (Dominion 2004a).

9

10 2.7.1.1 Biological Communities of the North Anna Site

11

12 Approximately 30 percent of the North Anna site consists of generation and maintenance

13 facilities, parking lots, roads, cleared areas, and mowed grass. Hardwood forests and planted

14 pines exist on the approximately 70 percent of the site that has not been cleared for the

15 construction or operation of the existing units. These wooded areas are remnants of forests

16 that were used for timber production prior to acquisition by Virginia Power and are dominated by

17 a variety of oaks (Quercus spp.), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum

18 (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple (Acer rubrum) trees. Scattered loblolly pines (Pinus

19 taeda), Virginia pines (P. virginiana), and short-leaf pines (P. echinata) exist in some wooded

20 areas (Dominion 2004a).

21

22 The Piedmont region of Virginia is characterized as an irregular plain with low rounded ridges

23 and shallow ravines (Woods et al. 1999). There are no steep ridges on the ESP site. The

24 rolling terrain at the site extends down slope to the waters of Lake Anna, resulting in essentially

25 no marsh habitat along the shoreline at the site. Hydrophytic vegetation, such as cattail

26 (Typha spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.), are typically absent or extend only to approximately

27 0.3 m to 1 m (1 to 3 ft) beyond the shoreline (Dominion 2004a). Two intermittent streams

28 flowing north into an unnamed arm of Lake Anna, just northwest of the power-block area, bisect

29 the area where cooling towers would be located. A narrow band of wetlands is associated with

30 each of these streams. A small isolated wetland is located within the ESP site.

31

32 Wildlife species found in the forested portions of the North Anna site are those typically found in

33 upland Piedmont forests of north-central Virginia. Frequently observed mammals, such as the

34 white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis

35 virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoagenteus), exist

36 at the site, as do smaller mammals such as moles (Talpidae), shrews (Soricidae), and a variety

37 of mice (Muridae) and voles (Microtus spp.). Woodchucks (Marmota monax) live in the grassy

38 areas near forest edges at the site, and beavers (Castor canadensis) occur in Lake Anna and

39 its tributaries. Various birds and herpifauna (e.g., snakes, turtles, lizards, and toads) live in the

40 uplands and along the edge of Lake Anna (Dominion 2004a).

41
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-28

1 Virginia Power has cooperated with the National Audubon Society in conducting periodic

2 “Christmas Bird Counts” during December or January. Common bird species recorded in

3 upland areas on and near the North Anna site during these surveys include the American crow

4 (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee (Poecile

5 carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), turkey

6 vulture (Cathartes aura), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), song sparrow (Melospiza

7 melodia), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis),

8 northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), tufted titmouse

9 (Baeolophus bicolor), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker

10 (Picoides pubescens), and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) (Audubon Society 2004). 

11 Species known to nest within forested areas at the North Anna site, along forested edges, and

12 in open areas (for example, northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee, blue jay) are those that

13 commonly nest in upland Virginia habitats. Virginia Power has placed bluebird nest boxes in

14 suitable habitats at the North Anna site and has constructed roofed structures for swallows in

15 some locations. Eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) annually use the nest boxes, and barn

16 swallows (Hirundo rustica) nest beneath the roofed structures (Dominion 2004a).

17

18 Several species of residential and migratory wading birds and waterfowl use Lake Anna.

19 Numerous gulls, ducks, and geese were noted during Christmas bird counts (Audubon

20 Society 2004), as were great blue herons (Ardea herodias). Virginia Power biologists have

21 documented breeding at Lake Anna by mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), wood ducks (Aix

22 sponsa), and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) (VEPCo 1986). Virginia Power, in association

23 with the Louisa County Chapter of Ducks Unlimited, has placed wood duck nest boxes on

24 Lake Anna, and wood ducks have used several of these nest boxes (VEPCo 1986). Belted

25 kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon), great blue herons, and green-backed herons (Butorides virescens)

26 are present at Lake Anna throughout the year, and kingfishers and green-backed herons

27 presumably nest on or near the Lake Anna shoreline. Great blue herons typically nest in

28 rookeries, and because there are no known rookeries at Lake Anna (Dominion 2004a), it is

29 unlikely that great blue herons nest on the lake. Waterfowl are typically most abundant at Lake

30 Anna during the winter. Lake Anna provides important habitat for migratory waterfowl on the

31 Atlantic flyway, especially during extremely cold winters when the elevated water temperature

32 from station operation maintains a large ice-free body of water. The most common ducks

33 observed during winter are mallard, American black duck (Anas rubripes), bufflehead

34 (Bucephala albeola), and greater scaup (Aythya marila). The Canada goose, American coot

35 (Fulica americana), ringed-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), and herring gull (L. argentatus) are

36 also abundant on Lake Anna during the winter (Audubon Society 2004; VEPCo 1986).

37

38 2.7.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species

39

40 This section describes the threatened and endangered terrestrial animal and plant species that

41 exist within the ESP site, vicinity, and corresponding transmission line rights-of-way, and

42 examines the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the potential new units on
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-29

1 these resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) maintains current lists of threatened

2 or endangered species at its website (FWS 2004a). The Virginia Department of Game and

3 Inland Fisheries (VDGIF 2004a) and Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VNHP 2004) also

4 maintain lists of State-protected species at their websites. Terrestrial species potentially

5 occurring near the North Anna site that are listed as threatened or endangered by these

6 agencies are listed in Table 2-2.

7

8 Animals

9

10 Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are occasionally observed along Lake Anna (six were

11 observed during the 2003 Christmas Bird Count) (Audubon Society 2004). However, there are

12 no known eagle nests at the ESP site (NRC 2002). The nearest known bald eagle nest is near

13 the north end of Lake Anna, approximately 16 km (10 mi) upstream of the existing units. 

14 Dominion is not aware of any eagle nests along North Anna-associated transmission line rights15 of-way. Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludoviciana) occasionally have been observed in the

16 vicinity of NAPS during Christmas Bird Counts (Audubon Society 2004). They are known to

17 breed in Central Virginia (VDGIF 2004a), but breeding loggerhead shrikes have not been

18 recorded at the North Anna site or along the transmission line rights-of-way (Dominion 2004a). 

19 Loggerhead shrikes inhabit mowed or grazed grassy areas and margins of wooded areas.

20

21 With the exception of the bald eagle and loggerhead shrike, no other Federally and/or State22 listed endangered or threatened terrestrial animals are known to exist at the North Anna site or

23 along the transmission line rights-of-way, although the upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)

24 and the cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) may occasionally migrate through the area

25 (VDGIF 2004a). The regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) has been reported in Orange and

26 Spotsylvania Counties, but has not been reported in Louisa County (VDGIF 2004a). The

27 eastern big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii macrotis) has been reported in Hanover County,

28 downstream from Lake Anna. Several species, including the red-cockaded woodpecker

29 (Picoides borealis), Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), dismal swamp southeastern

30 shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri), and tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) have been

31 reported in Caroline County (VDGIF 2004a), which is downstream from the North Anna site. 

32 However, the presence of these species in this area appears doubtful, and reported observation

33 sites are well away from the transmission lines, or portions of the North Anna River potentially

34 affected by construction and operation of new reactors at the North Anna site.
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-30

1 Table 2-2. Terrestrial Species Known or Likely to Occur in Countries Adjacent or Downstream

2 from the North Anna Reservoir (Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and

3 Hanover Counties)

4

5 Scientific Name Species Counties Status* Source

6 Birds

7 Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

FT/ST VDGIF 2004a,

FWS 2004a,

VDCR 2004, FWS

2004b

8 Picoides borealis red-cockaded

woodpecker

Caroline FE/SE VDGIF 2004a

9 Lanius ludovicianus migrans migrant loggerhead

shrike

Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

FS/ST VDGIF 2004a

10 Dendroica cerulea cerulean warbler Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

FS VDGIF 2004a

11 Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s sparrow Caroline FS/ST VDGIF 2004a,

FWS 2004,

VDCR 2004

12 Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

ST VDGIF 2004a

13 Mammals

14 Plecotus rafinesquii macrotis eastern big-eared bat Hanover SE VDGIF 2004a

15 Sorex longirostris fisheri Dismal Swamp

southeastern shrew

Caroline ST VDGIF 2004a

16 Amphibians

17 Ambystoma tigrinum tiger salamander Hanover SE VDCR 2004

18 Insects

19 Speyeria idalia regal fritillary Orange, Spotsylvania FS FWS 2004a,b

VDGIF 2004a

20 Vascular Plants

21 Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Spotsylvania, Hanover,

Caroline

FT/SE VDGIF 2004a, FWS

2004 a,b VDCR 2004

22 Helonias bullata swamp pink Caroline, Hanover,

Spotsylvania

FT/SE VDGIF 2004a,

VDCR 2004, FWS

2004b

23 Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint-vetch Caroline FT FWS 2004a, b

24 Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush Caroline FS/ST VDCR 2004

25 *FE = Federal endangered, FT = Federal threatened, FS = Federal species of concern, SE = State endangered,

26 ST = State threatened.

27

28
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-31

1 Plants

2

3 There are no known populations of any plants species listed as threatened or endangered by

4 the FWS or the State on the North Anna site (Dominion 2004a; NRC 2002). Additionally, there

5 are no known populations of such species in Louisa County (VNHP 2004; FWS 2004a).

6

7 The supplemental environmental impact statement prepared for the license renewal of NAPS

8 Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2002) described three Federally listed plant species that could potentially

9 occur in the North Anna transmission line rights-of-way: the small whorled pogonia (Isotria

10 medeoloides), swamp pink (Helonias bullata), and the sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene

11 virginica). The previous evaluation determined that continued operation and maintenance of the

12 transmission line rights-of-way would have no effect on these species. Because the existing

13 rights-of-way would not be altered, and no additional rights-of-way would be required, no

14 additional species are likely to be affected. The New Jersey rush (Juncus caesariensis) occurs

15 in shaded stream banks and other wet areas, and has been reported to occur in Caroline county

16 (VDCR 2004).

17

18 The transmission line rights-of-way are managed to prevent woody growth from reaching the

19 transmission lines. The removal of woody species can provide grassland and bog-like habitat

20 for many rare plant species dependent on open conditions. Virginia Power has cooperated with

21 the VDCR’s Natural Heritage Program in rare plant surveys within transmission line rights-of22 way. The Natural Heritage Program prepared reports on the results of the rare plant species

23 surveys. Although several rare plant species have been located along other Virginia Power

24 transmission line rights-of-way, no endangered or threatened plants were noted along the

25 rights-of-way associated with the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2004a).

26

27 2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecological Monitoring

28

29 Dominion currently performs no terrestrial ecological monitoring (Dominion 2004a). However,

30 Dominion does cooperate with private organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the Audubon

31 Society to allow informal monitoring of selected resources at and near NAPS. The NRC

32 expects Dominion to work with the State on development and implementation of any required

33 monitoring programs.

34

35 2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology

36

37 The aquatic resources in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site are associated with Lake Anna,

38 the WHTF, and the North Anna River (VEPCo 2001a). Lake Anna was created to serve as the

39 cooling water source for NAPS. The lake was made during 1971 by erecting a dam on the main

40 stem of the North Anna River, just upstream of the confluence of the North Anna River and

41 Northeast Creek (Figure 2-5).
November 2004 2-32 Draft NUREG-1811

12 Figure 2-5. Diagram of Lake Anna Showing the Upper and Lower Reach of the North Anna River, Contra3 Anna Waste Heat Treatment Facility (sections 1, 2, and 3), and the North Anna Dam
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-33

Lake Anna drains an area of 888 km2 (343 mi2 1 ) (VDEQ 1986). The dam is approximately 27 m

(90 ft) high and 1500 m (5000 ft) long and contains 700,000 m3 (900,000 yd3 2 ) of earth and rock

3 (AEC 1973). Lake Anna began filling during January 1972 and reached full pool in December of

4 that year (AEC 1973). Lake Anna is approximately 27 km (17 mi) long, with 435 km (272 mi) of

5 shoreline. It is relatively shallow (maximum depth 27 m [90 ft]; average depth approximately 8

6 m [25 ft] at full pool), with a surface area of 5300 ha (13,000 ac) (AEC 1973). The normal

elevation of the reservoir is 76 m (250 ft) above MSL, at which stage it holds 376,000,000 m3 7

8 (305,000 acre-feet) of water (AEC 1973). Lake Anna is used extensively for recreation and

9 fishing. The aquatic resources of Lake Anna are managed cooperatively by Virginia Power and

10 State natural resource agencies including VDGIF and VDCR.

11

12 Lake Anna is divided into two distinct bodies of water: the WHTF and the reservoir. The

13 reservoir is the larger body of water and is physically separated from the WHTF by three dikes. 

14 The WHTF is the smaller body of water into which the waste heat from existing North Anna

15 Units 1 and 2 is discharged via a discharge canal. The total surface area of the WHTF is

16 1400 ha (3400 ac). The surface area of the reservoir is 3900 ha (9600 ac). The WHTF was

17 formed by diking off the three southernmost arms of Lake Anna. These arms are the three

18 cooling lagoons of the WHTF; all three lagoons are interconnected by canals.

19

20 The North Anna River headwaters are in Louisa and Orange Counties, Virginia, and flow

21 eastward for about 97 km (60 mi) before joining the South Anna River to form the Pamunkey

22 River (Figure 2-2). The Pamunkey River flows to the southeast, joining with the Mattaponi River

23 to form the York River, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay north of the Hampton Roads area

of Virginia. The entire North Anna River watershed is approximately 1550 km2 (600 mi2 24 )

25 (AEC 1973).

26

27 2.7.2.1 Biological Communities of Lake Anna

28

29 Lake Anna is typical of many shallow reservoirs found in the south and mid-Atlantic states. 

30 Since impoundment, Lake Anna has gone through the typical ecological succession of

31 reservoirs. The initial biotic community was highly productive because initial nutrient levels

32 were high. Productivity subsequently decreased and ultimately stabilized (Paterson and

33 Fernando 1970; Voshell and Simmons 1978). Aquatic communities in Lake Anna experienced

34 gradual post-impoundment changes from riverine to lake communities. Some of these

35 communities had stabilized in Lake Anna by 1975 (VEPCo 1986), and all have been relatively

36 stable since 1985 (VEPCo 1986; VEPCo 2002b).

37

38 Lake Anna contains numerous phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic macroinvertebrate

39 communities. Seventy-seven genera of phytoplankton have been identified, and diatoms, green

40 algae, blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria), and cryptomonads are the dominant forms. The

41 zooplankton are dominated by small-bodied forms (rotifers and copepods). This has been

42 attributed to selective predation upon larger-bodied zooplankton by landlocked schooling
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-34

1 clupeids such as various shad species (Brooks and Dodson 1965). A total of 124 benthic taxa

2 have been identified from Lake Anna (VEPCo 1986). Three bivalve species were collected in

3 the North Anna basin prior to impoundment: Elliptio complanatus, E. productus, and Sphaerium

4 striatum (AEC 1973).

5

6 In more recent years, the introduced Asiatic clam (Corbicula spp.) has dominated collections

7 from both Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. The Asiatic clam has spread rapidly

8 throughout the United States since its first discovery in 1938 (VEPCo 1986). Its populations

9 expand rapidly when they invade a new habitat, and densities stabilize as the species reach

10 carrying capacity of the habitat. Asiatic clams are present throughout Lake Anna with the

11 greatest population densities found at mid-lake (VEPCo 1989a). After its initial invasion of Lake

12 Anna, densities increased sharply from 1979 to 1981. Populations remained relatively stable

13 between 1984 and 1988 (VEPCo 1989a). Virginia Power received approval from VDEQ to

14 discontinue Asiatic clam sampling in 1989.

15

16 Small numbers of unionid mussels (Elliptio spp.) and fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae) have also

17 been collected. Acid drainage and sediment from the Contrary Creek mine site historically

18 depressed freshwater mussel populations downstream from the Contrary Creek-North Anna

19 River confluence; the first major mussel beds prior to the inpoundment of Lake Anna did not

20 occur until 100 m downstream of the confluence of the North and South Anna Rivers (Reed and

21 Simmons 1972). There are indications that mussel populations (Elliptio spp.) are recovering in

22 the lower North Anna River (VEPCo 1986).

23

24 Approximately 39 species of fish (representing 12 families) have been identified in Lake Anna

25 (VEPCo 1986) (Table 2-3). Species include those historically found in the North Anna River,

26 those that had been in local farm ponds inundated by the new reservoir, and species introduced

27 by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) . Recreational species

28 include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), walleye

29 (Stizostedion vitreum), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), black

30 crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white perch (Morone americana), pumpkinseed (L.

31 gibbosus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), redbreast (L. auritus), channel catfish (Ictalurus

32 punctatus), and white catfish (Ameiurus catus). Forage species include threadfin shad

33 (Dorosoma petenense) and gizzard shad (D. cepedianum). Striped bass and walleye are

34 stocked annually by VDGIF. Sterile triploid herbivorous grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)

35 was stocked by Virginia Power.

36

37 Because of the importance of recreational fishing in Lake Anna, its fish community has been the

38 subject of wide-ranging studies (VEPCo 1986). Abundance and distribution of fish were

39 evaluated over a period from 1975 to 1985, using a variety of sampling methods. Larval fish

40 studies, creel surveys, and a number of special studies focused on the reproduction and growth

41 of important species, such as largemouth bass. Seasonal movement and habitat preferences of

42 striped bass were investigated, using ultrasonic tags.
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-35

1 Table 2-3. Fish Collected from Lake Anna

2

3 Scientific Name Common Name

4 Anguillidae

5 Anguilla rostrata American eel

6 Clupeidae

7 Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad

8 D. petenense threadfin shad

9 Alosa aestivalis blueback herring

10 Umbridae

11 Umbra pygmaea eastern mudminnow

12 Poeciliidae

13 Gambusia affinis mosquitofish

14 Catostomidae

15 Catostomus commersoni white sucker

16 Erimyzon oblongus creek chubsucker

17 Moxostoma macrolepidotum shorthead redhorse

18 Hypentelium nigricans northern hog sucker

19 Esocidae

20 Esox niger chain pickerel

21 E. lucius northern pike

22 Cyprinidae

23 Cyprinus carpio common carp

24 Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub

25 N. micropogon river chub

26 Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner

27 Notropis analostanus satinfin shiner

28 N. procne swallowtail shiner

29 N. hudsonius spot tail shiner

30 Aphredoderidae

31 Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch

32 Ictaluridae

33 Ictalurus catus white catfish

34 I. nebulosus brown bullhead

35 I. natalis yellow bullhead

36 I. punctatus channel catfish

37 Noturus insignis margined madtom

38 Ameiurus catus white catfish

39 Centrarchidae

40 Enneacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish

41 Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish

42 L. gibbosus pumpkinseed

43 L. gulosus warmouth

44 L. macrochirus bluegill

45 L. microlophus redear sunfish

46 Acantharchus pomotis mud sunfish
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-36

1 Table 2-3. (contd)

2

3 Scientific Name Common Name

4 Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass

5 Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie

6 Percidae

7 Perca flavescens yellow perch

8 Stizostedion vitreum walleye

9 Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter

10 Percichtyidae

11 Norone americana white perch

12 N. saxatillis striped bass

13

14 The community structure for fish in Lake Anna remained relatively stable during the 1975 to

15 1985 period, with some year-to-year variation in species composition. These variations were

16 caused by (1) normal population fluctuations, (2) reservoir aging, (3) the introduction of forage

17 species and competing predators, (4) the installation of fish attraction structures and artificial

18 habitat, and (5) the increase in Asiatic clam densities (VEPCo 1986). Post-1975 changes

19 included (1) a decline in relative abundance of yellow perch and black crappie, (2) an increase

20 in the relative abundance of white perch and threadfin shad, and (3) an increase in redear

21 sunfish abundance, with a corresponding decrease in pumpkinseed.

22

23 The mean standing crop for fish in Lake Anna ranged between 105 and 134 kg (232 and 296 lb)

24 of fish per 0.4 ha (1 ac) during the 1975 to 1985 period, but it increased substantially in 1985 to

25 189 kg (417 lbs) per 0.4 ha (1 ac) because of a large increase in introduced threadfin shad and

26 an increase in the abundance of gizzard shad. Both species provide forage for Lake Anna’s

27 game fish, which include largemouth bass, walleye, and striped bass. Lake Anna appears to

28 support a standing crop of fish greater than most U.S. reservoirs, with thriving populations of

29 several forage species and game fish species. Standing stocks of largemouth bass, Lake

30 Anna’s most popular sport fish, remained stable during the 1975 to 1985 period. During 1985,

31 Lake Anna produced more largemouth bass of “citation” size (3.6 kg [8 lb] or more) than any

32 other lake or reservoir in Virginia. Life history studies of Lake Anna largemouth bass suggest

33 that the reproductive success, feeding ecology, and growth of largemouth bass were similar

34 before and after Units 1 and 2 commenced operation (VEPCo 1986).

35

36 Four non-native fish species (striped bass, walleye, threadfin shad, and blueback herring [Alosa

37 aestivalis]) have been stocked in Lake Anna by VDGIF since 1972. Striped bass, introduced

38 during 1973, have been stocked annually since 1975. They provide a “put-grow-and-take”

39 recreational fishery. A self-sustaining population is not expected in Lake Anna because the

40 streams, including the North Anna River, that flow into Lake Anna lack the flow, depth, and

41 length to support striped bass spawning runs. Studies show that striped bass grow and provide

42 a substantial recreational fishery, but adults are subject to late-summer habitat restrictions (e.g.,

43 may be restricted to cooler-water refuge areas). As a consequence, they may lose weight and
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-37

1 show a decline in condition. Walleye are also stocked annually by the VDGIF and are highly

2 sought-after game fish.

3

4 Threadfin shad, introduced during 1983 to provide forage for striped bass and other fish, are

5 vulnerable to cold shock and winter kills, and would not be able to survive in Lake Anna if it

6 were not for operation of NAPS. Threadfin shad appear to be thriving and are an important

7 source of food for game fish. Blueback herring, stocked by VDGIF during 1980 as a forage

8 species, have not been as successful. During 1994, grass carp were stocked by Virginia Power

9 (with the approval of the VDGIF) in the WHTF to control the growth of the nuisance submersed

10 aquatic plant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata).

11

12 Commercially Important Fisheries of Lake Anna

13

14 There is no commercial fishing on Lake Anna or the North Anna River. Professional fishing

15 guides regularly take clients fishing for largemouth, striped bass, and walleye on Lake Anna, but

16 there are no commercial fishing operations in the sense that fish are netted or trapped and sold

17 at market. Professional fishing guides must adhere to State fishing regulations, and are

18 prohibited by law from selling their catch.

19

20 Recreationally Important Fisheries of Lake Anna

21

22 Lake Anna is a popular destination for anglers from central and northern Virginia. Lake Anna’s

23 proximity to the cities of Washington, D.C., Richmond, and Charlottesville means that the

24 reservoir is heavily fished. The heated effluent that flows into North Anna Reservoir at Dike 3

25 creates conditions conducive to good fishing during the winter, making the reservoir a popular

26 fishing spot when cold weather slows or shuts down fishing at other ponds and lakes in the

27 region. VDGIF estimated that 42,731 anglers fished Lake Anna for 232,439 hours over a

28 12-month period during 2000 and 2001. The species most often sought were largemouth bass,

29 striped bass, and crappie, with 69 percent, 15 percent, and 12 percent of anglers, respectively,

30 pursuing these species (VDGIF 2003). Black crappie, not largemouth bass, was the species

31 most often harvested. Depending on the time of year, species such as bluegill, white perch,

32 channel catfish, and walleye are also sought by Lake Anna anglers.

33

34 VDGIF manages the fisheries of the North Anna Reservoir, “...with particular emphasis on

35 providing quality largemouth and striped bass fisheries within the capacity of available habitat”

36 (Odenkirk 1999). Thus, the VDGIF focuses on these two species. Other species, such as black

37 crappie and channel catfish, are monitored by the VDGIF but are not as actively managed.

38

39 Electro-fishing catch rates for largemouth bass greater than 20 cm (8 in.) long in the North Anna

40 Reservoir have been high in recent years (VDGIF 2003; Odenkirk 2001, 2002). Young-of-the41 year catch rates, although lower, have been indicative of consistent recruitment. Structural

42 indices of the largemouth bass population indicate a population dominated by larger, older
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-38

1 individuals. Growth of younger (1-to-4 year old) largemouth bass is excellent; however, growth

2 of older bass (5 years and older) is below the district average (Odenkirk 1999). On average (all

3 age classes considered), largemouth bass in the North Anna Reservoir grow more rapidly than

4 largemouth bass in other large Virginia impoundments (Odenkirk 2001). In summary,

5 largemouth bass tend to grow rapidly in their first 4 years of life. Their growth rate levels out at

6 age 5, and then slows. The population of Lake Anna contains a high proportion of harvestable

7 individuals, and provides relatively high catch-per-unit-effort for anglers seeking larger, trophy8 sized fish.

9

10 Annual stockings of fry and fingerlings sustain the striped bass population in Lake Anna. 

11 Normally, between 100,000 and 200,000 fingerlings are stocked annually, which equates to

12 about 25 and 50 fish per ha (10 and 20 fish/acre) (Odenkirk 1999). The VDGIF is experimenting

13 with stocking rates of about 12 fish per ha (5 fish/acre) to determine if the striped bass popula14 tion is significantly affected. Striped bass growth patterns in Lake Anna vary from year to year,

15 with some of the variability apparently related to the size of fish stocked (dependent on size of

16 fish supplied by hatcheries). Generally speaking, young striped bass grow rapidly, and reach

17 harvestable size (51 cm [20 in.]) in about 30 months (Odenkirk 1999). Estimates of annual

18 mortality range from 35 to 50 percent, depending on the cohort evaluated, with the lower per19 centage likely more accurate (Odenkirk 1999, 2001, 2002). 

20

21 Based on experimental gill net catches, black crappie abundance in North Anna Reservoir was

22 very high during 1997 and 1998, but has declined in recent years (Odenkirk 1999, 2001, 2002). 

23 Growth of black crappie is good, and is similar to growth observed in other impoundments in the

24 region. There is considerable year-to-year variability in population size structure (i.e., average

25 size of fish captured), but it is unclear if this is an indication of changes in age composition or

26 changes in growth rates. The catch-per-unit-effort of “quality” black crappie declined by

27 50 percent between 1997 and 1998, an indication that (fishing) mortality is high. Most crappie

28 (92 percent) caught in gill nets were caught in the “upper lake” (Odenkirk 1999).

29

30 Channel catfish ranked fifth in abundance in gill nets during 1997 and fourth in abundance

31 during 1998 (Odenkirk 1999). Much higher numbers of channel catfish and white catfish were

32 captured in gill nets during 1998 than during 1997, but this was attributed to low reservoir levels

33 (related to drought) rather than an actual increase in numbers of catfish.

34

35 Because threadfin shad abundance is cyclic, gizzard shad serve in most years as North Anna

36 Reservoir’s forage base (Odenkirk 1999). Gizzard shad are regarded by fisheries managers as

37 a less-than-ideal forage species, because their rapid growth makes them unavailable to

38 predators in 1 to 2 years. Threadfin shad, while the ideal size for forage, are subject to mass

39 die-offs from low temperatures or sudden temperature changes. During 1997 and 1998, gizzard

40 shad numbered second and first, respectively, in North Anna Reservoir gill net catches. 

41 Threadfin shad were seventh in 1997 and eighth during 1998. Most shad (71 percent during

42 1997 and 76 percent during 1998) were caught in the upper reservoir (Odenkirk 1999).
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-39

1 Nuisance Species of Lake Anna

2

3 Virginia Power first collected Asiatic clams in benthos samples during 1979. Densities

4 increased sharply thereafter, as this species with its high reproductive potential quickly occupied

5 suitable habitat in the reservoir (VEPCo 1986). The total numbers and densities of Asiatic clam

6 at the various locations in the North Anna Reservoir and the WHTF show sizable fluctuations

7 between years, mostly as a result of spawning activity (Willis 1998a, b, 1999a, b, 2000a, b,

8 2001a; Dominion 2004a). Small “sand-sized” clams less than 2 mm long are sometimes locally

9 abundant immediately after spawning takes place, and inflate numbers and densities found at a

10 particular sampling location. Asiatic clam numbers in the WHTF near the cooling water

11 discharge for Units 1 and 2 show the most dramatic fluctuations. For example, densities of

clams at this location declined from 1619 clams per m2 during spring 1992 to 11 clams per m2 12

13 during fall 1992 (Willis 1992a, b). Clams in this area are subject to “boom and bust” cycles,

14 because under extreme conditions (high plant operating levels, high ambient temperatures,

15 drought), water temperatures can get high enough to cause localized die-offs. Larger (greater

16 than 15 mm in length), older (1 to 3 years old) Asiatic clams (Corbicula) are uncommon in North

17 Anna Reservoir samples, generally comprising less than 10 percent of the total collected

18 (Odenkirk 2001; Willis 1998; 1999a, b, 2000a, b, c, 2001, 2002a, b). Larger Asiatic clams are

19 generally uncommon in WHTF samples as well, but sometimes make up a significant

20 percentage (i.e., greater than 50 percent) of the total in the third arm of the WHTF when sample

21 sizes are small (Willis 1999b, 2000a, b). Although Asiatic clam shells have been observed in

22 the service water reservoir, Virginia Power biologists have collected no live clams at this

23 location.

24

25 The service water reservoir is treated with algicides and molluscicides, thus preventing Asiatic

26 clams from becoming established in this small reservoir. When Virginia Power compared 1990

27 to 2002 Asiatic clam survey results to similar surveys conducted during the 1980s, data

28 indicated a decline in the Lake Anna population. The greatest sample totals were recorded

29 during the spring of 1985 and 1988, when 194 and 294 clams, respectively, were collected in

30 replicate samples from a mid-lake location. The greatest sample totals collected during the fall

31 occurred during 1986 and 1987, when 237 and 1227 clams, respectively, were collected from a

32 mid-lake location. The greatest number of clams collected during the 1990 to 2002 period from

33 the mid-lake location was 148, during spring 1994 sampling. Operational experience at Units 1

34 and 2 provides further evidence of a stable or declining Lake Anna Asiatic clam population; no

35 condenser tube blockages have been reported since Asiatic clams first appeared in Lake Anna

36 during the late 1970s.

37

38 In the course of monitoring Asiatic clam populations, Virginia Power also looks for evidence that

39 the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has invaded Lake Anna. As of the end of 2002,

40 Virginia Power biologists had observed no zebra mussels in the North Anna Reservoir or the

41 WHTF. Dissolved calcium levels in North Anna Reservoir and the WHTF are well below those

42 known to promote shell growth in zebra mussels, which should limit its establishment in those
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-40

1 waterbodies. Zebra mussels are known in only one location in the Commonwealth of Virginia: 

2 Millbrook Quarry, in Prince William County, Virginia, approximately 100 km (60 mi) north of the

3 site.

4

5 2.7.2.2 Biological Communities of the WHTF

6

7 The WHTF is the body of water into which waste heat from the existing units is discharged via

8 the discharge canal. It is physically separated from the rest of Lake Anna by a series of dikes. 

9 The same aquatic communities occur in the WHTF that occur in the main reservoir. Fish can

10 swim from the main reservoir into the WHTF and back. However, fish are not stocked in the

11 WHTF, and access to this fishery is restricted to the land owners along this part of the shoreline.

12

13 2.7.2.3 Biological Communities of the North Anna River

14

15 The North Anna River joins the South Anna River 37 km (23 mi) downstream from the North

16 Anna Dam (Figure 2-2), forming the Pamunkey River. Another 56 km (35 mi) downstream, the

17 Pamunkey River joins the Mattaponi River to form the York River. In the North Anna River

18 downstream of the dam, the periphyton community (single-celled, filamentous or colonial algae,

19 and associated microfauna attached to underwater surfaces) is dominated by diatoms, as are

20 many southeastern streams. Caddisflies (Trichoptera) that feed on seston (living and dead

21 plankton, plus particulate matter) from Lake Anna dominate the benthic macroinvertebrate

22 community. Farther downstream, macroinvertebrate communities show more diversity and are

23 similar to those of the South Anna River (VEPCo 2001a).

24

25 Before the North Anna River was impounded, the fish community of the river downstream of the

26 Contrary Creek inflow was dominated by pollution-tolerant species. In the years following

27 impoundment (and reclamation of the Contrary Creek mine site), there was a steady increase in

28 measures of abundance and diversity of fish. During 1984 to 1985, 38 species from 10 families

29 were found in the North Anna River, compared to 25 species from 8 families in the control

30 stream, the South Anna River (VEPCo 1986). (Thirtynine species have been identified in North

31 Reservoir.) When species from the North Anna Reservoir were subtracted from the North Anna

32 River totals, the two fish communities (North and South Anna River communities) showed

33 striking similarities, indicating that the operation of the existing units had little or no effect on fish

34 populations downstream from the dam.

35

36 During 2000, the number of fish collected at four stations downstream of the North Anna Dam

37 was low but was similar to 1989, 1993, and 1996 collections. High spring flows and canceled

38 surveys in the fall may have contributed to the low fish numbers. Experience has shown that

39 high flows are associated with low electrofishing catch rates, and vice versa. Although the

40 number of fish collected in 2000 was low, the species composition of the catch was similar to

41 previous years, with six species comprising 80 percent of the electrofishing catch by number

42 and six species comprising 83 percent of the electrofishing catch by weight. All indications are
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-41

1 that the low catch in 2000 was an anomaly, and the North Anna River continues to support a

2 healthy, well-balanced community of aquatic organisms.

3

4 There is no commercial fishing in Lake Anna or the North Anna River. There are no runs of

5 anadromous fish in the North Anna River. The North Anna River is a tributary of the Pamunkey

6 River, which has an annual run of American shad; but these shad do not move into the North

7 Anna River (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Bilkovic 2002). The Pamunkey Fish Hatchery in King

8 William County, Virginia, is approximately 121 km (75 mi) downstream of the North Anna Dam. 

9 Shad reared at this facility are normally stocked in the Pamunkey River and the James River as

10 fry. Young American eels (Anguilla rostrata) are found in the North Anna River, and are not

11 sought by commercial fishermen. The American eel is a catadromous species, meaning that

12 these fish begin their lives in the open ocean and migrate into coastal rivers where they spend

13 more of their lives in fresh water (Rohde et al. 1994). Upon reaching sexual maturity, at age 5

14 to 7 years, the eels migrate back to the ocean where they spawn and die. Eels in the North

15 Anna River are juveniles, and also are known as "yellow eels."

16

17 The lower North Anna River below the North Anna Dam is small, approximately 23 to 46 m (75

18 to 150 ft) wide, but supports a diverse assemblage of stream fishes. It is a popular fishing spot. 

19 Unless stream flow is unusually high, powerboats are impractical. Most anglers fish from shore

20 or from canoes and kayaks. Recreational fishermen generally seek largemouth and smallmouth

21 bass or redbreast sunfish. Bluegill and redear sunfish are present as well, but receive less

22 attention from anglers.

23

24 Although the VDGIF periodically surveys the fish of the lower North Anna River and monitors

25 the condition of the recreational fishery, it does not actively manage these populations. VDGIF

26 is most concerned about the largemouth and smallmouth bass populations in the lower river, as

27 these are the species most often sought by anglers and the species most likely to attain

28 harvestable size. Recent VDGIF surveys have indicated that largemouth bass and smallmouth

29 bass populations are healthy, despite the limited supply of forage in the river.

30

31 Since 1987, Virginia Power biologists have gathered data on the abundance and distribution of

32 bass species in the lower North Anna River (VEPCo 2001a). Biologists established transects at

33 four locations in the lower river, counting and categorizing (by size) all bass that are observed

34 and noting the type of cover being used by the fish. Historically, largemouth bass have

35 dominated the fish counts at upstream locations, while smallmouth bass have been more

36 prevalent at downstream locations (VEPCo 2001a). In recent years, both species have

37 occupied the entire study area. Density estimates for both largemouth and smallmouth bass at

38 all locations were lower during 2000 than average densities for the entire study period, but

39 dense growth of hydrilla adjacent to stream banks limited the ability of observers to accurately

40 count the fish. 

41
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-42

1 Redbreast were most abundant in North Anna River electrofishing samples during 1998, 1999,

2 and 2000, and are the four most abundant species since 1981 (VEPCo 2001a). The redbreast

3 is found across the coastal plain and Piedmont of Virginia in warm-water creeks and rivers of

4 low-to-moderate gradient (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). It is an adaptable species, and may

5 also be found in ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and even slightly brackish waters near the coast. The

6 lower North Anna River redbreast population is a typical stream-dwelling population, with

7 unremarkable growth rates, food habits, and spawning habits.

8

9 2.7.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

10

11 This section describes the threatened and endangered aquatic animal species that exist within

12 the ESP site, vicinity, and corresponding transmission line rights-of-way, and examines the

13 potential impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed new units upon these

14 resources.

15

16 Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River for more

17 than 25 years. No Federally or State-listed fish species has been collected in any of these

18 monitoring studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional

19 special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. No Federally or State-listed fish

20 species’ range includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none are believed to occur in

21 counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa,

22 Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties). The only aquatic species listed by the FWS as Federally

23 endangered is the dwarf wedgemussel.

24

25 Animals

26

27 No Federally or State-listed (i.e., endangered or threatened species of concern) fish species or

28 critical habitats are found in Lake Anna or the North Anna River. No Federally or State-listed

29 fish species has been collected in any surveys or operational monitoring studies. While VDGIF

30 ecological databases indicate that there is the potential for one Federally listed mussel species,

31 one State-listed mussel species, and one mussel species that is a candidate for Federal listing

32 that occur in counties that border Lake Anna or the North Anna River, the three Federally or

33 State-listed species – the Commonwealth freshwater mussel species dwarf wedgemussel

34 (Alasmidonta heterodon), the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and James River spiny

35 mussel (Pleurobema collina) – could occur in local streams, none have been observed or

36 collected in local streams. A fourth mussel species, the kidney mussel (Ptychobranchus

37 subtentum), a candidate for federal listing, has been reported to has been observed in the

38 vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. However, these observations may be in error, because

39 confirmed observations limit this species to more western mountain streams that drain to the

40 Gulf of Mexico. None of the three Federally or State-listed species have been found in Lake

41 Anna of the North Anna River.

42
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-43

1 Table 2-4 identifies the aquatic species potentially occurring near the North Anna site listed as

2 threatened or endangered by the FWS, VDGIF and VDCR.

3

4 Table 2-4. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Known or Likely to

5 Occur in Counties Adjacent or Downstream from the North Anna Reservoir (Louisa,

6 Orange, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and Hanover Counties)

7

8 Scientific Name Common Name Counties Status

9 Alasmidonta heterdon dwarf wedgemussel Hanover, Louisa, Caroline FE,SE

10 FE=Federal endangered (FWS 2004 a,b,) SE=State endangered

11

12 The dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) was historically found in Hanover, Louisa,

13 and Spotsylvania Counties (VDCR 2004). It is listed as endangered by both the State and

14 FWS. The FWS Recovery Plan for the species, completed in 1993, indicated that one

15 population survived in the South Anna River in Louisa County (Moser 1993). The VDGIF Fish

16 and Wildlife Information Service database currently lists a “remnant” population in the South

17 Anna River in Louisa County, presumably the same population (VDGIF 2004b).

18

19 There are other bivalves listed as species of concern by the Federal and State governments. 

20 The VDGIF’s Fish and Wildlife Information Service database lists these species as occurring in

21 a stream or streams near NAPS. All confirmed accounts of these species are confined to

22 mountain streams in southwestern Virginia that are tributaries of the Tennessee River. It is

23 unlikely that a disjunct population would occur several hundred miles away in a river system that

24 flows eastward to the Atlantic Ocean.

25

26 None of these mussel species were collected in pre-impoundment surveys of the North Anna

27 River, and none have been collected in more recent years during routine monitoring surveys.

28

29 Plants

30

31 No Federally or State-listed aquatic plant species have been collected in any of the monitoring

32 studies associated with the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2, nor has any listed species been

33 observed in surveys or special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. No Federally or

34 State-listed aquatic species’ range includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none is

35 believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Carolina,

36 Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties).

37

38 2.7.2.5 Aquatic Monitoring

39

40 The NRC does not impose conditions of operation, including monitoring requirements, in the

41 area of water quality. Regulation of water quality lies in the National Pollutant Discharge

42 Elimination System (NPDES) under the EPA or the states (Virginia in the case of any new units
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-44

1 at North Anna). The NRC's role in water quality is limited to assessing aquatic impacts as part

2 of its NEPA evaluation. To provide the information needed to assess potential aquatic impacts,

3 previous monitoring programs and monitoring programs planned for construction and operation

4 were reviewed. These programs are expected to support any required assessments of aquatic

5 impacts associated with new units.

6

7 Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna since the early 1970s. Virginia

8 Power conducts quarterly electro-fishing sampling at nine stations (five stations in the North

9 Anna Reservoir, and four in the WHTF) and at six gill-netting stations (four in the reservoir and

10 two in the WHTF). These surveys are designed to document (1) the types of fish species

11 present in Lake Anna, (2) their relative numbers by species, and (3) their size class distribution. 

12 In the North Anna River below the dam, Virginia Power biologists have also gathered

13 abundance and distribution data on largemouth and smallmouth bass by direct (snorkel)

14 observation. The biologists sampled river segments, counted and categorized (by size) all bass

15 that were observed, and noted the type of cover being used. Other fish abundance and

16 distribution information in the North Anna River is collected three times per year by electro17 fishing at four stations.

18

19 In response to NRC Generic Letter 89-13, Virginia Power initiated a semi-annual sampling

20 program in the fall 1990 to monitor Asiatic clams (Corbicula flumenia) in the North Anna

21 Reservoir, the WHTF, and the service water reservoir. Virginia Power continues to collect

22 replicate samples at two North Anna Reservoir stations (i.e., intake and mid-lake), two WHTF

23 stations, and a single station in the service water reservoir; they report the total number and

24 density of clams at the stations and discuss population trends in semiannual reports. In the

25 course of monitoring Corbicula populations, Virginia Power assesses the micro-fouling potential

26 of Asiatic clams and looks for evidence that the exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)

27 has invaded Lake Anna. As of the end of 2002, Virginia Power had observed no zebra mussels

28 in Lake Anna.

29

30 Virginia Power biologists have also conducted studies in the North Anna River in response to

31 reduced flow because of drought conditions. The studies included physical habitat measure32 ments at different flows, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and collection of benthic macro33 invertebrates.

34

35 Each fall, when warranted, an aerial and ground-based monitoring program that focuses on

36 identifying the presence of a nuisance submerged aquatic macrophyte, Hydrilla verticillata, is

37 conducted.

38

39 VDGIF also conducts aquatic ecology monitoring as part of their management responsibilities

40 for the fisheries of Lake Anna. VDGIF district biologists monitor and research the fishes of Lake
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-45

1 Anna annually, focusing primarily on the largemouth and striped bass. Other species, such as

2 black crappie, walleye, channel catfish, and gizzard and threadfin shad, are also monitored by

3 VDGIF.

4

5 2.8 Socioeconomics

6

7 This section presents the socioeconomic resources that could be potentially impacted by the

8 construction, operation, and decommissioning of two new nuclear power units. It is organized

9 into two major subsections providing details on demographics and community characteristics. 

10 These subsections include discussions on spatial (e.g., regional, vicinity, and site) and temporal

11 (e.g., 10-year increments of population growth) considerations, where appropriate, as

12 referenced.

13

14 The potential impact area for the analysis discussed in this section was determined by where

15 the majority of employees of the currently operating NAPS Units 1 and 2 reside. There are

16 approximately 720 employees currently at NAPS. Approximately 79 percent of these

17 employees live in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

18 Richmond (NRC 2002).

19

20 2.8.1 Demographics

21

22 The analysis of the population distribution around the ESP site out to an 80-km (50-mi) radius is

23 based on the 2000 census. Table 2-5 presents the population in the concentric rings starting at

24 16 km (10 mi), 16 to 40 km (10 to 25 mi), 40 to 60 km (25 to 37 mi), and 60 to 80 km (37 to

25 50 mi), and projected population increases in those rings from 2000 to 2040. Dominion used a

26 formula adopted from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (2004), using the 1990 and

27 2000 Census as the base. The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, located at the

28 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, performed the 2001 provisional population estimates for

29 Virginia. The percent annual growth in population ranges between 1.2 percent (2030 to 2040)

30 and 1.9 percent (2000 to 2010). Total growth in population between 2000 and 2040 is projected

31 at 81 percent. The ESP, if granted, would expire in 2026 assuming an issue date of 2006.

32

33 All or parts of 32 counties and five major cities are located within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed

34 North Anna ESP site. The largest population center within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is the town

35 of Mineral, which is southwest of NAPS. In 2000, the population of Mineral was 424

36 (USCB 2000a). Lake Anna State Park also lies within the 16-km (10-mi) radius to the northwest

37 of the site.

38
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-46

1 Table 2-5. Population Distribution from 2000 to 2040 Within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP Site

2

3 Year

0 to 16 km

(0 to 10 mi)

16 to 40 km

(10 to 24.9 mi)

40 to 60 km

(24.9 to

37.3 mi)

60 to 80 km

(37.3 to

50 mi) Total

% Annual

Growth

4 15,511 185,456 487,482 849,347 1,537,796 2000

2010(a) 5 20,996 239,444 604,455 984,645 1,849,540 1.9

2020(a) 6 26,480 293,431 721,067 1,119,943 2,160,921 1.6

2030(a) 7 31,965 347,419 837,680 1,255,241 2,472,305 1.4

2040(a) 8 37,449 401,406 954,292 1,390,539 2,783,686 1.2

9 (a) Estimated population. Source: Dominion (2004a).

10

11 The town of Louisa, located west of the ESP site, falls within the 32-km (20-mi) radius. In 2000,

12 its population was 1401 (USCB 2000a). The City of Fredericksburg, population 19,279

13 (USCB 2000a), is northeast of the site, and the town of Culpeper, population 9664

14 (USCB 2000a), is north of the site. Fredericksburg and Culpeper fall within or on the edge of

15 the 48-km (30-mi) radius. Charlottesville, population 45,049 (USCB 2000a), is located west of

16 NAPS, and Richmond, population 197,790 (USCB 2000a), is east of the site. Charlottesville

17 and Richmond lie within or on the edge of the 64-km (40-mi) radius.

18

19 Table 2-6 lists the age distribution of the population in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and

20 Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond in 2000 and compares the city populations to

21 the population of Virginia. The counties’ age-distributed populations closely track within 2 to

22 3 percent of each other. The exceptions are Spotsylvania County’s under-18 age group (30.0

23 percent versus 24.6 percent for Virginia) and Orange County’s 25-to-44 age group (27.8 percent

24 versus 31.6 percent for Virginia).

25

26 Table 2-7 contains data on population, projected population, and annual growth rates for the

27 area of potential impact. Among the counties included in the comparison, Spotsylvania County

28 by far has the fastest growth rate, in terms of percentage growth from 1980 through 2000

29 (actual) and 2010 projected growth rate. Between 1990 and 2000, the population of

30 Spotsylvania County increased by 57.4 percent. The population in Louisa County for the same

31 10-year period increased by 26.1 percent. During the same time period, population increases in

32 Henrico and Orange Counties were 20.4 and 20.8 percent, respectively. The population of the

33 City of Richmond decreased 2.6 percent during the same period (Virginia Statistical Abstract

34 2004). The City of Richmond consistently lost population over the 30-year period from 1970

35 through 2000 and is projected to continue to do so through 2010. Both Spotsylvania and Louisa

36 Counties are ranked among the fastest growing counties in Virginia.

37
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-47

1 Table 2-6. Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000

2

3 Henrico County

Louisa

County Orange County

City of

Richmond 

Spotsylvania

County Virginia 

4 Age

5 Group People % People % People % People % People % People %

6 Under

7 18

64,702 24.7 6,255 24.4 5,955 23.0 43,178 21.8 27,108 30.0 1,738,262 24.6

8 18 to 24 20,553 7.8 1,691 6.6 1,678 6.5 25,932 13.2 6,626 7.3 679,398 9.6

9 25 to 44 86,166 32.9 7,656 29.9 7,184 27.8 62,712 31.7 29,062 32.2 2,237,655 31.6

10 45 to 64 58,278 22.2 6,710 26.2 6,620 25.6 39,839 20.1 20,073 22.2 1,630,867 23.0

11 65 and

12 over

32,601 12.4 3,315 12.9 4,444 17.1 26,129 13.2 7,526 8.3 792,333 11.2

13 Totals 262,300 100.0 25,627 100.0 25,881 100.0 197,790 100.0 90,395 100.0 7,078,515 100.0

14 Source: USCB (2000b).

15

16 Table 2-7. Population Growth in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, and the

17 City of Richmond–1980 to 2010

18

19 Henrico County Louisa County Orange County City of Richmond Spotsylvania County

20 Year Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth

21 1970 154,465 14,004 13,792 249,431 16,424

22 1980 180,735 1.6 17,825 2.4 18,063 2.7 219,214 -1.3 34,435 7.7

23 1990 217,880 1.9 20,325 1.3 21,421 1.7 203,056 -0.8 57,405 5.2

24 2000 262,300 1.9 25,627 2.3 25,881 1.9 197,790 -0.3 90,395 4.6

25 2010 301,000(a) 1.4 29,100 1.3 30,000 1.5 191,600 -0.3 25,000 3.3

26 (a) Projected population for 2010; values for 1970 through 2000 are actual census population numbers.

27 Sources: Weldon Cooper Center (2004); Virginia Employment Commission (2003); Virginia Statistical Abstract

28 (2004).

29

30 2.8.1.1 Transient Population

31

32 The area within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site is predominately rural and characterized by

33 farmland and wooded tracts. No significant industrial or commercial facilities are in the area,

34 and none are anticipated. As a result, employment is most likely to be out of, rather than into,

35 the area.

36

37 Recreational use of Lake Anna, which is the cooling water source for NAPS, is the greatest

38 contributor to a transient population. Numerous recreational sites, consisting of boat ramps, wet
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-48

1 slips, camping sites, picnic areas, etc., are located around the reservoir. A central data

2 collection site for recreational use of the lake does not exist. Dominion developed an estimate

3 of lake use on a peak weekend day in mid-summer based on representative usage of

4 recreational facilities (e.g., boating, picnicking, and camping) (Dominion 2004a). Data for the

5 estimate were provided by the VDCR for the recreational facilities at Lake Anna. The estimate

6 does not include use of the lake by local residents with their own private boat docks. Table 2-8

7 shows the estimated transient population in the vicinity attributed to the lake and to Paramount’s

8 Kings Dominion Amusement Park, located 32 km (20 mi) north of Richmond.

9

10 The resulting estimated total peak daily transient population on Lake Anna is 5900 for boating

11 and other uses of the lake and 4370 for Lake Anna State Park. The use of the WHTF is limited

12 to residents around the WHTF and their guests; thus, its peak use is less than 1000. Given the

13 conservative assumptions and the potential for double-counting, these numbers may be high

14 (Dominion 2004a).

15

16 The annual transient population is less certain because of the dramatic drop in boating during

17 weekdays and the fall, winter, and spring seasons. Based on the Lake Anna State Park data

18 and assuming 180 days of operation, the average daily attendance for the park is less than one

19 quarter of the peak daily attendance. Assuming that the average attendance, excluding the

20 park, is one-half the peak daily figure (Dominion 2004a), the total annual attendance in the

21 vicinity of Lake Anna would be about 808,300, based on a 180-day use period.

22

23 An accurate count of the transient population between the 16-km (10-mi) and 80-km (50-mi)

24 radii from the ESP site is difficult to estimate. There are colleges, schools, and hospitals within

25 80 km (50 mi). However, compared to the resident population within the same area, use of

26 these facilities by the transient population is expected to be insignificant (Dominion 2004a).

27

28 Between 16 km (10 mi) and 80 km (50 mi) from the ESP site, Paramount’s Kings Dominion

29 Amusement Park is the only major recreational facility that draws a significant amount of

30 transient visitors. Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park is 56 km (35 mi) southeast of

31 the site. The park operates from March to November and hosts about 2 to 2.5 million visitors

32 annually. According to the park’s public relations manager, the park could experience slow

33 growth in the future, until it reaches its current maximum capacity of 2.875 million visitors per

34 year (i.e., an additional 15 percent above the current attendance) (Dominion 2004a). On

35 average, the park is open for public use about 138 days per year (Paramount 2004).

36
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-49

1 Table 2-8. Estimated Transient Population Recreating at Lake Anna Facilities and Paramount’s

2 Kings Dominion Amusement Park

3

4 Facility

Daily Peak

Transient

Population

Annual

Usage

Comments/Assumptions

5 Lake Anna – Recreational Facilities and State park

6 Lake Anna 5900 531,000 Annual use based on 180 days at 2,950/average day.

7 Waste Heat Treatment Facility <1000 90,000 Peak daily use based on doubling the resident

population in cooling lagoon sectors (one guest per

resident). Annual use based on 180 days at

500/average day.

8 Lake Anna State Park 4370 187,300 Annual use was 187,300 between July 1, 2001, and

June 30, 2002. Park closes in winter. Usage includes

occupants of boats launched at the park.

9 Total Estimated Annual

10 Attendance

808,300 Assumed 180 days of operation. For Lake Anna State

Park assumed 25 percent of the peak daily attendance. 

For Lake Anna (including the WHTF), assumed

average attendance is one half the peak daily figure.(a)

11 Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park

12 Total estimated attendance 18,115 2,500,000 Annual use is estimated at between 2.0 to 2.5 million

between March and November. Park closes in winter.

13 Attendance from outside

14 80-km (50-mi) radius

7246 999,948 Assumes that 40 percent of park visitors come from

outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius.(b)

15 Total estimated transient

16 population

1,808,248 Sum of Lake Anna and Paramount’s Kings Dominion

Amusement Park transient population 

17 (a) Dominion calculated the annual attendance at 807,300 based on a 180-day season (Dominion 2004a). The

18 NRC staff, using the same numbers and assumptions, derived an estimated annual attendance of 808,300.

19 (b) Dominion used the maximum capacity of 2.875 million visitors per year to estimate 20,830 average daily park

20 visitors (Dominion 2004a). The NRC staff used the current estimated annual number of visitors at the park as a

21 basis for calculations of the estimated transient population.

22 Source: Dominion (2004a).

23

24 Using the annual number of visitors to the park and the average number of days open, the

25 current average daily park visitor count is conservatively estimated to be 18,115. While there is

26 no official count of visitors that come from areas outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP

27 site, the majority of the park visitors are expected to come from the Richmond and

28 Fredericksburg areas because of their proximity to the park. Dominion assumed that 40 percent

29 of the daily park visitors (7246 visitors) come from areas outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius; or

30 999,948 visitors over the 138 days that the park is open. These park visitors are considered

31 transient population (Dominion 2004a). The total estimated transient population within 80 km

32 (50 mi), therefore, is 1,808,248.

33
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-50

1 2.8.1.2 Migrant Labor

2

3 Migrant workers are typically members of minority or low-income populations. Because migrant

4 workers travel and can temporarily spend a significant amount of time in an area without being

5 an actual resident, they may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If this occurred,

6 migrant workers would be under-represented in the U.S. Census Bureau’s (USCB) minority and

7 low-income population counts.

8

9 Agriculture in Louisa County is representative of the surrounding region, including Spotsylvania

10 Henrico, and Orange Counties. In 1997, Louisa County had 385 individual farms. The main

11 crops grown within the county are legumes, grass hay, corn for grain, soybeans, corn for silage,

12 and wheat. Beef cattle production is also important, with 71 percent of the farms holding cattle

13 and calf inventories and 71 percent of the farms selling cattle and livestock (Louisa County

14 2001). Migrant workers do not harvest agricultural crops in Louisa County; however, they do

15 replant forestland that has been harvested (NRC 2002).

16

17 Over the past 5 years, most completely harvested forestland in Louisa County has been

18 replanted or allowed to regenerate naturally. From July 1998 to June 2000, approximately

19 1465 ha (3560 ac) of forest land were thinned or cleared. In 1999, 877 ha (2130 ac) were

20 reforested (Louisa County 2001). Planting takes place from late January through March and is

21 often done under a Virginia Department of Forestry contract, even on private lands. Migrant

22 laborers often plant the trees. Data on the number of migrant workers participating in the

23 planting are not available, but the number is considered to be small. Given the expected small

24 number of migrant workers, and the fact that if they were concentrated at a single location

25 where they would remain only for a short time, migrant workers would not materially change the

26 population characteristics of any particular census tract within Louisa County.

27

28 2.8.2 Community Characteristics

29

30 2.8.2.1 Economy

31

32 The communities potentially impacted socioeconomically by activities at the ESP site are

33 Henrico, Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania Counties, and the City of Richmond, all in central

34 Virginia. Louisa County, where the NAPS site is located, would see the greatest impact. All

35 these counties, but not the City of Richmond, have experienced steady growth in population and

36 economic activity during the 1990s. Brief discussions of the economy of each of the counties

37 follow.

38

39 Some comparative economic statistics for the four counties and Virginia are presented in

40 Tables 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, and 2-13. Table 2-9 presents information on the unemployment

41 rate (for December 2003), the percentage of individuals below the poverty line for 2000, and

42 median household income. Table 2-10 presents the major employers in Louisa County. 
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-51

1 Table 2-11 presents information on regional employment trends for Henrico, Louisa, Orange,

2 and Spotsylvania Counties; the City of Richmond; and the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

3 Table 2-12 contains county and city employment by proprietorship and industry (1990 and 2000)

4 for the four counties and the City of Richmond. Table 2-13 is an aggregation of Table 2-12 and

5 totals employment by industry or business type across the four counties and City of Richmond

6 for 1990 and 2000.

7

8 Table 2-9. Percent Unemployment, Individual Poverty, and Median Household Income

9

10

Unemployment

(% December 2003)

Poverty

(% Estimated 2000)

Median Household Income

(2000 $)

11 3.0 6.2 49,185 Henrico County

12 4.8 10.2 39,402 Louisa County

13 3.5 9.2 42,889 Orange County

14 5.3 21.4 31,121 City of Richmond

15 1.9 4.7 57,525 Spotsylvania County

16 3.3 9.5 46,677 Virginia

17 Sources: USCB (2000c); Virginia Employment Commission (2004).

18

19 Table 2-10. Major Employers in Louisa County, Virginia

20

21 Employer Product Number of Employees

22 Electric Utility 1318+ Dominion Virginia Power

23 Rigid PVC Products 652 Kloeckner–Pentaplast

24 Distribution Center 525 Wal-Mart, Inc.

25 Education 680 Louisa County Public Schools

26 Government Services 250 Louisa County (a)

27 Plastic Packing 160 AGI Klearfold, Inc.

28 Filters 120 Tri-Dim

29 (a) Inclusive of full- and part-time employees (VEPCo 2001a).

30 Sources: Louisa County Economic Development (2004), and NRC 2002.

31

32
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-52

1 Table 2-11. Regional Employment Trends – 1990 and 2000

2

3 County, City, and

4 State

Workers

Employed FullTime and PartTime 1990

Workers

Employed FullTime and PartTime

2000

% Change in

Workers

Employed

1990 - 2000

Unemployment

Rate 1990

%

Unemployment

Rate 2000

%

5 Henrico 142,293 194,787 36.9 3.0 1.6

6 Louisa 8427 11,641 38.1 4.9 3.1

7 Orange 9955 10,558 6.1 2.5 2.2

8 Spotsylvania and

9 Fredericksburg

40,402 59,872 48.2 3.8 1.3

10 City of Richmond 221,241 196,175 -11.3 6.4 2.9

11 Total for region 422,318 473,033 12.0 - -

12 Virginia 3,727,194 4,424,791 18.7 4.5 2.2

13 Sources: BEA (2000) and County and City Data Books (1994, 2000).

14

15 Table 2-12. County and City Employment by Proprietorship and by Industry

16

17 Industry

Henrico

County Louisa County

Orange

County

Spotsylvania

County and

Fredericksburg City of Richmond

18 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

19 Proprietors

20 employment

15,789 16,705 2052 5282 2306 2092 6902 9173 14,437 14,033

21 C Nonfarm

22 proprietor

23 employment

15,628 16,529 1621 4827 1868 1613 6603 8871 14,437 14,033

24 C Farm

25 proprietor

26 employment

161 176 431 455 438 479 299 302 0 0

27 By Industry

28 Farm employment 234 214 511 476 644 671 373 341 0 0

29 Agriculture services,

30 fishing, and other

899 1352 146 191 126 164 294 D 539 639

31 Mining 200 187 76 D L D 10 D 161 195

32 Construction 10,539 12,092 1352 1227 972 913 3916 4497 8842 8513

33 Manufacturing 13,465 16,514 1548 1548 2058 1689 3215 3420 28,327 19,175
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-53

1 Table 2-12. (contd)

2

3 Industry

Henrico

County Louisa County

Orange

County

Spotsylvania

County and

Fredericksburg City of Richmond

4 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

5 Transportation and

6 public utilities

6313 8815 D D 214 326 1271 2191 12,383 10,965

7 Wholesale trade 9771 11,757 116 227 212 558 1945 2678 11,697 9048

8 Retail trade 29,430 38,274 773 1310 1782 1903 10,606 15,513 22,744 18,830

9 Finance, insurance,

10 and real estate

19,811 32,402 431 1222 601 D 3084 3754 24,320 16,601

11 Services 39,902 59,016 D 2949 1897 1768 10,424 19,237 61,122 61,735

12 Government and

13 government

14 enterprises

11,729 14,164 1040 1341 1446 2066 5264 7652 51,106 50,474

15 D - Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the

16 totals.

17 L - Fewer than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.

18 Source: BEA (2000).

19

20 Table 2-13. Aggregated Employment by Industry or Business Type for Henrico, Louisa,

21 Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond

22

23 Industry or

24 Business Type 1990 Employment 2000 Employment % Increase (Decrease)

25 Proprietors employment 41,486 47,285 14.0

26 C Nonfarm

27 proprietor

28 employment

40,157 45,873 14.2

29 C Farm proprietor

30 employment

1329 1412 6.2

31 By Industry

32 Farm employment 1762 1702 -3.4

33 Agriculture services,

34 fishing, and other

2004 2346* 17.1*

35 Mining 447* 382* -14.5*

36 Construction 25,621 27,242 6.3
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-54

1 Table 2-13. (contd)

2

3 Industry or

4 Business Type 1990 Employment 2000 Employment % Increase (Decrease)

5 Manufacturing 48,613 42,346 -12.9

6 Transportation and public

7 utilities

20,181* 22,297* 10.5*

8 Wholesale trade 23,741 24,268 2.2

9 Retail trade 65,335 78,830 20.7

10 Finance, insurance, and

11 real estate

48,247 53,979* 11.9*

12 Services 113,345* 144,705 27.7*

13 Government and

14 government enterprises

70,585 75,697 7.2

15 Source: BEA (2000).

16 *Summations and percentages are for numbers shown in Table 2-12 (i.e., as with Table 2-12, some county data

17 are not reported because of confidentiality issues).

18

19 The City of Richmond is part of the Richmond-Petersburg metropolitan statistical area, which is

20 home to approximately 950,000 people. The Richmond-Petersburg area is the primary

21 economic driving force within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of NAPS. The Richmond metropolitan

22 statistical area is located approximately 160 km (100 mi) from Washington, D.C., and has a

23 transportation network of trucking and railroad terminals and interstate highway access to main

24 east-west and north-south routes. It also has an international airport and the western-most 

25 inland port in the Commonwealth of Virginia with direct access to the Atlantic Ocean, giving it

26 access to both domestic and international markets (VEPCo 2001a).

27

28 The unemployment rate for the City of Richmond at the end of December 2003 was 5.3 percent

29 (Table 2-9), an increase from an annual unemployment rate of 2.9 percent for the year 2000

30 (Table 2-11). The workforce decreased from approximately 221,241 to 196,175 or about

31 11.3 percent between 1990 and 2000. Services, government, and manufacturing are the

32 biggest employment sectors for 2000 (see Table 2-12). The City of Richmond leads with the

33 highest poverty rate and lowest median household income of the five jurisdictions evaluated

34 (Table 2-9).

35

36 Henrico County is also part of the Richmond-Petersburg metropolitan statistical area. The

37 Richmond area is home to the headquarters of 35 major corporations, including eight Fortune

38 500 companies and 14 Fortune 1000 corporations. Of those numbers, three Fortune 500 and

39 three Fortune 1000 companies are located in Henrico County (Henrico County 2004a). 

40 Services, retail trade and finance, insurance, and real estate are the largest employment

41 sectors in the county (Table 2-12) (Henrico County 2004a). Capital One Financial Corporation

42 is one of the largest private employers in the area (NRC 2002). The unemployment rate in
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-55

1 Henrico County was 3.0 percent in December 2003 (Table 2-9) (Virginia Employment

2 Commission 2004), essentially unchanged from 2000. Henrico County’s workforce increased

3 from approximately 142,000 in 1990 to 195,000 in 2000, or about 37 percent (see Table 2-11).

4

5 Henrico County had the second highest median household income (at $49,185 in 2000) and the

6 second lowest percentage individual poverty in 2000, 6.2 percent of the total population

7 (Table 2-9). The median household income in Henrico County exceeded Virginia’s median

8 household income by approximately $2500.

9

10 Louisa County is located in the triangle between Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Charlottesville.

11 Interstate Highway 64 (I-64) runs east-west through the county, as does a CSX Corporation rail

12 line. Because NAPS is located in Louisa County, that county has benefitted more economically

13 from the existing Units 1 and 2 than have Henrico, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties. 

14 Table 2-10 shows the top seven employers in Louisa County.

15

16 Until the 1990s, Louisa County had been rural and dominated by farming and forestry, which

17 are still economically important. In the 1990s, the county population grew by 26 percent,

18 without a comparable increase in industrial and commercial development (Louisa County 2001). 

19 The number of full-time and part-time jobs in the county increased from 8427 in 1990 to 11,641

20 in 2000, an increase of 38.1 percent (see Table 2-11). During the 1990s, two clothing manufac21 turers located in the county closed (Louisa County 2001). A positive aspect of the county’s

22 economic development was the arrival of a Wal-Mart Regional Distribution Center at Zion

23 Crossroads in the western part of the county. Wal-Mart currently employs approximately

24 525 people (see Table 2-10). In addition, since 1990 the unemployment rate in Louisa County

25 dropped from 4.9 percent (see Table 2-11) to 3.1 percent in 2000. The unemployment rate has

26 since increased to 4.8 percent for December 2003 (Table 2-9). Services, manufacturing,

27 construction and finance, insurance, and real estate were the top employment sectors in the

28 county in 2000 (Table 2-12). Louisa County had the second highest individual poverty rate and

29 second lowest median household income (for 2000) of the five jurisdictions (see Table 2-9).

30

31 More than half the 11,640 resident workers in Louisa County commute to jobs outside the

32 county (Louisa County 2001; VEPCo 2001a). In many respects, Louisa County is a bedroom

33 community for the larger metropolitan regions, particularly Richmond, and to a lesser extent,

34 Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, and Washington, D.C.

35

36 Operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 in Louisa County has kept the property tax assessment rates

37 significantly below those of neighboring counties. It also enabled the county to begin an

38 economic development program in the 1970s with the construction of its industrial park

39 (NRC 2002). While recognizing that NAPS has been economically beneficial, Louisa County

40 would like to lessen its dependence on NAPS through diversification of the local economy. To

41 achieve this diversification, the county hopes that it can attract technology and bio-research

42 firms (NRC 2002) and that Wal-Mart will train and provide employment for workers at the lower
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-56

1 end of the pay scale, which is defined as being substantially higher than minimum wage

2 (currently the Federal minimum wage is $5.50 per hour), but generally less than $10 per hour.

3

4 The economy in Orange County is dominated by agribusiness, manufacturing, and commercial

5 retail services. The towns of Orange and Gordonsville are the only two incorporated towns in

6 the county. A planned, gated residential community exists at Lake of the Woods

7 (VEPCo 2001a).

8

9 Orange County's workforce was approximately 10,560 in 2000 (see Table 2-11), with 45 percent

10 of working adults commuting out of the county to work (Orange County 2004a). The existing

11 employment base in Orange County represents an increase of 6.1 percent over the 1990 level

12 (Table 2-11). The largest employer (600 people) is American Woodmark Corporation. The

13 second largest employer (287 workers) is Von Holtzbrinck Publishing Services, a book distribu14 tion center (Orange County 2004b). The unemployment rate in Orange County was 3.5 percent

15 in December 2003 (Table 2-9), an increase from the annual unemployment rate of 2.2 percent

16 in 2000 (Table 2-11). Orange County had the third highest median household income and

17 individual poverty rate of the five jurisdictions studied (Table 2-9). In percentage terms, the

18 fastest growing employment sectors in Orange County during the decade of the 1990s were

19 wholesale trade (163 percent), transportation and public utilities (52.3 percent), and government

20 and government enterprises (42.9 percent) (Table 2-12).

21

22 Spotsylvania County is located halfway between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia. 

23 Economically, it is more associated with the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area through the

24 commuting patterns of its residents (NRC 2002). It is estimated that approximately 40 percent

25 of the county’s workers commute to jobs outside the county (NRC 2002). Hence, the county is

26 a bedroom community to the Washington, D.C., and Richmond metropolitan areas.

27

28 Historically, agriculture and forestry have been important components of the economy for

29 Spotsylvania County. The economic slowdown of 2001 to 2002 did not materially impact

30 Spotsylvania County, as can be seen by the unemployment and other economic factors. The

31 continued building boom, particularly in residential construction, was the most important

32 economic factor (Partridge et al. 2003). The relative economic importance of agricultural and

33 forest activities has declined as the commercial base as the county has grown. The largest

34 employer in Spotsylvania County is Capital One (employment at 1200), which has a call center

35 located in the county. Spotsylvania County government is the next largest employer (at

36 650 workers), with CVS Pharmacy third (450 workers). CVS Pharmacy has a distribution

37 warehouse located in the county (Spotsylvania County 2004).

38

39 The unemployment rate in Spotsylvania County was 1.3 percent for the year 2000 (Table 2-11). 

40 This compares with an unemployment rate of 1.9 percent as of December 2003 (Table 2-9). 

41
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-57

1 While there is exceptionally low unemployment in the county, Spotsylvania County lacks

2 resident-based employers that pay higher wages. The prevalent wage paid by a number of

3 resident based employers is under $10 per hour (Partridge et al. 2003). Workers employed full4 time and part-time increased by approximately 48.2 percent between 1990 and 2000

5 (Table 2-11). In percentage terms, the fastest growing employment sectors in Spotsylvania

6 County between 1990 and 2000 were services (84.5 percent); transportation and public utilities

7 (72.4 percent); retail trade (46.3); and government and government enterprises (45.4 percent).

8

9 There are no growth restrictions in Spotsylvania County, which had the second highest growth

10 rate in Virginia and the thirteenth highest in the country (Partridge et. al. 2003). Attempts are

11 being made to manage growth through the permit process. One such approach involves down12 zoning housing density (for example, where housing density once was one house per acre, now

13 it is one house per 2 acres). Attempts are being made to preserve agricultural land by limiting

14 one house to approximately 10 acres. Also, market forces are limiting entry into the county’s

15 housing market. It is currently a seller’s market, because houses in Spotsylvania County are

16 more affordable than in Fairfax County and other Northern Virginia locations. The average price

17 of a residential house in Spotsylvania is around $215,000, with more than that price often being

18 offered by potential buyers. This is shifting growth that might have taken place in Spotsylvania

19 County to Louisa and Caroline Counties and beyond (Goss 2003).

20

21 Table 2-13 aggregates employment by industry or employment type across Henrico, Louisa,

22 Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond between 1990 and 2000. The

23 fastest growing sector was services (27.7 percent). Next was retail trade at 20.7 percent,

24 followed by agricultural services, fishing, and other at 17.1 percent. Proprietor employment

25 increased by 14.0 percent, followed by finance, insurance, and real estate, which increased by

26 11.9 percent. The construction workforce increased from 25,621 in 1990 to 27,242 in 2000, or

27 6.3 percent. As can be seen from Table 2-11, the total number of workers increased from

28 422,318 in 1990 to 473,033 in 2000, or 12.0 percent.

29

30 2.8.2.2 Transportation

31

32 There are 32 counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site (see Figure 2-2). One

33 county is in Maryland while the remaining counties are in Virginia. The 31-county Virginia area

34 is served by two major freeways. Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) runs north-south through the

35 region and connects it with Washington, D.C., to the north and Richmond, Virginia, to the south. 

36 I-64 connects Richmond to Charlottesville on the west and Norfolk on the east. I-295 serves as

37 a beltway around the City of Richmond.

38

39 The area is also traversed by several other State and Federal highways including U.S. Route 15

40 (U.S. 15) from the vicinity of Warrenton in the north, through Culpeper, and on south. U.S. 29

41 runs more northeast to southwest from the vicinity of Manassas, through Culpeper, to

42 Charlottesville, and extends on to the southwest. U.S. 33 passes through Louisa and then
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-58

1 southeast to Richmond. U.S. 250 runs between Charlottesville and Richmond. Numerous

2 State routes (SRs) traverse the area including SRs 700, 652, 208, and 522.

3

4 Road access to North Anna is via SR 700, a narrow, two-lane, paved road. SR 700 intersects

5 SR 652 approximately one-half mile from the North Anna site. The major commuting routes in

6 the immediate vicinity of NAPS are SRs 700, 652, 208, 522, and 618. These roads all carry a

7 level-of-service (LOS) designation “B” (stable flow in which the freedom to select speed is

8 unaffected but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished). See Table 2-14 for a

9 description of LOS designations.

10

11 General transportation studies have been undertaken of highways in the region. The

12 interchange for SR 606 and I-95 is congested, generally at a LOS D or better. A Virginia

13 Department of Transportation (VDOT) I-95 interchange study has determined that this

14 interchange will become more congested in the future (Dominion 2004a).

15

16 The VDOT I-95 study includes an analysis of traffic patterns for the SR 606/I-95 interchange out

17 to year 2025. The study identifies an existing congestion issue and relates it to the ongoing

18 rapid growth in western Spotsylvania County. Upgrading the access to I-95 has been delayed

19 due to lack of funding. The VDOT study also identifies the need for widening the western

20 section of SR 606 to alleviate the existing congestion that affects traffic trying to access I-95

21 north and south.

22

23 I-95 north from Richmond is not as congested. I-64 west from Richmond has a LOS no worse

24 than B (Dominion 2004a). During the December 2003 site visit, the staff noted that even during

25 what would normally be considered rush hour, I-64 leaving Richmond westbound in the evening

26 or returning to Richmond in the morning was moderately traveled, with traffic moving well. 

27 SRs 208 or 522 are well maintained, lightly traveled, two-lane roads.

28

29 The Louisa-Orange-Spotsylvania Advisory’s three-county planning group, the Lake Anna

30 Advisory Committee, has recommended that planners in each of the three counties upgrade

31 their local roads around Lake Anna. The recommended upgrades would provide a

32 circumferential roadway system around the lake with adequate lanes for towed boats and

33 bicycles. Should the upgrade occur, it would alleviate congestion on local roads, such as

34 SRs 608 and 522 (Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee 2000). The Louisa County

35 Comprehensive Plan of 2001 also recognizes the need to improve the roadways around Lake

36 Anna. The plan recommends improvement to the roads within Louisa County, but provides no

37 information on funding or the timing of the recommended road improvements (Louisa

38 County 2001).
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-59

1 Table 2-14. Level-of-Service Designation Characteristics

2

3 Level-of-Service Conditions

4 Free flow of the traffic stream; users are unaffected by the presence of others. A

5 B Stable flow in which the freedom to select speed is unaffected, but the freedom to

maneuver is slightly diminished.

6 C Stable flow that marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of

individual users is significantly affected by interactions with the traffic stream.

7 D High-density stable flow, in which the freedom to maneuver are severely restricted;

small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems.

8 E

Operating conditions at or near capacity level, causing low but uniform speeds and

extremely difficult maneuvering that is accomplished by forcing another vehicle to

give way; small increases in flow or minor perturbation will cause breakdowns.

9 F

Defines forced or breakdown flow that occurs whenever the amount of traffic

approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. This situation

causes the formation of queues characterized by stop-and-go waves and extreme

instability.

10 Source: VEPCo 2001a.

11

12 Spotsylvania County plans to widen SR 606 west of I-95 to four lanes and has included this

13 project in their comprehensive plan (Spotsylvania County 2002). Construction of a SR 208

14 Bypass around the historic Courthouse District is currently planned to begin in 2006. When

15 completed, the SR 208 Bypass will connect the Spotsylvania Parkway (SR 208 north) with

16 Courthouse Road (SR 208 south) south of its intersection with SR 606. SR 208 south is a minor

17 road with a bridge over the North Anna Reservoir west of the ESP site. Spotsylvania County’s

18 plans are to upgrade the two-lane roads around Lake Anna by widening them to include

19 shoulders, which should more easily accommodate larger vehicles such as motor homes. This

20 upgrade is in line with the three-county planning group’s plans for the Lake Anna area

21 (Dominion 2004a).

22

23 In Hanover County, U.S. 33 links Richmond with Louisa and points to the north and west. This

24 two-lane road in the northern part of the county is currently congested and needs to be widened

25 (Dominion 2004a). A time frame for the widening has not been set because the source of

26 funding has not been identified. Traffic congestion would be considered in developing a county

27 traffic management plan (Hanover County 1998).

28
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-60

1 2.8.2.3 Property Taxes

2

3 Table 2-15 presents information on the total property tax revenues and the amount Dominion

4 paid to Louisa County for NAPS from 1995 to 2003. In addition, the percentage of total property

5 taxes paid and the county’s budget is presented. For the period 1995 to 2003, property taxes

6 for NAPS averaged about 46 percent of the total property tax revenue for Louisa County over

7 the 9-year period and averaged approximately 22.5 percent of the county’s total annual budget. 

8 Dominion projected annual property tax payments for NAPS would continue to increase slightly

9 (absolute amount) through the license renewal term of Units 1 and 2 (VEPCo 2001a). However,

10 the percent such payments represent of the total county taxes paid will probably continue to

11 decline. The potential effects of electric utility deregulation in Virginia on future property tax

12 collections from the units is not fully known at this time.

13

14 The significance of this discussion on the economy is that the four-county area around the ESP

15 site is in a state of change. Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties are more economically sound

16 than Orange and Louisa Counties. Spotsylvania County, for at least the last two decades, has

17 been influenced economically by the Washington, D.C., and northern Virginia economies, with

18 many white-collar professionals choosing to live in Spotsylvania County (for the suburban19 country lifestyle) and commute to jobs in Washington, D.C, and northern Virginia. Also, over the

20 last two decades, the Richmond area has become economically diversified and has grown

21 significantly. Some of this growth has impacted Spotsylvania County, to the north, and Henrico

22 County, which abuts the City of Richmond.

23

24 Table 2-15. Property Tax Revenues Generated in Louisa County; Property Taxes Dominion

25 Paid to Louisa County; and Operating Budgets for Louisa, Orange, and

26 Spotsylvania Counties – 1995 to 2003

27

28 Year

Total Property Tax

Revenues

Property Tax Paid

to County for NAPS

Percent of Total

Property Taxes

Total County

Operating Budget

29 Louisa County

30 1995 19,244,309 10,683,585 56 36,121,116

31 1996 21,452,251 11,131,726 52 44,471,914

32 1997 22,783,690 11,361,154 50 37,600,195

33 1998 24,141,313 11,006,924 46 37,651,399

34 1999 24,094,105 11,145,065 46 43,562,452

35 2000 24,770,698 10,583,390 43 46,554,387

36 2001 24,343,887 10,987,610 45 51,944,200

37 2002 25,861,613 9,931,868 38 56,704,171

38 2003 26,098,535 10,171,340 39 54,514,969

39 (a) The total county budget is in some years due to capital construction such as schools.

40 (b) Source: McLeod, March 16, 2004.

41
Affected Environment

(a) October through September is defined as a water year for purposes of measuring precipitation.

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-61

1 Orange and Louisa Counties have also benefitted from the growth in neighboring Henrico and

2 Spotsylvania Counties. In addition, both Louisa and Spotsylvania Counties have been impacted

3 by Lake Anna and the economic development around Lake Anna. Orange County has been 

4 impacted to a lesser extent by this development because it has fewer miles of shoreline. 

5 Development around Lake Anna has been oriented toward upscale vacation and retirement

6 homes. Lake Anna is becoming family oriented with more permanent year-round residences

7 (Goss 2003). Land values around the lake have increased significantly. Starter homes are

8 being built on Louisa County’s eastern edge, closer to the City of Richmond. Homes and

9 developments for residents with moderate incomes are scattered across Louisa County, and

10 upscale neighborhoods are being built in the western end of the county closer to Charlottesville

11 and around Lake Anna.

12

13 Dominion has a significant impact on the economic well-being of Louisa County, paying an

14 average, about 46 percent of the total property taxes between 1995 and 2003. Louisa County

15 schools have benefitted substantially from the taxes Dominion pays for NAPS by being able to

16 upgrade their infrastructure. Over time, the percentage contribution of total NAPS property

17 taxes payable to Louisa County for NAPS Units 1 and 2 will decline, assuming the current rate

18 of economic growth in the county continues. Thus, while the economic importance of NAPS is

19 expected to decline, it may decline even faster if Louisa County experiences substantial

20 economic growth as did Spotsylvania and Henrico Counties during the 1990s.

21

22 2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation

23

24 Access to the North Anna site itself is provided by SR 700, a narrow, two-lane road leading up

25 to the plant boundary. The terrain is gently undulating and wooded. Most of the site structures

26 are screened from public view up to the proximity of the plant boundary. Noise from plant

27 operations is not noticeable, particularly from points outside the NAPS plant boundary.

28

From October 2000 to September 2002,(a) 29 the area around Lake Anna went through a severe

30 drought, the worst in the 108-year history of data collection in the area. The drought had an

31 impact on Lake Anna with the water level dropping to 245 feet above MSL. The normal

32 operating pool level is 250 feet above MSL. As a result of the drop in water levels, most boat

33 ramps could not support launches (Dominion 2004c, d).

34

35 An effort was made to determine how the drought affected park attendance and boat launches

36 at Lake Anna State Park. The results are presented in Table 2-16.

37
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-62

1 Table 2-16. Visitor and Boat Launches at Lake Anna State Park – 1998 to 2003

2

3 Year Annual Park Visitors Annual Boat Launches

4 145,500 2792 1998

5 111,000 2449 1999

6 158,200 2107 2000

7 178,300 2447 2001

8 185,900 2125 2002

9 159,700 2073 2003

10 Source: Dominion 2004d.

11 Note: For annual park visitors, the 2003 data are for 11 months of the year only, from January through

12 November.

13

14 With respect to park attendance, it appears the drought had little impact. Annual attendance

15 rates increased through the drought period (2000 to 2002) and then, based on annualizing the

16 attendance from 11 months to 12 months for 2003, declined again.

17

18 The impact of the drought on boat launches from the park is more obvious. There was a

19 general downturn in the number of boat launches between 1998 (at 2792 launches) and 2000

20 (at 2107 boat launches). During 2001, the number of launches increased to 2447 and then

21 declined to 2125 in 2002 (the worst year of the drought), or 13.2 percent. The number of boat

22 launches continued their decline into 2003, declining by 2.4 percent over 2003.

23

24 2.8.2.5 Housing

25

26 Approximately 720 permanent employees work at NAPS Units 1 and 2 (Dominion 2004a). 

27 Approximately 79 percent of these employees live in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania

28 Counties and the City of Richmond, the rest live in other locations. Table 2-17 presents the

29 county of residence for the 820 permanent employees for whom addresses were provided

30 during the license renewal review (NRC 2002). The staff expects that the 720 employees

31 currently employed at NAPS Units 1 and 2 are distributed throughout the counties in the same

32 pattern as the 820 employees were at the time of license renewal. 

33

34 Dominion refuels each nuclear unit at NAPS on an 18-month staggered schedule. During

35 refueling outages, site employment increases by as many as 700 temporary workers for 30 to

36 40 days. The staff assumed that residences for these temporary workers are similarly

37 dispersed throughout the region as are those of NAPS permanent employees.

38

39
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-63

1 Table 2-17. North Anna Power Station – Permanent Employee Residence Information by

2 Four-County Area of Potential Impact

3

4 County

Number of

Personnel

Percent of Total

Personnel

5 Henrico, including the City of Richmond 104 12.7

6 Louisa 237 28.9

7 Orange 120 14.6

8 Spotsylvania 186 22.7

9 Other 173 21.1

10 Total 820 100.0

11 Source: NRC 2002.

12

13 Table 2-18 provides the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies for the area of

14 potential impact for 1990 and 2000. Each county in the area of potential impact has a

15 comprehensive land use plan. Louisa County updated its plan in September 2001 (Louisa

16 County 2001). Louisa County is adding from 350 to 400 homes a year to its housing stock. 

17 This rate has been fairly constant over the last 3 to 4 years (NRC 2002).

18

19 The county showing the greatest increase in housing units over the decade of the 1990s is

20 Spotsylvania County, which one would expect given its economic growth over the decade. The

21 number of housing units increased by 62.7 percent, and the number of renter-occupied housing

22 units increased by 62.5 percent. The number of vacant units increased by 31.4 percent. The

23 City of Richmond had the largest number of vacant units at 7733 in 2000, representing a

24 decrease of 12.2 percent from 1990.

25

26 Table 2-19 presents more detailed 2000 census data on vacant housing units for Henrico,

27 Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond. Of the total vacant

28 housing units, the City of Richmond, as previously noted, had the highest number at

29 7733 vacancies of which 3113 (or 40.3 percent of vacant housing) were for rent and another

30 2659 (or 34.4 percent) were vacant. Henrico County was second with 4449 vacant units of

31 which 1970 (or 44.3 percent of vacant housing) were for rent and another 818 units (or

32 18.4 percent of vacant housing) were vacant. Louisa and Orange Counties had the smallest

33 number of units for rent at 73 and 116, respectively. Within the counties of interest and the City

34 of Richmond, approximately 5630 units were available for rent.

35
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-64

1 Table 2-18. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County – 1990 and 2000

2

3 1990 2000

Approximate Percentage

Change

4 HENRICO COUNTY

5 94,539 112,570 19.1 Total Housing Units

6 89,138 108,121 21.3 Occupied Units

7 56,848 71,089 25.1 Owner Occupied

8 32,290 37,032 14.7 Renter Occupied

9 5401 4449 -17.6 Vacant Units

10 LOUISA COUNTY

11 9080 11,855 30.6 Housing Units

12 7427 9945 33.9 Occupied Units

13 5932 8110 36.7 Owner Occupied

14 1495 1835 22.7 Renter Occupied

15 1653 1910 15.5 Vacant Units

16 ORANGE COUNTY

17 9038 11,354 25.6 Housing Units

18 7930 10,150 28.0 Occupied Units

19 6047 7822 29.4 Owner Occupied

20 1883 2328 23.6 Renter Occupied

21 1108 1204 8.7 Vacant Units

22 20,483 33,329 62.7 Housing Units

23 1990 2000

Approximate Percentage

Change

24 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

25 18,945 31,308 65.3 Occupied Units

26 15,516 25,735 65.9 Owner Occupied

27 3429 5573 62.5 Renter Occupied

28 1538 2021 31.4 Vacant Units

29 CITY OF RICHMOND

30 94,141 92,282 -2.0 Housing Units

31 85,337 84,549 -0.1 Occupied Units

32 39,515 39,008 -1.3 Owner Occupied

33 45,822 45,541 -0.6 Renter Occupied

34 8804 7733 -12.2 Vacant Units

35 Sources: USCB 1990, 2000d.
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-65

1 Table 2-19. Vacant Housing Units for Henrico, Louisa, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City

2 of Richmond – 2000

3

4 Number Percent of Vacant Units

5 Henrico County

6 4449 Vacant Housing Units

7 1970 44.3 For rent

8 806 18.1 For sale only

9 395 8.9 Rented or sold, not occupied

10 454 10.2 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use

11 6 0.1 For migratory workers

12 818 18.4 Other vacant

13 Louisa County

14 1910 Vacant Housing Units

15 73 3.8 For rent

16 124 6.5 For sale only

17 84 4.4 Rented or sold, not occupied

18 1226 64.2 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use

19 0 0.0 For migratory workers

20 403 21.1 Other vacant

21 Orange County

22 1204 Vacant Housing Units

23 116 9.6 For rent

24 170 14.1 For sale only

25 66 5.5 Rented or sold, not occupied

26 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use

27 For migratory workers

28 Other vacant

484

1

367

40.2

0.1

30.5

29 Spotsylvania County

30 2021 Vacant Housing Units

31 359 17.8 For rent

32 449 22.2 For sale only

33 164 8.1 Rented or sold, not occupied

34 564 27.9 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use

35 1 0.0 For migratory workers

36 484 23.9 Other vacant

37 City of Richmond

38 7733 Vacant Housing Units

39 3113 40.3 For rent

40 949 12.3 For sale only

41 761 9.8 Rented or sold, not occupied

42 249 3.2 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use

43 2 0.0 For migratory workers

44 2,659 34.4 Other vacant

45 Source: USCB 2000d.

46
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-66

1 Rental rates for reasonable housing in Louisa County are considered high for a small rural area,

2 and the availability of rental apartments and housing is limited. Rents range from $750 to

3 $800 per month for a moderately priced two-bedroom unit. The presence of the Wal-Mart

4 distribution center at Zion’s Crossroads has pushed rents to these levels and they can be held

5 there because of the shortage of housing. There is also shortage of rental housing in Orange

6 and Culpeper Counties and nearby Charlottesville.

7

8 2.8.2.6 Public Services

9

10 Water Supply

11

12 Table 2-20 summarizes the daily water consumption and areas served by each water system

13 within the area of potential impact. Henrico County provides water to approximately

14 83,411 residential, commercial, and industrial customers (NRC 2002). Currently, the county

15 purchases its water supply from the City of Richmond, which has no restrictions on the amount

of water that can be purchased. Henrico County’s average daily water use is 130,000 m3 16 /day

17 (35 MGD). The county also has service agreements to supply limited amounts of water to

18 Hanover and Goochland Counties (NRC 2002). Because of the rapid growth rate in Richmond

and surrounding counties, a water supply treatment plant with a capacity of 210,000 m3 19 /day

20 (55 MGD) was completed and placed in operation in May 2004 for Henrico County. Henrico

County has a permit to withdraw 300,000 m3 21 /day (80 MGD) of water. The plant is expected to

22 be expanded to accommodate the larger withdrawal rate by 2010 (Slater 2004).

23

24 Table 2-20. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and

25 Spotsylvania Counties

26

27 Water System Source

Daily Capacity

(MGD)

Average Daily Use

m3/day (MGD) Area Served

28 Henrico County James River NA 130,000 (35) Henrico, Hanover and

Goochland Counties

29 City of Richmond James River 480,000 (128) 310,000 (83) Richmond, Chesterfield,

Hanover, and Henrico Counties

30 Louisa County Water

31 Authority

Groundwater/NE

Creek Reservoir

3800 (1) 1100 (0.3) Towns of Louisa, Mineral, and

some County residents

32 Town of Orange Rapidan River 7600 (2) 5700 (1.5) Town of Orange

33 Rapidan Service

34 Authority

Groundwater NA 75 (0.02) Town of Grodonsville, plus 50 to

60 homes on Route 20

35 Wilderness Treatment

36 Plant

Rapidan River 6100 (1.6) 1500 (0.4) Town of Wilderness/Lake of the

Woods

37 Spotsylvania County Ni River 23,000 (6) 17,000 (4.5) Supplies most residential,

commercial, and industrial areas

in the county

38 NA = not available.

39
Affected Environment

(a) A “run of the river” means that there is little or no water storage behind the dam or structure being

employed to withdraw water from the river.

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-67

1 Richmond’s source of water is the James River, which supplies approximately 562,000 people

2 in the City of Richmond and in Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico Counties. It has a maximum

capacity of 484,000 m3/day (128 MGD) and an average use of 310,000 m3 3 /day (83 MGD)

(VEPCo 2001a). Richmond is upgrading the plant to treat 570,000 m3 4 /day (150 MGD).

5

6 About 80 percent of the residential drinking water for Louisa County is from groundwater

7 through private wells. Twelve small private water supply systems exist in the county. The major

8 treatment plant in the county is the Northeast Creek water treatment plant that supplies the town

9 of Louisa, part of the town of Mineral, and some county residents. The plant has a capacity of

approximately 3800 m3/day (1 MGD), and average use is 1100 m3 10 /day (0.3 MGD). To provide

11 water for industrial and other users, five new groundwater wells and a new storage tank were

12 also completed between 2001 and 2004 in the Zion’s Crossroads area in the western part of the

13 county (Delk 2004). This is in addition to the existing storage tank.

14

15 Ninety percent of Orange County residents obtain their drinking water from private groundwater

16 wells. The town of Orange draws its water directly from the Rapidan River in what is known as

a “run-of-the-river” withdrawal.(a) The town of Orange also owns and operates a 7600 m3 17 /day

18 (2 MGD) capacity water treatment plant that supplies the town (VEPCo 2001a). Average daily

use is around 5700 m3 19 /day (1.5 MGD) (VEPCo 2001a).

20

Part of the town of Orange’s treatment plant production, around 2000 m3 21 /day (0.5 MGD), is

22 sold to the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA), which supplies the town of Gordonsville

23 (VEPCo 2001a). RSA operates two other Orange County facilities. The source of water for

24 these plants is the Rapidan River and groundwater. RSA’s Wilderness Treatment Plant has a

6100 m3 25 /day (1.6 MGD) treatment capacity and supplies, on average, approximately

1500 m3 26 /day (0.4 MGD) to Lake of the Woods and the town of Wilderness (VEPCo 2001a).

27

28 Spotsylvania County has a public water system supplying most residential, commercial, and

29 industrial areas within the county. Rural areas of the county are served by wells and springs

30 (NRC 2002). The Ni River Treatment Plant, which draws water from the Ni River, has a

capacity of 23,000 m3/day (6 MGD) and average use of 17,000 m3 31 /day (4.5 MGD). Another

32 larger treatment plant began operating during 2004 (Elam 2004).

33

34 Public water supply is not a constraint to growth in the vicinity of NAPS. There are supply

35 concerns in some individual municipalities and in some of the impact counties. In Louisa

36 County, water and sewer infrastructure are a concern now, particularly around the I-64 corridor

37 in the vicinity of Gum Springs. The county is considering a separate system for this area. 
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-68

1 Water supply reservoirs are also a concern. The recent drought exacerbated a shortage in the

2 availability of water supplies. Currently there are no growth restrictions in Louisa County

3 (Williams and Buckler 2003).

4

5 In Orange County, the Rapidan River is the source of water for several public water supply

6 systems. The Rapidan River is not normally a high flowing river; thus, during the 2000 to 2002

7 drought, there were some water supply problems. In the corridor that encompasses

8 Gordonsville and the town of Orange, water and sewer services are operating at maximum

9 capacity. Any new growth will require system upgrades. Location is also a problem. The

10 existing water supply system at the eastern end of the county, where many current NAPS

11 employees live, is operating at close to capacity. Shipping water from the west end of the

12 county to the east end would be expensive. Currently there are no growth restrictions in Orange

13 County (Livingood and Kendall 2003).

14

15 There are no limitations on new sources of water from groundwater. In addition, many of the

16 treatment plants located in the area of potential impact have reserve treatment capacity,

17 especially in the larger metropolitan areas. In cases where municipal systems are approaching

18 the limits of their reserve capacities, plans are in place to address those limitations by construct19 ing new treatment systems or expanding existing facilities.

20

21 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

22

23 In Orange County, there are two outpatient clinics and no hospitals. The fire departments are

24 made up of volunteers, and rescue services are composed of both volunteer and paid

25 employees. In the future, for new facilities, the county is considering hiring full-time paid staff

26 (Livingood and Kendall 2003). An increase in construction workers locating to the county could

27 put pressure on this infrastructure.

28

29 In the town of Louisa and Louisa County, there is no hospital. In Louisa County, general fire,

30 police, and rescue services are considered adequate at present (Lintecum 2003).

31

32 Henrico County is home to three hospitals. In total, 12 acute-care hospitals and seven special33 care facilities are located in the Richmond area representing nearly 5200 patient beds. Notable

34 in this total is the Medical College of Virginia Hospital, a major research and teaching center

35 (Henrico County 2004b). Spotsylvania County has two hospitals.

36

37 Social Services

38

39 Social services in the Commonwealth are provided in each county by the Virginia Department of

40 Social Services (VDSS) with offices in each county. The department provides services to

41 children (child care, protective services, foster care and child support enforcement, among other

42 services) and adults (adult protective services, domestic violence prevention, etc.) and financial
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-69

1 assistance such as food stamps and Medicaid. The department has 131 local departments

2 located throughout Virginia (VDSS 2004).

3

4 2.8.2.7 Education

5

6 Louisa County has one high school, one middle school, and three elementary schools. For the

7 school year 2000 to 2001, there were 4232 students in the school system (NRC 2002). All

8 schools currently have higher enrollment than they were designed to accommodate (on the

9 order of 100 to 150 students depending on the school), so overcrowding is a concern. 

10 Enrollment is growing at 2 percent a year. Tax rates in the county have not increased in 6

11 years, so while the schools are being maintained, there has been no new construction to

12 accommodate the increased enrollment. Growth is occurring in the county because of its low

13 tax base when compared to the surrounding counties because Louisa County has NAPS in its

14 tax base (see Table 2-15) (Milton 2003). Property was purchased for a new elementary school

15 in 2004, with construction to start in 2005 (Green 2004). Property also has been purchased for

16 construction of a new middle school. The growth areas in the county are around Lake Anna,

17 Zion Crossroads, and the I-64 corridor (Lintecum 2003).

18

19 Orange County schools have a total enrollment of approximately 4200 students spread among

20 five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school (Shifslett 2004). Orange

21 County is expanding its school infrastructure. One new middle school has been added, and the

22 high school has been renovated, adding an additional 26,000 square feet of space. Both middle

23 schools currently have 600 students and could accommodate 800. The high school has a

24 current enrollment of 1250 and could expand to 1500 pupils. Growth is taking place in the

25 eastern end of the county, closer to NAPS and Lake Anna. There is one middle school in the

26 eastern end of the county, and if growth continues, a new elementary school will need to be

27 built (Baker 2003).

28

29 Spotsylvania County has 26 schools in its system (16 elementary schools, 6 middle schools,

30 and 4 high schools). In addition, the county has one vocational school, and one special high

31 school for intellectually gifted students (NRC 2002). Approximately 20,350 students are

32 enrolled in the county school system, and an additional 350 are in the special high school (NRC

33 2002). A middle school is being constructed to accommodate growth around Lake Anna (Goss

34 2003).

35

36 Henrico County and the City of Richmond have 41 elementary schools, 10 middle schools,

37 9 high schools, and 2 technical centers (NRC 2002). Total school enrollment is more than

38 41,000.

39
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-70

1 2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

2

3 This section discusses the cultural background and the known and potential historic and cultural

4 resources at the North Anna ESP site and the immediate surrounding area.

5

6 2.9.1 Cultural Background

7

8 The area around the North Anna ESP site is rich in prehistoric and historic Native American and

9 historic Euro-American resources. A number of recent documents provide adequate back10 ground detail for the area’s cultural chronology and prehistoric and historic period contexts. 

11 Consequently, only a brief summary is provided here. For the ESP site, Ahlman and Mullin

12 (2001) discuss the prehistoric and historic contexts. Another overview document discusses the

13 cultural background at the nearby North Anna State Park (Goode and Dutton 1999), located

14 upriver and north of the plant. Historic period overviews are available for both Louisa County

15 (Thomas Jefferson Planning District 1995), in which the plant is located, and for Spotsylvania

16 County (Traceries 1996), which is situated just across the North Anna River to the east of

17 NAPS. Cooke (1997) also provides a historical overview of Louisa County. The following

18 cultural chronology summaries are extracted from these sources.

19

20 Prehistoric Period

21

22 The prehistoric Native American occupation of the region including the North Anna site includes

23 three general periods: the Paleo-Indian period (about 10,000 to 8000 B.C.); the Archaic period

24 (about 8000 to 1000 B.C.); and the Woodland period (about 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1600). Toward

25 the end of the Woodland period (A.D. 1500 to 1675), a transitional episode known as the

26 Protohistoric period occurred in which initial contacts with Europeans and cultural changes

27 associated with subsequent white settlement of the area took place.

28

29 The prehistoric periods were marked by initial reliance on big game hunting subsistence,

30 followed by increased use of smaller game animals and plant foods in the Archaic era. Major

31 environmental changes in the Archaic period led to an increasingly more sedentary lifestyle,

32 focused primarily in riverine settings. Late in the Archaic, more sedentary villages and an

33 increasing reliance on cultivated crops became the norm and the subsequent Woodland period

34 was characterized by larger base camps in the river valleys, with subsistence based on agricul35 ture, hunting and gathering, and intergroup trade. The latter part of the Woodland period is

36 primarily identified by the added presence of European trade goods.

37

38
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-71

1 Historic Period Native American

2

3 At the time of European contact and subsequent intrusion into the area surrounding the North

4 Anna site, the lands including the piedmont and mountains of western Virginia were occupied by

5 several Siouan-speaking Indian groups.

6

7 One of the Monacan Indian groups, part of the larger Monacan Confederacy, is commonly

8 associated with the area of present-day Louisa County. Between 1607 and 1720, the Monacan

9 were gradually pushed from their homelands through a series of encounters with the encroach10 ing settlers, and by the 1677 “Treaty Between Virginia and the Indians.” By 1700, the Monacan

11 had left Louisa County (Cooke 1993). Although some of the Monacan left the area for good,

12 going as far as Pennsylvania and Canada, a remnant group moved to the Bear Mountain area

13 of Amherst County, Virginia, around 1720. Today, the Virginia Monacan Tribe numbers about

14 900 individuals (Hauck and Maxham 1993). In 1989, the Monacan Tribe was recognized by the

15 Virginia General Assembly as one of the eight indigenous tribes in the state, and became a

16 member of the Virginia Council on Indians (Monacan Indian Nation Website).

17

18 Historic Period Euro-American

19

20 Similar to the prehistoric period, the historic period in Virginia can be subdivided into sequential

21 time periods that are descriptive in terms of associated events. These include the European

22 Settlement to Society Period (1607 to 1750); Colony to Nation Period (1750 to 1789); Early

23 National Period (1789 to 1830); Antebellum Period (1830 to 1860); Civil War Period (1861 to

24 1865); Reconstruction and Growth Period (1865 to 1917); World War I to World War II Period

25 (1917 to 1945); and the New Dominion Period (1945 to present).

26

27 European settlement of the area around the North Anna site began shortly after 1700, and

28 Louisa County was formed in 1742. The earliest economy of the area was based on cultivation

29 of tobacco in the fertile lands along the North and South Anna River valleys. In the early 1800s,

30 production of tobacco resulted in severe soil exhaustion, and wheat and corn replaced it as

31 staple crops. Although the area remained largely rural and agricultural in nature, at times

32 mining and quarrying also became important to the economy of Louisa County in the 1800s,

33 including mining of iron, copper, sulfur, gold and other ores, and quarrying of whetstone

34 materials. The area just upriver from the North Anna site was the scene of intensive gold

35 mining in the period from about 1830 to 1900.
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-72

1 2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at North Anna Power Station

2

3 To assess both known and potential cultural resource sites at the North Anna ESP site, several

4 existing literature and database sources were consulted, along with direct contacts to several

5 organizations (Appendix B). Particularly useful in this regard was the recent cultural resource

6 assessment for the plant site, commissioned by Dominion Resources (The Louis Berger

7 Group 2001a, b).

8

9 At the time of the 2001 cultural resource assessment, examination of historic and cultural

10 resource files at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Archives indicated that no

11 previously recorded cultural resource sites were known to exist at NAPS (Ahlman and

12 Mullen 2001). Similarly, a review of historical documentation at the Louisa County Historical

13 Museum, including historic maps dating between 1751 and 1863, indicate few historic resources

14 in the vicinity of the North Anna site, other than an early road paralleling the south side of the

15 North Anna River that appears to be near the western boundary of the North Anna site. An

16 unpublished map based on county deeds from 1765 to 1815 (Truce undated), shows the

17 presence of the “Jerdones Mill” on the North Anna River bank, just upriver from the North Anna

18 site, along with the associated “Jerdones Mill Road.” The same map shows an “Old Mine Road”

19 within the North Anna site area.

20

21 Background research undertaken by Ahlman and Mullin (2001) indicate that on undisturbed

22 lands within the larger plant boundary there is potential for both unrecorded prehistoric and

23 historic cultural resources to occur. More recently, a field inspection of the proposed ESP

24 project area was completed (Voigt 2003). This reconnaissance concluded that much of the

25 proposed ESP site lies within previously disturbed areas, particularly in the eastern portion. 

26 However, some undisturbed areas in the western sector have some potential for the presence

27 of cultural resources.

28

29 As a follow-up to the 2001 assessment, five known historic period cemeteries were recorded,

30 three of which lie within the administrative boundary of the North Anna site and two that are

31 located just down river from the North Anna Dam (Louis Berger Group 2001b). Two of these

32 cemeteries have associated archaeological remains of former structures.

33

34 Two of the recorded historic period cemeteries, designated as 44LS221 and 44LS222 in the

35 Virginia Department of Historic Resources site file system, are located in the vicinity of proposed

36 ESP construction or laydown areas. Site 44LS221 is a small cemetery located in the area

37 known as the Northwest Laydown Yard in a lightly wooded area. During construction of NAPS,

38 this area was marked and protected during construction activities. Site 44LS222 is located on

39 the hilltop above the proposed construction area and is protected by a tall chain-link fence.

40

41 It should also be noted that reconnaissance-level historic and archaeological investigations

42 were also completed in 1969 and 1970 for both the North Anna site area and the lake bed area

43 with few results (AEC 1973). A few Archaic period artifacts were noted in the area, but the
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-73

1 investigator did not deem them worthy of recording and evaluating. In addition, according to

2 records in the Louisa County Historical Society files, a total of 33 historic period cemeteries

3 were identified in the area along the river to be inundated. Many of these were avoided by

4 adjusting project boundaries, although some were “removed” prior to inundation. This total

5 apparently includes at least four of the cemeteries recorded recently at the North Anna site. 

6 Finally, cultural resource surveys along transmission line rights-of-way associated with NAPS

7 have largely resulted in negative findings for cultural resources (Saunders 1976; MacCord

8 1981).

9

10 2.9.3 Native American Consultation

11

12 Today, there are eight Native American tribes that are recognized by the Commonwealth of

13 Virginia. Six of these tribes have for several years been pursuing federal recognition, but that

14 status has not yet been achieved. Consultation letters were sent to the following tribes in

15 conjunction with the North Anna ESP EIS:

16

17 C Chickahominy Indian Tribe

18 C Chickahominy Indians – Eastern Division

19 C Mattaponi Indian Tribe

20 C Monacan Indian Nation

21 C Nansemond Indian Tribe

22 C Pamunkey Indian Tribe

23 C Rappahannock Tribe

24 C Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe

25

26 Based on information previously received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, NRC also contacted

27 the Tuscacora Nation concerning the ESP EIS for the proposed Units 3 and 4.

28

29 In addition, the Virginia Council on Indians was contacted regarding the project. The Council

30 serves as an integrating office for Virginia’s Indian Tribes within the state government.
Affected Environment

(a) Minority categories are defined as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or

other Pacific Islander; or Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; “other” may be considered a separate

minority category. The 2000 Census included multi-racial data. The staff should consider multi-racial

individuals in a separate minority category, in addition to the aggregate minority category when the

Census Bureau releases the updated information (69 FR 52040).

(b) 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 with

Census Bureau guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. 

Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (NRC 2002).

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-74

1 2.10 Environmental Justice

2

3 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

4 addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) 5 or low-income populations. The

6 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental

7 justice (CEQ 1997). Although it is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission has

8 voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. On August 24, 2004, the

9 Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in

10 licensing actions (NRC 2004).

11

12 The staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within

13 80 km (50 mi) of the North Anna site, employing the 2000 Census (USCB 2000e) for low14 income populations and the 2000 Census (USCB 2000f) for minority populations. The radius

15 within 80 km (50 mi) of NAPS encompasses counties in Virginia and Maryland. The analysis

16 was also supplemented by field inquiries to the planning departments of Orange, Louisa, and

17 Spotsylvania Counties (Livingood and Kendall 2003, Williams and Buckler 2003, and Goss

18 2003, respectively); social service agencies in Louisa and Orange Counties (Lingo 2003), and

19 other governmental officials in Spotsylvania County.

20

21 For purposes of the staff’s review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage of

any minority or aggregated minority category within the census block groups(b) 22 within an 80-km

23 (50-mi) radius of the NAPS site exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities in the entire

24 States of Virginia and Maryland (for Charles County, Maryland) by 20 percent, or if the corre25 sponding percentage of minorities within the census block group is at least 50 percent. A low26 income population is defined to exist if the percentage of low-income population within a census

27 block group exceeds the corresponding percentage of low-income population in the entire

28 States of Virginia and Maryland by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-income

29 population within a census block group is at least 50 percent. For counties and census block

30 groups within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site, the percentage of minority and low-
Affected Environment

(a) Low-income households should be identified using the annual statistical poverty threshold from the

Census Bureau.

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-75

1 income populations is compared to the percentage of minority and low-income populations in

Virginia or Maryland, as applicable.(a) 2

3

4 Dominion followed the convention of including census tracts in its assessment. It included the

5 census tracts where at least 50 percent of their area lay within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site

6 (Dominion 2004a). The “more than 20 percentage points above the comparison area” criterion

7 was used to determine whether a census tract should be counted as containing a minority or

8 low-income population (Dominion 2004a). Because the 20 percentage points is a lower

9 threshold, the 50 percent criteria was not needed.

10

11 The staff followed the convention of employing census block groups. Figure 2-6 shows the

12 distribution of minority populations (shaded areas) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. All census

13 tracts with at least 50 percent of their area within an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the North Anna

14 ESP site are included in the analysis.

15
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-76

1

2 Figure 2-6. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Minority Within an 80-km (50-mi)

3 Radius of the North Anna ESP Site

4

5 Within 32 km (20 mi) of NAPS, a minority population is concentrated to the southwest of the site

6 in Louisa County. Black minority populations exist within approximately 24 km to 48 km (15 mi

7 to 30 mi) east-southeast of the site on Caroline County’s boundary with Hanover County and

8 extending to King William County. Between approximately 64 km (40 mi) and 80 km (50 mi)

9 east of the ESP site, minority populations exist in Essex and Westmoreland Counties.

10

11 A concentration of minority census block groups exists in Charles County (Maryland) and Prince

12 William County (Virginia), east-northeast of the NAPS site. Between 64 km (40 mi) and 80 km

13 (50 mi) southeast of NAPS, there is a concentration of minority census block groups in the
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-77

1 Richmond area, and to the south-southwest a concentration in Buckingham, Fluvanna,

2 Goochland, and Cumberland Counties. Minority populations also appear in Culpeper County

3 northwest of the North Anna site. All minority block groups are more than 16 km (10 mi) from

4 NAPS.

5

6 Data from the 2000 census characterize 9.6 percent of Virginia’s and 8.5 percent of Maryland’s

7 populations as low-income (USCB 2000e). Applying the NRC criterion of “more than 20 percent

8 greater,” the census block groups were identified to contain low-income populations and are

9 presented in Figure 2-7. Census block groups containing low-income populations are

10 concentrated in the City of Richmond.

11

12 Also, Henrico and Chesterfield Counties, to the southeast between approximately 65 km and

13 80 km (40 mi and 50 mi) from the North Anna site, have low-income populations. Other areas

14 of low-income populations include Buckingham County southwest of the site and Charlottesville.

15

16
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-78

1

2 Figure 2-7. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Low Income Within an 80-km

3 (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP Site

4

5 2.11 Related Federal Projects

6

7 The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

8 issuance of an ESP to Dominion. Any such activities could result in cumulative environmental

9 impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for

10 preparation of the EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

11

12 Federal lands within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the NAPS site include the George Washington

13 Birthplace National Monument, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park,
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-79

1 Richmond National Battlefield, Shenandoah National Park, Featherstone and Rappahannock

2 National Wildlife Refuges, Fort A.P. Hill Military Reservation, Marine Corps Base Quantico, and

3 the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division. There are no national forests, wilderness

4 areas, or wild and scenic rivers within the region. Several Virginia State Parks exist within the

5 region. The closest park, Lake Anna State Park, is approximately 8 km (5 mi) northwest of the

6 NAPS site. The closest Native American reservations, the Mattaponi and the Pamunkey Tribes,

7 are more than 80 km (50 mi) from the NAPS site. The hydroelectric project operated by Virginia

8 Power at the Lake Anna dam is not licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

9 because of its small size.

10

11 After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of the NAPS site, the staff determined that

12 there were no Federal project activities that would make it desirable for another Federal agency

13 to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS. 

14

15 The NRC is required under Section 102(c) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments of

16 any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any

17 environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the EIS. During the course of preparing

18 this draft EIS, NRC consulted with the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Contact

19 correspondence is included in Appendix F.

20

21 2.12 References

22

23 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

24 Protection Against Radiation.”

25

26 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

27 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

28

29 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

30 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

31

32 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

33 Criteria.”

34

35 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environmental, Part 81,

36 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.“

37

38 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

39 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation.”

40

41 69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

42 Regulatory and Licensing Activities.” Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-80

1 Ahlman, T. and J. Mullin. 2001. Cultural Resource Assessment, North Anna Power Station,

2 Luisa County, Virginia. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia.

3

Audubon Society. 2004. “103rd 4 Christmas Bird Count. Lake Anna Virginia, United States.” 

5 Accessed on the Internet March 1, 2004, at http://audubon.birdsource.org/CBCOutput/

6 review.html?speciesByState=false&year=103&circle=S1022926

7

8 Baker, D. 2003. School Superintendent. Orange County Public Schools. Information obtained

9 in a personal interview December 9, 2003.

10

11 Ballou, T. 2002. E-mail Message to W. F. Sandusky, dated August 29, 2002.

12

13 Bilkovic, D. M., C. H. Hershner, and J. E. Olney. 2002. "Macroscale Assessment of American

14 Shad Spawning and Nursery Habitat in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, Virginia. North

15 American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1176-1192; 2002."

16

17 Brooks, J.L. and S.I. Dodson. 1965. “Predation, Body Size, and Composition of Plankton.”

18 Science, 150:28-35.

19

20 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2000. “CA25 – Total Full-time and Part-time Employment

21 by Industry.” Accessed on the Internet February 18 and 26, 2004, at

22 http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/

23

24 Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. “Fishes.” Virginia’s Endangered Species. The

25 McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, pp. 321-409, Blacksburg, Virginia.

26

27 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

28

29 Cooke, P. 1997. Louisa and Louisa County. Arcadia Publishing, Dover, New Hampshire.

30

31 Cooke, P. 1993. Louisa County History: A Cooperative Effort. Louisa County Historical

32 Society, Louisa, Virginia.

33

34 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the

35 National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

36

37 County and City Data Books - State and County Level Data. 1994. Geospatial and Statistical

38 Data Center. University of Virginia Library. Accessed on the Internet February 25, 2004, at

39 http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/edi-local/ccdbbin/statesort.cgi and http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi40 local/ccdbbin/countysort2.cgi

41
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-81

1 County and City Data Books - State and County Level Data. 2000. Geospatial and Statistical

2 Data Center. University of Virginia Library. Accessed on the Internet February 18, 2004, at

3 http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/ccdbbin/statesort.cgi and http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi4 local/ccdbbin/countysort2.cgi

5

6 Dames & Moore. 1969. Report, Site Environmental Studies, Proposed North Anna Power

7 Station, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Included in Units 1

8 and 2 PSAR as Appendix A), January 13, 1969.

9

10 Dames and Moore. 1971. Site Environmental Studies, North Anna Nuclear Power Station.,

11 Proposed Units 3 and 4, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric Power Company, Technical

12 Report, August 18, 1971.

13

14 Delk, Bar. 2004. General Manager, Louisa County Water Authority. Louisa County, Virginia. 

15 Information obtained by telephone, August 6, 2004.

16

17 Dominion. 2003. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Procedure Number VPAP-2103N,

18 Revision 7, Richmond, Virginia.

19

20 Dominion Virginia Power. 2003. Annual Report of Water Withdrawals, North Anna Nuclear

21 Power Plant, January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, submitted to Virginia Department of

22 Environmental Quality.

23

24 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit

25 Applications – Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

26

27 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter in Response to Request for

28 Additional Information Regarding Environmental Portion of ESP Application(No. 04-318). 

29 August 2, 2004.

30

31 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004c. North Anna Early Site Permit

32 Application – Response to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Comment Letter. 

33 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. June 28, 2004, Glen Ellen, Virginia. U. S. Nuclear

34 Regulatory Commission Docket No. 52-006.

35

36 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004d. Letter from L. N. Hartz to NRC in

37 response to August 2004 request for additional information, October 4, 2004.

38

39 Elam, B. Public Utility Engineer. 2004. Public Utilities Department. Spotsylvania County,

40 Virginia. Personal interview conducted by telephone August 6, 2004.

41
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-82

1 Goode, A., and D. Dutton. 1999. Archaeological Resource Management Plan, Lake Anna

2 State Park. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

3

4 Goss, R. 2003. Director, Department of Planning, Spotsylvania County. Personal interview

5 December 12, 2003.

6

7 Green, H. (III). Director of Finance. 2004. Louisa County Public Schools. Louisa County,

8 Virginia. Personal communication by telephone August 6, 2004.

9

10 Hanover County. 1998. Hanover County Comprehensive Plan –– Vision 2017, Transportation

11 Plan, adopted September 1998. As cited in Dominion (2003), North Anna Early Site Permit

12 Application, Rev. 0. September 2003, Volume 4.

13

14 Hauck, P. W., and M. D. Maxham. 1993. Indian Island in Amherst County. Second Edition,

15 Warwick Publishing, Lynchburg, Virginia.

16

17 Henrico County (Virginia). 2004a. “Company Index.” Accessed on the Internet

18 February 24, 2004, at http://www.henricobusiness.com/corp_profilesIndex.html

19

20 Henrico County (Virginia). 2004b. Virginia Economic Development Partnership. Accessed on

21 the Internet August 18, 2004, at http://virginiascan.yesvirginia.org/thePDF.asp?PDFCode=133.

22

23 Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries

24 Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

25

26 Kitchel, L. 1991. “Slippershell Mussel.” In Virginia’s Endangered Species (K. Terwilliger, ed.),

27 The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.

28

29 Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee. 2000. Lake Anna Special Area Plan. Committee

30 appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties,

31 March 2000.

32

33 Lintecum, L. 2003. County Administrator, Louisa County. Personal interview. December 11,

34 2003.

35

36 Lingo, R. Director, Department of Social Services. Orange County, Virginia. Personal

37 interview December 9, 2003.

38

39 Livingood, S., and D. Kendall. 2003. Director Office of Economic Development and Director

40 Planning and Zoning, respectively. Orange County. Information obtained in a personal

41 interview.

42
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-83

1 The Louis Berger Group. 2001a. Cultural Resource Assessment, North Anna Power Station. 

2 Report prepared for Dominion Resources. March 2001.

3

4 The Louis Berger Group. 2001b. Addendum To The Cultural Resource Assessment, North

5 Anna Power Station. Report prepared for Dominion Resources, Glen Allen, Virginia.

6

7 Louisa County (Virginia). 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia, Comprehensive Plan. 

8 September 4, 2001.

9

10 Louisa County at a Glance. Accessed on the Internet December 29, 2003, at

11 http://www.louisacounty.com/glance/htm

12

13 Louisa County Economic Development. 2004. Local Industries and Employment. Accessed on 

14 the Internet February 24, 2004, at http://yeslouisa.org/BusinessData/Employers.htm 

15

16 MacCord, H.A., Sr. 1981. An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the North Anna –

17 Louisa 230 KV Line, Louisa County, Virginia. The Archaeological Society of Virginia,

18 Richmond, Virginia.

19

20 McLeod, E. 2004. Finance Director, Louisa County, Virginia. Personal communication

21 received on March 16, 2004.

22

23 Milton, D. 2003. School Superintendent. Louisa County Public Schools. Information obtained

24 in a personal interview December 10, 2003.

25

26 Moser, G.A. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Prepared

27 by Annapolis Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland.

28

29 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2003. “Storm Events for Virginia, 01/01/1950 through

30 07/31/2003.” Accessed on the Internet November 20, 2003, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/

31 climate/severeweather/extremes.html 

32

33 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. Hazards/Climatic Extremes for August 2004. 

34 Accessed on the Internet September 10, 2004, at

35 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate/research/hazards/index.html

36

37 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2001. Local Climatological Data,

38 Annual Summary with Comparative Data (Richmond, Virginia). National Oceanic and

39 Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service. Asheville, North Carolina.

40

41 Odenkirk, J. 1999. Large Impoundment Management Report: Lake Anna. Virginia

42 Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia.
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-84

1 Odenkirk, J. 2001. Large Impoundment Investigations: Lake Anna. Virginia Department of

2 Game and Inland Fisheries, prepared by John Odenkirk, District Fishery Biologist, Dingell3 Johnson Grant F-111-R-9, Project I, Richmond, Virginia.

4

5 Odenkirk, J. 2002. Large Impoundment Investigations: Lake Anna. Virginia Department of

6 Game and Inland Fisheries, prepared by John Odenkirk, District Fishery Biologist. Dingell7 Johnson Grant F-111-R-10, Project I, Richmond, Virginia.

8

9 Omernik, J. 1987. “Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (Scale 1:7500000).” 

10 Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.

11

12 Orange County Virginia Economic Development Office (Orange County). 2004a. 

13 “Demographic and Economic Data.” Accessed on the Internet February 25, 2004, at

14 http://www.orangevirginiawelcomesbusiness.com/demographicandecodata.htm#commuterinfo 

15

16 Orange County Virginia Economic Development Office (Orange County). 2004b. “Business

17 Community Overview.” Accessed on the Internet February 25, 2004, at

18 http://www.orangevirginiawelcomesbusiness.com/business.htm#major 

19

20 Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park (Paramount). 2004. Accessed on the Internet

21 February 23, 2004, at www.kingsdominion.com/visit_calendar.jsp 

22

23 Partridge, G., G. Bailey, P. Gallagher, J. Smith, and S. Manster. 2003. Director of Economic

24 Development, Spotsylvania; President of Fredericksburg Regional Alliance; Realtor, Century 21;

25 Owner/Broker Century 21; and Rappahannock Area Development Commission, respectively. 

26 Personnal interview December 12, 2003, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

27

28 Paterson, C.G. and C.H. Fernando. 1970. Benthic Fauna Colonization of a New Reservoir with

29 Particular Reference to the Chironomidae. J. Fish. Res. Bd., Canada 27:213-232.

30

31 Ramsdell, J.V. and G.L. Andrews. 1986. Tornado Climatography of the Contiguous United

32 States. NUREG/CR-4461, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

33

34 Reed, J.C. and G.M. Simmons. 1972. An Ecological Investigation of the Lower North Anna and

35 Upper Pamunkey River System. Prepared for Virginia Electric and Power Company, Richmond,

36 Virginia.

37
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-85

1 Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the

2 Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel

3 Hill, North Carolina.

4

5 Saunders, J.R., Jr. 1976. An Initial survey of the North Anna – Louisa Transmission Line,

6 Louisa County, Virginia. Report on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,

7 Richmond, Virginia.

8

9 Shifslett P. Secretary to the Superintendent. Orange County, Virginia. Personal

10 communication by telephone August 6, 2004.

11

12 Sinnott, A., and E.M. Cushing. 1978. Summary Appraisals of the Nation’s Ground-Water

13 Resources – Mid-Atlantic Region, Geologic Survey Professional Paper 813-I.

14

15 Slater R. 2004. Chief of Design. Public Utilities. Henrico County, Virginia. Personal

16 communication by telephone August 6, 2004.

17

18 Spotsylvania County. 2002. “Comprehensive Plan.” February 12, 2002. Accessed on the

19 Internet December 29, 2003, at http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/departments/planning/

20 index.cfm?doc_id 

21

22 Spotsylvania County. 2004. “Doing Business. Spotsylvania Business Fast Facts.” Accessed

23 on the Internet February 25, 2004, at http://www.spotsylvania.org/db.html 

24

25 Thomas Jefferson Planning District. 1995. Architectural History Identification and Assessment

26 of Luisa County, Virginia (Revised). Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond,

27 Virginia.

28

29 Traceries. 1996. Historic Architectural Survey of Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Virginia

30 Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia and Spotsylvania County Department of

31 Planning, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

32

33 Trapp, H., Jr. and M.A. Horn. 2000. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Segment 11,

34 Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, in

35 U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-L.

36

37 Truce, R.B. Louisa County, Virginia About 1800. Unpublished map on file at the Louisa county

38 Historical Museum, Louisa, Virginia.

39

40 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

41 Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 and 2 and Construction of Units 3

42 and 4, North Anna Power Station. Washington, D.C.
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-86

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990. “Table QT-H1: Occupancy, Tenure and Age of

2 Householder: 1990. Henrico, Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

3 Richmond.” Accessed on the Internet March 22, 2004, at

4 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_lang=en&_ts= 

5

6 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. “American Fact Finder. Fact Sheet. Highlights from the

7 Census Demographic Profile. Mineral, Louisa, Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, Culpeper, and

8 the City of Richmond.” Accessed on the Internet July 14, 2004, at

9 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html 

10

11 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. “Table QT-P1. Age Groups and Sex: 2000. Data Set: 

12 Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100 Percent Data. For Henrico, Louisa, Orange and

13 Spotsylvania Counties, the City of Richmond, and Virginia."” Accessed on the Internet

14 March 21, 2004, at

15 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPeople?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_

16 cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on 

17

18 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. “American FactFinder. Highlights from the Census 2000

19 Demographics—Henrico, Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania Counties, the City of Richmond and

20 Virginia.” Accessed on the Internet March 28, 2004 and July 13, 2004, at

21 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

22 SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang

23 =en&_sse=on 

24

25 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. “Table QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics: 2000. 

26 Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. For Henrico, Louisa, Orange

27 and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond.” Accessed on the Internet

28 February 25, 2004, at

29 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=&_

30 street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on 

31

32 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. American Fact Finder. Table GCT-P14 Income and

33 Poverty in 1999: 2000. Accessed on the Internet March 16, 2004, at

34 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y& geo_id=01000US&

35 _box_head_nbr=GCT P14& ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U& _lang=en& format=US 9& _sse=on

36

37 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000f. American FactFinder. Census 2000 Summary File 1

38 (SF – 1) 100 Percent Data. P4.Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race (73) –

39 Universe: Total population: 2000. Illinois. Accessed on the Internet March 16, 2004, at

40 Http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTSubjectShowTablesServlet?_ts=100787346421

41
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-87

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. “Threatened and Endangered Species System

2 (TESS) Listings by State and Territory as of 03/01/2004. Virginia.” Accessed on the Internet

3 March 1, 2004, at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=VA

4

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Letter from K. Mayne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

6 Service, Gloucester, Virginia to NRC dated October 25, 2004. 

7

8 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Edited by James A.

9 Miller, Reston, Virginia.

10

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.111 - Methods for

12 Estimation Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases

13 from Light-Water-Cooled. Revision 1, Washington, D.C.

14

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

16 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Regarding North Anna Power Station,

17 Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory

18 Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

19

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of

21 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register,

22 Vol. 69, pp. 52040-52048. Washington, D.C., August 24, 2004.

23

24 Van der Leeden, F., F.L. Troise, and D.K. Todd. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia. Lewis

25 Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

26

27 Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation (VDCR). 2004. “Virginia's Natural

28 Communities, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants.” Accessed on the

29 Internet March 25, 2004, at www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/nhrinfo.htm 

30

31 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for

32 North Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna

33 River. Virginia Power Corporate Technical assessment. Water Quality Department. Richmond,

34 Virginia.

35

36 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Authorization to Discharge Under

37 the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Law,

38 Virginia Electric and Power Company, North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Permit No.

39 VA0052451, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, January 2001.

40
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-88

1 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2003. 2002 303(d) Report on Impaired

2 Waters, September 30, 2002. Accessed on the Internet January 2, 2003, at

3 www.deq.state.va.us/water/303d.html 

4

5 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004a. “Virginia's Coastal Resources

6 Management Area.” Accessed on the Internet December 29, 2003, at

7 http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/thezone.html

8

9 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004b. “Federal Consistency Reviews.” 

10 Accessed on the Internet October 28, 2004 at htp://www.deq.virginia.gov/eir/federal.html

11

12 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2003. “Lake Anna.” Accessed on

13 the Internet March 24, 2004, at www.dgif.state.va.us/fishing/lakes/lake_anna/index.html 

14

15 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004a. “Geographic Search. Fish

16 and Wildlife Information Service.” Available at vafwis.org/perl/vafwis.pl/vafwis.login. (Note: 

17 This is a protected website that is accessible only through VDGIF authorization.)

18

19 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004b. “060003 wedgemussel,

20 dwarf,” The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service. Accessed on the Internet 

21 March 25, 2004, at vafwis.org 

22

23 Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS). 2004. Accessed on the Internet August 18,

24 2004, at http://www.dss.state.va.us/index.html.

25

26 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for North

27 Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River. 

28 Virginia Power Corporate Technical Assessment. Water Quality Department. Richmond,

29 Virginia.

30

31 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1989a. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

32 the Lower North Anna River. Annual Report for 1988. Richmond, Virginia.

33

34 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1989b. Fish Passage Study for Lake Anna

35 Dam, 1986-1988. Water Quality Section, Corporate Technical Services. Richmond, Virginia.

36

37 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2000. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

38 the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 1999, Richmond, Virginia.

39

40 Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCo). 2001a. Application for License Renewal for North

41 Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Appendix E, Environmental Report - Operating License

42 Renewal Stage. Richmond, Virginia.
Affected Environment

November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 2-89

1 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2001b. Authorization to Discharge Under

2 Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Law. 

3 North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Permit No. VA0052451, Commonwealth of Virginia,

4 Department of Environmental Quality.

5

6 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002a. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

7 North Anna Power Station Units No. 1 and 2. Revision 38. Richmond, Virginia.

8

9 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002b. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

10 the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 2001 including Summary for 1998-2000,

11 Richmond, Virginia.

12

13 Virginia Employment Commission. 2003. “VEC Final Local Population Projections.” Accessed

14 on the Internet July 13, 2004, at http://www.vec.state.va.us/pdf/pop_projs.pdf 

15

16 Virginia Employment Commission. 2004. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics -

17 December 2003.” Accessed on the Internet February 17, 2004, at

18 http://www.vec.state.va.us/vecportal/lbrmkt/lmi.cfm

19

20 Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VNHP). 2004. “Online Information on Virginia's Natural

21 Communities, Rare, Threatened & Endangered Animals and Plants.” Accessed on the Internet

22 March 1, 2004, at http://www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/nhrinfo.htm

23

24 Virginia Statistical Abstract. 2004. “Census Data.” Accessed on the Internet July 13, 2004, at

25 http://www.ccps.virginia.edu/Demographics/ statistical_abstract/statabstract.html

26

27 Virginia Surface Water Management Act of 1989. 9 VAC 25-220-10, et. seq.

28

29 Voigt E. 2003. Field Inspection, Early Site Permit (ESP) Project, North Anna Power Station,

30 Louisa County, Virginia. Letter report from Louis Berger Group to Dominion Resources

31 Services.

32

33 Voshell, J.R., and G.M. Simmons, Jr. 1978. “The Odonota of a New Reservoir in the

34 South-Eastern United States,” Odonatologica 7(1):67-76.

35

36 Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. Intercensal Population Estimates for Virginia

37 Localities, 1960-1990. Accessed on the Internet July 13, 2004, at

38 http://www3.ccps.virginia.edu/demographics/estimates/city-co/city-co.html.

39

40 Williams, T. and L. Buckler. 2003. Director of Planning and Community Development and

41 Planning and Zoning, respectively. Louisa County. Information obtained in a personal interview

42 December 11, 2003.
Affected Environment

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 2-90

1 Willis, W.R. 1992a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power FBO, April 1992,

2 Richmond, Virginia.

3

4 Willis, W.R. 1992b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power FBO, October 1992,

5 Richmond, Virginia.

6

7 Willis, W.R. 1998. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

8 Biology group, April 1998, Richmond, Virginia.

9

10 Willis, W.R. 1999a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

11 Biology group, October 1998, Richmond, Virginia.

12

13 Willis, W.R. 1999b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

14 Biology group, April 1999, Richmond, Virginia.

15

16 Willis, W.R. 2000a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

17 Biology group, October 1999, Richmond, Virginia.

18

19 Willis, W.R. 2000b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

20 Biology group, April 2000, Richmond, Virginia.

21

22 Willis, W.R. 2000c. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

23 Biology group, October 2000, Richmond, Virginia.

24

25 Willis, W.R. 2001. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology

26 group, April 2001, Richmond, Virginia.

27

28 Willis, W.R. 2002a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology

29 group, October 2001, Richmond, Virginia.

30

31 Willis, W.R. 2002b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology

32 group, April 2002, Richmond, Virginia.

33

34 Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, and D.D. Brown. 1999. “Level III Ecoregions of Delaware,

35 Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.” National Health and Environmental

36 Effects Research Laboratory. US EPA. Corvallis, Oregon. Accessed on the Internet March 1,

37 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm

38

39

40

41
November 2004 3-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

2

3

4 The site for the proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) site is located in Louisa County in

5 predominately rural central Virginia, and is within the current North Anna Power Station (NAPS)

6 boundaries. The site is situated approximately 64 km (40 mi) northwest of Richmond, Virginia. 

7 This chapter describes the approach Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) used to

8 identify the key plant parameters and site characteristics the needed to assess the

9 environmental impacts of the proposed action (Dominion 2004a). The site layout, and existing

10 facilities are discussed in Section 3.1. The plant parameters and power transmission system

11 are discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively, and references for this chapter are

12 documented in Section 3.4.

13

14 3.1 External Appearance and Site Layout

15

16 The North Anna Power Station consists of two operational pressurized water reactors (PWRs)

17 furnished by Westinghouse Electric Company, a shared turbine building, a switchyard, intake

18 and discharge structures, and support buildings. NAPS is located on the shore of Lake Anna,

19 an impoundment created in 1971 by constructing a dam on the main stem of the North Anna

20 River to create a source of cooling water for NAPS. Lake Anna is divided into the North Anna

21 Reservoir, which serves as the cooling water source for NAPS Units 1 and 2, and the Waste

22 Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF), which receives the heated discharge. The existing units use a

23 spray pond for an ultimate heat sink. A radioactive waste disposal system, a fuel-handling

24 system, an independent spent fuel storage installation, auxiliary structures, and other onsite

25 facilities necessary for a complete operating nuclear power plant also exist on the NAPS site. 

26 With the exception of a few support buildings that may be relocated, the existing NAPS site

27 would remain unchanged. The proposed North Anna ESP site, most of which has been

28 previously disturbed, is located in an area adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 (Figure 3-1).

29

30 A specific plant design has not been selected for the proposed new Units 3 and 4; instead, a set

31 of bounding plant parameters was chosen to envelop the North Anna ESP site development. 

32 This plant parameter envelope (PPE) is based on the addition of two new power generating

33 units, each of which would be a stand-alone plant with its own support systems. Dominion

34 states that the new units would share ancillary support structures such as maintenance

35 facilities, office centers, and wastewater and water treatment plants. Each new unit would

36 represent a portion of the total generation capacity to be added, and may consist of one or more

37 reactors or reactor modules. These multiple reactors or modules (the number of which may

38 vary depending on the reactor type selected) would be grouped into distinct operating units. 

39 The nuclear generating capacity to be added would not exceed 4300 megawatts-thermal

40 (MW[t]) per unit, or up to a total of 8600 MW(t) for two units. For the cooling systems, Dominion

41 has proposed using once-through cooling for Unit 3 and dry cooling towers for Unit 4.

42
November 2004 3-2 Draft NUREG-1811

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

32 Figure 3-1. Proposed Major ESP Structures (Units 3 and 4) in Relation to Existing Units 1 and 2 Str
Plant Description

November 2004 3-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope

2

3 An applicant for an ESP need not provide a detailed design of a reactor or reactors and the

4 associated facilities but should provide sufficient bounding parameters and characteristics of the

5 reactor or reactors and the associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can be

6 made. Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a plant parameter envelope (PPE) as a

7 surrogate for a nuclear power plant and its associated facilities.

8

9 A PPE is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound

10 the design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be constructed at a given site. 

11 The PPE values are a surrogate for actual reactor design information. Analysis of environ12 mental impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the selection of a

13 reactor design until the construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) stage. The PPE

14 reflects upper bounds of the values for each parameter that it encompasses rather than the

15 characteristics of any specific reactor design.

16

17 In its North Anna ESP application, Dominion used a composite of values from seven reactor

18 designs to develop the PPE for the ESP application. The values used in the environmental

19 review from the seven reactor designs are not necessarily the same values used in the safety

20 review. The values in this report are not design-specific; rather, they are used to determine the

21 environmental impacts of a reactor design that falls within the values used in this report. The

22 reactor designs used to develop the PPE include the following five light-water reactor and two

23 gas-cooled reactor types: 

24

25 C ACR-700 – This reactor, developed by Atomic Energy Canada Limited, is an

26 evolutionary extension of CANDU 6 plant using very slightly enriched uranium fuel and

27 light-water coolant.

28

29 C Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by General Electric

30 Company, is a standardized plant that has been certified under the NRC requirements in

31 10 CFR Part 52. The ABWR is fueled with slightly enriched uranium and has light-water

32 cooling.

33

34 C Surrogate AP1000 – Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) – This is an earlier

35 version of the AP1000 reactor final design approved by the NRC, and developed by

36 Westinghouse Electric Company, using slightly enriched uranium and light-water

37 cooling. This design is not the AP1000 that has received final design approval from the

38 NRC.

39

40 C Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This reactor, developed by

41 General Electric Company, is fueled with slightly enriched uranium and has light-water

42 cooling.
Plant Description

Draft NUREG-1811 3-4 November 2004

1 C International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) next generation PWR – This reactor

2 is under development by a consortium led by Westinghouse Electric Company and is a

3 modular light-water reactor.

4

5 C Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) – This reactor, developed by General

6 Atomics, is a modular helium-cooled graphite-moderated reactor.

7

8 C Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) – This reactor, developed by PBMR (Pty) Ltd., is a

9 modular graphite-moderated helium-cooled gas turbine reactor.

10

11 The ABWR design has been certified by NRC in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52. On

12 September 13, 2004, the NRC granted the Final Design Approval for the AP1000. The design

13 certification rulemaking for the AP1000 is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2005.

14

15 Dominion would not be required to use any of these designs if it elects to proceed with a CP or

16 COL application, however, the characteristics of the reactor ultimately selected would have to

17 be within the bounds of the PPE for the assessment of a given characteristic contained in this

18 EIS to be applicable.

19

20 Not all of the values in the PPE were used in the staff's evaluation. The atmospheric dispersion

21 factors in the PPE were not used in the review. Site specific values were used for the atmos22 pheric dispersion factors. Atmospheric dispersion factors were calculated using site meteoro23 logical conditions to determine the dilution capability of the site. At the CP/COL stage, the staff

24 will need to verify that the atmospheric dispersion factors for the selected reactor are bounded

25 by the values specified by the site atmospheric dispersion factors. The ER stated that Unit 3

26 would use a once-through cooling system and Unit 4 would use a dry tower cooling system. 

27 The PPE values of the other types of cooling systems were used in the review for comparison

28 purposes.

29

30 In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts for the North Anna early site permit (ESP) site,

31 Dominion used the plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach for the advanced LWR designs

32 but not for the two gas-cooled reactors. In its evaluation of the impacts from transportation of

33 radioactive materials, Dominion did not use the PPE approach but rather evaluated each reactor

34 design individually. In situations where designs were evaluated individually, Dominion would

35 have to perform a new evaluation if a different design is proposed at the CP or COL stage. In

36 its evaluation of the radiological consequences on the environment of potential design basis

37 accidents, Dominion used the PPE approach focusing on two light-water reactors: the certified

38 ABWR with an uprated power level of 4300 MWt and a surrogate AP1000 reactor design. The

39 PPE does not include source terms for severe accidents; therefore, the applicant used source

40 terms for the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000 reactors instead of PPE values. The staff did not

41 evaluate the design basis or severe accident impacts for gas-cooled reactors. Therefore, at the

42 CP/COL stage, the applicant and the staff will need to evaluate whether the environmental
Plant Description

November 2004 3-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 impacts of design basis and severe accidents at the NAPS ESP site remain bounded by the

2 impacts from the surrogate (ABWR and AP1000) designs. 

3

4 3.2.1 Plant Water Use

5

6 This draft EIS assesses the impacts of plant water use bounded by the PPE and site-specific

7 constraints. The following sections describe both the consumptive and non-consumptive water

8 uses of proposed Units 3 and 4 and the associated plant water treatment systems.

9

10 The two proposed ESP units involve considerably different cooling systems with vastly different

11 water needs. The proposed Unit 3 would use once-through cooling and the WHTF in the same

12 manner as the existing Units 1 and 2 at NAPS. The proposed Unit 4 would use dry cooling

13 towers. The cooling systems are described in more detail in Section 3.2.3.

14

15 3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption

16

17 The primary water demand for the proposed Unit 3 is for condenser cooling. The PPE value for

18 the proposed Unit 3 would be limited to withdrawing 71,900 L/s (1,140,000 gpm) through the

19 intake structure. The once-through portion of the cooling system would return approximately the

20 same amount of water to the discharge canal and the WHTF. The elevated temperature of the

21 discharged water would result in induced evaporative losses, which would be in addition to the

22 natural (ambient) evaporative losses from the lake. The induced evaporation caused by the

23 cooling system design is not included in the PPE and is a site-specific parameter. Only that

24 volume of the water lost from the lake through induced evaporation is considered a consumptive

25 use. The estimate of the induced evaporation is presented in Section 5.2.2 of the

26 Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Dominion (Dominion 2004a), and the staff’s

27 independent estimate of induced evaporation as provided in Section 5.3.1 of this document.

28

29 Dry cooling towers are proposed for the Unit 4 cooling system (Dominion 2004a). Whereas wet

30 cooling towers rely primarily on the latent heat of vaporization of water to satisfy cooling

31 demands, dry towers rely solely on the much smaller sensible heat exchange between the air

32 and the water in an enclosed radiator. It should be noted that the consumptive cooling water

33 use for wet cooling towers is approximately 991 L/s [15,720 gpm]), the consumptive water use

34 for dry cooling towers is a negligible 0.06 L/s [1 gpm]).

35

36 Units 3 and 4 would have identical demands for potable water, demineralized water, and fire

37 protection water. In Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 of its ER, Dominion estimated these combined

38 water uses to be 41.3 L/s (655 gpm) per unit under normal conditions and 211 L/s (3340 gpm)

39 per unit when the fire protection system is operating at full capacity. Potable water would be

40 provided from groundwater wells, whereas the demineralized water and fire protection water

41 would be supplied from Lake Anna.

42
Plant Description

Draft NUREG-1811 3-6 November 2004

1 For safety-related cooling, the ultimate heat sink for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would provide

2 water to the reactor cooling systems and safety-related components. Dominion proposes to use

3 the same ultimate heat sink system for both plants. This system would be composed of a

4 mechanical draft cooling tower with a 71.6 m wide by 107 m long by 15.2 m deep (235 ft wide

5 by 350 ft long by 50 ft deep) engineered underground basin constructed beneath the tower

(Dominion 2004b). The basins will be large enough to store 1.2 x 108 6 L (30,600,000 gal), which

7 is adequate to hold a 30-day supply of emergency cooling water. During periods when the

8 ultimate heat sink cooling towers are in operation, the towers are expected to withdraw an

9 average flow of 25.9 L/s (411 gpm) from the basin, with a maximum flow of 53.6 L/s (850 gpm). 

10 During normal operation, a negligible volume of make-up water will maintain the pool level in the

11 basin beneath the cooling tower.

12

13 3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment

14

15 Because no specific design has been selected, the water treatment systems for the proposed

16 Units 3 and 4 are not specified. Currently, raw cooling water from Lake Anna for condenser

17 cooling and service water needs is not treated. Make-up water for the proposed Unit 4 and both

18 ultimate heat sink systems would call for treatment with biocides, antiscalants, and dispersants. 

19 Make-up of ultra-pure water systems, such as condensate and primary cooling, would employ

20 technologies such as reverse osmosis and ultra-filtration. The water quality of effluents from

21 any water treatment would be regulated by a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

22 (VPDES) permit for the units.

23

24 3.2.2 Cooling System

25

26 In Section 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of its ER, Dominion describes the operational modes and compo27 nents, respectively, for the cooling systems of the proposed Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2004a). 

28 Two very different classes of cooling systems are proposed for the normal cooling needs of

29 Units 3 and 4. Unit 3 would use a once through cooling system and Unit 4 would use dry

30 cooling towers. The proposed cooling systems for emergency/shutdown cooling needs are

31 identical for the new units.

32 3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes

33

34 The following sections describe the operating modes for the proposed Units 3 and 4 under

35 normal operating and emergency/shutdown conditions.

36

37 Normal Cooling

38

39 During normal operation at full power, the primary cooling system for each unit is required to

rejects 2800 MW/hr (9.7 x 109 40 BTU/hr) to the environment. Unit 3 will reject this heat load via a

41 once-through cooling system. In that Unit 3 will withdraw water from Lake Anna and discharge

42 the heated effluent to the discharge canal, this design is the same as for the existing NAPS
Plant Description

November 2004 3-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Units 1 and 2. Based on the PPE, the maximum temperature increase between the intake and

2 the discharge will be 10°C (18°F) and the maximum discharge temperature will be 52.8°C

3 (127°F). Dominion specified in the PPE that the flow rate through the condenser will not exceed

4 71,900 L/s (1,140,000 gpm).

5

6 During low water conditions, the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 are allowed to operate until the

7 surface elevation of the pool reaches a minimum level of 74.4 m (244 ft) above MSL. Dominion

8 states that it is attempting to have the minimum pool elevation allowed for operation of Units 1

9 and 2 and the proposed new Unit 3 lowered to 73.8 m (242 ft) above MSL (Dominion 2004a).

10

11 During normal operation, the proposed new Unit 4 will use dry cooling towers. These towers will

12 not use make-up water for condenser cooling.

13

14 Ultimate Heat Sink

15

16 Based on the PPE, during shutdown the ultimate heat sink systems for each unit will reject 123

MW/hr (4.2 x 108 17 BTU/hr) of heat to the environment. Make-up water for the mechanical draft

18 ultimate heat sink cooling towers will be withdrawn from an engineered underground basin

19 located beneath the tower. Each basin will maintain an adequate supply of water for 30 days of

20 emergency operation. Based on the PPE, the maximum blowdown discharged to the discharge

21 canal will be 54 L/s (850 gpm).

22

23 3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions

24

25 The following sections describe the intake, discharge, and heat dissipation systems. Pursuant

26 to the Sections 316(a) and 316(b) provisions of the Clean Water Act, prior to any construction

27 activities, Dominion will be required to obtain approval from the Virginia Department of

28 Environmental Quality by documenting plant design and site-specific analyses regarding the

29 impacts of the thermal discharges and intake systems on the Lake Anna aquatic environment.

30

31 Intake System

32

33 The proposed location of the intake structure is shown in Figure 3-1 (Dominion 2004a). The

34 location of the intake would be approximately in the same location as the intakes planned for

35 the abandoned Units 3 and 4. The cofferdam, which currently isolates the area of the proposed

36 ESP intake structure from Lake Anna, would be removed, and the approach channel would be

37 dredged so that water can flow from the lake to intake pumps. The intake system for Units 3

38 and 4 would consist of a structure next to the lake with screens and pump bays.

39

40 Discharge System

41
Plant Description

Draft NUREG-1811 3-8 November 2004

1 The proposed location of the discharge structure for the proposed Units 3 and 4 is shown in

2 Figure 3-1 (Dominion 2004a). The discharge from the proposed new Units 3 and 4 would enter

3 the discharge canal near the location where the existing Units 1 and 2 discharges enter the

4 discharge canal. Just as is the case for Units 1 and 2, the discharge from Units 3 and 4 would

5 flow through the WHTF before entering the main body of Lake Anna at Dike 3. Because Unit 4

6 uses dry cooling towers, it will not discharge circulating water. However, Unit 4 will discharge

7 small amounts of processed water.

8

9 Heat Dissipation Systems

10

11 The normal cooling needs of Unit 3 will be provided by a once-through cooling design in

12 conjunction with the WHTF. The once-through/WHTF cooling system relies primarily on

13 evaporative heat transfer and long-wave heat transfer to the atmosphere to dissipate the

14 rejected thermal load. This design results in less consumptive use of water than a conventional

15 cooling tower for the same load. Dominion estimates, in the PPE, a maximum evaporative loss

of a once-through design to be 738 L/s (11,700 gpm) or 0.738 m3 16 /s (26 cfs) as compared to

1230 L/s (19,500 gpm) or 1.23 m3 17 /s (43 cfs) for wet cooling towers. These values are used for

18 the site-specific evaluation in Section 8.2 of this document.

19

20 The normal cooling needs of Unit 4 would be provided by a dry cooling tower system. A dry

21 cooling tower system relies entirely on sensible heat transfer between the fluid circulating in the

22 condenser loop and the ambient air. It is a completely closed system and, therefore, uses

23 negligible make-up water and negligible blowdown water. Dry cooling towers uses large fans to

24 keep air flowing over the fins of the cooling tower(s). Dry cooling towers have a very high

25 energy cost that significantly reduces plant efficiency. The efficiency penalty of dry cooling

26 towers is 8.5-11 percent (Dominion 2004a).

27

28 For safety-related cooling, the ultimate heat sink for each of the proposed Units 3 and 4 would

29 provide water to the reactor cooling systems and safety-related components. As proposed, both

30 plants would use the same ultimate heat sink system, which would be composed of a mechani31 cal draft cooling tower with a 71.6 m wide by 107 m long by 15.2 m deep (235 ft wide by 350 ft

32 long by 50 ft deep) engineered underground basin constructed beneath the tower

(Dominion 2004b). The basin would have a storage capacity of 1.2 x 108 33 L (30,600,000 gal),

34 which is adequate to hold a 30-day supply of emergency cooling water. During periods when

35 the ultimate heat sink cooling towers are operating, the flow rate through the towers is expected

36 to average 27.8 L/s (411 gpm) with a maximum of 53.6 L/s (850 gpm). During normal operating

37 conditions, a negligible volume of water would maintain the pool in the basin beneath the

38 cooling tower.

39
Plant Description

November 2004 3-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System

2

3 Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems will be used to collect and

4 treat the radioactive materials that are produced as a by-product of operating the proposed

5 Units 3 and 4 on the North Anna ESP site. These systems will process radioactive liquid,

6 gaseous, and solid effluents to maintain releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as

7 reasonably achievable (ALARA) before being released to the environment. Waste processing

8 systems will be designed to meet the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I

9 (Numerical guide for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion

10 “As Low as is Reasonably Achievable” for Radiological Material in Light Water-Cooled Nuclear

11 Power Reactor Effluents). Radioactive material in the reactor coolant would be the primary

12 source of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in LWRs. Radioactive fission products

13 build up within the fuel as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products are

14 contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape the fuel rods and contaminate the

15 reactor coolant. Neutron activation of the primary coolant system would also contribute to

16 coolant contamination.

17

18 Dominion did not identify specific radioactive waste management systems for the North Anna

19 ESP site. The PPE concept was used to provide an upper bound on liquid radioactive effluents,

20 gaseous radioactive effluents, and solid radioactive waste releases (Dominion 2004a).

21

22 Adequate design information to estimate liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents was available

23 for three of the seven reactor designs considered in establishing PPE values. The three

24 reactors were LWRs and included the certified ABWR, the (surrogate) AP1000 PWR, and the

25 ACR-700 light-water-cooled, heavy-water moderated reactor. Dominion considered one ABWR

26 reactor (3926 MW[t]), one AP1000 reactor (3400 MW[t]), and two ACR-700 reactors

27 (3964 MW[t]) in developing the liquid and gaseous effluent bounding values for one unit on the

28 North Anna ESP site. Limited information was available for liquid and gaseous effluent releases

29 from the gas-cooled reactor designs. Dominion stated that effluents from the gas-cooled

30 reactors would be bounded by LWR designs (Dominion 2004a). However, this would have to

31 be verified at the CP/COL stage.

32

33 Solid radioactive wastes that would be produced for operating the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the

34 North Anna ESP site would be either dry or wet solids. The solid waste management system

35 would receive, collect, and store solid wastes prior to onsite storage or shipment offsite. 

36 Dominion indicated that low-level waste storage for the ESP site would be coordinated with

37 storage from the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2. The bounding solid radioactive waste activity

38 was from one ABWR reactor (3926 MW[t]) or one ESBWR reactor (4000 MW[t])

39 (Dominion 2004a).

40
Plant Description

Draft NUREG-1811 3-10 November 2004

1 3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

2

3 Dominion describes the nonradioactive waste systems for the proposed Units 3 and 4 in

4 Section 3.6 of its ER (Dominion 2004a). Nonradioactive waste system parameters are not

5 addressed by the PPE; however, effluents from liquid, gaseous, and solid nonradioactive waste

6 systems are regulated by cognizant State and Federal agencies.

7

8 Chemicals and biocides may be employed in water treatment for various water uses at the

9 proposed Units 3 and 4. Effluents containing chemicals and/or biocides would be regulated by

10 the VPDES permit. Sanitary effluents would be expected to increase because of the increased

11 workforce, and sanitary effluents would be regulated by the VPDES permit. Dominion states

12 that the sanitary wastes would be treated onsite using a permanent, self-contained sanitary

13 waste treatment system (Dominion 2004a).

14

15 Dominion states that gaseous wastes (e.g. diesel backup generators) and solid wastes (e.g.

16 sewage sludge, construction debris, etc.) would be handled in compliance with appropriate

17 State and Federal regulations (Dominion 2004a).

18

19 3.3 Power Transmission System

20

21 The existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 have three 500-kV transmission lines and one 230-kV trans22 mission line leaving the site from the switchyard. Each transmission line occupies a separate

23 right-of-way. Table 3-1 presents the lengths, widths, and areas of the rights-of-way, which

24 range from 37 to 84 m (120 to 275 ft) in width and from 24 to 66 km (15 to 41 mi) in length and

25 cover a total of approximately 1174 ha (2900 ac) (AEC 1973; NRC 2002). The rights-of-way

26 extend from the NAPS site to the north, south, east, and west terminating in Morrisville,

27 Midlothian, Ladysmith, and at the South Anna non-utility generator (Figure 3-2). The existing

28 transmission lines and rights-of-way were constructed between 1973 and 1984, and no

29 additional construction of transmission lines is expected for Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2004a).

30

31 In the ER, Dominion indicates the existing transmission system (three 500-kV lines and one

32 230-kV line) has the capacity to handle the output from the existing Units 1 and 2 plus the

33 anticipated output from the proposed Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2004a). Detailed system load

34 studies for the proposed new units would be performed by Dominion once the in-service date for

35 the units has been established, to confirm the current transmission system is capable of

36 handling the output of all units.

37
Plant Description

November 2004 3-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 3-1. North Anna Power Station Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

2

3 Substation kV

Length Direction

from

NAPS

Width Area

Construction

km (mi) m (ft) Date

hectares

(acres)

4 Morrisville 500 53 (33) N 72 (235) 366 (905) 1973

Midlothian(a) 5 500 66 (41) S 72 (235) 469 (1160) 1979

6 Ladysmith 500 24 (15) E 84 (275) 192 (475) 1976

7 South Anna

8 non-utility

9 generation

230 50 (31) W 30 - 37 (100 - 120) 146 (360) 1984

10 Total 193 (120) 1174 (2900)

11 (a) The transmission line to the Midlothian Substation runs an additional 26 km (16 mi) in a shared right-of-way with a non12 NAPS line.

13

14 Dominion owns approximately 1 percent of the rights-of-way and has easements for the

15 remaining 99 percent (NRC 2002). Dominion has procedures to ensure that all chemical and

16 mechanical vegetation controls are conducted in ways that minimize adverse impacts. 

17 Vegetation in the rights-of-way is currently managed through a combination of mechanical and

18 herbicide treatments conducted on a 3-year cycle. Mowing is the primary mechanical treatment,

while Accord® and Garlon® 19 are the primary herbicides used in the rights-of-way. In some areas,

20 such as wetlands or dense vegetation, hand-trimming is used. Rare and sensitive plant species

21 areas are identified and avoided, or modified treatment practices are used to avoid adverse

22 impacts. These modified vegetation treatments are developed in cooperation with the Virginia

23 Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Natural Heritage Program (NRC 2002). In

24 addition, wildlife food plots and Christmas tree plantations are located along the rights-of-way

25 and are supported through cost sharing by Virginia Power (NRC 2002).
Plant Description

Draft NUREG-1811 3-12 November 2004

1 Figure 3-2. Location of Transmission Lines for North Anna Power Station, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4

2
Plant Description

November 2004 3-13 Draft NUREG-1811

1 3.4 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

4 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

5

6 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

7 Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

8

9 Clean Water Act also (referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251, et

10 seq.

11

12 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit

13 Application - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

14

15 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter Response to Request for

16 Additional Information Regarding Safety Portion of ESP Application, No. 04-318, Glen Allen,

17 Virginia, August 2, 2004.

18

19 Dominion Energy Inc. and Bechtel Power Corporation (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. Study of

20 Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States. U.S. Department

21 of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-021D1431.

22

23 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

24 Continuation of Construction and Operation of Units 1 and 2 and the construction of Units 3

25 and 4, North Anna Power Station. U.S. AEC, Washington, D.C.

26

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

28 for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1

29 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. NRC

30 Washington, D.C.

31

32
November 2004 4-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

2

3

4 This chapter examines the environmental issues associated with the potential site preparation

5 activities and construction of the proposed North Anna Power Station (NAPS), Units 3 and 4 as

6 described in the application for an early site permit (ESP) submitted by Dominion Nuclear North

7 Anna, LLC (Dominion). As part of this application, Dominion submitted an Environmental

8 Report (ER) and a site redress plan (Dominion 2004a, b). The ER provides the plant parameter

9 envelope (PPE) as the basis for the environmental review. The parameters included in the PPE

10 and their values are listed in Appendix I. The site redress plan allows for specific site prepara11 tion activities to be conducted with approval of an ESP. The activities evaluated are those

12 permitted by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.25(a) and

13 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) at the North Anna ESP site. In the event that the ESP is approved and

14 Dominion conducts site preparation activities but does not build the plant(s), Dominion would be

15 required to implement its site redress plan.

16

17 This chapter is divided into Sections 4.1 through 4.9 that discuss the potential impacts on land

18 use, meteorology and air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics,

19 historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and radiological health

20 effects, and applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station

21 construction. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, impacts have been analyzed, and a

22 significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE or LARGE) has been

23 assigned to each analysis. (Negligible impacts and beneficial impacts are listed as SMALL

24 impacts.) Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is presented in

25 Section 4.10, followed by a description of the site redress plan in Section 4.11. A summary of

26 the construction impacts is presented in Section 4.12. Full citations for the reference cited in

27 this chapter are listed in Section 4.13. Cumulative impacts of construction and operation are

28 discussed in Chapter 7. The technical analyses provided in this chapter support the results,

29 conclusions, and recommendations presented in Chapters 9 and 10.

30

31 The staff relied on the mitigation measures and the required Federal, State and local permits

32 and authorizations presented in the ER in reaching its conclusion on the significance level of the

33 adverse impacts. The staff relied on the infrastructure upgrades planned by the counties, cities

34 and towns, such as road and school expansions in assigning significance levels to the impacts. 

35 Failure to implement such infrastructure upgrades may result in larger impact level.

36

37 4.1 Land-Use Impacts

38

39 This section provides information regarding land-use impacts associated with site preparation

40 activities and construction of proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. Topics

41 discussed include land-use impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site and land-use

42 impacts in transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas.

43
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-2 November 2004

1 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

2

3 The ESP site is located entirely within the existing NAPS site, which is zoned for industrial use

4 by Louisa County. However, construction of Units 3 and 4 at the site would require a conditional

5 use permit from the county.

6

7 All construction activities for Units 3 and 4, including ground-disturbing activities, would occur

8 within the existing NAPS site boundary. According to Dominion (2004a), the area that would be

9 affected on a long-term basis as a result of permanent facilities is approximately 52 ha (128 ac). 

10 An additional 27.5 ha (67.9 ac) would be disturbed on a short-term basis as a result of

11 temporary activities and facilities and laydown areas. Dominion states that it will conduct any

12 ground distributing activities in accordance with Federal, State and local regulatory

13 requirements (Dominion 2004a). The applicant submitted a site redress plan, which is

14 evaluated in Section 4.11.

15

16 No new or highways or railroad lines are planned to support the construction of Units 3 and 4. 

17 Clearing and removal of trees growing within the ESP site would be required. No agricultural

18 lands would be directly affected by construction activities.

19

20 A few small wetland areas and two intermittent streams exist on the ESP site. Dominion states

21 that it intends to avoid watercourses and wetlands to the extent possible during construction

22 (Dominion 2004a). Any work that has the potential to impact a wetland would be performed in

23 accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

24

25 The floodplain along the Lake Anna shoreline was determined by Dominion using the Federal

26 Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (Dominion 2004a). Any flooding

27 that might occur during construction of Units 3 and 4 would be limited to areas adjacent to the

28 lake shoreline (i.e., below elevations of 255 feet above mean sea level). Limited construction

29 activity would occur within the lake floodplain for the construction and installation of a new water

30 intake structure.

31

32 Some offsite land-use changes as a result of construction activities would be expected. Likely

33 changes are the conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments (e.g.,

34 apartment buildings, single family condominiums and homes, manufactured home parks, and

35 recreational vehicle parks) to accommodate construction workers and the addition of new retail

36 developments. All counties surrounding the NAPS site have comprehensive land-use plans in

37 place as required by Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia.

38

39 Based on information provided by Dominion, the county’s comprehensive land-use plans for the

40 surrounding vicinity, the applicant’s site redress plan, and its own independent review, the staff

41 concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts related to land use that would
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 influence the granting of an ESP to Dominion. The staff concludes that the land-use impacts of

2 construction would be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted.

3

4 4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

5

6 Based on the evaluation provided by Dominion, no additional electrical transmission lines or

7 rights-of-way would be required to transmit the power generated by the proposed North Anna 

8 Units 3 and 4 to the regional power grid (2004a). Construction would be limited to providing the

9 new units’ switchyards and interconnections with the existing operating units. All planned

10 construction activities would occur on the NAPS site. Because construction would be limited to

11 onsite work and no additional land would be needed to connect the new units to the grid, the

12 staff concludes that the construction land-use impacts due to transmission line rights-of-way are

13 expected to be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted.

14

15 4.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

16

17 During construction activities on the North Anna ESP site, some minor air quality impacts are

18 expected to occur. The likely sources of these air quality impacts are fugitive dust emissions

19 from general construction activities and the potential for elevated ambient air quality levels

20 caused by emissions from the vehicles used by the workforce and from construction equipment. 

21 These impacts are discussed further in the following sections.

22

23 4.2.1 Construction Activities

24

25 The impact of construction activities on local air quality conditions will primarily be governed by

26 the influence of additional building structures on the dispersion of normal effluent releases from

27 either the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 or from Units 3 and 4 during construction.

28

29 Equipment emissions and fugitive dust from operation of earth-moving and material-handling

30 equipment are sources of air pollution from construction activities. In addition, operation of

31 other equipment for hauling debris, equipment, and supplies on unpaved roads will produce

fugitive dust emissions. The pollutant emission of concern would be PM10 32 particulate matter

33 (less than 10 microns in diameter), reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and

34 carbon monoxide from construction equipment engines. All activities would be conducted in

35 accordance with Virginia Administrative Codes 9 VAC 5-50 (Visible and Fugitive Dust

36 Emissions) and 9 VAC 5-40-5680 (Emission Standard for Mobile Sources – Vehicles). In

37 addition, if construction activities include burning of construction materials, Dominion would

38 need to obtain a permit from VDEQ and contact Louisa County officials to determine if

39 compliance with local ordinances is required (VDEQ 2004).

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-4 November 2004

1 The ER identifies additional mitigation including developing a dust control plan to mitigate the

2 impacts of emissions from construction activities (Dominion 2004a). Potential measures to be

3 included in the plan would include the following:

4

5 C Limit the speed of construction equipment on unpaved roads.

6 C Remove dirt spilled onto paved roads on the construction site.

7 C Cover haul trucks during unloading and loading activities.

8 C Cease grading and excavation activities during periods of high wind speeds or extreme

9 air pollution episodes.

10 C Phase construction activities to minimize daily emissions.

11 C Phase grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils.

12 C Perform proper maintenance activities on construction vehicles to minimize emissions.

13 C Revegetate road medians and slopes in according with the site redress plan.

14

15 Based on an independent evaluation of the requirements set forth in Virginia Administrative

16 Codes and measures of dust control plans identified in the ER, the staff concludes that air

17 quality impacts from construction, both onsite and beyond the plant boundary, would be

18 temporary and SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

19

20 4.2.2 Transportation

21

22 In its ER, Dominion estimated that during construction activities, the 5000 workers would be

23 divided between two 10-hour shifts (Dominion 2004a). Using an assumption of 1.8 workers per

24 vehicle, 2800 additional vehicles per day would travel to and from the site (Dominion 2004a). 

25 Depending on the actual location of the workers, some of the roadways leading to the site would

26 likely experience congestion unless current plan-recommended upgrades are implemented. 

27 This situation would impact the local ambient air quality levels because of emissions from

28 vehicles both during normal operation and during periods of traffic congestion when vehicles are

29 stopped with their engines idling. The overall impact is difficult to estimate at this time because

30 of the timing of construction activities and actual location of the workers that would be employed

31 during construction, but five existing roads are expected to be impacted.

32

33 Dominion indicated in the ER, that it would develop and implement a construction traffic

34 management plan to increase the number of workers per vehicle by developing methods for

35 enhancing the use of multi-person vans. They also would attempt to schedule shift changes for

36 operating personnel, outage workers, and construction workers to reduce the number of

37 vehicles on the road at any given time. All of these techniques would mitigate the impact of

38 vehicular traffic on air quality.

39

40 Based on the mitigation identified by Dominion in the ER to develop a traffic management plan

41 and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impact on the local air quality from
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 the increase in vehicular traffic related to construction activities would be temporary and

2 SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

3

4 4.3 Water-Related Impacts

5

6 Water-related impacts involved in the construction of a nuclear power plant are similar to

7 impacts that would be associated with any large industrial construction project. Likewise, the

8 applicant must apply for the same permits and follow the same construction best management

9 practices as any other builder of a large industrial facility. Prior to initiating construction,

10 including any site preparation work, the applicant is required to obtain the appropriate permits

11 regulating alterations to the hydrological environment. These permits would likely include:

12

13 C Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. This permit would be issued by the ACE and

14 regulates impacts of construction activities on wetlands and management of dredged

15 material.

16

17 C Clean Water Act Section 401 certification. This certification would be issued by the

18 Commonwealth of Virginia and ensures that projects do not conflict with State water

19 quality management programs.

20

21 C Clean Water Act Section 402(p) VPDES storm water permit. This permit regulates point

22 source storm water discharges. EPA’s 1990 Phase 1 Storm Water Regulation estab23 lished requirements for storm water discharges from various activities including

24 construction activities disturbing an area of at least 2.0 ha (5.0 acres). EPA has

25 delegated the responsibility for administering the VPDES program in Virginia to VDEQ.

26

27 C Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Section 307 Consistency Determination (and

28 15 CFR Part 930). The Federal consistency requirement in CZMA Section 307 provides

29 for the primacy of State decisions regarding coastal uses and resources. While the

30 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers CZMA, the authority to

31 issue the consistency determination has been delegated to the VDEQ.

32

33 4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

34

35 Excavation, fill, and grading operations at the North Anna ESP site will alter two ephemeral

36 streams and possibly one or more wetlands. Removing the cofferdam in Lake Anna would likely

37 result in temporary and localized suspension of sediment. Any dredging of the approach

38 channel leading into the intakes for the New units is also likely to result in some temporary and

39 localized suspension of sediment.

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-6 November 2004

1 Dominion did not provide information on wetlands in its ER (Dominion 2004a). Wetland delinea2 tions and jurisdictional determinations of the upland landscape and submerged lake areas that

3 would be impacted by construction would be required in order to submit an application for a

4 Section 404 Permit to ACE. The ACE permitting process ensures that impacts of construction

5 are limited by requiring the appropriate construction best management practices. The applicant

6 currently has not obtained a Section 401 certification from Virginia for construction activities at

7 the ESP site. The ACE is expected to require the applicant to obtain a Section 401 certification

8 prior to issuing a Section 404 permit.

9

10 Many of the possible reactor designs considered in the PPE would require that dewatering

11 systems be installed during construction of the foundation of the reactor and various other

12 buildings. Dewatering systems used during construction would depress the water table in the

13 vicinity and possibly change the direction of groundwater flow and the available capacity of local

14 wells. These impacts would be localized temporary construction impacts. Because the impacts

15 of hydrologic alterations resulting from construction activities would be localized and temporary, 

16 and the VDEQ Section 401 and ACE Section 404 Permit process would serve to minimize

17 impacts, the staff concludes that the impacts of hydrologic alterations would be SMALL, and

18 further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

19

20 4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

21

22 Water-use requirements for construction activities are similar to other large industrial construc23 tion projects. Additional potable water supplies for the construction workforce would be

24 required. Water for various standard construction activities, such as dust abatement, would be

25 provided from Lake Anna. Dewatering systems may preclude existing onsite wells from

26 providing adequate water supply during construction, particularly potable water needs. If

27 additional water is required, water could be imported from offsite during periods when the

28 dewatering system is active. Based on these considerations and their localized and temporary

29 nature, the staff concludes that water-use impacts caused by construction activities would be

30 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

31

32 4.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts

33

34 Water-quality impacts for the construction activities are similar to other large industrial construc35 tion projects. Construction best management practices are generally required to ensure that

36 accidental spills and storm water runoff will have minimal impact on surface and groundwater

37 quality. If Dominion applies for and receives a CP or a COL or conducts site preparation

38 activities, a VPDES permit will be required from VDEQ before construction activities can

39 commence. In view of the VPDES permit requirements and the localized and temporary nature

40 of any impacts, the staff concludes that water-quality impacts caused by construction activities

41 would be SMALL, and that further mitigation is not warranted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 4.4 Ecological Impacts

2

3 This section describes the potential impacts of construction on the ecological resources at the

4 North Anna ESP site. The section is divided into three subsections: Terrestrial Ecosystems,

5 Aquatic Ecosystems, and Threatened and Endangered Species.

6

7 4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems

8

9 The total approximate area of the North Anna ESP site is 81 ha (200 ac). Undisturbed habitats

10 are absent from the approximately 49 ha (120 ac) of industrial/developed land on the site. 

11 Construction activities are not expected to have a noticeable impact on ecological resources

12 within these developed portions of the ESP site. Construction of Units 3 and 4 would result in

13 the removal of approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of forested habitat within the site. The ESP site

14 does not contain any old growth timber, unique or sensitive plants, or unique or sensitive plant

15 communities. Therefore, construction activities would not noticeably reduce the local or

16 regional diversity of plants or plant communities.

17

18 There are no important animal species or habitats (as defined by NRC 1999) on the North Anna

19 ESP site. No areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as critical habitat

20 for endangered or threatened species exist at or near the site, nor are threatened or

21 endangered plants or animals known to exist at the site. Therefore, construction likely would

22 have no impact on any threatened or endangered species, or other important species or

23 habitats.

24

25 A few small wetland areas and two intermittent streams exist on the North Anna ESP site

26 (Dominion 2004a). Watercourses and wetlands would be avoided to the extent possible during

27 any construction. Dominion states that any work it would conduct that has the potential to

28 impact a wetland would be performed in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, permits,

29 and authorizations. Wetland delineations to determine if any of the wetland areas are under the

30 jurisdiction of the ACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be conducted prior to

31 commencement of construction activities. If the areas are determined to be wetlands under the

32 Clean Water Act, disturbance of the areas would either be avoided or other appropriate mitiga33 tion actions would be implemented as required by any applicable permits and regulations.

34

35 Land clearing associated with construction would be conducted according to Federal and State

36 regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, construction best management practices,

37 and other established best management practices (e.g., directed drainage ditches, and silt

38 fencing will be employed). Fugitive dust emissions would be minimized by watering the access

39 roads and construction site as necessary. Thus, impacts from dust on terrestrial ecosystems
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-8 November 2004

1 would be minimal. Emissions from heavy construction equipment would be minimized through

2 scheduled equipment maintenance procedures (Dominion 2004a).

3

4 To minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife, Dominion states that it would adhere to

5 State permit conditions that may restrict the timing of certain construction activities (Dominion

6 2004a). As the site undergoes clearing and grading, disturbance and loss of forested habitat

7 would displace mobile animals such as birds and larger mammals. Species that can adapt to

8 disturbed or developed areas (e.g., raccoon [Procyon lotor], opossum [Didelphis virginiana],

9 mockingbird [Mimus polyglottus], northern cardinal [Cardinalis cardinalis]) may recolonize

10 portions of the site where suitable habitat remains or is replanted following construction activi11 ties. Species more dependent on forested habitat may be permanently displaced. Clearing and

12 grading activities may directly result in the loss of some individuals, particularly the less mobile

13 animals such as toads, lizards, turtles, snakes, moles, and mice.

14

15 Movement of construction workers, materials, and equipment, and the operation of construction

16 equipment (e.g., earth-moving equipment, portable generators, pile drivers, pneumatic equip17 ment, and hand tools) would generate noise. Noise from human activities can affect wildlife by

18 inducing physiological changes, nest or habitat abandonment, and behavioral modifications, or

19 it may disrupt communications required for breeding or defense (Larkin 1996). However, it is

20 not unusual for wildlife to adapt to noise from human activities (Larkin 1996). Although short21 term noise levels from construction activities could be as high as approximately 110 decibels

22 (e.g., impulse noise during pile-driving activities), these noise levels would not extend far

23 beyond the boundaries of the ESP site. At a distance of 120 m (400 ft) from the construction

24 site, noise levels would range from approximately 60 to 80 decibels from these activities. These

25 noise levels are below the 80-to-85-decibel threshold at which birds and small mammals are

26 startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Thus, noise from construction activities would not be

27 likely to disturb wildlife beyond 120 m from the construction site. Additionally, construction of

28 Units 3 and 4 would occur adjacent to the existing operating Units 1 and 2, where wildlife have

29 presumably become accustomed to typical existing operating facility noise levels of

30 approximately 50 to 60 decibels at the NAPS security fence (Dominion 2004a). Therefore,

31 noise-related impacts during construction would be negligible.

32

33 Avian collisions with fabricated structures are a result of numerous factors related to species’

34 characteristics such as flight behavior, age, habitat use, seasonal habits, and diurnal habitats,

35 and to environmental characteristics such as weather, topography, land use, and orientation of

36 the structures. Most authors on the subject of avian collisions with utility structures agree that

37 collisions are not a biologically significant source of mortality for thriving populations of birds

38 with good reproductive potential (EPRI 1993). NRC reviewed monitoring data concerning avian

39 collisions at nuclear power plants with large cooling towers and determined that the overall

40 avian mortality is low (NRC 1996). No avian collisions with existing structures at the NAPS site
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 have been reported (Dominion 2004a). The number of construction-related bird collisions with

2 structures is expected to be negligible.

3

4 The construction-related impacts of forested habitat loss to local wildlife populations cannot be

5 quantitatively assessed because population data for species on and adjacent to the NAPS site

6 are not available. However, relatively large tracts of forest to the north, west, and south of the

7 North Anna ESP site are available to displaced wild life. The approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of

8 forested habitat at the ESP site represents a small portion of the available undeveloped land in

9 the vicinity; therefore, the impacts of construction-related mortality and temporary displacement

10 of wildlife are expected to be minimal. In addition, construction activities likely would not reduce

11 the local or regional diversity of plants or plant communities, and would not impact endangered

12 or threatened species.

13

14 The ER identified construction mitigation including performing wetland surveys to determine

15 Clean Water Act Section 404 eligibility, instituting construction best management practices for

16 erosion and dust control, noise abatement, proper equipment maintenance, restricting the

17 timing of activities to minimize impacts to resources such as breeding birds, and adherence to

18 applicable permit conditions. The staff reviewed the potential impacts of constructing Units 3

19 and 4 on terrestrial ecological resources, including loss of habitat, loss of wetlands, noise, dust

20 emissions, and avian collisions. Based on this review and the mitigation identified in the ER,

21 the staff concluded that the overall impact of construction-related activities on terrestrial

22 ecological resources would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above

23 is not warranted.

24

25 4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystems

26

27 Construction of the new cooling water intake structure and channel would be the primary source

28 of construction impacts on the aquatic environment. Construction would involve major modifi29 cations to an existing intake structure previously constructed for Units 3 and 4, and deepening

30 and enlarging the existing intake canal. Section 3.2.2 provides a description of the proposed

31 plant cooling water use and structures.

32

33 The cooling water intake structure would be approximately 46 m (150 ft) long and 91 m (300 ft)

34 wide and would house the trash racks, traveling screens, and intake pumps (Figures 4-1 and

35 4-2). The intake channel would extend from the intake structure toward the west slope of the

36 intake cove.

37
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-10 November 2004

1

2 Figure 4-1. Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the ESP Site

3

4
Draft NUREG-1811 4-11 November 2004

1234567 Figure 4-2. Schematic View of Pump Intake8
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-12 November 2004

1 Construction would result in the removal or reshaping of the shoreline to accommodate the

2 intake structure and to meet the intake approach velocity requirements.

3

4 As part of the cooling water intake structure and channel modification, the existing cofferdam

would be removed. Approximately 64,200 m3 (84,000 yd3 5 ) of material would be moved from the

6 cofferdam. All the dredged material would be disposed of in accordance with regulatory

7 requirements and permit conditions.

8

9 In anticipation of construction, topsoil would be removed from the construction site footprint,

10 stored, rolled, and seeded, if necessary, to minimize erosion. Some disturbed areas may be

11 graveled, paved, or compacted to prevent erosion. These and other soil preparation activities

12 would minimize impacts to the aquatic environment from earth-moving activities. When

13 construction activities are completed, areas that have been temporarily disturbed would be

14 graded and contoured, covered with topsoil, and seeded with native vegetation.

15

16 Degraded water quality (i.e., increased turbidity and siltation) resulting from shoreline contouring

17 and dredging would pose the greatest potential for impacts on the Lake Anna ecosystem in the

18 immediate vicinity of the construction activities. This shoreline contouring would result in the

19 temporary loss of benthic habitat and displacement or loss of benthic organisms, which provide

20 food for other animals such as fish and shorebirds. After construction, the intake channel cove

21 and the shoreline substrate near the new intake structure is expected to be recolonized with

22 benthic organisms. To minimize impacts to benthic populations in the reservoir, intake

23 construction and associated mitigation activities would be conducted in accordance with State

24 regulations and permit requirements. The benthic habitat lost would be temporary and a small

25 percentage of the available benthic habitat. The loss of this habitat would not have a long-term

26 impact on the aquatic ecosystem.

27

28 Some fishery habitat may be changed as well. Fish inhabiting the intake channel and the lake

29 near the intake channel may leave the area temporarily during construction activities. After

30 construction is completed, fish would be expected to repopulate the area. Temporary habitat

31 loss would be a small percentage of the total fishery habitat available in the reservoir portion of

32 Lake Anna. The area of the reservoir is 3900 ha (9600 ac); the construction area is expected to

33 comprise fewer than 4 ha (10 ac). To minimize impacts to fish populations in the reservoir,

34 intake construction and protection activities would be conducted in accordance with State

35 regulations and permit requirements. Construction impacts on the reservoir’s fishery are

36 expected to be small and temporary.

37

38 Dredging for the new intake channel could resuspend heavy metals in the bottom sediments

39 from Contrary Creek. Prior to impoundment, water quality in the North Anna River was

40 degraded by sedimentation and acid mine drainage from Contrary Creek, a 14-km (8.5-mi)-long

41 tributary that flowed into the river from the west, near the town of Mineral, Virginia (Figure 4-3). 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-13 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Land adjacent to Contrary Creek had been the site of extensive iron pyrite mining operations

during the late 19th and early 20th 2 centuries (VDEQ 1986). When the mines were abandoned

3 (circa 1920), mine shafts and tailings piles were left exposed to the weather. Runoff from the

4 mine area was acidic, with high concentrations of metals. Virtually no aquatic life was found in

5 Contrary Creek downstream of the mine site (AEC 1973). Prior to impoundment, the density

6 and diversity of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates were markedly reduced in the North Anna

7 River immediately downstream of its confluence with Contrary Creek. Subtle changes were

8 evident as far as 24 km (15 mi) downstream, although water quality was generally satisfactory

9 (VDEQ 1986).

10

11 In 1976, the Virginia State Water Control Board, in association with EPA, attempted to reclaim

12 previously mined and disturbed areas along Contrary Creek to reduce the impacts of sedimen13 tation and acid mine drainage (VDEQ 1986). The reclamation project reduced, to some extent,

14 erosion and sedimentation in the area. The creation of Lake Anna has mitigated most water15 quality impacts from Contrary Creek area runoff. Low-pH creek water is neutralized as it mixes

16 with higher-pH reservoir water. Heavy metals are removed from the water column by

17 adsorption to clay particles and the subsequent settling of those particles. Chemical precipita18 tion (and co-precipitation with iron) may also remove zinc and copper ions from Contrary Creek

19 water when it mixes with Lake Anna water. If dredging were performed to improve access to

20 Units 3 and 4 intake, such dredging could cause these metals, which are present in the

21 resuspended sediments, to potentially impact aquatic biota. Any potential impacts would likely

22 be addressed through the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and Section 401 verification

23 process.

24

25 Dredging could also cause increased turbidity, thus leading to a temporary reduction in primary

26 productivity due to reduced light penetration and smothering of periphyton and aquatic macro27 phytes in the intake channel. After construction, primary productivity would be expected to

28 return to previous levels, and macrophyte recolonization would occur. Dominion states that the

29 design and operation of the intake bay for Units 3 and 4 would require that a barrier (e.g., a

30 turbidity curtain or sheet piling) or some form of protection be installed between Units 3 and 4

31 and the lake to reduce the potential for silt and soil entrainment through the existing units to the

32 Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF) (Dominion 2004a). This mitigation measure should

33 reduce the possibility for adversely impacting primary production in the WHTF.

34
1

2 Figure 4-3. Lake Anna and the Rivers and Creeks in the Vicinity of the North Anna Power Station an

Draft NUREG-1811 4-14 November 2004
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-15 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The potential for fuel or other fluid spills exists throughout the construction phase. The State 

2 would likely require that controls to prevent contaminants from entering the aquatic system from

3 spills would be handled according to an approved Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure

4 Plan.

5

6 Construction of dry cooling towers for Unit 4 could be near an intermittent stream. If so,

7 construction of these towers could result in temporary soil erosion and silt entry into the stream.

8

9 Renovation of an existing rail spur or construction of a new one also could occur near the

10 stream. Intermittent streams in this area are not known to provide key fishery habitat for any

11 important species. The State would likely require that sedimentation and erosion control best

12 management practices and/or effective storm water management would be used to protect

13 aquatic resources in the construction area.

14

15 The ER identified construction mitigation including instituting best management construction

16 practices for erosion control in Lake Anna, the WHTF, and potentially impacted streams. The

17 staff reviewed the potential impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on aquatic ecological

18 resources including constructing a new intake structure and channel and the associated loss of

19 benthic and fish habitat, which would be localized and temporary. Based on this review, the

20 staff concluded that the overall impact of construction-related activities on aquatic ecological

21 resources would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not

22 warranted.

23

24 4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

25

26 As described in Sections 2.7.2 and 2.7.4, no Federally listed threatened or endangered species

27 are known to occur at or near the North Anna ESP site except the bald eagle (Haliaeetus

28 leucocephalus), which is occasionally observed perching or foraging on the shore of Lake Anna. 

29 However, the closest known bald eagle nesting site is located approximately 16 km (10 mi)

30 upstream from the North Anna ESP site. Site preparation and construction for Units 3 and 4

31 would have no effect on bald eagle nesting, and are not likely to alter eagle foraging behavior

32 on Lake Anna.

33

34 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludoviciana), which appears as a threatened species on the State

35 list, has been observed near the North Anna ESP site, but have not been reported to nest in the

36 vicinity (Dominion 2004a). Site preparation and construction may result in some habitat loss for

37 this species, but it usually does not use forested areas, preferring forest edges and open areas. 

38 Several other State-listed species may occasionally pass through the vicinity, but do not rely on

39 habitat at the North Anna ESP site. No State-listed aquatic species are known to occur at the

40 North Anna ESP site.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-16 November 2004

1 Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River since the

2 early 1970s to evaluate the response of these populations to the operation of NAPS Units 1 and

3 2. No Federally or State-listed fish species have been collected in any of these monitoring

4 studies, nor have any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional special

5 studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists and affiliated researchers. No Federally or

6 State-listed fish species’ range includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none are

7 believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline,

8 Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties).

9

10 According to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) and the Virginia

11 Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) (Division of Natural Heritage) databases,

12 one Federally listed mussel species, one State-listed mussel species, and one mussel species

13 that is a candidate for Federal listing occur in counties that border Lake Anna or the North Anna

14 River. None of these three species has been found in Lake Anna or the North Anna River.

15

16 The staff reviewed the potential impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on threatened and

17 endangered species. It is unlikely that any threatened or endangered species exist on the North

18 Anna ESP site. However, Dominion would perform a field survey for such species within all

19 areas that would be disturbed by site preparation or construction activities prior to initiation of

20 such activities. Because there are no Federally listed species in the proposed project area, and

21 the impact to the one State-listed species is minor, the staff concludes that the effect of

22 construction on threatened and endangered species would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

23 warranted. 

24

25 4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

26

27 This section discusses the socioeconomic impacts of construction activities. It includes impacts

28 that could result from the construction-related activities at the North Anna ESP site, and from

29 the activities and demands of the workforce on the surrounding region. Socioeconomic impacts

30 that were evaluated include potential effects on individual communities, the surrounding region,

31 and minority and low-income populations.

32

33 4.5.1 Physical Impacts

34

35 Construction activities at the North Anna ESP site may cause temporary and localized physical

36 impacts including, but not limited to, noise, odor, vehicle exhaust emissions, and dust. 

37 Dominion does not expect significant vibration and shock impacts during construction because

38 of the strict restriction or control of such activities onsite (Dominion 2004a). This section

39 qualitatively addresses those potential impacts that may affect people, buildings, roads, and

40 recreational facilities (such as Lake Anna).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-17 Draft NUREG-1811

1 4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

2

3 The NAPS site is located in an area zoned for industrial use. The site is bounded by light

4 industrial and commercial zones to the north and west, a recreational area (Lake Anna) to the

5 east, and residential housing to the south. All construction activities would occur within the

6 NAPS site boundary (Dominion 2004a). Offsite areas supporting construction activities

7 (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, disposal sites) are assumed to be permitted and operational. As

8 such, impacts on those facilities from constructing Units 3 and 4 at NAPS are considered small

9 incremental impacts associated with their normal operation.

10

11 The estimated population within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site is 15,500 people

12 (Dominion 2004a). The area surrounding the site is predominately rural and is characterized by

13 farmland and wooded tracts. The exception is the residential development surrounding Lake

14 Anna. No other significant industrial or commercial facilities exist around the site, and it is the

15 goal of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to preserve the rural character of Louisa County

16 (Louisa County 2001).

17

18 People who work or live around the NAPS site could be subjected to noise, fugitive dust, and

19 gaseous emissions resulting from construction activities. The staff would expect construction

20 workers and personnel working onsite to be most impacted, followed by individuals working or

21 living immediately adjacent to the site. Least impacted would be transient populations, such as

22 temporary employees, recreational visitors to Lake Anna, and tourists passing through the area.

23

24 Onsite impacts to construction workers would be mitigated through adequate training and use of

25 personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures (Dominion

26 2004a). Emergency first-aid care and regular health and safety monitoring of construction

27 personnel could also be undertaken.

28

29 Dominion expects that individuals working onsite or living near the North Anna ESP site would

30 not experience any physical impacts greater than those that would be considered an annoyance

31 or nuisance. In the event of atypical or noisy construction activities (e.g., pile driving), prior

32 public announcements and/or notifications of these activities would be provided. Dominion has

33 stated that these activities would be performed in compliance with Federal, State, and local

34 regulations, and with site-specific permit conditions (Dominion 2004a).

35

36 Fugitive dust and odors could be generated as a result of normal construction activities. 

37 Various mitigation measures, such as paving disturbed areas, using water to suppress dusts,

38 and reducing material-handling activities, as stated in Section 4.2.1 of the ER, could be

39 undertaken to minimize these impacts. Dominion has indicated it would undertake additional

40 mitigation control measures to address any nuisance issues on a case-by-case basis (Dominion

41 2004a).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-18 November 2004

1 Dominion maintains that noise and exhaust emissions from construction equipment would have

2 no discernable impact on the local noise level and air quality (Dominion 2004a). All equipment

3 would be operated in accordance with Federal, State, and local emission requirements

4 (Dominion 2004a).

5

6 The ER identified mitigation measures including worker training, developing a fugitive dust plan,

7 and compliance with State and local permit conditions. Based on its review of this information,

8 the staff concludes that the overall physical impacts to workers and the local population are

9 SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the mitigation actions stated above is not warranted.

10

11 4.5.1.2 Buildings

12

13 Construction activities are not expected to impact any offsite buildings. The building(s) most

14 exposed to shock and vibration from pile driving are those located on the NAPS site; however, 

15 Dominion has constructed the onsite buildings to safely withstand any shock and vibration

16 impacts resulting from construction activities (Dominion 2004a).

17

18 Because the nearest offsite building is about 910 m (3000 ft) from the North Anna ESP site, the

19 staff concluded that the overall physical impacts to offsite buildings would be SMALL, and

20 mitigation is not warranted.

21

22 4.5.1.3 Roads

23

24 The transportation network in Louisa County and at the ESP site is a well-developed system. In

25 2001, most of the roadways within Louisa County were operating at acceptable levels-of-service

26 (LOS). As shown in Table 2-7, the population in Louisa County, the county most impacted by

27 the presence of the proposed Units 3 and 4, is projected to increase from approximately 25,627

28 to 29,100 or approximately 13.6 percent between 2000 and 2010 (VEC 2003). It is expected to

29 increase by another 15 percent between 2010 and 2020 (Louisa County 2001) even without the

30 influx of construction workers for Units 3 and 4. While such growth would put pressure on the

31 local road system, it is not expected to overwhelm the system. An adequate transportation

32 system exists, and a number of improvements are planned in Louisa County over the next

33 15 years for primary and secondary roads to maintain a level of service “C” rating (Louisa

34 County 2001).

35

36 Dominion states that no new public roads would be required as a result of construction

37 activities, nor would public roads be altered (e.g., widened) as a result of construction activities. 

38 Dominion anticipates that some minor road repairs and improvements (e.g., patching cracks

39 and potholes, adding turn lanes, reinforcing soft shoulders) would be necessary to enable

40 equipment accessibility and minimize safety risks (Dominion 2004a). Construction site exits

41 onto public roads would be marked clearly with signs and maintained. Any damage to public
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-19 Draft NUREG-1811

1 roads, markings, or signs caused by construction activities would be repaired to pre-existing

2 conditions or better by Dominion (Dominion 2004a).

3

4 Dominion states that a new access road on the NAPS site would support construction activities

5 and would be private and fully contained within the existing NAPS site boundary. The road

6 would be maintained by Virginia Power personnel as needed (Dominion 2004a). However, the

7 staff evaluation found that State Route (SR) 700 leading into NAPS from SR 618 is very narrow

8 and paved. It is unlikely that this road could accept heavy construction traffic and the

9 transportation of construction materials without substantial upgrading. There could be conges10 tion at shift changes at the intersection of SR 700 and SR 652, particularly if the construction

11 and operating personnel both leave and enter the plant site at the same time. In addition,

12 construction at the North Anna ESP site could increase traffic loads in and around Lake Anna

13 itself. The roads around Lake Anna are already congested. SR 618 through the town of

14 Mineral would need to be evaluated with respect to potential construction at the NAPS site. 

15 Also, the existing rail spur into the site could be employed to bring in heavier equipment and

16 construction materials, thereby taking some of the burden off the local roads. The rail spur may

17 require upgrading to accommodate the heavier loads.

18

19 While Dominion stated that no public roads would need to be altered due to construction of new

20 facilities, local officials believe this would need to be evaluated prior to the start of construction. 

21 Based on the information provided by Dominion in its ER and its own independent review, the

22 staff concludes that the overall physical impacts to local roadways would be temporary and

23 SMALL, as long as mitigation actions, such as traffic control and possible management meas24 ures that Dominion identified, are undertaken.

25

26 4.5.1.4 Aesthetics

27

28 Lake Anna, created in 1971, is the main source of cooling water for NAPS Units 1 and 2. The

29 lake has seen tremendous residential development over the years with many permanent year30 round and part-time residences. The lake is a major economic development resource for Louisa

31 and Spotsylvania counties and, to a lesser extent, Orange County. The lake has public access,

32 and its use by the public includes recreational boating, fishing, camping, and picnicking. 

33 Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative own, and Virginia Power controls, the

34 land that forms Lake Anna, both above and beneath the water surface, up to the expected high35 water marks. The aquatic resources of Lake Anna are managed cooperatively by Virginia

36 Power and State natural resource agencies, including the Virginia Department of Game and

37 Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR).

38

39 From a visual perspective, construction activities at the ESP site would generally not be visible

40 from points outside the NAPS boundary. The exception is that recreational users of Lake Anna

41 would be able to see some construction activities occurring on the NAPS site. However, such
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The multiplier effect describes the situation in which each dollar spent on goods and services by a

construction worker becomes income to the recipient who saves some but re-spends the rest on

consumption. This re-spending becomes income to someone else, who in turn saves part and

re-spends the rest. The number of times the final increase in consumption exceeds the initial dollar

spent is called the “multiplier.”

Draft NUREG-1811 4-20 November 2004

1 activities would take place on a site zoned “industrial” and containing NAPS Units 1 and 2. 

2 Because visual impacts of construction, such as water turbidity from localized dredging and

3 fugitive dust, would be temporary and would be controlled pursuant to State regulations, and the

4 points from which they could be observed from the lake would be limited, , the staff considers

5 the visual impacts of construction on Lake Anna and the surrounding area would be SMALL,

6 and further mitigation is not warranted.

7

8 4.5.2 Demography

9

10 The population in the region within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site is projected to grow at an

11 average annual rate of 1.75 percent between 2000 and 2020 (i.e., from 1,538,156 in 2000 to

12 2,160,921 in 2020), see Table 2-5. The economy in the region is considered strong and

13 growing.

14

15 Eighty percent of the peak 5000-person construction workforce for Units 3 and 4 would be

16 expected to come from within the region and to commute to the NAPS site. The remaining

17 1000 workers may commute from outside the region to the site or relocate into the region. 

18 Thus, increases in population directly attributable to the construction workforce for Units 3 and 4

19 would be small.

20

Some new jobs may result from the multiplier effect(a) 21 attributable to the construction workforce. 

22 But these increases, when compared to the total population base in the region, would be

23 minimal as well.

24

25 Should a larger than expected number of construction workers decide to locate to Louisa or

26 Orange Counties, there could be a noticeable, but not excessive, increase in population. Based

27 on 2000 census data, a 1000-person increase caused by the relocation of construction workers

28 would only represent a 3.9 percent increase in total population. Any multiplier effects resulting

29 from construction worker expenditures would most likely mean that residents of the two counties

30 would obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the increased economic activity.

31

32 Based on the expectation that (1) most construction workers would be expected to come from

33 within the region and (2) the number of construction workers who might relocate to the region

34 would be a small percentage of the larger population base, the staff concludes that the impacts
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-21 Draft NUREG-1811

1 of construction on increases in population within the region would be SMALL, and mitigation is

2 not warranted.

3

4 4.5.3 Community Characteristics

5

6 This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

7 constructing Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. The evaluation assesses impacts of

8 construction and demands placed by the larger workforce on the surrounding region. Construc9 tion activities are assumed to last up to 5 years and employ up to 5000 workers. Dominion

10 expects this size workforce to be maintained for a large part of the construction period

11 (Dominion 2004a). This is in addition to the720 personnel currently employed at the site

12 (Dominion 2004a).

13

14 4.5.3.1 Economy

15

16 The impacts of construction of the new Units 3 and 4 on the local and regional economy are

17 dependent on the region’s current and projected economy and population. The impacts on the

18 economy of constructing Units 3 and 4 would generally be positive within the region. The

19 degree of impact of the benefits would vary throughout the region, with Louisa County being

20 most impacted.

21

22 Some insight can be obtained on the projected economy and population by consulting county

23 comprehensive plans and data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The North Anna ESP, if

24 approved, could be in effect for up to 20 years after approval. Within that period, limited site

25 preparation activities allowed under the site redress plan could start at any time. Construction

26 activities require the issuance of CP or a COL. Therefore, the positive economic benefits of

27 construction could begin before the start of major construction activities. The economic

28 impacts, given the 20-year time horizon, are qualitatively discussed.

29

30 Dominion projects that up to 5000 workers will be needed to construct Units 3 and 4. The

31 employment of this large workforce for an extended period of time will have economic and social

32 impacts on the surrounding region. Louisa County would be the most impacted. Orange

33 County may be the second most impacted, and otherwise, the impacts become diffuse as a

34 result of interacting with the larger economic base of the surrounding counties and the City of

35 Richmond. Impacts would affect transportation, taxes, aesthetics and recreation, housing,

36 public services, and education, all of which are discussed separately below. The magnitude of

37 the impacts hinge on the percentage of the workforce that would come from within an 80-km

38 (50-mi) radius of the ESP site and thus commute to the site, and the numbers of workers who

39 might relocate to the area and whether they relocate to Louisa and Orange Counties or Henrico

40 County and the City of Richmond.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-22 November 2004

1 The peak construction workforce is expected to be approximately 5000 workers, but many more

2 jobs would be created in the region due to the multiplier effect of direct employment as a result

3 of the expenditures of the construction workforce in the region for food, other products, and

4 services.

5

6 Another consideration is whether there would be a sufficient number of construction workers to

7 supply the estimated 5000-person workforce and whether the available workers would have the

8 requisite skills, especially in light of a very tight labor market as evidenced by the very low

9 unemployment rates in the area (see Tables 2-9 and 2-11). In its ER (Dominion 2004a),

10 Dominion refers to a labor study that showed there would be sufficient construction labor from

11 the greater Richmond area to meet its demands.

12

13 Through information obtained from the interviews conducted during the December 2003 site

14 visit, the staff confirmed that a sufficient number of construction workers would be available to

15 meet the expected demand. Many construction workers commute from the Fredericksburg area

16 to jobs in Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C.; for example, for the Fredericksburg region, it

17 is estimated that out of a workforce of 122,000, 48,300 workers (almost 40 percent), commute

18 out of the Fredericksburg region to their jobs (Fredericksburg 2003). Also, if workers were given

19 the opportunity to reduce or eliminate their commute by working closer to home, they would do

20 so. As a result, the staff concludes that there would be little or no impediments to recruiting the

21 requisite construction workforce (from the local labor pool and with regional imports) to enable

22 the construction of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site.

23

24 The staff reviewed the impacts of station construction on the economy of the region and

25 concludes that the magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic

26 bases of Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, whereas with the

27 smaller economic bases of Orange and Louisa Counties, the economic impacts would be more

28 noticeable. Based on the positive aspects of station construction on the regional economies

29 and the workforce availability, the staff concludes that the impacts on the economy are largely

30 positive. In terms of representing adverse effects, the staff concludes that the impact would be

31 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

32 4.5.3.2 Transportation

33

34 Current transportation patterns, existing road traffic congestion, and planned road upgrades in

35 the region were examined in Section 2.8.2.2 of this draft environmental impact statement (EIS). 

36 This section summarizes the potential impacts of construction on the transportation system as a

37 whole.

38

39 The main impacts to the transportation system resulting from construction of Units 3 and 4

40 would be on the roads leading to and from the NAPS site. Several impacts could occur. First

41 there could be the potential congestion on some of the major Federal highways and SRs
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-23 Draft NUREG-1811

1 leading to the NAPS site. Second could be the crowding and congestion at the entrance to

2 NAPS during shift changes. Third, the transport of large pieces of construction equipment and

3 supplies into the site could adversely impact the transportation system, particularly SR 700. 

4 This impact could be alleviated by using the existing rail spur to bring in supplies and

5 construction equipment. The rail spur itself may need to be upgraded to accommodate the

6 increased traffic and weight of some of the material being hauled. However, the transport of

7 heavy construction equipment into the site is expected to be an occasional to rare occurrence.

8

9 Depending on the routes used, a peak workforce of 5000 construction workers commuting to

10 and from the NAPS site could potentially impact other parts of the transportation system. Not all

11 5000 workers would be commuting to the site at the same time, and their arrival and departure

12 times would most likely be spread throughout the 24-hour period in two or three shifts.

13

14 SR 700 (LOS B) (see Table 2-14 for relevant definitions of LOS) is the only road that leads

15 directly into the North Anna ESP site, and the traffic east of the intersection on SR 652 is

16 normally related to activities at NAPS. This would also be the case during the construction of

17 Units 3 and 4. Construction worker access to the ESP site would be via an access road that

18 would be built on the north side of SR 700 on Virginia Power property. This new access road

19 would intersect with SR 700 several hundred yards west of the access road to the existing units

20 (Dominion 2004a). Dominion indicates that the potential for congestion exists at SRs 700 and

21 652 if construction and plant shift changes are not managed. To alleviate this potential

22 problem, Dominion plans to develop, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of

23 Transportation, a traffic management plan as a construction mitigation measure (Dominion

24 2004a). However, this action may not fully alleviate the congestion. Beginning at the

25 intersection of SR 700 and SR 652, the increased construction traffic would begin to disperse

26 onto local roads, but congestion could develop at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652 during

27 construction shift changes even if the shift changes for construction and operation are

28 staggered (Dominion 2004a). Both SRs 700 and 618 into Mineral are of concern to Louisa

29 County officials in light of the additional vehicular traffic placed on the roads as a result of

30 construction.

31

32 Accounting for the current permanent workforce of 720 employees, the planned outages that

33 double the workforce (at least four outages would occur during the construction of Units 3 and

34 4) and 5000 construction workers working two to three shifts per day would place a total of

35 approximately 3900 vehicles per day on the roads (Dominion 2004a). This represents a major

36 increase in traffic at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652, which historically has been able to

37 handle a peak of around 2000 workers without creating a major traffic problem on the local

38 roads (Dominion 2004a). The potential cumulative increase in the number of vehicles during a

39 combined outage, construction, and permanent workforce egress and ingress into the site

40 would require mitigating measures.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-24 November 2004

1 Dominion identified in the ER, several mitigating measures that could be undertaken to partially

2 mitigate congestion at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652 and on the local road systems,

3 particularly SR 700, which is a paved country lane (Dominion 2004a). These mitigating actions

4 are described below:

5

6 C Develop a traffic management plan for the local road system prior to construction startup

7 to alleviate congestion at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652.

8

9 C Encourage the use of car and van pooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads

10 leading to the plant.

11

12 C Schedule shift changes for all employees so arrivals and departures are staggered over

13 a 24-hour period. Dominion states it plans to do this, but recognizes the need to hand

14 off work from the outgoing to the incoming shift workers may complicate this scheduling

15 effort for construction and when an outage occurs.

16

17 C Upgrade the intersection of SRs 700 and 652 by installing turn lanes and traffic lights at

18 the intersection.

19

20 Another alternative would be for Virginia Department of Transportation to widen SR 700 at

21 U.S. 522 near the town of Mineral. As previously mentioned, SR 700 is a paved country lane

22 and is not designed to handle large amounts of vehicular traffic or the transport of heavy loads.

23

24 The Louisa-Orange-Spotsylvania Advisory’s three-county planning group, the Lake Anna

25 Advisory Committee, has recommended that planners in each of the three counties upgrade

26 their local roads around Lake Anna (Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee 2000). The

27 recommended upgrade would provide a circumferential roadway system around the lake with

28 adequate lanes for towed boats and bicycles. Should the upgrade occur, it would alleviate

29 congestion on local roads, such as SR 608 and U.S. 522, due to the influx of construction

30 workers. Many of the roads around the upper end of Lake Anna have not been upgraded since

31 the 1970s. Transportation choke points in the area now are SRs 700 and 652 at the NAPS site

32 entrance and SR 208 to Fredericksburg.

33

34 In Orange County, the transportation system is generally considered to be adequate at present,

35 but with new development, the system would become constrained.

36

37 Spotsylvania County plans to widen SR 606 west of I-95 to four lanes and has included this

38 project in its comprehensive plan (Spotsylvania County 2002). This project, if completed,

39 should reduce the additional impacts of a large number of construction workers commuting on

40 SR 606 to the NAPS site. Construction on the SR 208 Bypass around the historic Courthouse

41 District is scheduled to begin in 2006.. When completed, this new road would connect the SR
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-25 Draft NUREG-1811

1 208 Bypass with the Spotsylvania Parkway (SR 208 north) and with the intersection of

2 Courthouse Road (SR 208 south) with SR 606. SR 208 south is a minor road with a bridge over

3 Lake Anna west of the North Anna ESP site. Spotsylvania County plans to upgrade the

4 two-lane roads around Lake Anna by widening them to include shoulders (Dominion 2004a). 

5

6 In Hanover County, U.S. 33 currently carries relatively modest volumes of traffic and needs to

7 be widened (Hanover County 2003). A time frame for the widening has not been set because

8 the source of funding has not been identified. If U.S. 33 is not widened before the start of

9 construction of Units 3 and 4, construction workers commuting from the City of Richmond would

10 cause increased congestion (Dominion 2004a). The magnitude of the congestion impacts

11 would depend, to some extent, on the shift schedule for the construction of Units 3 and 4

12 relative to the normal commuting schedule of other road users (Dominion 2004a).

13

14 The most likely commuting routes taken by the construction workers from Richmond would be

15 U.S. 33 through Hanover County or I-64 through northwest Henrico County and along the

16 southern boundary of Louisa County. I-64 west from Richmond has a LOS no worse than B

17 (Dominion 2004a). Dominion states that commuting construction workers from the greater

18 Richmond area using SR 208 or U.S. 522 would not cause congestion problems

19 (Dominion 2004a). While these are well maintained, lightly traveled, two-lane roads at present,

20 adding up to 1900 construction and permanent workers (assuming three shifts in a 24-hour

21 period) could result in congestion. This could be managed by staggering the shift changes,

22 encouraging car pooling, etc., or by upgrading the roads in the future as discussed below.

23

24 Construction workers traveling south on I-95 from Spotsylvania County or points further north

25 toward Washington, D.C. would most likely take SR 606 west or the Spotsylvania Turnpike exit

26 to the Route 208 Bypass (construction to begin in 2006), and then south on SR 208

27 (Courthouse Road) to reach the NAPS site (Dominion 2004a). The SR 606/Interstate 95

28 interchange is already congested, generally at LOS D or worse. I-95 is not the most direct route

29 to the NAPS site from Richmond, so I-95 north from Richmond through Hanover County would

30 not be as adversely impacted by construction workers commuting from the greater Richmond

31 area. The capacity of I-95 is generally adequate to serve current and projected needs;

32 however, there are periods of extreme congestion during morning and afternoon weekday hours

33 and during peak weekend travel times (Hanover County 2003).

34

35 In conclusion, traffic congestion would be a problem if the road systems are not properly main36 tained. Ongoing growth in the area and recreation at Lake Anna is currently putting pressure on

37 the roads around Lake Anna. Increased congestion could impact the recreational use of Lake

38 Anna with consequential economic impacts to the area. Adding a construction workforce to an

39 existing permanent workforce plus workers associated with planned outages will further exacer40 bate traffic congestion unless mitigation measures, as described above, are undertaken. Even
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-26 November 2004

1 then, these mitigation measures may not fully alleviate the congestion, especially on SR 700

2 leading to the NAPS site and at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652.

3

4 Based on this review and the mitigation measures identified in the ER, the staff concluded that if

5 the planned upgrades and improvements to the road systems in the region and Dominion’s

6 traffic management mitigation measures are implemented, then the temporary impacts of

7 construction on transportation in the region would be SMALL and further mitigation is not

8 warranted. The staff further notes that impacts could be moderate if the mitigation measures

9 are not taken.

10

11 4.5.3.3 Taxes

12

13 The type of reactor selected would impact the size of the required workforce and, thus, the

14 amount of taxes paid. Because reactor selection would only occur if Dominion decides to

15 proceed with a CP or a COL, only a qualitative assessment of the impacts to the surrounding

16 area and region can be provided at this time.

17

18 There would be several types of taxes generated by the construction of Units 3 and 4 and its

19 workforce: income taxes on wages and salaries paid and corporate profits, sales and use taxes

20 on purchases, and property taxes on the physical facility itself. Each tax type is briefly

21 discussed below.

22

23 Income Taxes

24

25 Virginia has a personal income tax with a 5.75 percent top marginal rate for taxable income

26 exceeding $17,000. It also has a corporate income tax, which is 6 percent of corporate taxable

27 income. Both the corporate and personal tax return is based on the Federal return, so

28 generally, income that is taxable at the Federal level is also taxed by Virginia Department of

29 Taxation (VDOT 2003). Thus, construction workers and employees of Dominion would pay

30 taxes on their wages and salaries to Virginia if their residence is in Virginia as would

31 corporations based in or doing business in Virginia. While the exact amount of tax payable to

32 Virginia is not known, the absolute amount could be substantial over a 5-year construction

33 period, but small when considered in relation to total amount of income taxes Virginia would

34 collect over that period.

35

36 Sales and Use Taxes

37

38 Virginia has two types of sales and use taxes. A 4 percent tax is levied on selected food items

39 with 3 percent of the revenue going to the State and 1 percent going to the local jurisdiction in

40 which it is collected (VDOT 2000). In addition, a 4.5 percent sales tax is levied on other goods

41 and services sold, with the State receiving 3.5 percent of the revenue and local jurisdictions
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-27 Draft NUREG-1811

1 receiving the remaining 1 percent (VDOT 1987). The current combined sales and use tax rate

2 for Louisa County is 4.5 percent: 3.5 percent of the revenue is paid to the State and 1 percent to

3 the local governmental entity where the taxes are collected, such as Louisa County

4 (Dominion 2004a).

5

6 Virginia and the counties surrounding the North Anna ESP site would experience an increase in

7 the amount of sales and use taxes collected from construction materials and supplies

8 purchased for the project. Additional sales and use taxes would be generated by retail

9 expenditures of construction workers.

10

11 Dominion estimates that about half of the day-to-day expenditures during construction would

12 occur in the region (Dominion 2004a). At this point it is difficult to assess which counties and

13 local jurisdictions would be most impacted by the expenditures and resultant sales and use

14 taxes collected. But, as with income taxes, the total amount of sales and use taxes collected,

15 while large, would be small when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by State and

16 local governments. The exception might be Louisa County where a larger percentage of

17 expenditures that generate sales and use taxes could be expected to take place. Needless to

18 say, the taxes collected would benefit State and local jurisdictions.

19

20 Because the absolute amount of sales and use taxes paid to State and local entities would be

21 small when compared to the total amount of sales and use taxes collected, the staff concludes

22 that the overall impacts of construction on sales and use taxes collected would be small and

23 beneficial. In the case of Louisa County, the impacts might be moderate and beneficial

24 because of the preponderance of construction activities in the county.

25

26 Property Taxes

27

28 Louisa County would benefit from additional property tax revenue associated with the construc29 tion of Units 3 and 4. The first source of revenue would be the tangible personal property taxes

30 paid by contractors during construction of the additional units. This tax is based on the value of

31 property owned by the contractors that acquire taxable status in Louisa County during the

32 construction period. Currently, the county calculates the assessed value of the property at

33 10 percent of the original cost, which is then taxed at the rate of $1.90 per $100 of value

34 (Dominion 2004a).

35

36 The second source of revenue would be from the real property taxes levied for the incremental

37 increase in value to the entire site from the additional units. While under construction, the tax

38 would be levied only on the value of the tangible personal property to become part of the addi39 tional units. Currently, the Virginia State Corporation Commission is responsible for the valua40 tion of the property both during construction and following completion of the additional units. 

41 The current tax rate for this property is $0.67 per $100 of value (Dominion 2004a).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-28 November 2004

1 Louisa County is expected to be the primary beneficiary, of the property taxes paid by Dominion

2 during the construction period. For the period 1995 to 2003, property taxes paid by Dominion

3 for NAPS averaged about 46 percent of the total property revenue of Louisa County, and

4 approximately 22.5 percent of the county’s total annual budget (see more detailed discussion in

5 Section 2.8.2.3).

6

7 The staff considers the overall impacts from real and personal property taxes resulting from

8 construction of Units 3 and 4 to be moderate and beneficial for Louisa County. Construction

9 would take place at the North Anna ESP site, which is in Louisa County. Louisa County

10 receives the preponderance of property tax revenue collected on the existing NAPS Units 1 and

11 2, which represents a significant portion of the total property tax revenues collected by the

12 county. This would be expected to continue with the construction of Units 3 and 4.

13

14 Summary of Impacts on Taxes

15

16 The staff reviewed the income taxes generated on wages and salaries of Units 3 and 4

17 construction workers and Dominion corporate profits as well as sales and use taxes, most of

18 which represent beneficial sources of income for the State and some of which would benefit the

19 counties in the region. Property tax paid by contractors and by Dominion would directly benefit

20 Louisa County. The overall impacts from real and personal property taxes, on the region would

21 be beneficially small to large for Louisa County. Therefore, the adverse impact level would be

22 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

23

24 4.5.3.4 Recreation

25

26 As discussed previously under physical impacts, construction at the North Anna ESP site would

27 have limited visual impacts on users of Lake Anna or from points outside the site boundaries. 

28 Water-quality impacts of construction of a new water intake structure would be subject to

29 applicable Federal and State regulations, and any noticeable effects would be transitory. 

30 Impacts on recreational users of Lake Anna as a result of these activities would be minimal.

31

32 Congestion on roads around Lake Anna could be exacerbated with the addition of the construc33 tion workforce, and recreational use of Lake Anna would increase as a result of expected

34 increased use by the construction workforce, potentially causing temporary overcrowding. The

35 increased congestion on the roads and use of the lake could lessen the recreational experience

36 of current users of the lake and could discourage some recreational users of the lake, particu37 larly those users visiting from outside the region such as Northern Virginia. Recreationalists

38 from outside the area would most likely spend more money (gas for boats, food, and lodging)

39 than resident recreationalists, resulting in economic impacts to local merchants around the lake.

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-29 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Based on the expectation that mitigative measures, such as traffic management, road improve2 ments, and best construction management practices to minimize water quality impacts, are

3 conducted, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on the recreational use of Lake

4 Anna would be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted. If the mitigation measures

5 described above is not undertaken then the impacts levels could be moderate. 

6

7 4.5.3.5 Housing

8

9 Impacts on housing from the construction workforce are dependent on how many workers come

10 from within the region (80 km [50 mi]) and, thereby, already have housing, and how many might

11 need to relocate to the area and, thus, would require housing. Dominion states in its ER that

12 the majority of the construction workforce would come from within the region (Dominion 2004a). 

13 Interviews with local county and economic development officials and data from the U.S. Bureau

14 of Economic Analysis support this assumption. In 2000, there were 473,033 full- and part-time

15 workers in Henrico, Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, or

16 10.7 percent of the Virginia workforce (see Table 2-11). Of the total, 27,242 workers were

17 employed in construction across the four counties and the City of Richmond (see Table 2-13). 

18 This number does not include construction workers who may commute to jobs outside the area

19 of their residence.

20

21 Dominion estimates it would need a construction workforce of up to 5000 over a 5-year period to

22 construct Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2004a). If the entire workforce is derived from within the

23 80-km (50-mi) radius, there would be no or little impact on housing. However, Dominion’s prior

24 experience on projects of similar size indicates that up to 20 percent of the workforce would

25 come from beyond the 80-km (50-mi) radius (Dominion 2004a). It is not unusual for construc26 tion workers to drive 80 km (50 mi) or more from their place of residence to a job site. So, even

27 if 1000 or more workers came from outside the region, all 1000 would not necessarily require

28 housing within the region.

29

30 Regardless, if current trends hold into the future, it appears that adequate rental housing is

31 available within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of NAPS, particularly in Henrico County and the City of

32 Richmond (see Tables 2-18 and 2-19) and to a lesser extent Spotsylvania County, given the

33 assumption that approximately 1000 workers would come from outside the region, may need

34 housing in the region, and would be willing to live in Henrico or Spotsylvania Counties or the

35 City of Richmond and commute to the NAPS site. However, if these assumptions prove

36 incorrect, housing availability could be impacted, particularly in Orange and Louisa Counties

37 where there is a shortage of rental housing (see Table 2-19). If too many “imported” workers

38 tried to live in these two counties, there would likely be an upward effect on rents. The staff

39 notes that impacts to Orange and Louisa Counties could be moderate if significantly more

40 workers than expected locate in these counties where a shortage of rental housing currently

41 exists. The building of a significant number of new rental units in anticipation of construction
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-30 November 2004

1 activities at the North Anna ESP site is not expected because of the short period of time over

2 which construction would occur. If rents increase, some low-income populations could be

3 priced out of their rental housing.

4

5 Such upward pressures on rents is less likely to occur in larger metropolitan area where there is

6 a greater supply of rental housing. In addition, if a number of construction workers were to bring

7 trailers to live in during their period of employment, they would likely compete with recreational

8 users of Lake Anna for spaces at existing recreational vehicle/trailer parks, again putting

9 upward pressure on the prices or rents charged for such spaces.

10

11 Increased demand for recreational vehicle/trailer spaces could result in an increase in the

12 number of spaces being made available. During the construction of NAPS Units 1 and 2,

13 temporary trailer courts were established in Louisa to accommodate some of the workers. 

14 Discussions with Louisa County officials indicated that they would consider establishing such

15 temporary courts again if needed. The availability of adequate water and sewer services would

16 be an issue, however, as discussed in the next section.

17

18 Because of the overall availability of housing in Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the City 

19 of Richmond and assuming that the housing pattern follows past experience, the staff concludes

20 that the overall impacts of construction on housing in these areas would be SMALL, and

21 mitigation is not warranted. 

22

23 4.5.3.6 Public Services

24

25 Water Supply and Waste Treatment Facilities

26

27 In Louisa County, in light of current growth and without the construction of Units 3 and 4 at the

28 North Anna ESP site, water and sewer infrastructure are a concern now, particularly around the

29 I-64 corridor, in the vicinity of Gum Springs. The county is considering a separate system for

30 this area. Water supply reservoirs are also a concern, because a recent drought has exacer31 bated a shortage in the availability of water supplies. An influx of construction workers to the

32 county could potentially further exacerbate the current situation. According to the Directors of

33 Planning and Community Development and Planning and Zoning, Mr. Williams and Buckler

34 respectively, there are currently, no growth restrictions in Louisa County.

35

36 In Orange County during the recent drought, there were some water supply problems. Also, in

37 the Gordonsville to town of Orange corridor, water and sewer services are near or at capacity,

38 such that any new population growth will require upgrades of both systems. Moreover, the

39 water and sewer systems at the eastern end of the county, where many current NAPS

40 employees live, are close to capacity. In the event of an influx of construction workers to the

41 eastern end of the county, shipping water from the west end of the county to the east end would
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-31 Draft NUREG-1811

1 be a possible, albeit expensive, solution. Currently there are no growth restrictions in Orange

2 County.

3

4 Dominion notes in its ER, there are no public water or sewer systems in the vicinity of the ESP

5 site except those of incorporated towns, where it is unlikely that new recreational vehicle/trailer

6 courts would be allowed. This would require extending services from the incorporated areas to

7 such facilities or locating them closer to Henrico County and the City of Richmond, where public

8 water and sewer systems are available (Dominion 2004a).

9

10 As previously discussed, Dominion expects 80 percent, or approximately 4000 of the

11 construction workers to live within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the NAPS site, with the remaining

12 1000 workers commuting from outside the area or moving into the area to establish residency. 

13 Given the shortage of rental units in Orange and Louisa counties, it is expected that most of

14 those workers moving into the region would locate in the larger population centers of Henrico

15 and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond. Existing or planned expansions to the

16 infrastructure would mitigate the impacts to Orange and Louisa Counties. However, during an

17 interview on December 8, 2003, officials in Orange and Louisa Counties generally expressed

18 the view that the existing water supply and sewer infrastructure are nearly at capacity.

19

20 Because of the overall availability of water supply and treatment facilities in Henrico and

21 Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, the staff concludes that the overall impacts of

22 construction on water supply and waste treatment facilities for these areas would be small. 

23 These governments have either added capacity to the infrastructure recently, or are planning

24 additional upgrades and expansion or both. The staff further concludes that the impacts to

25 Orange and Louisa Counties could be moderate if significantly more workers than expected

26 locate in these counties where there is little available capacity in both water supply and waste

27 treatment facilities.

28

29 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

30

31 In Orange County there are two outpatient clinics but no hospitals. The fire departments are

32 made up of volunteers, and rescue services are composed of both volunteer and paid

33 employees. In the future, as new facilities are established, the county is considering hiring

34 full-time paid staff. An increase in the number of construction workers locating to the county

35 could put pressure on the police, fire, and medical infrastructure.

36

37 There is no hospital in the town of Louisa or in Louisa County. In Louisa County, general fire,

38 police, and rescue services are considered adequate to meet current needs. Louisa county

39 staff periodically evaluates the adequacy of services based on growth and would include growth

40 as a result of the construction of Units 3 and 4. It is possible that such growth would require the
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-32 November 2004

1 expansion of the police department and the fire department (currently a volunteer service) in the

2 town of Louisa. The fire department may have to transition to a fully paid, full-time status.

3

4 A population increase caused by the construction workforce working at the North Anna ESP

5 site, with some workers potentially relocating to Louisa and Orange Counties, would require

6 some upgrades to existing services in these counties, but these needs are expected to be

7 manageable because of the additional tax dollars available, particularly in Louisa County from

8 the additional property tax revenues and other taxes as a result of construction on the NAPS

9 site.

10

11 In the larger metropolitan areas of the City of Richmond and in Henrico and Spotsylvania

12 Counties, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be significantly impacted by any new

13 construction workers relocating to the area for the reasons previously discussed.

14

15 Social Services

16

17 This section focuses on the potential impacts of construction on the social and related services

18 provided to disadvantaged segments of the population in Louisa and Orange counties, and is

19 distinguished from issues surrounding environmental justice, which is discussed in Section 4.7.

20

21 Generally, construction of Units 3 and 4 at NAPS is viewed as economically beneficial to the

22 disadvantaged population segments served by the Department of Social Services for Louisa

23 and Orange Counties. Construction of the new units may enable the disadvantaged population

24 to improve their social and economic position by moving to better-paid construction jobs,

25 potentially lessening the demand for social services by this segment of the population. At a

26 minimum, the expenditures of the construction workforce in the counties for goods and services

27 would have a multiplier effect and increase the number of jobs that could be filled by the

28 disadvantaged population.

29

30 There may be an initial increase in demand for social services by construction and other

31 workers newly moving to the area until they establish employment, but this is considered

32 manageable.

33

34 Summary of Public Services

35

36 Based on the current availability of services and additional taxes that would likely compensate

37 the need for additional services, the staff concludes that the impact on the demand for public

38 and related services as a result of construction would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

39 warranted.

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-33 Draft NUREG-1811

1 4.5.3.7 Education

2

3 Orange County is currently in the process of expanding its school infrastructure and, as a result,

4 could accommodate modest growth increases in student population. Growth is taking place in

5 the eastern end of the county closer to the NAPS site and Lake Anna. One middle school is

6 located in the eastern end of the county and, if growth continues in this area, a new elementary

7 school will be needed. Construction of the two proposed units at the NAPS site would require

8 additional investment in the public school system, particularly given the ongoing growth in the

9 eastern end of the county. At issue is how to accommodate any increased enrollment resulting

10 from construction laborers locating to the county – whether through permanent construction or

11 the use of modular trailer units (Baker 2003).

12

13 In an interview on December 10, 2003, the Superintendent for Louisa County schools said that

14 the county schools are currently overcrowded. Enrollment is growing at 2 percent a year. 

15 Taxes in the county have not been raised in 6 years, so while the schools are being maintained

16 there has been no new construction to accommodate increased enrollment. Growth is occurring

17 in the county as a result of its low taxes as compared to the surrounding counties (Louisa

18 County has the NAPS facility in its tax base (see Table 2-15). Any increase in student

19 population because of construction workers and their families relocating to the county would

20 most likely be handled with modular units. Louisa County purchased property to build a new

21 elementary school in 2004, and construction is scheduled to begin in 2005. Property has also

22 been purchased for a new middle school.

23

24 It is expected that a maximum of 1000 workers would establish new residences within an 80-km

25 (50-mi) radius of the NAPS site and that most of these would locate to the larger population

26 areas because of the existing shortage of available housing in Louisa and Orange Counties. 

27 Given that the workers would be scattered throughout the metropolitan region of Henrico and

28 Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond the effects of increased enrollment of students

29 as a result of their relocation on school infrastructure in those areas is expected to be minimal.

30

31 Housing is more widely available in Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

32 Richmond. As a result, most construction workers are expected to already be located in these

33 areas, and the majority of new construction workers from outside the region would most likely

34 locate to these areas as well. Given this, the impacts of construction on school infrastructure

35 are considered small in Orange County, which has expanded its school infrastructure and

36 currently has excess capacity. The schools in Louisa County currently are overcrowded The

37 county is planning to build new schools, which will alleviate the current crowded conditions. 

38 However, if the numbers of construction workers locating in Louisa County is significantly

39 greater than suggested by previous trends, the new capacity would not be sufficient to provide

40 services, and the impact could rise to moderate.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-34 November 2004

1 Based on the overall availability of educational facilities in Henrico, Spotsylvania, Orange and

2 Louisa Counties and the City of Richmond and assuming that the housing pattern follows past

3 experience, the staff concludes that any impact of construction on educational resources would

4 be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5

6 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

7

8 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account

9 the potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The review process mandated

10 by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic

11 Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Evaluating suitability of a potential ESP site within the

12 existing NAPS site for construction, operation, and decommissioning of new power units is an

13 undertaking that could possibly affect either known or potential historic properties that may be

14 located at the North Anna ESP site. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of NHPA,

15 NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the area of potential

16 effects. If no historic properties are present or affected, NRC is required to notify the State

17 Historic Preservation Officer before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are

18 present, NRC is required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking.

19

20 In the case of the North Anna ESP site, Dominion has indicated that construction of additional

21 units would involve land disturbance within a designated ESP plant construction area (currently

22 a mostly disturbed area), the ESP cooling tower area, and in a spoils and overflow storage area. 

23 Both the cooling tower area and spoils storage areas exhibit less previous ground disturbance

24 than the area where Units 3 and 4 would be constructed. Additionally, temporary parking,

25 module fabrication areas, and laydown zones would involve some ground disturbance. Follow26 ing construction activities, disturbed support areas would be landscaped and replanted to match

27 the overall site appearance.

28

29 Dominion has recently commissioned studies to assist in recording and protecting known

30 cultural resource sites, as in the case of the five historic period cemeteries located on the NAPS

31 site. As part of the cultural resource assessment effort, the entire NAPS site has been

32 classified into one of three categories, based on the potential for presently undiscovered historic

33 properties to be present, including recommendations for responding to inadvertent discovery

34 and preventing possible adverse effects to resources. These include the following:

35

36 C Areas with No Potential for Historic or Cultural Resources. These areas include lands

37 where past disturbances related to construction of the power station and appurtenant

38 (associated) facilities have taken place to such an extent that once extant cultural

39 resources are no longer present. No further archaeological investigations are

40 recommended for these areas.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-35 Draft NUREG-1811

1 C Areas with Low Potential for Historic or Cultural Resources. Lands within the ESP site

2 that fall into this category are those that are relatively undisturbed but that possess

3 characteristics that would normally indicate a low possibility for most types of cultural

4 resources to occur. For the most part, these lands have a degree of slope greater than

5 15 percent. For most of these areas, further archaeological work would not be neces6 sary, although there could be smaller areas within the larger zone where specific ground

7 conditions could require investigation.

8

9 C Areas with Moderate-to-High Potential for Historic or Cultural Resources. These areas

10 are classified as those that are relatively undisturbed by past activities and have a likeli11 hood for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites according to local models of

12 prehistoric and historic land-use and settlement patterning. Archaeological investigation

13 is recommended prior to undertaking any ground-disturbing activities in these areas.

14

15 The eastern part of the proposed project area, where the proposed plant footprint is expected to

16 be located, was extensively altered during ground-disturbing activities related to the original

17 construction of the power plant and associated facilities. Therefore, it is classified as having No

18 Potential for Historic and Cultural resources.

19

20 The western sector of the proposed project area, which includes the cooling tower area, spoils

21 and overflow storage areas, and parking and laydown areas, includes lands that have been

22 designated as Low and Moderate-to-High Potential for historical and cultural resources. In the

23 event that future ground-disturbing activities in these areas would occur pursuant to the ESP,

24 Dominion would need to consult with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources concerning

25 the need for additional field inventory of acreage for historic and cultural resources prior to

26 undertaking such activities.

27

28 Two known historic cemeteries are located in proximity to the proposed project area. 

29 Site 44LS221 is situated in a wooded area just north of the northwest corner of the ESP cooling

30 tower area. The site was marked and avoided during original site construction activities. It

31 would be protected by similar measures during any future site preparation and construction

32 activities and would not be impacted. Site 44LS222 is located near the southeast corner of the

33 cooling tower area, but outside the ESP construction boundary. This cemetery is a known site

34 and would be avoided to prevent construction activities from impacting the site.

35

36 To date, literature reviews and consultations with regional Native American tribes have not

37 identified any traditional cultural properties or other culturally significant resources that might

38 occur in the vicinity of the proposed ESP construction area.

39

40 In addition to assessing the known and potential occurrence for historic and cultural resources

41 and classifying site lands according to resource potential, Dominion includes cultural resource42 specific written directions in its site-wide Excavation and Backfill Work Procedures (North Anna
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines “minority” as American

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black not of Hispanic Origin, or Hispanic (69 FR

52040, August 24, 2004).

Draft NUREG-1811 4-36 November 2004

1 Power Station NSS Work Procedure WP-C01) involving an immediate stop work order should

2 archaeologic, historic, or other cultural resources be discovered during excavation. The

3 construction supervisor is responsible for ensuring the work stoppage and for notifying the

4 Environmental Compliance Coordinator of an inadvertent discovery.

5

6 Based on the presence of a well-managed cultural resources program at the NAPS site, which

7 includes the existence of written procedures to provide immediate reaction and notification in

8 the event of inadvertent discovery of historic and cultural resources, and its cultural resource

9 analysis and consultation, the staff concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural

10 resources would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

11

12 4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

13

14 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

15 addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) 16 or low-income populations. On

17 August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental

18 justice matters in licensing actions (NRC 2004). Figures 2-6 and 2-7 (Section 2.8.4) show the

19 locations of minority and low-income populations around the NAPS site and within an 80-km

20 (50-mi) radius.

21

22 The staff identified the pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with the

23 construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site could affect human populations. The staff then

24 evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by

25 these impacts. In its December 2003 site audit, the staff interviewed local government officials

26 and the staff of social welfare agencies concerning potentially disproportionate impacts to low

27 income and minority populations. The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or

28 practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which the populations

29 could be disproportionately impacted by construction of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP

30 site and that would result in those populations being adversely affected. In addition, the staff

31 did not identify any location-dependent disproportionately high and adverse impacts affecting

32 these minority and low-income populations.

33

34 Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

35 concludes that offsite impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site to minority and

36 low-income populations would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

37
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-37 Draft NUREG-1811

1 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

2

3 Dominion (2004a) indicated that the physical impacts of construction, including public health,

4 occupational health, and noise, would be small and were discussed qualitatively. The area

5 around the North Anna ESP site is predominantly rural with a population of approximately

6 15,500 people within 16 km (10 mi) of the site. No significant industrial or commercial facilities

7 are currently located or planned in this area.

8

9 4.8.1 Public Health

10

11 Dominion expects that individuals living near the North Anna ESP site would not experience any

12 physical impacts greater than those that would be considered an annoyance or nuisance. In the

13 event of atypical or noisy construction activities (e.g., pile driving), prior public announcements

14 and/or notifications of these activities would be provided. Dominion has stated that these

15 activities would be performed in compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, and with

16 site-specific permit conditions (Dominion 2004a).

17

18 Fugitive dust emissions and odors could be generated as a result of normal construction

19 activities. Mitigation measures identified in the ER to minimize fugitive dust and odors include

20 paving disturbed areas, water suppression and reduced material handling. Dominion states that

21 noise and exhaust emissions from construction equipment would have no discernable impact on

22 the local noise level and air quality (Dominion 2004a). All equipment would be operated in

23 accordance with Federal, State, and local emission requirements (Dominion 2004a).

24

25 Based on the mitigation measures identified by Dominion in its ER, the required permits and

26 authorization, and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the nonradiological

27 health impacts to the local population would be SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the

28 actions stated above is not warranted.

29

30 4.8.2 Occupational Health

31

32 The staff expects that construction workers and personnel working onsite to be most impacted

33 by noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from construction activities. Onsite

34 impacts to construction workers would be mitigated through training and use of personal

35 protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures. Emergency first-aid

36 care and regular health and safety monitoring of construction personnel could also be

37 undertaken.

38

39 Dominion states that atypical or noisy construction activities would be performed in compliance

40 with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, and with site-specific permit conditions

41 (Dominion 2004a).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-38 November 2004

1 Fugitive dust emissions and odors could also be generated as a result of normal construction

2 activities. Various measures could be undertaken to mitigate these impacts such as paving

3 disturbed areas, using water to suppress dusts, and reducing material-handling activities. 

4 Dominion indicates it would undertake additional mitigation control measures to address any

5 nuisance issues on a case-by-case basis.

6

7 Dominion states that noise and exhaust emissions from construction equipment would have no

8 discernable impact on the local noise level and air quality (Dominion 2004a). All equipment

9 would be operated in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local emission require10 ments (Dominion 2004a).

11

12 Based on the mitigation measures identified by Dominion in its ER, the required permits and

13 authorizations, and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the overall

14 nonradiological impacts to workers from construction activities would be SMALL, and additional

15 mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

16

17 4.8.3 Noise Impacts

18

19 Large construction projects involve many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing

20 noise from construction activities are generally limited to worker health and safety. Federal

21 regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR Part 1910 and 40 CFR Part 204. 

22 The regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally govern the noise levels of air compressors, while

23 the regulations in 29 CFR 1910.95 deal with noise exposure in the construction environment. 

24 The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have noise regulations or guidelines. Louisa and

25 Spotsylvania Counties have general noise regulations, but these regulations do not include

26 specific limits on noise levels, and the Spotsylvania County does not regulate noise from

27 construction activities between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

28

29 Activities associated with construction of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site would gene30 rate noise levels typical of larger construction projects. Noise levels for common construction

31 activities are typically about 90 decibels at a distance of 3.5 m (10 ft). At 35 m (100 ft), the

32 noise level would be about 70 decibels, and at a distance of 350 m (1000 ft), the noise level

33 would be 50 decibels. A 10-decibel decrease in noise level is generally perceived as a halving

34 the loudness. A few activities (e.g., jack hammers) have noise levels of about 110 decibels.

35

36 Many of the construction activities at the North Anna ESP site would take place near the

37 existing Units 1 and 2. It is unlikely that noise from the location would be discernible at the

38 exclusion area boundary or offsite. Construction activities may take place within 21 m (70 ft) of

39 the western edge of the exclusion area boundary. The land to the west of the site is zoned for

40 light industrial use; however, no uses for it have been established.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-39 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The following mitigation measures could be undertaken by Dominion, if necessary to reduce the

2 noise during construction of Units 3 and 4:

3

4 C routine inspection and maintenance of equipment to include noise aspects

5 C restricting loud noise-related activities, such as pile driving or blasting, to daylight hours

6 C develop and implement a plan to manage and respond to citizen concerns about noise.

7

8 Considering the temporary nature of construction activities and the remote location of the North

9 Anna ESP site, the staff concludes that the noise impacts from construction would be SMALL,

10 and additional mitigation beyond the action stated above is not warranted.

11

12 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

13

14 Based on the mitigating actions identified in the ER including operating the construction equip15 ment within local noise and air quality limits and implementing a dust control plan, and its own

16 independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on nonradiological

17 health would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the above actions is not warranted.

18

19 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts

20

21 The sources of radiation exposure to site preparation workers (i.e., construction workers)

22 include direct radiation exposure, exposure from gaseous radioactive effluents, and exposure

23 from liquid radioactive waste discharges from routine operations at NAPS Units 1 and 2 during

24 the site preparation and construction phase of additional units. Dominion (2004a) noted that all

25 major construction activities are expected to occur outside of the NAPS Units 1 and 2 protected

26 area boundary but inside the restricted site boundary (exclusion area), as shown in Figure 2-1.

27

28 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

29

30 Dominion identified two principal sources of direct radiation exposure from NAPS Units 1 and 2. 

31 These sources are (1) the boron recovery tank and (2) the low-level contaminated storage area,

32 both located directly south of the two operating units. Another source of direct radiation is the

33 independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), which is located south of the construction

34 site. The staff did not identify any additional sources of direct radiation.

35

36 Dominion estimated direct radiation exposure to site preparation workers by using thermolumi37 nescent dosimeters (TLDs) that measure direct radiation levels at locations in and around the

38 NAPS protected area and by dose rate surveys (Dominion 2004a). The TLDs used for this

39 evaluation are the same ones used for evaluating public dose in controlled areas. The TLD

40 located closest to the proposed site for Units 3 and 4 at the protected area boundary was on the

41 west protected area fence for Units 1 and 2. Dominion used the measurements from this TLD
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-40 November 2004

1 to estimate one component (from the boron recovery tank and the low level contaminated

2 storage area) of the direct radiation exposure to site preparation workers. The maximum

3 measured dose rate for the 7-year period from 1996 through 2002 at this TLD location was

4 0.74 mSv/yr (74 mrem/yr) and the average annual dose rate for all the TLD readings at this

5 location for the 7 year period was 0.56 mSv/yr (56 mrem/yr),( these dose rates are for

6 continuous exposure at the TLD location). The TLDs were read quarterly. It was assumed that

7 workers involved in site preparations would be west of this protected area fence, several

8 hundred feet farther away from the operating Units 1 and 2 than where the TLDs were located. 

9 Using the average annual TLD reading of 0.56 mSv/yr (56 mrem/yr) over the 7-year period, and

10 adjusting the TLD exposure time to 2080 hr/yr, which is the estimated maximum time a worker

11 would be exposed, Dominion calculated an annual worker whole body or total effective dose

12 equivalent (TEDE) dose of 0.13 mSv/yr (13 mrem/yr) from this component of direct radiation. 

13 Adjustments for background dose were not made for the assessment of dose to the site

14 preparation workers.

15

16 The TLD reading at the west protected area fence of the existing Units 1 and 2 included the

17 ISFSI dose contribution based on the ISFSI loading at the time of the measurements. However,

18 to provide a more conservative dose estimate, Dominion calculated an additional dose compo19 nent to the site preparation workers assuming a fully loaded ISFSI. Dominion calculated this

additional dose to be 4.7 x 10-5 mSv/hr (4.7 x 10-3 20 mrem/hr). With an occupancy rate of

2080 hr/yr, this is equivalent to an annual worker whole body or TEDE dose of 9.8 x 10-2 21 mSv/yr

(9.8 mrem/yr). When this ISFSI dose of 9.8 x 10-2 22 mSv/yr (9.8 mrem/yr) is added to the esti23 mated dose from the boron recovery tank and the contaminated storage area of 0.13 mSv/yr (13

24 mrem/yr), Dominion calculated a total dose to the site preparation workers of 0.23 mSv/yr (23

25 mrem/yr).

26

27 The staff reviewed the potential locations for exposures and recent records of dose rates, the

28 locations of the TLDs, the method to estimate doses to members of the public in controlled

29 areas, and other recent data. The staff determined that the method used to estimate the dose

30 from direct exposure was acceptable.

31

32 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

33

34 Dominion used data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 to estimate the whole

35 body dose and dose to the critical organ for a site preparation worker from gaseous effluents. 

36 Dominion stated that the annual releases for 2001 are typical for the existing units (VEPCo

2002). For the year 2001, Dominion calculated the whole body dose of 4.62 x 10-4 37 mSv/yr

(4.62 x10-2 mrem/yr) and 1.5 x 10-3 mSv/yr (1.5 x 10-1 38 mrem/yr) to the critical organ for the

39 maximally exposed member of the public from release of gaseous effluents from the operating

40 units. These doses are based on continuous occupancy; therefore, for estimating doses to the

41 site preparation worker, the doses were adjusted to an exposure time of 2080 hr/yr. These
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-41 Draft NUREG-1811

1 doses are calculated for the maximally exposed member of the public located at or beyond the

2 plant site boundary.

3

4 Because the workers involved in site preparation are located inside the plant boundary and are,

5 therefore, closer to the effluent release point, Dominion assumed that the gaseous effluent dose

6 to these workers would be higher than the dose to the maximally exposed member of the public

7 at or beyond the site boundary. To arrive at a factor of how much larger these doses would be,

8 Dominion took a ratio of the atmospheric dispersion factors (P/Q) for routine releases from the

9 existing units at the exclusion distance and at a point one-fourth of a mile to the west of the

10 existing units (approximately the same distance from the existing units as the construction site).

11

12 On this basis, Dominion conservatively assumed that the gaseous effluent dose to the site

13 preparation worker would be no more than 10 times higher than the dose to the maximally

14 exposed member of the public. Therefore, Dominion multiplied the gaseous effluent dose to the

15 maximally exposed member of the public by a factor of 10 to arrive at the estimated dose to the

site preparation worker from gaseous effluents. The resulting doses are 1.1 x 10-3 16 mSv/yr

(1.1 x 10-1 mrem/yr) for the whole body dose and 3.5 x 10-3 mSv/yr (3.5 x 10-1 17 mrem/yr) for the

18 critical organ. From International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 30

19 (ICRP 1979), applying a weighting factor of 0.3 to the organ dose and adding the whole body

dose provided a TEDE of 2.1 x 10-3 mSv/yr (2.1 x 10-1 20 mrem/yr) for the site preparation worker

21 from gaseous effluents (ICRP 1979).

22

23 The staff reviewed the data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 (VEPCo 2002)

24 and for more recent years and determined that the method to estimate dose from gaseous efflu25 ents was acceptable.

26

27 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

28

29 Dominion used data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 to estimate the whole

30 body dose and dose to the critical organ for a site preparation worker from liquid effluents

31 (Dominion 2004a). Dominion stated that the annual releases for 2001 are representative of the

32 typical releases for the existing units. For the year 2001, Dominion calculated a whole body

dose of 3.08 x 10-3 mSv/yr (3.08 x 10-1 mrem/yr) and 3.52 x 10-3 mSv/yr (3.52 x10-1 33 mrem/yr) to

34 the critical organ for the maximally exposed member of the public from release of liquid effluents

35 from the operating units. These doses are based on continuous occupancy; therefore, for

36 estimating doses to the site preparation worker, the doses were adjusted to an exposure time of

37 2080 hr/yr. Dominion also multiplied this dose by a factor of 10 to account for uncertainty

38 regarding the location of the worker compared to the maximally exposed member of the public. 

The resulting doses are 7.3 x 10-3 mSv/yr (7.3 x 10 -1 39 mrem/yr) for the whole body dose and

8.4 x 10-3 mSv/yr (8.4 x 10-1 40 mrem/yr) for the critical organ. From ICRP Publication 30, applying

41 a weighting factor of 0.3 to the organ dose and adding the whole body dose provided a TEDE of
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-42 November 2004

9.8 x 10-3 mSv/yr (9.8 x 10-1 1 mrem/yr) for the site preparation worker from liquid effluents

2 (ICRP 1979).

3

4 The staff reviewed the data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 and for more

5 recent years and determined that the method to estimate dose from liquid effluents was

6 acceptable.

7

8 4.9.4 Total Dose to the Site Preparation Workers

9

10 To obtain the dose per year to the site preparation workers, Dominion added the annual dose

11 from the three pathways, direct radiation, gaseous effluents, liquid effluents, and multiplied by

12 the estimated number of workers (5000) to determine an estimated maximum annual collective

13 dose to site preparation workers of 1.20 person-Sv (120 person-rem).

14

15 In summary, Dominion has estimated an annual dose to a site preparation worker of 0.24 mSv

16 (24 mrem). The dose is primarily from the direct exposure pathway, with the doses from liquid

17 and gaseous effluents being small. This estimate is well within both the dose limits to individual

18 members of the public found in 10 CFR 20.1301 and occupational dose limits to workers found

19 in 10 CFR 20.1201. The annual dose limit to an individual member of the public is 1 mSv

20 (100 mrem) TEDE. The annual occupational dose limit to workers is 0.05 Sv (5 rems) TEDE.

21

22 The staff reviewed the data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 and for more

23 recent years and determined that the method to estimate the total dose from the three

24 pathways, direct radiation, gaseous effluents, liquid effluents was acceptable.

25

26 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

27

28 Based on the Dominion estimate of dose to occupational workers and the public and its own

29 review, the staff found the doses to be well within NRC exposure limits designed to protect the

30 public health, even if workers exceed the 2080 hrs/yr occupancy factor, and concludes that the

31 impacts of radiological exposures to occupational workers and the public would be SMALL, and

32 mitigation is not warranted.

33

34 4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

35 Construction Activities

36

37 The staff relied, in its evaluation of environmental impacts during construction activities for the

38 proposed new North Anna units on Dominion’s compliance with the following regulatory

39 requirements: 

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-43 Draft NUREG-1811

1 C Compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations

2 intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste

3 management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, storm water

4 management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management)

5

6 C Compliance with applicable requirements of existing permits and licenses (e.g., VPDES

7 Permit, operating license) for the existing units and other permits or licenses required for

8 construction of the new units (for example, ACE Section 404 Permit, VDEQ wetlands

9 permit)

10

11 C A permit from VDEQ and compliance with county ordinances if burning of construction

12 materials is required

13

14 C A VPDES permit related to accidental spills and storm water runoff.

15

16 Dominion specifically identified the following general plans or specific mitigation measures in its

17 ER (Dominion 2004a) on which the staff relied in its evaluation:

18

19 C Incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts

20

21 C Avoid watercourses and wetlands to the extent possible during any construction

22 (ER Sections 4.1.1.6.2, 4.3.1.2)

23

24 C Develop a dust control plan to mitigate the impacts of emissions from construction

25 activities (ER Section 4.4.1.4)

26

27 C Develop a construction traffic management plan to include several traffic mitigating

28 measures (ER Section 4.4.2.2.1)

29

30 C Determine whether any wetlands are likely to be impacted (ER Section 4.3.1.2; in which

31 case, the staff states that Dominion would have to determine eligibility under the jurisdic32 tion of ACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act)

33

34 C Minimize emissions from heavy construction equipment by scheduled equipment

35 maintenance procedures (ER Section 4.3.1.2)

36

37 C Prevent contaminants from entering the aquatic system through use of a Spill Prevention

38 Control and Countermeasure Plan (ER Section 4.3.2)

39
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-44 November 2004

1 C Coordinate with the VDHR regarding the potential presence of historic and cultural

2 resources within planned disturbed areas and notify VDHR in the event of any

3 unanticipated discovery (ER Section 4.1.3).

4

5 In addition, the staff relied upon the following Dominion statements: 

6

7 C Dominion stated it could construct/modify the intake structure in accordance with State

8 and permit regulations. It noted that it may install a barrier between the ESP site and the

9 lake to reduce the potential for silt and soil entrainment through the existing units to the

10 WHTF (ER Section 4.3.2)

11

12 C Dominion stated it could institute controls to minimize potential noise impacts including

13 inspection and maintenance of equipment, restrict noise-related activities to daylight

14 hours, and restrict delivery times (ER Section 4.4.1.3)

15

16 C Dominion stated it would provide safety training and personal protective equipment to

17 construction workers to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures; provide

18 regular health and safety monitoring (ER Section 4.4.1.1.1)

19

20 C Dominion stated it would follow construction best management practices for erosion

21 control in Lake Anna, the WHTF, and potentially impacted streams (ER Section 4.2.1).

22

23 4.11 Site Redress Plan

24

25 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities

26

27 In its ESP application, Dominion requested that it be allowed to conduct site preparation activi28 ties at the North Anna ESP site as authorized by 10 CFR 52.17(c), 10 CFR 52.25, and

29 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). Dominion included in its application, as required by 10 CFR 52.17©), a

30 site redress plan that would be implemented if site preparation activities were performed, but the

31 ESP expired before the issuance of a construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) by

32 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Dominion 2004a). The objective of the site

33 redress plan is to ensure that the ESP site would be returned to an environmentally stable and

34 aesthetically acceptable condition suitable for non-nuclear uses consistent with Louisa County

35 zoning requirements. Under the site redress plan, locations that are permanently disturbed

36 would be stabilized and contoured to conform with surrounding areas. Revegetation of

37 disturbed lands would be conducted.

38

39 Prerequisites to site preparation and preliminary construction activities that must be fulfilled prior

40 to performing such activities include:

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-45 Draft NUREG-1811

1 C Create a record of the existing site conditions within the proposed ESP site by way of

2 photographs, surveys, listings of existing facilities and structures, or other documen3 tation. This record would serve as the baseline for redressing the site in the event ESP

4 site preparation activities are terminated as a result of project cancellation or expiration

5 of the ESP.

6

7 C Obtain an State and local permits and authorizations necessary to perform the site

8 preparation activities.

9

10 C Obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals of an agreement between Virginia Power

11 and Dominion. This agreement would authorize Dominion to conduct the pre12 construction activities subject to Dominion’s obligation to perform such site redress as

13 may be required to comply with the Site Redress Plan approved by the NRC.

14

15 C Provide to the NRC a guaranty by Dominion Resources, Inc. (DRI) of $10 million as a

16 financial assurance for Dominion’s obligation to comply with the Site Redress Plan. 

17 Dominion is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DRI.

18

19 When these prerequisites have been achieved, planned site preparation and preliminary

20 construction activities may proceed and may include none, some, or all of the activities

21 discussed below pursuant to 10 CFR 52.25 and 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). If the ESP is approved,

22 Dominion may perform the following site preparation activities for the proposed Units 3 and 4 at

23 the North Anna ESP site:

24

25 C Prepare the site for construction of the facilities (including such activities as clearing,

26 grading, construction of temporary access roads, and preparation of borrow areas).

27

28 C Install temporary construction support facilities (including items such as warehouses,

29 shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and

30 construction support buildings).

31

32 C Excavate for facility structures.

33

34 C Construct service facilities (including items such as roadways, paving, railroad spurs,

35 fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, switchyard interconnects, and sanitary

36 sewage treatment facilities).

37

38 C Drill sample/monitoring wells or additional geophysical borings.

39
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-46 November 2004

1 C Construct structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the

2 consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and

3 safety of the public, including but not limited to:

4

5 - cooling towers

6 - intake and discharge structures

7 - circulating water lines

8 - fire protection equipment

9 - switchyard and onsite interconnections

10 - microwave towers

11 - underground utilities.

12

13 The environmental impacts of site preparation activities allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)

14 are bounded by environmental impacts for construction of the entire facility. In many cases, the

15 impacts of both the site preparation activities and construction may be similar, but the impacts

16 resulting solely from site preparation activities would be of a shorter duration. In the preceding

17 sections in this chapter, the staff presented impacts of construction that bound the impacts of

18 site preparation. If the ESP expires before an application for a CP or COL is received under 10

19 CFR 52, Subpart C, and site preparation and preliminary construction activities have occurred,

20 then the site redress plan would be activated to return the ESP site to an environmentally stable

21 and aesthetically acceptable condition suitable for future alternative use (presumably non22 nuclear) that conforms with local zoning laws, thus minimizing the long-term environmental

23 impacts.

24

25 Site Redress Plan

26

27 Dominion provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application in the event that site

28 preparation and preliminary construction work did not proceed to full construction (Dominion

29 2004b). The plan identifies the overall objective as providing “an environmentally stable, self30 draining, self-maintaining, esthetically acceptable site that can be left unattended.” In its plan,

31 Dominion states that redress activities would reflect applicable land use and zoning

32 requirements and identifies the following five general redress activities for consideration:

33

34 1. recontouring, revegetation, and replanting of cleared areas

35 2. restoration of sensitive water resource features disturbed for intake and/or discharge

36 structures

37 3. habitat replacement

38 4. use of constructed facilities for alternative purposes, or their removal

39 5. remediation of contamination resulting from site preparation and preliminary construction or

40 site redress activities.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-47 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The staff reviewed the list of allowed site preparation and preliminary construction activities in

2 the event that the ESP is granted and reviewed the full site redress plan submitted by Dominion. 

3 As a result of its own independent review, the staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.25(a),

4 preliminarily concludes that the potential site preparation and preliminary construction activities

5 described in the applicant’s site redress plan would not result in any significant adverse impacts

6 that could not be redressed.

7

8 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts

9

10 Impact level categories are denoted in Table 4-1 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a

11 measure of their expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. A brief statement explains

12 the basis for the impact level. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from

13 Dominion for the local economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community. The

14 beneficial aspect is reflected in the comment. Positive impacts and negligible impacts are

15 shown in the table as SMALL impacts along with those that are predicted to constitute a small

16 adverse impact.

17

18
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-48 November 2004

1 Table 4-1. Characterization of Impacts from Construction of Units 3 and 4 at the

2 North Anna ESP Site

3

4 Category Comments Impact Level

5 Land-use impacts --

6 Construction activities would take place within The site and vicinity

existing site boundaries.

SMALL

7 Transmission line rights-of8 wayNo new transmission line rights-of-way would be

needed.

SMALL

9 Air quality impacts Construction activities would be conducted in

accordance with applicable Virginia

administrative codes, and dust and emissions

would be minimized through a dust control plan.

SMALL

10 Water-related impacts --

11 Impacts localized and temporary. VDEQ and Hydrological Alterations

ACE permit processes would minimize impacts.

SMALL

12 Minimal water usage during construction. SMALL Water use

13 Construction would be conducted using best Water quality

management practices to control spills and storm

water runoff.

SMALL

14 Ecological impacts --

15 No important terrestrial species would be Terrestrial ecosystems

affected by construction at the NAPS site.

SMALL

16 Construction impacts to benthic habitats would Aquatic ecosystems

be temporary.

SMALL

17 Threatened and Endangered

18 Species

There are no Federally listed species in vicinity. 

Impacts to State-listed species would be minor.

SMALL

19 Socioeconomic impacts --

20 Physical Impacts --

21 Construction takes place within existing plant Workers/local public

boundaries, so impacts to the public would be

minimal. Impacts to workers would be mitigated

with training and protective equipment.

SMALL

22 Construction would not affect any offsite Buildings

buildings, and onsite buildings were constructed

to withstand vibration from construction activities.

SMALL
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-49 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 4.1. (contd)

2

3 Category Comments Impact Level

4 Growth would put pressure on local road Roads

systems, but traffic control and management

measures would protect any local roads during

construction.

SMALL

5 Construction activities would be temporary, and Aesthetics

observation points would be limited because of

site location.

SMALL

6 Percentage of construction workers relocating to Demography

the region would be small. Most would already

live within the region.

SMALL

7 Community Characteristics --

8 Economic impacts of construction overall are Economy

beneficial to local economies, in this case

ranging from small to moderately beneficial.

SMALL

9 Planned upgrades and traffic management plans Transportation

would reduce temporary construction

transportation impacts. Impacts could be

moderate in some areas without planned

upgrades.

SMALL

10 Depends on residence location; generally, Taxes

impacts are beneficial, especially for property

taxes and employment, ranging from small to

moderately (Louisa County) beneficial.

SMALL

11 Visual impacts of construction would be limited Recreation

and temporary. Recreational use of Lake Anna

would be expected to increase, and traffic

mitigation would keep impacts small. Impacts

could be moderate if mitigation measure are not

undertaken.

SMALL

12 Adequate housing is available in Henrico and Housing

Spotsylvania Counties and in the City of

Richmond to handle construction workers. If

more construction workers than expected locate

in Orange and Louisa Counties, the impact could

be moderate. 

SMALL

13 Public services are adequate for any temporary Public Services

influx of workers due to construction at the NAPS

SMALL
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-50 November 2004

1 Table 4.1. (contd)

2

3 Category Comments Impact Level

4 If Louisa County builds new schools to Education

accommodate the temporary influx of

construction workers, then all counties would

have room for additional students. If no

additional school capacity is added then the

impact in Louisa County could be moderate. 

SMALL

5 Historic and cultural resources Proposed construction area is previously

disturbed, and Dominion has a well-managed

cultural resource program in place at NAPS.

SMALL

6 Environmental justice No unusual resource dependencies in the area. SMALL

7 Nonradiological health impacts Emission controls and remote location of the

NAPS site would keep nonradiological health

impact small.

SMALL

8 Radiological health impacts Exposures would be below annual occupational

and public dose limits.

SMALL

9

10 4.13 References

11

12 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

13 Protection Against Radiation.”

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 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

22 Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

23

24 15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Part

25 930, “Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.”

26

27 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, “Occupational Safety and

28 Health Standards,” Subpart G, “Occupational Health and Environmental Control.”

29

30 29 CFR 1910.95. “Occupational Noise Exposure.”
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-51 Draft NUREG-1811

1 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

2 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”

3

4 40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204,

5 “Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment.”

6

7 69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

8 Regulatory and Licensing Activities.” Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.

9

10 Baker, D. 2003. School Superintendent. Orange County Public Schools. Information obtained

11 in a personnel interview December 9, 2003.

12

13 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

14

15 Clean Water Act (CWA) (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 

16 33 USC 1251, et seq.

17

18 Dominion. 2003. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Procedure Number VPAP-2103N, 

19 Revision 7. Richmond, Virginia.

20

21 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit

22 Application - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

23

24 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. North Anna Early Site Permit

25 Application – Part 4–Site Redress Plan. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

26

27 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility

28 Structures. International Workshop. EPRI TR-103268. EPRI, Palo Alto, California.

29

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

31 Act [CWA] of 1977).

32

33 Fredericksburg Regional Alliance (Fredericksburg). 2003. 2003 Fredericksburg Regional

34 Commuter/Labor Study. Prepared for The Fredericksburgh Regional Alliance. Prepared by

35 S. S. Fuller and J. C. McClain. The Center for Regional Analysis, School of Public Policy. 

36 George Mason University. Fairfax, Virginia.

37

38 Golden, J., R. P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P. N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact

39 Data Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 4-52 November 2004

1 Green, H. (III). Director of Finance. 2004. Louisa County Public Schools. Louisa County,

2 Virginia. Personal communication by telephone August 6, 2004.

3

4 Hanover County. 2003. Hanover County Comprehensive Plan - Vision 2022. Transportation

5 (Section 4), adopted June 2003. Accessed on March 24, 2004, at

6 http://www.co.hanover.va.us/planning/coexsum.htm 

7

8 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1979. Publication 30.

9

10 Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee. 2000. Lake Anna Special Plan. Committee

11 appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, Virginia.

12

13 Larkin, R. P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. USACERL

14 Technical Report 96/21. U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Lab. Champaign,

15 Illinois. Accessed on September 21, 2004 at http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/

16 noise_and_wildlife.txt 

17

18 Louisa County (Virginia). 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia, Comprehensive Plan. 

19 September 4, 2001.

20

21 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. 16 USC 470, et. Seq.

22

23 Spotsylvania County. 2002. Spotsylvania County Approved 2002 Comprehensive Plan. 

24 February 12, 2002. Accessed on March 24, 2004, at 

25 http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/departments/planning/index.cfm?doc_id=233 

26

27 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

28 Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 and 2 and the Construction of Units 3

29 and 4, North Anna Power Station. Washington, D.C.

30

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

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

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

35 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

36 U.S. NRC. Washington, D.C.

37

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

39 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Supplement 7 Regarding North Anna Power Station,

40 Units 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Washington, D.C.

41
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 4-53 Draft NUREG-1811

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Policy Statement on the Treatment of

2 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register,

3 Vol. 69, pp. 52040-52048. Washington, D.C., August 24, 2004.

4

5 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 9 VAC 5-50 (Dust Control).

6

7 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 9 VAC 5-40-5680 (Emission Standards from Mobile

8 Sources - Vehicles).

9

10 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for

11 North Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna

12 River. Virginia Power Corporate Technical Assessment. Water Quality Department. 

13 Richmond, Virginia.

14

15 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004. Letter from Ellie L. Irons, Program

16 Manager, VDEQ, to Ms. Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion, dated February 10, 2004, regarding

17 request for Federal Consistency Certification under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

18

19 Virginia Department of Taxation (VDOT). 1987. 41⁄2% Virginia Sales Tax Table for Combined

20 State Tax at the Rate of 3.5 % and Local Tax at the Rate of 1%. For Use on and After

21 January 1, 1987. Accessed on March 17, 2004 at

22 http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl45xx12_00.pdf 

23

24 Virginia Department of Taxation (VDOT). 2000. 4% Virginia Sales Tax Table. To Be Used For

25 Qualifying Food Effective 1/1/2000 for Combined State Tax at the Rate of 3% and Local Tax at

26 the Rate of 1%. Accessed on March 17, 2004 at

27 http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl40xx1_00.pdf 

28

29 Virginia Department of Taxation (VDOT). 2003. Tax Rate Table. Accessed on March 17,

30 2004, at http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/taxtable.pdf 

31

32 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

33 Report. (January 1, 2001 Through December 31, 2001). Richmond, Virginia.

34

35 Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). 2003. VEC Final Local Population Projections –

36 2010. Accessed on July 13, 2004, at http://www.vec.state.va.us/pdf/pop_projs.pdf 

37

38
November 2004 5-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 5.0 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

2

3

4 This chapter examines environmental issues associated with operation of the proposed Units 3

5 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site, for an initial 40-year period as described in the early site

6 permit (ESP) application submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). As part

7 of this application, Dominion submitted an Environmental Report (ER) that discusses the

8 environmental impacts of station operation (Dominion 2004a). The chapter is divided into

9 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.11 discuss the potential operational impacts on land use,

10 meteorology and air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, historic

11 and cultural resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and radiological health effects,

12 postulated accidents, and applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse

13 impacts of station operation during the 40-year operating period. In accordance with Title 10 of

14 the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, impacts have been analyzed, and a

15 significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE or LARGE) has been

16 assigned to each analysis. The staff’s determination of significance levels is based on the

17 assumption that the mitigation measures identified in the ER or activities planned by various

18 State, and county governments, such as infrastructure upgrades, as discussed throughout this

19 chapter are implemented. Failure to implement these upgrades may result in a change in

20 significance level. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts is also presented, where appropriate. 

21 Negligible impacts and beneficial impacts are categorized as SMALL impacts. A summary of

22 these impacts is presented in Section 5.12. The references cited in this chapter are listed in

23 Section 5.13.

24

25 5.1 Land-Use Impacts

26

27 Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 contain information regarding land-use impacts associated with

28 operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. Section 5.1.1 discusses

29 land-use impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 discusses land-use

30 impacts with respect to transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas. 

31

32 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

33

34 Some offsite land-use changes can be expected as a result of operational activities. Possible

35 changes include the conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments

36 (e.g., apartment buildings, single family condominiums and homes, and manufactured home

37 parks) and retail development to serve plant workers. Property tax revenue from the new plants

38 could also lead to additional growth and land conversions in Louisa County as a result of

39 infrastructure improvements (e.g., new roads and utility services). However, any growth would

40 be managed because all counties surrounding the North Anna ESP site have comprehensive

41 land-use plans in place as required by Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-2 November 2004

1 Based on the existence and projected implementation of land-use plans, the information

2 provided by Dominion, and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the land-use

3 impacts of operation would be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted.

4

5 5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

6

7 Dominion stated in the ER, that any two of the three existing 500 Kv transmission lines along

8 with the existing 230 Kv line are expected to have sufficient capacity to carry the total output of

9 the existing units and the new units (Dominion 2004a). Dominion stated that it will, at the COL

10 stage, perform a system study (load flow) modeling these lines with the new units power

11 contribution. The staff based its evaluation on the assumption that the existing transmission

12 lines are adequate and new transmission lines will not be needed. This assumption will need to

13 be verified at the COL stage.

14

15 In Supplement 7 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement Regarding North Anna, NRC

16 determined that the impact of transmission lines was SMALL, and no mitigation was warranted

17 (NRC 2002b). This conclusion would not change with the addition of new units at the North

18 Anna ESP site because the existing transmission lines would be used. Based on the

19 information provided in the ER, that no additional electrical transmission lines or rights-of-way

20 would be needed, and on the staff’s evaluation, land-use impacts to other offsite areas would be

21 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

22

23 5.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

24

25 The proposed cooling systems include once-through cooling for Unit 3 and dry cooling towers

26 for Unit 4. The meteorological and air quality impacts from operating Units 3 and 4 would be

27 limited to those resulting from operation of the Unit 4 dry cooling towers and periodic pollutant

28 emissions from auxiliary boilers and generators from both units. Unit 4 use dry cooling towers.

29 which dissipates the heat directly to the air. In a dry cooling tower ambient air is drawn across

30 sealed tubes and the heat is transferred directly to the air. The heated air then mixes with the

31 surrounding air. Any increase in air temperature would be localized and not affect the air

32 quality. The meteorological and air quality impacts of the cooling systems and the transmission

33 lines are expected to be negligible.

34

35 Air quality impacts from routine releases other than the cooling system would be limited to non36 radiological pollutants emitted during the operation of auxiliary boilers and emergency genera37 tors, and emissions from onsite services vehicles. These systems would be used on an

38 infrequent basis, and pollutants discharged (i.e., particulates, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen,

39 carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) would be handled in accordance with Federal and

40 State regulations. Dominion provided bounding values for these pollutants (Dominion 2004a). 

41 Because these systems are used on an infrequent basis (i.e., typically a few hours per month)
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 and the fact that there is no significant industrial activity within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site,

2 the impact of pollutants from these sources would be small. As of January 2004, there were no

3 non-attainment areas in the region surrounding the site for the mandated criteria pollutants

4 (EPA 2004). Therefore, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) could decide

5 to incorporate emission limits for the ESP site under the existing Exclusionary Permit for the

6 North Anna site.

7

8 Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality were reviewed in the Generic Environmental

9 Impact Statement of License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996). Small

10 amounts of ozone and smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced by transmission

11 lines. The analysis found the small amounts of these gases to be insignificant for 745-kV lines

12 (the largest lines in operation) and for a prototype 1200-kV line. In addition, it was determined

13 that potential mitigation measures would be very costly and would not be warranted. The

14 largest existing line in the transmission and distribution system servicing the North Anna ESP

15 site is a 500-kV line, which is well within the range of lines considered in NUREG-1437. Given

16 the relatively large distance from the Class I areas and short time duration of any emissions, the

17 resulting impact on local ambient air quality levels or visibility in the Class I areas is estimated to

18 be insignificant. Based on these factors, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of

19 releases from vehicles, auxiliary boilers, emergency generator, cooling systems and

20 transmission lines would be SMALL, and maintenance measures beyond those normally taken

21 in the operation of plant equipment are not warranted.

22

23 5.3 Water-Related Impacts

24

25 This section discusses the water-related impacts of the new units including the influence of

26 increased heat load to Lake Anna from the once-through cooling of Unit 3. The proposed Unit 4

27 with its dry cooling system would have negligible impacts on the water supply. Therefore, only

28 Unit 3 is considered in relation to water use.

29

30 Use of water resources requires managing and balancing the tradeoffs between various, often

31 conflicting objectives. The objectives of water management at Lake Anna and the North Anna

32 River downstream of Lake Anna include recreation, visual aesthetics, fishery maintenance, and

33 a variety of consumptive uses of water, such as municipal water supplies and industrial uses

34 (e.g., cooling water for power generation). The ultimate responsibility for regulating water use

35 and water quality is delegated to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

36 through both Federal laws and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Water resource

37 management incorporates the uncertainty of projections of the future supply and demand for

38 water that results from natural climate variability and man-made demands. The ability to

39 manipulate the water supply to balance periods of excess water supply with periods of excess

40 water demand is limited by the available water infrastructure. While the water supply is
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-4 November 2004

1 regularly being replenished by precipitation, conflicts over water resources typically grow along

2 with population.

3

4 Both Dominion and the staff analyzed changes in Lake Anna’s water supply that would result

5 from operating Unit 3 at the North Anna site. The applicant and the staff employed different

6 approaches and relied on different data sources. For a more complete description of the

7 applicant’s analysis refer to Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 of the ER.

8

9 The staff has reviewed long-term precipitation and evaporation data from Richmond, Virginia, to

10 characterize typical year conditions and critical year conditions. Based on annual values, the

11 data show that precipitation exceeds evaporation in average years. Using average monthly

12 estimates, evaporation exceeds precipitation by more than 20 percent in June. In an average

13 year, runoff from areas draining into Lake Anna offset any deficit in the lake due to natural

evaporation. However, even making normal minimum releases of 1.1 m3 14 /s (40 cfs) from Lake

15 Anna will result in deficits during July, August, and September. Therefore, the lake level will

16 decline in average years during those months. Historical summer flows downstream were much

17 lower than the current minimum release, so it is reasonable that Lake Anna would experience

18 deficits during the summer. While the addition of Unit 3 would cause further declines in Lake

19 Anna, in long-term simulations using the water budget model (discussed below), the staff

20 determined that in normal years, the lake surface elevation would not drop below 75.6 m (248 ft)

21 above mean sea level (MSL).

22

23 During the period from October 2001 through December 2002, an extreme drought occurred in

24 the region from Georgia to northern Virginia. As a result of this climatic anomaly, Lake Anna

25 experienced the lowest water surface elevations and lowest estimated inflows in its history. 

26 Through the Lake Level Contingency Plan (a condition of the NAPS [Virginia pollution discharge

27 elimination system] VPDES permit issued by VDEQ), releases from Lake Anna Dam were

reduced to below the normal minimum of 1.1 m3/s (40 cfs) to 0.57 m3 28 /s (20 cfs). Low water

29 conditions were quickly reversed when normal precipitation levels returned to the region. This

30 period of extreme drought was considered as the critical period in the analyses of both the

31 applicant and the staff.

32

33 Both the staff’s and the applicant’s water budget models of Lake Anna were based on a

34 simplified representation of the conservation of mass. The principle of conservation of mass

35 can be restated specifically for water as “the change in storage of water at any time is equal to

36 the water inflow less the water outflow.” In both water budget models, changes in lake storage

37 over time were equal to the differences between the inflows and the outflows. Inflows included

38 the drainage from the basin upstream of the lake and the precipitation occurring directly on the

39 lake. Outflows were the natural and induced evaporations and releases from the dam. 

40 Groundwater can either flow from the aquifer into Lake Anna or Lake Anna water can recharge

41 the aquifer. Based on groundwater elevation measurements, the only time Lake Anna is
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 expected to recharge the adjacent aquifer would be after refilling the lake following an extended

2 period of very low lake elevations. The change in storage is reflected by a change in the pool

3 elevation.

4

5 The staff and Dominion made different assumptions to estimate the inflow to Lake Anna. 

6 Because of the limited record of tributary flow measurements, there is no direct way to estimate

7 the total inflow into Lake Anna from its tributaries. The outflow from Lake Anna Dam was

8 estimated by Dominion from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge downstream from the

9 dam at Doswell, Virginia, after adjusting for the additional contributing area downstream

10 between the dam and the Doswell gauge. Precipitation data was not used by the applicant in its

11 water budget analysis as it assumed that the sum of precipitation, groundwater, and tributary as

12 the imbalance between the estimated evaporative losses, dam releases, and the change in

13 storage in the lake. The change in storage in the lake was based directly on records of the pool

14 elevation. Evaporation estimates were based on calculations with the applicant’s lake

15 temperature model discussed in Section 5.3.2 of the ER. Relatively small errors in the pool

16 elevation measurements can result in significant errors in the combined precipitation,

17 groundwater, and tributary inflow estimate. For example, an error of only 2.5 cm (1 in.) between

daily lake elevation measurements translates into an error of about 14 m3 18 /s (500 cfs); this can

19 result in negative inflow estimates that are physically impossible. The occurrence of negative

20 inflow estimates was reduced by Dominion by using weekly averages instead of daily values. 

21 Dominion provided results as the weekly averaged results.

22

23 The staff estimated inflows for the drainage upstream of Lake Anna using data from the

24 adjacent Little River drainage basin adjusted for the differences in drainage areas. The reason

25 for using an adjacent drainage basin is that too few of the tributaries flowing into Lake Anna are

26 gauged for the direct data to be useful in constructing an inflow sequence for analysis. The staff

27 also decided that the flows downstream from the Lake Anna Dam cannot be used to estimate

28 the inflows to Lake Anna because they are too heavily influenced by consumptive losses from

29 Units 1 and 2 and the flow regulation resulting from the lake to be used. The Little River

drainage is a 277 km2 (107 mi2 30 ) area adjacent to the North Anna drainage with measurements

31 from October 1961 to the present. Based on a review of streamflow records from the USGS

32 Gauge 01671100 (Little River near Doswell, Virginia), the staff selected the period from June

33 2000 through April 2003 as the critical water period. The direct precipitation to the lake was

34 based on precipitation records from the meteorological station at the Richmond, Virginia, airport.

35
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-6 November 2004

1 The staff estimated outflows from the lake based on the current operating rules for Lake Anna

2 Dam. Releases are generally performed to maintain a water surface elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft)

3 above MSL. When the water surface elevation drops below 76.2 m (250 ft) above MSL

4 because of inadequate inflow to offset the natural and induced evaporative losses, the release

is maintained at the normal minimum flow of 1.1 m3 5 /s (40 cfs). If the water surface elevation

declines below 75.6 m (248 ft) above MSL, releases were assumed to decrease to 0.57 m3 6 /s

7 (20 cfs) immediately. In cases of severe declines in the lake water surface elevation, this

8 assessment took into account the current lake level limit for Units 1 and 2 operation is 74.4 m

9 (244 ft) MSL and for proposed Unit 3 is 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL. Once the water surface elevation

10 rose above the intake threshold, the unit(s) were restarted. 

11

12 5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

13

14 The only plant operational activity identified by staff that would result in a detectable

15 hydrological alteration is the discharge of waste heat from Unit 3. The additional discharge

16 entering the discharge canal from the Unit 3 will result in shorter times for the water to travel

17 from the discharge back to the intake. Similarly, a decrease of lake volume due to additional

18 induced evaporation from Unit 3 would also reduce the travel time between the discharge and

19 the intake. 

20

21 During normal operation at full power, based on the PPE, the primary cooling system for each

22 unit is required to reject 2800 MW (9.7 BTU/hr) to the environment. Unit 3 will reject this heat

23 load via a once through cooling system. This design is the same as for NAPS Units 1 and 2 in

24 that Unit 3 will withdraw water from Lake Anna adjacent to the location of the existing intakes

25 and discharge the heated effluent to the discharge canal. The PPE also states that the flow rate

26 through the condenser will not exceed 71,900 L/s (1,140,000 gpm). The once-through portion

27 of the cooling system would return approximately the same amount of water to the discharge

28 canal and the WHTF. The elevated temperature of the discharge would result in induced

29 evaporative water losses, which are in addition to the natural (ambient) evaporative water

30 losses from the lake. The induced evaporation the cooling system design is not included in the

31 PPE and is a site-specific parameter. Only that volume of the water withdrawn from the lake

32 through induced evaporative loss is considered a consumptive use. The staff’s bounding

33 analysis used the applicant’s PPE estimates of induced evaporation for a once-through system

0.738 m3/s (11,700 gpm), and evaporation for a wet cooling tower 1.23 m3 34 /s (19,500 gpm). 

35

36 Because makeup water for ultimate heat sink (UHS) cooling towers is proposed to be stored in

37 an engineered basin and is much less than the water demand during normal operation, water

38 demand in UHS mode is considered to be bounded by the water demand for normal operation. 

39 The PPE provides no information on the seasonal variations on water demand. While it might

40 be expected that the cooling system flow rate could be reduced in response to cooler intake
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 water during the winter months, the staff assumed a constant maximum flow would bound any

2 hydrologic alteration impacts.

3

4 During low water conditions, the existing two NAPS units are allowed to operate down to 74.4 m

5 (244 ft) above MSL. The applicant is proposing that Unit 3 be allowed to operate down to 73.8

6 m (242 ft) above MSL. Given the gradual decline of the lake elevation during periods of

7 drought, the staff concluded that the facility would have adequate time to prepare for any

8 shutdown caused by low lake elevations. 

9

10 No information on operational practices and procedures were provided in the ESP application. 

11 The applicant is deferring this analysis to the CP/COL application at which time the staff will

12 review the operational practices and procedures that might minimize adverse impacts due to

13 hydrological alteration. 

14

15 While the increased circulation of water within Lake Anna resulting from the increased

16 discharge from the Unit 3 will be detectable, staff conclude it is only an impact inasmuch as it

17 results in a change in the quantity and distribution of heat in the lake. The staff identified no

18 impacts that would be irreversible. The staff concludes that the hydrological impacts would be

19 SMALL. However, at the CP/COL stage, the applicant will provide sufficient temperature and

20 velocity monitoring data and modeling results to ensure that the hydrological impact of the

21 actual discharge design is bounded by this EIS.

22

23 5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

24

25 The existing NAPS units are the largest users of water in the region, and the addition of a third

26 unit would add to this use. Other uses include recreation and fishing, and a variety of down27 stream consumptive users of water, such as municipal water supplies and industrial uses. Most

28 of the NAPS water usage of water drawn from Lake Anna for condenser cooling is non29 consumptive as it is entirely returned to the lake. However, although there is no consumptive

30 use of water between the intake and discharge, the elevated temperature of the discharged

31 water results in additional induced evaporative losses from the remainder of Lake Anna, and a

32 third unit’s once-through cooling system would add to this loss.

33

34 The impacts on water use are related to the water budget. Discharge of the additional

35 condenser cooling heat from Unit 3 to the lake would increase the heat in the lake and increase

36 evaporation. This additional volume of discharged cooling water would also change the hydro37 dynamic circulation of Lake Anna. The increased evaporation from Lake Anna from a third

38 unit’s once-through cooling system would increase the duration that the flow rate from the Lake

Anna Dam would be 0.57 m3 39 /s (20 cfs) or less from 5.8 percent to 11.8 percent of the time and

40 the percent of the time the lake level would be less than or equal to 75.6 m (248 ft) above MSL
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-8 November 2004

1 from 5.2 to 11.6 percent of the time. This will increase the time that the lake level or flow rate 

2 will be low. This will impact the recreational use of the lake as discussed in section 5.5.

3

4 In addition to the differences in inflow estimates mentioned earlier, the staff’s assessment of the

5 water budget involved different methods from the applicant’s assessment. The staff water

6 budget model, LakeWBT, used a fundamental timestep of six hours, whereas the applicant used

7 a fundamental timestep of one week (NRC 2004b). 

8

9 Evaporative mass transfer is generally approximated by multiplying a wind function times the

10 difference in vapor pressure between the water surface and the atmosphere. Because vapor

11 pressure is temperature dependent, an accurate temperature measurement of both the water

12 surface and the atmosphere in contact with the water are necessary for an accurate estimation

13 of evaporative mass transfer. Numerous evaporation formulations are available in the technical

14 literature including Bras (1990) and Brutsaert (1982). Two technical studies germane for

15 conditions surrounding Lake Anna are TVA (1972) and Edinger, et al. (1974). Staff applied both

16 of these formulations of evaporation to understand the sensitivity of the Lake Anna water budget

17 model. 

18

19 LakeWBT included a dynamic representation of evaporation and heat loss. The staff estimated

20 the ambient evaporation based on the TVA formulation with meteorological data (air

21 temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed) obtained from the NOAA weather station at the

22 Richmond, Virginia airport. The TVA formulation also requires data for the ambient lake

23 temperature. For these data, the staff used the equilibrium temperatures estimated in the

24 applicant’s MIT model. The staff’s bounding analysis used the applicant’s PPE estimates of

evaporation for a once-through system 0.738 m3 25 /s (11,700 gpm) and evaporation for a wet

cooling tower 1.23 m3 26 /s (19,500 gpm). The wet cooling tower evaporation estimate is a

27 conservative bounding value of forced evaporation of the once-through system as it includes no

28 heat loss through any mechanism except evaporation. Long-wave and conductive heat loss are

29 both neglected using the wet cooling tower estimate and therefore make the estimate

30 conservative. 

31

32 Lake temperature estimates used in the staff’s estimation of the forced evaporation of the

33 existing units were obtained from the applicant’s calibrated and validated MIT model results. 

34 The staff used conservative temperature values from the MIT model as input into the staff’s

35 estimation of the evaporative loss. By selecting upstream temperatures, conservatism was

36 enforced. The temperature at the end of the discharge canal was used to represent the main

37 portion of the WHTF. The temperature at Burrus Point was used to represent the main body of

38 the lake. The arms of the main body were assumed to be at the equilibrium temperature.

39

40 The staff estimated outflows from the lake based on the current operating rules for Lake Anna

41 Dam. Releases are generally performed to maintain a water surface elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft)
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 above MSL. When the water surface elevation drops below 76.2 m (250 ft) above MSL

2 because of inadequate inflow to offset the natural and induced evaporative losses, the release

is maintained at the normal minimum flow of 1.1 m3 3 /s (40 cfs). If the water surface elevation

declines below 75.6 m (248 ft) above MSL, releases were assumed to decrease to 0.57 m3 4 /s

5 (20 cfs) immediately. In cases of severe declines in the lake water surface elevation, this

6 assessment took into account the current lake level limit for Units 1 and 2 operation, 74.4 m

7 (244 ft) MSL, and for proposed Unit 3, 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL. Once the water surface elevation

8 rose above the intake threshold, the unit(s) were restarted. 

9

10 The staff’s water budget modeling analysis assumed both the existing NAPS units and the

11 once-through Unit 3 operated continuously at a 100% load factor except when the lake dropped

12 below the current threshold, at which point the impacted units cease to operate. Four

13 scenarios, including Unit 3 using an alternate cooling system (wet cooling towers), were

14 selected to estimate the minimum water surface elevations: no units operating; Units 1 and 2

15 operating; Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Unit 3 (once-through system); and Units 1 and 2 and

16 the proposed Unit 3 (wet tower cooling). The last scenario represents a water use upper bound. 

17 When modeling water surface elevations during the critical period of record, specifically

18 targeting the minimum elevation occurring during early October (in the 2nd week) of 2002, the

19 model predicts the following minimum water surface elevations for the various scenarios:

20

21 • No units operating: 75.53 m (247.8 ft)

22 • Units 1 and 2 (existing/observed conditions): 74.71 m (245.1 ft)

23 • Units 1 and 2 plus Unit 3 using once through cooling: 74.19 m (243.4 ft)

24 • Units 1 and 2 plus Unit 3 using wet cooling tower cooling: 73.88 m (242.4 ft).

25

26 These numbers are similar to results provided in the ER, in which Dominion estimated that

27 during the critical period, the water surface elevation would drop an additional 0.6 m (2 ft), from

28 below 75.0 m (246 ft) to below 74.4 m (244 ft), with the addition of Unit 3 (using wet cooling

29 tower cooling). 

30

31 Based on the results of the staff’s independent water budget model, showing that supply

32 exceeds demand, the staff concluded that the water supply provided by Lake Anna is adequate

33 to meet plant and current downstream water demands except during periods of severe drought.

34 Operation of Unit 3 would increase the duration of periods during drought conditions when the

35 Lake Level Contingency Plan would be applied. Hanover County, one of four downstream

36 counties, has identified a need for additional water (Hanover County 2004). The downstream

37 users identified by Hanover County are, the county itself, the Doswell Limited Partnership Power

38 Plant, Paramount’s King’s Dominion and the Bear Island Paper Company. To meet their future

projected demand, Hanover County proposes to withdraw 1.3 m3 39 /s (46 cfs) from the North Anna

40 River (Dominion 2004a). However, this diversion target withdrawal exceeds the discharges

41 currently specified in the Lake Level Contingency Plan for minimum releases in normal and
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-10 November 2004

1 drought conditions. The Virginia General Assembly passed a bill that mandated that the

2 minimum releases be reduced during drought conditions. This mandate is met by the Lake

Level Contingency Plan, which requires the flow to be reduced to a minimum of 1.3 m3 3 /s (20 cfs)

4 during drought conditions. Any future conflicts over water use fall within the regulatory authority

5 of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

6

7 Based on the information provided by Dominion in its ER and its own independent modeling, the

8 staff concludes that during normal water years the water use impacts, including impacts on

9 downstream users, would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. During severe droughts,

10 however, the impact to the water level could be temporarily MODERATE. Given the infrequent

11 and temporary nature of the severe drought conditions, the fact that Units 1 and 2 are currently

12 required to shut down at 74.4 m (244 ft), and that lake level will return to normal with normal

13 precipitation, no mitigation is warranted. 

14

15 5.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts

16

17 Because a specific design has not been selected, the ultimate water treatment systems for

18 proposed Units 3 and 4 are not specified. Currently, raw cooling water from Lake Anna for

19 condenser cooling and service water needs at NAPS Units 1 and 2 is not treated. Makeup

20 water for Unit 4, and the ultimate heat sink systems for both Units 3 and 4 would require

21 treatment with biocides, antiscalants, and dispersants. Makeup of ultrapure water systems,

22 such as condensate and primary cooling, would employ technologies such as reverse osmosis

23 and ultrafiltration.

24

25 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated the responsibility for

26 regulating water quality to VDEQ. The water quality impact of effluents from Units 1 and 2 is

27 regulated by a VPDES permit which minimizes the impact on Lake Anna’s water quality. 

28 Units 3 and 4 would also be regulated by a VPDES permit. Therefore, based on the review of

29 the current VPDES permit for Units 1 and 2, the required VPDES permit for Units 3 and 4,

30 Dominion’s ER, the environmental monitoring report, and its independent review, the staff

31 concludes that the impact to water quality would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

32 However, this will have to be verified at the CP/COL stage when a design has been selected.

33

34 5.4 Ecological Impacts

35

36 This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from operation of the

37 proposed Units 3 and 4. This description focuses on the habitats, wildlife, and fish that could be

38 affected by operation of the proposed new units, in addition to transmission line rights-of-way

39 and offsite facilities. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are addressed separately.

40

41 5.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Dominion has indicated that Unit 3 would use a once-through cooling system, and Unit 4 would

2 be cooled using a closed-cycle system with dry towers. Dry towers do not expose the cooling

3 water directly to the air; thus, there would be no evaporative loss from the cooling towers and,

4 therefore, no salt drift, vapor plumes, fogging, or icing. Although dry towers eliminate many of

5 the potential impacts of wet cooling towers on terrestrial ecological resources, there are still

6 potential impacts due to noise and avian collisions with the surface structures. The addition of

7 new operating units also could alter the hydrological regime of Lake Anna, potentially altering

8 the amount and characteristics of the shoreline vegetation and habitats both at Lake Anna and

9 along the downstream portions of the North Anna River. Each of these topics is discussed

10 below.

11

12 5.4.1.1 Noise

13

14 Maximum noise levels from the operation of the reactors and dry cooling towers would be

15 similar to current noise levels to which local species are adapted. Current noise levels at NAPS

16 are occasionally as high as 100 decibels (measured at the security fence during outages), but

17 they are typically less than 80 to 85 decibels, which is the threshold at which birds and small

18 mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Noise levels from cooling tower

19 operation would be less than 65 decibels (Dominion 2004a). There are no important terrestrial

20 species or important habitats in the vicinity of the site or cooling towers. Thus, noise impacts to

21 terrestrial ecological resources would be minimal.

22

23 5.4.1.2 Avian Collisions

24

25 Once-through cooling systems, as proposed for Unit 3, require no elevated structures other than

26 the reactor building which could pose a risk of avian collisions. The dry cooling towers

27 proposed for Unit 4 heat dissipation expected to be approximately 46 m (150 ft) tall. No avian

28 collisions with existing NAPS structures have been recorded, and the dry towers would produce

29 operational noise and air movements that would further decrease the potential for bird

30 collisions. It is likely that bird collisions with the new towers would be rare. The North Anna

31 ESP site is not within a major migratory bird concentration area along the Atlantic flyway (VDCR

32 2004). Dominion maintains a migratory bird protection program, including protection of nests

33 and reporting of bird (especially raptor) strikes and other events (Dominion 2001a). Impacts to

34 birds from collisions with heat dissipation structures at the North Anna ESP site would be

35 minimal.

36

37 5.4.1.3 Shoreline Habitat

38
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-12 November 2004

1 The increased water use and evaporation caused by the addition of one new unit with a once2 through cooling system could increase the amount of shoreline exposed along Lake Anna, or

3 affect the length of time that the additional shoreline is exposed. This increased shoreline

4 exposure could lead to alterations of the shoreline vegetation, or enhance the introduction

5 and/or spread of undesirable vegetation.

6

7 Dominion quantified the additional drawdown of Lake Anna caused by Unit 3 operation that

8 could occur during drought years (Dominion 2004a). The staff performed an independent water

9 budget analysis that evaluated effects of Unit 3 operation on the water level in Lake Anna. This

10 analysis is discussed in section 5.3.2. The maximum annual drawdown in most years would not

11 differ greatly from the current operation of the existing units alone. The fraction of time that the

12 lake level would be at or below 74.4 m (244 ft) above MSL would increase from zero to

13 approximately 1.1 percent of the time with the addition of Unit 3. The surface elevation would

14 be at or above 75.6 m (248 ft) above MSL approximately 88 percent of the time with three

15 operating units compared to the current 95 percent of the time with two operating units. The

16 normal pool elevation is 76.2 m (250 ft) above MSL.

17

18 During most years, very little change in the shoreline would be evident. During drought years,

19 the number of days of increased shoreline exposure would increase, but because this would be

20 a temporary event, long-term effects resulting from the occasional increased drawdown caused

21 by the addition of Unit 3 are not likely. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts to shoreline

22 vegetation and habitats would be minimal, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

23

24 The addition of Unit 3 could cause decreased flows down river. Reduced flows could alter the

25 riparian vegetation and habitat for riparian and wetland species along the North Anna River. 

26 Analysis by Dominion indicates that the fraction of time that the outflow from North Anna Dam is

equal to or less than 1.1 m3 27 /sec (40 cfs) would increase from about 44 percent of the time to

28 approximately 52 percent of the time with the addition of Unit 3 (Dominion 2004a). This change

29 is not expected to noticeably change quantity, distribution, or characteristics of the riparian or

30 wetland vegetation and habitats along the North Anna River between North Anna Dam and the

31 confluence with the South Anna River. Therefore, the impact of the additional units on

32 downstream riparian habitats is expected to be minimal.

33

34 5.4.1.4 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

35

36 The vegetation in the transmission line rights-of-way is managed through a combination of

37 mechanical and herbicide treatments conducted on a 3-year cycle. Mowing is the primary

mechanical treatment, while Accord® and Garlon® 38 are the primary herbicides used in the rights39 of-way. In some areas (e.g., wetlands, dense vegetation), hand-cutting is used. Although no

40 rare and sensitive plant species are known to occur within the NAPS transmission line rights-of41 way, Dominion has procedures in place to ensure that such species areas be identified and
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-13 Draft NUREG-1811

1 avoided, or modified treatment practices used to avoid adverse impacts. These modified

2 vegetation treatments are developed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of

3 Conservation and Recreation’s (VDCR’s) Natural Heritage Program (NRC 2002b). In addition,

4 wildlife food plots and Christmas tree plantations located along the rights-of-way are supported

5 through cost sharing by the Virginia Electric and Power Company (also referred to as Virginia

6 Power or VEPCo) (NRC 2002b).

7

8 In its analysis for the re-licensing of NAPS Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that continued

9 operation and maintenance of the transmission lines rights-of-way would have a SMALL impact

10 on terrestrial resources (NRC 2002b). Because there would be no new lines or alterations of

11 existing the rights-of-way, no changes to this impact would be expected to occur if additional

12 power from Units 3 and 4 is transmitted through this system. 

13

14 5.4.1.5 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts

15

16 The staff considered the potential impacts to terrestrial ecological resources of operating the

17 proposed Units 3 and 4, including noise, avian collisions, changes to shoreline, and riparian and

18 wetland habitat, and transmission line rights-of-way. Based on the Dominion ER and its own

19 independent review, the staff has determined that the operational impacts of the proposed units

20 3 and 4 on terrestrial ecological resources would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

21

22 5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

23

24 This section discusses the impacts on the Lake Anna aquatic ecosystem, including striped

25 bass, from the cooling systems associated with operating the new units at the North Anna ESP

26 site. The lake would be the main source of cooling water for Unit 3, which would use a once27 through system with cooling water taken from the lake. Unit 4 is expected use a dry cooling

28 system that requires almost no cooling water. As a result, the potential impacts to the aquatic

29 environment are expected to be related to the operation of Unit 3. Therefore, this analysis

30 focuses on Unit 3 operational impacts, along with the impacts of the existing Units 1 and 2.

31

32 5.4.2.1 Intake System

33

34 The cooling water intake system can potentially impact aquatic communities by either impinge35 ment or entrainment. Traveling screens in the front of the cooling water pumps filter the water

36 and provide protection to the cooling water pumps from damage and clogging. Impingement

37 occurs when swimming organisms are not strong enough to escape the cooling water intake

38 flow and are caught or stuck on the screens (i.e., impinged). Impinged organisms are generally

39 fish, but can include other semi-aquatic animals such as amphibians (e.g., frogs, turtles, and
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-14 November 2004

1 salamanders), waterfowl (e.g., ducks and coots), or mammals (e.g., muskrats). The screens

2 are periodically cleaned using a spray wash system from which the impinged organisms are

3 collected and disposed of.

4

5 The second mechanism that may cause adverse impact is entrainment (i.e., the intake of

6 organisms into and passage through the cooling water system). Entrained organisms are

7 generally small and include phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish eggs and larvae. As these

8 entrained organisms pass through the cooling water system, they are subjected to stresses that

9 may result in mortality. Impacts to the entrained organisms include physical damage from

10 contact with pumps, pipes, and condensers; pressure damage from passage through pumps;

11 shear damage from complex water flows; thermal damage from elevated temperatures in the

12 condenser passage; and toxicity damage from the addition of chemicals to the cooling water

13 system.

14

15 5.4.2.2 Impingement

16

17 In May 1985, Virginia Power published Impingement and Entrainment Studies for North Anna

18 Power Station, 1978-1983 (VEPCo 1985). This study was conducted in accordance with

19 Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and in compliance with the NAPS Environmental

20 Technical Specifications and the existing Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

21 (VPDES) Permit under Special Conditions: Environmental Studies. The objective of the study

22 was to examine the effects of impingement and entrainment at the cooling water intake system

23 and determine if they adversely affect the fish populations in Lake Anna. When the existing

24 Units 1 and 2 are operating, there is a maximum total withdrawal capacity of 122,000 L/s

(1,934,300 gpm), or about 2.8 percent of the total Lake Anna volume per day (3.76 x 108 m3 25 at

26 76 m above MSL [305,000 ac ft at 250 ft above MSL]). In addition, Units 1 and 2 operate in a

27 once-through mode, and all water withdrawn from the lake is returned, but at a higher

28 temperature. Each unit uses four circulating water pumps to withdraw condenser cooling water

29 from Lake Anna. The cooling water is withdrawn through two screen wells (one for each unit)

30 located in a cove north of the station (Figure 5-1). Each screen well contains four individual

31 bays and each bay is equipped with a trash rack, a traveling screen, and a vertical, motor32 driven, circulating water pump. The trash racks consist of 1.3-cm-wide by 8.9-cm-thick vertical

33 bars spaced 10.2 cm on center. The flow through the trash racks is about 0.2 meters per

34 second (0.69 fps) (VEPCo 1985). The traveling screens, constructed of 14-gauge wire with 9.5-

35 mm square openings, are designed to rotate once every 24 hours or whenever a predetermined

36 pressure differential exists across the screens. Debris collected at the trash racks is removed

37 by mechanical rakes and collected in hoppers that discharge the debris into wire baskets. 

38 Debris and fish collected in the wire baskets are disposed of as solid waste (VEPCo 1985).

39
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-15 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Impingement studies were conducted at NAPS from April 1978 to December 1983 in

2 compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (VEPCo 1985). On average, just over

3 47,400 fish representing 34 species were collected annually during each full year of the study. 

4 The year 1978 was not included because sampling was not conducted for that entire year

5 (VEPCo 1985).

6

7 To determine the total estimated number of fish impinged over a given time period, daily

8 impingement values (number of fish per liter or gallon withdrawn) were multiplied by the average

9 volume of intake cooling water withdrawn on that sample day, which provides an estimate of the

10 number of fish impinged per day per liter (gallon) of water withdrawn. Period estimates were

11 computed using daily estimates and the number of days in each period. Totaling period

12 estimates by species results in estimates of total fish impinged by month; yearly estimates are

13 the sum of the months.

14

15 Six species accounted for 99 percent of all fish impinged during the study. The most commonly

16 impinged fish were gizzard shad (61 percent), followed by black crappie and yellow perch (both

17 at 16 percent), bluegill (4 percent), white perch (1 percent), and striped bass (1 percent). No

18 other species comprised more than 1.0 percent of the total number impinged (VEPCo 1985).

19

20 Based on the estimation process outlined above, an average of 182,000 fish were impinged

21 each year from 1979 to 1983 (Table 5-1), 114,000 of which were gizzard shad. These

22 impingement estimates represent a maximum number based on the withdrawal capacity for

23 Units 1 and 2 on the specific sample collection date. A comparison of impingement numbers to

24 standing crop estimates based on cove rotenone data from Lake Anna indicates that the

25 percentage of the fish population affected by impingement is very low. Gizzard shad impinge26 ment losses represent 0.38 percent by number and 0.32 percent by weight of the total standing

27 crop for Lake Anna. For black crappie, the percentages were 3.1 percent by number and

28 3.8 percent by weight. Values for all other species were 1.4 percent or less (VEPCo 1985).

29

30 During the study period, total impingement rates declined; the decline appeared to be

31 associated with the reduction in gizzard shad impingement after 1979. On a yearly basis, the

32 majority of the fish impinged were gizzard shad during 1979, 1981, and 1983. However, black

33 crappie were impinged most often in 1980 and 1982 (VEPCo 1985). Most fish were impinged

34 during the winter (75 percent, January to March), followed by spring (13 percent, April to June),

35 fall (9 percent, October to December), and summer (3 percent, July to September). Lower

36 water temperatures during the winter months tend to make fish lethargic and thus more

37 susceptible to impingement. During 1979, gizzard shad accounted for more than 78 percent of

38 the impingement total; 64 percent of these shad (290,000 fish) were impinged between

39 February 20 and March 20. This large gizzard shad impingement occurred when water

40 temperature (1.18°C, February 20, 1979) was the lowest recorded during the study period

41 (VEPCo 1985). Winter kills are common for gizzard shad when water temperatures fall below
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-16 November 2004

1 3.3°C (Jester and Jensen 1972). This suggests that impingement rates are inflated by winter2 killed or cold-stunned shad that float into the intake area and are impinged. During subsequent

3 years of the study, impingement levels for gizzard shad never reached the levels of 1979.

4

5

6 Figure 5-1. Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the Existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the

7 ESP Site
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-17 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 5-1. Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Impinged per

2 Month at North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 from 1979 to 1983 (Based on

3 Actual Data Estimates)

4

5 Month

Striped

Bass

Black

Crappie Bluegill

Gizzard

Shad

White

Perch

Yellow

Perch

Total All

Species

6 213 929 134 14,600 92 44 16,012 January

7 265 2,360 235 26,459 162 1,392 30,873 February

8 381 9,734 465 58,314 625 24,436 93,955 March

9 87 4,347 636 8,407 471 1,754 15,702 April

10 10 1,643 630 1,607 390 84 4,364 May

11 0 480 839 57 135 49 1,560 June

12 0 372 392 67 164 39 1,034 July

13 3 426 985 84 159 23 1,680 August

14 12 845 644 485 161 19 2,166 September

15 30 3,449 574 236 160 5 4,454 October

16 357 2,143 1,944 714 176 26 5,360 November

17 682 1,211 293 2,827 231 36 5,280 December

18 2,040 27,939 7,771 113,857 2,926 27,907 182,440 Yearly Totals

19 Source: VEPCo 1985.

20

21 To estimate the impacts of the addition of a new once-through cooling water intake system with

22 a maximum intake flow of 75,868 L/s (1,202,565 gpm) on the impingement of fish in Lake Anna,

23 data from the 1978 to 1983 sampling study were used (VEPCo 1985). The following

24 assumptions were used to extrapolate fish impingement rates at Unit 3: (1) fish distribution and

25 composition has remained generally the same as in the 1978 to 1983 study, (2) a new once26 through cooling water intake system would operate at 100 percent pumping capacity, and

27 (3) the intake screen mesh size and approach flow velocity of Unit 3 would be the same as that

28 of the existing units. Based on the impingement rate for the six representative important fish

29 species from the 1978 to 1983 study and the maximum flow rate for a new once-through cooling

30 system, a worst-case estimate of the total number of fish that would be impinged was

31 calculated. Mean monthly impingement estimates for the six representative important fish

32 species were calculated for the same 5 years of operation (Table 5-2). The staff determined

33 that using the mean of the five representative years would give the most accurate estimate for

34 annual fish impingement.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-18 November 2004

1

2 Table 5-2. Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Impinged Per

3 Month at North Anna Power Station, Unit 3 Using a Once-Through Cooling

4 System (Using Worst-Case Assumptions)

5

6 Month

Striped

Bass 

Black

Crappie Bluegill

Gizzard

Shad

White

Perch

Yellow

Perch

Total All

Species

7 269 919 152 12,201 91 43 13,675 January

8 361 2,514 267 30,634 155 1,754 35,685 February

9 504 13,386 611 93,500 781 34,701 143,483 March

10 123 6,622 730 10,250 650 2,741 21,116 April

11 8 1,724 663 2,022 605 112 5,134 May

12 0 543 795 70 144 70 1,622 June

13 0 309 322 68 137 40 876 July

14 2 323 816 64 128 20 1,353 August

15 7 648 487 311 148 31 1,632 September

16 32 3,462 569 197 194 10 4,464 October

17 367 2,575 1,721 620 121 39 5,443 November

18 681 1,511 270 2,409 203 30 5,104 December

19 2,354 34,536 7,403 152,346 3,357 39,591 239,587 Yearly Totals

20

21 As expected, gizzard shad dominated the impingement estimates for the new intake system

22 with an estimated annual impingement of approximately 152,000 fish. This estimate is about

23 30 percent greater than the yearly estimate for the existing units (Table 5-1), and is primarily

24 due to assuming that the new once-through cooling system would be operating at 100 percent

25 pumping capacity and would withdraw 75,868 L/s (1,202,565 gpm). In reality, the new cooling

26 water intake system would operate at less than 100 percent capacity, but the maximum with27 drawal capacity was used in calculating a worst-case estimate. In addition, these estimates for

28 gizzard shad may be unusually high due to increased impingement during the winter of 1979, as

29 discussed earlier.

30

31 Estimated impingement for the other representative important species would be proportional to

32 those of the existing units. In addition, seasonal impingement would be highest during the

33 winter and lowest during the summer, trends that reflect those revealed in the 1985 study

34 (Table 5-2).

35

36 Cumulatively, based on the worst-case estimate for Unit 3 and actual impingement rates for

37 Units 1 and 2, impingement would more than double with the addition of a new unit with a once-
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-19 Draft NUREG-1811

1 through cooling system. Total estimated impingement for the six representative important

2 species would be approximately 422,000 fish annually. Approximately 94 percent of the annual

3 impingement would be gizzard shad (63 percent), yellow perch (16 percent), and black crappie

4 (15 percent) (Table 5-3).

5

6 Table 5-3. Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Impinged per

7 Month with Units 1 and 2 and a New Unit 3 Using a Once-Through Cooling

8 System

9

10 Month

Striped

Bass

Black

Crappie Bluegill

Gizzard

Shad

White

Perch

Yellow

Perch

Total All

Species

11 482 1,848 286 26,801 183 87 29,687 January

12 626 4,874 502 57,093 317 3,146 66,558 February

13 885 23,120 1,076 151,814 1,406 59,137 237,438 March

14 210 10,969 1,366 18,657 1,121 4,495 36,818 April

15 18 3,367 1,293 3,629 995 196 9,498 May

16 -- 1,023 1,634 127 279 119 3,182 June

17 -- 681 714 135 301 79 1,910 July

18 5 749 1,801 148 287 43 3,033 August

19 19 1,493 1,131 796 309 50 3,798 September

20 62 6,911 1,143 433 354 15 8,918 October

21 724 4,718 3,665 1,334 297 65 10,803 November

22 1,363 2,722 563 5,236 434 66 10,384 December

23 4,394 62,475 15,174 266,203 6,283 67,498 422,027 Yearly Totals

24

25 Gizzard shad are the major forage fish in Lake Anna. Threadfin shad, which were introduced by

26 the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) during 1983, were collected in

27 impingement samples only in late summer and fall 1983, and were not included in the impinge28 ment estimates because of a lack of data. Threadfin shad contribute to the forage base, but its

29 population is cyclic and subject to die-offs during cold winters.

30

31 The percentage of the total reservoir population that is impinged is very low. Based on cove

32 rotenone sampling in Lake Anna, the average annual standing crop of gizzard shad over a

33 5-year period (1979 to 1983) was 121 kg/ha and the average annual impingement weight of

34 gizzard shad was 2200 kg (VEPCo 1985). Therefore, the average percentage of gizzard shad

35 standing crop in Lake Anna that was removed annually by impingement was 0.32 percent by

36 weight. Similarly, values for black crappie were 3.8 percent, yellow perch 1.4 percent, bluegill

37 0.02 percent, and white perch 0.1 percent (VEPCo 1985). Using the worst-case scenario and

38 the assumptions presented earlier, the addition of a new once-through cooling system would

39 more than double the number of fish impinged. Therefore, a new once-through cooling system

40 in combination with the current once-through system would remove approximately 0.7 percent
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-20 November 2004

1 by weight of gizzard shad annually, 8 percent of black crappie, 3 percent of yellow perch,

2 0.04 percent of bluegill, and 0.2 percent of white perch.

3

4 Gizzard shad have a high reproductive potential because they grow rapidly, mature quickly, and

5 produce a large number of eggs per female. Gizzard shad can reproduce at 2 years of age and

6 each 2-year-old female can produce from 211,000 to 543,000 eggs (Carlander 1969). The

7 average yearly combined impingement estimates for the existing units, a new once-through

8 cooling system, and new cooling towers using makeup water from Lake Anna, is approximately

9 270,000 gizzard shad, which is considerably less than the maximum egg production of one

10 average size 2-year-old female gizzard shad. Likewise, black crappie become sexually mature

11 at 2 or 3 years of age, and a mature female can produce from 11,000 to 188,000 eggs annually

12 (Carlander 1977). The average yearly impingement estimates for black crappie from the

13 existing Units 1 and 2 and new Units 3 and 4 combined would be approximately 63,000 fish,

14 well below the maximum egg production of one mature female. These trends hold true for the

15 other representative important species. Growth rate, survival rate, and age at maturity are

16 factors that directly and critically influence recruitment success in fish populations; fish that grow

17 and mature quickly are more likely to be added to the population than those that grow and

18 mature slowly. Growth, survival, and age at maturity are in turn influenced by an array of

19 interrelated factors that include water quality, disease, competition, predator-prey relationships,

20 and genetics. Generally speaking, high mortality rates are associated with low rates of

21 recruitment. Fish can be preyed on by larger fish, by wading birds, and by fishermen. Power

22 plants essentially function as predators and, like predators, tend to be more “successful” as prey

23 populations expand and densities increase. The theory of natural compensation relies on the

24 assumption that fish populations grow when the population density (standing crop) is low and

25 likewise decline when the density is high. In other words, compensation is the capacity of a

26 population to offset, to some extent, reductions in numbers caused by some disturbance. This

27 natural compensation process works to ensure that population size remains relatively stable

28 over time. That the Lake Anna fish population is balanced and has remained balanced is an

29 indication that natural compensation is occurring. Therefore, natural compensation would be

30 expected to be offset fishery losses from impingement in Lake Anna.

31

32 Generally, new reservoirs exhibit an initial high level of productivity. This initial high level of

33 productivity is followed by a decline. Ultimately, productivity stabilizes but at a productivity level

34 below the initial level. The initial surge in productivity is primarily related to high nutrient levels

35 from the freshly inundated vegetation and soil. This high nutrient level cannot be maintained so

36 productivity decreases (Kimmel and Groeger 1986; Barwick et al. 1995). Environmental condi37 tions tend to stabilize 5 to10 years after impoundment, and fish biomass stabilization follows. 

38 Lake Anna exhibited high initial fish abundance during 1973 and 1974 followed by a decline in

39 succeeding years. Since 1978, the mean standing crop of fish has remained relatively stable,

40 with the exception of 1985 when the standing crop increased significantly because of the

41 introduction of threadfin shad in 1983 concurrently with an excellent year class for gizzard shad. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-21 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Lake Anna appears to support a higher standing crop of fish than most reservoirs in the United

2 States, with thriving populations of several forage and game fish species.

3

4 The 1985 study at NAPS showed no significant impacts because of impingement, a conclusion

5 validated by more than 20 years of monitoring in Lake Anna. In addition, the Section 316(a)

6 demonstration (VEPCo 1986) and more recent monitoring data and annual reports (VEPCo

7 2002a) indicate that fish populations in Lake Anna are healthy and diverse. The operation of a

8 Unit 3 using a once-through cooling system would not change this conclusion. 

9

10 The staff evaluated the overall impact of withdrawing water from Lake Anna and resultant

11 impingement of aquatic ecological resources. Because the fish impinged most frequently are

12 prolific, exhibit a high reproductive potential, and compensatory responses of the fish population

13 occur to offset losses, the staff concludes that the impacts of impingement would be SMALL.

14

15 5.4.2.3 Entrainment

16

17 During the 1978 to 1983 study, entrainment samples were collected once a week in front of the

18 intake forebays. Sampling was conducted from March through July of each year, which

19 represents the spawning period of the Lake Anna fishery (VEPCo 1985). During this 6-year

20 study, an average of 1318 fish larvae were collected annually in the entrainment samples. No

21 fish eggs were collected. Most of the fish species in Lake Anna produce demersal (sinking),

22 adhesive eggs, which reduces their potential for entrainment. For purposes of the study and as

23 a conservative estimate, 100 percent entrainment and 100 percent mortality were assumed for

24 all larval fish collected (VEPCo 1985). During the study, five larval fish taxa dominated the

25 collections, with gizzard shad (65.7 percent) being the most commonly entrained larvae followed

26 by white perch (15 percent), sunfish (Lepomis spp.) (13.3 percent), yellow perch (4.9 percent),

27 and black crappie (1.0 percent). All of the larvae collected were representatives of common,

28 widely distributed species found across Virginia and the southeast (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994;

29 Lee 1980). Seasonal differences in the sample collections of the various species reflected the

30 spawning characteristics of the individual species (VEPCo 1985).

31

32 More sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and yellow perch larvae were collected in the first year of the study

33 (1978) than in subsequent years. Gizzard shad were collected in relatively greater numbers in

34 1979 and 1981. White perch exhibited a general increase in samples over the study period. 

35 Collections of black crappie were considered too low to make any meaningful comparison

36 between years. With the exception of 1978, when sunfish and yellow perch dominated the

37 collections, trends in total numbers of larvae entrained from year to year were generally

38 reflected in the number of gizzard shad, sunfishes, and white perch collected. The percentage

39 of the total larvae collected represented by gizzard shad remained high (between 43 and 88

40 percent) and stable each year of the study, whereas the percentage of white perch increased

41 each year from 0.3 percent in 1978 to 31 percent in 1983 (VEPCo 1985).

42
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-22 November 2004

1 On a seasonal basis, yellow perch larvae were the first to appear each year in collections,

2 generally in early April when water temperatures approached 12°C (54°F) . White perch

3 appeared in April when temperatures approached 14°C (57°F) , peaked in numbers in mid-May,

4 and were collected into July. Gizzard shad larvae generally were first collected in late April to

5 early May at water temperatures between 14°C (57°F) and 18°C (64°F) and peaked in

6 numbers in mid-May to early June. Sunfish were the last group to appear in samples (May to

7 June) and were first collected when water temperatures rose to 19°C (66°F) . Both gizzard

8 shad and sunfish larvae were collected in relatively fewer numbers in July (VEPCo 1985).

9

10 To determine the total estimated number of larvae entrained over a given time period, daily

11 entrainment values for each species expressed as the number of eggs or larvae per gallon

12 withdrawn were multiplied by the average volume of intake cooling water withdrawn on that

13 sample day. Period estimates were computed using daily estimates and the number of days in

14 each period. Dominion’s totaling period estimates by species results in estimates of total

15 numbers of larvae entrained by month; yearly estimates are the sum of the months (VEPCo

16 1985). Based on the estimation method outlined above, an average of 149,400,000 fish larvae

17 was entrained each year from 1978 to 1983 (Table 5-4). During this period, gizzard shad had

18 an average yearly entrainment of approximately 95,500,000 or about 63 percent of the total

19 entrainment, while white perch represented 15.4 percent, sunfish 14.9 percent, yellow perch 4.6

20 percent, and black crappie 1.2 percent.

21

22 Table 5-4. Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Entrained per

23 Month from 1979 to 1983 with Existing North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2

24 Operating

25

26 Taxa March April May June July Yearly Totals

27 - - 1,144,967 598,711 - 1,743,678 black crappie

28 - - 892,255 12,326,144 9,031,991 22,250,390 Lepomis spp.

29 - 367,705 51,580,191 41,131,018 2,396,247 95,475,161 gizzard shad

30 - 3,923,856 17,157,903 1,818,796 92,820 22,993,375 white perch

31 223,513 6,309,313 384,800 10,400 - 6,928,026 yellow perch

32 223,513 10,600,874 71,160,116 55,885,069 11,521,058 149,390,630 Monthly Totals

33 Source: VEPCo 1985.

34

35 On a seasonal basis, the highest estimated larval fish entrainment occurred in May

36 (47.6 percent) when all representative important species were present (Table 5-4). June

37 estimates were the second highest with collections dropping dramatically in July.

38

39 To estimate the impacts of the addition of a new once-through cooling water intake system with

40 a maximum intake flow of 75,868 L/s (1,202,565 gpm) on the entrainment of fish from Lake

41 Anna, data from the 1978 to 1983 sampling study (VEPCo 1985) were used. The following
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-23 Draft NUREG-1811

1 assumptions were used to extrapolate fish entrainment rates for a proposed new once-through

2 cooling system: (1) fish distribution and composition has remained generally the same as in the

3 1978 to 1983 study, (2) the new once-through cooling water intake system would operate at

4 100 percent pumping capacity, and (3) the intake screen mesh size and approach flow velocity

5 of the new unit would remain the same as that of the existing units. Based on the entrainment

6 rate (number per gallon) for the five representative important fish species from the 1978 to 1983

7 study and the maximum flow rates for the new once-through cooling system, an estimate of the

8 total number of these species’ larvae entrained was calculated. As noted earlier in this section,

9 the maximum cooling water withdrawal rate from Lake Anna for a new unit with once-through

10 cooling would be 75,868 L/s (1,202,565 gpm). Combined with current usage of 122,032 L/s

11 (1,934,300 gpm) for the existing units, this would result in 5.7 percent of Lake Anna’s volume

12 being used each day. Entrainment rates were calculated for the following representative

13 important species: gizzard shad, sunfish, white perch, yellow perch, and black crappie. Mean

14 monthly and yearly entrainment estimates for the new unit were calculated for the five repre15 sentative important fish species for each of the six years of the study (Table 5-5).

16

17 Because the sampling period was similar in all six years, all data were used and an average

18 yearly estimate was calculated. Entrainment estimates for the new unit averaged approximately

19 147,700,000 larvae annually, with gizzard shad dominating the estimates. 

20

21 Table 5-5. Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Entrained per

22 Month with New North Anna, Unit 3 Using a Once-Through Cooling System

23

24 Taxa March April May June July Yearly Totals

25 -- -- 1,301,138 510,611 -- 1,811,749 black crappie

26 -- -- 1,372,567 11,304,534 7,868,851 20,545,952 Lepomis spp.

27 -- 299,825 50,802,477 39,808,477 2,196,895 93,107,674 gizzard shad

28 -- 4,439,294 18,444,442 1,399,913 71,976 24,355,625 white perch

29 231,241 7,165,176 478,451 8,751 -- 7,883,619 yellow perch

30 231,241 11,904,295 72,399,075 53,032,286 10,137,722 147,704,619 Monthly Totals

31

32 Estimated entrainment for the other representative important species also would be proportional

33 to those of the existing units on an annual and monthly basis. Cumulatively, entrainment would

34 approximately double (Table 5-6) with the addition of a new once-through cooling system. As

35 noted earlier, this is based on a worst-case estimate and is subject to the assumptions pre36 sented earlier in this section. Total estimated entrainment with the old and new units operating

37 for the five representative important species would be approximately 297,000,000 fish larvae

38 annually. Once again, gizzard shad would account for approximately 63 percent of all larvae

39 entrained (Table 5-6).

40
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-24 November 2004

1 Reproductive strategies vary among fish species. In general, the strategy is to produce large

2 numbers of eggs but provide little protection thereafter. Therefore, mortality rates are extremely

3 high, with generally less than 1 percent of the larvae surviving to 1 year of age (Baker et al.

4 1993). Survival rates are higher in species (e.g., sunfish, salmonids) that build nests and

5 provide protection until the larvae swim away from the nest, but are still generally 10 percent or

6 less (Baker et al. 1993). To assess the impact of the loss of fish larvae due to entrainment by

7 the existing units on the fisheries of Lake Anna, the adult equivalent model of Goodyear (1978)

8 was used (VEPCo 1985). The following assumptions were used: (1) there is 100 percent

9 mortality of entrained larvae, (2) the stock populations are at equilibrium and the total lifetime

10 fecundity produces two adults, (3) no compensatory mechanisms are operating, and

11 (4) 75 percent of the eggs produced by the entrained species survive to the larval stage.

12

13 Table 5-6. Mean Number of Representative Important Fish Species Estimated Entrained per

14 Month with Existing North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 and a New Unit 3

15 Using a Once-Through Cooling System

16

17 Taxa March April May June July Yearly Totals

18 -- -- 2,446,105 1,109,322 - 3,555,427 black crappie

19 -- -- 2,264,822 23,630,678 16,900,842 42,796,342 Lepomis spp.

20 -- 667,530 102,382,668 80,939,495 4,593,142 188,582,835 gizzard shad

21 -- 8,363,150 35,602,345 3,218,709 164,796 47,349,000 white perch

22 454,754 13,474,489 863,251 19,151 - 14,811,645 yellow perch

23 454,754 22,505,169 143,559,191 108,917,355 21,658,780 297,095,249 Monthly Totals

24

25 This model estimates the number of adult fish that would have resulted from the entrained

26 larvae had they not been lost to entrainment from the two operating units. It also provides an

27 estimate of the potential percent reduction in the adult fish population as a consequence of

28 entrainment. Values ranged from 0.01 percent for black crappie in 1978 and 1979 and sunfish

29 in 1982, to 4.13 percent for gizzard shad in 1980. Percent reductions of this magnitude would

30 not have a significant adverse effect on the Lake Anna fishery, especially when viewed in

31 concert with other population mechanisms such as compensation (VEPCo 1985).

32

33 The analysis from the adult equivalent model provided a conservative estimate of entrainment

34 impact by the existing units, primarily as a result of assumptions used in the analysis

35 (VEPCo 1985). Applying the adult equivalent model analysis to a new once-through cooling

36 system and associated entrainment estimates would result in a doubling of the losses estimated

37 for the existing units (VEPCo 1985). Losses of this magnitude would not impact the Lake Anna

38 fishery. Likewise, a new unit using a once-through cooling system would not have a significant

39 adverse effect on the Lake Anna fishery.

40
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-25 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The fish population in Lake Anna represents a balanced community. Over the years, the fishery

2 of Lake Anna has matured and changed to meet the demands for public fishing through species

3 additions (threadfin shad) and annual stockings of striped bass. Overall, the abundance and

4 quality of the fishery has remained healthy and balanced despite increased fishing pressure and

5 shoreline development. Because of the thriving populations of game fish in Lake Anna and the

6 forage species that support them, the additional entrainment resulting from the operation of a

7 new once-through unit would have a small impact on the fishery community.

8

9 Because the fish entrained most frequently are prolific, exhibit a high reproductive potential, and

10 compensatory responses of the fish population occur to offset losses, the staff concludes that

11 the impacts of entrainment would be SMALL. 

12

13 5.4.2.4 Aquatic Thermal Impacts

14

15 This section discusses the potential thermal impacts to the aquatic resources of Lake Anna from

16 adding heated water from the proposed Unit 3's once-through cooling discharge along with 

17 discharge from NAPS Units 1 and 2 into the discharge canal and its influence on the tempera18 tures in Lake Anna. Fish and other aquatic resources are potentially impacted when water

19 temperatures are greater or lower than the plants or animals can tolerate or water temperatures

20 change so quickly that plants and animals cannot adjust. The staff evaluated the aquatic impact

21 on the lake's ecosystem, and describes the water-use impacts of the cooling system for an

22 additional unit. Except where site-specific data were available, the bounding design parameter

23 values from the plant parameter envelope (PPE) were used as the basis for the analysis and

24 evaluation of the Unit 3 discharge system. The staff describes the physical attributes of the new

25 discharge system in Section 5.3.1.

26

27 Cold Shock

28

29 Cold shock occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as

30 fish in a power plant’s discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This

31 sometimes occurs when single-unit power plants shut down suddenly in winter. It is less likely

32 to occur at a multiple-unit plant, because a sudden temperature decrease is moderated by the

33 heated discharge from the unit or units that continue to operate. Cold shock mortalities at

34 U.S. nuclear power plants are “relatively rare” and typically involve small numbers of fish (NRC

35 1996). 

36

37 “Winter kills” of fish have occurred in Lake Anna associated with cold weather and unusually

38 cold water temperatures, but plant operations were not a factor. During February and March

39 1979, large numbers of gizzard shad were killed or stunned when Lake Anna water tempera40 tures fell below 2.2°C (36°F) (Virginia Power 1985). These fish drifted into the existing units’

41 intake, and were observed in impingement samples. The susceptibility of gizzard shad and

42 threadfin shad to winter kills is well known. Limited threadfin shad kills have occurred during
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-26 November 2004

1 severe winters. The threadfin shad is native to the Gulf slope of the United States, peninsular

2 Florida, and Central America, and was introduced to a number of Virginia impoundments in the

3 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s as a forage fish (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Because this species

4 is subject to cold kills when water temperatures drop below 8.9°C (48°F), it is able to overwinter

5 in northern latitude impoundments only when waters are heated by power plant effluents

6 (Olmsted and Clugston 1986).

7

8 As noted above, incidents of cold shock in receiving waters of nuclear power plants are

9 infrequent, and even more infrequent at multiple unit sites. The operation of an additional once10 through unit would, therefore, reduce the likelihood of a cold shock incident in Lake Anna. 

11 Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of cold shock from Unit 3's once-through cooling

12 system would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

13

14 Heat Stress

15

16 The thermal tolerance for aquatic organisms is defined in different ways. Some definitions

17 relate to the temperature that fish may avoid, other temperatures relate the temperature that fish

18 prefer for spawning, and others relate to the temperatures (upper and lower) that may kill

19 individuals. Some of these tolerances are termed preferred temperatures, upper avoidance

20 temperatures, and lethal temperatures. A list of these tolerances for several important Lake

21 Anna species was compiled in the ER (Dominion 2004a) and is presented in Table 5-7. While

22 study objectives, methods, and definitions vary among the temperatures cited, patterns of

23 temperature preference and temperature tolerance are generally evident for a given species. 

24 Critical thermal maxima and chronic lethal maxima values are arrived at experimentally, and are

25 based on different endpoints and acclimation schemes.

26

27 Mount Storm Lake, a 490-ha (1200-acre) impoundment in Grant County, West Virginia, was

28 built to provide condenser cooling water for Dominion Energy’s Mount Storm Power Station, a

29 large 1600 MW, coal-fired generating station. Maximum (monthly mean) temperatures (one

30 meter depth) in the impoundment ranged from 33.6° to 35.7°C (92.5°F to 96.3°F) over the

31 1998–2001 period at a location in the vicinity of the station’s discharge (Dominion 2002). 

32 Annual maximum temperature ranged from 36.6° to 37.5°C (97.9° to 99.5°F) over the same

33 period at the same location. Despite water temperatures that would appear certain to induce

34 thermal stress in fish, Mount Storm Lake supports a recreational fishery dominated by

35 largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish; temperate-zone species that are found

36 in streams, lakes, and impoundments across Virginia and West Virginia. Mount Storm Lake had

37 the third highest “success rate” (i.e., number of fish caught per hour) of 17 West Virginia lakes

38 and impoundments where sanctioned (West Virginia Bass Federation) bass fishing tournaments

39 were held in 2002 (West Virginia Bass Federation 2003). In addition to these species, the

40 impoundment contains hybrid striped bass, walleye, and sunfish (bluegill and green sunfish),

41 with spotfin shiner, emerald shiner, and threadfin shad providing the forage base. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-27 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The thermal analysis for Lake Anna described in the ER (Dominion 2004a) predict surface and

2 sub-surface temperatures for the following three locations: Burrus Point, Thurman Island, and

3 the existing intake area based on historical meteorological data (1961 to 2003). Temperatures

4 predicted under historical two-unit operation were compared to field measurements and found to

5 approximate actual temperatures. With a three-unit operation, Dominion predicted a

6 measurable increase in Lake Anna temperatures.

7

8 Table 5-7. Temperature Requirements of Important Fish Species of Lake Anna

9

10 Species

Preferred

Temperature

Range

Upper

Avoidance

Lethal

(Undefined

Experimental

Method)

Critical

Thermal

Maximum

(Lethal)

Chronic

Lethal

Maximum

(Lethal)

11 °C °F °C °F °C °F °C °F °C °F

12 19-23 69-73 30 86 37 98 -- -- -- -- Gizzard shad

13 25-36 77-87 30-35 90-95 33-35 92-95 35.9- Channel catfish

42.1

95.9-

107.8(b)

-- --

14 18-21 65-70 25-27 77-81 -- -- 31.6 88.9 -- -- Striped bass

15 28-33 82-91 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bluegill

27-32 81-90 30-35 90-95 -- -- 36.1-

41.4

97-

106.5(c)

35.9 95.9

16 Large-mouth

17 bass

27-32 81-90 29-34 84-93 -- -- -- -- -- --

27-32 81-90 31-33 88-91 -- -- 32.3-

40.2

97.3-

104.4(d)

-- --

18 (a) Blank entries indicate no data was found.

19 (b) Acclimation temperatures >20°C (68°F).

20 (c) Acclimation temperatures >28°C (82°F).

21 (d) Acclimation temperatures >20°C (68°F).

22

23 Based on Dominion’s modeled results, three-unit operation would increase average daily

24 surface temperatures in the Burrus Point area by approximately 3°C (5°F) and would increase

25 average daily surface temperatures in the Thurman Island and intake areas by approximately 3°

26 and 2°C (5° and 4°F), respectively. Maximum daily surface temperatures predicted for the

27 Burrus Point, Thurman Island, and the existing intake locations over approximately 42 future

28 years of 3-unit operation were 35.6°, 35.1°, and 34.4°C (96.0°F, 95.1°F, and 94.0°F),

29 respectively. The model predicts that 35°C (95°F) would be exceeded at a surface depth in the

30 Burrus Point area only 1 year out of 42 years, and in only 6 days of that year. This translates
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-28 November 2004

1 into less than 0.04 percent of the 42-year period (more than 15,000 days) evaluated. At the

2 Thurman Island location, 32°C (90°F) would be exceeded at a surface depth on an average of

3 20 days per year, during the June-September period. At the Intake location, 90oF would be

4 exceeded at a surface depth on an average of 8 days per year during the July-September

5 period. Average annual surface temperatures at these locations would be substantially lower,

6 ranging from 21.4° to 22.8°C (70.5°F to 73.1°F). As discussed in the ER, Dominion’s thermal

7 modeling assumes that temperatures at a given location would be uniform from the surface to a

8 depth of 8.5 m (28 ft). This upper layer of warm, well mixed water corresponds with the area of

9 the epilimnion in a thermally stratified body of water. The thermocline, a transitional zone where

10 temperature drops rapidly with increasing depth, lies between the epiliminion and the

11 hypolimnion.

12

13 Under the thermocline in the hypolimnion, temperatures are markedly cooler, even at the hottest

14 times of year. Average daily temperatures are predicted for surface and subsurface depths at

15 Burrus Point, Thurman Island, and intake locations during the summer months over a 42-year

16 period.

17

18 The applicant’s analysis indicates that average daily Lake Anna water temperatures at the

19 surface would be high enough in late summer with three units operating to produce an

20 avoidance response in some resident fish species. Fish could respond by moving up-lake, into

21 tributary streams, or into deeper, cooler water. Temperatures below the warm, well-mixed

22 epilimnion (at the thermocline and below, until dissolved oxygen becomes limiting) would be

23 somewhat lower and acceptable to most Lake Anna fish species. Many non-pelagic fish

24 species in temperate-zone lakes and reservoirs move seasonally in response to changes in

25 temperatures, oxygen levels, and availability of food, even when the lake or reservoir is

26 unaffected by the operation of a power plant (Hall 1977).

27

28 The warm water fish species of Lake Anna – those with less stringent temperature requirements

29 that are native to inland waters in the southeast – should not be adversely affected by the

30 operation of a new unit with a once-through cooling system. These include most of the species

31 sought by anglers: largemouth bass, black crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, and white catfish. 

32 The two most important forage species, gizzard shad and threadfin shad, also should not be

33 adversely affected. 

34

35 Overall, the staff determined that additional heat discharged to Lake Anna from the WHTF,

36 would be localized and would not increase water temperature throughout the lake and would not

37 destabilize the native fish populations. During the summer when warmer temperatures

38 accumulate near the discharge, most of the lake is unaffected by operations, and fish will be

39 able to find sufficient inhabitable areas. Additionally, the fish found in the lake most frequently

40 are prolific, exhibit a high reproductive potential, and compensate to offset losses. Based on
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-29 Draft NUREG-1811

1 these factors, the staff concludes the thermal impacts on the fishery community of the discharge

2 of waste heat from Unit 3 into Lake Anna would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

3

4 5.4.2.5 Striped Bass

5

6 The striped bass, a non-native species introduced into Lake Anna for recreational fishing, is one

7 of the most thermally-sensitive fish species in Lake Anna, and perhaps the species most

8 vulnerable to thermal stress. Based on its thermal preferences and tolerances, the striped bass

9 would be classified as a cool-water species. The term “cool-water species” is not rigorously

10 defined, but it refers generally to fish species that are distributed by temperature preference

11 between the coldwater salmonid communities of the northern United States and the more

12 diverse centrarchid-dominated warm water assemblages of the southern United States

13 (Trendahl 1978).

14

15 Striped bass were, until the 1940s, found only in estuaries along the Atlantic Coast from Nova

16 Scotia to South Carolina and, during their annual spawning runs, in large freshwater rivers that

17 flow into these estuaries. The striped bass's ability to physiologically adapt to freshwater led

18 fisheries managers to stock them in many inland reservoirs, including a number in Virginia

19 (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

20

21 The Lake Anna striped bass population is sustained by annual stockings and provides a “put22 grow-and-take” fishery. Striped bass in reservoirs across the southeast show a preference for

23 deeper, cooler water in late summer and are often found concentrated in the area of the

24 thermocline at these times. If conditions in the area of the thermocline become inhospitable

25 (i.e., too warm or too low in dissolved oxygen), striped bass in some southeastern reservoirs

26 disperse to thermal refuges, areas within the reservoir that are slightly cooler because they are

27 deeper, or cooled by underwater seeps or springs, or influenced by cooler inflowing streams. 

28 Coutant and Carroll (1980) found that sub-adult striped bass preferred temperatures of 18° to

29 24°C (68°F to 75°F) in summer, but frequently made brief “excursions” to warmer and cooler

30 water. Cheek et al. (1985) discovered that striped bass were restricted in summer to riverine

31 areas of the Watts Bar Reservoir where temperatures were less than 24° (75°F) and dissolved

32 oxygen concentrations exceeded 4.0 milligrams per liter. Other researchers have noted a

33 tendency of striped bass to move to deep, downlake areas near dams in late summer in search

34 of cooler water (Combs et al. 1982).

35

36 Coutant (1985) theorized that striped bass populations are limited by available summer habitat,

37 which he defined as 18° to 25° C (64°F to 77°F) temperatures and 2.0 to 3.0 milligrams per liter

38 dissolved oxygen concentrations. Mathews et al. (1989) found that in late summer, large adult

39 striped bass moved downlake to deeper, cooler water “just above the anoxic hypolimnion,” and

40 that these adults were able to tolerate temperatures somewhat higher than 25°C (77°F). Moss

41 (1985) observed that striped bass in two Alabama reservoirs sought out cool-water refuges in
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-30 November 2004

1 summer when water temperatures approached 27° (81°F). Several researchers, including

2 Coutant and Carroll (1980) and Dudley et al. (1977) have suggested 26° to 27° C (79°F to 81°F)

3 as upper avoidance temperatures for striped bass.

4

5 Experience has shown that unusually high air temperatures and low rainfall in summer (e.g., the

6 drought conditions seen over the 1998 to 2002 period) can reduce striped bass habitat in some

7 portions of Lake Anna. This situation could be exacerbated by adding an additional unit with its

8 additional heat load. The impact of the additional heat and water discharged to the WHTF from

9 Unit 3 can be estimated by extending the current impacts to fish that exist in the WHTF into the

10 main body of the lake. Based on the staff’s analysis, increasing the heat load and associated

11 flow by approximately 72 percent would increase the portion of the lake experiencing WHTF-like

12 condition. The WHTF contains about 21 percent of the total volume of Lake Anna. Therefore,

13 the conditions currently experienced in 21 percent of the lake would increase by 72 percent. 

14 Assuming all of these Unit 3-related WHTF-like conditions occur in the main body of the lake, 19

15 percent of the main body of the lake would experience WHTF-like conditions with the new unit.

16

17 Experience has also shown that even extreme circumstances (e.g., an extended drought) do not

18 eliminate striped bass habitat in the upper lake and mid-lake areas. No striped bass die-offs

19 have been observed in any portion of Lake Anna. Striped bass restricted to a narrow layer of

20 water around the thermocline or to thermal refuges may not be able to move freely and feed

21 normally; thus they may be forced to live on stored energy reserves. As a consequence, they

22 may lose weight or show a decline in condition. This phenomenon has been observed at a

23 number of southeastern reservoirs where striped bass experience a late-summer habitat

24 “squeeze.” When surface waters cool in September and October, striped bass are able to move

25 freely in the water column again and resume normal feeding. Weight gain and an improvement

26 in their condition generally follow. 

27

28 As noted previously in this section, a number of southeastern reservoir populations experience

29 a summer habitat “squeeze,” trapped between a too-warm upper layer and an oxygen-deficient

30 lower layer. Because the Lake Anna striped bass population is not native to this portion of the

31 watershed and does not reproduce naturally in the lake, the striped bass fishery is dependent

32 on annual stockings. The section of the river above the Lake Anna Dam lacks the required flow,

33 depth, and length to support striped bass spawning. Thus, reproduction would not be affected

34 by the addition of a new unit. 

35

36 Based on the available information, the staff determined that waste heat input to Lake Anna

37 from a new unit with a once-through cooling system could affect striped bass in the reservoir by

38 forcing them up-lake into areas that provide suitable habitat, but effects would be limited to a

39 three-to-four month period in summer and early fall. There could be some energetic costs

40 associated with the up-lake movement and there could be a period of “lost” growth, if fish are

41 restricted to relatively small areas with an inadequate supply of forage. When confined in late
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-31 Draft NUREG-1811

1 summer to areas that provide only marginal habitat, striped bass sometimes cease feeding

2 (Siler et al. 1986). Thermal impacts on striped bass may be detectable in that fish take longer

3 to grow to sizes desired by fishermen, fish health may decline during summer months, optimum

4 habitat may be reduced during summer months, and fish may have to congregate in other parts

5 of the lake. In cooler months and non-drought years, “put-grow-and-take” fishing provides

6 optimum fishing opportunities. Maintenance of the striped bass fishery in Lake Anna could

7 warrant mitigation during drought conditions. 

8

9 Because the Lake Anna striped bass population is a “put-grow-and-take” fishery of a non10 indigenous species and because suitable habitat would continue to exist within Lake Anna, the

11 staff concludes that the heat stress impact of Unit 3's once-through cooling system on the

12 striped bass would be SMALL during cooler months and non-drought years. During drought

13 years, the impacts without mitigation may be MODERATE. In such circumstances, mitigation to

14 reduce the impact could be accomplished by stocking more fish, stocking larger fish, or

15 managing the fishery to provide more catch opportunities of larger fish.

16

17 5.4.2.6 Shoreline Erosion and Other Physical Impacts

18

19 With low flow velocity in Lake Anna, the impacts, such as increased shoreline erosion, lakebed

20 scouring, and increased turbidity levels caused by the operation of the new intake system would

21 not be detectable or destabilizing to the aquatic resources of Lake Anna. The flow velocity in

22 the discharge channel, the connecting canals, and the main ponds of the WHTF would be

23 slightly higher than in the reservoir portion of Lake Anna because of their smaller dimensions. It

24 is assumed that Unit 3 would use a once-through cooling system with a circulating flow rate of

up to 71.9 m3/s (2540 cfs). Including the cooling water discharge of 120 m3 25 /s (4246 cfs) from

the existing units, the total maximum discharge flow to the WHTF would be 192 m3 26 /s (6795 cfs). 

27 At maximum discharge rate and a water level in the WHTF of 76.7 m (251.5 ft) above MSL,

28 corresponding to the design lake level of 76 m (250 ft) above MSL, the flow velocity in the

29 discharge channel and the connecting canals would be approximately 0.5 m/s (1.7 ft/s).

30

31 Dominion states that flow velocity in the channel and canals would be 0.88 m/s (2.9 ft/s) during

32 severe drought conditions when the lake pool elevation could decline to 73.8 m (242 ft) above

33 MSL, which would be the proposed minimum operating lake level. With only the existing units

34 are in operation, the channel velocity is estimated to be about 0.33 to 0.55 m/s (1.1 to 1.8 ft/s) at

35 water levels of 76.7 m (251.5 ft) above MSL and 74.2 m (243.5 ft) above MSL, respectively. 

36 The velocity in the WHTF system for the flow from the existing units and future units would be

37 higher than the velocity projected at the intake channel area, but would be low enough not to

38 cause scouring or erosion problems. Banks of the connecting canals are currently protected by

39 rip-rap from 73.8 to 76.2 m (242 to 250 ft) above MSL to protect against erosion. The flow

40 velocity slows substantially in the main ponds of the WHTF beyond the entrance-mixing zone

41 near the end of the connecting canals. At the Dike 3 discharge to the reservoir, the exit velocity
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-32 November 2004

1 is designed to be about 2 m/s (7 ft/s). The bottom of the discharge structure is protected by a

2 concrete apron to minimize local erosion at the discharge.

3

4 No adverse impact because of scouring from the existing plant discharge has occurred, and

5 none would likely occur as a result of the future combined operation of three units. There is a

6 limited record of turbidity level measurements in the WHTF, but based on the projected

7 discharge flow velocity, the range of the turbidity level in the WHTF would be approximately the

8 same as current turbidity. Siltation would be minimal, because the medium-to-coarse sediment

9 would settle before reaching the intake approach channel. A small amount of fine, suspended

10 sediment could be entrained into the cooling water intake system and discharged to the WHTF,

11 where the majority of entrained sediment would stay in suspension. The sediment-laden

12 cooling water would return to the Lake Anna reservoir via Dike 3.

13

14 Because no adverse impact from the existing plant discharge has occurred nor is expected from

15 the combined operation of the three units, many of the fish species in the lake are fecund, and

16 compensatory responses of the fish population occur to offset losses, the staff concludes that

17 the impacts to aquatic ecological resources from physical changes to Lake Anna from operation

18 of Unit 3 once-through cooling would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

19

20 5.4.2.7 Summary of Aquatic Impacts

21

22 The fish population in Lake Anna represents a balanced community. Over the years, the fishery

23 has matured and changed to meet the demands for public fishing through species additions

24 (threadfin shad) and annual stockings of striped bass. Overall, the abundance and quality of

25 the fishery has remained healthy and balanced despite increased fishing pressure shoreline

26 development, and thermal impingement, and entrainment impacts of the existing Units 1 and 2. 

27 The additional aquatic impacts, thermal, impingement, entrainment, shoreline erosion and the

28 physical impacts that may occur to Lake Anna from the operation of a third unit would be small

29 on the fishery community. Unit 4, using dry cooling towers, would have negligible aquatic

30 impacts. As a result, the staff concludes that aquatic impacts from the operation of Units 1, 2, 3

31 and 4 on Lake Anna would be SMALL. The impact on the striped bass would be SMALL during

32 the cooler months and non-drought years. During drought years, impacts may be MODERATE

33 and warrant mitigation. In such circumstances, the impact could be reduced by stocking more

34 and larger fish or managing the fishery to provide more opportunities to catch larger fish. 

35

36 5.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

37

38 This section describes the potential impacts that operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 may

39 have on threatened or endangered species at and in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. 

40 The terrestrial species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site are

41 described in Section 2.7.1, and the potential impacts of operating the new units to terrestrial
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-33 Draft NUREG-1811

1 species are examined in Section 5.4.3.1. The threatened and endangered aquatic species

2 potentially occurring near the ESP site are described in Section 2.7.4, and potential impacts of

3 operating the new units to aquatic species are considered in Section 5.4.3.2.

4

5 5.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species

6

7 There are no threatened or endangered terrestrial species that are known to inhabit the vicinity

8 of the North Anna ESP site. Bald eagles which are threatened, (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are

9 occasionally observed along Lake Anna; the nearest known nest site is approximately 16 km

10 (10 mi) upstream from the proposed ESP site. Noise generated by the operations of the new

11 units and the Unit 4 dry cooling towers would be well below levels that have been associated

12 with disturbance to wildlife, and would not be likely to adversely affect bald eagles foraging in

13 the vicinity of the plant. Dominion follows the bald eagle protection guidelines for Virginia (FWS

14 and VDGIF 2000), which would prevent or minimize impacts of operation of the proposed new

15 units and the NAPS transmission lines. No other Federally listed terrestrial threatened or

16 endangered animal species has been observed near the proposed ESP site.

17

18 There are no Federally listed terrestrial threatened or endangered animal species that are

19 known to occur along the North Anna River downstream from Lake Anna. Therefore, if any

20 changes to the flow regimes in this portion of the river were made, there would not be an effect

21 on Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species.

22

23 Three Federally listed threatened or endangered plant species have been identified as

24 potentially occurring within the NAPS transmission line rights-of-way. These include the small

25 whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), swamp pink (Helonias bullata), and the sensitive joint26 vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). In its assessment of the potential impacts of continued

27 operation of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2, the staff concluded that continued operation and

28 maintenance of the transmission lines and rights-of-way would not adversely impact these plant

29 species (NRC 2002b). Because no changes to the transmission lines and rights-of-way are

30 anticipated to result if the proposed Units 3 and 4 are built, there would be no change to the

31 potential impact of operation and maintenance of the transmission lines or rights-of-way on

32 these threatened or endangered plant species.

33

34 The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4, including

35 operation of the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems, as well as potential

36 changes to the flows in the North Anna River on terrestrial threatened and endangered species. 

37 Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of operating the proposed new

38 units on terrestrial threatened and endangered species would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

39 warranted.

40
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-34 November 2004

1 5.4.3.2 Aquatic Species

2

3 Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River for more

4 than 25 years. No Federally listed fish species has been collected in any of these monitoring

5 studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional special studies

6 conducted by Virginia Power biologists. No Federally or State-listed fish species’ range

7 includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none is believed to occur in counties adjacent

8 to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and

9 Spotsylvania Counties).

10

11 According to VDGIF and VDCR (Division of Natural Heritage) databases, one Federally listed

12 mussel species, and one mussel species that is a candidate for Federal listing, occur in

13 counties that border Lake Anna or the North Anna River. None of them has been found in Lake

14 Anna or the North Anna River.

15

16 The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operating the proposed new Units 3 and 4, including

17 operating the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems, as well as potential changes

18 to the flows in the North Anna River, on aquatic threatened and endangered species. Based on

19 this evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of operating the proposed new units on

20 aquatic threatened and endangered species would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

21

22 5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

23

24 This section describes the socioeconomic impacts from operating two new nuclear units at the

25 North Anna ESP site, and from the activities and demands of the operating workforce on the

26 surrounding region. Socioeconomic impacts include potential impacts on individual

27 communities, the surrounding region, and minority and low-income populations.

28

29 5.5.1 Physical Impacts

30

31 This section assesses the potential physical impacts on the nearby communities caused by

32 operation of new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Potential impacts discussed include

33 noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. Dominion, as stated in its ER,

34 plans to manage these physical impacts to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local

35 environmental regulations (Dominion 2004a). Dominion does not expect operation of the new

36 units to significantly affect the North Anna ESP site and its vicinity (Dominion 2004a). The

37 staff’s evaluation is discussed in the following subsections.

38
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-35 Draft NUREG-1811

1 5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

2

3 Access to the North Anna ESP site is provided by State Route (SR) 700. The terrain around

4 and into the plant site is undulating and wooded. Most of the site structures are screened from

5 public view up to the proximity of the plant boundary. There are no residential areas located

6 within the North Anna ESP site boundary.

7

8 Offsite, the region surrounding Lake Anna and the North Anna ESP site is covered with forest

9 and brushwood interspersed with occasional farmland. The population immediately surrounding

10 the lake ranges from about 980 and 2940 within 4 and 8 km (2.5 and 5 mi), respectively, from

11 the ESP site, (Dominion 2004a). The town of Mineral, located about 10 km (6 mi) from North

12 Anna ESP site, has a population of 424 (USCB 2000).

13

14 Because of its distance from the ESP site, residents of Mineral would experience minimal

15 physical impacts from operation of the new units. People who work or live closer to the North

16 Anna ESP site (the nearest residence is about 1000 m [3000 ft] away) could be subjected to

17 some noise (particularly from the dry cooling system on Unit 4), fugitive dust, and gaseous

18 emissions resulting from operation activities. Least impacted by station operations would be

19 transient populations, such as temporary employees, recreational visitors to Lake Anna, and

20 tourists passing through the area. Such effects should be transient and have minimal impact.

21

22 Personnel working onsite are most likely to be impacted by station operation. The number of

23 employees at the ESP site would approximately double to 1600-plus employees if both Units 3

24 and 4 were constructed and placed into operation. Onsite impacts to permanent workers from

25 station operations could be mitigated through adequate training and use of personal protective

26 equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures. Standard management

27 practices should minimize such exposures. Emergency first-aid care and regular health and

28 safety monitoring of permanent, operating personnel could also be undertaken.

29

30 The staff evaluated the information provided by Dominion and notes that most of the local public

31 is located well away from the North Anna ESP site and onsite impacts to North Anna ESP

32 workers can be mitigated. Based on these considerations and its own independent review, the

33 staff concludes that the overall physical impacts of station operation to workers and the local

34 public are SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions discussed above is not

35 warranted. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-36 November 2004

1 5.5.1.2 Buildings

2

3 Because operational activities are not expected to impact any offsite buildings, most of which

4 are located well away from the North Anna ESP site boundaries, the staff concludes that any

5 offsite physical impacts from station operation to buildings would be SMALL, and mitigation is

6 not warranted.

7

8 5.5.1.3 Roads

9

10 In its analysis, the staff assumed that by the time North Anna Units 3 and 4 would begin

11 operation, improvements to the road systems around the North Anna ESP site (as discussed in

12 Section 4.5.1.3 and 4.5.3.2) would have been completed. Construction of Units 3 and 4 would

13 require up to 5000 workers while the operating workforce would number approximately 720, in

14 addition to the 720 permanent workforce at the existing units. Thus, any impacts to the road

15 system by the operating workforce would most likely be significantly less than impacts incurred

16 with the addition of the construction workforce.

17

18 There may be some congestion at the entrances to the North Anna ESP site at shift changes. 

19 There may also be some ambient dust levels from commuter traffic into and out of the North

20 Anna ESP site, but this is expected to be minimal because commuters to and from the site

21 would be using paved roads.

22

23 Based on the assumption that any needed upgrades to the regional road system would have

24 been made in conjunction with, or as a result of, the construction of Units 3 and 4, and that

25 number of operating personnel would be significantly fewer than the number of construction

26 personnel, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station operation on the road system

27 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

28

29 5.5.1.4 Aesthetics

30

31 The physical aspects of station operation on the aesthetics of Lake Anna and the surrounding

32 area can be viewed from two different perspectives. The first is the visual impacts of the

33 operating units to users of the lake and the surrounding community. Second is the impact of

34 station cooling operations on Lake Anna and the surrounding area. This would include the

35 physical impacts on the water level of the lake of operating the two new units.

36

37 Visual Impacts

38

39 The turbine building for the existing units is about 30 m (100 ft) above grade, and the contain40 ment buildings are about 40 m (130 ft) above grade. The turbine building for the two new units

41 could be approximately 70 m (230 ft) above grade (Dominion 2004a). As previously discussed,
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-37 Draft NUREG-1811

1 once-through cooling, which requires no superstructure, would be used for Unit 3, as is the case

2 with Units 1 and 2. Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers, which would be approximately 46 m

3 (150 feet) high and would consist of a series of modules, each containing air-circulating fans. 

4 The dry modules would be expected to cover an area of approximately 9.7 ha (24 ac).

5

6 The nearest residential area to the North Anna ESP site is about 1000 m (3000 ft) north and is

7 shielded by forested land. Given this distance and vegetative shielding, most residents near the

8 site would not be expected to have a clear view of the new units. Recreational users on Lake

9 Anna and some residents along the lake would be able to see the new units as well as the

10 existing developed areas at the North Anna ESP site.

11

12 Some of the aesthetic impacts of station operation will be determined by the type of design

13 selected for the new units. Based on the selected design, Dominion would undertake a visual

14 impact study to assess the physical layout on the North Anna ESP site of the new reactors and

15 ancillary facilities with respect to the existing facilities to identify whether mitigative actions were

16 needed and could be undertaken to reduce the potential aesthetic impact of the new units on

17 the users of the lake to the extent practicable. The results would be included in the 

18 construction permit or combined license (COL) application for the new units (Dominion 2004a).

19

20 Cooling System Impacts

21

22 The staff also considered the potential atmospheric phenomena resulting from operation of

23 proposed types of heat-dissipation systems and their potential aesthetic impacts in the ESP site

24 vicinity. The once-through cooling water system for Unit 3 would discharge to the existing

25 WHTF for heat dissipation.

26

27 The WHTF dissipates the rejected heat from the plant by heat transfer to the atmosphere and

28 through internal mixing within the water body itself. Under extreme humidity conditions during

29 fall, winter, and spring, cool moist air above the WHTF could turn to fog (i.e., steam fog) and

30 drift to adjacent areas. According to Dominion, the impact of steam fog would be small because

31 this type of atmospheric phenomena tends to impact ground-level visibility in a very localized

32 area (Dominion 2004a). Additionally, the results from screening hourly meteorological data

33 collected at Richmond, Virginia, from 1996 to 2000 indicate that there were no hours

34 concurrently having relative humidity greater than 90 percent and ambient temperature below

35 0°C (32/F), the precursor conditions needed for steam fog formation. Therefore, steam-fog36 induced icing conditions have been very infrequent at the North Anna site and, the staff expects

37 the condition to be infrequent in the future.

38

39 Unit 4 would use closed-cycle dry cooling towers for heat dissipation. The towers themselves

40 do not allow circulating water to evaporate because the water is fully contained within the tubes. 

41 Therefore, it is expected that there would be no impacts from visible plumes (Dominion 2004a).
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-38 November 2004

1 Because of the severe drought conditions experienced within the Lake Anna area between

2 October 2001 and December 2002, and its impact on reducing the water levels in the lake, the

3 staff evaluated the impacts of the addition of thermal impacts of the Unit 3 discharge in relation

4 to water levels within Lake Anna. Under severe drought conditions, Unit 3 could have an

5 exacerbating effect on the drawdown of Lake Anna, potentially adding to the duration of low

6 water levels, which would affect the visual impact of the amount of shoreline exposed. 

7

8 Dominion, both in its revised ER and its response to a comment in correspondence with the

9 VDEQ, points out that the 2001 to 2002 water year (October through September) was the driest

10 year on record out of 108 years of record keeping (i.e., it appears to be a rare event). Dominion

11 also points out that the reservoir’s low levels occur generally after the end of September, which

12 marks the end of the park recreation season (Dominion 2004a), although use of the lake

13 continues into October and November. Impacts of the Unit 3 cooling system on the lake’s water

14 level could be more noticeable in time of drought.

15

16 Summary of Aesthetic Impacts

17

18 Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

19 concludes that the overall impacts of station operation of Units 3 and 4 on aesthetics is SMALL

20 because the new units would be located in the existing power station complex and the visual

21 aspects of the site to offsite viewers is limited. However, the staff notes that during severe

22 drought conditions, the operation of Unit 3 would have an impact on the water levels by adding

23 to the duration that shoreline mud flats may be exposed, during which time visual aesthetic

24 impacts could temporarily be moderate. Mitigation is not warranted due to the temporary nature

25 of the impact.

26

27 5.5.2 Demography

28

29 Population in the region within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of the North Anna ESP site is projected to

30 grow at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent between 2000 and 2020 (i.e., from 1,537,796 in

31 2000 to 2,160,921 in 2020; see Table 2-5). The economy in the region is considered to be

32 strong and is growing.

33

34 There are currently 720 personnel employed at NAPS for Units 1 and 2 (Dominion 2004a). 

35 Approximately 720 additional permanent workers would be required for the operation of the

36 proposed Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2004a). As a conservative measure, the staff assumed that

37 these 720 workers would relocate into the area with their families (i.e., none of the new workers

38 already lived in the area). The 720 additional employees would translate into an increase in

39 population of about 2900 to the region, assuming each new employee represents a family of

40 four (Dominion 2004a). Assuming that the geographic distribution of new employees would be

41 the same as for the existing units when it was evaluated for license renewal (NRC 2002) (see
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-39 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 2-17), about 208 new employees would settle in Louisa County, 163 in Spotsylvania

2 County, 105 in Orange County, 91 in Henrico County and the City of Richmond, and 153 in the

3 other counties within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of North Anna ESP site .

4

5 The addition of the new employees and their families would equate to the following percentage

6 increase in population (using 2000 census data, see Table 2-7): Louisa County, 3.2 percent;

7 Orange County, 1.6 percent; and Spotsylvania County, 0.7 percent. The potential percentage

8 increase for Henrico County and the City of Richmond would be substantially less than

9 0.1 percent. Overall, the potential increases in population do not represent a large percentage

10 increase in the total population, even for Louisa County, which is hypothesized to receive the

11 highest percentage of new employees.

12

13 Some new jobs may result from employment of the new operating personnel through the

14 multiplier effect attributable to the operations workforce. But these increases, when compared

15 to the total population base in the region, would be expected to be minimal as well. And many

16 of these new jobs would be filled by workers who already reside in the region.

17

18 The staff evaluated the impacts of station operation on increases in population and determined

19 that while the new operating personnel are expected to come from outside the region, their

20 small numbers, when considering the population base of each jurisdiction, would not

21 significantly increase the base population within each jurisdiction. Most new jobs created

22 through the multiplier effect are expected to go to workers who already reside in the region. 

23 Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that the impacts of station operation on

24 increases in the regional population would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

25

26 5.5.3 Community Characteristics

27

28 This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

29 operation of Units 3 and 4 at North Anna ESP site. The evaluation assesses impacts of

30 operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the surrounding region during a 40-

31 year operating license period. Dominion expects to employ up to an additional 720 workers to

32 operate the new units (Dominion 2004a). This is in addition to the 720 personnel currently

33 employed at the site (Dominion 2004a).

34

35 5.5.3.1 Economy

36

37 The impacts of station operation on the local and regional economy are dependent on the

38 region’s current and projected economy and population. Some insight can be obtained on the

39 projected economy and population by consulting county comprehensive plans and data from the

40 U.S. Census Bureau. The economic impacts over a 40-year period of station operation are

41 qualitatively discussed.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-40 November 2004

1 Dominion states that most new operating personnel are expected to come from outside the

2 region (Dominion 2004a). Their employment for such an extended period of time would have

3 economic and social impacts on the surrounding region. Louisa County (site of the operating

4 plants) would be the most impacted. Orange County may be the second most impacted. 

5 Outside of these areas, the impacts become diffuse as a result of interacting with the larger

6 economic base of the surrounding counties and the City of Richmond. Impacts would affect

7 areas such as transportation, taxes, aesthetics and recreation, housing, public services, and

8 education, which are discussed separately in the following sections. The magnitude of the

9 impacts hinge on (1) the percentage of the workforce that would come from within the region of

10 interest (80 km [50 mi]) and thus commute to the site and (2) those workers who might relocate

11 to the area and whether they relocate to Louisa and Orange Counties or Henrico County and

12 the City of Richmond.

13

14 The new jobs, as with the construction workforce, would also create new jobs in the region

15 through the multiplier effect. Any multiplier effect resulting from the operating personnel

16 expenditures in the region would most likely mean that some residents would obtain new or

17 higher paying jobs as a result of the increased economic activity.

18

19 The staff reviewed the generally positive impacts of station operation on the economy of the

20 region and concludes that the impacts would be small everywhere except potentially in Louisa

21 and Orange Counties, where the impacts could be moderate. The magnitude of the economic

22 impacts would be diffused in the larger economic bases of Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties

23 and the City of Richmond; whereas, within the smaller economic bases of Orange and Louisa

24 Counties, the economic impacts would be more noticeable. Based on the effects of station

25 operation on the regional economies, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts would be

26 small to moderate (Louisa and Orange County). In terms of adverse effects, the staff concludes

27 that the impact would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

28

29 5.5.3.2 Transportation

30

31 Section 4.5.3.2 discusses a number of permanent changes to the regional and local transpor32 tation network that could be made to reduce potential adverse impacts generated by the influx

33 of 5000 construction workers during construction of the new units. These include improvements

34 planned for I-95, U.S. 33, and State roads in Spotsylvania and Louisa Counties, among others. 

35 These permanent changes, if implemented, would reduce or eliminate any potential adverse

36 impacts that could be generated by the additional operating workforce of about 720 and their

37 families.

38

39 Impacts that might occur include potential congestion on some of the Federal and State routes

40 leading to the North Anna ESP site. In addition, there could be crowding and congestion at the

41 entrance to the plant site during shift changes, as previously discussed. Not all of the new 720
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-41 Draft NUREG-1811

1 permanent workers for Units 3 and 4 and existing operating labor force for Units 1 and 2 would

2 be commuting to and from the site at the same time and would mostly likely be spread

3 throughout the 24-hour period in two or three shifts.

4

5 Should transportation difficulties arise, Dominion could encourage some of the mitigation

6 practices undertaken during the construction phase as part of its traffic management plan, such

7 as promoting car and van pools, to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads leading to the

8 plant.

9

10 Based on the assumption that improvements made during the construction phase and the

11 activation of Dominion’s travel management plan, as needed, the staff concludes that the overall

12 impacts of station operation on transportation would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

13

14 5.5.3.3 Taxes

15

16 Several types of taxes would be applicable to the permanent workforce at North Anna ESP site. 

17 These include income taxes on wages and salaries paid and corporate profits, sales and use

18 taxes on purchases, and property taxes on owned, real property. Each is briefly discussed in

19 turn.

20

21 Income Taxes

22

23 Virginia has both personal and corporate income taxes. Wages and salaries of permanent

24 employees of Dominion’s new operating units would pay taxes to Virginia if they reside in

25 Virginia. Dominion would pay a corporate income tax to the state on the profits received from

26 the new units to the Commonwealth. While the exact amount of tax payable to Virginia is not

27 known, it could be substantial over the 40-year life of the operating units. The taxes collected

28 through personal income and corporate tax, while substantial, are nevertheless a small sum

29 when compared to the total amount of income taxes Virginia would collect over that period.

30

31 Sales and Use Taxes

32

33 Virginia has two types of sales and use taxes. Four percent is levied on certain food items with

34 3 percent going to the state and 1 percent going to the local jurisdiction in which the tax is

35 collected (VDOT 2000). In addition, Virginia has a 4.5 percent sales tax levied on other goods

36 and services sold, with the state receiving 3.5 percent and local jurisdictions receiving the

37 remaining 1 percent (VDOT 1987). The current combined sales and use tax rate for Louisa

38 County is 4.5 percent; 3.5 percent would be paid to the Commonwealth of Virginia and 1

39 percent to the locality, such as Louisa County (Dominion 2004a).

40
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-42 November 2004

1 The state and the counties surrounding the North Anna ESP site would experience an increase

2 in the amount of sales and use taxes collected from purchases made by the employees of the

3 site. Additional sales and use taxes would be generated by expenditures by the workers at

4 restaurants, hotels, and retail outlets. The taxes paid to any one jurisdiction are a small sum

5 when compared to the total sales and use taxes collected by the region as a whole.

6

7 Property Taxes

8

9 The counties surrounding the ESP site and the City of Richmond would benefit from additional

10 revenue generated by property taxes collected from new North Anna employees who purchase

11 houses.

12

13 Property taxes would be levied on Dominion by Louisa County for the increase in value of the

14 NAPS property because of the new units, as well as continued levies on the existing Units 1 and

15 2. An average of 46 percent of the property taxes collected in Louisa County between 1995 and

16 2003 came from Dominion for NAPS. The addition of the new units at the North Anna ESP site

17 could substantially increase the property tax payments. The existing units have enabled the

18 property tax rate assessments in Louisa County to remain substantially below those of

19 neighboring counties. Operation of the new units would help offset the depreciation of the

20 existing units; thus, NAPS could continue to be a major benefit to Louisa County when the new

21 units start operating.

22

23 The potential effects of electric utility deregulation within Virginia on Units 3 and 4 are not known

24 at this time (NRC 2002b). However, it is reasonable to conclude that the operation of new units

25 should result in an increase in, or at least the maintenance of, the existing amounts paid in

26 property taxes to Louisa County.

27

28 It is not possible to estimate either the real property taxes on housing that would be paid to the

29 regional governments by the new employees locating to the area, or expenditures that the

30 regional governments would incur as a result of the need to provide increased services (e.g.,

31 school, recreational, medical, fire and police, and transportation systems) for the new

32 employees at North Anna site. The expenditures by the regional governments would, in part, be

33 related to the number, size, and age distribution of the families of the new employees.

34

35 The staff considers the overall impacts of the property taxes collected to be beneficially large for

36 Louisa County and small for the other counties in the vicinity of NAPS. The amount of property

37 taxes collected on the operation of the new units could represent a significant portion of the total

38 property taxes collected by Louisa County.

39
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-43 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Summary of the Impact of Taxes

2

3 The staff evaluated the effect of taxes from income on wages and salaries of Units 3 and 4

4 operational workers, and sales, use, and property taxes on these employees and on Dominion’s

5 corporate profits, most of which represent beneficial sources of income for the State and some

6 of which would benefit the counties in the region. Property tax paid by Dominion would directly

7 benefit Louisa County. Based on a review of the overall impacts from income, sales and use,

8 and property taxes, the staff concludes that the beneficial impact level would be small on the

9 region to large for Louisa County. Therefore, the adverse impact level would be SMALL, and

10 mitigation is not warranted.

11

12 5.5.3.4 Recreation

13

14 Lake Anna is a major tourist draw and economic benefit to Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania

15 Counties. The social and economic impacts to recreation on and around the lake would most

16 likely be associated with increased congestion on local roads and with reduced lake levels

17 during severe droughts.

18

19 The staff assumes that any needed improvements made to the road systems and implemen20 tation of Dominion’s traffic management program would have occurred before or during the

21 construction phase would be sufficient to handle traffic related to the operation of Units 3 and 4. 

22 If for some reason measures to mitigate the congestion are not implemented, such congestion

23 could precipitate less recreational use of the lake, which would have an adverse economic

24 impact on the surrounding counties. To accommodate the increases in population and the

25 demands for recreational facilities, Louisa, Spotsylvania, and Orange Counties may be required

26 to address and fund new recreational areas as they update their comprehensive plans

27 (Dominion 2004a). Also, road improvements undertaken to alleviate congestion during the

28 construction phase of the project could alleviate or minimize any congestion around the lake as

29 a result of new employees and their families.

30

31 Most of the 43,000 anglers visiting Lake Anna every year use the boat ramps at Lake Anna

32 State Park and at commercial marinas to launch their boats. Pleasure traffic on the lake

33 exceeds angler traffic by as much as 10 to 15 times. The height of stationary boat docks are

34 impacted when the lake level drops below 76 m (248 ft) above MSL. At these levels and below,

35 the stationary docks become unusable. However, boat ramps would be usable for launching

36 boats until the water level receded below the end of the ramp. During the 2001 to 2002

37 drought, most boat ramps could not support launches at lake levels below 74.7 (245.1 ft) MSL 

38 (Dominion 2004d). 

39

40 As discussed in Section 2.8.2.4, visitors to the state park actually increased during 2002 above

41 the previous years, while the number of boat launches at the park in 2002 was fewer than
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) Note that these numbers do not include boat launches from private marinas.

Draft NUREG-1811 5-44 November 2004

1 launches in 2001 by 13.2 percent. The number of boat launches declined by an additional

2.4 percent in 2003, which was not a drought year.(a) 2 Thus, there appears to have been a

3 decline in the boating during the drought years, but an increase in the use of the park itself

4 There is a concern, as discussed in Section 5.5.1.4, that the operation of Unit 3 with its once5 through cooling system, together with Units 1 and 2 and their once-through cooling systems,

6 would exacerbate conditions at the lake during times of drought.

7

8 These impacts could have economic consequences to the three counties surrounding the lake. 

9 The more immediate impacts would be to the marinas and commercial businesses that earn

10 revenue on a seasonal basis from recreational users of the lake. If drought conditions extend

11 over a long enough time period, property values around the lake could be impacted as well. 

12 Particularly impacted would be homeowners with lake-front houses who could have mud-flat

13 views instead of their preferred water views. Minimal recreational impacts to Lake Anna from

14 operation of the units are expected to occur during non-drought conditions.

15

16 The staff reviewed the information provided in Dominion’s ER, Dominion’s response to ques17 tions raised by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Dominion 2004d), and conducted

18 an independent evaluation. The economic aspects of recreational use of Lake Anna depend on

19 whether traffic congestion around the lake from the operation of Units 3 and 4 is mitigated. The

20 staff expects that this traffic congestion would be mitigated before or during the construction

21 phase. It also depends on the frequency, severity, and duration of severe drought conditions in

22 the future that would make launching boats into the lake difficult. The latter could adversely

23 impact use of the lake, recreational visits to the area by people from outside the region, and

24 enjoyment of the lake by property owners. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes

25 that the overall potential impacts of station operation on aesthetics and recreation would be

26 SMALL. However, the staff notes that impacts may be moderate if traffic congestion is not

27 managed. In addition, during drought years the impact to recreation could be moderate due to

28 short term low lake level.

29

30 5.5.3.5 Housing

31

32 Section 2.8.2.5 reviewed the availability of housing in the region and presented tables

33 specifically showing that the availability of housing units for sale and rent in the region could

34 easily accommodate the expected permanent workforce of 720 new employees. Further, the

35 counties in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site and within the region are addressing the

36 needs of the projected increases in population in their comprehensive plans (Louisa County

37 2001; Spotsylvania County 2002; Orange County 1999).

38
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-45 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Spotsylvania, Louisa, and Orange Counties do not have growth moratoriums. The incomes of

2 the new workforce would generally be expected to be higher than the overall average of

3 incomes in Orange and Louisa Counties and the City of Richmond. The staff also anticipates

4 that the new operating personnel would buy housing in the region rather than renting. It can be

5 expected that the prices paid for housing by these employees would be on the high end of the

6 price range within these counties and the City of Richmond. However, the new workers and

7 their families are a small percentage of the existing and projected populations for the counties

8 and the City of Richmond over the next 10 years (see Table 2-11). Therefore, the impact on

9 housing prices of workers locating to the counties within the larger population areas (Henrico

10 County and the City of Richmond) are expected to be minimal.

11

12 In Spotsylvania County, housing prices are already high when compared to the surrounding

13 counties. In Orange and Louisa Counties there could be upward pressure on housing prices at

14 the upper end of the range because there are fewer units available in that range and some new

15 construction may need to take place to meet demand. The staff would expect many of the new

16 employees to locate into existing upscale areas of development in these counties, such as Lake

17 Anna (Orange, Louisa, and Spotsylvania Counties) and Lake of the Woods (Orange County). 

18 Should that be the case, there are enough home builders available to meet an increase in

19 demand (Ryan 2003; Waugh 2003), although there are some shortages in the specialty skills

20 such as stone or brick masons (Ryan 2003).

21

22 Based on the existence of a sufficient supply of houses in all price ranges within Henrico and

23 Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, the staff concludes that the impacts of station

24 operation on housing would be SMALL in these areas, and mitigation is not warranted. 

25 Because of their proximity to the North Anna ESP site, the housing impacts within Orange and

26 Louisa Counties could experience a temporary shortage that would increase housing prices that

27 could create a moderate impact in the short-term. However, eventually over the 40-year

28 operating life, the supply of housing would increase to meet demand. Therefore, the staff

29 concludes the long-term impacts of station operation in Orange and Louisa Counties would be

30 SMALL, and no mitigation is warranted.

31

32 5.5.3.6 Public Services

33

34 Water Supply and Waste Treatment Facilities

35

36 As discussed in Section 2.8.2.6, Louisa and Orange Counties, in light of current growth, have

37 some concern about water and sewer infrastructure in certain parts of their respective counties,

38 which are currently experiencing growth or are expected to grow. The incorporated areas of the

39 two counties appear to have excess capacity in their sewer treatment facilities, but the recent

40 drought revealed a water-supply issue. Wells and septic tanks are the methods of managing

41 water supply and sewage disposal in residential developments outside the incorporated areas. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-46 November 2004

1 Louisa County addresses the issue of water supply in its comprehensive plan (Louisa County

2 2001). Orange County is encouraging development in the existing growth areas to lessen the

3 impact on the rural character of the county (Orange 1999). Spotsylvania and Henrico Counties

4 and the City of Richmond appear to have adequate infrastructure and excess capacities for both

5 water and sewage disposal.

6

7 The current water supply and sewage disposal issues in Orange and Louisa Counties would

8 exist whether the two new nuclear units were operated or not, and could be exacerbated with

9 normal, projected population growth. The potential impacts associated with hiring new

10 permanent employees would be contingent on where in the counties the employees locate,

11 whether there are water and sewer issues in those locations, and the extent to which they have

12 been previously addressed.

13

14 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

15

16 In Orange and Louisa Counties there are no hospitals. Most patients requiring hospitalization

17 travel to Charlottesville or Richmond, or to Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties. In Orange

18 County, the fire departments are made up of volunteers, and rescue services are composed of

19 both volunteer and paid employees. Services may need upgrading to account for normal

20 population growth and, if upgraded, could account for any population growth caused by the new

21 employees. In Louisa County, general fire, police, and rescue services are considered

22 presently adequate. In the larger metropolitan area of Richmond and Henrico and Spotsylvania

23 Counties, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be materially impacted by an increase in

24 the permanent workforce at North Anna ESP site. This is because the 720 new employees

25 would be a small fraction of the expected population growth in these areas.

26

27 Social Services

28

29 This section focuses on the potential impacts of station operation on the social and related

30 services provided to segments of the disadvantaged population in Louisa and Orange Counties. 

31 Issues surrounding environmental justice are discussed in Section 5.7.

32

33 Operation of the new units at the North Anna ESP site is viewed as beneficial to the

34 economically disadvantaged population segments served by the Departments of Social

35 Services for Louisa and Orange Counties. Operation of the new units may enable members the

36 disadvantaged population to improve their social and economic position by advancing to higher

37 paying jobs created by the multiplier effect of station operation jobs. Based on where the

38 current operating workforce for Units 1 and 2 lives and with the expectation that the new

39 employees would follow similar location patterns, many of these benefits could accrue to Louisa

40 County.

41
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-47 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The expected benefits of station operation to Orange County would be, as in Louisa County, the

2 secondary jobs provided by expenditures of the operations workforce in the county. Many of the

3 jobs created through the multiplier effect could be of the type that would go to members of the

4 disadvantaged population. 

5

6 Summary of Public Services

7

8 Based on the information provided by Dominion and the staff’s independent review of the local

9 and regional water and wastewater treatment capacities; the police, fire, and medical facilities;

10 and the demand for social and related services, the staff concludes that any increase in demand

11 for these services by an increase in the operations workforce would be SMALL, and mitigation is

12 not warranted. The increase in employment associated with station operation could have

13 beneficial impacts, which could reduce the demand for social services, while the increase in tax

14 revenue could help with the infrastructure and resource requirements from potential increase in

15 demand for other services (police, fire, etc.).

16

17 5.5.3.7 Education

18

19 As discussed in Section 2.8.2.7, Orange County is currently expanding its school infrastructure

20 and, as a result, could accommodate modest growth in student population. Louisa County

21 schools are currently overcrowded. Enrollment is growing at 2 percent a year. Tax rates in the

22 county have not been increased in six years, so that while the schools are being maintained,

23 there has been no new construction to accommodate the increased enrollment. Property was

24 purchased to build a new elementary school in 2004 with construction to start in 2005. Property

25 has also been purchased for a new middle school (Lintecum 2003). Any increase in student

26 population caused by the newly hired permanent workers relocating to the county could

27 exacerbate the existing situation if the additions to the educational infrastructure do not take

28 place.

29

30 A majority of the new workers would be expected to establish residences in the larger

31 population areas such as Henrico, Hanover, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

32 Richmond, assuming that the new workers would follow the same location patterns as the

33 current permanent workforce at the NAPS site. Given that the workers would be distributed

34 throughout the metropolitan region, increased enrollment of students on school infrastructure in

35 those areas is expected to be minimal. It is also possible, should crowding continue to exist in

36 Louisa County at the time the new workers are hired, that such conditions could cause fewer

37 new workers to locate in Louisa County than might otherwise.

38

39 Orange County currently has excess capacity. Louisa County is addressing its current

40 overcrowding problem through the planned building of new schools. Any new construction

41 undertaken to meet the demands placed on the system by the construction workforce would be
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-48 November 2004

1 available to accommodate the demands of the operation workforce. The infrastructure in

2 Spotsylvania and Henrico Counties and the City of Richmond is considered adequate given the

3 size of the base population vis-a-vis the small increase in that population caused by the new

4 employees relocating to these jurisdictions. Based on the information provided by Dominion

5 and the staff’s independent review of the local and regional educational facilities, the staff

6 concludes that the impact on education as a result of station operation would be SMALL, and

7 mitigation is not warranted.

8

9 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts

10

11 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended through 1992, requires Federal

12 agencies to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. 

13 The historic review process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations

14 issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 36 CFR Part 800, as amended. 

15 Evaluating the suitability of potential ESP sites for construction, operation, and

16 decommissioning of new power units is an undertaking that could possibly affect either known

17 or potential historic properties that may be located at the plant. Therefore, in accordance with

18 the provisions of NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic

19 properties in the areas of potential effects. If no historic properties are present or affected, NRC

20 is required to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer before proceeding. If it is determined

21 that historic properties are present, NRC is required to assess and resolve possible adverse

22 effects of the undertaking. Should an alternate site be selected for an ESP, NRC would also

23 undertake consultation with all potentially affected Native American tribes regarding the possible

24 presence of traditional cultural properties or other culturally sensitive resources at the site. For

25 more specific historic and cultural information on North Anna, see Section 2.9.

26

27 In that all ground-disturbing activities that could have an impact on historic or cultural resources

28 would probably occur during the construction phase, there would be limited potential for impacts

29 during operation of additional power units at North Anna. Should archaeological, historic, or

30 other cultural resources be uncovered during site excavation, Dominion would implement its

31 site-wide Excavation and Backfill Work Procedures (NAPS NSS Work Procedure WP-C01)

32 involving an immediate stop work order. Based on the limited potential for historic or cultural

33 resources on site and Dominion’s existing mitigation plan should such items be discovered, the

34 staff concludes that the historic and cultural impacts from operations would be SMALL, and

35 mitigation is not warranted.

36

37 5.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

38

39 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

40 addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines “minority” as American

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black not of Hispanic Origin, or Hispanic (69 FR

52040, August 24, 2004).

November 2004 5-49 Draft NUREG-1811

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) 1 or low-income populations. On

2 August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental

3 justice matters in licensing actions (NRC 2004). Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show the locations of

4 minority and low-income populations around the NAPS site and within an 80-km (50-mi) radius.

5

6 The staff identified the pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with the

7 construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site could affect human populations. The staff then

8 evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by

9 these impacts. In its December 2003 on site review, the staff interviewed local government

10 officials and the staff of social welfare agencies concerning potentially disproportionate impacts

11 to low income and minority populations. The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or

12 practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which the populations

13 could be disproportionate impacted by construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site that would

14 result in those populations being adversely affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any

15 location-dependent disproportionately high and adverse impacts affecting these minority and

16 low-income populations.

17

18 Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

19 concludes that offsite impacts of operation of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site to

20 minority and low-income populations would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

21

22

23
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-50 November 2004

1

2 Figure 5-2. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Minority Populations Within an

3 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP Site

4
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-51 Draft NUREG-1811

1

2 Figure 5-3. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Low Income Populations

3 Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP Site

4

5 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

6

7 This section addresses the health impacts of operating the proposed new units at the North

8 Anna ESP site from nonradiological sources. Health impacts to the public from the cooling

9 system, noise generated by unit operations, and electromagnetic fields are discussed. Health

10 impacts from the same sources are also evaluated for workers at the new units. Health impacts

11 from radiological sources during operations are discussed in Section 5.9.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-52 November 2004

1 The potential exists for impacts to members of the public from operation of the transmission

2 system in terms of electrical shock, electromagnetic field exposure, noise, and aesthetics. The

3 current transmission lines that originate from the North Anna ESP site are sized to handle the

4 output from Units 3 and 4. These lines consist of three 500-kV lines that were erected in the

5 late 1970s and one 230-kV line erected in 1984. Both sets were designed and constructed

6 according to National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) requirements and industry guidance that

7 was current at that time (Dominion 2004a).

8

9 5.8.1 Public Health

10

11 Dominion proposes an open-cycle cooling system (i.e., cooling lake) for Unit 3 and a closed12 cycle cooling system (i.e., dry cooling tower) for Unit 4. The NRC concluded in NUREG-1437

13 that the impacts of thermophilic micro-organisms on public health should be considered for

14 open-cycle cooling systems such as is proposed for Unit 3 because use of a cooling lake may

15 significantly increase the presence and numbers of thermophilic micro-organisms (NRC 1996). 

16 These microorganisms could be causative agents of potentially serious human infections.

17

18 Dominion noted that thermophilic micro-organisms (e.g., Naegleria fowleri) generally exist in

19 water bodies with ambient temperatures between 25°C (77°F) to 80°C (176°F) with maximum

20 growth of such organisms generally occurring when ambient temperatures are maintained

21 between 50°C (122°F) and 60°C (140°F) (Dominion 2001b). Since 1975, Virginia Power has

22 monitored water temperatures at various locations in Lake Anna, the WHTF, and the discharge

23 canal. The highest temperature recorded in (1) the discharge canal was 39°C (102.4°F) in

24 August 2002, (2) the WHTF was 35°C (95.0°F) in July 1993, and (3) Lake Anna was 34°C

25 (92.7°F) in July 1977. These temperatures were hourly average values. While ambient

26 summer water temperatures in the sampled locations were found to be within the range of those

27 known to permit the reproduction and growth of pathogenic micro-organisms, the temperatures

28 measured were below those considered optimal for the growth of thermophilic forms.

29

30 Thermophilic micro-organisms can cause primary amoebic encephalitis in man. No cases of

31 primary amoebic encephalitis have been documented in NAPS workers or area residents during

32 the operating history of Units 1 and 2 (Dominion 2004a). The addition of Units 3 and 4 at the

33 ESP site, one of which will use Lake Anna as a cooling source, is not expected to increase the

34 temperature in Lake Anna enough to create an environment conducive to the optimal growth of

35 thermophilic organisms.

36

37 Another source of health concern is water-borne pathogens from domestic sewage waste water. 

38 Dominion noted in its ER, that Virginia Power recently upgraded the onsite sewage treatment

39 plant to include disinfection processes that reduce coliform bacteria and other micro-organisms

40 to levels that meet State water-quality standards. This upgraded sewage treatment plant would

41 be able to handle waste from the new units (Dominion 2004a) .
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-53 Draft NUREG-1811

1 5.8.2 Occupational Health

2

3 Occupational health impacts from thermophilic micro-organisms would be the same as those

4 discussed above for the public. Health impacts to worker from nonradiological emissions and

5 from noise and electromagnetic fields would be monitored and controlled in accordance with the

6 applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations.

7

8 5.8.3 Noise Impacts

9

10 In NUREG-1437 the staff discussed the environmental impacts of noise at existing nuclear

11 power plants (NRC 1996). Common sources of noise from plant operation include cooling

12 towers, transformers, and loud speakers with intermittent contributions from auxiliary equipment. 

13 These noise sources are generally sufficiently distant from the plant boundaries that the noise

14 generated by the plant diminishes to near ambient levels before reaching critical receptors

15 outside the plant boundary.

16

17 The existing Units 1 and 2 at NAPS use an open-cycle cooling system that draws water from

18 North Anna Reservoir and returns water to the WHTF. These systems do not contribute signifi19 cantly to noise at the plant site or at the plant boundary. In its ER Dominion specifies that the

20 new Unit 3 would be cooled by a open-cycle cooling system using the WHTF, and that Unit 4

21 would be cooled by dry cooling towers (Dominion 2004a). If the plants are ultimately

22 constructed, the dry towers for cooling Unit 4 would be the primary noise source on the site.

23

24 The applicant does not specify the sound intensity for dry cooling towers directly. However,

25 Dominion states that the sound intensity from a dry cooling tower would be less than 65

26 decibels at 300 m (1000 ft) (Dominion 2004a). In general, the decrease in sound intensity with

27 distance from the source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. According to

28 Dominion, the closest point of the exclusion area boundary is about 100 m (300 ft) from the

29 cooling tower location, and the closest residence is about 1000 m (3000 ft). Using these

30 distances, the inverse square relationship, and the PPE cooling tower noise specification, the

31 corresponding sound intensities at the exclusion area boundary and nearest residence are

32 estimated to be approximately 75 and 55 decibels, respectively. For context, Tipler (1982) lists

33 the sound intensity of a quiet office as 50 decibels, normal conversation as 60 decibels, busy

34 traffic as 70 decibels, and a noisy office with machines or an average factory as 80 decibels. 

35 Construction noise at 3 m (10 ft) is listed as 110 decibels, and the human pain threshold is 120

36 decibels.

37

38 As discussed in NUREG-1437, noise levels below 60 to 65 decibels are considered to be of

39 small significance (NRC 1996). More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in

40 Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002a). In that generic environmental impact statement,

41 the criterion for assessing the level of significance was not expressed in terms of sound levels. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-54 November 2004

1 Rather, the level of significance was based on the effect of noise on human activities and

2 threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 is:

3

4 The noise impacts of... are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high to

5 disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts ... are considered

6 destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area is essentially

7 unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding of a threatened or

8 endangered species is affected.

9

10 Based on the information provided by Dominion and the assessment in NUREG-0586

11 Supplement 1, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of noise resulting from operation of

12 two additional nuclear power plants with cooling systems meeting the noise criteria of the PPE

13 as defined in the ER would be small.

14

15 5.8.4 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

16

17 Currently, the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) requires that, to limit the potential for

18 electric shock, the design of transmission lines be such that electrostatic effects from operation

19 do not create a steady-state current that exceeds 5 mA root mean square (rms). As part of the

20 license renewal application for NAPS Units 1 and 2, the applicant analyzed the potential

21 induced current for all four transmission lines under the limiting case conditions. The computed

22 values ranged from 3.10 to 4.95 mA and were confirmed by field verification (Dominion 2004a). 

23 The current NESC requirements for preventing electric shock from induced current were met,

24 and the staff concluded that the impact to the public would be small. And verify the NESC limits

25 at the COL stage for transmission of electricity from Units 3 and 4. At the CP/COL Dominion will

26 have to verify that the transmission lines meet the NESC criteria. Therefore, the staff concludes

27 that the impact from acute effects of electromagnetic fields is small and mitigation is not

28 warranted.

29

30 5.8.5 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

31

32 Research on the potential for chronic effects from 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from energized

33 transmission lines was reviewed and addressed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). At that time,

34 research results were not conclusive. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

35 (NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department of Energy. An NIEHS report

36 (1999) contains the following conclusion:

37

38 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

39 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

40 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant

41 aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-55 Draft NUREG-1811

1 uses electricity and is exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as

2 a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means

3 aimed at reducing exposure. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer

4 health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

5

6 This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impact as significant

7 to the public. However, the staff will continue to follow developments on this issue.

8

9 5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

10

11 The staff evaluated health impacts to the public and the workers from the cooling systems,

12 noise generated by unit operations, and acute and chronic impacts of electromagnetic fields. 

13 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

14 concludes that the potential impacts of nonradiological effects resulting from the operation of

15 two additional nuclear power plants with cooling systems meeting the noise criteria of the PPE

16 as defined in the ER would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

17

18 5.9 Radiological Health Impacts

19

20 This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of the proposed new Units

21 3 and 4 including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public and to

22 the biota inhabiting the area around the new units. Estimated doses to workers at the new units

23 are also discussed. Radiological impacts were determined using the PPE approach where the

24 bounding liquid and gaseous radiological effluents were used in the evaluation (see discussion

25 in Section 3.2.4). Direct radiation exposure from the proposed new units was determined to be

26 negligible (Dominion 2004a).

27

28 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

29

30 During normal operation, small quantities of radiological materials will be released to the

31 environment through gaseous and liquid effluents from the plant. Dominion stated in its ER that

32 the contribution to direct radiation exposure from new reactor designs would be negligible

33 (Dominion 2004a).

34
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-56 November 2004

1 Using the PPE, the ER submitted by Dominion provided a list of fission and activation products

2 that may be released as liquid and gaseous effluents from the new Units 3 and 4 (Dominion

3 2004a). The impacts from releases and direct radiation were evaluated by considering the

4 probable pathways to individuals, populations, and biota near the proposed new units. The

5 highest dose from the major exposure pathways were evaluated for a given receptor. The

6 exposure pathways, described in Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111 (NRC 1977a,b) are

7 illustrated in Figures 5-4 and 5-5.

8

9 The new units at the North Anna ESP site would release liquid effluents into the WHTF through

10 the discharge canals used for the operating units. The liquid pathways considered are ingestion

11 of aquatic food, ingestion of drinking water, exposure to shoreline sediment, and exposure to

12 water through boating, swimming, and other activities (Dominion 2004a).

13

14 The gaseous pathways considered by Dominion in its ER were external exposure to the

15 airborne plume; external exposure to contaminated ground, inhalation of airborne activity, and

16 ingestion of contaminated agricultural products (Dominion 2004a).

17
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-57 Draft NUREG-1811

1

2 Figure 5-4. Exposure Pathways to Humans
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-58 November 2004

1 Figure 5-5. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-59 Draft NUREG-1811

1 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

2

3 The dose to a maximally exposed individual was calculated from both the liquid and gaseous

4 effluent release pathways (Dominion 2004a), and a collective whole body dose was calculated

5 for the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the North Anna ESP site.

6

7 Liquid Effluent Pathway

8

9 Liquid pathway doses were calculated using the LADTAPII computer program (Strenge et al.

10 1986) for the following activities: eating fish and invertebrates caught near the discharge point,

11 drinking water from Lake Anna, and boating, swimming, and using the shoreline for recreational

12 purposes. The liquid effluent releases for one new unit used in the estimate of dose to a maxi13 mally exposed individual are found in Table 5.4-6 of the ER submitted by Dominion

14 (Dominion 2004a). These releases considered the advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR)

15 design to have an output level of 4300 MW(t) rather than the certified level of 3926 MW(t). This

16 resulted in a slight increase in release rate for those isotopes where the ABWR design was the

17 bounding condition. Other parameters used as input to the LADTAP II program including

18 effluent discharge rate, dilution factor for discharge, transit time to receptor, and impoundment

19 concentration are found in Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 of the Dominion ER (Dominion 2004a).

20

21 Liquid pathway doses to the maximally exposed individuals calculated by Dominion (2004a) are

22 presented in Table 5-8. The maximum annual dose to the total body was 0.013 mSv

23 (1.3 mrem) to the adult. The maximum annual dose to the thyroid was 0.013 mSv (1.3 mrem) to

24 the infant. The maximum annual dose to the liver was 0.017 mSv (1.7 mrem) to the child. The

25 staff performed an independent evaluation of liquid pathway doses and found similar results.

26

27
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-60 November 2004

1 Table 5-8. Liquid Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individuals at Lake Anna

2

3 Pathway

Total Body

Dose (mSv/yr)(a)

Thyroid Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Liver Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

4 4.9 x 10 Fish -3 0 5.9 x 10-3

5 6.6 x 10 Invertebrate -4 0 9.9 x 10-4

6 6.9 x10 Drinking -3 1.3 x 10-2 9.4 x 10-3

7 3.0 x 10 Shoreline -4 3.0 x 10-4 3.0 x 10-4

8 3.0 x 10 Swimming -6 3.0 x 10-6 3.0 x 10-6

9 3.7 x 10 Boating -6 3.7 x 10-6 3.7 x 10-6

10 1.3 x 10 Total -2 1.3 x 10-2 1.7 x 10-2

11 Adult Infant Child Age group receiving maximum dose

12 (a) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr

13 Source: Dominion 2004a, Table 5.4-8. Doses were estimated for one unit.

14

15 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

16

17 Gaseous pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual were calculated by Dominion

18 using the GASPAR II computer program (Strenge et al. 1987) at the following locations: the

19 nearest site boundary, nearest vegetable garden, nearest residence, and nearest meat cow. 

20 Doses from the milk pathway were not calculated as there were no milk cows or goats located

21 within a 8-km (5-mi) radius of the ESP site (Dominion 2004a). The gaseous effluent releases

22 used in the estimate of dose to the maximally exposed individual are found in Table 5.4-7 of the

23 Dominion ER (Dominion 2004a). These releases, which were estimated for one unit,

24 considered the ABWR design to have an output level of 4300 MW(t) rather than the certified

25 level of 3926 MW(t). This resulted in a slight increase in release rate for those isotopes where

26 the ABWR design, as certified, was the bounding condition. Other inputs to the GASPAR II

27 program, including meat, and vegetable production rates, atmospheric dispersion factors,

28 ground deposition factors, receptor locations, and consumption factors, are found in Tables 5.4-

29 3 through 5.4-5 of the Dominion ER (Dominion 2004a).

30

31 Gaseous pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual calculated by Dominion (2004a)

32 are presented in Table 5-9. The staff performed an independent evaluation of gaseous pathway

33 doses and found similar results.

34

35
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-61 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 5-9. Gaseous Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individual

2

3 Location Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Thyroid Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Skin Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

4 Nearest Site Boundary

5 (0.88 mi ESE)

Plume 1.4 x 10-2 0 4.2 x 10-2

6 Nearest Site Boundary

7 (0.88 mi ESE)

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

3.0 x 10-3

3.0 x 10-3

2.7 x 10-3

1.6 x 10-3

1.3 x 10-2

1.6 x 10-2

1.9 x 10-2

1.6 x 10-2

0

0

0

0

8 Vegetable Nearest Garden (0.94 mi NE)

Adult

Teen

Child

4.1 x 10-3

5.4 x 10-3

9.9 x 10-3

2.9 x 10-2

3.9 x 10-2

7.4 x 10-2

0

0

0

9 Nearest Residence 

10 (0.96 mi NNE)

Plume 9.0 x 10-3 0 2.7 x 10-2

11 Nearest Residence 

12 (0.96 mi NNE)

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

2.0 x 10-3

2.0 x 10-3

1.8 x 10-3

1.0 x 10-3

8.3 x 10-3

1.0 x 10-2

1.2 x 10-2

1.0 x 10-2

0

0

0

0

13 Nearest Meat Cow 

14 (1.37 mi SE)

Meat

Adult

Teen

Child

5.7 x 10-4

4.4 x 10-4

7.0 x 10-4

1.0 x 10-3

7.6 x 10-4

1.2 x 10-3

0

0

0

15 (a) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

16 Source: Dominion (2004a), Table 5.4-9. Doses were estimated for one unit. There were no milk cows or

17 goats within 8 km (5 mi) (Dominion 2004a). No infant doses were calculated for the vegetable or meat

18 pathway as infants do not consume these foods (Dominion 2004a).

19

20 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public

21

22 Maximally Exposed Individual

23

24 Dominion (2004a) stated that whole body and organ dose estimates to the maximally exposed

25 individual from liquid and gaseous effluents for one unit were within the design objectives of

26 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Doses to whole body and maximum organ at Lake Anna from

27 liquid effluents were well within the 0.03 mSv/yr (3 mrem/yr) and 0.01 mSv/yr (10 mrem/yr)

28 Appendix I design objectives, respectively. Doses at the site boundary from gaseous effluents

29 were well within the Appendix I design objectives of 0.1 mGy/yr (10 mrad/yr) gamma in air,

30 0.2 mGy/yr (20 mrad/yr) beta in air, 0.05 mSv/yr (5 mrem/yr) dose to the whole body, and

31 0.015 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) dose to the skin. In addition, dose to the thyroid was within the 0.15
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-62 November 2004

1 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) Appendix I design objectives. A comparison of dose estimates for one unit

2 to the Appendix I design objectives is presented in Table 5-10.

3

4 The cumulative effects of two new units would still be within the Appendix I design objectives. 

5 For comparison, gaseous and liquid effluents from the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 contribute a

6 small fraction of the Appendix I design objectives (i.e., less than 2 percent) (NRC 2002). 

7 Therefore, the cumulative effects of both the current operating units and the two proposed units

8 would be within the Appendix I design objectives.

9

10 If Dominion applies for a CP or a COL, the staff would verify whether liquid and gaseous effluent

11 releases for the actual reactor design(s) are bounded by the PPE bounding release values used

12 by Dominion in its ESP application. Additional evaluations would be performed if bounding

13 release values are exceeded.

14

15

16 Table 5-10. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

17 Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Design Objectives

18

19 Pathway/Type of Dose Dominion (2003a)(a,b) Appendix I Design Objectives

20 Liquid Effluents

21 0.013 mSv/yr adult 0.03 mSv/yr Whole body dose

22 0.017 mSv/yr teen liver 0.1 mSv/yr Maximum organ dose

23 Gaseous Effluents (Noble gases only)

24 0.021 mGy/yr 0.1 mGy/yr Gamma air dose

25 0.035 mGy/yr 0.2 mGy/yr Beta air dose

26 0.017 mSv/yr 0.05 mSv/yr Whole body dose

27 0.042 mSv/yr 0.15 mSv/yr Skin dose

28 Gaseous Effluents (Radioiodines and particulates)

29 0.077 mSv/yr (thyroid) 0.15 mSv/yr Organ dose

30 (a) Doses were estimated for one unit.

31 (b) Multiply mSv/yr (or mGy/yr) times 100 to obtain mrem/yr (or mrad/yr)

32

33 Dominion (2004a) stated that doses from liquid and gaseous effluents to the maximally exposed

34 individual at the site boundary from the existing Units 1 and 2 and the two proposed Units 3 and

35 4 combined were well within the regulatory standards of 40 CFR Part 190. Doses from direct

36 radiation were determined to be negligible (Dominion 2004a). The dose standards from 40

37 CFR Part 190 are 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv/yr (75 mrem/yr) to the

38 thyroid, and 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to any other organ. The combined estimated doses from

39 the existing units and the proposed new units were 0.062 mSv/yr (6.2 mrem/yr) to the whole

40 body, 0.18 mSv/yr (18 mrem/yr) to the thyroid, and 0.084 mSv/yr (8.4 mrem/yr) to the bone for
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-63 Draft NUREG-1811

1 the maximally exposed individual at the site boundary (Dominion 2004a). These data are sum2 marized in Table 5-11. Adherence to the 40 CFR Part 190 dose standards, ensures compliance

3 with 10 CFR 20.1301, which states that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members

4 of the public from licensed operations shall not exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem) in a year.

5

6 Table 5-11. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standardsa 7

8

9 Dose Dominion (2003a)

Estimate(b)(c)

40 CFR 190 Standards

10 0.062 mSv/yr 0.25 mSv/yr Whole body dose equivalent

11 0.18 mSv/yr 0.75 mSv/yr Thyroid dose

12 0.084 mSv/yr (bone) 0.25 mSv/yr Dose to another organ

13 (a) Doses from direct radiation were determined to be negligible (Dominion 2004a).

14 (b) Sum of dose from liquid and gaseous effluent releases for the two existing NAPS units and the proposed

15 units (Dominion 2004c)

16 (c) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

17

18 Population Dose

19

20 Dominion (2004a) estimated a collective whole body dose within 80 km (50 mi) of each unit to

21 be 0.32 person-Sv/yr (32 person-rem/yr). A collective dose of 0.14 person-Sv/yr (14 person22 rem/yr) was calculated for the liquid effluent pathway using the LADTAP II computer code. A

23 collective dose of 0.18 person-Sv/yr (18 person-rem/yr) was calculated for the liquid effluent

24 pathway using the GASPAR II computer code. The staff performed an independent evaluation

25 of population doses and found the applicant’s estimates to be conservative. The estimated

26 collective dose to the same population from natural background radiation was 9200 person27 Sv/yr (920,000 person-rem/yr). The collective dose from natural background radiation was

28 calculated by using the 80-km (50-mi) population data of 2.8 million and a dose rate of 3.25

29 mSv/person/yr (325 mrem/person/yr).

30

31 The staff conservatively estimated the risks to the population living within 80 km (50 mi) of the

32 new Units 3 and 4 using the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 60

nominal probability coefficients for fatal cancers (5 x 10-2/Sv), non-fatal cancers (1 x 10-2 33 /Sv),

and severe hereditary effects (1.3 x 10-2 34 /Sv) to the population (ICRP 1990). These probabilities

35 were multiplied by the estimated collective whole body dose of 0.32 person-Sv/yr (32 person36 rem/yr) to obtain an estimated number of fatal cancers, non-fatal cancer, and severe hereditary

37 effects of less than 0.024 annually for a single new unit at the North Anna ESP site. This was

38 compared to an estimated 460 fatal cancers, 92 non-fatal cancers, and 120 severe hereditary

39 effects from natural background radiation exposure. The cumulative effects of operating two

40 new units at the ESP site in addition to the currently operating Units 1 and 2 would be less than
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-64 November 2004

1 1 cancer or hereditary effect annually. These cumulative effects are well below the estimated

2 effects from natural background radiation. In addition, the U.S. Congress in 1990 requested the

3 National Cancer Institute to study the cancer rates in the areas surrounding nuclear power

4 plants to determine if there were detrimental effects on the population. This extensive report

5 found no evidence of a link between operating nuclear power plants and any increase in cancer

6 (NCI 1990). As a result, staff concluded there will be no observable health impact to the public

7 from normal operation of the proposed new Units 3 and 4, and the health impacts would be

8 SMALL.

9

10 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

11

12 NUREG-0713 (NRC 2002c) reported average annual collective dose per operating reactor of

13 1.72 person-Sv/yr (172 person-rem/yr) for the time period from 1992 to 2001. Limited informa14 tion was available on occupational dose estimates from the advanced reactor designs. 

15 Dominion reported annual occupational dose estimates of 1.5 person-Sv (150 person-rem) for

16 the AP1000, IRIS, and GT-MHR reactor designs (Dominion 2002). The estimated occupational

17 doses for the advanced reactor designs were slightly lower than annual occupational doses for

18 current light-water reactors. This relationship will need to be verified by the staff at the

19 construction permit or COL stage when a specific design has been specified.

20

21 5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public

22

23 Dominion (2004a) estimated doses to surrogate species to include fish, invertebrates, algae,

24 muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck, which are referred to as surrogate species. Surrogate

25 species are well defined and provide an acceptable method for judging doses to the biota

26 (Dominion 2004a). Important biota species for the North Anna ESP site and the corresponding

27 surrogate species are (1) bald eagle and loggerhead shrike (heron) and (2) dwarf

28 wedgemussel, slippershell mussel, and fluted kidneyshell mussel (invertebrate). 

29

30 Liquid Effluent Pathway

31

32 Dominion (2004a) used the LADTAP II computer code to calculate doses to biota from the liquid

33 effluent pathway. The following exposure pathways were evaluated for the different surrogate

34 biota:

35

36 C Fish and invertebrates – internal exposure from bioaccumulation of radionuclides and

37 external exposure from swimming and shoreline activities

38

39 C Algae – internal exposure from bioaccumulation of radionuclides and external exposure

40 from immersion in water

41
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-65 Draft NUREG-1811

1 C Muskrat and duck – internal exposure from ingestion of aquatic plants and external

2 exposure from swimming and shoreline activities

3

4 C Raccoon – internal exposure from ingestion of invertebrates and external exposure from

5 shoreline activities

6

7 C Heron – internal exposure from ingestion of fish and external exposure from swimming

8 and shoreline activities.

9

10 These pathways are illustrated in Figure 5-4.

11

12 Input parameters used in the dose calculation included food consumption rates, body masses,

13 and effective body radii. These parameters were taken from NUREG/CR-4013 (Strenge et al.

14 1986) and Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977a). These parameters are shown in Tables 5.4-

15 14 and 5.4-15 of the Dominion ER (Dominion 2004a). The LADTAP II Program has an

16 adjustment factor because the biota would be closer to any potential shoreline contamination

17 than humans.

18

19 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

20

21 Dominion used the doses calculated for the maximally exposed individual from the gaseous

22 effluent pathway (described earlier in this section) as a basis for the doses to the biota

23 (Dominion 2004a). External doses from ground deposition were increased by a factor of two

24 to account for the terrestrial organisms being closer to the ground (Dominion 2004a).

25

26 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses

27

28 Table 5-12 compares the estimated whole body dose to the biota from the liquid and gaseous

29 effluent pathways calculated by Dominion (2004a) from one proposed new unit at the ESP site

30 to the regulatory standard for humans in 40 CFR Part 190. The biota doses for all surrogate

31 species except fish exceed the regulatory standard in 40 CFR Part 190 of 0.25 mSv/yr (25

32 mrem/yr) to the total body. This assumes mrem and mrad are approximately equivalent. The

33 staff performed an independent evaluation of biota doses and found similar results.

34

35 The ICRP (1977, 1990) states that if man is adequately protected, then other living things are

36 also likely to be sufficiently protected. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992)

37 and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1991) reported

38 that a chronic dose rate of no greater than 10 mGy/day (1 rad/day) to the maximally exposed

39 individual in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure protection for the population. 

40 IAEA (1992) also concluded that chronic dose rates of 1 mGy/day (0.1 rad/day) or less do not

41 appear to cause observable changes in terrestrial animal populations. Table 5-13 compares the
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-66 November 2004

1 estimated whole body dose to the biota from the proposed New Units 3 and 4 to the IAEA

2 chronic dose rate values fro aquatic organisms and terrestrial animals. The cumulative effects

3 of current operating units and proposed New Units 3 and 4 would result in dose rates

4 significantly less than the NCRP and IAEA studies.

5

6 Table 5-12. Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed New Units 3 and 4 to 40 CFR Part 190

7

8 Biota

Dose from

Liquid

Effluent/Unit

(mGy/yr)(a)

Dose from

Gaseous

Effluent/Unit

(mGy/yr)(a)

Total

Dose/Unit

(mGy/yr)(a)

Total Dose for 

Two Units

(mGy/yr)(a)

40 CFR 190

Total Body

Dose Limit

(mSv/yr)

9 Fish 0.067 0 0.067 0.13 0.25

10 Invertebrates 0.45 0 0.45 0.90 0.25

11 Algae 0.39 0 0.39 0.78 0.25

12 Muskrat 0.22 0.27 0.49 0.98 0.25

13 Raccoon 0.049 0.27 0.32 0.64 0.25

14 Heron 0.50 0.27 0.77 1.54 0.25

15 Duck 0.22 0.27 0.49 0.98 0.25

16 (a) Multiply mGy/yr or mGy/day times 100 to obtain mrad/yr or mrad/day

17

18 Table 5-13. Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed New Units 3 and 4 to IAEA Studies

19

20 Biota

Estimated Dose for Two Units

(mGy/day)(a)

Chronic Dose Rate Values from IAEA

Studies (mGy/day)(a)

21 Fish 3.7 x 10-4 10

22 Invertebrates 2.4 x 10-3 10

23 Algae 2.2 x 10-3 10

24 Muskrat 2.6 x 10-3 1

25 Raccoon 1.8 x 10-3 1

26 Heron 4.2 x 10-3 1

27 Duck 2.6 x 10-3 1

28 (a) Multiply mGy/day times 100 to obtain mrad/day.

29

30

31 The staff reviewed the available information relative to the radiological impact on biota from the

32 routine operation of the proposed New Units 3 and 4 and concluded the impacts would be

33 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

34
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-67 Draft NUREG-1811

1 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

2

3 A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been in place for the NAPS site

4 since 1976 (NRC 1976a). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure pathway,

5 direct exposure pathway, water exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from Lake Anna

6 and the North Anna River, and the ingestion exposure pathway in a 40-km (25-mi) radius of the

7 station. The pre-operational environmental radiation monitoring program sampled various

8 media in the environment to determine a baseline to observe the magnitude and fluctuation of

9 radioactivity in the environment once the units began operation (AEC 1973). The pre10 operational program included collection and analysis of samples of air particulates, precipitation,

11 milk, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt as well as measurement of ambient

12 gamma radiation. After operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 began, the monitoring program

13 continued to assess the radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the environment. 

14 Radiological releases are summarized in the two annual reports: the Radiological

15 Environmental Operating Program and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. The limits

16 for all radiological releases are specified in the North Anna Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

17 (ODCM) (Dominion 2003). No additional monitoring program has been proposed for the new

18 units. The staff reviewed the documentation for the REMP, the ODCM, and recent monitoring

19 reports and determined that the current operational monitoring program is adequate to establish

20 the radiological impacts to the environment related to the construction and operation of two new

21 units at the North Anna ESP site.

22

23 5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

24

25 The staff considered the radiological consequences on the human environment of potential

26 accidents at new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Consequence estimates are based

27 on the certified General Electric ABWR standard reactor design, which has been certified by the

28 NRC, and the surrogate Westinghouse AP1000. The term “accident,” as used in this section,

29 refers to any off normal event, not addressed in Section 5.9, which results in the release of

30 radioactive material into the environment. The focus of this review is on events that could lead

31 to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits for normal operations. Normal release

32 limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2.

33

34 Numerous features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power

35 plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the plants, which comprise

36 the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive material from the

37 plant. The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive material in

38 effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) are specified in 10

39 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. There are additional measures that are designed to mitigate the

40 consequences of failures in the first line of defense. These include the NRC’s reactor site

41 criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, which requires the site to have certain characteristics that reduce

42 the risk to the public and the potential impacts of an accident, and emergency preparedness

43 plans and protective action measures for the site and environs as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47; 10

44 CFR Part 50, Appendix E; and NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. All of these safety features,
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-68 November 2004

1 measures, and plans make up the defense-in-depth philosophy to protect the health and safety

2 of the public and the environment.

3

4 This section discusses (1) types of radioactive material, (2) paths to the environment, (3) the

5 relationship between radiation dose and health effects, and (4) the environmental impacts of

6 reactor accidents, both design-basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. The environ7 mental impacts of postulated accidents during the transportation of spent fuel are discussed in

8 Chapter 6.

9

10 The potential for dispersion of radioactive material in the environment depends on the mechani11 cal forces that physically transport the material and on the physical and chemical forms of the

12 material. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms. The majority

13 of the material is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, there is a significant amount of

14 material that is in the form of volatile solids or gases. Gaseous radioactive material include the 

15 chemically inert noble gases krypton and xenon. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are created

16 in substantial quantities in the fuel by fission, are volatile. Other radioactive material formed

17 during the routine operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities, and therefore, have

18 less tendency to escape from the fuel than the noble gases and iodines.

19

20 Radiation exposure is determined by the proximity of individuals to radioactive material, the

21 duration of exposure, and factors that shield the individuals from the radiation. Pathways that

22 lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material in the air, on

23 the ground, and in the water, (2) the inhalation of radioactive material, and (3) ingestion of food

24 or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water.

25

26 The risks of health effects from radiation exposures below 0.1 Sv (10 rem), are either too small

27 to be observed or are non-existent (HPS 2001). Incidences of cancer in the exposed general

28 population may begin to develop after a lapse of 2 to 15 years (latent period) after exposure and

29 then level off over a period of about 30 years (plateau period). In the case of radiation exposure

30 of fetuses, cancer may begin to develop as early as birth (no latent period) to the age of 10.

31

32 Physiological effects are clinically detectable should individuals receive radiation exposure

33 resulting in a dose greater than about 0.25 Sv (25 rem) over a short period of time (hours). 

34 Doses of about 2.5 to 5.0 Sv (250 to 500 rem) received over a relatively short period (hours to a

35 few days) can be expected to cause some fatalities.

36 5.10.1 Design-Basis Accidents

37

38 The applicant has evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate

39 that new units could be constructed and operated at the proposed North Anna ESP site without

40 undue risk to the health and safety of the public. These evaluations use a set of surrogate

41 DBAs that are representative for the range of reactor designs being considered for the ESP site

42 and site-specific meteorological data. The set of accidents covers events that range from

43 relatively high probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low

44 probability with high consequences.

45
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-69 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The DBA review focuses on two light-water reactor designs: the ABWR and the surrogate

2 AP1000. The bases for analyses of postulated accidents for these designs are well established

3 because they have been considered as part of the certification process. Accidents for the other

4 reactor designs listed in the application are not as well defined as those for the ABWR and the

5 surrogate AP1000; acceptable assumptions and methodologies for the evaluation of postulated

6 accidents have not been fully established. Since the source term for accident analyses are

7 generally proportional to the power level, for the purposes of this site suitability evaluation, the

8 potential consequences of accidents for the other reactor designs are expected to be bounded

9 by those for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 designs. For example, preliminary information

10 on source terms for the IRIS and ACR-700 reactor designs indicates that the source term for the

11 surrogate AP1000 loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) is expected to bound the worst case

12 accident release for these advanced reactor designs. Similarly, the ABWR source term is

13 expected to bound the source term for the ESBWR design. The advanced gas reactor designs

14 (GT-MHR and PBMR) postulate relatively small releases to the environment compared to water

15 reactor technologies (Dominion 2004a).

16

17 Should an application that references an ESP for the North Anna ESP site be made to build and

18 operate one of the other designs, the applicant would be required to show and the staff would

19 verify that the radiological consequences of DBAs for the proposed reactor or reactors are

20 bounded by the consequences of DBAs evaluated in this EIS.

21

22 Potential consequences of DBAs are evaluated following procedures outlined in regulatory

23 guides and standard review plans. The potential consequences of accidental releases depend

24 on the specific radionuclides released, the activity released for each radionuclide, and meteoro25 logical conditions. The source term for the ABWR reactor design is based on TID-14844 (AEC

26 1962) guidance, and guidance on methods for evaluating potential accidents for the ABWR are

27 set forth in NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987), Regulatory Guide 1.3 (NRC 1974a), and Regulatory

28 Guide 1.25 (NRC 1974b). The source term for the surrogate AP1000 reactor and methods for

29 evaluating potential accidents are based on guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000).

30

31 For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological

32 conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an

33 atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as P/Q. Acceptable methods of

34 calculating P/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC

35 1983).

36

37 Dominion has provided the staff with meteorological data for 1996, 1997, and 1998 for the North

38 Anna ESP site. These data have been reviewed by the staff and found to be representative of

39 the meteorological conditions at the site. The meteorological conditions will need to be updated

40 at the CP/COL stage to ensure that meteorological data reflect site conditions for the plant

41 during operation. The meteorological instrumentation and its maintenance are consistent with

42 staff guidance, and the data quality is consistent with standards set forth in that guidance. 

43 Therefore, the data are considered acceptable for use in evaluation of the consequences of

44 DBAs. The staff also reviewed the applicant’s procedures for calculating site-specific P/Qs and

45 found them to be consistent with staff guidance.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-70 November 2004

1 In Table 5-14, the first column lists the time periods and boundaries for which P/Q values and

2 dose estimates are needed. For the exclusion area boundary (EAB), the postulated DBA dose

3 and its atmospheric dispersion factor are calculated for a short-term, i.e., 2 hours, and for the

4 low population zone (LPZ), they are calculated for the course of the accident, i.e., 30 days

5 (720 hours) comprised of four time periods. The second column lists the P/Q values calculated

6 by the applicant using the site meteorological information discussed in ER Section 2.7.4

7 (Dominion 2004a) and the EAB and LPZ distances from Section 2.7.5 of the ER. No credit was

8 taken for building wake. The applicant also provided PPE P/Q values; some of which neither

9 the applicant nor the staff used in assessing site suitability.

10

Table 5-14. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (P/Q, s/m3 11 ) for the North Anna ESP Site

12 Design-Basis Accident Calculations

13

Time Period(a) 14 and Boundary Site

15 0 to 2 hr, Exclusion Area Boundary 3.34x10-5

16 0 to 8 hr, Low Population Zone 2.17x10-6

17 8 to 24 hr, Low Population Zone 1.5x10-6

18 1 to 4 day, Low Population Zone 1.2x10-6

19 4 to 30 day, Low Population Zone 9.0x10-7

20 (a) Times are relative to the beginning of the release to the environment.

21

22 In its independent assessment, the staff evaluated the applicant’s process for deriving the site

23 P/Q values from site-specific information and from information for existing reactor designs and

24 has determined that the site P/Q values are reasonable. The P/Q values are based on typical

25 meteorological conditions at the site and the locations of the EAB and LPZ given in the ESP

26 application. These values indicate the atmospheric dilution capability in the vicinity of the site. 

27 Small P/Q values are associated with greater dilution capability. Thus, if the design P/Q value

28 for a specific reactor design identified as part of the CP/COL is greater than or equal to the site

29 P/Q value, then atmospheric dispersion at the site is sufficient such that the doses predicted for

30 postulated DBAs for the design are expected to be below regulatory limits.

31

32 The staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion characteristics of the North Anna ESP site

33 are acceptable with respect to the potential environmental consequences of postulated DBAs

34 for reactor designs with design P/Q values falling within the bounds set by the site P/Q values. 

35 At the CP/COL stage, the staff will need to verify that the P/Q values for reactor designs

36 considered at the CP/COL stage are bounded by the P/Q values specified by the site P/Q

37 values. Additional evaluation will be needed if reactor design P/Q values are not bounded by

38 those of the site P/Q values.

39

40 Tables 5-15 and 5-16 list the set of surrogate DBAs considered by the applicant and present the

41 applicant’s estimate of the environmental consequences of each DBA in terms of total effective

42 dose equivalent (TEDE). TEDE is the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE)

43 from inhalation and the deep dose equivalent from external exposure. Dose conversion factors

44 from Federal Guidance Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988) were used to calculate the CEDE. 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-71 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Similarly, dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 (Eckerman and Ryman

2 1993) were used to calculate the deep dose equivalent.

3

4 The Commission has determined that the ABWR design meets the TEDE dose criteria of

5 10 CFR 50.34. Equivalent TEDE values have been estimated for the ABWR from doses in the

6 design certification document by multiplying the thyroid dose by a factor 0.03 (the organ

7 weighting factor for the thyroid) and adding the product to the whole body dose. In addition, the

8 ABWR doses have been scaled to a power level of 4386 MW(t), 102 percent of the power

9 proposed for an ABWR unit at the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2004a). However, the

10 scaling was performed on doses and not on the source term.

11

12 In all cases, the calculated TEDEs are a small fraction of the regulatory dose limits. On these

13 bases, the staff concludes that the North Anna ESP site is suitable for operation of new

14 advanced light water reactors (ALWRs). The environmental impacts of DBAs have not been

15 explicitly evaluated for gas-cooled reactors, however, the staff expects that releases to the

16 environment under accident conditions will be small for such designs. At the CP/COL stage, the

17 applicant and the staff will need to verify that the doses for postulated DBAs for the actual

18 reactor design remain bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate reactor

19 designs.

20

21 Table 5-15. Design-Basis Accident Doses for an ABWR Reactor

22

23 TEDE in Sv(b)

24 Accident

Standard Review

Plan Section(a) EAB LPZ

Review

Criterion

25 Main Steam Line Break 15.6.4

26 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike 7.6x10-4 4.9x10-5 2.5x10-1(c)

27 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 3.7x10-5 2.4x10-6 2.5x10-2(d)

28 Loss-of-Coolant Accident 15.6.5 2.6x10-3 1.7x10-2 2.5x10-1(c)

29 Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary

30 Coolant Outside Containment

15.6.2 6.4x10-5 4.1x10-6 2.5x10-2(d)

31 Fuel Handling 15.7.4 9.2x10-4 6.0x10-5 6.3x10-2(d)

32 (a) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

33 (b) To convert an Sv value to a rem value, multiply Sv by 100.

34 (c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.11 criterion.

35 (d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

36

37

38 Table 5-16. Design-Basis Accident Doses for the Surrogate AP1000 Reactor

39

40 TEDE in Sv(b)

41 Accident

Standard

Review Plan

Section(a) EAB LPZ

Review

Criterion

42 Main Steam Line Break 15.1.5
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-72 November 2004

1 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike 3.9x10-4 1.1x10-4 2.5x10-1(c)

2 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 4.5x10-4 4.5x10-4 2.5x10-2(d)

3 Steam Generator Rupture 15.6.3

4 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike 1.7x10-3 5.7x10-5 2.5x10-1(c)

5 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 8.4x10-4 4.5x10-5 2.5x10-2(d)

6 Loss-of-Coolant Accident 15.6.5 1.4x10-2 2.0x10-3 2.5x10-1 (c)

7 Feedwater System Pipe Break 15.2.8 4.5x10-4 4.5x10-4 2.5x10-2(d)

8 Rod Ejection 15.4.8 1.7x10-3 3.1x10-4 6.3x10-2(d)

9 Reactor Coolant Pump Rotor Seizure (Locked

10 Rotor)

15.3.3 1.4x10-3 9.6x10-5 2.5x10-2(d)

11 Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break 15.3.4 1.4x10-3 9.6x10-5 2.5x10-2(d)

12 Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary

13 Coolant Outside Containment

15.6.2 7.2x10-4 4.8x10-5 2.5x10-2(d)

14 Fuel Handling 15.7.4 1.3x10-3 9.6x10-5 6.3x10-2(d)

15 (a) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

16 (b) To convert an Sv value to a rem value, multiply Sv by 100.

17 (c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.11 criterion.

18 (d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

19

20 Summary of Design Basis Accident Impacts

21

22 Although Dominion chose the PPE approach in the overall ESP application, it based its

23 evaluation of the environmental impacts of design basis accidents on characteristics of the

24 ABWR and the surrogate AP1000 reactor designs with the explicit assumption that these

25 impacts would bound the impacts of other ALWRs designs (Dominion 2004a). The NRC staff

26 reviewed the analysis in the ER, which is based on analyses performed for design certification

27 of these reactor designs. The results of the Dominion analyses indicate that the environmental

28 risks associated with design basis accidents, if an ALWR were to be located at the North Anna

29 ESP site, would be well within regulatory limits. On this basis, the staff concludes that the

30 consequences of design basis accidents at the North Anna ESP site are of SMALL significance

31 for ALWRs and that the North Anna ESP site is suitable for operation of ALWRs. The

32 environmental impacts of design basis accidents have not been explicitly evaluated for gas33 cooled reactors and will need to be evaluated at the CP/COL stage. For this evaluation to

34 bound the reactor design selected at the CP/COL stage, the applicant and the staff will need to

35 verify that the environmental impacts of design basis accident at the North Anna ESP site

36 remain bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate designs considered in this

37 EIS.

38

39 5.10.2 Severe Accidents

40

41 Dominion bases its evaluation of the potential environmental consequences of severe accidents

42 in the ER on the evaluation of potential consequences of severe accidents for current

43 generation reactors presented in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). Three pathways were considered: 

44 (1) the atmospheric pathway in which radioactive material is released to the air, (2) the surface

45 water pathway in which airborne radioactive material falls out on open bodies of water, and (3)
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-73 Draft NUREG-1811

1 the groundwater pathway in which groundwater is contaminated by a basemat melt-through with

2 subsequent contamination of surface water by the groundwater.

3

4 In response to an NRC request for additional information dated March 12, 2004 (NRC 2004a),

5 the applicant performed a site-specific analysis of the potential environmental consequences of

6 postulated severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site. The PPE does not include source

7 terms for severe accidents, therefore the applicant used source terms for the ABWR and the

8 surrogate AP1000 reactors. The applicant used the MACCS2 computer code (Chanin et al.

9 1990; Jow et al. 1990) for the analysis. A summary of the results of the analysis was submitted

10 to the NRC in a letter dated May 17, 2004 (Dominion 2004c), and detailed computer output was

11 submitted by letter dated July 12, 2004 (Dominion 2004e).

12

13 The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of

14 severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). MACCS2 (Chanin and

15 Young 1997) is the current version of MACCS. The MACCS and MACCS2 codes evaluate the

16 consequences of atmospheric releases of radioactive material following a severe accident. The

17 pathways modeled include external exposure to the passing plume, external exposure to

18 material deposited on the ground and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and

19 resuspended from the ground, and ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. The

20 primary enhancements in MACCS2 are that MACCS2 has (1) a more flexible emergency

21 response model, (2) an expanded library of radionuclides, and (3) a semidynamic food-chain

22 model (Chanin and Young 1997).

23

24 Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed: (1) human health, (2) economic

25 costs, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human-health effects are expressed in

26 terms of the number of cancers that might be expected if a severe accident were to occur. 

27 These effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation dose received by the general

28 population. MACCS2 estimates both early cancer fatalities and latent fatalities. Early fatalities

29 are related to high doses or dose rates and can be expected to occur within a year of exposure

30 (Jow et al. 1990). Latent fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of people to low

31 doses and dose rates and could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years. 

32 Population health risk estimates are based on the population distribution within an 80-km

33 (50-mi) radius of the plant, whereas average individual health risks are based on the distribution

34 of population close to the plant. Economic costs of a severe accident include the costs

35 associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination of property and equipment,

36 interdiction of food supplies, land, and equipment use, and condemnation of property. The

37 affected land area is a measure of the areal extent of the residual contamination following a

38 severe accident.

39

40 Risk is the product of the frequency of an accident and the consequence of the accident. For

41 example, the probability of a severe accident without loss of containment for an ABWR is estimated to be 1.34 x 10-7 per reactor year (Ryr-1 42 ); and the cumulative population dose associated

43 with a severe accident without loss of containment at the North Anna ESP site is calculated to

be 7.86 x 101 person-Sv (7.86 x 103 44 person-rem). The population dose risk for this class of accidents is the product of 1.34 x 10-7 Ryr-1 and 7.86 x 101

 person-Sv, or 1.05 x 10-5 person-Sv Ryr-1 45
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-74 November 2004

(1.05 x 10-3 person-rem Ryr-1 1 ). The following sections discuss the estimated risks associated

2 with each pathway.

3

4 Air Pathway

5

6 The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to the air path7 way. The results of the MACCS2 runs are presented in Tables 5-17 and 5-18. The core dam8 age frequencies given in these tables are for internally initiated accident sequences while the

9 plant is at power. Internally initiated accident sequences include those sequences initiated by

10 human error, equipment failures, loss of offsite power, etc. Based on insights from the review of

11 the ALWR probabilistic risk assessments, completed prior to the ESP application, the core

12 damage frequencies for externally initiated events and during shutdown would be comparable to

13 or lower than those for internally initiated events.

14

15 Tables 5-17 and 5-18 show that the probability weighted consequences (i.e., the risks) of

16 severe accidents for the ABWR or the surrogate AP1000 reactor located on the North Anna

17 ESP site are small for all risk categories considered. For perspective, Tables 5-19 and 5-20

18 compare the health risks from severe accidents for the ABWR or surrogate AP1000 reactors at

19 the North Anna ESP site with the risks for current generation of operating reactors at various

20 sites.

21

22 In Table 5-19, the health risks estimated for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 reactors at the

23 North Anna ESP site are compared with health risk estimates for the five reactors considered in

24 NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). Although risks associated with both internally and externally25 initiated events were considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in NUREG-1150, only

26 risks associated with internally initiated events are presented in Table 5-19. The health risks

27 shown for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 reactors at the North Anna ESP site are

28 significantly lower than the risks associated with current generation of operating reactors

29 presented in NUREG-1150.
Draft NUREG-1811 5-75 November 2004

1 Table 5-17. Mean Environmental Risks from ABWR Severe Accidents at the North Anna Power Station 23 Environmental Risk4 Release Category Description5 (Accident Class)

Core Damage

Frequency (Ryr-1)

Population Dose

(person- Sv Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities (Ry-1)

Cost(d)

($ Ryr-1)

Land Requ

Decontamin

(ha Ryr

Early(b) Latent(c)

6 0 No loss of containment 1.34x10-7 1.05x10-5 0 4.66x10-7 1.85x10-2 7.34x107 1 Transients followed by failure of

high-pressure coolant makeupwater and failure to depressurizein timely fashion

2.08x10-8 2.16x10-6 0 9.86x10-8 4.12x10-3 1.26x10

8 2 Short-term station blackout with

reactor core isolation cooling(RCIC) failure, onsite powerrecovery in 8 hr

1.00x10-10 5.62x10-9 0 2.40x10-10 1.23x10-6 9.57x10

9 3 Station blackout with RCIC

available for about 8 hr

1.00x10-10 4.47x10-7 0 2.00x10-8 1.18x10-2 2.40x10

10 4 Station blackout (more than 8 hr)

with RCIC failure

1.00x10-10 3.39x10-7 0 1.50x10-8 7.72x10-3 1.65x10

11 5 Transients followed by failure of

high pressure coolant makeupwater, successfuldepressurization of reactor,failure of low-pressure coolantmakeup water

1.00x10-10 1.43x10-7 0 6.07x10-9 4.19x10-3 5.19x10
November 2004 5-76 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 5-17. (contd)23 Release Category Description4 (Accident Class)

Core Damage

Frequency (Ryr-1)

Population Dose

(person- Sv Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities (Ry-1)

Cost(d)

($ Ryr-1)

Land Requ

Decontamin

(ha Ryr

Early(b) Latent(c)

5 6 Transient, loss-of-coolant

accident (LOCA), and anticipatedtransient without scram (ATWS)events with successful coolantmakeup water, but potential priorfailure of containment

1.00x10-10 2.81x10-6 0 1.25x10-7 6.04x10-1 4.75x10

6 7 Small/medium LOCA followed by

failure of high-pressure coolantmakeup water and failure todepressurize

3.91x10-10 1.26x10-5 8.05x10-15 5.55x10-7 2.70x10+0 1.96x10

7 8 LOCA followed by failure of highpressure coolant makeup water 4.05x10-10 1.96x10-5 2.17x10-11 8.63x10-7 5.06x10-0 2.88x108 9 ATWS followed by boron injection

failure and successful highpressure coolant makeup water

1.70 x 10-10 1.06x 10-5 2.41 x 10-12 5.00 x 10-7 2.69 x 10+0 1.39 x 1

9 Total 1.56 x 10-7 5.93 x 10-5 2.28 x 10-11 2.65 x 10-6 1.11 x 10+1 6.83 x 1

10 (a) To convert an Sv value to a rem value, multiply Sv by 100.11 (b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et a12 (c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.13 (d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include 14 effects (Jow et al. 1990)15 (e) Land risk is farm land requiring decontamination prior to resumption of agricultural usage. To convert hectares to acres, multiply by 2.47.1617
Draft NUREG-1811 5-77 November 2004

1 Table 5-18. Mean Environmental Risks from the Surrogate AP1000 Severe Accidents at the North An23 Environmental Risk4 Release Category Description5 (Accident Class)

Core Damage

Frequency (Ryr-1)

Population Dose

(person- Sv Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities (Ry-1)

Cost(d)

($ Ryr-1)

Land Req

Decontam

(ha R

Early(b) Latent(c)

6 CFI Intermediate containment failure,

after core relocation but before24 h

1.89 x 10-10 3.38 x 10-6 2.23 x 10-13 1.64 x 10-7 5.42 x 10-1 6.77 x 

7 CFE Early containment failure, after

onset of core damage but beforecore relocation

7.47 x 10-9 1.88 x 10-4 5.15 x 10-11 8.89 x 10-6 3.76 x 10+1 3.12 x 

8 IC Intact containment 2.21 x 10-7 1.05 x 10-5 0 4.84 x 10-7 9.86 x 10-3 1.16 x 9 BP Containment bypass, fission

products released directly toenvironment 

1.05 x 10-8 5.96 x 10-4 7.07 x 10-11 2.90 x 10-5 1.42 x 10+2 8.98 x 

10 CI Containment isolation failure

occurs prior to onset of coredamage

1.33 x 10-9 2.97 x 10-5 1.31 x 10-12 1.65 x 10-6 5.49 x 10+0 4.79 x 

11 CFL Late containment failure

occurring after 24 h

3.45 x 10-13 9.66 x 10-9 3.69 x 10-15 5.59 x 10-10 1.96 x 10-3 1.94 x 

12 Total 2.40 x 10-7 8.28 x 10-4 1.24 x 10-10 4.02 x 10-5 1.85 x 10+2 1.27 x 13 (a) To convert an Sv value to a rem value, multiply Sv by 100.14 (b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et a15 (c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.16 (d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include 17 effects (Jow et al. 1990).18 (e) Land risk is farm land requiring decontamination prior to resumption of agricultural usage. To convert hectares (ha) to acres, multiply by 2.47.19
Draft NUREG-1811 5-78 November 2004

1 Table 5-19. Comparison of Environmental Risk for New Units at the North Anna ESP Site with Risks fo2 Evaluated in NUREG-115034 Reactor Site

Core DamageFrequency (Ryr-1)

50-mi (80-km)

Population Dose

Risk (person-Sv

Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities Ryr-1 Average 

Early Latent Early 

Grand Gulf(b) 5 4.0 x 10-6 5 x 10-1 8 x 10-9 9 x 10-4 3 x 10-

Peach Bottom(b) 6 4.5 x 10-6 7 x 10+0 2 x 10-8 5 x 10-3 5 x 10-Sequoyah(b) 7 5.7 x 10-5 1 x 10+1 3 x 10-5 1 x 10-2 1 x 10-Surry(b) 8 4.0 x 10-5 5 x 10+0 2 x 10-6 5 x 10-3 2 x 10-Zion(b) 9 3.4 x 10-4 5 x 10+1 1 x 10-4 2 x 10-2 9 x 10-

10 ABWR at North Anna

ESP Site(c) 11

1.6 x 10-7 5.9 x 10-5 2.3 x 10-11 2.7 x 10-6 4.6 x 10

12 AP1000 at North Anna 

ESP Site(c) 13

2.4 x 10-7 8.3 x 10-4 1.1 x 10-10 4.0 x 10-5 2.6 x 10

14 (a) To convert an Sv value to a rem value, multiply Sv by 100.15 (b) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990).16 (c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using North Anna site-specific input.17
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-79 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The Commission has set safety goals for average individual early fatality and latent cancer

2 fatality risks from internally initiated events (NRC 1986). These goals are that average

individual early fatality risk be less than 5 x 10-7 Ryr-1 3 and that average individual latent cancer

fatality risk be less than 2 x 10-6 Ryr-1 4 . The average individual early fatality risk is calculated

5 using the population distribution within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the plant boundary. The average

6 individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 16 km

7 (10 mi) of the plant. For the plants considered in NUREG-1150, these risks were well below the

8 Commission’s safety goals. Risks calculated for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 at the North

9 Anna ESP site are lower than the risks associated with the current generation reactors

10 considered in NUREG-1150, and are well below the NRC safety goals.

11

12 The staff compared the core damage frequencies and population dose risk estimates for the

13 ABWR and surrogate AP1000 reactors at the North Anna ESP site with comparable statistics

14 summarizing the results of contemporary severe accident analyses performed for 28 current

15 generation of operating reactors at 23 sites. The results of these analyses are included in the

16 final site-specific Supplements 1 through 20 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

17 License Renewal (GEIS), NUREG-1437, and in the ERs included with license renewal appli18 cations for those plants for which supplements have not been published. All of the analyses

19 were completed after publication of NUREG-1150, and the 23 analyses used MACCS2, which

20 was released in 1997. Table 5-20 shows that the core damage frequencies estimated for the

21 ABWR and AP1000 reactors are significantly lower than those of current generation reactors. 

22 Similarly, the population doses estimated for the advanced reactors at the North Anna ESP site

23 are well below the mean and median values for current generation reactors undergoing license

24 renewal.

25

26 The staff has considered the risk estimates given in Tables 5-17 and 5-18, the comparisons of

27 atmospheric pathway risks in Tables 5-19 and 5-20, and the comparison of average individual

28 early fatality and average individual latent cancer fatality risks with the Commission’s safety

29 goals in Table 5-19. Preliminary information on the IRIS and the ACR-700 reactor designs

30 indicates that the surrogate AP1000 is expected to bound the risk for these advanced reactor

31 designs. Similarly, the ESBWR risk is expected to be bounded by the ABWR. On this basis,

32 the staff concludes that the North Anna ESP site is suitable for operation of ALWRs. If as

33 stated in the ER, the releases from the gas-cooled reactor designs are bounded by the releases

34 from the light water reactor designs, then the site would be suitable for these gas-cooled

35 reactors. The PPE does not contain specific parameters related to severe accidents for gas

36 cooled reactors, and the consequences of severe accidents have not been explicitly evaluated

37 for gas-cooled reactors and will need to be evaluated at the CP/COL stage. For the evaluation

38 in this EIS to bound the reactor design selected at the CP/COL stage, the applicant and the staff

39 will need to verify that the environmental impacts of the atmospheric pathway releases for

40 severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site remain bounded by the environmental impacts

41 from the surrogate designs.

42

43

44

45
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-80 November 2004

1 Table 5-20. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal

2 Events for an ABWR and a Surrogate AP1000 at the North Anna ESP Site with

3 Risks Initiated by Internal Events for 28 Current Operating Plants Undergoing

4 License Renewal

5

6 Reactor Site

Core Damage

Frequency

(yr-1)

50-mi (80-km) Population

Dose Risk (person-Sv 

Ryr-1)

(a)

Current Reactor Maximum(b) 7 2.4 x 10-4 6.9 x 10-1

Current Reactor Mean(b) 8 3.6 x 10-5 1.5 x 10-1

Current Reactor Median(b) 9 2.8 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-1

Current Reactor Minimum(b) 10 1.9 x 10-6 5.5 x 10-3

ABWR at North Anna ESP Site(c) 11 1.6 x 10-7 5.9 x 10-5

AP1000 at North Anna ESP Site(c) 12 2.7 x 10-7 8.3 x 10-4

13 (a) To convert an Sv value to a rem value, multiply Sv by 100.

14 (b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for current plants undergoing operating license renewal.

15 (c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using North Anna site-specific input.

16

17 Surface Water Pathways

18

19 Surface water pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These pathways cover the effects

20 of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water. The surface water pathways of

21 interest include exposure to external radiation from submersion in water and activities near the

22 water, ingestion of water, and ingestion of fish and other aquatic creatures. Of these pathways,

23 the MACCS2 code only evaluates the ingestion of contaminated water. The risks associated

24 with this surface water pathway calculated for the North Anna ESP site are included in the last

25 columns of Table 5-17 and 5-18. For each accident class, the population dose risk from

26 ingestion of water is a small fraction of the dose risk from the air pathway.

27

28 Lake Anna is used for recreational activities including swimming and fishing. Doses from these

29 surface water pathways are not modeled in MACCS or MACCS2. NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996)

30 provides an estimate of typical population exposure risk for the aquatic food pathway for plants

31 located on small rivers. The North Anna ESP site is classified as being on a small river. For

these plants, the risk associated with the aquatic food pathway is about 4 x 10-3 person-Sv Ryr-1 32

(4 x 10-1 person-rem Ryr-1 33 ). The total risk for the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 is about 

2.5 x 10-1 person-Sv Ryr-1 (2.5 x 101 person-rem Ryr-1 34 ) (NRC 2002a). Thus, the generic aquatic

35 pathway risk is less than 2 percent of the total risk. Analysis of water-related exposure

36 pathways at the Fermi reactor (NRC 1981) suggests that population exposures from swimming

37 are significantly lower than exposures from the aquatic ingestion pathway.

38
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-81 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Dominion owns Lake Anna and, in the event of a large release of radioactive material, it could

2 control access to the lake, which is the major surface water body in the vicinity of the North

3 Anna ESP site. By exercising that control, Dominion could reduce exposures through the

4 surface water pathways.

5

6 After considering the water ingestion dose estimates, the NUREG-1437 evaluations, and

7 Dominion’s control over access to Lake Anna, the staff concludes that the North Anna ESP site

8 is suitable for operation of the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000; in a similar fashion to the air

9 pathway, the environmental impacts of the surface water pathway for other ALWR is expected

10 to be bounded by the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000. The environmental impacts of severe

11 accidents have not been evaluated for gas-cooled reactors. The PPE does not contain specific

12 parameters related to severe accidents for gas-cooled reactors, and the consequences of

13 severe accidents have not been evaluated for gas-cooled reactors and will need to be evaluated

14 at the CP/COL stage. For this evaluation to bound the reactor design selected at the CP/COL

15 stage, the applicant and the staff will need to verify that the environmental impacts of the

16 surface water pathway releases for severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site remain

17 bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate designs. 

18

19 Groundwater Pathway

20

21 Neither MACCS nor MACCS2 evaluates the environmental risks associated with severe

22 accident releases of radioactive material to groundwater. However, this pathway has been

23 addressed in NUREG-1437 in the context of renewal of licenses for the current generation

reactors. NUREG-1437 assumes a 1 x 10-4 Ryr-1 24 probability of occurrence of a severe accident

25 with a basemat melt-through leading to potential groundwater contamination, and the staff

26 concluded that groundwater generally contributed a small fraction of the risk attributable to the

27 atmospheric pathway. Although the staff assumed that the probability of occurrence of a

28 release via the groundwater pathway is significantly larger than a release via the atmospheric

29 pathway for either the ABWR or the surrogate AP1000, the groundwater pathway is more

30 tortuous and affords a greater time for implementing protective actions and therefore results in a

31 lower risk to the public. As a result, the staff concludes that the risks associated with releases

32 to groundwater are sufficiently small that they would not have a significant effect on

33 determination of suitability of the North Anna ESP site.

34

35 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts

36

37 Although Dominion chose the PPE approach in the overall ESP application, it based its

38 evaluation of the environmental impacts of severe accidents on characteristics of the ABWR

39 and the surrogate AP1000 reactor designs with the explicit assumption that these impacts

40 would bound the impacts of other ALWR designs (Dominion 2004a). The NRC staff reviewed

41 the analysis in the ER and conducted its own confirmatory analysis using the MACCS2 code. 

42 The results of both the Dominion and NRC analyses indicate that the environmental risks

43 associated with severe accidents if an ALWR were to be located at the North Anna ESP site

44 would be small compared to risks associated with operation of current generation reactors at

45 the North Anna site and other sites. These risks are well below the NRC safety goals. On
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-82 November 2004

1 these bases, the staff concludes that the probability weighted consequences of severe

2 accidents at the North Anna ESP site are of SMALL significance for ALWR and that the North

3 Anna ESP site is suitable for operation of ALWR. The environmental impacts of severe

4 accidents have not been evaluated for gas-cooled reactors and will need to be evaluated at the

5 CP/COL stage. For this evaluation to bound the reactor design selected at the CP/COL stage,

6 the applicant and the staff will need to verify that the environmental impacts of severe accidents

7 at the North Anna ESP site remain bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate

8 designs.

9

10 5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

11

12 The staff evaluated the environmental impacts from design basis accidents and severe

13 accidents using the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000 to characterize the environmental

14 impacts from ALWR. As described previously, preliminary information on the IRIS and the

15 ACR-700 reactor designs indicate that the surrogate AP1000 is expected to bound the source

16 term, doses, and probability weighted consequences of design and severe accidents. Similarly,

17 the ESBWR source term, doses, and probability weighted consequences of design and severe

18 accidents is expected to be bounded by the ABWR. Based on the information provided by

19 Dominion, and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the potential environmental

20 impacts from postulated accident from the operation of two additional nuclear power plants

21 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. As noted, the staff concludes that the North

22 Anna ESP site is suitable for the operation of ALWRs. The staff did not explicitly evaluate the

23 design basis or severe accident impacts for gas-cooled reactors which will need to be evaluated

24 at the CP/COL stage. For this evaluation to bound the reactor design selected at the CP/COL

25 stage, the applicant and the staff will need to verify that the environmental impacts of design

26 basis and severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site remain bounded by the environmental

27 impacts from the surrogate (ABWR and AP1000) designs. 

28

29

30 5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

31 Operation

32

33 The following general measures and controls on which the staff relied in its evaluation of

34 environmental impacts during operation of the proposed new units at the North Anna ESP site

35 include those for which Dominion would be required (Federal, State, and local) by applicable

36 permits and authorizations (contained in Table 1.2-1 of the ER) as well as the feasible

37 measures and controls contained in Table 5.10-1 of the ER:

38

39 C compliance with the applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regula40 tions that prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste

41 management, erosion and sediment control, air emission control, noise control, storm

42 water management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management)

43
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-83 Draft NUREG-1811

1 C applicable requirements of permits and licenses required for operation (e.g., VPDES

2 permit, operating license)

3

4 C compliance with VPDES permit requirements imposed on water discharges from the

5 new units (ER Sections 5.1.1, 5.3.2, 5.5.1)

6

7 C compliance with VDEQ permit limits and regulations for installing and operating air

8 emission sources (ER Section 5.8.1)

9

10 C compliance with Virginia Power procedures applicable to environmental control and

11 management

12

13 Dominion specifically identified the following general plans or specific mitigation measures in its

14 ER (Dominion 2004a) on which the staff relied in its evaluation:

15

16 C Current transmission line maintenance practices would continue if two new units were

17 built at the ESP site (ER Section 5.6.1.1)

18

19 C Identify locations of rare or sensitive plant species within transmission line corridors so

20 modified treatment practices can be used in these areas to avoid adverse impacts

21 (ER Section 5.6.1.1)

22

23 C The intake structure for the new units at the ESP site would meet Section 316(b) of the

24 Clean Water Act and the implementing regulations, as applicable (ER Section 5.3.1.2)

25

26 C A fish return system based on the latest technology available during detailed engineering

27 would be considered for incorporation into the intake system (ER Section 5.3.1.2)

28

29 C Options to mitigate increases in lake temperature would be evaluated in the COL appli30 cation, including submerged intake or curtain wall, helper towers, and spray cooling

31 systems in the WHTF discharge canal (Section 5.3.2.1)

32

33 C Vegetative shielding would block a clear view of the new units from nearby residences,

34 and a visual impact study would be performed and the results would be described in the

35 COL application (ER Section 5.8.1.5)

36

37 C Noise levels would be controlled in accordance with applicable local county regulations

38 (ER Section 5.8.1.2)

39

40 C Potential increases in traffic would be mitigated through effective traffic management

41 (ER Section 5.1.1)

42

43 C Conduct any ground disturbing activities in coordination with VDHR and professional

44 archaeological practices (ER Section 4.1.3)

45
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-84 November 2004

1 Dominion evaluated the measures and controls shown in Table 5.10-1 of the ER

2 (Dominion 2004a) and considered them feasible from both a technical and economic

3 standpoint. In addition, Dominion expects these measures and controls to be adequate for

4 avoiding or mitigating potential adverse impacts associated with operation of the new units. The

5 staff considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of station operation impacts.

6

7 5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts

8

9 Impact level categories are denoted in Table 5-21 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a

10 measure of their expected adverse impacts, if any. With the socioeconomic issues in which the

11 impacts are likely to be beneficially moderate or large, this is noted in Comments column. The

12 Impact column designates beneficial impacts as SMALL.

13

14 Table 5-21. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the North Anna ESP Site

15

16 Category Comments

Impact

Level

17 Land use impacts --

18 Operation of new units within existing site. Possible The site and vicinity

new housing and retail space added in vicinity due

to potential growth.

SMALL

19 No new transmission corridors would be needed. SMALL Transmission corridors

20 Air quality impacts

21

Meteorological impacts are expected to be

negligible. Pollutants emitted during operations

considered insignificant and limits could be

incorporated under existing Exclusionary Permit.

SMALL

22 Water-related impacts --

23 Increased circulation of water within Lake Anna Hydrological alterations

resulting from the increased discharge from new

Unit 3 will result in a change in the quantity and

distribution of heat in the lake. 

SMALL

24 Water use

25 During normal water years, the impact would be Normal years

small. 

SMALL

26 During critical low-water years, the impacts could be Drought years

temporarily moderate.

MODERATE

27 Water effluents are regulated by the VPDES permit. SMALL Water quality

28 Ecological impacts --

29 No detectable impacts noted; no important species Terrestrial ecosystems

in area. 

SMALL
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Category Comments

Impact

Level

November 2004 5-85 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The fish population is balanced. Proportion of Aquatic ecosystems

resources subject to impingement and entrainment

would be small. Additional heat could impact

hatchery striped bass in parts of the lake in drought

years. Mitigation in the form of additional stocking

striped bass may be necessary. Refugia would be

available.

SMALL

2 T&E Species --

3 No threatened or endangered species known to Terrestrial Species

inhabit area.

SMALL

4 No threatened or endangered species known to Aquatic Species

inhabit area.

SMALL

5 Socioeconomic impacts --

6 Physical Impacts --

7 Workers would use protective equipment and Workers/Public

receive training to mitigate any possible impact.

North Anna location is relatively remote, so the

public would not be impacted. 

SMALL

8 No impact to onsite or offsite buildings. SMALL Buildings

9 Upgrades before or during construction would cover Roads

the lesser impact of operational work forces.

SMALL

10 Aesthetics

11

Visual impact would be minimal due to remote

location. Lower water levels, and their effect on

shoreline exposure during severe drought could

temporarily impact area. These impacts are

expected to be at the moderate level.

SMALL

12 Number of new employees small in proportion to Demography

population base.

SMALL

13 Community Characteristics

14 Economy

15

Increased jobs would benefit the area economically,

up to a moderate beneficial impact (Louisa and

Orange Counties) is possible.

SMALL

16 Improvements made for construction would be Transportation

sufficient to cover any adverse impact from small

number of additional operational workers.

SMALL

17 Taxes

18

Depends on residence location; generally impacts

are beneficial, especially for property taxes and

employment. Beneficial impacts of additional taxes

would be large for Louisa County.

SMALL 
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Category Comments

Impact

Level

Draft NUREG-1811 5-86 November 2004

1 Recreation

2

Overall impacts to recreation minimal due to remote

location. Traffic around and use of lake could

increase. Lower water levels, and their effect on

shoreline exposure and recreational usage during

severe drought could temporarily impact area.

SMALL 

3 Housing

4

Adequate housing is available in Henrico and

Spotsylvania Counties and in Richmond to handle

operational workers. Orange and Louisa Counties

could experience a temporary shortage of upscale

housing, possibly at the moderate impact level. 

SMALL

5 Adequate in all counties for any population increase Public Services

due to operation workforce.

SMALL

6 Current schools and planned additions would handle Education

additional students.

SMALL

7 Historic and cultural

8 resources

A cultural resource program is in place for

minimizing impacts from routine land disturbances.

SMALL

9 Environmental justice No unusual resource dependence in the area. SMALL

10 Nonradiological health

11 impacts

Health impacts monitored and controlled in

accordance with Occupational Safety and Health

regulations.

SMALL

12 Radiological health impacts Doses to public and occupational workers are

monitored and controlled in accordance with NRC

limits.

SMALL

13 Impacts of postulated

14 accidents

--

15 Doses for advanced light water reactors are Design basis accidents

expected to be a small fraction of the regulatory

dose limits. Staff will verify that doses for postulated

DBAs on chosen reactor designs are within

regulatory limits.

SMALL

16 Risks for ALWRs would be small. If gas-cooled Severe accidents

reactor is selected at the CP/COL stage then the

staff will evaluate the severe accident impacts for

gas-cooled reactors.

SMALL

17

18

19 5.13 References

20

21 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

22 Protection Against Radiation.”
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-87 Draft NUREG-1811

1 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

2 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

3

4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

6

7 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

8 Criteria.”

9

10 40 CFR 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

11 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation.”

12

13 69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

14 Regulatory and Licensing Activities.” Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.

15

16 Baker, J. P., H. Olem, C. S. Creager, M. D. Marcus, and B. R. Parkhurst. 1993. Fish and

17 Fisheries Management in Lakes and Reservoirs, EPA 841-R-93-002, Terrene Institute and

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

19

20 Barwick, D. H., L. E. Miller, W. R. Geddings, and D. M. Rankin. 1995. Fish Biomass and Angler

21 Harvest from a South Carolina Cooling Reservoir, Proceedings of the Annual Conference

22 Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49:129-139.

23

24 Bras, R.L. 1990. Hydrology: An Introduction to Hydrologic Science. Addison-Wesley

25 Publishing, New York.

26

27 Brutsaert, W. 1982. Evaporation into the Atmosphere: Theory, History, and Applications. 

28 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

29

30 Carlander, K. D. 1969, Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Vol. 1, Iowa State University

31 Press, Ames, 752 p.

32

33 Carlander, K. D. 1977, Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Vol. 2, Iowa State University

34 Press, Ames, 431 p.

35

36 Chanin, D. I, J. L. Sprung, L.T. Ritchie, and H. N. Jow. 1990. MELCOR Accident Consequence

37 Code System (MACCS), User’s Guide. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol 1. Washington, D.C. 

38

39 Chanin, D. I., and M. L. Young. 1997. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume1, User’s Guide. 

40 SAND97-0594, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

41

42 Cheek, T. E., J. M. Van Den Avyle, and C. C. Coutant. 1985. Influence of Water Quality on

43 Distribution of Striped Bass in a Tennessee River Impoundment, Transactions of the American

44 Fisheries Society 114:67-76, 1985.

45
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-88 November 2004

1 Code of Virginia, §15.2-2223. Available online at: 

2 http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal/government_881/virginia_1048/.

3

4 Combs, D. L., and L. R. Peltz. 1982. Seasonal Distribution of Striped Bass in Keystone

5 Reservoir, Oklahoma, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:66-73, 1982.

6

7 Coutant, C. C. 1985. Striped Bass, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen: A Speculative

8 Hypothesis for Environmental Risks, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:31-61,

9 1985.

10

11 Coutant, C. C., and D. S. Carroll. 1980. Temperatures Occupied by Ten Ultrasonic-tagged

12 Striped Bass in Freshwater Lakes, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:195-

13 202, 1980.

14

15 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2001a. “Migratory Birds.” Water/Waste

16 Environmental Protection Manual. Chapter 13. Glen Allen, Virginia.

17

18 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2001b. Appendix E – Applicant's

19 Environmental Report –Operating License Renewal Stage, North Anna Power Station Units 1

20 and 2, License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7, Virginia Electric & Power Company, May 2001.

21

22 Dominion, 2002a. Mount Storm Lake Biological Survey, Annual Report for 2001, Richmond,

23 Virginia, 2002.

24

25 Dominion. 2003. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Procedure Number VPAP-2103N,

26 Revision 7. Richmond, Virginia.

27

28 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit

29 Application - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Ellen, Virginia.

30

31 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter from Eugene S Grecheck,

32 Dominion to NRC dated March 31, 2004, Glen Allen, Virginia.

33

34 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004c. Letter dated May 17, 2004 from E. S.

35 Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

36 dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

37

38 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004d. Letter dated June 28, 2004 North

39 Anna Early Site Permit Application – Dominion response to Comment Letter from Virginia

40 Department of Environmental Quality. Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. Glen Allen, Virginia. 

41 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 52-008.

42

43 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004e. Letter dated July 12, 2004 from E. S.

44 Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

45 dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-89 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Dudley, R. G., A. W. Mullis, and J. W. Terrell. 1977. “Movements of Adult Striped Bass (Morone

2 saxatilis) in the Savannah River, Georgia,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

3 106:314-322, 1977.

4

5 Eckerman, K. F., A. B. Wolbarst, and A. C. B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of

6 Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentrations and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation,

7 Submersion, and Ingestion. Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA-520/1-88-202, US

8 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

9

10 Eckerman, K. F., and J. C. Ryman. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water,

11 and Soil. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93-081, U.S. Environmental Protection

12 Agency, Washington, D.C.

13

14 Edinger, J.E., D.K. Brady, and J.C. Geyer. 1974. "Heat Exchange and Transport in the

15 Environment," Cooling Water Studies for Electric Power Research Institute. Report No 14,

16 Electric Power Research Institute, November.

17

18 Golden, J., R. P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P. N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact

19 Data Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

20

21 Goodyear, C.P. 1978. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach,

22 FWS/OBS-78/65, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Power Plant

23 Team, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

24

25 Hall, D. J., and E. E. Werner. 1977. Seasonal Distribution and Abundance of Fishes in the

26 Littoral Zone of a Michigan Lake, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:545-555,

27 1977.

28

29 Hanover County Department of Public Utilities. 2004. Letter to Chief, Rules and Directives

30 Branch, NRC., regarding Dominion’s ESP application, January 7, 2004.

31

32 Health Physics Society (HPS). 2001. “Radiation Risk in Perspective.” Position paper of the

33 Health Physics Society, McLean, Virginia.

34

35 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and

36 Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series

37 No. 332. Vienna, Austria.

38

39 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the

40 International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, 1977, Pergamon

41 Press, New York.

42

43 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1990. Recommendations of the

44 International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. International

45 Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press, New York.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-90 November 2004

1 Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, American Fisheries

2 Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

3

4 Jow, H. N., J. L Sprung, J. A. Rollstin, L. T. Ritchie, and D. I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident

5 Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol 2, US

6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

7

8 Kimmel, B. L. and A. W. Groeger. 1986. Limnological and Ecological Changes Associated with

9 Reservoir Aging, in G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Avyle, editors, Reservoir Fisheries

10 Management: Strategies for the 80’s, Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American

11 Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

12

13 Lee, D. S. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. Publication #1980-12 of the

14 North Carolina Biological Survey, North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh,

15 North Carolina.

16

17 Lintecum, L. 2003. County Administrator. Louisa County. Information obtained in a personnel

18 interview December 11, 2003.

19

20 Louisa County. 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive

21 Plan, Chapter V, September 4, 2001.

22

23 Mathews, J. M., L. G. Hill, D. R. Edds, and F. P. Gelwick. 1989. Influence of Water Quality and

24 Season on Habitat Use by Striped Bass in a Large Southwestern Reservoir, Transactions of the

25 American Fisheries Society 118:243-250, 1989.

26

27 Moss, J. L. 1985. Summer Selection of Thermal Refuges by Striped Bass in Alabama

28 Reservoirs and Tailwaters, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:77-83, 1985.

29

30 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing

31 Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.

32

33 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. 16 USC 470, et. Seq.

34

35 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NEISH Report on Health

36 Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

37 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

38

39 Olmsted, L. L, and J. P. Clugston. 1986. Fishery Management in Cooling Impoundments,

40 Pages 227-237 in (G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Ayvle, editors), Reservoir Fisheries

41 Management, Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American Fisheries Society, 1986.

42

43 Orange County. 1999. Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Orange County Board of

44 Supervisors, September 14, 1999.

45
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-91 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Ryan, O. 2003. Real Estate Agent. Valere Real Estate. Personal interview December 8,

2 2003.

3

4 Spotsylvania County. 2002. Spotsylvania County Approved 2002 Comprehensive Plan. 

5 February 12, 2002. Accessed on the Internet March 24, 2004, at

6 http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/departments/planning/index.cfm?doc_id=233 

7

8 Siler, J. R., W. J. Foris, and M. C. McInerny. 1986. Spatial Heterogeneity in Fish Parameters

9 Within a Reservoir, Pages 122-136 in (G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Ayvle, editors) Reservoir

10 Fisheries Management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American Fisheries Society,

11 1986.

12

13 Strenge, D. L., R. A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and

14 User Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, April 1986, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,

15 Washington.

16

17 Strenge, D. L., T. J. Bander, and J. K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II - Technical Reference and

18 User Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, March 1987, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,

19 Washington.

20

21 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Heat and Mass Transfer between a Water Surface

22 and the Atmosphere. Water Resources Research Laboratory Report No. 14 (0-6803), Norris,

23 Tennessee.

24

25 Tipler, PA. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, Inc., New York.

26

27 Trendahl, A. 1978. “Preface,” Pages IX-X in (R. L. Kendall, editor) Selected Coolwater Fishes

28 of North America. American Fisheries Society, 1978.

29

30 U.S. Atomic Energy Agency (AEC). 1962. Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test

31 Reactor Sites. TID-14844, Washington, D.C.

32

33 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

34 Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 and 2 and the Construction of Units 3

35 and 4, North Anna Power Station. Washington, D.C.

36

37 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Table QT-P1: Age Groups and Sex – 2000. Mineral

38 town, Virginia. Accessed on March 28, 2004, at

39 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US5152120&-qr_name=DE

40 C_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on 

41

42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Nonattainment Areas Map - Virginia. 

43 Accessed on March 11, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker 

44
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-92 November 2004

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS

2 and VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Accessed on March 23,

3 2004, at http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf 

4

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974a. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the

6 Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors. 

7 Regulatory Guide 1.3, Washington, D.C.

8

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974b. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the

10 Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and

11 Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.25 (Safety

12 Guide 25), Washington, D.C.

13

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976a. Addendum to the Final Environmental

15 Statement Related to Operation of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2. Virginia Electric

16 and Power Company. NUREG-0134, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, Washington, D.C.

17

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976b. Environmental Survey of the

19 Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116

20 (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), Washington, D.C.

21

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.109 - Calculation of

23 Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating

24 Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

25

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement

27 Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Addendum No.1. NUREG-0769

28 Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. 

29

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for

31 Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.145 Rev. 1,

32 Washington, D.C.

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1986. "Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear

35 Power Plants; Policy Statement." Federal Register. Vol. 51, p. 30028, August 21, 1986.

36

37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

38 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800 (formerly issued as NUREG39 75/087), Volumes 1 and 2. NRC, Washington, D.C.

40

41 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

42 for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150 Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.

43

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

45 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

November 2004 5-93 Draft NUREG-1811

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Alternative Radiological Source Terms for

2 Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183,

3 Washington, D.C.

4

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

6 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

7 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

8

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

10 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 7 Regarding North Anna Power Station,

11 Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437 Supplement 7. November 2002. Accessed on December 29,

12 2003 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement7 

13

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002c. Occupational Radiation Exposure at

15 Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2001. NUREG-0713, Volume 23,

16 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Washington, D.C.

17

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Letter dated March 12, 2004 from

19 Andrew J. Kugler (NRC) to David A. Christian (Dominion) requesting additional information.

20

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Report on the North Anna Early Site

22 Permit Water Budget Model (LakeWBT) for Lake Anna. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

23 November 2004. 

24

25 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 2004. Natural Heritage

26 Resources Factsheet. Migratory Songbird Habitat in Virginia’s Coastal Plain. Accessed on

27 March 4, 2004, at http://www.dcr.state.va/dnh/songfact.htm

28

29 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Virginia Pollutant Discharge

30 Elimination System Permit No. VA0052451, Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia

31 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Act,

32 Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, permit's effective date,

33 January 11, 2001; expiration date, January 11, 2006.

34

35 Virginia Department of Taxation (VDOT). 1987. 41⁄2% Virginia Sales Tax Table for Combined

36 State Tax at the Rate of 3.5 % and Local Tax at the Rate of 1%. For Use on and After

37 January 1, 1978. Accessed on March 17, 2004 at

38 http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl45xx12_00.pdf.

39

40 Virginia Department of Taxation (VDOT). 2000. 4% Virginia Sales Tax Table. To Be Used For

41 Qualifying Food Effective 1/1/2000 for Combined State Tax at the Rate of 3% and Local Tax at

42 the Rate of 1%. Accessed on March 17, 2004 at

43 http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl40xx1_00.pdf. 

44
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

Draft NUREG-1811 5-94 November 2004

1 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1985. Impingement and Entrainment Studies

2 for North Anna Power Station,1978-1983, Prepared by Water Quality Department, Richmond, 

3 Virginia.

4

5 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for North

6 Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River. 

7 Virginia Power Corporate Technical Assessment. Water Quality Department. Richmond,

8 Virginia.

9

10 Virginia Electric & Power Company (VEPCo). 2001. Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental

11 Report - Operating License Renewal Stage, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, License

12 Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7, Virginia Electric & Power Company, May 2001.

13

14 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002a. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

15 the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 2001 including Summary for 1998-2000. 

16 Richmond, Virginia.

17

18 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002b. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report,

19 North Anna Power Station, Revision 38.

20

21 Waugh, A. (Waugh). 2003. Managing Broker, Century 21 Real Estate Company. Personal

22 interview December 9, 2003.

23

24 West Virginia Bass Federation. 2003. West Virginia Bass Tournaments – Summary 2002,

25 Available at www.wvbass.com/articles/20030103d.html.

26
November 2004 6-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

2

3

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

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

6 postulated Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. Distinctions between the impacts of 

7 advanced light-water reactor (LWR) designs and the gas-cooled reactor designs are discussed.

8

9 In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts for the North Anna early site permit (ESP) site,

10 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) used the plant parameter envelope (PPE)

11 approach for the advanced LWR designs but not for the two gas-cooled reactors. In its

12 evaluation of the impacts from transportation of radioactive materials, Dominion did not use the

13 PPE approach but rather evaluated each reactor design individually. Dominion would,

14 therefore, have to perform a new evaluation if a different design is proposed at the construction

15 permit (CP) or combined license (COL) stage.

16

17 6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management

18

19 This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

20 management for both the advanced LWR designs and gas-cooled reactor designs. The impacts

21 of the two types of design are presented separately because Title 10 of the Code of Federal

22 Regulations (CFR), Section 51.51 provides specific criteria for evaluating the environmental

23 impacts only for LWR designs.

24

25 6.1.1 Land Use Light-Water Reactors

26

27 10 CFR 51.51(a) states that “Every environmental report prepared for the construction permit

28 stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4,

29 1979 shall take Table S–3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for

30 evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the

31 production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradi32 ated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of low level waste and high

33 level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the

34 nuclear power plant. Table S–3 shall be included in the environmental report and may be

35 supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data set forth in the table

36 as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility.”

37
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-2 November 2004

1 The PPE for the North Anna ESP site used the bounding input parameters from the following

2 LWR designs:

3

4 C ACR-700 –This reactor, developed by Atomic Energy Canada Limited, is an evolutionary

5 extension of CANDU 6 plant using very slightly enriched uranium fuel and light-water

6 coolant.

7

8 C Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by General Electric

9 Company, is a standardized plant that has been certified under the NRC requirements in

10 10 CFR Part 52. The ABWR is fueled with slightly enriched uranium and has light-water

11 cooling.

12

13 C Surrogate AP1000 – Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) – This is an earlier

14 version of the AP1000 reactor final design approved by the NRC, and developed by

15 Westinghouse Electric Company, using slightly enriched uranium and light-water

16 cooling. This design is not the AP1000 that has receive final design approval from the

17 NRC.

18

19 C Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This reactor, developed by

20 General Electric Company, is fueled with slightly enriched uranium and has light-water

21 cooling.

22

23 C International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) next generation PWR – This reactor, 

24 under development by a consortium led by Westinghouse Electric Company, is a

25 modular light-water reactor.

26

27 These light-water designs all use uranium dioxide fuel; therefore, Table S–3 can be used to

28 assess environmental impacts. Table S–3 values are normalized for a reference 1000-MW(e)

29 LWR at an 80 percent capacity factor. The PPE power rating for the North Anna ESP site is

30 8600 MW(t) assuming two ABWR units would be located on the ESP site with a PPE capacity

31 factor of 96 percent (Dominion 2004a). This corresponds to 3200 MW(e). The 10 CFR 51.51(a)

32 Table S-3 values are reproduced in Table 6-1, which follows.

33

34 Specific categories of natural resource use are included in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). These

35 categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive releases,

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

37 transportation and occupational exposures. The contributions in Table S–3 for reprocessing,

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

39 (uranium only and no recycle); that is, the cycle that results in the greater impact is used. The

40 uranium fuel cycle is defined as the total of those operations and processes associated with

41 provision, utilization, and ultimate disposition of fuel for nuclear power reactors. Originally, two
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 fuel cycle options were considered, which differed in the treatment of spent fuel removed from a

2 reactor. “No recycle” treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a Federal waste repository;

3 “uranium only recycle” involves reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused uranium and return it

4 to the system. Neither cycle involves the recovery of plutonium.

5

6 Because current Federal policy does not support reprocessing spent fuel, only the no-recycle

7 option is considered here. This option is presented schematically in Figure 6-1. Natural

8 uranium is mined in either open-pit or underground mines or by an in situ leach solution mining

9 process. In situ leach mining, the primary form of mining in the United States today, involves

10 injecting a lixiviant solution into the uranium ore body to dissolve uranium and then pumping the

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

12 mills where it is processed to produce uranium oxide or “yellowcake.” A conversion facility

13 prepares the uranium oxide from the mills for enrichment by converting it to uranium

14 hexafluoride, which is then processed to separate the relatively nonfissile isotope U-238 from

15 the more fissile isotope U-235. At a fuel-fabrication facility, the enriched uranium, which is

approximately 5 percent U-235, is then converted to UO2. The UO2 16 is pelletized, sintered, and

17 inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies are placed in the reactor to

18 produce power. When the content of the U-235 reaches a point where the nuclear reactor has

19 become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel assemblies are withdrawn from the

20 reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short-lived fission product decay and

21 to reduce the heat generation rate, the fuel assemblies would be transferred to a waste

22 repository for internment. Disposal of spent fuel elements in a repository constitutes the final

23 step in the no-recycle option.

24

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

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

27 the staff’s analysis of the radiological impact from radon and technetium. In NUREG-1437,

28 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC 1996),

29 the staff provides a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle. 

30 Although NUREG-1437 is specific to the impacts related to license renewal, the information is

31 relevant to this review because the advanced LWR designs considered here use the same type

32 of fuel; the staff’s analyses in Section 6.2.3 of NUREG-1437 are summarized and incorporated

33 by reference here.

34

35 The fuel cycle impacts in Table S-3 are based on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an

36 annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output of 800 MW(e). In the following

37 review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered the

38 capacity factor in the PPE of 96 percent with a total net electric output of 3200 MW(e) for the

39 ESP site (Dominion 2004a) and this is approximately four times the impact values in Table S–3

40 (see Table 6-1). Throughout this chapter this will be referred to as the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled

41 model reflecting 3200 MW(e) for the site.

42
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-4 November 2004

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

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

3 those identified in Table S–3.

4

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

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

7 there would be a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the staff followed the policy of

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

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

10 would be less than the quantities shown in Tables S-3 for all LWR nuclear power plants within

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

12 were recognized by the staff as being less than the precision of the estimates and were not

13 considered or were considered but had no effect on the Table S-3 calculations. For example, to

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

15 S-3, the staff defined the model reactor as a 1000-MW(e) light-water-cooled reactor operating at

16 80 percent capacity with a 12-month fuel reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000

17 Mwd/MTU. This is a “reactor reference year” or “reference reactor year” depending on the

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

19 fuel loading plus all of the reloads for the lifetime of the reactor can be divided by the now more

20 likely 60-year (40-year initial license term and 20-year renewal license term) lifetime to obtain an

21 average annual fuel requirement. This was done for both boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and

22 pressurized-water reactors (PWRs), and the higher annual requirement, 35 metric tonnes (MT)

23 of uranium made into fuel for a BWR, was chosen in NUREG-1437 as the basis for the

24 reference reactor year. A number of fuel management improvements have been adopted by

25 nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and separative work

26 (enrichment) requirements. Since Table S-3 was promulgated, these improvements have

27 reduced the annual fuel requirement.

28

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

30 economic conditions of the uranium market now and in the foreseeable future favor full

31 utilization of foreign uranium at the expense of the domestic uranium industry. These market

32 conditions have forced the closing of most U.S. uranium mines and mills, substantially reducing

33 the environmental impacts in the U.S. from these activities. However, the Table S-3 estimates

34 have not been reduced accordingly to ensure that these impacts, which have been experienced

35 in the past and may be fully experienced again in the future, are considered. Factoring in

36 changes to the fuel cycle suggests that the environmental impacts of mining and tail millings

37 could drop levels below those given in Table S-3.

38

39 Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 discusses the sensitivity to recent changes in the fuel cycle on the

40 environmental impacts in greater detail.

41
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-5 Draft NUREG-1811

Table 6-1. Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data(a) 1 – Taken From Table S–3

2 (Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement (WASH-1248 [AEC 1974]) or

3 Reference Reactor Year (NUREG-0116 [NRC 1976])

4

5 Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect Per Annual Fuel

Requirement or Reference Reactor-Year

of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

6 NATURAL RESOURCE USE

7 Land (acres)

Temporarily committed(b) 8 100

9 79 Undisturbed area

10 22 Equivalent to 110-MW(e) coal-fired power Disturbed area

plant

11 13 Permanently committed

12 2.8 Equivalent to 95-MW(e) coal-fired power Overburden moved (millions of MT)

plant

13 Water (millions of gallons)

14 160 Equals 2 percent of model 1000-MW(e) Discharged to air 

LWR with cooling tower

15 11,090 Discharged to water bodies

16 127 Discharged to ground

17 11,377 Less than 4 percent of model 1000-MW(e) Total

LWR with once-through cooling

18 Fossil fuel

19 Electrical energy (thousands of

20 MW-hour)

323 Less than 5 percent of model 1000-MW(e)

LWR output

21 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a Equivalent coal (thousands of MT)

45-MW(e) coal-fired power plant

22 135 Less than 0.4 percent of model 1000-MW(e) Natural gas (millions of scf)

energy output

23 Effluents–Chemical (MT)

Gases (including entrainment)(c) 24

25 4400 SOx

NOx

(d) 26 1190 Equivalent to emissions from 45-MW(e)

coal-fired plant for a year
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-6 November 2004

1 Table 6.1. (contd)

2

3 Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect Per Annual Fuel

Requirement or Reference Reactor-Year

of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

4 Effluents–Chemical (MT) (contd)

5 14 Hydrocarbons

6 29.6 CO

7 1154 Particulates

8 Other gases

9 0.67 Principally from UF F 6 production, enrichment,

and reprocessing. Concentration within

range of State standards – below level that

has effects on human health

10 0.014 HCI

11 Liquids

SO(d) 12 9.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing steps. Components that constitute

a potential for adverse environmental effect

are present in dilute concentrations and

receive additional dilution by receiving

bodies of water to levels below permissible

standards. The constituents that require

dilution and the flow of dilution water are

NH3, 600 cfs; NO3, 20 cfs, Fluoride, 70 cfs.

NO(c) 13 25.8

14 12.9 Fluoride

Ca++ 15 5.4

CI- 16 8.5

Na+ 17 12.1

18 10.0 NH3

19 0.4 Fe

20 240 From mills only – no significant effluents to Tailings Solutions (thousands of MT)

environment

21 91,000 Principally from mills – no significant Solids

effluents to environment

22 Effluents–Radiological (Curies)

23 Gases (including entrainment)

24 -- Presently under reconsideration by the Rn-222

Commission

25 0.02 Ra-226

26 0.02 Th-230
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6.1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect Per Annual Fuel

Requirement or Reference Reactor-Year

of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

November 2004 6-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Effluents–Radiological (Curies) (contd)

2 0.034 Uranium

3 18.1 Tritium (thousands)

4 24 C-14

5 400 Kr-85 (thousands)

6 0.14 Principally from fuel-reprocessing plants Ru-106

7 1.3 I-129

8 0.83 I-131

9 -- Presently under consideration by the Tc-99

Commission

10 0.203 Fission products and transuranics

11 Liquids

12 2.1 Principally from milling – included in tailings Uranium and daughters

liquor and returned to ground – no effluents;

therefore, no effect on environment

13 0.0034 From UF Ra-226 6 production

14 0.0015 Th-230

15 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants – concentration Th-234

10 percent of 10 CFR Part 20 for total

processing 26 annual fuel requirements for

model LWR

16 5.9 x 10 Fission and activation products -6

17

18 Solids (buried onsite)

19 11,300 9100 Ci from low-level reactor wastes, and Other than high level (shallow)

1500 Ci comes from reactor

decontamination and decommissioning

(buried at land burial facilities). 600 Ci

comes from mills (included in tailings

returned to ground). Approximately 60 Ci

from conversion and spent-fuel storage. No

significant effluent to the environment.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6.1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect Per Annual Fuel

Requirement or Reference Reactor-Year

of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Draft NUREG-1811 6-8 November 2004

1 Effluents–Radiological (Curies) (contd)

2 1.1 x 10 TRU and HLW (deep) 7 Buried at Federal repository

3 Effluents—thermal (billions of British thermal

4 units)

4063 Less than 5 percent of model 1000-MW(e)

LWR

5 Transportation (person-rem)

6 2.5 Exposure of workers and general public

7 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management Occupational exposure (person-rem)

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

9 addressed and that, in effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. 

10 However, there are other areas that are not addressed at all in the table. Table S–3 does not include

11 health effects from the effluents described in the table, or estimates of releases of Radon-222 from

12 the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of Technetium-99 released from waste-management or

13 reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing

14 procedures.

15

16 Data supporting this table are given in the “Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” WASH17 1248, April 1974; the “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of

18 the LWR Fuel Cycle,” NUREG-0116 (Supp. 1 to WASH-1248); the “Public Comments and Task Force

19 Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management

20 Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248 [NRC 1977b]); and in the

21 record of the final rulemaking pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel

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

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

24 fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes

25 transportation of cold fuel to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor,

26 which are considered in Table S–4 of §51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel

27 cycle are given in columns A-E of Table S-3A of WASH-1248.

28

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

30 because the complete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor

31 for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years.

32

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

34

35 (d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process.

36

37
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Figure 6-1. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option (derived from NRC 1999)
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-10 November 2004

1 6.1.1.1 Land Use

2

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

4 model is about 184 ha (452 ac). Approximately 20 ha (52 ac) are permanently committed land,

5 and 164 ha (400 ac) are temporarily committed. A “temporary” land commitment is a commit6 ment for the life of the specific fuel cycle plant (e.g., a mill, enrichment plant, or succeeding

7 plants). Following completion of decommissioning, such land can be released for unrestricted

8 use. “Permanent” commitments represent land that may not be released for use after plant

9 shutdown and/or decommissioning because decommissioning activities do not result in removal

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

11 that area for unrestricted use. Of the 164 ha (400 ac) of temporarily committed land, 128 ha

12 (316 ac) are undisturbed and 36 ha (88 ac) are disturbed. In comparison, a coal-fired power

13 plant of 3200-MW(e) capacity using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 324 ha

14 (800 ac) per year for fuel alone. The staff concludes that the impacts on land use to support the

15 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would be small.

16

17 6.1.1.2 Water Use

18

19 Principal water-use for the fuel cycle supporting a 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model is that

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

21 enrichment step of this cycle. Scaling from Table S-3, of the total annual water use

of 1.72 x 108 m3 (4.55 x 1010 gal), about 1.60 x 108 m3 (4.44 x 1010 22 gal) are required for the

23 removal of waste heat, assuming that these plants use once-through cooling. Other water uses

24 involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling) of about

2.42 x 106 m3/yr (6.40 x 108 25 gal/yr) and water discharged to ground (e.g., mine drainage) of

about 1.92 x 106 m3/yr (5.08 x 108 26 gal/yr).

27

28 On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4 percent

29 of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use

of 2.42 x 106 m3/yr (6.40 x 108 30 gal/yr) is about 2 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model

31 using cooling towers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying

32 electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle used cooling towers) would be about 6 percent of the

33 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal effluents

34 would be negligible. The staff concludes that the impacts on water use for these combinations

35 of thermal loadings and water consumption would be small relative to the water use and thermal

36 discharges of the proposed project.

37

38 6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts

39

40 Electrical energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel cycle process. 

41 The electrical energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1 plants. Electrical energy associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5 percent of the annual

2 electrical power production of the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. Process heat is primarily

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

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

5 The staff concludes that the fossil fuel impacts from the direct and indirect consumption of

6 electrical energy for fuel cycle operations would be small relative to the net power production of

7 the proposed project.

8

9 6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents

10

11 The quantities of chemical, gaseous, and particulate effluents with fuel cycle processes are

12 given in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. The quantities of

13 effluents would be approximately four times greater for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled

model. The principal effluents are SOx, NOx 14 , and particulates. Based on data in the Seventh

15 Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, these emissions constitute a small

16 additional atmospheric loading in comparison with these emissions from the stationary fuel

17 combustion and transportation sectors in the United States; that is, about 0.08 percent of the

18 annual national releases for each of these effluents (CEQ 1976).

19

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

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

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

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

24 amount of dilution water required for specific constituents. Additionally, all liquid discharges into

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

26 will be subject to requirements and limitations set by an appropriate Federal, State, regional,

27 local, or affected Native American tribal regulatory agency.

28

29 Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutions and

30 solids are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the environment.

31

32 The staff determined that the impacts of these chemical effluents would be small.

33

34 6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents

35

36 Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from waste management

37 activities and certain other phases of the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table S–3 (see

38 Table 6-1). Using these data, the staff has calculated for one year of operation of the

39 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, the 100-year involuntary environmental dose commitment to

40 the U.S. population from the LWR-supporting fuel cycle. These calculations estimate that the

41 overall involuntary whole body gaseous dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel

42 cycle (excluding reactor releases and the dose commitment due to radon-222) would be
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-12 November 2004

1 approximately 16 person-Sv (1600 person-rem) per year of operation of the 1000-MW(e)

2 LWR-scaled model; this reference reactor year is scaled to reflect the total electric power rating

3 for the site for a year.

4

5 The additional involuntary whole body dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive

6 liquid effluents due to all fuel cycle operations other than reactor operation would be approxi7 mately 8 person-Sv (800 person-rem) per year of operation. Thus, the estimated involuntary

8 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and

9 liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle is approximately 24 person-Sv

10 (2400 person-rem) (whole body) per reference reactor-year. Using risk estimators of

11 500 cancer deaths per 10,000 person-Sv (1 million person-rem) (ICRP 1990), the estimated

cancer risk would be 1.2 per reference reactor-year (24 x 500 x 10-4 12 ) for the 1000-MW(e)

13 LWR-scaled model.

14

15 Currently, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 release are

16 not addressed in Table S-3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling

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

18 from gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities. 

19

20 In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437, the staff estimated the radon-222 releases from mining and

21 milling operation, and from mill tailings for each year of operations of the reference 1000-MW(e)

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

23 LWR-scaled model, or for the total electric power rating for the site for a year, is approximately

24 20,800 Curies. Of this total, about 78 percent would be from mining, 15 percent from milling

25 operations, 7 percent from inactive tails prior to stabilization. For radon releases from stabilized

26 tailings, the staff assumed that the scaled model would result in an emission of 4 Curies per site

27 year ; i.e. four times the NUREG-1437 estimate for the reference reactor year. Based on the

28 estimated releases of radon-222, the calculated 100-year environmental dose commitment from

29 mining and milling for each site year (assuming the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model) for mining,

30 milling and tailings prior to stabilization would be 5.6 person-Sv (560 person-rem) to the whole

31 body, 144 person-Sv (14,400 person-rem) to the bone, and 116 person-Sv (11,600 person-rem)

32 to the lung. From stabilized tailings piles, the calculated 100-year dose commitment would be

33 0.1 person-Sv (10 person-rem) to the whole body, 2.8 person-Sv (275 person-rem) to the bone,

34 and 2.3 person-Sv[ 225 person-rem]) to the lung. Additional insights regarding National

35 policy/resource perspectives regarding institutional controls comparisons with routine radon-222

36 exposure and risk, and long-term releases from stabilized tailings piles are discussed in

37 NUREG-1437.

38

39 Also in NUREG-1437, the staff considered the potential health effects associated with the

40 releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference reactor

41 year for the 1000 MW(e) LWR-scaled model, or the total electric power rating for the site for a
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-13 Draft NUREG-1811

year is 1.1 x109 1 Bq (0.03 Ci) from chemical processing of recycled uranium hexafluoride before

it enters the isotope enrichment cascade and 7.4 x 108 2 Bq (0.02 Ci) into the groundwater from a

3 repository. The major risks from technetium-99 are from exposure of the gastrointestinal tract

4 and kidney, although there is a small risk from total-body exposure. Using organ-specific risk

5 estimators, these individuals organ risks can be converted to a total-body 100-year dose

6 commitment of 4 person-Sv (400 person-rem) for the 1000 MW(e) LWR-scaled model.

7

8 While the consideration of risks to large populations over long periods of time from exposures to

9 very low concentrations of radionuclides involves many uncertainties, for discussion purposes,

10 the linear no-threshold assumption continues to be used to calculate potential health effects

11 where the NRC analyzes the impacts and potential impacts of activities under consideration. 

12 The issue of estimating risks from radon and daughters at levels comparable to those found in

13 homes continues to be studied and have had conflicting results. Radon releases from tailings

14 are undetectable from background levels at a few km from the tailings pile, or less than one km

15 in some cases (NRC Docket 50-488 1986). Radon released from the tailing piles is a fraction of

16 the background concentration at this range and is similar in magnitude to the natural variability

17 in the background concentration. As reported in NUREG-1437, projecting risks from levels

18 another order of magnitude or more lower involves even greater uncertainties. It is for these

19 reasons that the NRC has taken a precautionary approach to assessing risks to populations

20 from low concentrations of radionuclides and assumes a linear no-threshold relationship. Under

21 the linear no-threshold assumption, small exposures to radiation will result in a small increase in

22 the chance of developing cancer and as the exposure changes, the increase in cancer

23 probability will change in a linear fashion. 

24

25 These calculations use the concept of collective doses. Collective dose estimates the health

26 effects across a very large population, assuming that a small amount of radiation dose spread

27 out among a large population would yield similar effects to a larger amount of radiation dose to

28 a much smaller population. This is a conservative assumption. The Health Physics Society,

29 www.hps.org, states “below the dose of 10 rem [0.1 Sv], estimations of adverse health effect is

30 [sic] speculative. Collective dose remains a useful index for quantifying dose in large popula31 tions and in comparing the magnitude of exposure from different radiations sources. However,

32 for a population in which all individuals receive lifetime doses of less than 10 rem [0.1 Sv] above

33 background collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk and should not

34 be quantified for the purpose of estimating population health risks.”

35

36 While a human carcinogen, radiation is a relatively weak inducer of cancer. The cancer risk

37 factors, used in this analysis, are from the BEIR-V report, "Health Effects of Exposure to Low

38 Levels of Ionizing Radiation" (National Research Council 1990). In this report, it is estimated

39 that "if 100,000 persons of all ages received a whole body dose of 0.1 Gy (10 rad) [roughly

40 equivalent to 10 rem] of gamma radiation in a single brief exposure, about 800 extra cancer

41 deaths would be expected to occur during their remaining lifetimes in addition to the nearly

42 20,000 cancer deaths that would occur in the absence of radiation." Therefore, even with a
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-14 November 2004

1 large exposure (i.e., twice the annual dose limit for workers), the cancer mortality would change

2 by less than a percentage point (i.e., from 20% to 20.8%). It is important to note that for a

3 member of the public, it is nearly impossible to be exposed to 10 mSv (10 rem) in a lifetime from

4 normal operations. The public dose limit is 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year, but most NRC power

5 reactor licensees have air effluents resulting in doses of less than 0.01 mSv (1 mrem) per year

6 (61 FR 65120).

7

8 The radiation dose to an individual is only a very small fraction of the radiation dose contribution

9 to the population from the complete uranium fuel cycle. The contribution to the average dose

10 received by an individual from the fuel cycle-related radiation and other sources is listed in the

11 following table. The nuclear fuel cycle contribution to an individual’s average radiation dose as

12 shown in the Table 6-2 is extremely small (less than 0.00001 Sv [0.001 rem] per year).For the

13 reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of radioactive

14 effluents from the fuel cycle are small.

15

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

17 Sources. 

18

19 Source

Dose

(mrem/yr)(a) Percent of Total

20 Natural

21 Radon 200 55

22 Cosmic 27 8

23 Terrestrial 28 8

24 Internal (body) 39 11

25 Total Natural 300 82

26 Artificial

27 Medical x-ray 39 11

28 Nuclear medicine 14 4

29 Consumer products 10 3

30 Total Artificial 63 18
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-15 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 6-2. (contd)

2

3 Source

Dose

(mrem/yr)(a) Percent of Total

4 Other

5 Occupational 0.9 <0.30

6 Nuclear Fuel Cycle <1 <0.03

7 Fallout <1 <0.03

8 Miscellaneous <1 <0.03

9 (a) to convert mrem to mSv, divide the number of mrem by 100.

10

11 6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes

12

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

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

15 facilities, the Commission notes in Table S–3 that there will be no significant radioactive

16 releases to the environment. For high-level and transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that

17 these are to be buried at a repository, such as the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain, and

18 that no release to the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal, although it

19 has been assumed that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the spent fuel

20 are released to the atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. NUREG-0116 (NRC 1976),

21 which provides background and context for the high-level and transuranic Table S–3 values

22 established by the Commission, indicates that these high-level and transuranic wastes will be

23 buried and will not be released to the environment. 

24

25 On February 15, 2002, subsequent to receipt of a recommendation by Secretary Abraham,

26 U.S. Department of Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the

27 development of a repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

28 nuclear waste.

29

30 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository

31 standards which were subsequently adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion,

32 issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court)

33 vacated EPA’s radiation protection standards for the candidate repository, which required

34 compliance with certain dose limits over a 10,000 year period. The Court’s decision also

35 vacated the compliance period in NRC’s licensing criteria for the candidate repository in 10 CFR

36 Part 63. 

37

38 Therefore, for the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there is

39 some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of radioactive nuclides for

40 the current candidate repository site. However, prior to promulgation of the affected provisions
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-16 November 2004

1 of the Commission’s regulations, we assumed that limits are developed along the lines of the

2 1995 National Academy of Sciences report, “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,”

3 and that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a

4 repository can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits, peak

5 doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem [1mSv] per year or less. (NRC 1996) 

6

7 Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the regulatory

8 NEPA implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal

9 should be made. The staff concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that the impacts

10 would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion that the construction and

11 operation of new units at the North Anna ESP site should be prohibited. 

12 

13 Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), describes the generation, storage, and ultimate

14 disposal of low-level waste, mixed waste, and spent fuel from power reactors. For the reasons

15 stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of radioactive waste disposal

16 are small.

17

18 6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose

19

20 In the review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered

21 the higher capacity factor in the PPE of 96 percent with a total net electrical output of

22 3200 MW(e) for the ESP site (Dominion 2004a). This is referred to as the 1000-MW(e)

23 LWR-scaled model. The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for

24 the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model is about 24 person-Sv (2400 person-rem). Occupational

25 doses would be maintained to meet 10 CFR Part 20. On this basis, the staff concludes that

26 environmental impacts from this occupational dose would be small.

27

28 6.1.1.8 Transportation

29

30 The transportation dose to workers and the public totals about 0.25 person-Sv (25 person-rem)

31 annually for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR per Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). This corresponds

32 to dose of 1.0 person-Sv (100 person-rem) for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. For

33 comparative purposes, the estimated collective dose from natural background radiation to the

34 population within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site is 9200 person-Sv/yr (920,000 person-rem/yr)

35 (Dominion 2004a). On this basis, the staff concludes that environmental impacts of transpor36 tation would be small.

37

38 6.1.1.9 Conclusion

39

40 The staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as given in Table S–3

41 (see Table 6-1) considered the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99; and appropriately
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-17 Draft NUREG-1811

1 scaled for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model and determined that the impacts would be small,

2 and mitigation is not warranted.

3

4 6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors

5

6 Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(a) can be used as a basis for bounding the environmental

7 impacts from the uranium fuel cycle only for LWRs. Dominion performed an assessment of the

8 environmental impacts of the fuel cycle for gas-cooled reactor designs by comparing key

9 parameters for these reactor designs to those used to generate the impacts in Table S–3

10 (Dominion 2004a). Key parameters are energy usage, material involved, and number of

11 shipments for each major fuel cycle activity (i.e., mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel

12 fabrication, and radioactive waste disposal). Dominion sought to demonstrate in the ER that the

13 impacts for the gas-cooled reactor designs were comparable to the environmental impacts

14 identified in the technical basis document, WASH-1248, “Environmental Summary of the

15 Uranium Fuel Cycle,” and its Supplement 1 (NUREG-0116) for Table S–3.

16

17 As discussed in Section 6.1, the fuel cycle impacts in Table S-3 were based on a reference

18 1000 MW(e) LWR operating at an annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output

19 of 800 MW(e). This is termed the “reference reactor year.” For the purposes of evaluating fuel

20 cycle impacts for the NAPS ESP site, it was assumed that the additional LWR’s site-wide fuel

21 impacts would be based on a total net electric output of 3200 MW(e) at 96 percent annual

22 capacity factor. This was termed the 1000 MW(e) LWR-scaled model and resulted in a factor

23 four times (i.e., 3200/800) the impacts in Table S-3.

24

25 One of the other-than-LWR’s considered by Dominion, the GT-MHR, is a four module

26 2400-MW(t), nominal 1140-MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an annual capacity factor of

27 88 percent for a net electric output of 1032 MW(e). Therefore, the maximum number of

28 GT-MHR units that could be sited at the NAPS ESP site and remain below the 3200 MW(e) total

29 net electric output for the site is three (i.e., 3 x 1032) and it would result in a similar factor of four

30 (i.e., 3096/800) for comparison with Table S-3 and LWRs.

31

32 The second other-than-LWR considered by Dominion, the PBMR, is an eight module,

33 3200 MW(t), nominal 1320 MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an annual capacity factor of

34 95 percent for a net electric output of 1253 MW(e). Therefore, the comparable number of

35 PBMR units to remain below the 3200 MW(e) total net electric output for the site is two (i.e., 2 x

36 1253) and it would result in about a factor of three (i.e., 2506/800) for comparison with Table S37 3 and LWRs.

38

39 Dominion (2004a) compared the impacts between the Table S-3 LWR to the gas-cooled reactor

40 designs. The comparison used an annual fuel loading as a starting point and then proceeded in

41 reverse direction through the fuel cycle (i.e., fuel fabrication, enrichment, conversion, milling,

42 mining, radioactive waste). Table 6-3 provides an estimate of the impacts for each phase of the
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-18 November 2004

1 uranium fuel cycle assuming that the NAPS ESP site would host 3 GT-MHR units or

2 2 PBMR units with the multiplier factors described above.

3

4 Table 6-3. Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts from Gas-Cooled Reactor Designs

for the North Anna ESP Site(a) 5

6

7 Reactor Technology Facility/Activity

GT-MHR

(4 Modules)

(2400 MW[t] total)

(.1140 MW[e] total)

88 percent Capacity:

Multiplier=4

PBMR

(8 Modules)

(3200 MW[t] total)

(~1320 MW[e] total)

95 percent Capacity:

Multiplier=3

8 Mining Operations

9 1.35 1.01 Annual ore supply (Million MT)

10 Milling Operations

11 1200 900 Annual yellowcake (MT)

UF6 12 Production

Annual UF6 13 1520 1140 (MT)

14 Enrichment Operations

Enriched UF6 15 32 37 (MT)

16 800 600 Annual separative work unit (SWU) (MT)

17 Fuel Fabrication Plant Operations

Enriched UO2 18 25 30 (MT)

19 22 25 Annual fuel loading (MTU)

20 Solid Radioactive Waste

21 4400 Ci Annual LLW from reactor operations (Ci) (b) ; 400m3 200 Ci(b); 2400 drums

22 LLW from reactor decontamination and

23 decommissioning Ci per reference reactor24 year

Data not available Data not available

25

26 (a) Values calculated by multiplying values from Table 5.7-1 of ER (Dominion 2004a) by multiplier.

(b) To convert from curies to becquerels, multiply by 3.7 x 1010 27 Bq/Ci.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-19 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 6-3. (contd)

2

3 References: 10 CFR 51.51(a), Table S–3 Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data

4

5 Notes:

6 1. The enrichment SWU calculation was performed using the United States Enrichment Corporation, Inc. (USEC)

7 SWU calculator and assumes a 0.30 percent tails assay.

 2. The information on the reference reactor (mining, milling, UF6 8 , enrichment, fuel fabrication values) taken from

9 NUREG-0116, Table 3.2, no recycling.

10 3. The information on the reference reactor (solid radioactive waste) taken from 10 CFR 51.51, Table S–3.

11 4. The calculated information on the reference reactor uses the same methodology as for the reactor

12 technologies.

13 5. The normalized information is based on 1000 MW(e) and the reactor vendor-supplied unit capacity factor.

14 6. For the new reactor technologies, the annual fuel loading was provided by the reactor vendor.

15 7. The USEC SWU calculator also calculated the kgs of U feed. This number was multiplied by 1.48 to get the

necessary amount of UF6 16 .

 8. The annual yellowcake number was generated using the relationship 2.61285 lb. of U3O8 to 1 kg U of UF6 17 ;

1.185 kgs of U3O8 18 to 1.48 kg.

19 9. The annual ore supply was generated assuming an 0.1% ore body and a 90% recovery efficiency.

20 10. Co-60 with a 5.26 year half-life and Fe-55 with a 2.73 year half-life are the main nuclides listed for the PBMR

21 D&D waste.

22

23 6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication

24

The quantity of UO2 required for reactor fuel is a key parameter. The more UO2 25 required, the

26 greater the environmental impacts (i.e., more energy, greater emissions, and increased water

27 usage). The 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model described in Section 6.1.1 would require the

equivalent of 160 MT of enriched UO2 28 annually. This compares to 25 to 30 MT of enriched UO2

29 annually for the gas-cooled reactor technologies.

30

31 GT-MHR fuel consists of microspheres of uranium oxycarbide (UCO) coated with multiple layers

32 of pryrocarbon and silicon carbide referred to as TRISO coating. Two types of microspheres

33 are used in the GT-MHR fuel, one enriched to 19.8 percent U-235 and one with natural uranium. 

34 The microspheres and graphite shims are bound together into a rod-shaped compact, which is

35 stacked into graphite blocks referred to as fuel elements. A reactor core consists of 1020 fuel

36 elements.

37

PBMR fuel consists of UO2 38 kernels (enriched to 12.9 percent U-235) that are TRISO coated,

39 similar to the GT-MHR fuel. The TRISO-coated particles are imbedded into a graphite matrix to

40 form a fuel sphere that is 60 mm in diameter. Each fuel sphere contains approximately

41 15,000 TRISO-coated particles. Approximately 260,000 fuel spheres make up a core of a single

42 reactor module.

43

44 The fuel described above for gas-cooled reactors are fabricated differently than fuel for LWRs. 

45 There are no currently operating large-scale fuel fabrication facilities producing gas-cooled

46 reactor fuels in the United States, so a direct comparison of environmental impacts is not
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-20 November 2004

1 possible. Based on some environmental impacts from a small-scale fuel fabrication facility

2 producing gas-cooled reactor fuel, Dominion concluded that the environmental impacts from

3 producing gas-cooled reactor fuel would be “not inconsistent” with those of LWRs

4 (Dominion 2004a). By comparison with the fuel fabrication impacts for LWR technologies, the

5 staff concludes that the environmental impacts from producing gas-cooled reactor fuel likely

6 would be small, but these impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage, when the

7 staff will consider the environmental data that is available on a large-scale, fuel fabrication

8 facility for gas-cooled reactors.

9

10 6.1.2.2 Enrichment

11

12 Dominion (2004a) identified two quantities of interest for enrichment. These were (1) the

13 amount of energy required to enrich the fuel measured in separative work units (SWUs), and

(2) the amount of UF6 14 needed. A SWU is a measure of energy required to enrich the fuel. The

15 major environmental impacts for the entire uranium fuel cycle are from the emissions of the

16 fossil fuel plants used to supply energy for the gaseous diffusion plants that enrich the uranium. 

17 Enrichment technologies developed since the impacts in Table S-3 (see Table 6-1) were

18 developed and evaluated include the gas centrifuge process that uses 90 percent less energy

19 than the gaseous diffusion process.

20

To produce 160 MT of enriched UO2 21 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, the enrichment

plant needs to produce about 210 MT of UF6 22 which requires over 500 MT of SWUs (Dominion

2004a). For gas-cooled reactor technologies, the needed enriched UF6 23 ranged from 32 to 37

MT of UF6 The amount of energy to produce these quantities of enriched UF6 24 for the gas25 cooled reactor designs ranged from 600-800 MT of SWU. The upper range is approximately 20

26 to 60 percent higher than the energy required for the reference LWR. Dominion (2004a)

27 concluded that the large reduction in energy associated with using an alternate enrichment

28 technology (e.g., centrifuge) and its associated environmental impacts would more than offset

29 the increase in SWUs. The staff concludes that, on balance, the environmental impacts of

30 enriching gas-cooled fuels by comparison with the impacts of enriching LWR fuel would likely be

31 small, but these impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage, when the staff will

32 consider impacts from the enrichment technology in use at that time.

33

34 6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion

35

36 There are two uranium conversion processes: a wet process and a dry process. In

37 NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a), the NRC stated that environmental releases are small from the

38 conversion facilities compared to the overall fuel cycle impacts and that changing from

39 100 percent use of one process to 100 percent use of the other would make no significant

40 difference in the overall impacts. Similar conversion technologies would be used today to
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-21 Draft NUREG-1811

produce UF6 1 as were considered when determining the environmental impacts that were part of

2 Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51(a).

3

The conversion facility would need to produce 1440 MT of UF6 4 annually for the reference

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled-model compared to 1140 to 1520 MT of UF6 5 for the gas-cooled

6 reactors based on the USEC SWU calculator (Dominion 2004a). The other-than-LWR values

are comparable to the amount of UF6 7 required for the LWR; therefore, the associated environ8 mental impacts are expected to be comparable. On this basis, the staff concludes that the

environmental impacts from producing UF6 9 for gas-cooled reactors would be small.

10

11 6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling

12

Annual yellowcake (U3O8 13 ) production is the metric of interest for uranium milling. Plants

14 required to produce less yellowcake than the reference plant would require less energy, have

15 fewer emissions, and use less water.

16

17 The uranium mill for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled-model would produce about 1200 MT of

18 yellowcake. The uranium mill for the gas-cooled reactor technologies would need to produce

19 900 to 1200 MT of yellowcake, which is comparable to the amount of yellowcake needed for the

20 scaled LWR (Dominion 2004a). On this basis, the staff concludes that the environmental

21 impacts from uranium milling for the gas-cooled reactors would be small.

22

23 6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining

24

25 Annual ore supply is the metric of interest for uranium mining. The less ore mined, the smaller

26 the environmental impacts (i.e., less energy used, fewer emissions, less water usage). For the

27 1000-MW(e) LWR, scaled-model, 1.09 Million MT of raw ore would be required to produce

28 1200 MT of yellowcake. For the gas-cooled reactor technologies, the scaled ore requirements

29 ranged from 1.01 to 1.35 Million MT of ore, a range that is comparable to the amount of ore

30 required for the reference 1000-MW(e) scaled-model LWR. For this reason, the staff concludes

31 that the environmental impacts from uranium mining for the gas-cooled reactors would be small.

32

33 6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations

34

Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) of 10 CFR 51.51(a) states that there are 3.4 x 108 35 MBq (9100 Ci) of

36 low-level waste generated annually from operations of the reference LWR; the 1000 MW(e)

LWR scaled-model would result in 1.3 x109 37 MBq (36,400 Ci) of low-level waste annually. Gascooled reactor technologies are projected to generate 7.4 x 106

 MBq to 1.6 x 108 38 MBq (200 to

39 4400 Ci) of low level waste scaled annually, far below the amounts generated by the reference

40 LWR (Dominion 2004a). For this reason, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts

41 from low-level radioactive waste operations for gas-cooled reactors would be small.

42
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-22 November 2004

1 6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination and Decommissioning

2

In Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) the Commission states 5.6 x 107 3 MBq (1500 Ci) per Reference4 Reactor Year “...comes from reactor decontamination and decommissioning - buried at land

5 burial facilities.” Dominion (2004a) noted that gas-cooled reactor technologies would (1)

6 operate much cleaner than the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR, as evidenced by lower estimates of

7 low-level waste generated and (2) produce less heavy metal radioactive waste due to the higher

8 thermal efficiency and higher fuel burnup. The gas-cooled reactor designs are also more

9 compact than the reference LWR design, which would be expected to result in less decontami10 nation and decommissioning waste (Dominion 2004a). Dominion concluded that low-level

11 waste impact from decontamination and decommissioning are expected to be comparable to or

12 less than that of the reference LWR (Dominion 2004a). On this basis, the staff concludes that

13 the environmental impacts from solid low-level radioactive waste generated during

14 decontamination and decommissioning for gas-cooled reactors would likely be small, but these

15 impacts will need to be assessed again at the CP or COL stage.

16

17 6.1.2.8 Conclusions

18

19 The staff concludes that the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle activities and

20 solid waste management activities for the proposed gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL. 

21 However, because of the uncertainty in the final design of the gas cooled reactors and the

22 change in technology that could be applied to uranium fuel cycle activities additional reviews

23 would be needed at the CP or COL stage in the following areas: fuel fabrication, enrichment,

24 and solid low-level waste operation during decontamination and decommissioning.

25

26 6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials

27

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

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

30 NAPS ESP site, (2) shipment of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage facility or a

31 permanent repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste to

32 offsite disposal facilities. Distinctions between transportation impacts of advanced LWR

33 (ALWR) designs and gas-cooled reactor designs are discussed.

34

35 The NRC evaluated the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste for light-water36 cooled nuclear power reactors in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975)

37 and found the impact to be small. These documents provided the basis for Table S–4 in

38 10 CFR 51.52 that summarizes the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to

39 and from one LWR of 3000 to 5000 MW[t] (1000 to 1500 MW[e]). Impacts are provided for

40 normal conditions of transport and accidents in transport for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR. 

41 Dose to transportation workers during normal transportation operations was estimated to result
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-23 Draft NUREG-1811

1 in a collective dose of 0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem) per reference reactor- year. Dose to the

2 public along the route and dose to onlookers both were estimated to result in a collective dose

3 of 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) per reference reactor-year. Doses to the public during

4 accident conditions were determined to be small. Nonradiological impacts during accident

5 conditions were estimated as one fatal injury in 100 reactor years and one nonfatal injury in

6 10 reference reactor-years. Subsequent reviews of transportation impacts in NUREG-0170

7 (NRC 1977a) and Sprung et al. (2000) concluded that impacts were bounded by Table S–4.

8

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

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

11 Table S–4) if an LWR meets the following criteria:

12

13 C The reactor has a core thermal power level not exceeding 3800 megawatts.

14

 C Fuel is in the form of sintered UO2 15 pellets having a U-235 enrichment not exceeding

16 4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zirconium-clad fuel rods.

17

18 C Average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed

19 33,000 MWd/MT, and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it

20 is discharged from the reactor.

21

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

23 packaged and in solid form.

24

25 C Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated fuel is shipped from the

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

27 from the reactor by truck or rail.

28

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

30 nuclear power facilities were resolved generically in 10 CFR 51.52, provided that the specific

31 conditions in the rule (see above) are met; if not, then a full description and detailed analysis is

32 required for initial licensing. Once licensed, the NRC may consider requests to operate at

33 conditions above those in the facility's licensing basis; for example, higher burnups, enrich34 ments, or thermal power levels above 33,000 MWd/MTU, 4 percent, and 3800 MW(t), respec35 tively. The rule has not been changed for the initial licensing of nuclear power facilities, and

36 departures from the conditions itemized in the rule that were found to be acceptable for licensed

37 facilities cannot serve as the basis for initial licensing.

38

39 Dominion has not identified a specific reactor design for the NAPS ESP but used bounding

40 parameters from seven reactor designs. Five of the designs are LWRs, and include the

41 ACR-700 (3964 MW[t]/unit); the ABWR (4300 MW[t]/unit); the AP1000 (3400 MW[t]/unit); the

42 ESBWR (4000 MW[t]/unit), and the IRIS (3000 MW[t]/unit). For the ACR-700 reactor design,
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-24 November 2004

1 two reactors make up a unit. For the IRIS design, three reactors (modules) make up a unit. For

2 the remaining LWR designs, one reactor makes up a unit. None of the proposed LWR designs

3 meets all the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52(a); therefore, a full description and detailed analysis

4 are required for each LWR design. This conclusion is based on the following:

5

6 C The ACR-700, ABWR, and ESBWR designs exceed the 3800 MW(t) core thermal power

7 level.

8

9 C The ABWR, AP1000, ESBWR, and IRIS designs require fuel that exceeds the

10 U-235 enrichment of 4 percent.

11

12 C The ABWR, AP1000, ESBWR, and IRIS designs are expected to exceed the average

13 irradiation level of 33,000 MWd/MTU.

14

15 The remaining two designs are gas-cooled reactors: the GT-MHR and the PBMR. Each

16 GT-MHR unit is a four-module, 2400-MW(t), 1140-MW(e) gas-cooled reactor designed to

17 operate at a unit capacity factor of 88 percent. Each PBMR is an eight-module, 3200-MW(t),

18 1320-MW(e) gas-cooled reactor designed to operate at a unit capacity factor of 95 percent. 

19 This compares to the reference reactor in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which is a single-unit,

20 1100-MW(e) LWR with a unit capacity factor of 80 percent. The gas-cooled reactor designs do

21 not meet the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52 because these reactors are not LWR designs upon

22 which Table S–4 impacts were based. Therefore, a full description and detailed analysis was

23 required for each gas-cooled reactor design. This was provided by Dominion in its response to

24 a request for additional information on July 12, 2004 (Dominion 2004b). 

25

26 Dominion used a sensitivity analysis to show that transportation impacts from ALWR designs

27 would be bounded by the criteria identified in Table S–4 (Dominion 2004a). NUREG-1437,

28 Addendum 1, (NRC 1999) was referenced as the basis for exceeding 4 percent U-235

29 enrichment and 33,000 MWd/MTU. However, as discussed above, NUREG-1437,

30 Addendum 1, applies to reactors that are listed in NUREG-1437, Appendix A and not to any

31 other reactor designs.

32

33 Dominion also used a sensitivity analysis to show that transportation impacts from the advanced

34 gas-cooled reactor designs would be bounded by the criteria identified in Table S–4

35 (Dominion 2004a); however, as discussed previously, this type of analysis does not adequately

36 meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.52. Dominion (2004a) identified the major contributors to

37 transportation risk to be the number and type of shipment (shipment risk) and the kind of mate38 rial being shipped (material risk). Their evaluation of shipment risk showed fewer shipments of
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-25 Draft NUREG-1811

1 unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and low-level waste would be required for the advanced gas-cooled

2 reactors compared to the reference LWR when averaged over 40 years of operation. 

3 Regarding material risk, Dominion (2004) concluded the following:

4

5 C The estimated total spent fuel radioactive inventory and fission product inventory was

6 less for the gas-cooled reactors when compared to the reference LWR.

7

8 C Actinide inventories would be greater for the gas-cooled reactors (55 to 65 percent

9 greater) due to the increased burnup rate for these types of reactors; however, actinides

10 are not major contributors to dose during transportation accidents.

11

12 C Gas-cooled reactors would generate fewer kilowatts of decay heat per MTU and fewer

13 kilowatts of decay heat per truck cask at the time of shipment.

14

15 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

16

17 The staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts of transporting

18 unirradiated (fresh) fuel to the proposed ESP site at NAPS. Environmental impacts of normal

19 operating conditions and transportation accidents are discussed in this section. Appendix G

20 provides the details of the analysis.

21

22 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions

23

24 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as "incident-free" transportation, are transportation

25 activities in which shipments reach their destination without releasing any radioactive cargo to

26 the environment. Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that

27 penetrate the unirradiated fuel shipping casks.

28

29 Truck Shipments

30

31 Table 6-4 provides an estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel for each

32 advanced reactor design compared to those of the reference 1100-MW(e) reactor specified in

33 WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). Estimates are normalized for an equivalent 1100-MW(e) electric

34 generating capacity. The basis for the shipment estimates can be found in Appendix G of this

35 draft EIS. Only the ACR-700, PBMR, and GT-MHR reactor designs exceeded the number of

36 truck shipments of unirradiated fuel estimated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. The

37 largest number of shipments, in excess of 700 shipments over 40 years, is for the PBMR. 

38 However, this equates to far less than the one truck shipment per day condition specified in

39 Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52.

40

41
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-26 November 2004

1 Table 6-4. Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor Type

2

3 Reactor Type

Number of Shipments per

Reactor Site

Site Electric

Generation,

MW(e)(c)

Capacity

Factor(c)

Normalized,

Shipments

per 1,100

MW(e)(d,e)

Initial

Core(a)

Annual

Reload Total(b)

4 Reference LWR

5 (WASH-1238)

18 6 252 1100 0.8 252

ABWR/ESBWR(d,e) 6 30 6.1 267 1500 0.95 165

7 14 3.8 161 1150 0.95 130 AP1000

8 15 7.7 314 731 0.9 420 ACR-700

9 34 4.3 201 1005 IRIS (f) 0.96 184

10 51 20 831 1140 GT-MHR (g) 0.88 729

11 44 20 824 1320 PBMR (h) 0.95 579

12 NOTE: The reference LWR shipment values have all been normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical

13 generation.

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

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

16 average annual reload quantities).

17 (c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from INEEL (2003).

18 (d) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100 MW(e) plant at

19 80 percent or net electrical output of 880 MW(e)).

20 (e) Ranges of capacities are given in INEEL (2003) for these reactor fresh fuel shipments. The fresh

21 fuel shipment data for these reactors were derived using the upper limit of the ranges.

22 (f) The IRIS site includes three units at 335 MW(e) per unit.

23 (g) The GT-MHR site includes four reactor units at 285 MW(e) per unit.

24 (h) The PBMR site includes eight reactor units at 165 MW(e) per unit.

25

26 Shipping Mode and Weight Limits

27

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

29 by truck. In information provided by Dominion, the applicant specifies that unirradiated fuel will

30 be shipped to the reactor site by truck for all reactor designs that it references (INEEL 2003). 

31 10 CFR 51.52 includes a requirement that the truck shipments not exceed 33,100 kg

32 (73,000 lbs) as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle weight restrictions. All the advanced

33 reactor designs would meet this weight restriction for unirradiated fuel (INEEL 2003).

34
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-27 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and The Public

2

3 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4, includes conditions related to radiological dose to transport workers

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

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

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

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

8 exposed. For this draft EIS, the radiological dose impacts of the transportation of unirradiated

9 fuel were calculated for the worker and the public using the RADTRAN 5 computer code

10 (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Details of the calculations are found in Appendix G.

11

12 Table 6-5 presents the radiological impacts to workers, onlookers (members of the public), and

13 members of the public (along the route) for the advanced reactor designs. The cumulative

14 annual dose estimates were normalized to 1100 MW(e). The staff performed an independent

15 review and determined that all dose estimates are bounded by the Table S–4 conditions

16 of 0.04 person-Sv/yr (4 person-rem/yr) to transportation workers, 0.03 person-Sv/yr

17 (3 person-rem/yr) to onlookers, and 0.03 person-Sv/yr (3 person-rem/yr) to members of the

18 public along the route.

19

20 Table 6-5. Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced Reactor Sites

21

22 Plant Type

Normalized

Average

Annual

Shipments

Cumulative Annual Dose; person-Sv/yr per

1,100 MW(e)(a)

Workers

Public -

Onlookers

Public -

Along Route

23 Reference LWR

24 (WASH-1238)

6.1 1.1 x 10-4 4.2 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-5

25 4.2 7.1 x 10 ABWR/ESBWR -5 2.7 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-6

26 3.3 5.6 x 10 AP1000 -5 2.2 x 10-4 5.2 x 10-6

27 10.5 1.8 x 10 ACR-700 -4 7.0 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-5

28 4.6 7.9 x 10 IRIS -5 3.1 x 10-4 7.4 x 10-6

29 18.2 3.1 x 10 GT-MHR -4 1.2 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-5

30 14.5 2.5 x 10 PBMR -4 9.6 x 10-4 2.3 x 10-5

31 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4

32 Condition

<1 per day 4.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2 3 x 10-2

33 (a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

34

35
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-28 November 2004

1 6.2.1.2 Accidents

2

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

4 for transportation of fuel to and from future reactors are expected to be lower that those used in

5 the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which forms the basis for Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52,

6 because of improvements in highway safety and security, and an expected decrease in traffic

7 accident, injury, and fatality rates. Consequences of accidents that are severe enough to result

8 in a release of unirradiated fuel particles to the environment are not significantly different for

9 ALWRs from current generation LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging are

10 similar to those analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, the impacts of accidents during trans11 port of unirradiated fuel for ALWRs to the North Anna ESP site are expected to be smaller than

12 the impacts listed in Table S–4 for current generation LWRs.

13

14 With respect to the advanced gas-cooled reactors, accident rates (accidents per unit distance)

15 and associated accident frequencies (accidents per year) would be expected to follow the same

16 trends as for LWRs (i.e., overall reduction relative to the accident rates used in the WASH-1238

17 analysis). The consequences of accidents involving gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel,

18 however, are more uncertain. The staff assumed that the gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel

19 shipments would have the same abilities as LWR unirradiated fuel to maintain functional

20 integrity following a traffic accident. This assumption is considered to be conservative because

21 gas-cooled reactor fuel operates at significantly higher temperatures, and thus maintains

22 integrity under more severe thermal conditions than LWR fuel. Detailed information about the

23 behavior of the gas-cooled reactor fuel under impact conditions was not available. However,

24 packaging systems for unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel will be required to meet the same

25 requirements as unirradiated LWR fuel packages. Properly designed and manufactured

26 packaging systems are the most effective means of preventing damage and dispersal of the

27 contained materials under accident conditions. Consequently, it is expected that packaging

28 systems for unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuels would provide equivalent release (i.e.,

29 consequence) prevention and mitigation to those designed for unirradiated LWR fuels. In

addition, the fuel forms for the gas-cooled reactors are similar to LWRs (i.e., UO2 30 for the PBMR

and uranium oxycarbide for the GT-MHR versus UO2 31 for LWRs), so the failure resistance

32 provided by unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuels should not be significantly lower than LWRs. 

33 Based on the assumption that unirradiated gas-cooled and LWR fuels and associated

34 packaging systems would provide equivalent resistance to thermal and impact conditions, the

35 staff concludes that the impacts of accidents involving unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel

36 would not be significantly different than for LWR unirradiated fuel and will be within the impacts

37 listed in Table S–4 for current generation LWRs. However, these impacts will need to be

38 assessed at the CP or COL stage when specific information is available regarding other-than39 LWR fuel performance, if the applicant references such designs.

40
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-29 Draft NUREG-1811

1 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

2

3 The staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts of transporting spent

4 fuel from the proposed North Anna ESP site to a spent fuel disposal repository. The Yucca

5 Mountain, Nevada, location is a possible location for a geologic repository. The staff considers

6 that an estimate of the impacts of the transportation of spent fuel to a possible repository in

7 Nevada to be a reasonable bounding estimate of the transportation impacts to a monitored

8 retrievable storage facility because of the distances involved and the representative exposure of

9 members of the public in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Environmental impacts of normal

10 operating conditions and transportation accidents are discussed in this section.

11

12 This analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in casks with character13 istics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical metal pres14 sure vessels). Each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded on a

15 modified trailer. These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made in the evaluation of

16 the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437

17 (NRC 1999). These assumptions are conservative because the alternative assumptions involve

18 rail transportation or heavy-haul trucks, which would reduce the overall number of spent fuel

19 shipments (NRC 1999).

20

21 Environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5

22 computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Routing and population data used in the RADTRAN 5

23 for truck shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and

24 Michelbaugh 2000). The population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 census.

25

26 The staff's evaluation reviewed the impacts of spent fuel shipments originating from the primary

27 ESP location (i.e., the NAPS site) and the alternative sites (Surry Power Station [Surry],

28 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant [Portsmouth], and Savannah River Site). Appendix G

29 provides the details of the analysis.

30

31 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions

32

33 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as "incident-free" transportation, are transportation

34 activities in which shipments reach their destination without releasing any radioactive cargo to

35 the environment. Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that

36 penetrate the heavily shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Radiation doses will occur to

37 (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors between the ESP site and the proposed

38 repository; (2) persons in vehicles passing a spent-fuel shipment; (3) persons at vehicle stops

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

40

41 Shipping casks have not been designed for the advanced reactor designs. Information in

42 INEEL (2003) indicated that ALWR fuel designs would not be significantly different from existing
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-30 November 2004

1 LWR designs; therefore, current shipping cask designs were used for the analysis for ALWR

2 designs. No information is available on spent fuel shipping cask designs for the gas-cooled

3 reactor designs. For purposes of this analysis, their design was assumed to be the same as

4 those for the existing LWRs. Spent fuel shipping cask designs for gas-cooled reactor designs

5 will be evaluated at the CP or COL stage if the applicant references such designs.

6

7 Radiation doses are a function of many parameters, including vehicle speed, traffic count, dose

8 rate at 1 m from the vehicle, packaging dimensions, number in the truck crew, stop time, and

9 population density at stops. For a listing of the values for these and other parameters, refer to

10 Appendix G. Table 6-6 presents radiation dose estimates to the transport workers and the

11 public for the primary and alternative ESP sites. Doses are presented on a per-shipment basis. 

12 The per-shipment dose estimates are independent of reactor technology because they were

13 calculated based on an assumed external radiation dose rate emitted from the cask, which was

14 fixed at the regulatory maximum limit for the advanced reactor designs (i.e., 10 mrem/h at 2 m).

15

16 Table 6-6. Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the

17 Public from Shipping Spent Fuel from Potential Early Site Permit Sites to a

18 Spent Fuel Disposal Facility

19

20 ESP Site

Population Dose, person-Sv/shipment(a)

Crew Onlookers Along Route

21 1.0 x 10 North Anna -3 3.5 x 10-3 9.2 x 10-5

22 9.1 x 10 Portsmouth -4 3.2 x 10-3 7.3 x 10-5

23 9.9 x 10 Savannah River Site -4 3.5 x 10-3 1.0 x 10-4

24 1.1 x 10 Surry -3 3.5 x 10-3 9.7 x 10-5

25 (a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

26

27 Population dose estimates per reactor-year are presented in Table 6-7 for specific advanced

28 reactor designs. Population doses were calculated by multiplying the number of spent fuel

29 shipments per year for each advanced reactor design times the dose per shipment from

30 Table 6-6. Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR design in WASH-1238

31 (880 net MW[e]). This corresponds to an 1100-MW(e) LWR operating at 80 percent capacity. 

32 Appendix G provides the basis upon which the number of spent fuel shipments were derived for

33 each advanced reactor design.

34

35

36
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-31 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 6-7. Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation,

2 Normalized to Reference Light-Water Reactors

3

4 Reactor

5 Type

Reference LWR

(WASH-1238) ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 ACR-700

6 Shipments

7 per Year 60 41 40 90

Environmental Effects, person-Sv per reactor-year(a) 8

9 Reactor Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

10 NAPS 0.06 0.21 0.01 0.04 0.14 0 0.04 0.14 0 0.09 0.32 0.01

11 Portsmouth 0.06 0.19 0 0.04 0.13 0 0.04 0.12 0 0.08 0.28 0.01

12 Savannah

13 River Site

0.06 0.21 0.01 0.04 0.14 0 0.04 0.14 0 0.09 0.32 0.01

14 Surry 0.06 0.21 0.01 0.04 0.14 0 0.04 0.14 0 0.1 0.32 0.01

15

16 Reactor

17 Type IRIS GT MHR PBMR

18 Shipments

19 per Year 35 34 12

20 Environmental Effects, person-Sv per Reactor-Year

21 Reactor Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

22 NAPS 0.036 0.12 0.0032 0.034 0.12 0.0031 0.012 0.04 0.001

23 Portsmouth 0.031 0.11 0.0025 0.03 0.11 0.0024 0.01 0.036 0.00082

24 Savannah

25 River Site

0.034 0.12 0.0035 0.033 0.12 0.0033 0.011 0.039 0.0011

26 Surry 0.037 0.12 0.0033 0.0033 0.12 0.0032 0.012 0.04 0.0011

27 (a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

28

29 The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S–4 are

30

31 C 0.04 person-Sv/reactor-year (4 person-rem/reactor-year) to transport workers,

32

33 C 0.03 person-Sv/reactor-year (3 person-rem/reactor-year) to general public (onlookers)

34

35 C 0.03 person-Sv/reactor-year (3 person-rem/reactor-year) to general public (along route).

36
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-32 November 2004

1 Population doses to the crew and the onlookers for all the reactor types including the reference

2 reactor found in Table 6-7, exceed Table S–4 values. Two key reasons for the higher population

3 doses relative to Table S–4 are the higher number of spent fuel shipments estimated for some of

4 the reactor technologies and the longer shipping distances assumed for the analyses (i.e., to a

5 possible repository in Nevada) than were used in WASH-1238. WASH-1238 used a "typical"

6 distance for a spent fuel shipment of 1600 km (1000 mi), whereas the shipping distances used in

7 this assessment ranged from about 3000 km (1800 mi) to 4700 km (2900 mi). The higher

8 numbers of shipments are based on spent fuel shipping casks designed to transport

9 shorter-cooled fuel (i.e., 150 days out of the reactor). It was assumed in this analysis that the

10 shipping cask capacities are 0.5 MTU/shipment, roughly equivalent to one PWR or two BWR

11 spent fuel assemblies per shipment.

12

13 Newer designs are based on longer-cooled spent fuel (i.e., 5 years out of reactor) and have larger

14 capacities than those used in this assessment. DOE (2002) spent fuel shipping cask capacities

15 were approximately 1.8 MTU/shipment, or up to four PWR or nine BWR fuel assemblies per

16 shipment. Use of the newer shipping cask designs will reduce the number of spent fuel ship17 ments and the associated environmental impacts. On balance, if the population doses are

18 adjusted for the shipping distance and shipping cask capacity, the routine population doses from

19 spent fuel shipments from all reactor types and all sites fall within Table S–4 requirements.

20

21 Other conservative assumptions in the staff's calculation include:

22

23 C Use of the regulatory maximum dose rate (0.1 mSv/hr [10 mrem/hr] at 2 m) in the

24 RADTRAN5 calculations. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS prepared in support of

25 the application for a geologic repository at the proposed Yucca Mountain site

26 (DOE 2002b) were designed to transport spent fuel that has cooled for 5 years. In reality,

27 most spent fuel will have cooled for much longer than 5 years before it is shipped to a

28 possible geologic repository. Sprung et al. (2000) developed a probabilistic distribution of

29 dose rates based on fuel cooling times that indicates that approximately three-fourths of

30 the spent fuel to be transported to a possible geologic repository will have dose rates less

31 than half of the regulatory limit. Consequently, the estimated population doses in

32 Table 6-7 could be divided in half if more realistic dose rate projections are used.

33

34 C Use of 30 minutes as the average time at a truck stop in the calculations. Many stops

35 made for actual spent fuel shipments are short duration stops (i.e., 10 minutes) for brief

36 visual inspections of the cargo (checking the cask tie-downs). These stops typically occur

37 in minimally populated areas, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an unpopulated

38 area. Furthermore, empirical data provided in Griego et al. (1996) indicates that a

39 30-minute stop is toward the high end of the stop time distribution. Average stop times

40 observed by Griego et al. (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes. Based on these observa41 tions, it was concluded that the stop model assumptions used in this study overestimate
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-33 Draft NUREG-1811

1 public doses at stops by at least a factor of two. Consequently, the doses to onlookers given in

2 Table 6-7 could be reduced by a factor two to reflect more realistic truck shipping conditions.

3

4 Dominion performed its own RADTRAN 5 calculations looking at the impact of "incident-free"

5 transport of spent fuel to a spent fuel disposal facility. The assumed transport of spent fuel

6 originated from the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant (a distance further than NAPS) and terminated at

7 a disposal facility assumed to be at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Dose estimates per shipment were

8 similar to those calculated by the staff.

9

10 6.2.2.2 Accidents

11

12 As discussed previously, the staff used the RADTRAN 5 computer code to estimate impacts of

13 transportation accidents involving spent fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5 considers a spectrum of

14 potential transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and low conse15 quences (e.g., “fender benders”) to those with low frequencies and high consequences (i.e.,

16 accidents in which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical and thermal

17 conditions). Details of the analysis are discussed in Appendix G.

18

19 Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The

20 radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were from Early Site Permit Environmental Report

21 Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003). This report included hundreds of radio22 nuclides for each advanced reactor type. A screening analysis was conducted to select the

23 dominant contributors to accident risks to simplify the RADTRAN 5 calculations. The screening

24 identified the radionuclides that would contribute more than 99.999 percent of the dose from

25 inhalation of radionuclides released following a transportation accident. The dominant radionu26 clides are similar regardless of the fuel type (i.e., ALWR fuel or gas-cooled reactor fuel). Spent

27 fuel inventories used in the staff analysis are presented in Table 6-8. No radionuclide inventory

28 data were presented in INEEL (2003) for the ACR-700 and IRIS advanced reactors; therefore,

29 transportation accident risks were not quantified for these reactor types and would need to be

30 assessed at the CP/COL stage if the applicant referenced either of these designs.

31

32 Massive shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the radiation shielding and

33 accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must be certified

34 Type B packaging systems, meaning they must withstand a series of severe hypothetical accident

35 conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding capability. According to Sprung

36 et al. (2000), the probability of encountering accident conditions that would lead to shipping cask

37 failure is less than 0.01 percent (i.e., more than 99.99 percent of all accidents would result in no

38 release of radioactive material from the shipping cask). The staff assumed that shipping casks for

39 advanced reactor spent fuels will provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the

40 spent fuel cargo. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-34 November 2004

1 Table 6-8. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for

2 Each Advanced Reactor Type

3

4 Radionuclide

ABWR and ESBWR

Inventory, Bq/MTU

AP1000

Inventory, Bq/MTU

GT-MHR

Inventory, Bq/MTU

PBMR

Inventory, Bq/MTU

5 4.96 x 10 Am-241 13 2.69 x1013 8.18 x1013 7.55 x1013

6 1.24 x 10 Am-242m 12 4.85 x 1011 5.03 x 1011 8.51 x 1011

7 1.20 x 10 Am-243 12 1.24 x 1012 5.14 x 1011 4.77 x 1012

8 4.22 x 10 Ce-144 14 3.28 x 1014 2.15 x 1015 1.19 x 1015

9 2.04 x 10 Cm-242 12 1.05 x 1012 1.51 x 1012 2.78 x 1012

10 1.37 x 10 Cm-243 12 1.14 x 1012 2.02 x 1011 1.96 x 1012

11 1.80 x 10 Cm-244 14 2.87 x 1014 2.83 x1013 5.48 x 1014

12 2.43 x 10 Cm-245 10 4.48 x 1010 1.65 x 108 5.29 x 1010

Co-60(a) 13 1.01 x 1014 00 0

14 1.78 x 10 Cs-134 15 1.78 x 1015 2.21 x 1015 4.03 x 1015

15 4.59 x 10 Cs-137 15 3.44 x 1015 1.08 x 1016 1.41 x 1016

16 3.81 x 10 Eu-154 14 3.38 x 1014 3.23 x1014 3.74 x 1014

17 1.93 x 10 Eu-155 14 1.71 x 1014 8.77 x1013 1.08 x 1014

18 1.25 x 10 Pm-147 15 6.51 x 1014 6.92 x 1015 5.07 x 1015

19 2.27 x 10 Pu-238 14 2.25 x 1014 1.17 x 1014 4.55 x 1014

20 1.43 x 10 Pu-239 13 9.44 x 1012 2.25 x1013 1.11 x1013

21 2.28 x 10 Pu-240 13 2.01 x1013 3.96 x1013 3.32 x1013

22 4.51 x 10 Pu-241 15 2.58 x 1015 8.33 x 1015 7.18 x 1015

23 8.29 x 10 Pu-242 10 6.73 x 1010 1.56 x 1011 4.51 x 1011

24 6.07 x 10 Ru-106 14 5.74 x 1014 1.48 x 1015 1.68 x 1015

25 3.27 x 10 Sr-90 15 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

26 3.27 x 10 Y-90 15 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

27 1.99 x 10 Sb-125 14 1.42 x 1014 2.21 x 1014 2.51 x 1014

28 (a) Co-60 is an activation product. Only the ABWR/ESBWR submittal in INEEL (2003) provided inventory data for activation

29 products.

30

31 The RADTRAN 5 accident risk calculations were performed using unit radionuclide inventories

32 (Bq/MTU) for the spent fuel shipments from the various reactor types. The resulting risk

33 estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent fuel shipments (MTU/yr) to derive

34 estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel shipments from each potential
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-35 Draft NUREG-1811

1 advanced reactor site. As was done for routine exposures, the staff assumed that the numbers of

2 shipments of spent fuel per year are equivalent to the annual discharge quantities.

3

4 For this assessment, release fractions for current generation LWR fuels were used to approxi5 mate the impacts from the advanced reactor spent fuel shipments. This assumes that the fuel

6 materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel coatings) behave similarly to current LWR

7 fuel under applied mechanical and thermal conditions. Due to the lack of experimental data on

8 gas-cooled reactor fuels, it is currently not known if this approach is bounding. However, gas9 cooled reactors operate at much higher temperatures than LWRs; therefore, high temperature

10 conditions anticipated in transportation accident fires should have less of an effect on radionuclide

11 releases than they do for LWR fuels. Thus, smaller release fractions are anticipated for advanced

12 gas-cooled reactor fuels than for LWR fuels subjected to thermal transients.

13

14 RADTRAN 5 calculated the population dose from the released radioactive material for five

15 possible exposure pathways. These pathways are:

16

17 (1) external dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material

18

19 (2) external dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume (the

20 staff's analysis included the radiation exposure from this pathway even though the area

21 surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated and decontaminated, thus

22 preventing long-term exposures from this pathway)

23

24 (3) internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants

25

26 (4) internal dose from resuspension of radioactive materials that were deposited on the ground

27 (the staff's analysis included the radiation exposures from this pathway even though

28 evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a potential accidental release would

29 prevent long-term exposures)

30

31 (5) internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food (the staff's analysis assumed interdiction of

32 foodstuffs and evacuation after an accident so no internal dose due to ingestion of

33 contaminated foods was calculated).

34

35 Table 6-9 presents the environmental consequences of transportation accidents when shipping

36 spent fuel from the North Anna ESP site and alternative sites to a spent fuel repository assumed

37 to be at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The shipping distances and population distribution information

38 for the routes were the same as those used for the normal "incident-free" conditions (for details,

39 see Appendix G). The table presents estimates of population dose (person-Sv/reactor year),

40 latent cancer fatalities per reactor-year, and total detrimental health effects per reactor year for

41 several of the advanced reactor designs. These values are normalized to the WASH-1238

42 reference reactor (880-MW[e] net electrical generation, 1100-MW[e] reactor operating at 80
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-36 November 2004

1 percent capacity). The health-effect conversion factors (i.e., 0.06 latent cancer fatalities per

2 person-Sv and 0.085 total detrimental health effects per person-Sv for workers and the public)

3 were taken from Federal Guidance Report 13 (EPA 2002). Total detriment could includes fatal

4 and non-fatal cancers and severe hereditary effects. 

5

6 Table 6-9. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

7 Normalized to Reference 1000 – MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation

8

9

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

10 MTU/yr 20.3 19.7 6 5.8

Population Dose, person-Sv/yr(a) 11

12 4.7 x 10 North Anna -6 4.2 x 10-7 1.9 x 10-7 3.1 x 10-7

13 5.2 x 10 Portsmouth -6 4.0 x 10-7 1.8 x 10-7 3.0 x 10-7

14 5.3 x 10 Savannah River Site -6 4.7 x 10-7 2.1 x 10-7 3.5 x 10-7

15 4.8 x 10 Surry -6 4.3 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-7 3.2 x 10-7

16 Latent Cancer Fatalities per Year

17 2.8 x 10 North Anna -7 2.5 x 10-8 1.1 x 10-8 1.9 x 10-8

18 3.1 x 10 Portsmouth -7 2.4 x 10-8 1.1 x 10-8 1.8 x 10-8

19 3.2 x 10 Savannah River Site -7 2.8 x 10-8 1.3 x 10-8 2.1 x 10-8

20 2.9 x 10 Surry -7 2.6 x 10-8 1.2 x 10-8 1.9 x 10-8

21 Total Detrimental Health Effects per Year

22 4.0 x 10 North Anna -7 3.6 x 10-8 1.6 x 10-8 2.7 x 10-8

23 4.4 x 10 Portsmouth -7 3.4 x 10-8 1.6 x 10-8 2.6 x 10-8

24 4.5 x 10 Savannah River Site -7 4.0 x 10-8 1.8 x 10-8 3.0 x 10-8

25 4.1 x 10 Surry -7 3.7 x 10-8 1.7 x 10-8 2.7 x 10-8

26 (a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain person-rem/yr.

27

28

29 To put health effects in perspective, the staff estimated cancer fatalities to the approximately

30 725,000 persons that live within 800 m of the route between North Anna ESP site and the

31 proposed Yucca Mountain repository. The 800 m is the distance on either side of the route used
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-37 Draft NUREG-1811

1 by RADTRAN 5 to compute the routine doses to the population along the route. The U.S. Centers

2 for Disease Control and Prevention (NCHS 2004) reported the U.S. cancer mortality rate in 2001

3 to be 194.4 fatalities per 100,000 persons. Using this rate, the staff calculated about 1400 cancer

4 fatalities per year in the exposed population between the North Anna ESP site and a proposed

5 repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This is many orders of magnitude greater than the

6 accident risk values presented in Table 6-9. Therefore, no detectable increases in environmental

7 effects from spent-fuel transportation accidents are expected as a result of shipping spent fuel

8 from the North Anna ESP site to a spent fuel disposal repository.

9

10 6.2.2.3 Conclusion

11

12 Considering the uncertainties in the data and computational methods, the staff concludes that the

13 overall transportation accident risks associated with advanced reactor spent fuel shipments are

14 likely to be SMALL and are consistent with the risks associated with transportation of spent fuel

15 from current generation reactors presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The fuel performance

16 characteristics, shipping casks, and accident risks for other-than-LWR designs would need to be

17 assessed at the CP or COL stage if the applicant references such designs.

18

19 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste

20

21 This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting waste from advanced reactor

22 sites. The environmental conditions listed in 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to shipments of radioactive

23 waste are as follows:

24

25 C Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is packaged in solid form.

26

27 C Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is shipped from the reactor by truck or rail.

28

29 C Weight limitation of 33,100 kg (73,000 lb) per truck and 100 tons per cask per railcar.

30

31 C Traffic density limitation of less than one truck shipment per day or three railcars per

32 month.

33

34 In INEEL (2003), the applicant indicates that all the radioactive waste will be transported by truck,

35 and it plans to solidify and package its waste regardless of which advanced reactor technology it

36 chooses. In addition, waste from any of the advanced reactor technologies will be subject to NRC

37 (10 CFR Part 71) and DOT (49 CFR Parts 173 and 178) regulations for the shipment of

38 radioactive material.

39

40 Radioactive waste from any of the advanced reactor technologies are expected to be capable of

41 being shipped in compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions.

42
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-38 November 2004

1 Table 6-10 presents estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste shipment numbers for

2 the advanced reactor types normalized to the reference 1100-MW(e) LWR defined in WASH-1238

3 (AEC 1972). Annual waste volumes and waste shipments for the advanced reactor technologies

4 were less than the 1100-MW(e) reference reactor that was the basis for Table S–4 for all designs

5 except the PBMR. As shown in the table, only the PBMR would be expected to generate a larger

6 volume of radioactive waste than the reference LWR in WASH-1238. However, the GT-MHR and

7 PBMR information in INEEL (2003) assumed the applicant would ship their wastes using two

different packaging systems: one that hauls 28.3 m3/shipment (1000 ft3 8 per shipment) and one

that hauls 5.7 m3/shipment (200 ft3 9 /shipment). Under those conditions, the number of shipments

10 of radioactive waste per year, normalized to 1100 MW(e) electric generation capacity, would be

11 about six shipments/year per 1100 MW(e) (880 net MW[e]) for the GT-MHR and seven

12 shipments/year per 1100 MW[e] for the PBMR. These estimates are well below the reference

13 LWR (46 shipments/yr per 1100 MW[e]).

14

15 All the estimates are well below the one truck shipment per day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52,

16 Table S–4. Doubling the shipment estimates to account for empty return shipments is still well

17 below the one-shipment-per-day-condition.

18

19 6.2.4 Conclusions

20

21 Considering the uncertainties in the data and computational methods, the staff concludes that the

22 environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from advanced

23 LWR designs would be SMALL, and would be consistent with the risks associated with

24 transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes from current generation reactors presented in

25 Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. For gas-cooled designs, the impacts are likely to be SMALL, but at

26 the CP or COL stage, the staff will need to validate the assumptions used in this transportation

27 analysis with more design data. Assumptions that need validation include:

28

29 C verifying that unirradiated and spent fuel from gas-cooled reactors have the same abilities

30 as LWR unirradiated and spent fuel to maintain integrity following a traffic accident

31

32 C verifying that the shipping cask design assumptions (e.g., cask capacities) are equal to or

33 bounded by the assumptions in this analysis

34

35 C verifying that the fresh fuel initial core/refueling requirement, spent fuel generation rates,

36 and radioactive waste generation rate assumptions are equal to or bounded by the

37 assumptions in this analysis

38

39 C verifying that shipping cask capacities and accident source terms, including spent fuel

40 inventories, severity fractions, and release fractions, are equal to or bounded by the

41 assumptions in this analysis.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-39 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Should the ACR-700 or IRIS reactors be chosen for the ESP site, a transportation accident

2 analysis will be performed, as spent fuel inventories were not available for the ESP analysis.

3

4 Table 6-10. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors

5

6 Reactor Type

DOE (2003)

Waste

Generation

Information

Annual Waste

Volume, m3

/yr

per Site

Electrical

Output,

MW(e) per

Site

Normalized

Rate, m3

/1100

MW(e) Plant

(880 MW(e)

Net)(a)

Shipments/

1100 MW(e)

(880 MW(e)

Net) Electrical

Output(b)

7 Reference

8 LWR

9 (WASH-1238)

100 m3

/yr per

unit

108 1100 108 46

10 100 m ABWR 3

/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

11 100 m ESBWR 3

/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

12 55 m AP1000 3

/yr per

unit

56 1150 45 20

13 47.5 m ACR-700 3

/yr

per unit

47.5 731 64 28

14 25 m IRIS 3

/yr

per unit

74 (3 units) 1,005 (3 units) 67 29

15 98 m GT-MHR 3

/yr

(4 unit Plant)

98 (4 units) 1,320 (8 units) 86 37(c)

16 100 drums/yr PBMR

per unit

168 (8 units) 1,320 (8 units) 118 51(c)

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3 17 ).

18 (a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation

19 output are given in Table 6-3 for each reactor type. All are normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical

20 output (1100-MW[e] plant with an 80 percent capacity factor).

21 (b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste

shipment capacity of 2.34 m3

 per shipment (108 m3 22 /yr divided by 46 shipments/yr).

23 (c) The applicant states in INEEL (2003) that 90 percent of the waste could be shipped on trucks

carrying 28 m3

 (1000 ft3) of waste and the remaining 10 percent in shipments carrying 5.7 m3 (200 ft3 24 )

25 of radioactive waste. This would result in six to seven shipments per year after normalization to the

26 reference LWR electrical output.

27

28
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-40 November 2004

1 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

2

3 At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, the NRC regulations require that the facility

4 undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the removal of a facility safely from service and

5 the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The

6 regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.82 and 50.75.

7

8 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any LWR

9 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental

10 Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1

11 (NRC 2002a). If Dominion applies for a license to operate additional units at North Anna, there is

12 a requirement to provide a report containing a certification that financial assurance for radiological

13 decommissioning will be provided. At the time an application is submitted, the requirements in

14 10 CFR 50.33, 10 CFR 50.75, and 10 CFR 52.77 (and any other applicable requirements) will

15 have to be met.

16

17 At the ESP stage, Dominion is not required to submit information regarding the process of

18 decommissioning such as the method chosen for decommissioning, the schedule, or any other

19 aspect of planning for decommissioning. The regulatory requirements on decommissioning

20 activities are expected to limit the impacts of decommissioning to a small impact. The impacts

21 from decommissioning were evaluated for license renewal of Units 1 and 2 and no significant

22 impacts beyond those described in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 were identified. For Units 3 and

23 4, if LWR designs are chosen, or if other-than-LWRs that were considered in NUREG-0586,

24 Supplement 1 are chosen, then the impacts from decommissioning are expected to be within the

25 bounds described in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1. In such cases, the staff expects the impact

26 from decommissioning to be SMALL. However, for whatever design that is selected, the impacts

27 from decommissioning will have to be assessed.

28

29 6.4 References

30

31 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

32 Protection Against Radiation.”

33

34 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

35 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

36

37 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

38 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

39
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-41 Draft NUREG-1811

1 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

2 Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

3

4 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and

5 Transportation of Radioactive Material.”

6

7 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, "Shippers - General

8 Requirements for Shipments and Packaging."

9

10 49 CFR Part 178. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, "Specifications for

11 Packaging."

12

13 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1976. “The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on

14 Environmental Quality”. Executive Office of the President, Administrative Operations Branch.

15 Washington, D.C.

16

17 Dominion. 2003. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. Procedure Number VPAP-2103N,

18 Revision 7. Glen Allen, Virginia.

19

20 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit Application

21 - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

22

23 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter from L.N. Hartz (Dominion) to

24 NRC in response to request for additional information, October 4, 2004, Glen Allen, Virginia.

25

26 Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. "Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model

27 Input Parameters for Truck Stops," in Conference Proceedings - Waste Management 96,

28 CONF-960212-44. Tucson, Arizona.

29

30 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit

31 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File

32 Number 3747. Idaho Falls, Idaho.

33

34 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1990. Recommendations of the

35 International Committee on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamino Pres,

36 Oxford, United Kingdom.

37

38 Johnson, P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2000. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic

39 Information System (WebTRAGIS) UserÆs Manual. ORNL/TM-2000/86, Oak Ridge National

40 Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Available at

41 http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106749.pdf.

42
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1811 6-42 November 2004

1 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 2004. Cancer. Centers for Disease Control and

2 Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at

3 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/faststats/cancer.htm.

4

5 National Research Council. 1990. “Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation

6 - BEIR V.” Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Board on Radiation Effects

7 Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press. 

8 Washington, D.C. 

9

10 Neuhauser, K.S., F.L. Kanipe, and R.F. Weiner. 2003. RADTRAN 5 User Guide. 

11 SAND2003-2354, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available on the

12 Internet at http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand_doc/2003/032354.pdf 

13

14 Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills,

15 K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of Spent

16 Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

17 Washington, D.C.

18

19 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

20 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C.

21

22 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. 

23 WASH-1248, Washington, D.C.

24

25 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic

26 Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca

27 Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

28 Management, Washington, D.C.

29

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental

31 Exposure to Radionuclides: Federal Guidance Report No. 13. Washington, D.C.

32

33 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

34 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG-75/038,

35 Washington, D.C.

36

37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing

38 and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to

39 WASH-1248), Washington, D.C.

40
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

November 2004 6-43 Draft NUREG-1811

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Final Environmental Statement on

2 Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1,

3 Washington, D.C.

4

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Public Comments and Task Force

6 Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management

7 Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), Washington, D.C.

8

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

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

11

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996b. Standard Review Plan for Environmental

13 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations,

14 Washington, D.C.

15

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

17 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

18 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.” 

19 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

20

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on

22 Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear

23 Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

24

25
November 2004 7-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 7.0 Cumulative Impacts

2

3

4 The staff considered potential cumulative impacts during the evaluation of information

5 applicable to each of the potential impacts of constructing and operating reactors at the

6 proposed North Anna Power Station (NAPS) early site permit (ESP) site for reactor designs that

7 fall within the plant parameter envelope (PPE) (Dominion 2004). For purposes of this analysis,

8 past actions were those related to the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2. Present actions are those

9 related to the resources at the time of the ESP application until the start of construction. Future

10 actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through construction and operation of the

11 proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4, including decommissioning. The geographical area over

12 which past, present, and future actions could contribute to cumulative impacts depends on the

13 type of action considered, and is described below for each impact area.

14

15 The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other

16 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the NAPS site that

17 would affect the same resources impacted by NAPS Units 1 and 2 regardless of what entity

18 (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts

19 are defined as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively

20 significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be

21 SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in combina22 tion with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is region23 ally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important it if contributes to

24 or accelerates the overall resource decline.

25

26 7.1 Land Use

27

28 For purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered for cumulative impacts resulting

29 from construction and operation of the North Anna Units 3 and 4 includes the three-county area

30 of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties.

31

32 The staff reviewed the available information on the land-use impacts of constructing two addi33 tional nuclear units at the NAPS site. The counties surrounding the NAPS site have compre34 hensive land-use plans in place as required by Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia. The

35 cumulative impacts for land use include possible additional growth and land conversions to

36 accommodate new workers and services. Property tax revenue from Units 3 and 4 may also

37 increase growth and infrastructure improvements in Louisa County. Based on the information

38 provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that while lower tax

39 rates or better services may encourage development, the comprehensive land-use plans would

40 control development. As a result, cumulative land-use impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation

41 is not warranted.

42
Cumulative Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 7-2 November 2004

1 7.2 Air Quality

2

3 The NAPS site is located in an area that is in attainment for criteria pollutants. In addition, the

4 State regulates emissions to the atmosphere. The air quality impacts of construction and

5 operations are estimated to be small. No other significant impacts from other actions were

6 identified. Based on its evaluation, the staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of air quality

7 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

8

9 7.3 Water Use and Quality

10

11 There are three primary effects of the operation of Unit 3 on the Lake Anna’s water resources. 

12 The effects are, on lake level, downstream flow, and thermal effects on the lake. These effects

13 impact three different categories including water use and quality, aquatic ecosystems and

14 socioeconomic impacts. The cumulative effects are discussed in each category in this section.

15 This section discusses lake level and downstream flow. Cumulative thermal effects are

16 discussed in section 7.4.

17

18 The staff, while preparing this assessment, did not identify any other industrial, commercial, or

19 public installations that would be located in the general vicinity of the North Anna ESP site prior

20 to the end of Units 3 and 4 operations. The intake of water from, and the discharge of water to,

21 Lake Anna from the new units would be regulated by Virginia Department of Environmental

22 Quality (VDEQ) just as the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 are presently regulated by the VDEQ. 

23 The intake and discharge limits for each installation are set considering the overall or

24 cumulative impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. Compliance with Clean

25 Water Act and Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits expects to minimize the

26 cumulative effects on aquatic resources. Operation of North Anna Units 3 and 4 would require

27 discharge permits from VDEQ, which would be expected to address changing requirements so

28 that cumulative water-quality objectives are served. However, Unit 4 uses dry cooling towers

29 and not Lake Anna for cooling water, and will have little operational impact on Lake Anna.

30

31 In Chapter 5, the staff evaluated the effects of the existing conditions and the effects of adding

32 Units 3 and 4 on Lake Anna. The existing conditions include the effects of Units 1 and 2 as well

33 as the effects of other existing water uses. The existing lake level and thermal conditions

34 includes the impacts of not just Units 1 and 2, but all the effects as they exist today. A

35 cumulative evaluation of the effects of Units 3 and 4 on Lake Anna, by nature starts with the

36 existing lake conditions, and adds the effects of construction and operation to reach a

37 cumulative impact on Lake Anna.

38
Cumulative Impacts

November 2004 7-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The staff determined that in normal years, the lake surface elevation would not drop below 75.6

2 m (248 ft) above mean sea level (MSL) and during a severe drought, the water surface

3 elevation would drop an additional 0.6 m (2 ft), from below (246 ft) to below 74.4 m (244 ft), with

4 the addition of Unit 3. A severe drought is expected to be an infrequent occurrence. The lake

5 level will rapidly recover from a severe drought with normal precipitation. 

6

7 Operation of Unit 3 would increase the duration of periods during drought conditions when the

8 Lake Level Contingency Plan would be applied. The Lake Level Contingency Plan reduces flow

from Lake Anna as the level in the lake decreases, to a minimum flow of 0.57 m3 9 /s (20 cfs). 

10 Hanover County, one of four downstream counties, has identified a need for additional water

11 (Hanover County 2004). Any future conflicts over water use fall within the regulatory authority

12 of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

13

14 Therefore, the staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts contributed by the construc15 tion, and operation, of the proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4 on water use and quality would

16 be SMALL during normal years, and MODERATE during severe drought years, and mitigation is

17 not warranted.

18

19 7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem

20

21 The construction and operation of North Anna Units 3 and 4 were evaluated to determine if the

22 potential exists for interactions with the past, present, and future actions that could result in

23 adverse cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources such as wildlife populations and the size

24 and distribution of habitat areas. For purposes of this analysis, the geographic area encompas25 sing past, present, and foreseeable future actions that could contribute to adverse cumulative

26 effects is the area around Lake Anna, within the NAPS site, and within the transmission line

27 rights-of-way connecting the power plant to the power grid.

28

29 The rate of housing and recreational development around Lake Anna has been relatively high

30 compared to other portions of central Virginia. The development of 81 ha (200 ac) at the North

31 Anna ESP site would add to the cumulative habitat loss in the area. However, the habitats at

32 the ESP site and in the vicinity of Lake Anna are common in central Virginia, are not considered

33 to be unique, and the area is not critical for the survival of any threatened or endangered

34 species. Therefore, the staff concludes that the contribution of the North Anna ESP site to the

35 cumulative habitat loss in the region would be SMALL.

36

37 There are no important terrestrial species or important habitats in the vicinity of the site, trans38 mission lines rights-of-way. The species have adapted to the noise levels from the existing

39 Units 1 and 2. The noise produced by Units 3 and 4 will be of similar intensity to the noise

40 produced by the existing Units 1 and 2. The proposed NAPS site is in an area with relatively few
Cumulative Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 7-4 November 2004

1 large noise-producing facilities; therefore, cumulative noise effects on wildlife are expected to be

2 minimal.

3

4 There are no Federally listed terrestrial threatened or endangered animal species that are

5 known to occur along the North Anna River downstream from Lake Anna. Therefore, if any

6 changes to the flow regimes in this portion of the river were made, there would not be any

7 cumulative effect on Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species.

8

9 Once-through cooling systems, as proposed for Unit 3, require no elevated structures other than

10 the reactor building that could pose a risk of avian collisions. Impacts to birds from collisions

11 with heat dissipation structures from the Unit 4 dry cooling towers and the NAPS site itself are

12 expected to be minimal. The NAPS site is in an area with relatively few tall facilities or features

13 that would pose collision hazards to birds; therefore, cumulative effects on birds resulting from

14 collisions are expected to be minimal.

15

16 There are no State or Federally regulated wetlands at the NAPS site or within the transmission

17 line rights-of-way connecting the power plant to the power grid. No new lines are planned. 

18 Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 and maintenance of the

19 existing rights-of-way are not likely to contribute to a regional decline in wetland or floodplain

20 resources. The maintenance procedures ensure minimal disturbance to wildlife. Because there

21 would be no new transmission lines or alterations of the rights-of-way, no changes to this impact

22 are expected to occur if additional power is transmitted through this system. Operation of the

23 proposed new units would not affect the cumulative impacts of transmission line maintenance

24 and operation in central Virginia. The staff concludes that the potential regional cumulative

25 impacts on terrestrial ecology contributed by the construction and operation of the proposed

26 North Anna Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

27

28 7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem

29

30 The construction and operation of North Anna Units 3 and 4 were evaluated to determine if the

31 potential exists for interactions with past (since Lake Anna’s development), present, and future

32 actions that cold result in adverse cumulative impacts to aquatic resources such as aquatic

33 populations and the size and distribution of habitat areas. For the purposes of this analysis, the

34 geographic area encompassing past, present, and foreseeable future actions that could

35 contribute to adverse cumulative effects includes Lake Anna (the reservoir and the Waste Heat

36 Treatment Facility) and the North Anna River.

37
Cumulative Impacts

November 2004 7-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The fish population in Lake Anna represents a balanced community. The Lake Anna fish

2 community includes thriving populations of game fish and the forage species that support them. 

3 Over the years, the fishery of Lake Anna has matured and changed to meet the demands for

4 public fishing through species additions (threadfin shad) and annual stockings of striped bass. 

5 Overall, the abundance and quality of the fishery has remained healthy and balanced despite

6 increased fishing pressure and shoreline development. 

7

8 The cumulative impact to the stripped bass is expected to be small during cooler months and in

9 non-drought years and may be moderate during drought years. Because the Lake Anna striped

10 bass population is a “put-grow-and-take” fishery of a non-indigenous species and because

11 suitable habitat would continue to exist within Lake Anna, the staff concludes that the

12 cumulative heat stress impact of Units 1, 2 and 3's once-through cooling systems on the striped

13 bass would be SMALL during cooler months and non-drought years. During drought years, the

14 impacts without mitigation may be MODERATE. In such circumstances, mitigation to reduce

15 the impact could be accomplished by stocking more fish, stocking larger fish, or managing the

16 fishery to provide more catch opportunities of larger fish.

17

18 Based on a worst-case estimate, the cumulative impact of impingement and entrainment would

19 approximately double with the addition of Unit 3 with a once-through cooling system. Dominion

20 proposes to use dry cooling towers for Unit 4, which would lead to a negligible contribution to

21 impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts (Dominion 2004). Because the fish most

22 frequently impinged or entrained are prolific, exhibit a high reproductive potential, and compen23 satory responses of the fish population occur to offset losses, the relative fraction of the fish in

24 Lake Anna that may be impinged or entrained during operation of three units is small. 

25 Therefore, the cumulative impacts from impingement of Lake Anna fish from operating Units 1,

26 2, and 3, unit would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

27

28 The staff evaluated the effects of the additional heat discharged to Lake Anna from the Waste

29 Heat Treatment Facility and concluded it would increase water temperature throughout the lake

30 but is not expected to exceed temperature thresholds that would destabilize the fish

31 populations. During the summer, when warmer temperatures accumulate near the discharge,

32 most of the lake is unaffected by operations and fish would be able find areas where they would

33 not be exposed to heat discharged during plant operations. The staff concludes that because

34 the relative proportion of the Lake Anna fish that may be exposed is small, the cumulative

35 impacts from the additional heat resulting from operation of a new unit with once-through

36 cooling would have a SMALL impact on the fishery community, and mitigation, with the possible

37 exception of the striped bass, is not warranted.

38
Cumulative Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 7-6 November 2004

1 7.6 Socioeconomic, Historic and Cultural Resources,

2 Environmental Justice

3

4 Much of the analyses of the socioeconomic impacts presented in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 already

5 incorporate cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for analysis only make sense

6 when placed in the total or cumulative context. For instance, the impact of the total number of

7 additional housing units that may be needed can only be evaluated with respect to the total

8 number that will be available in the impacted area. Therefore, the geographical area of the

9 cumulative analysis varies depending on the particular impact considered, and may depend on

10 specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions or may be distance related, as in the case of

11 environmental justice.

12

13 The potential cumulative increase in the number of vehicles during a combined outage,

14 construction, and permanent workforce egress and ingress into the site could have adverse

15 impacts on the local road system without some type of mitigating intervention.

16

17 The construction and operation of North Anna Units 3 and 4 would not be likely to add to any

18 cumulative socioeconomic impacts beyond those already evaluated in Sections 4.5 and 5.5. In

19 other words, the impacts of issues such as transportation or taxes are not likely to be detectable

20 beyond the regions previously evaluated and will quickly decrease with increasing distance from

21 the site. The staff concludes that construction impacts would generally be SMALL, but there are

22 exceptions if more workers than expected settle in Louisa and Orange Counties, in which case

23 MODERATE impacts may be reached for physical impacts on roads, housing, and some public

24 services. During times of severe drought the impacts to aesthetics and recreation may also

25 reach MODERATE. In terms of beneficial effects, the impact on regional economies and tax

26 revenues would be beneficially SMALL to MODERATE.

27

28 With regard to historic and cultural resources, the construction and operation of North Anna

29 Units 3 and 4 is not expected to add to any cumulative impacts to these resources beyond those

30 identified in Sections 4.6 and 5.6. Dominion has developed procedures to ensure that either

31 known or newly discovered potential historic and cultural sites will not be inadvertently impacted

32 during onsite activities that involve land disturbances. Construction, operation, and

33 maintenance of the plant would not affect land outside the bounds of current plant operations;

34 therefore, additional cumulative impacts would be negligible. The staff concludes that the

35 cumulative impacts of construction and operation on historic and cultural resources would be

36 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

37

38 The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices through which minority or low39 income populations would be disproportionately affected. As a result, cumulative impacts of

40 environmental justice would be SMALL.

41
Cumulative Impacts

November 2004 7-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Based on the above considerations, the staff concludes that construction and operation of North

2 Anna Units 3 and 4 would not be likely to make a detectable contribution to the cumulative

3 effects associated with the socioeconomic issues, including environmental justice and historic

4 and cultural resources; therefore, the overall cumulative impacts are SMALL.

5

6 7.7 Nonradiological Health

7

8 The cumulative health impacts of construction and operation of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2

9 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 on the ambient temperature of Lake Anna with regard to

10 potential formation of thermophilic micro-organisms was evaluated in Section 5.8.1. The

11 evaluation showed that the addition of two new units, one of which would use Lake Anna as a

12 cooling source, would not increase the temperature in Lake Anna enough to create an environ13 ment conducive to the optimal growth of thermophilic organisms. Noise, dust emissions, and

14 acute and chronic electromagnetic fields effects were also evaluated and found to have small

15 impacts. The staff concludes that the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and

16 operation of the North Anna Units 3 and 4 on nonradiological health would be SMALL, and

17 mitigation is not warranted.

18

19 7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

20

21 The radiological exposure limits and standards for the protection of the public and for occupa22 tional exposures have been developed assuming long-term exposures, and therefore incorpo23 rate cumulative impacts. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses

24 predicted from the proposed operation of the proposed North Anna units are well below

25 regulatory limits and standards. The cumulative health impact of operating the two new units, in

26 addition to the existing operating NAPS Units 1 and 2, is estimated to be less than 1 cancer or

27 hereditary effect cases annually. This is well below the estimated effects from natural

28 background radiation. For purposes of this analysis, the geographical area is the area included

29 within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the North Anna ESP site. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

30 Commission and the State would regulate any reasonably foreseeable future actions that could

31 contribute to cumulative radiological impacts.

32

33 Therefore, the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operation of the

34 proposed North Anna units 3 and 4 and the existing operating NAPS Units 1 and 2 would be

35 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

36

37 7.9 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

38

39 The staff considered the potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of North

40 Anna Units 3 and 4 during the past, present, and future actions in the North Anna ESP site
Cumulative Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 7-8 November 2004

1 area. For each impact area, the staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts resulting

2 from construction and operation are SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. Several areas

3 have the potential for MODERATE impacts, most of which would occur under temporary

4 circumstances or as the result of a larger than expected concentration of construction workers

5 settling near the NAPS site. In addition, there may be temporary MODERATE impacts during

6 severe drought conditions, on water use and aesthetics and recreation. Mitigation is not

7 warranted due to the temporary nature of the impacts.

8

9 7.10 References

10

11 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment,

12 Part 1508, Council on Environmental Quality.

13

14 Code of Virginia , Section 15.2-2223 Online at: 

15 http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal/government_881/virginia_1048/.

16

17 Clean Water Act (CWA). 1977. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (Federal Water Pollution Control Act

18 Amendments of 1977 became known as the Clean Water Act).

19

20 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. North Anna Early Site Permit

21 Application - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Richmond, Virginia.

22

23 Hanover County Department of Public Utilities. 2004. Letter to Chief, Rules and Directives

24 Branch, NRC., regarding Dominion’s ESP application, January 7, 2004.

25
November 2004 8-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.0 Impacts of the Alternatives

2

3

4 The purpose of this portion of this draft environmental impact state (EIS) is to examine the

5 environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed units at the alternative sites

6 selected by Dominion in its early site permit (ESP) application (Dominion 2004). The results will

7 be used in Chapter 9 to determine whether any alternative site is obviously superior to the

8 proposed site. This is a two-part examination set forth in NUREG-1555, Section 9.3

9 (NRC 1999a), and stems from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decision related

10 to licensing the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

11 [5 NRC 503], 1997). The first stage evaluates a full suite of environmental issues to determine if

12 any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the proposed site. If an alternative

13 site appears environmentally preferable to the proposed site, the analysis proceeds to the

14 second stage. If not, then the evaluation of alternative sites ends at the first stage. The second

15 stage of the test considers economic, technological, and institutional factors among the

16 environmentally preferred sites to determine if any is obviously superior to the proposed site. If

17 there is no obviously superior site, then the proposed site prevails; if an obviously superior site

18 is found, then it would lead to a recommendation that the ESP application be denied.

19

20 Section 8.1 discusses the no-action alternative. Section 8.2 examines the station design

21 alternatives. Section 8.3 reviews the applicant’s region of interest (ROI), and examines the

22 suitability of the ROI and the applicant’s alternative site selection process, describing the

23 method the applicant used to select the candidate and alternative sites. Section 8.4 examines

24 issues that are common to all the sites, and addresses them collectively. Sections 8.5 through

25 8.7 individually evaluate the selected alternative sites. Section 8.8 provides a summary of

26 alternative site impacts, and Section 8.9 cites the references relevant to this chapter.

27

28 8.1 No-Action Alternative

29

30 For purposes of this ESP application, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which

31 NRC would deny the ESP request. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of a new

32 nuclear power station at the proposed ESP location in accordance with the 10 CFR Part 52

33 process referencing an approved ESP would not occur.

34

35 The no-action alternative consists of two parts. First, the no-action alternative would include a

36 scenario in which the NRC would not issue the ESP. There are no environmental impacts

37 associated with not issuing the ESP except that the impacts associated with site preparation

38 and preliminary work allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17©) and 10 CFR 52.25(a) would be

39 avoided. Second, given that the EIS addresses the environmental effects of construction and

40 operation as directed by the Commission [10 CFR 52.18(a)(2)], the no-action alternative would

41 result in no such construction and operation. Therefore, the impacts predicted in this draft EIS

42 would not occur. Nonetheless, since Part 52 does not require an ER or EIS for an ESP to

43 include consideration of energy alternatives or the benefits of construction and operation of a

44 reactor or reactors at the ESP site, this draft EIS does not consider such matters. Accordingly,
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-2 November 2004

1 should the NRC ultimately determine to issue an ESP for the North Anna ESP site, these

2 matters will be considered in the EIS for any CP or COL application that references such an

3 ESP.

4

5 In this context, the no-action alternative would accomplish none of the benefits intended by the

6 ESP process, which would include (1) early resolution of siting issues prior to large investments

7 of financial capital and human resources in new plant design and construction, (2) early

8 resolution of issues on the environmental impact of construction and operation of reactors that

9 fall within the site parameters, (3) the ability to bank sites on which nuclear plants may be

10 located, and (4) the facilitation of future decisions on whether to build new nuclear plants.

11

12 8.2 System Design Alternatives

13

14 Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 contain information regarding alternative plant cooling systems for the

15 proposed Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP site. Section 8.2.1 discusses wet cooling tower heat

16 dissipation systems. Section 8.2.2 discusses dry cooling towers heat dissipation systems. A

17 dry cooling tower has been proposed for Unit 4. Water and energy balance studies of Lake

18 Anna suggest that the lake would not support either a once-through or wet cooling tower heat

19 dissipation system for Unit 4. Reference Appendix G for more detail on the water budget

20 analyses. Therefore, neither of these alternatives is considered for Unit 4.

21

22 8.2.1 Plant Cooling System: Wet Cooling Towers

23

24 The purpose of the plant cooling system is to dissipate energy to the environment. The various

25 cooling system options differ in how the energy transfer takes place and, therefore, have differ26 ent environmental impacts. In the once-through cooling system proposed for Unit 3, energy is

27 transferred to the environment from Lake Anna by evaporation, long-wave radiation, and

28 conduction. The environmental impacts result from the impingement and entrainment at the

29 cooling system intake, evaporation of lake water, and effects of heated water on aquatic

30 species.

31

32 The staff estimates that the proposed once-through cooling system for Unit 3 could extend

33 waste heat treatment facility (WHTF) conditions into the main body of Lake Anna. Based on the

34 additional heat load and associated flow, the staff estimates that WHTF conditions could extend

35 into approximately 19 percent of the main body of the lake.

36

37 Cooling towers could be used to reduce the impacts of heated water on aquatic species. They

38 would also reduce the cooling water flow through the intake structure, which could reduce

39 impingement and entrainment impacts. However, these reductions come at an environmental

40 cost. Substitution of cooling towers for once-through cooling would change the balance of the
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 energy transfer mechanisms. With cooling towers, long-wave radiation and conduction are

2 reduced by increasing evaporation and consequently increasing consumptive water use.

3

4 The impact of the increased evaporative loses would be particularly noticeable in drought years. 

5 The results of water balance calculations for Lake Anna for the years 2001 and 2002 suggest

6 that the addition of Unit 3 with the proposed once-through cooling system could have resulted in

7 an additional two-foot drawdown of the lake in September 2002. When the calculation is

8 repeated with a wet cooling tower in place of the once-through cooling system, the results of the

9 calculations suggest that the additional drawdown could have been about 4 feet.

10

11 Use of wet cooling towers in place of once-through cooling for the proposed Unit 3 changes the

12 environmental impacts associated with operation of Unit 3. However, in either case there will be

13 water-related impacts of cooling. Wet cooling towers have reduced entrainment and impinge14 ment impacts and a higher water consumption compared to once-through cooling systems. The

15 staff concludes that a once-through cooling system for Unit 3 is preferable to a wet cooling

16 tower based on the once-through cooling system's expected smaller impact on lake level and on

17 downstream water users.

18

19 8.2.2 Plant Cooling System: Dry Cooling Towers

20

21 The use of a dry cooling tower for Unit 3 would largely eliminate the impacts on the lake and the

22 aquatic ecosystem. The lake would not be heated by rejected heat from Unit 3, and there would

23 not be additional consumptive water use.

24

25 A dry cooling tower heat dissipation system may reduce water-related impacts of operating

26 Unit 3, but it also has some disadvantages. In particular, dry cooling systems are not as

27 efficient as wet systems. They require movement of a large amount of air through the heat

28 exchange to achieve the necessary cooling. The fans that force the air through the heat

29 exchanger use a significant amount of power. This power reduces the net power output of the

30 plant. In addition, the fans and the large volume of air required for cooling make dry cooling

31 towers noisy. The dry cooling tower would also occupy more land than a once-through cooling

32 system.

33

34 Based on the staff’s analysis that Lake Anna would support Unit 3 using a once-through cooling

35 system, and given the increased use of resources required by using a less efficient dry cooling

36 system, the staff concludes that a once-through cooling system is acceptable.

37
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-4 November 2004

1 8.3 Alternative Sites, Region of Interest, and

2 Selection Process

3

4 NRC regulations require that the ER submitted in conjunction with an application for an ESP

5 include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior

6 alternative to the site proposed (10 CFR 52.17(a)(2)). This section includes subsections

7 discussing Dominion’s ROI for selecting alternative sites and its alternative site selection

8 process. The three alternative sites examined in detail in this draft EIS are Dominion’s Surry

9 Power Station (Surry) site in Surry County, Virginia; the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)

10 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth) site in Pike County, Ohio; and DOE’s

11 Savannah River Site, which is in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina.

12

13 Dominion stated that the two DOE sites were selected as candidate sites because:

14

15 C The sites represent valuable national assets with prior or existing nuclear energy

16 potential.

17

18 C New nuclear power facilities would represent potentially promising new missions for

19 these sites.

20

21 C The sites have the potential to support reactor demonstrations and/or commercial

22 reactor development.

23

24 C There is extensive site information and an available infrastructure that could help to

25 reduce site development costs.

26

27 C The partially or fully developed site environment and the available infrastructure reduces

28 the incremental environmental impacts associated with the new plant construction and

29 operation on land use, ecological resources, aesthetics, and local transportation

30 networks.

31

32 C The sites are not in proximity to major population centers (Dominion 2004).

33

34 The Surry site was selected by Dominion as a ESP candidate site because:

35

36 C The existing environmental conditions and the environmental impacts are known from

37 data collected during years of monitoring air, water, ecological, and other parameters.

38
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 C Construction of new transmission line rights-of-way may potentially be avoided if the

2 existing transmission system (lines and rights-of-way) can accommodate the increased

3 power generation.

4

5 C No additional land acquisitions would be necessary if a new transmission line can be

6 avoided, and the resulting land-use impacts of the new plant would be small.

7

8 C The Surry site was recently subjected to an environmental review process during its

9 license renewal review.

10

11 C The Surry site had extensive environmental studies performed during the original site

12 selection process, which could be updated and used for new units.

13

14 C Site physical criteria, including primarily geologic/seismic suitability, have been

15 characterized.

16

17 C Plant construction, operation, and maintenance costs would be reduced because of

18 existing site infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission line rights-of-way, water source, and

19 intake/discharge system).

20

21 C The Surry site has nearby power markets.

22

23 C The Surry site has local community acceptance and support (Dominion 2004).

24

25 NRC’s environmental review guidance for alternative nuclear plant sites recognizes that there

26 will be special cases in which the proposed site was not selected on the basis of a systematic

27 site selection process, rather it was selected on basis of environmentally acceptable operating

28 experience at the site or because the site was previously found acceptable on the basis of a

29 NEPA review. Examples include sites containing an existing nuclear facility previously found

30 acceptable on the basis of a NEPA review and/or demonstrated to be environmentally

31 acceptable on the basis of operating experience. In such cases the NRC will analyze the

32 applicant’s site-selection process only as it applies to the alternate sites. The site comparison

33 may then be restricted to a site-by-site comparison of the alternate sites with the proposed site

34 (NRC 1999a, b).
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-6 November 2004

1

2 8.3.1 Dominion’s Region of Interest

3

4 The ROI is the geographic area considered in searching for candidate ESP sites. More

5 specifically, the ROI is:

6

7 The geographical area initially considered in the site selection process. This area may

8 represent the applicant’s system, the power pool or area within which the applicant’s

9 planning studies are based, or the regional reliability council or the appropriate

10 subregion or area of the reliability council (NRC 1999a, b).

11

12 In its ESP application, Dominion selected its ROI for examining potential sites as the Mid13 Atlantic, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the United States. These regions were selected

14 because of Dominion’s interest in continuing to grow and operate in the region as a merchant

15 plant operator (Dominion 2004). Within this ROI, Dominion used the candidate site criteria

16 identified in NRC’s Environmental Standard Review Plan 9.3, Alternative Sites (NRC 1999a) to

17 identify candidate sites (Dominion 2004). The staff concludes that the ROI used by Dominion in

18 its ESP application is appropriate for consideration and analysis of potential ESP sites because

19 it meets the NRC approved guidance contained in the Environmental Standard Review Plan.

20

21 8.3.2 Dominion’s Alternative Selection Process

22

23 Dominion evaluated its proposed North Anna ESP site and the three alternative sites using

24 45 site suitability/screening criteria (Dominion 2004). The criteria were grouped into four major

25 categories: (1) economic, (2) engineering, (3) environmental, and (4) socioeconomic (see

26 Table 8-1). The economic category was given a relative weight of 40 percent by Dominion, and

27 the other three categories were weighted 20 percent each. A ranking or score for each of the

28 45 criteria was assigned by Dominion (from 0 to 5, with 5 being the most favorable). The

29 relative importance of each criterion to the overall evaluation was established by assigning

30 weights that reflected the collective judgment of Dominion’s experts involved in the process. 

31 The sum of the weighted scores for all criteria represented a total site merit score. The

32 preferred site was chosen based on the highest site merit score. Dominion found the North

33 Anna site to be the preferred ESP site followed by the Savannah River, Portsmouth, and Surry

34 ESP sites, respectively (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). (In this report, Dominion and Bechtel

35 evaluated a fourth site, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory near

36 Idaho Falls, Idaho, but Dominion did not consider it in this ESP action because it was outside

37 the ROI.) Accordingly, Dominion submitted its ESP application for the North Anna site. 

38 However, Dominion concluded that all four sites are suitable locations for deployment of new

39 nuclear power plants.

40
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.3.3 Greenfield and Brownfield Alternative Sites

2

3 Dominion also considered other existing nuclear power plant, greenfield, and brownfield sites

4 within the ROI. In light of current nuclear facilities with space for additional units, the greenfield

5 and brownfield sites were determined not to be environmentally preferable because of the large

6 area that would need to be disturbed to build a new plant and to support necessary

7 transmission line rights-of-way. The associated land use, ecological resource damage, and the

8 aesthetic impacts were determined to be too large in comparison to alternative sites with

9 existing nuclear units.

10

11 The staff reviewed Dominion’s alternative site selection process as it applies to greenfield and

12 brownfield sites and concludes that the approach used and the findings of impacts are

13 reasonable.
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-8 November 2004

1 Table 8-1. Dominion Site Screening Criteria

2

3 Economic Engineering Environmental Socioeconomic

4 Electricity Projections Site Size Terrestrial Habitat Present/Planned Land

Use

5 Transmission System Site Topography Terrestrial Vegetation Demography

6 Stakeholder Support Environmentally

Sensitive Areas

Aquatic Habitat/

Organisms

Socioeconomic Benefits

7 Site Development Costs Emergency Planning Groundwater Agricultural/Industrial

8 Labor Supply Surface Water Aesthetics

9 Transportation Access Population Historic/Cultural

10 Security Transportation Network

11 Hazardous Land Use Environmental Justice

12 Ease for

Decommissioning

13 Water Rights and Air

Quality Permits

14 Regulatory

15 Schedule

16 Geologic Hazards

17 Site-Specific Safe

Shutdown Earthquake

18 Capable Faults

19 Liquefaction Potential

20 Bearing Material

21 Near-Surface Material

22 Groundwater

23 Flooding Potential

24 Ice Formation

25 Cooling Water Source

26 Temperature and

Moisture

27 Winds

28 Rainfall

29 Snow

30 Atmospheric Dispersion

31
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.4 Generic Issues Consistent Among Alternative Sites

2

3 In evaluating the alternative sites, NRC staff found that certain impact areas would not vary

4 among sites, and as a result, would not affect the evaluation of whether an alternative site is

5 environmentally preferable to the proposed site. These impact areas include air quality as it

6 relates to emissions from the sites during construction and operation, nonradiological health

7 impacts, and radiological health impacts to members of the public and during operation and to

8 biota. In addition, the impacts to public service facilities (schools, water, and wastewater

9 treatment, etc.) would not materially impact whether an alternative site is selected or not. As a

10 result, air quality, health impacts, and radiation exposures are not evaluated as part of the site11 specific alternatives analysis, but rather are discussed generically in the following sections.

12

13 8.4.1 Air Quality Impacts 

14

15 During construction at any of the proposed alternative ESP sites, it is expected that some minor

16 air quality impacts will occur in terms of fugitive dust emissions from general construction

17 activities and the potential for elevated ambient air quality levels due to automotive emissions

18 from the workforce traffic and emissions from construction equipment.

19

20 Air pollutants and fugitive dust will be emitted from operations of construction equipment and for

21 earth-moving and material-handling activities. In addition, operation of other equipment for

22 hauling debris, equipment, and supplies on unpaved roads will produce fugitive dust emissions. 

23 The pollutant emission of concern would be PM10 particulate matter (less than 10 microns in

24 diameter), reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxides

25 from combustion engines of the construction equipment. Reasonable estimates of actual

26 emissions cannot be determined at this time. However, all activities would be conducted in

27 accordance with state air quality agency requirements for visible and fugitive dust emissions as

28 well as emission standards for mobile sources. If the Surry ESP site were chosen as the

29 alternative site, the same requirements set forth for the North Anna ESP site would apply

30 because both are in the Commonwealth of Virginia. If the Savannah River Site were chosen,

31 then requirements established by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

32 Control apply. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency would be consulted if the

33 Portsmouth site were chosen. In addition, if construction activities include burning of

34 construction materials, a permit would need to be secured from the State and the applicant

35 would need to contact local county officials to determine if local ordinances must be followed.

36

37 Dominion estimated that during construction activities approximately 5000 workers would be

38 divided between two 10-hour shifts (Dominion 2004). Using an assumption of 1.8 workers per

39 vehicle, this would represent 2800 additional vehicles per day traveling roads into and out of the

40 site (Dominion 2004). For any of the proposed alternative sites, the estimate of required work is
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-10 November 2004

1 expected to be similar to that proposed for the North Anna ESP site. Some roadways leading

2 into the site chosen may or may not experience congestion. This situation will impact the local

3 ambient air quality levels due to emissions from vehicles both during normal operation and

4 during congestion periods when vehicles are idling. However, because the current ambient air

5 quality levels at the proposed alternative sites are well below current national standards, the

6 resulting impact is estimated to be insignificant and would not create an air quality impact. 

7 Therefore, the staff concludes that air quality impacts from construction at any of the alternative

8 sites would be similar to those at the proposed site, and would be temporary and SMALL.

9

10 The meteorological and air quality impacts from operating the proposed new reactors at any of

11 the alternative sites would be limited to those resulting from operation of wet cooling towers and

12 pollutant emissions from periodic operation of auxiliary boilers and generators.

13

14 Air quality impacts would be limited to additional nonradiological pollutants during the operation

15 of auxiliary boilers, emergency generators, and emissions from onsite service vehicles. The

16 amount of pollutants emitted to the atmosphere is anticipated to be less than 100 tons/yr for any

17 alternative site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) and is considered insignificant. However, the

18 applicant will require approval under the existing New Source Federal, State, or local air quality

19 laws and regulations. As of January 2004, there were no non-attainment areas in the region

20 surrounding the proposed alternative sites for the mandated criteria pollutants (EPA 2004). 

21 Therefore, this is not expected to be a limiting factor in considering any of these sites, and the

22 staff concludes that the air quality impacts from operation at any of the alternative sites would

23 be SMALL and similar to those at the proposed site.

24

25 8.4.2 Nonradiological Health Impacts

26

27 Nonradiological health impacts from construction of the proposed nuclear power plants on the

28 construction workers at all the alternative sites would be similar to those evaluated in

29 Section 4.8. They would include noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, and dust emissions. The plant

30 construction phase will be in compliance with all applicable State regulations regarding fugitive

31 dust emissions and air pollution control. All the alternative sites are in rural areas and construc32 tion impacts would be minimal on the surrounding population. The staff concludes that health

33 impacts to construction workers resulting from the construction of two new units at any of the

34 alternative sites are expected to be SMALL.

35

36 Occupational health impacts to operational employees would be the same for all the alternative

37 sites. Thermophilic micro-organisms would not be a concern at alternative sites for any facilities

38 using either a wet or wet/dry cooling process because the temperatures in the water bodies

39 receiving the cooling system discharges are below those known to be conducive to the

40 growth and survival of thermophilic pathogens. Health impacts to workers from noise and

41 electromagnetic fields would be similar among the sites. Noise and electromagnetic fields
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1 would be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and

2 Health Administration regulations. The staff concludes that the occupational health impacts to

3 construction or operations employees of proposed units at any of the alternative sites are

4 expected to be SMALL.

5

6 With respect to transmission systems, the potential exists for impacts to members of the public

7 from operation of the transmission system in terms of electrical shock, electromagnetic field

8 exposure, noise, and aesthetics. The impacts at the alternative sites are expected to be similar

9 to those evaluated in Section 5.8. All transmission lines, either constructed or used as part of

10 an existing nuclear site, must meet standards established by the most current version of the

11 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) (IEEE 2001). The standard is applicable to the systems

12 and equipment operated by utilities. The areas of particular interest are the potential to create

13 an electric shock that could disrupt the operation of pacemakers and health assistance devices,

14 and the potential for chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with the transport of

15 electric current through large conductors, such as high-voltage transmission lines.

16

17 8.4.2.1 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

18

19 Currently, NESC requires the design of transmission lines be such that electrostatic effects from

20 operation do not create a steady-state current that exceeds 5 mA root mean square to limit the

21 potential for electric shock. For the alternative sites considered, it is expected that NESC

22 requirements for preventing electric shock from induced current would be met and the impact to

23 the public would be insignificant. However, this would need to be verified upon selection of an

24 alternative site, reactor type, and condition and capacity of the transmission system.

25

26 8.4.2.2 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

27

28 There has been considerable debate in scientific circles regarding the potential impact from

29 exposure to 60-Hz electromagnetic fields resulting from energized transmission lines. The

30 potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and consensus results are

31 still outstanding. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs

32 related research through the DOE. A recent report (NIEHS 1999) contains the following

33 conclusion:

34

35 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

36 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

37 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

38 warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

39 United States uses electricity and is exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is

40 warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated

41 community on means aimed at reducing exposure. The NIEHS does not believe that
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-12 November 2004

1 other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to

2 currently warranted concern.

3

4 This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impact as significant

5 to the public, but the staff will continue to follow developments on this issue.

6

7 8.4.3 Radiological Health Impacts

8

9 Exposure pathways for gaseous and liquid effluents from the proposed new Units 3 and 4 at

10 North Anna ESP site would be similar for the alternative locations. Gaseous effluent pathways

11 would include external exposure to the airborne plume, external exposure to contaminated soil,

12 inhalation of airborne activity, and ingestion of contaminated agricultural products. Liquid

13 effluent pathways would include ingestion of aquatic foods, ingestion of drinking water, external

14 exposure to shoreline sediments, and external exposure to water through boating and

15 swimming.

16

17 8.4.3.1 Radiation Doses and Health Impacts to Members of the Public

18

19 Section 5.9 provides an estimate of doses to the maximally exposed individual and the general

20 population at the North Anna site for both the liquid effluent and gaseous effluent pathways

21 during operation. The same bounding liquid and gaseous effluent releases would be used to

22 evaluate doses to the maximally exposed individual and the population at each alternative site. 

23 However, there would be differences in the estimated doses at each of the sites. The

24 differences would be due to the use of site-specific atmospheric and water dispersion data,

25 different exposure pathways, and site-specific population data used in the dose calculations.

26

27 Section 5.9 shows that the estimated dose to the maximally exposed individual at the primary

28 North Anna ESP site was well within the design objectives (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I). 

29 Considering the differences in pathways analyzed, atmospheric and water dispersion factors,

30 and population, doses estimated to the maximally exposed individual for the alternative sites

31 would also be expected to be well within the Appendix I design objectives. Population dose

32 within 80 km (50 mi) of those alternative sites that are closer to major population centers (e.g.,

33 Savannah River) could be higher than for the proposed North Anna ESP site; however, the dose

34 is expected to be small compared to the population dose from natural background radiation.

35

36 Based on Dominion’s ER (Dominion 2004) and its own independent evaluation, the staff

37 concludes that the proposed system would likely result in annual doses to the public well within

38 regulatory limits, and there would be no observable health impact to the public from construction

39 or normal operation of the proposed North Anna ESP facility or from any of the alternative sites. 

40 Therefore, the staff concludes that radiation doses and resultant health impacts from construc-
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-13 Draft NUREG-1811

1 tion or operation of the proposed new nuclear units at the alternative sites are expected to be

2 SMALL.

3

4 8.4.3.2 Occupational Doses to Workers

5

6 Doses to construction workers during construction of Units 3 and 4 were estimated and

7 compared against the requirements in 10 CFR 20. These doses were well below limits for

8 members of the public. In addition, annual collective doses were estimated and appeared

9 realistic and accurate. Occupational doses to workers during construction are expected to be

10 approximately the same for the alternative sites as for the proposed North Anna ESP site. 

11 Therefore, the staff concludes that health impacts from radiological doses to construction

12 workers would be SMALL.

13

14 Occupational doses to workers are expected to be approximately the same for the proposed

15 ESP facility at the alternative locations as for the North Anna ESP site. The same (accumu16 lated) annual occupational dose estimates of 1 person-Sv (100 person-rem) would be expected

17 for all the proposed units regardless of the site location. The advanced reactor designs of the

18 proposed nuclear units would be expected to result in less occupational exposure annually than

19 current operating plants for the reasons discussed in section 5.9. The staff concludes that the

20 occupational radiation doses from operation of the proposed facility at the alternative sites are

21 expected to be SMALL.

22

23 8.4.3.3 Impacts to Biota

24

25 Table 5-16 provides the annual whole body dose estimates to surrogate biota species for the

26 proposed new Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. The 40 CFR Part 190 limits apply to

27 members of the public in unrestricted areas, not specifically to biota. The North Anna ESP site

28 dose estimates are conservative because they do not consider any dilution or decay of liquid

29 effluents during transit. Actual doses to biota are likely to be much lower. The staff reviewed

30 the available information relative to the radiological impact on biota, other than man, and

31 performed an independent estimate of dose to the biota. The staff concludes that no

32 measurable radiological impact on populations of biota is expected from the radiation and

33 radioactive material released to the environment as a result of the construction or routine

34 operation of the proposed two nuclear units, or of operation at any of the alternative sites. The

35 staff concludes that the impacts to biota of radiation doses from the construction or operation of

36 the proposed ESP facility at the alternative sites would be SMALL.

37
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-14 November 2004

1 8.4.4 Postulated Accidents

2

3 A suite of design basis accidents (DBAs) has been considered for the new nuclear units at the

4 North Anna ESP site. The evaluation involved calculation of doses for specified periods at the

5 exclusion area and low population zone boundaries, and comparison of those doses with doses

6 based on regulatory limits and guidelines. Similar analyses have not been conducted for the

7 alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in the results are

8 expected to be due to meteorological conditions and the distances to the site boundaries. The

9 release characteristics likely would have been similar at all sites, because the reactor designs

10 are the same.

11

12 For the North Anna ESP site meteorology, the doses for each accident sequence considered

13 were well below the corresponding regulatory limits and guidelines. The general climatological

14 conditions at the North Anna ESP site are sufficiently similar to the conditions at the alternative

15 sites that it is highly unlikely that differences in local meteorological conditions would be suffi16 cient to cause doses from DBAs for new nuclear units at any of the alternative sites to exceed

17 regulatory limits or guidelines. Similarly, because each of the alternative sites is located at a

18 nuclear facility (although not a necessarily a nuclear reactor site), it is unlikely that differences in

19 distances to the exclusion area and low population boundaries would be sufficient to cause

20 doses from DBAs for new nuclear units at any of the alternative sites to exceed regulatory limits

21 or guidelines. Therefore, the staff concludes that for the purposes of consideration of

22 alternative sites, the impact of DBAs at each of the alternative sites is SMALL.

23

24 A detailed analysis of the potential consequences of severe accidents for the postulated plants

25 has been conducted for the North Anna ESP site. Similar analyses have not been conducted

26 for the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in the results

27 would likely have been limited to site-specific factors such as meteorological conditions,

28 population distribution, and land-use distribution. The release characteristics likely would have

29 been similar at all sites, because the reactor designs are the same. 

30

31 The probability-weighted consequences estimated for severe accidents for a new nuclear unit at

32 the North Anna ESP site are well below the consequences estimated for severe accidents at

33 current generation reactors (see Section 5.10). This result suggests that, as at the North Anna

34 ESP site, the consequences of severe accidents at the any of the alternative sites would be

35 less than the consequences of a severe accident for a current generation operating plant at the

36 site. These risks are well below the NRC safety goals. In addition, the Commission has

37 determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents is SMALL for all

38 existing plants (10 CFR 51, Subpart B, Table B-1). On this basis, the staff concludes that, for

39 the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impact of severe accidents at each of the

40 alternative sites is SMALL.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-15 Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.5 Evaluation of Surry Power Station Site

2

3 The Surry site, operated by Dominion, was recently evaluated in a supplemental EIS prepared

4 in connection with a license renewal application (NRC 2002). The analysis of environmental

5 impacts for this section of the ESP EIS draws from the data and conclusions gathered in the

6 licence renewal process as well as the analysis provided by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), and

7 the staff independent review.

8

9 Certain assumptions were made by the staff in the review of the Surry ESP site as an

10 alternative site to the proposed North Anna ESP site. These include the use of 

11

12 C closed-cycle cooling

13 C mechanical draft towers

14 C the existing intake structures, with possible modifications to accommodate the

15 proposed additional two units

16 C existing discharge canal

17 C land within the existing Surry site.

18

19 No additional transmission lines are assumed to be required for power transmission for two new

20 nuclear units.

21

22 The station is on the Gravel Neck Peninsula on the south side of the James River in an

23 unincorporated portion of Surry County, Virginia. The station is approximately 40 km (25 mi)

24 upstream of the point where the James River enters Chesapeake Bay. The James River is

25 about 4 km (2.5 mi) wide at the Surry site. The Surry site, shown in Figure 8.1, occupies

26 approximately 340 ha (840 ac).

27

28 The Surry site is 10 km (7 mi) south of Colonial Williamsburg and 13 km (8 mi) east-northeast of

29 the town of Surry. Jamestown Island, part of the Colonial National Historic Park, is to the

30 northwest on the northern shore of the James River. The area within 16 km (10 mi) of the site

31 includes Surry, Isle of Wight, York, and James City Counties, and parts of the cities of Newport

32 News and Williamsburg. The counties surrounding the Surry site are predominantly rural,

33 characterized by farmland, woods, and marshy wetlands. East and south of the site, at

34 distances between 16 and 48 km (10 and 30 mi), are the urban areas of Hampton, Newport

35 News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth, Virginia, and others, collectively known as Hampton Roads.

36
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-16 November 2004

1 The site has two Westinghouse-designed light-water reactors, each with a design rating for a

2 gross electrical power output of 855 megawatts-electric (MW[e]). The Surry site was originally

3 planned for four units. Construction permits were issued for Units 3 and 4; however, the units

4 were never built. Cooling for the existing Surry site reactors is provided by a once-through

5 cooling system to remove waste heat from the reactor-steam electric system. Cooling water is

6 withdrawn from and returned to the James River.

7

8 Distinctive features of the Surry site include the 40-m (135-ft)-diameter cylindrical containment

9 buildings with hemispherical domes, and the cooling canal. When the plant was designed,

10 there was a concern about the containment structures being visible from historic Jamestown

11 Island; consequently, the containment buildings were designed so the elevation would be

12 sufficiently low so as to blend with the surrounding forested lands. In addition to the two nuclear

13 reactors and their turbine building, intake and discharge canals, and auxiliary buildings, the

14 Surry site is the location of Dominion’s Gravel Neck Combustion Turbine Station, a switchyard,

15 and an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

16

17 Gravel Neck Peninsula is at the upstream limit of saltwater incursion to the James River;

18 upstream of Gravel Neck is tidal river and downstream is an estuary. Surry extends as a band

19 across the peninsula. Steep bluffs drop to the river on either side and to the tip of the

20 peninsula. Hog Island Wildlife Management Area, a Commonwealth of Virginia wildlife

21 management area, is located on the tip of the Gravel Neck Peninsula, and contains primarily

22 tidal marshes. Areas within 16 km (10 mi) of the site to the west, south, and east are

23 predominantly rural, characterized by farmland, woods, and marshy wetlands. The tidal flats

24 and marshes of Hog Island State Wildlife Management Area provide habitat for large numbers

25 and numerous species of migratory shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. It also provides

26 habitat for numerous amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and upland game birds.

27

28 The terrestrial community at the Surry site consists of remnants of mixed pine-hardwood forests

29 interspersed with early succession fields and developed areas. Wildlife species, found primarily

30 in the forested portions of the site, are those typically found in upland forests of coastal Virginia. 

31 With the exception of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Federally and State-listed as

32 threatened), terrestrial species that are Federally and/or State-listed as endangered or

33 threatened are not known to exist at the Surry site or along the rights-of-way of its associated

34 transmission lines (NRC 2002). The barking tree frog (Hyla gratiosa) State-listed as threat35 ened, is believed to be in the general vicinity but has not been observed at the Surry site.

36

37 The Surry site is located in one of the strongest economic areas in Virginia, and Dominion is the

38 major employer in Surry County (NRC 2002). At present, because of the location of the Surry

39 Power Station in Surry County, Dominion has a significant impact on the economic well-being of

40 the county.
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-17 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Figure 8-1. Surry Vicinity Map. 

2

3
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-18 November 2004

1 The following sections examine the major environmental issues reviewed by the staff. 

2 Section 8.5.1 evaluates land-use issues, including the site and transmission lines. Section 8.5.2

3 examines hydrology, water use, and water quality. Sections 8.5.3 and 8.5.4 evaluate the

4 terrestrial and aquatic resources including endangered species, and Section 8.5.5 evaluates

5 socioeconomics, historic and cultural, and environmental justice issues.

6

7 8.5.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

8

9 Like the North Anna ESP site, the Surry site was originally designed for the construction of four

10 reactor units. Surry Units 3 and 4 were to be constructed to the east of Unit 2 where the

11 existing construction building and parking area are now situated. The original plans called for

12 Units 3 and 4 to be offset from Units 1 and 2, with the turbine building roughly in line with the

13 Units 1 and 2 containment buildings. The containment buildings for Units 3 and 4 were

14 originally to be located farther north of the intake canal than the existing Units 1 and 2

15 containment buildings.

16

17 For purposes of its ESP application, Dominion determined that the originally planned location

18 for Units 3 and 4 continues to be the best choice for potentially adding new nuclear generating

19 units at the Surry site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The proposed location of new nuclear

20 generating units at the Surry site is shown in Figure 8-2 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The

21 proposed location is east of the radwaste facility and includes the construction, maintenance,

22 and miscellaneous buildings and the uncleared area west of the ISFSI. Relocation of these

23 existing buildings to another onsite location would be required. The existing cleared area

24 measures approximately 300 m (900 ft) in the east-west direction. An additional 300 m (900 ft)

25 could be cleared to the east, while still maintaining approximately 150 m (500 ft) to the ISFSI

26 outer fence. The construction of an earthen berm around the ISFSI would likely be required to

27 reduce construction and occupational radiation doses. Any expansion of the ISFSI would be to

28 the east, away from the nuclear power units. In the north-south direction, the cleared area

29 measures approximately 350 m (1100 ft), including the contractor parking area. An additional

30 40 to 45 m (100 to 150 ft) could be cleared without encroaching too close to the north site

31 boundary. The areas to the north and east of the ISFSI could also be used if needed.

32

33 The Surry site is in a district classified as —2 General Industrial District by Surry County (Surry

34 County 1975). Location of nuclear power plants and associated radioactive waste-handling

35 facilities is permitted as a conditional use in this district upon approval by the County Board of

36 Supervisors. Dominion has received such approval for Surry Units 1 and 2, but would need

37 additional approval for new nuclear units.

38

39 The Surry site has an existing exclusion area that is consistent with NRC regulations. New

40 nuclear units sited at the Surry site would likely have the same exclusion area as the existing

41 nuclear units.
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-19 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The residential locations of employees currently working at Surry are shown in Table 8-2

2 (NRC 2002a). Approximately 60 percent of the employees live in Isle of Wight, James City, or

3 Surry Counties, or the City of Newport News. The remaining 40 percent of employees reside

4 in 23 other counties and cities. The staff assumes that the residences of the workforce needed

5 to construct new Units 3 and 4 at the Surry site would be similarly dispersed. Offsite land-use

6 impacts associated with construction of new nuclear units are likely to be relatively limited, given

7 the temporary nature of the construction (5 years). Construction of new rental housing and/or

8 manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks could be expected to accommodate

9 construction workers.

10

11 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act [16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)] requires that

12 applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an activity in a coastal zone area provide a

13 certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the State’s

14 coastal zone program. Surry is within the Virginia coastal resources management area

15 (VDEQ 2004b). If construction of new nuclear units at Surry were planned, Dominion would

16 need to submit a certification to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

17 stating that construction of the new units is consistent with the Virginia Coastal Management

18 Program. This submission would be reviewed by VDEQ.

19

20 New land-use impacts associated with operation of new nuclear generating units at the Surry

21 site are expected to be limited. Some new housing in surrounding communities would likely be

22 constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The incremental property tax

23 revenue from the new units could affect future land use in Surry County as a result of

24 infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue. In the supplemental EIS related

25 to renewal of the operating licenses for Surry Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that tax

26 revenue impacts on land use during the 20-year license renewal term would be small (NRC

27 2002). The staff concludes that, although the new units would be licensed for 40 years, the

28 impacts would be similar. Based on the information provided by Dominion and the staff’s

29 independent review, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts on the site and vicinity of

30 construction and operation are expected to be SMALL.

31
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-20 November 2004

1 Figure 8-2. Surry Power Station Site. 

2
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-21 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 8-2. Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Permanent Employee Residence by

2 County/Independent City

3

4 County/Independent

5 City

Number of

Personnel

Percentage of Total

Personnel Cumulative Percentage

6 212 24 24 Isle of Wight

7 98 11 35 James City

8 97 11 46 Newport News*

9 90 10 57 Surry

10 71 8 65 Hampton*

11 52 6 71 Suffolk*

12 42 5 75 Chesapeake*

13 25 3 78 Chesterfield

14 23 3 81 Portsmouth*

15 21 2 83 Virginia Beach*

16 20 2 85 York

17 19 2 88 Prince George

18 18 2 90 Sussex

19 11 1 91 Southampton

20 79 9 100 Others

21 878 100 Total

22 * Independent City

23 Source: NRC 2001.

24

25 The transmission line rights-of-way from the Surry site consist of three 500-kV transmission

26 lines from the breaker and a half 500-kV switchyard and six 230-kV transmission lines from the

27 230-kV switchyard. The lines are not at or near capacity (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). For the

28 addition of two advanced boiling water reactor-size units, it appears that the 500-kV

29 transmission line rights-of-way would be able to handle the new load; however, system studies

30 (load flows) modeling the transmission lines and the new nuclear units would need to be

31 performed to be certain whether any additional lines are required from the site. Based on the

32 evaluation conducted by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), it is likely that no additional electrical

33 transmission line rights-of-way would be required to transmit the power generated by additional

34 units at the Surry site to the regional power grid. This impact would be similar to land-use

35 impacts for construction and operation in the transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas

36 associated with the North Anna ESP site. Therefore, based on the information provided by

37 Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of

38 transmission system construction and continued operation would likely be SMALL.

39
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-22 November 2004

1 8.5.2 Water Use and Quality

2

3 The Surry site is located adjacent to the James River estuary. The consumptive use of water to

4 support mechanical draft cooling towers for the two nuclear units would be undetectable relative

5 to the supply available in the estuary. Discharges to the James River may contain water

6 treatment chemicals that would be subject to regulation by the VDEQ to ensure protection of the

7 environment. The additional small amount of heat from blowdown water would likely be

8 undetectable if commingled with the once-through discharge of Surry Units 1 and 2. Therefore,

9 based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

10 concludes that the impacts to water use and water supply at the Surry site from construction

11 and operation of two new nuclear units would be SMALL.

12

13 8.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

14

15 A maximum of approximately 200 ha (500 ac) of land would be disturbed to develop two

16 additional units with cooling towers at the Surry site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Much of this

17 area has been previously disturbed during development of the existing nuclear units and

18 associated facilities. Habitats in the area are a mixture of industrial areas, early successional

19 grasslands, and remnant mixed pine-hardwood forests. There are no threatened, endangered,

20 or other important species known to exist within the proposed development site, although bald

21 eagles are known to nest near the Surry site. Other Federally and State-listed threatened or

22 endangered species reported to occur in Surry County are listed in Table 8-3.

23

24 Table 8-3. Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

25 Reported Within Surry County, Virginia

26

27 Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

28 Birds

29 Haliaeetus

30 leucocephalus 

bald eagle T T

31 Lanius ludovicianus

32 migrans

migrant loggerhead shrike SC

33 Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon T

34 Mammals

35 Plecotus rafinesquii

36 macrotis

eastern big-eared bat E

37 Amphibians

38 Hyla gratiosa barking tree frog T

39 Ambystoma mabeei Mabee’s salamander T
Impacts of the Alternatives

Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

November 2004 8-23 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Insects

2 Speyeria diana Diana fritillary SC

3 Vascular Plants

4 Aeschynomene

5 virginica

sensitive joint-vetch T T

6 T= threatened, E= endangered, SC = species of concern.

7 Sources: VDGIF 2004; VDCR 2004.

8

9 Potential construction impacts, such as erosion, dust generation, and noise would be typical of

10 large construction projects. These impacts could be mitigated using standard industrial

11 procedures. Standard practices such as silt fences to control sedimentation and water sprays

12 to limit dust generation should be protective of wetlands and other ecological resources in the

13 site vicinity.

14

15 Construction noise could affect bald eagles nesting in the vicinity of the site. Prior to initiation of

16 major construction activities, the presence and distribution of bald eagle nests in relation to the

17 location of planned facilities would need to be determined. If eagle nests are in the area,

18 mitigation measures would need to be developed. According to the Bald Eagle Protection

19 Guidelines for Virginia (FWS and VDGIF 2000), no major construction activities should occur

20 within 400 m (1300 ft) of an active eagle nest, and loud noises (such as blasting) should not

21 occur during the nesting/breeding season. No active nests currently exist within 400 m (1300 ft)

22 of the proposed construction site.

23

24 If new reactor units are constructed, very little usable habitat will remain within the proposed

25 development area at the Surry ESP site. Operation of the proposed facility would typically result

26 in some noise generation, salt drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise is likely to be

27 typical of operating reactor units and cooling towers, which have been found to be a SMALL

28 impact (NRC 1996). However, it is possible that the such noise could deter bald eagles from

29 nesting near the site. There are no sensitive habitat areas adjacent to the proposed site that

30 would be adversely affected by noise from plant operations. The terrestrial vegetation in the

31 immediate vicinity of the Surry site is not believed to be unusually sensitive to salt drift, fogging,

32 or icing (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). However, because the cooling tower make-up water

33 from the James River estuary is brackish (up to 17 parts per thousand of salt), the cooling tower

34 drift may have higher salt content than at freshwater sites. Because it is likely that mechanical

35 draft towers would be used rather than natural draft towers, bird collisions are not likely (NRC

36 1996). The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operation of the proposed new nuclear units,

37 including operation of the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on terrestrial

38 threatened and endangered species. Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-24 November 2004

1 impacts of operating the proposed new units on terrestrial threatened and endangered species

2 would be SMALL. 

3

4 According to the analysis performed by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), no additional

5 transmission lines would be required to transmit electrical power generated by new nuclear

6 units at the Surry ESP site to the regional grid. The staff based its evaluation on the Surry ESP

7 not requiring new transmission lines for the new nuclear units. Therefore, construction and

8 operation of the existing transmission line rights-of-way would likely not be affected by two new

9 nuclear units at the Surry site. NRC (2002a) determined that the impacts of continued operation

10 of these transmission lines and maintenance of the rights-of-way would have a small impact on

11 terrestrial ecosystems. 

12

13 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

14 concludes that the overall impact to terrestrial ecological resources of both construction and

15 operation of two new nuclear units and associated cooling systems and transmission line rights16 of-way at the Surry site is expected to be SMALL.

17

18 8.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

19

20 The aquatic environment near the Surry site is associated with the James River. The James

21 River rises in the Allegheny Mountains near the Virginia/West Virginia border and flows in a

22 southeasterly direction to Hampton Roads (that area of Virginia that includes Newport News,

23 Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, and surrounding cities and towns), where it enters Chesapeake

24 Bay. The James River flows 692 km (430 mi) from its headwaters (the confluence of the

25 Cowpasture and Jackson Rivers) to Chesapeake Bay, crossing portions of four physiographic

26 regions: Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain. The river drains

25,900 km2 (10,000 mi2 27 ), just over 25 percent of the total land area of Virginia. Overall, about

28 71 percent of the basin is forested, 23 percent is agricultural, and 6 percent is urban. The lower

29 James River flows through the Coastal Plain of Virginia, which is virtually flat in tidewater areas,

30 generally ranging from 0 to 30 m (0 to 100 ft) above mean sea level (MSL).

31

32 Two major tributaries enter the river between Richmond and Hampton Roads. The Appomattox

33 River enters the James River from the south, in the stretch of river between Richmond and

34 Petersburg. The Chickahominy River enters from the north, just west of Williamsburg. Although

35 the James River downstream of Richmond was severely polluted for many years, the passage

36 of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and implementation of associated regulations, such as the

37 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), has reduced the flow of (toxic)

38 point-source pollutants into the James River ecosystem. Pollution prevention measures and

39 programs carried out by industrial entities in the area have further reduced chemical discharges

40 to the James River. At present, nutrients from sewage treatment facilities, agricultural

41 operations, and urban runoff and bacteria from combined sewer systems (those that combine
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-25 Draft NUREG-1811

1 storm water and sewage) are considered the chief threats to the water quality of the lower

2 James River.

3

4 In the vicinity of Surry, the James River is approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) wide. Cobham Bay lies

5 west (just upstream) of the Gravel Neck Peninsula and represents the approximate limit of

6 saltwater incursion, effectively dividing the James River into a tidally influenced freshwater river

7 upstream (to the fall line at Richmond) and an estuary downstream. The U.S. Army Corps of

8 Engineers historically has dredged the main channel of the lower James River so ocean-going

9 vessels can proceed upriver as far as Hopewell, approximately 80 river km (50 river mi) above

10 the Surry site.

11

12 The lower James River supports a diverse assemblage of finfish species, ranging from

13 exclusively marine species near Chesapeake Bay to exclusively freshwater species at the fall

14 line in Richmond. Approximately 80 fish species are known from the brackish portion of the

15 James River downstream of Surry, with another 40 or so species recorded from the tidally

16 influenced (freshwater) portion of the river upstream of the Surry site. Distributions and

17 abundances of particular species vary between seasons and years, depending on salinity

18 differences and natural fluctuations in fish populations.

19

20 Dominion’s predecessor organizations conducted extensive surveys of James River aquatic

21 biota in the 1970s. While preparing its ESP ER, Dominion contacted Virginia Institute of Marine

22 Sciences for more recent information (Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 2001). The

23 following paragraphs describe the historic Virginia Electric and Power Company (Virginia

24 Power) data and the more recent data collected by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.

25

26 Virginia Power collected 63 fish species in monthly haul seine surveys conducted from 1970 to

27 1978 that were intended to characterize fish populations of the shore zone in the vicinity of the

28 Surry site. Five species made up more than 75 percent of fish collected. These were the

29 Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), inland silverside

30 (Menidia beryllina), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius). 

31 Over the same period, 42 fish species were collected in otter trawl samples that were intended

32 to characterize fish populations in deeper waters (the “shelf zone”) adjacent to the main river

33 channel. Five species comprised more than 80 percent of fish collected in trawl samples. 

34 These species were the hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),

35 channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), and bay

36 anchovy.

37

38 Between 1996 and 2000 the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences conducted approximately

39 350 deep water ichthyoplankton trawl surveys in the James River in the vicinity of Hog Island. 

40 In those collections, four species comprised more than 80 percent of the catch: hogchoker,

41 white perch (Morone americana), Atlantic croaker, and bay anchovy. Spot was the fifth most
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-26 November 2004

1 abundant species. Salinity appears to be the most important factor influencing the relative

2 abundances of fishes between the two sampling periods.

3

4 In addition to finfish, a number of invertebrate aquatic species were found in the vicinity of the

5 Surry site. These include zooplankton (dominated by copepods), amphipods (notably the scud

6 [Gammarus spp.]), and a variety of benthic organisms (e.g., polychaetes and shellfish). 

7 Shellfish formed the bulk of the benthic biomass from the transition zone in the vicinity of the

8 Surry site to Chesapeake Bay. The brackish water clam (Rangia cuneata) a species capable of

9 tolerating a wide range of salinities, dominated the benthic community in the vicinity of the Surry

10 site. Larval American oysters (Crassostrea virginica) occurred in the area as meroplankton, but

11 adults were uncommon. The more recent trawl survey collected oysters, blue crabs, spider

12 crabs, eight species of shrimp, and five species of clams. The diversity of macroinvertebrate

13 benthic fauna is usually low in a transition zone, increasing downstream to seawater and

14 upstream (moderately) to freshwater. A combination of physical, chemical, and biological

15 factors influence the distribution of benthic organisms, but, as with the finfish, salinity appears to

16 exert the greatest influence.

17

18 No areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as “critical habitat” for

19 endangered species exist in the James River. Virginia Power and its contractors conducted

20 extensive surveys of fish and aquatic invertebrates in the lower James River in the vicinity of the

21 Surry site in the 1970s. Based on these historical surveys and a review of the scientific

22 literature, no Federally listed aquatic species is found in the lower James River. In Virginia’s

23 endangered species list, Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) identify only one threatened or

24 endangered fish species in the entire James River drainage, the orangefin madtom (Noturus

25 gilberti), which occurs in the headwaters of the river, several hundred miles upstream of the

26 Surry site.

27

28 The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), a candidate for Federal listing, was reported in

29 the vicinity of the Surry site in the early 1970s and was subsequently collected in research and

30 monitoring studies conducted by Virginia Power and Virginia Power-funded entities in the

31 mid-to-late 1970s. A number of authorities on the fishes of Virginia and the mid-Atlantic coast

32 also list this species as occurring in the lower reaches of the James River. The blackbanded

33 sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon), listed as endangered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, is

34 reported to occur in Prince George, Surry, and Sussex Counties west of the Surry site.

35

36 Although not recorded in Virginia for more than 100 years, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser

37 brevirostrum) is on the State’s list of rare animal species. This listing is based on the fact that

38 the species occurs in major river systems north and south of the Chesapeake Bay, is presumed

39 to have spawned in the four major estuarine drainages of the Chesapeake Bay (including the

40 James River) in Virginia as late as the 19th century, and may reappear in the future if

41 restoration efforts are successful. At present, the shortnose sturgeon is listed as Endangered
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-27 Draft NUREG-1811

1 by the National Marine Fisheries Service and by Virginia. It also appears on the Virginia

2 Department of Cultural Resources list of “Extinct and Extirpated Animals of Virginia.”

3

4 The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operating the proposed new nuclear units, including

5 operating the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on aquatic threatened and

6 endangered species. Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of

7 operating the proposed new units on aquatic threatened and endangered species at the Surry

8 site would be SMALL.

9

10 The potential for impingement and entrainment of aquatic resources is expected to be minimal

11 because of closed-cycle cooling. The potential impacts of heated water is expected to be

12 mitigated by the placement of the discharge structures. The overall impact on aquatic

13 ecological resources of construction and operation of two reactor units and associated cooling

14 towers and transmission facilities at the Surry site is expected to be SMALL.

15

16 8.5.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

17

18 In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at the Surry site, the staff made use of

19 the license renewal supplemental EIS information (NRC 2002) and Dominion and Bechtel’s

20 (2002) analysis of potential sites. The staff also conducted a “reconnaissance” survey of the

21 site using readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. No new data were

22 collected. The socioeconomic sections follow the organizational structure of the socioeconomic

23 discussions in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. Both construction and station operation impacts are

24 addressed.

25

26 8.5.5.1 Physical Impacts

27

28 Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor,

29 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public

30 roadways, railways, and barges would be necessary to transport construction materials and

31 equipment. Dominion anticipates that the roadways could require some minor repairs or

32 upgrading, such as patching and filling potholes, to allow safe transport of these materials and

33 equipment. However, no extensive work is planned to the existing roads or railways, and no

34 new routes would be required (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). It is expected that all construction

35 activities would occur within the existing Surry site. Offsite areas that would support

36 construction activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, disposal sites) are expected to be already

37 permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from construction of the new units would

38 be small incremental impacts associated with their normal operation.

39

40 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

41 visual intrusions. The new units would produce noise from the operation of pumps, dry tower
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-28 November 2004

1 fans, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment, and noise from traffic.

2 Dominion states in its ESP ER that any noise coming from the North Anna ESP site would be

3 controlled in accordance with applicable local county regulations. By inference, this is also

4 expected to apply to the Surry site. Virginia has no State regulations or guidelines regarding

5 noise limits. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed limits. Good road conditions and

6 appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting

7 to the ESP site (Dominion 2004).

8

9 The new units would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems. Permits

10 obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. In

11 addition, the generators would be operated on a limited short-term basis. During normal plant

12 operation, the new units would not use a significant quantity of chemicals that could generate

13 odors exceeding odor threshold values. Good access roads and appropriate speed limits would

14 minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

15

16 Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of the

17 Surry Power station site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite

18 services supporting the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

19 managed to local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the diesel generators,

20 and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Based on the information provided

21 by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of

22 construction and operation is expected to be SMALL.

23

24 8.5.5.2 Demography

25

26 The population base is considered to be the population of significant population centers within a

27 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Surry site. The combined population of the Richmond-Petersburg

28 and Norfolk-Virginia Beach and Newport News, Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area is

29 2,566,050 (USCB 2000a). The estimated population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Surry

30 site is 2,387,353 and is projected to grow by approximately 41 percent to 3,365,040 by 2030,

31 (NRC 2002).

32

33 Most of the construction workforce is expected to come from within the region, and those who

34 might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the larger population base. 

35 While the station operation workforce is expected to relocate into the region, their numbers are

36 small (720 new operating employees and their families) when compared to the total base

37 population and their locations of residence would probably be scattered throughout the region. 

38 Based on the information Dominion provided in its ER, in Dominion and Bechtel (2002), and its

39 own independent review, the staff concludes that any increase in the population due to

40 construction and operation within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site is expected to be SMALL.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-29 Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.5.5.3 Community Characteristics

2

3 Economy

4

5 The Surry site is located in one of the strongest economic areas in Virginia. The Richmond6 Petersburg area is the primary economic driving force in the area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius

7 of Surry. The Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News area is characterized by the U.S. Navy’s

8 significant presence in the area (NRC 2002). Hampton Roads relies heavily on defense-related

9 industry, particularly shipbuilding. In recent years, the regional economy has become more

10 diversified with major businesses, financial and health care components, as well as a growing

11 “high-tech” sector. Regionally, the service sector now offers the most employment

12 opportunities. The construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the Surry site would

13 be expected to benefit the economy of the region, especially Surry County.

14

15 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

16 reviewed the impacts of station construction and operation on the economy of the region and

17 concludes that the impacts would be SMALL everywhere in the region except Surry County,

18 where the impacts could be beneficially MODERATE. The magnitude of the economic impacts

19 would be diffused in the larger economic bases of Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the

20 City of Richmond. With Surry County’s smaller economic base, the economic impacts would be

21 more noticeable.

22

23 Availability of Workers

24

25 Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers more than 5 years to

26 build two new nuclear units at the Surry site (Dominion 2004). Dominion is expected to be able

27 to attract the necessary workforce for construction activities at the Surry site because of its

28 proximity to the major population centers of Richmond-Petersburg and Norfolk-Virginia Beach

29 and Newport News. While the availability of craft workers for outages at Surry is reported as

30 very limited, this can be attributed to the short duration of the projects. However, the availability

31 of craft workers for regular construction projects of longer duration is reported to be good

32 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Construction workforce within 80 km (50 mi) of the site were

33 estimated to number approximately 98,000 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

34

35 Approximately 990 employees work at Units 1 and 2 of the Surry site, (about 110 contract

36 employees and 880 permanent employees). The addition of the proposed new units would

37 require an increase in the operations workforce of 720 employees. In its ER, Dominion stated

38 that it expected most of the operations labor force for the new units would relocate from outside

39 the region. The ER does not address from where these employees would come (Dominion

40 2004). Some nuclear defense sites are reducing their workforces as they change missions
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-30 November 2004

1 (such as Portsmouth, Ohio, and the Savannah River Site), and workers from these sites could

2 be potential pools of labor for the operating workforce at Surry.

3

4 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

5 concludes that the impact of the availability of construction and operating workers for the new

6 units would be SMALL. Construction labor would be available from within the region, and there

7 would be little problem recruiting the required labor skills to enable the construction of the

8 nuclear units at the Surry site. The operations workforce would relocate to the region.

9

10 Transportation

11

12 The area around the Surry site is served by several major freeways and State and Federal

13 highways (NRC 2002). The most direct vehicular access to the Surry site is from the more

14 populous cities and counties on the north bank of the James River via State Route (SR) 31 and

15 the James River Ferry service, operated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The

16 principal road access to the Surry site is via SR 650, which is a two-lane paved road. SR 650

17 carries a level-of-services (LOS) designation of “A,” which reflects a free flow of traffic stream

18 and users unaffected by the presence of others.

19

20 The construction of new nuclear units would require additions to the workforce. In addition,

21 construction materials, wastes, and excavated materials would be transported both to and from

22 the site. These activities would result in increases in operation of personal-use vehicles by

23 commuting construction workers, in commercial truck traffic, and in traffic associated with daily

24 operations. However, five of the seven reactor types under consideration for this project are

25 generally smaller and modular in nature. Consequently, transportation of plant equipment could

26 be less challenging and workforce requirements are expected to be less than those for the

27 conventional nuclear plants (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

28

29 The LOS designation on Highway 650 would likely be degraded from “A” to “C” (which reflects a

30 stable flow that marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual

31 users is significantly affected by interactions with the traffic stream) during the peak construction

32 period for a new nuclear plant at the Surry site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). See Table 2-14

33 for the LOS definitions.

34

35 SR 650 intersects SR 10 approximately 8 km (5 mi) from the plant. SR 10 in the vicinity of the

36 site, from Surry County Courthouse to the divergence of the business and bypass north of

37 Smithfield, carries a LOS designation of “C.” Portions of Highway 10 would receive significantly

38 more traffic during plant construction (NRC 2002; Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

39

40 No direct rail access is available to the Surry site, so large equipment would have to be

41 offloaded and transported by road and/or barge from the nearest rail access points in Richmond
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-31 Draft NUREG-1811

1 or Norfolk. Surry has an excellent barge slip adjacent to the cooling water intake. This slip was

2 used for the transport of the replacement steam generators in the late 1970s and is regularly

3 used to receive spent fuel storage casks and other large loads (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

4

5 The Williamsburg-Jamestown Airport, Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, Norfolk

6 International Airport, and the Richmond International Airport all serve the area. The airports in

7 Richmond and Norfolk provide regular freight and passenger jet services and are of sufficient

8 size to accommodate the relatively small air shipments normally associated with a construction

9 project (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

10

11 The impact of station operation employees on the transportation system would be less than the

12 impact incurred during construction. There would be increases in operation of personal-use

13 vehicles by commuting operators of both the existing and new units and in traffic associated

14 with daily operations. Portions of Highway 10 may be impacted by commuters to the plant site,

15 particularly during shift changes. During new plant operation, the LOS designation on SR 650

16 may retain its “A” status or perhaps degrade to “B” designation, which reflects a condition of

17 stable flow instead of the free flow indicated under an “A” designation. This change in

18 designation indicates that the freedom to select speed is unaffected, but the freedom to

19 maneuver is slightly diminished (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

20

21 Based on a review of information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the

22 staff concludes than that the impacts of a construction workforce and related transportation of

23 construction supplies and materials on transportation infrastructure at Surry would be SMALL to

24 MODERATE (but temporary). Some of the local roads could have their LOS degraded during

25 construction to the point where operations of individual drivers could be significantly affected by

26 interactions with the rest of the traffic. This would be at LOS levels of C or lower. Also it

27 possible that, given the heavy loads carried by vehicles transporting construction materials to

28 the Surry site, some of the roads may need repair to carry the additional load. The impacts

29 during operation are expected to be SMALL.

30

31 Taxes

32

33 Construction and operations workers would pay income, sales, and use taxes to Virginia and

34 the local governments in the region where sales take place and property taxes to the counties in

35 which they own a residence. Sales and use taxes would be paid from the sales of construction

36 materials and supplies purchased for the project and on expenditures of both the construction

37 and operations workforce for goods and services. Dominion estimates that about half of the

38 day-to-day expenditures during construction would occur in the region (Dominion 2004). 

39 Corporate income taxes on profits would also be paid by those companies engaged in

40 construction at the site.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-32 November 2004

1 There are two types of property taxes in Virginia. The first is the tangible personal property tax

2 paid by contractors during construction of the additional units. This tax is based on the value of

3 property owned by the contractors that acquire taxable status in Surry County during the

4 construction period. The second is the real property tax levied for the incremental increase in

5 value to the entire site from the operation of the additional units. It is expected that Surry

6 County would be the only beneficiary of this tax. Dominion has a significant impact on the

7 economic well-being of Surry County, with Dominion paying well over 70 percent of the property

8 taxes between 1996 and 2000 (NRC 2002).

9

10 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

11 concludes that the overall impacts from construction and operation of taxes collected through

12 the income, sales and use, and property taxes would be SMALL (with the exception of Surry

13 County for property taxes). The taxes paid, while substantial, are nevertheless a small sum

14 when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by Virginia and local governments in the

15 region. The staff concludes the overall impacts of the property taxes collected in Surry County

16 would be beneficially MODERATE (construction) and LARGE (operation) relative to the total

17 amount of taxes the county collects through property taxes.

18

19 Aesthetics and Recreation

20

21 Although the Surry site is clearly an industrial site, its current structures are not visually

22 obtrusive from any vantage point, even from across the James River. However, Units 1 and 2

23 at the Surry site are visible from the highest amusement rides at Busch Gardens (Dominion and

24 Bechtel 2002). The reasons for the lack of visual intrusiveness are the general wooded habitat

25 surrounding the site and the fact that Units 1 and 2 reactor/containment buildings are sunk into

26 the ground to minimize visual obtrusion from offsite. Five of the seven new reactor technologies

27 being considered for the Surry site could be designed to allow the reactor/containment building

28 to be placed lower in the ground. The AP1000, which has a reactor/containment building

29 approximately 71 m (234 ft) above grade and could potentially be more easily seen from

30 Williamsburg across the James River from the Surry site. Dominion states that the AP1000

31 would be too expensive to redesign to allow the building to be placed lower in the ground. In its

32 ER, Dominion did not address the feasibility of adapting the remaining reactor technology to

33 minimize visual intrusiveness (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

34

35 The Surry site is a minimum of 5 km (3 mi) from any point across the James River. Except for

36 the west side of the site, which is open to the James River, the dense tree stands surrounding

37 the site effectively screen it from all but a few locations. No parks or recreational areas are

38 within 3 km (2 mi) of the Surry site. The closest recreational park is Chippokes State Park

39 located 4 km (2.5 mi) to the southwest (NRC 2002). The only distinguishable view of the

40 transmission lines by offsite observers is available from the James River (Dominion and

41 Bechtel 2002).
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-33 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The addition of new nuclear units at the site would likely require the use of mechanical draft

2 cooling towers rather than the taller natural draft towers. Traditionally, visible plumes generated

3 by the operation of cooling towers could cause a negative aesthetic effect. However, with the

4 installation of modern drift eliminators, use of cooling towers would not create long, elevated

5 visible plumes (Dominion and Bechtel 2002), so the aesthetic effect would likely be minimal.

6

7 Most construction activities would be screened from offsite viewing. The exception may be the

8 reactor/containment building as it nears completion. For five of the seven reactor technologies

9 under consideration, there is flexibility in lowering the reactor/containment buildings into the

10 ground, which would minimize visual impacts. During operations visible plumes could be

11 generated by the cooling towers. Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own

12 independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation on

13 aesthetics in the vicinity of the Surry site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

14

15 Housing

16

17 A 10 percent vacancy rate out of a total 110,250 housing units currently exists in Isle of Wight,

18 Surry, and James City Counties and Newport News Independent City. Surry County has the

19 highest vacancy rate at 20 percent (NRC 2002). Given the closeness of the Surry site to four

20 major metropolitan areas, housing for construction workers, most of whom will be coming from

21 within the region, and the operations workforce is expected to be available.

22

23 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

24 concludes that the impacts of a construction and operations workforce on the demand and

25 housing availability would be SMALL. The conclusion is based on approximately 10,000 vacant

26 housing units in the region and the Surry site’s proximity to the larger metropolitan areas in the

27 region.

28
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-34 November 2004

1 Public Services

2

3 Water Treatment Facilities

4

5 Isle of Wight County has municipal water supply systems in the towns of Windsor, Smithfield,

6 and Franklin. Permitted groundwater wells supply these systems. Surry County has municipal

7 water supply systems in the towns of Claremont, Dendron, and Surry. The municipal water

8 supply for James City County is provided by the Newport News Waterworks and the James City

9 Service Authority. Newport News Waterworks is one of the top 100 largest water utilities in the

10 United States and one of the three largest in Virginia. James City Service Authority’s water

11 system consists of the central system with 29 well facilities and six independent water systems

12 with five well facilities servicing them. Public water supply for Newport News is provided by the

13 Newport News Waterworks. Water is supplied to nearly 400,000 residents of Poquoson,

14 Hampton, and Newport News, and to portions of York and James City Counties. The primary

15 source of raw water is the Chickahominy River. Water supply needs in the intermediate term

16 are expected to be met, with all towns and cities in the region having excess capacity (NRC

17 2002). 

18

19 Water supply needs near the Surry site are not a current concern with all towns and cities in the

20 region having excess capacity. Most of the construction workforce would come from within the

21 region, and therefore are already accounted for in the demands being placed on the systems

22 and their excess capacities. The station operating workforce, while relocating to the region,

23 would probably take up residence across the region, thus not particularly impacting any one

24 community or jurisdiction. Based on based on the information provided by Dominion and its

25 own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation on

26 water supply treatment facilities would be SMALL.

27

28 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

29

30 In the larger metropolitan areas of Richmond and Henrico County and Norfolk, Hampton Roads,

31 and Virginia Beach, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be materially impacted by an

32 increase in the construction workforce. Many of the construction workers are anticipated to

33 already live in the region and would commute to the Surry site. As a result, these workers are

34 already served by existing services and facilities.

35

36 The operations workforce of about 720 workers and their families is anticipated to relocate to

37 the site from outside the region. Most likely they would locate in residences across the region

38 and would not concentrate in one location. As such, inordinate demands are not likely to be

39 placed on these services and facilities.

40
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-35 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Most construction workers already live within the region. The incoming operations workforce

2 would likely have residences scattered across the region. As a result, there should be minimal

3 new demands placed on these services and facilities by either construction or operations

4 employees. Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review,

5 the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operations workforce on police, fire, and

6 medical facilities would be SMALL.

7

8 Social Services

9

10 Social services in the state are provided in each county by the Virginia Department of Social

11 Services. The department provides a variety of services to children and adults. The

12 department has 131 local departments located throughout Virginia (VDSS 2004). During the

13 construction phase at the Surry site, there may be an increased demand for social services.

14

15 Generally, construction and operation of the new nuclear units at the Surry ESP site would be

16 viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by Virginia

17 Department of Social Services. The workforce associated with the Surry ESP site would be

18 relatively higher paid than other employment categories in the region. Construction and

19 operation of the new units, through the multiplier effect, may enable members of the

20 disadvantaged population to improve their social and economic position by moving up to higher

21 paying jobs. At a minimum, the expenditures of the construction and operations workforce in

22 the counties for food, services, etc. could, through the multiplier effect, increase the number of

23 jobs that could be filled by the disadvantaged population.

24

25 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

26 concludes that the demand for social and related services as a result of construction and

27 operation of the new facility would be SMALL. Construction and operation of two new units

28 would be expected to have a beneficial economic impact to the economically disadvantaged

29 population of the region, which should lessen the demand for social services. There could be

30 an initial increase in demand for social services at the beginning of the construction period, but

31 this is considered manageable and limited.

32

33 Education

34

35 The Surry County School system has just over 1200 students (Great Schools 2004). There

36 currently is no overcrowding in the system (NRC 2002). In the other counties and cities of the

37 region, it is anticipated that the construction and operations workforce would minimally impact

38 school infrastructure. Many construction workers already live within the region. Those that do

39 not live within the area are not expected to move their families into the area. This conclusion is

40 based on Dominion’s assertions in its ER for the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2004), and by

41 inference is applicable to the Surry site due to geographical proximity of the two sites. The
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-36 November 2004

1 operations workforce, while coming from outside and relocating into the region, would probably

2 be scattered throughout the region, placing little demand on school infrastructure as a result.

3

4 It is anticipated that most of the construction workforce would come from within the area and not

5 relocate their families. Those construction and operations workers potentially relocating to the

6 region would most likely be scattered throughout the region and, as a result, would not be in

7 sufficient concentrated pockets to place an undue burden on the existing infrastructure. Based

8 on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes

9 that the impacts of the construction and operations workforce on education facilities in Surry

10 County and the area would be SMALL.

11

12 8.5.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

13

14 Historic and cultural resources at the Surry site have been addressed in the recent

15 supplemental EIS relating to renewal of the existing operating licenses for Surry Units 1 and 2

16 (NRC 2002) and supporting information (The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2001). Associated with

17 that effort was consultation with eight Commonwealth of Virginia-recognized Native American

18 Indian Tribes, including the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, Chickahominy Indians-Eastern Division,

19 Mattaponi Indian Tribe, Monacan Indian Nation, Nansemond Indian Tribe, the Pamunkey Indian

20 Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, and the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe.

21

22 While there are no presently recorded historic and cultural resources at the Surry site,

23 evaluations of the potential for such occurrences included acreages with the following

24 designations: No Potential (areas previously disturbed during initial construction of the plant),

25 Low Potential (areas that may or may not have been disturbed during construction and areas

26 with little potential for human occupation), and Moderate-to-High Potential (areas with little past

27 surface disturbance and with a likelihood for prehistoric and historic sites based on regional

28 comparative data). Should this alternate site be selected for an ESP, Dominion would consult

29 with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources concerning the need for additional field

30 inventory of acreage for historic and cultural resources prior to undertaking any ground31 disturbing activities.

32

33 Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

34 concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural resources from construction would

35 be SMALL, and operation of two new nuclear units at the a power station at the Surry site would

36 be also be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-37 Draft NUREG-1811

1

2 8.5.5.5 Environmental Justice

3

4 As part of the evaluation of the potential environmental justice impacts related to the Surry site,

5 the staff used information from NRC’s supplemental EIS for the license renewal of Surry Units 1

6 and 2 (NRC 2002). The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with the

7 construction of two additional new nuclear units at the Surry site could affect human populations

8 were ascertained. The staff then evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could

9 be disproportionately affected by these impacts. The staff found no unusual resource

10 dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which

11 the populations could be disproportionately affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any

12 location-dependent disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income

13 populations.

14

15 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

16 concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and operation of the new units at the Surry

17 site to minority and low-income populations would be SMALL. No disproportionately high and

18 adverse impacts affecting minority and low-income populations were identified.

19

20 8.6 Evaluation of the Portsmouth ESP Site

21

22 Dominion identified a 138-ha (340-ac) parcel of land in the northeastern portion of the

23 Portsmouth site in Ohio as a possible location for two commercial nuclear units (i.e., the

24 proposed ESP site) (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The parcel has been evaluated by DOE and

25 slated for transfer from DOE to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative for possible

26 reindustrialization (66 FR 64963).

27

28 For this evaluation, the following assumptions were made by the staff about the proposed ESP

29 site at Portsmouth:

30

31 C The proposed units would use closed cycle cooling.

32 C Natural or mechanical draft cooling towers would be employed.

33 C Groundwater would be the source of cooling water (ostensibly from the Scioto River).

34 C The proposed plant would discharge blowdown water to the Scioto River.

35 C The land area for the ESP site would be approximately 140 ha (340 ac).

36 C Additional transmission lines would be needed.

37
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-38 November 2004

1 The Portsmouth site is located in Pike County, Ohio, approximately 35 km (22 mi) north of the

2 Ohio River and 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the town of Piketon. The Portsmouth site vicinity is

3 shown in Figure 8-3.

4

5 Pike County’s largest community, Waverly, is about 16 km (10 mi) north of the Portsmouth site

6 and has a population of about 4400 residents. The nearest residential center to the site is

7 Piketon, which is about 8 km (5 mi) north on U.S. 23; its 2000 population was approximately

8 1900. Additional population centers within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant are Portsmouth (popula9 tion 20,909), 35 km (22 mi) south; Chillicothe (population 21,796), 43 km (27 mi) north; and

10 Jackson (population 6184), 29 km (18 mi) east (Bechtel Jacobs 2003). Approximately 90 per11 cent of Portsmouth site workers reside in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties. The

12 estimated 2003 population of the four counties is 215,700 (DOE 2003). The primary facility at

13 the Portsmouth site is the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a gaseous diffusion uranium

14 enrichment plant previously operated first by DOE until 1993 and since then by the United

15 States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). Uranium enrichment operations were discontinued in

16 May 2001 and the plant was placed in cold standby, a nonoperational condition in which the

17 plant retains the ability to resume operations within 18 to 24 months.

18

19 In December 2002, USEC announced that the Portsmouth site will be the location for a Lead

20 Cascade Demonstration Facility for advanced centrifuge enrichment technology (SAIC 2004). 

21 NRC has recently authorized possession and use of source and special nuclear material at the

22 proposed enrichment facility (69 FR 3956). In addition, USEC announced on January 12, 2004,

23 that the Portsmouth site was selected as the location for a new $1.5 billion advanced centrifuge

24 commercial plant (referred to as the American Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Plant), expected

25 to be operational by the end of the decade (DOE 2003). USEC submitted a license application

26 for this proposed facility to the NRC on August 23, 2004.

27

28 The Portsmouth site encompasses approximately 1500 ha (3714 ac) including a 320-ha

29 (800-ac) fenced core area that contains the former production facilities. The 1180-ha (2914-ac)

30 area outside the core area includes restricted buffers, waste management areas, plant

31 management and administrative facilities, gaseous diffusion plant support facilities, and vacant

32 land. The site is 3 km (2 mi) east of the Scioto River in a small valley that runs parallel to and

33 approximately 37 m (120 ft) above the Scioto River floodplain (Bechtel Jacobs 2003). Wayne

34 National Forest borders the plant site on the east and southeast, and Brush Creek State Forest

35 is located to the southwest, slightly more than 1.6 km (1 mi ) from the site boundary. On the

36 basis of an analysis of Landsat satellite imagery from 1992, dominant land cover categories in

37 Pike County include deciduous forest (64.6 percent), pasture/hay (21.6 percent), and row crops

38 (10.3 percent) (DOE 2003).
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-39 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Figure 8-3. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Vicinity Map. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-40 November 2004

1 Water for the Portsmouth site comes from an onsite water treatment plant that in turn draws

2 water from offsite supply wells adjacent to the Scioto River. The Ohio Valley Electric

3 Corporation supplies the site with electrical power.

4

5 The topography of the Portsmouth site area consists of steep hills and narrow valleys, except

6 where major rivers have formed broad floodplains. The site is underlain by bedrock composed

7 of shale and sandstone. The most common type of vegetation on the Portsmouth site is

8 managed grassland, which makes up approximately 30 percent of the site or about 445 ha

9 (1100 ac). Approximately 28 percent of the site is forested, predominately stands of oak-hickory

10 and mixed hardwood (DOE 2003).

11

12 The Portsmouth site is located in the humid continental climatic zone and has weather

13 conditions that vary greatly throughout the year. The site is in a rural setting, and no residences

14 or other sensitive locations (e.g., schools or hospitals) exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. 

15 The Portsmouth site has direct access to major highway and rail systems, a nearby regional

16 airport, and barge terminals on the Ohio River. Use of the Ohio River barge terminals requires

17 transportation by public road to or from the Portsmouth site.

18

19 The site is located within the Western Allegheny Plateau ecological province (Omernick 1987). 

20 The hilly, forested areas of the 138-ha (340-ac) proposed ESP site were harvested for timber

21 before the Portsmouth facilities were established. The eastern portion of the site has steep

22 forested slopes while the central and western area is composed mainly of old fields and

23 managed grasslands that are not considered unique habitat or environmentally sensitive areas. 

24 Little Beaver Creek runs through the southwestern part of the 138-ha (340-ac) ESP area and is

25 identified as having riparian forest along its banks (DOE 2003). Oak-hickory forest borders the

26 riparian forest. Other than Little Beaver Creek, there are only about 1 ha (2 ac) of wetlands

27 within the proposed ESP site. There is one Federally listed endangered species (the Indiana

28 bat [Myotis sodalis]) and one non-listed Federal species of concern (the timber rattlesnake

29 [Crotalus horridus]) that potentially could be found on the site.

30

31 The Portsmouth site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the surrounding

32 communities over the last 50 years, including jobs with above-average salaries. DOE does not

33 pay property taxes to the local communities around the Portsmouth site. However, it has

34 provided $12.9 million in grants to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative. Other economic

35 benefits include the collection of sales tax on the uranium enrichment services. Sales, property,

36 and income taxes have been paid over the years to Ohio and local governments by employees

37 working at the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

38
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-41 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Major economic activities around Portsmouth consist mainly of farming, lumbering, and small

2 businesses. Other industries include a cabinet manufacturer and an automotive parts

3 manufacturer. The site itself has no prime agriculture lands. Sufficient public transportation (rail

4 and road) is present to support activities at the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

5

6 8.6.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

7

8 The proposed ESP parcel at the Portsmouth site is irregular in shape. At its widest points, the

9 parcel spans about 1737 m (5700 ft) in the north-south direction and about 1798 m (5900 ft) in

10 the east-west direction. The parcel is in a mostly undisturbed part of the site. No hazardous

11 substances have been stored, released, or disposed of on the parcel (Dominion and Bechtel

12 2002). The closest disturbed land is used by security personnel for training and as a firing

13 range. The firing range is outside the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel, but is adjacent to its Portsmouth

14 site boundary lines. The location of the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel is shown in Figure 8-4. Two

15 commercial nuclear units sited at the Portsmouth site would need to have an exclusion area that

16 meets NRC requirements (10 CFR 100.21(a)). The exclusion area is the area surrounding the

17 reactor within which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all activities, including

18 exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area (10 CFR 100.3).

19

20 Six wetland areas comprise approximately 1 ha (2 ac) within the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel

21 (66 FR 64963). Five of these areas are ditches within a borrow area. The remaining wetland is

22 associated with a previously disturbed natural area. Dominion determined that construction

23 activities could take place without affecting the wetland areas (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

24

25 Land within 8 km (5 mi) of the Portsmouth site is used primarily for farms, forests, and urban or

26 suburban residences (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). About 10,291 ha (25,430 ac) of farmland,

27 including cropland, wooded lots, and pasture, lies within 8 km (5 mi) of the site. The cropland is

28 mostly found on or adjacent to the Scioto River flood plain and is farmed extensively, particularly

29 with grain crops. The hillsides and terraces are used as pasture for both beef and dairy cattle. 

30 There are no state or national parks, conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, or other areas

31 of recreational, ecological, scenic, or aesthetic importance within the immediate vicinity of the

32 Portsmouth site. There are approximately 9874 ha (24,400 ac) of forestland within 8 km (5 mi)

33 of the site. This land includes some commercial woodlands and a small portion of Brush Creek

34 State Forest. A relatively small area of urban land, about 206 ha (510 ac), is also within 8 km

35 (5 mi) of Portsmouth. This land is situated primarily in and around Piketon, approximately

36 5.6 km (3.5 mi) north of the center point of the Portsmouth site.
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-42 November 2004

1 Figure 8-4. Potential New Nuclear Station Site at Portsmouth. 

2

3
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-43 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The Portsmouth site is about 113 km (70 mi) south of Columbus, Ohio, and 121 km (75 mi) east

2 of Cincinnati, Ohio, the two closest metropolitan areas. Huntington, West Virginia, is approxi3 mately 140 km (87 mi) away. The cities of Portsmouth, Jackson, and Chillicothe, Ohio, are

4 approximately 40 km (25 mi) from the facility (south, east, and north, respectively). There are

5 numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of the site. Together, these communities could

6 supply an adequate appropriate workforce for construction of new generating units and are

7 within a 2-hour commuting distance via local transportation routes (Dominion and Bechtel

8 2002). The regional transportation network consists of two major highways, U.S. Route 23 and

9 SR 32, and numerous SRs including 35, 52, 124, and 139. Offsite land-use impacts associated

10 with construction of new nuclear generating units are likely to be relatively limited, given the

11 temporary nature of the construction. Construction of new rental housing and/or new manufac12 tured home and recreational vehicle parks could be expected to accommodate construction

13 workers.

14

15 The majority of current Portsmouth workers live in Scioto and Pike Counties and in the City of

16 Portsmouth, which is the county seat of Scioto County (DOE 2003). The staff assumed that

17 workers at two commercial nuclear units located at the Portsmouth site would also primarily live

18 in Scioto and Pike Counties. Some new housing in Scioto and Pike Counties plus surrounding

19 communities would likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. 

20 The property tax revenue from the new units could affect future land use in the area surrounding

21 the plant as a result of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue.

22

23 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

24 concludes that the land-use impacts on the site and vicinity of construction and operation would

25 be SMALL.

26

27 An extensive existing electric power transmission system serves the Portsmouth site. During

28 previous full power operations of the enrichment facility, the site imported approximately

29 1900 MW(e) of power with a reported system capacity of approximately 2260 MW(e) (Dominion

30 and Bechtel 2002). One or more relatively short transmission lines (approximately 900 m

31 [3000 ft]) could be used to connect to the existing transmission system serving the Portsmouth

32 site. Transmission lines that would be constructed to connect new power reactors with the

33 existing Portsmouth transmission system would primarily cross previously developed industrial

34 lands within the boundaries of the Portsmouth site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Otherwise,

35 relatively little land would be altered for the construction of the new lines, and the staff

36 concluded that the overall impacts of constructing new lines and operating and maintaining

37 them would be SMALL.

38
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-44 November 2004

1 8.6.2 Water Use and Quality 

2

3 Whether the consumptive water use for the Portsmouth site was provided indirectly from the

4 Scioto River aquifer via groundwater wells as expected or directly from the river itself, the

5 consumptive water use for a power reactor at the Portsmouth site would impact the Scioto

6 River. Groundwater in the aquifer is directly connected to the Scioto River. The aquifer is a

7 major source of water to domestic, industrial, and agricultural users in the region.

8

9 The staff reviewed streamflow records reported by the USGS for stream gauge 03231500

(Scioto River at Chillicothe, Ohio). This gauge reflects runoff from a drainage of 9969 km2 10

(3849 mi2 11 ) and has data for the period from 1921 to present. Using these data, the staff

12 independently estimated the 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. The 7Q10 is the lowest 7 day discharge

13 for low water condition that is estimated every 10 years. For this gauge the 7Q10 was

estimated to be 5.72 m3 14 /s (202 cfs). The 30Q2 is the lowest 30 days of flow in an average year. 

For this gauge the 30Q2 is estimated to be 11.4 m3 15 /s (403 cfs). The 7Q10 provides an estimate

16 of the short-term, low-flow conditions in a dry year. The 30Q2 provides an estimate of the

17 intermediate-term low-flow conditions in an average year.

18

The maximum make-up water flow rate for a single unit is estimated in the PPE as 2.78 m3 19 /s

20 (98.0 cfs); however, the portion of the flow not evaporated is ultimately returned to the river as

21 blowdown flow. Based on the PPE, the maximum evaporation for a single unit using

mechanical draft cooling towers is 1.23 m3 22 /s (43.5 cfs). For either one or two units this

23 represents a significant fraction of both the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 values. Some mitigation, such

24 as aquifer recharge, offstream storage, etc, may be required to limit the impacts to other water

25 users in the region. Therefore, the staff estimates water use impacts at the Portsmouth site

26 during construction would be SMALL, and during operation would be SMALL to MODERATE

27 except during drought years when the impact is expected to be MODERATE. Discharge of

28 thermal and chemical effluents would be regulated by the State of Ohio’s NPDES permitting

29 process to limit water quality impacts to the Scioto River, therefore water quality impacts during

30 construction and operation would be expected to be SMALL. 

31

32 8.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

33

34 Site preparation and construction of one or more nuclear reactor units at the Portsmouth ESP

35 site would result in the loss of approximately 138 ha (340 acres) of wildlife habitat. In general,

36 the types of habitat that would be lost are relatively common in south-central Ohio, and are not

37 considered to be unique or sensitive. Less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) of wetlands would be disturbed

38 for the development of this site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Site development would have the

39 potential to result in erosion, dust generation, and noise impacts that are typical of large

40 construction projects. These could be mitigated using standard methods of erosion control,

41 dust suppression, and noise abatement.
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-45 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Site development could result in the loss of habitat for several Federally or State-listed species

2 (Table 8-4). The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) could inhabit the riparian forest along Little Beaver

3 Creek, while the rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter

4 striatus) may inhabit the forested portions of the proposed development site. The timber

5 rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) has not been observed on the Portsmouth site, but is believed to

6 occur in the vicinity. DOE has indicated that additional field surveys and evaluations would be

7 required prior to development of this location (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

8

9 Table 8-4. Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species Potentially

10 Near the Portsmouth ESP Site

11

12 Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

13 Mammals

14 Indiana bat E E Myotis sodalis

15 Birds

16 Accipiter stiatus sharp-shinned hawk E

17 Reptiles

18 Crotalus horridus timber rattlesnake E

19 Opheodrys aistivus rough green snake S

20 Plants

21 Rhexia virginica Virginia meadow-beauty P

22 Xyris difformis Carolina yellow-eyed

grass

E

23 E= endangered, S = Special concern, P= potentially threatened.

24 Sources” DOE 2003 (Draft EIS for construction and operation of a depleted uranium hexaflouride conversion

25 facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Site. DOE/EIS-0360, Dec. 2003) occur in the vicinity. DOE has indicated that

26 additional field surveys and evaluations would be required prior to development of this location (Dominion and

27 Bechtel 2002).

28

29 Development of the site could adversely affect at least two Ohio State listed plant species, the

30 Virginia meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica) and the Carolina yellow-eyed grass (Xyris difformis). 

31 Evaluations for these species would be required prior to site development. Pending site specific

32 surveys for Federally and State-listed species, site preparation and construction at the proposed

33 location within the Portsmouth site would not result in noticeable or destabilizing impacts to the

34 terrestrial ecology of the site. Therefore, pending more detailed evaluations of threatened and

35 endangered species, the construction impacts would be SMALL. If the Federally or State-listed

36 animal species are observed at the site, the impacts may be larger.
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-46 November 2004

1 If new reactor units were constructed, it would be expected that very little usable habitat would

2 remain within the proposed area at the Portsmouth ESP site. Operation of the facility would

3 likely result in noise generation, and if wet cooling towers were employed, there could be

4 impacts caused by salt drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise is likely to be typical of

5 operating reactor units and cooling towers, which has been found to have a minimal impact in

6 most instances (NRC 1996). There are no sensitive habitat areas adjacent to the proposed site

7 that would be adversely affected by noise from plant operations. The terrestrial vegetation in

8 the vicinity of the Portsmouth ESP site is not believed to be unusually sensitive to salt drift,

9 fogging, or icing (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Bird collision impacts would not be expected to

10 be different from most other power plants (NRC 1996). Based on information provided by

11 Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation of

12 one or more reactor units at the Portsmouth ESP site on terrestrial systems would be SMALL.

13

14 Transmission lines that would be constructed to connect new power reactors with the existing

15 Portsmouth transmission system would primarily cross either industrial lands or early16 successional plant communities that are not considered to be unique in the region or otherwise

17 sensitive. One exception is the potential for Indiana bats to inhabit the riparian zone along Little

18 Beaver Creek. Additional evaluations and habitat preservation precautions may be required if

19 the transmission lines cross this habitat. Otherwise, very little land would be altered for the

20 construction of the new lines, and the overall impacts of constructing new lines would be

21 minimal and would be similar to those of the construction of the reactor units.

22

23 Dominion has not indicated the specific maintenance procedures that would be followed for the

24 new transmission lines, but would likely include regular mowing and herbicide applications as

25 needed. The primary area of potential concern is whether the lines must cross Little Beaver

26 Creek, where precautions to protect Indiana bats and their habitat may be required. 

27 Additionally, there are at least two rare plant species that could occur within transmission lines

28 rights-of-way and could therefore be affected by transmission line maintenance. Additional

29 evaluations for the Indiana bat and rare plant species would be needed. Otherwise, because

30 the proposed transmission lines are short, entirely within the bounds of the Portsmouth site, and

31 cross areas that have been previously disturbed, the impacts of operation and maintenance of

32 the transmission line system on the terrestrial ecology are expected to be minimal. No special

33 mitigation measures would be required, except protection of the riparian zone along Little

34 Beaver Creek and conservation of rare plant species, if present.

35

36 Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

37 concludes that the overall impact of the construction and operation of two commercial nuclear

38 units and associated cooling systems and transmission facilities at the Portsmouth site on

39 terrestrial ecological resources would be SMALL, pending additional surveys for threatened and

40 endangered species within the construction area or transmission line rights-of-way.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-47 Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

2

3 The aquatic resources near the Portsmouth ESP site would not be expected to be impacted by

4 the construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units. The water required for cooling

5 at Portsmouth would be withdrawn from groundwater wells. The discharge of the cooling water

6 would be expected to be discharged to the Scioto River. Discharge limits would be controlled

7 by Federal and State regulations for protection of the river. Based on this information, the staff

8 concludes that the overall impact on aquatic ecological resources (including threatened and

9 endangered species) of construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units and associ10 ated cooling towers and transmission facilities at the Portsmouth site would be SMALL.

11

12 8.6.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

13

14 The potential impacts on socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental

15 justice from construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units at the Portsmouth Site

16 were performed using a “reconnaissance” survey of the site. That is, readily obtainable data

17 from the Internet or published sources were used in the evaluation, and no new data were

18 collected. The subsections that follow reflect the organizational structure of the socioeconomic

19 discussions found in Sections 2.8.4, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts resulting from both construction

20 and operation of the new two-unit facility are addressed.

21

22 8.6.5.1 Physical Impacts

23

24 Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor,

25 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emission. The use of public roadways,

26 railways, and barges would be necessary to transport construction materials and equipment to

27 the site. Ohio SR 32 and U.S. Route 23 appear to be well maintained and have been used for

28 transporting heavy loads in the past (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The staff expects that all

29 construction activities would occur within the boundaries of the Portsmouth site. Offsite areas

30 that would support construction activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, disposal sites) are

31 expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from constructing

32 two commercial units would be small incremental impacts associated with their normal

33 operation.

34

35 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

36 visual intrusions. The nuclear units would produce noise from the operation of pumps, trans37 formers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment, and from traffic. Dominion states in its

38 ESP ER that any noise coming from the North Anna ESP site would be controlled in accordance

39 with applicable local county regulations. By inference, this is also expected to apply to the

40 Portsmouth ESP site. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the

41 noise level generated by the workforce commuting to the ESP site. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-48 November 2004

1 The nuclear units would be expected to have emissions from auxiliary power systems and 

2 standby diesel generators. It is expected that the combined annual emissions of any pollutant

3 would be less than 100 tons/year (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Air permits acquired for these

4 generators would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. Paved access roads and

5 appropriate speed limits would minimize the amount of dust emissions generated by the

6 commuting workforce.

7

8 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

9 concludes that the physical impacts of construction and operation would be SMALL. Construc10 tion activities would be temporary and occur mainly within the boundaries of the Portsmouth

11 ESP site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

12 supporting the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

13 managed to local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the diesel generators,

14 auxiliary boilers, etc., which should limit air emissions and ensure that applicable standards are

15 met.

16

17 8.6.5.2 Demography

18

19 The Portsmouth site is located in Pike County, Ohio, approximately 35 km (22 mi) north of the

20 Ohio River and 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the town of Piketon. Pike County’s largest community,

21 Waverly, has a population of 4433 residents. The nearest residential center to the site is

22 Piketon with a population of 1907. Additional population centers within 80 km (50 mi) of the

23 plant are Portsmouth (population 20,909), 35 km (22 mi) south; Chillicothe (population 21,796),

24 43 km (27 mi) north; and Jackson (population 6184), 29 km (18 mi) east. Approximately 90

25 percent of Portsmouth site workers reside in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties. The

26 2000 population for the four counties was 212,876 (USCB 2000b).

27

28 Most of the construction and operations workforce are expected to come from within the region,

29 and those who might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the larger

30 population base. Those who do relocate to the region would most likely take up residency

31 across the region. Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent

32 review, the staff concludes that any increase in the population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of

33 the Portsmouth site due to construction or operation would be SMALL.

34

35 8.6.5.3 Community Characteristics

36

37 Economy

38

39 Economic activities near the Portsmouth site consist primarily of farming, timber harvesting and

40 processing, and small businesses. The only significant industry in the vicinity is an industrial
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The estimate is based on a methodology explained in Dominion and Bechtel (2002) and updated

using 2000 census data.

November 2004 8-49 Draft NUREG-1811

1 park south of Waverly. Industries include a cabinet manufacturer and an automotive parts

2 manufacturer (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

3

4 The unemployment rate in Ohio was 6.1 percent as of July 2004. At that time, Jackson County

5 had an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent, Pike County was at 8.3 percent unemployment, Ross

6 County was at 7.8 percent unemployment, and Scioto County was at 8.5 percent unemployment

7 (Ohio 2004). This data indicates that this area of Ohio has not fully recovered from the reces8 sion of 2001. The Portsmouth site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the

9 surrounding communities over the last 50 years, providing jobs that paid above average wages

10 and salaries. The overall economic impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear

11 units at the Portsmouth ESP site would be beneficial to the local economy.

12

13 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

14 concludes that the impacts of station construction and operation on the economy of the region

15 would be SMALL everywhere in the region except Pike County, where the beneficial impact

16 level on the region would be MODERATE. The magnitude of the economic impacts would be

17 diffused in the larger economic bases of the region, whereas, within the smaller economic base

18 of Pike County and the fact the new units would be located in the county, the economic impacts

19 could be more noticeable and have a greater beneficial impact. Therefore, the adverse impact

20 level would be SMALL.

21

22 Availability of Workers

23

24 Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers more than 5 years to

25 build two nuclear units at the Portsmouth site. The Portsmouth site would draw its workers from

26 the tri-state area of southern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and western West Virginia. The

construction workforce in this region is estimated to be 491,265.(a) 27

28

29 The craft availability in the Portsmouth area is currently reported at full employment for all crafts

30 except electricians. The concentration of industrial facilities within this region (oil refineries,

31 steel mills, etc.) provides yearly employment for the building trades. This could present

32 significant competition for manpower if this site were selected for construction of a new

33 commercial nuclear power facility. Moreover, this area has a reputation as a complicated labor

34 environment, and the shutdown of the Portsmouth enrichment facility operations has contributed

35 to this climate (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

36

37 The Portsmouth site currently provides employment for more than 1800 people. The site

38 employs a highly skilled workforce with decades of nuclear-related experience. During the last
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-50 November 2004

1 several years, Portsmouth has undergone a major downsizing. Dominion would require

2 approximately 720 new employees to operate the proposed new nuclear units. The addition of

3 commercial nuclear generation would be expected to add jobs of similar or higher quality to the

4 existing workforce, many of which could be filled by current or former Portsmouth site

5 employees (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

6

7 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

8 concludes that the overall impacts of being able to obtain a ready supply of construction and

9 operations workforce for the nuclear units at Portsmouth likely would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

10 There appears to be a large supply of construction workers but a limited availability of skilled

11 craftsmen. Dominion may have to recruit from outside the region to fill its requirements for

12 skilled craftsmen. Employees for station operation are expected to be available from within the

13 region due to the downsizing of the Portsmouth site workforce.

14

15 Transportation

16

17 Two major highways serve the Portsmouth site: U.S. 23 and SR 32. At their nearest points,

18 these highways run within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the site. Access to the site is by the main access

19 road, a four-lane interchange with U.S. 23, and the north access road, which initially is a two20 lane road that transitions to four lanes with SR 32. SR 32 and U.S. 23 both appear to be well

21 maintained and have been used for the transport of heavy loads (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

22

23 As previously mentioned, constructing the two commercial nuclear units would require a

24 construction workforce of 5000. Operating two nuclear units would require an operations

25 workforce of 720. During the Portsmouth site operational period, between the 1970s and 1985,

26 the total workforce numbered about 5000 at its peak. Currently 1800 people work at the site. 

27 Based on this previous peak, nearby access roads should be capable of supporting both

28 construction and operations commuter traffic at this level with some roadway upgrades and

29 traffic signal improvements. In addition, there are adequate transportation routes in the area to

30 handle transportation of bulk materials to and from the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

31

32 Two major rail lines service the site: CSX and Norfolk and Southern. Both railways appear to

33 be in excellent condition. Approximately 35 km (22 mi) south of the Portsmouth site, two main

34 rail lines run east-west along the Ohio River. The river is used for barge transportation, so

35 materials could be off-loaded from barges onto rail cars, making transportation to the site by

36 either rail or road achievable (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

37

38 Numerous airports are within 161 km (100 mi) of the site, including the airports at Columbus,

39 Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio and Charleston, West Virginia. All these airports conduct regular

40 freight and passenger air services. In addition, there are numerous smaller airports in the
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The proposed ESP site would not be on land owned by Dominion. Most likely, should the Portsmouth

site be chosen for the new plant, the site for the new units would be leased to Dominion by DOE.

November 2004 8-51 Draft NUREG-1811

1 immediate vicinity. Thus, air passenger service and shipment of small items via air are readily

2 available (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

3

4 The Portsmouth site is in a rural, low-population area. The regional transportation network is

5 adequate for commuter and transient traffic in the area. The transportation system around the

6 Portsmouth site was capable of handling 5000 workers during previous periods of peak

7 operations. Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the

8 staff concludes that the transportation impacts of a construction or operating workforce on the

9 transportation infrastructure would be SMALL.

10

11 Taxes

12

13 The State of Ohio has a 5-percent sales tax. In addition to the State sales tax, each county in

14 Ohio has a county sales tax. Jackson, Ross, and Scioto Counties have a county sales tax rate

15 of 1.5 percent, and Pike County has a county sales tax rate of 1 percent (NRC 2004). Sales

16 taxes would be paid from the sales of construction materials and supplies purchased for the

17 project. The State of Ohio has a personal income tax rate with a top marginal rate of 5.2

18 percent for incomes in excess of $40,000 (NRC 2004).

19

20 The average property tax rates for Ohio cities are divided into three separate classifications:

21 Class I Real (residential and agricultural); Class II Real (commercial, industrial, mineral, and

22 public utility); and Class III Tangible Personal (general and public utility). For Waverly, in Pike

23 County, the rate is $0.07412 per $1000 for all three classifications in 2001; for Portsmouth, in

24 Scioto County, the rate is $0.06013 per $1000 for all three classifications in 2001; for Wellston,

25 in Jackson County, the rate is $0.05500 per $1000 for all three classifications; and for

26 Chillicothe, in Ross County, the Class I rate is $0.05407, the Class II rate is $0.05394, and the

27 Class III rate is $0.05402 per $1000. Finally, because the nuclear units would be built by a

28 private company (Dominion) and not DOE, a property tax might be levied on the value of the

29 property that becomes part of the additional units as they are constructed and on the appraised

30 value of the units once construction is completed and they are brought online. These taxes

31 would most likely go to Pike County.

32

33 DOE does not pay property taxes to the local communities around the Portsmouth site. 

34 However, DOE has provided $12.9 million in grants to the Southern Ohio Diversification

35 Initiative. Other economic benefits include the collection of sales tax on the uranium enrichment

36 services. Adding commercial nuclear capacity at the Portsmouth site would be expected to

37 increase the tax base for these localities for the life of the two nuclear units (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002).(a) 38
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The derivation of this impact is based on the fact that the fiscal year 2003 amount of property taxes

collected in Pike County was $9,878,000 (Burton 2004). For comparison, NAPS Units 1 and 2 pay

approximately $10 million in annual property tax to Louisa County (the actual amount that the

proposed nuclear plant would pay to Pike County would depend on assessed value and millage rate

per thousand of assessed value). On the assumption that there is a rough comparison between what

Dominion pays to Louisa County and what they might pay to Pike County, it can be concluded that the

potential percentage of the proposed facility’s property taxes to the total of all property taxes paid in

Pike County would be significant. 

Draft NUREG-1811 8-52 November 2004

1 Workers living outside Ohio and commuting to Portsmouth likely will have to pay income taxes

2 to their state of residence (West Virginia and Kentucky). They may also have to pay sales taxes

3 to the state and local governments in the region where sales take place and property taxes to

4 the counties in which they might own a residence.

5

6 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

7 concludes the overall beneficial impacts of construction and operation of the new facility on

8 taxes collected in the region through the income, sales and use, and property taxes (except for

9 Pike County) would be SMALL. The taxes paid, while substantial, are nevertheless a small sum

10 when compared to the total amount taxes collected by states and local governments in the

11 region. For property taxes for Pike County, the staff considers the overall beneficial impacts of

the property taxes collected would be LARGE(a) 12 (operations) relative to the total amount of taxes

13 the county collects through property taxes. Therefore, the adverse impact level of taxes would

14 be SMALL.

15

16 Aesthetics and Recreation

17

18 There are no significant recreational or residential areas within 3 km (2 mi) of the proposed

19 Portsmouth ESP site. Mechanical cooling towers or natural draft towers could function as part

20 of the new nuclear units’ cooling system, which could produce visible plumes offsite. Dominion

21 has stated that, if necessary, drift eliminators could be installed on mechanical cooling towers to

22 reduce long visible plumes. Nearby trees may serve as a visual buffer for the transmission

23 facilities. The preferred ESP site at the Portsmouth site is situated in an area with open terrain. 

24 Because the preferred site is close to the northeast corner of the existing site boundary, it is

25 possible that the proposed new nuclear units would have an identifiable nuclear power plant

26 view offsite (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) especially if natural draft towers were used for cooling.

27

28 Recreational facilities in the Portsmouth area include Brush Creek State Forest with an

29 extremely light usage of about 20 people a year. Use of Lake White State Park is occasionally

30 heavy and is concentrated on the 43 ha (107 ac) of land closest to the lake. The number of

31 visitors in 1992 was 55,876 with a daily average of 153 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

32
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-53 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The AP1000 reactor has a tall containment building, approximately 71 m (234 ft) above grade

2 level. The design of this building includes a hatch that determines the height that it must be

3 above ground. This building would be expensive to redesign to allow the building to be placed

4 lower in the ground. Thus, the height of the AP1000 containment building sets the upper bound

5 of what would be visible from offsite.

6

7 There are no significant residential areas or recreational facilities within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. 

8 Plumes from mechanical cooling towers could be visible offsite, although they could be

9 mitigated through drift eliminators or air-cooled condensers could be another alternative. Trees

10 may serve as a visual buffer for the transmission infrastructure. Based on information provided

11 by Dominion, and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of

12 construction and station operation on aesthetics would be SMALL. But the impacts could also

13 be MODERATE, if the Portsmouth ESP parcel is on a mostly undisturbed part of the site and on

14 open terrain, enabling the proposed reactors to be viewed from offsite.

15

16 Housing

17

18 In the four-county area of Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto, there were 89,026 housing units in

19 2000. Of these, 22,824 were rental units, 2150 of which were vacant, or a 8.6 percent vacancy

20 rate (USCB 2000c). The Portsmouth site is about 113 km (70 mi) south of Columbus, Ohio,

21 (population in 2000 of 711,470), and 121 km (75 mi) east of Cincinnati, Ohio, (population in

22 2000 of 331,285), which are the two closest metropolitan areas (USCB 2000b). Huntington,

23 West Virginia (population 51,475), is approximately 140 km (87 mi) away. These three cities

24 have a total housing stock of 519,075, of which 256,326 are renter-occupied and 24,868 units

25 are available for rent or a vacancy rate of 8.8 percent (USCB 2000c). Because it is not unusual

26 for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day, there appears to be

27 enough vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate to the region.

28

29 In the four-county area of Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto there were 58,246 owner-occupied

30 housing units in 2000. In the four-county area, 1085 units were for sale, or 1.8 percent of the

31 total of owner-occupied and houses for sale. In the three-city area of Columbus, Cincinnati, and

32 Huntington there were 218,258 owner-occupied housing units and 4778 units for sale, or 2.1

33 percent of total of owner-occupied and houses for sale (USCB 2000c). In both the local and

34 larger metropolitan areas (i.e., Columbus, Cincinnati, and Huntington), the percentage of

35 houses for sale in relation to owner-occupied housing is very low, indicating a fairly tight

36 housing market. 

37

38 The operations workforce is expected to come from current or former employees at the

39 Portsmouth site. If, however, a substantial number of workers have to be recruited into the

40 area, upward pressure on housing values could emerge. This assumption is based on the low

41 number of homes for sale in the area and the fact that the workforce, which would be on the
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-54 November 2004

1 higher end of the salary scale when compared to other job classifications in the area, may tend

2 to buy more upscale homes. In this case the operational impacts could be moderate. 

3

4 It is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day to the job

5 site, and many of the construction workers are assumed to already live within the region. There

6 appears to be sufficient vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate to the region. 

7 If, as expected, most of the operations workforce have residences already in the region, then

8 the impacts on housing because of station operation would be small. Based on information

9 provided by Dominion and its own independent review, and assuming the operations workforce

10 comes from within the region, the staff concludes that the impacts to housing from construction

11 of the two Units would be SMALL. For the operations workforce, the impacts could be SMALL

12 and mitigation is not warranted.

13

14 Public Services

15

16 Water and Wastewater Treatment

17

18 The capacity of communities to absorb an increase in population depends on the availability of

19 sufficient community resources, such as water and wastewater treatment. Within 145 km

20 (90 mi) of the site are two large metropolitan areas (Columbus and Cincinnati). Huntington,

21 West Virginia, is approximately 140 km (87 mi) away. The cities of Portsmouth, Jackson, and

22 Chillicothe, Ohio, are within about 50 km (30 mi) from the facility (south, east and north,

23 respectively). There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of Portsmouth. All these

24 towns and cities are within a 2-hour commuting distance via local transportation routes of the

25 site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) and could provide public services such as water and

26 wastewater treatment to the construction and operations workforce who might relocate to the

27 area.

28

29 A number of cities and towns in the region are located within a 2-hour commute of the

30 Portsmouth site and could provide water and wastewater treatment services for the workforce. 

31 Many of the construction and operations workforce would come from within the region, and

32 those that choose to relocate to the region would most likely take up residence throughout the

33 region, thus placing minimal demands on the existing infrastructure. Based on information

34 provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of

35 the construction and operations workforces on water and wastewater treatment in the region

36 would be SMALL.

37

38 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

39

40 The hospital nearest to the Portsmouth site is the Pike Community Hospital, located approxi41 mately 12.1 km (7.5 mi) north of the facility on SR 104 south of Waverly. No other acute-care
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-55 Draft NUREG-1811

1 facilities are located in Pike County. There is an urgent-care facility, Adena Health Center, also

2 on SR 104 near the hospital. In addition, two licensed nursing homes are located near Piketon,

3 and one nursing home is located in Wakefield; all are located within 8 km (5 mi) of the site (NRC

4 2004). Other medical facilities exist in Jackson, Chillicothe, and Waverly.

5

6 Several State, county, and local police departments provide adequate law enforcement in the

7 region (NRC 2004). Any additional demands on law enforcement services could potentially be

8 met by the increased tax revenues available to support the services. There would most likely be

9 a time delay between the demand for the services and the collection of the tax revenues, which

10 could cause some short-term financial issues for the impacted jurisdictions.

11

12 Many of the potential construction and operations workforce probably already live within an

13 (80-km [50-mi]) radius of the region. There are a number of towns within a 2-hour commuting

14 distance of the site. Any new workers relocating to the area would most likely have places of

15 residency located throughout the region, which would not place an undue burden on any one

16 jurisdictional entity’s infrastructure. Based on information provided by Dominion and its own

17 independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of the construction and operations

18 workforce on police, fire and medical facilities in the Portsmouth area would be SMALL.

19

20 Social Services

21

22 In Ohio social services at the state level are overseen by the Ohio Department of Jobs and

23 Family Services. It develops and oversees programs and services designed to help residents of

24 Ohio become independent through education, employment, job skills, and training. A major

25 responsibility of the department is to work with county departments of job and family services,

26 child support enforcement agencies, and public children’s services agencies to develop social

27 service programs to strengthen families, protect children, and provide children with an oppor28 tunity for a better life. The department also administers the unemployment and medicaid

29 programs for Ohio. During the early phases of construction, there may be increased demand

30 for these social services.

31

32 Generally, construction and operation of the new units at Portsmouth would be viewed as

33 beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the Ohio

34 Department of Jobs and Family Services. As with Surry, the workforce associated with the

35 Portsmouth ESP nuclear units would most likely be better paid than workers in other

36 employment categories in the region. It is expected that, through the multiplier effect, the

37 number of jobs that could be filled by the disadvantaged population would increase.

38

39 Construction and operation would have a beneficial economic impact to the economically

40 disadvantaged population in the region, which should lessen the demand for social services. 

41 There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the beginning of the
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-56 November 2004

1 construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited. Based on information

2 provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of

3 construction and station operation of two commercial nuclear units on social and related

4 services would be SMALL.

5

6 Education

7

8 Twenty-four public school districts provide public education for approximately 36,000 students in

9 the region. There are two school systems in the immediate area to the Portsmouth site: the

10 Pike County and Scioto County Schools. In 2002, the combined enrollment of these schools

11 was approximately 2387 (NRC 2004). Within the same area, three facilities provide daycare or

12 schooling for preschool-aged children and after-school care for school-aged children. Two of

13 these facilities accommodate 390 children (NRC 2004).

14

15 Many of the potential construction and operating workforce probably already live within the

16 region and any new workers relocating to the area would most likely take up residency

17 throughout the region. Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent

18 review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and station operation on educational

19 facilities and services as a result of construction and operation of two additional nuclear units

20 would be SMALL.

21 8.6.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

22

23 The area of southern Ohio where the Portsmouth site is located contains evidence from each of

24 the major prehistoric periods for Eastern North America, including the Paleo-Indian, Archaic,

25 Woodland, and Fort Ancient periods. In early historic times, the area was occupied by the

26 Shawnee Tribe. The Euro-American historic period occupation in the vicinity began about 1800.

27

28 Archaeological and historic architectural surveys were completed in 1996 at the Portsmouth

29 site, but the reports have not been finalized. Consultation is ongoing with the Ohio State

30 Historic Preservation Officer concerning the results of these surveys (DOE 2003). 

31 Consultations with the Shawnee Indian Tribe have not identified any traditional cultural

32 properties or other resources of Native American cultural value at the site.

33

34 The DOE survey found three archeological sites near the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel. The three

35 sites are northeast of the parcel (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The closest site to the

36 Portsmouth parcel is the Holt Cemetery, which is located about 183 m (600 ft) from the eastern

37 boundary of the parcel. No national landmarks are near the Portsmouth site, and no properties

38 presently on the National Register of Historic Places are within the Portsmouth site. The

39 nearest National Register locations are Buzzardroost Rock and Lynx Prairie in Adams County,

40 about 48 km (30 mi) southeast of the Portsmouth site.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-57 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

2 concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural resources would be SMALL for

3 construction at the Portsmouth alternative site. Potential impacts from operation of the

4 proposed two commercial nuclear units at the Portsmouth ESP site would also be SMALL,

5 because any such potential impacts would be identified and appropriate mitigation measures

6 could be effected during the construction phase.

7

8 8.6.5.5 Environmental Justice

9

10 DOE recently performed an environmental assessment (DOE 2001) for the Portsmouth site as

11 part of its winterization activities for placing the facility in cold standby. As part of that assess12 ment, an evaluation as a result of potential environmental justice impacts was conducted. DOE

13 evaluated the distribution of minority populations in a four-county area around the Portsmouth

14 site. DOE defined a minority population as any area in which minority representation was

15 greater than the national average of 24.2 percent. In all four counties, minority populations are

16 smaller than the national average. Hence, using this definition, environmental justice was not a

17 concern (DOE 2001), nor is it a concern using the NRC criteria defined in 69 FR 52040 (which is

18 different than that used by DOE – see Section 2.8.4). DOE then carried the analysis a step

19 further and examined the minority populations in the census tracts closest to the site. None of

20 the tracts closest to the site had minority representation greater than the national average of

21 24.2 percent (DOE 2001).

22

23 Individuals with incomes below the poverty level were identified in the four-county region. For

24 this study (Dominion and Bechtel 2002), a low-income population included any census tract

25 (1990 data) in which the percentage of people with income below the poverty level was greater

26 than the national average of 13.1 percent. Nearly all (41 of 48) of the census tracts in the four27 county area qualified as low-income populations, but none of the low-income populations

28 suffered disproportionate impacts as a result of proposed actions at the Portsmouth ESP site. 

29 The study concluded that no environmental justice impacts were expected because of the

30 proposed action.

31

32 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

33 concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and operation of the proposed new nuclear

34 units at the Portsmouth ESP site on minority and low-income populations would be SMALL. No

35 disproportionately high and adverse impacts were identified.

36

37 8.7 Evaluation of the Savannah River Site

38

39 Dominion selected a 100-hectare (250-acre) parcel of land in the northern portion of DOE’s

40 Savannah River Site as a possible location for two commercial nuclear units (Dominion and
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-58 November 2004

1 Bechtel 2002). For this evaluation, certain assumptions were made by the staff about the

2 proposed ESP site at Savannah River.

3

4 C The proposed units would use closed-cycle cooling.

5 C Natural or mechanical draft cooling towers would be employed.

6 C The Savannah River would be the source of cooling water.

7 C The existing intake structure is sufficient.

8 C Blowdown water would be discharged to the Savannah River or to Par Pond.

9 C The land area for the ESP site would be approximately 100 ha (250 ac).

10 C New transmission lines would be needed.

11

DOE’s Savannah River Site occupies an area of approximately 800 km2 (310 mi2 12 ) adjacent to

13 the Savannah River, in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. The site is approximately

14 40 km (25 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 31 km (19.5 mi) south of Aiken, South

15 Carolina. The site is bounded along its southwest border by the Savannah River for approxi16 mately 56 river km (35 river mi). The Savannah River Site vicinity is shown in Figure 8-5.

17

18 The average population density in the counties surrounding the site is approximately 85 people

19 per square mile, with the largest concentration in the Augusta metropolitan area. Approximately

20 70 percent of the site employees live in South Carolina, primarily Aiken County, and 30 percent

21 live in Georgia (Westinghouse 2001).

22

23 The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, predecessor agency to DOE, established the Savannah

24 River Site in the early 1950s. Historically, the mission of the site has been the production of

25 special radioactive isotopes to support national programs. DOE produced these isotopes in five

26 production reactors. After the material was produced at Savannah River Site, it was shipped to

27 other DOE sites for further processing.

28

29 Approximately 73 percent of the surface area of the Savannah River Site is composed of open

30 fields and upland forest. The forested areas consist primarily of upland pine and mixed

31 hardwoods. The remaining area consists of wetlands, streams, and reservoirs (22 percent) and

32 developed industrial and administrative areas (5 percent) (DOE 1999).

33

34 The Savannah River is the principal surface water system associated with the Savannah River

35 Site. Five of its major tributaries (Upper Three Runs, Fourmile Branch, Pen Branch, Steel

36 Creek, and Lower Three Runs) flow through and drain the site. The Savannah River serves as

37 a domestic and industrial water source for the site and several downstream communities (the

38 cities of Port Wentworth and Savannah in Georgia and Beaufort and Jasper Counties in South
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-59 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Carolina). In addition, the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, located across the Savannah River

2 from the Savannah River Site, uses water from the river for its cooling system (DOE 1999).

3

4 The southeastern United States has a humid subtropical climate characterized by relatively

5 short, mild winters and long, warm, humid summers. Summer-like weather typically lasts from

6 May through September. The humid conditions often result in scattered afternoon thunder7 storms. Average seasonal rainfall is usually lowest during the fall (DOE 1999).

8

9 The Savannah River Site is within the Southeastern Plains ecological province (Omernick 1987)

10 near the transition between northern oak-hickory-pine forest and southern mixed forest. Thus,

11 species typical of both associations are found on the Savannah River Site (DOE 1995). 

12 Farming, fire, soil, and topography have strongly influenced Savannah River Site vegetation

13 patterns.
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-60 November 2004

1

2 Figure 8-5. Savannah River Site Vicinity Map. 

3

4 The Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people, who are

5 highly skilled and most of which are college educated. Salaries are above average for the area. 

6 During the last decade, the Savannah River Site has undergone a major downsizing due to the

7 end of the Cold War. Because of downsizing, the Savannah River Site has contracted many

8 nonclassified operations to private companies for support services (Dominion and Bechtel

9 2002).

10
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-61 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The Savannah River Site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the

2 surrounding communities over the last five decades. The facility injects about $1.5 billion

3 annually into the economies of South Carolina and Georgia, the two states bordering the site. 

4 The facility provides thousands of jobs with above-average salaries, conducts environmental

5 and nuclear technology research, and offers business development programs for local

6 communities (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

7

8 8.7.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

9

10 The Savannah River Site has extensive undeveloped land that is potentially suitable for

11 commercial nuclear power generation. DOE conducted a review of potential locations on the

12 site for possible location of an accelerator for the production of tritium (DOE 1999). DOE

13 identified six possible locations that satisfied its siting criteria. The preferred site from the DOE

14 review is approximately 10.4 km (6.5 mi) from the Savannah River Site boundary, 5 km (3 mi)

15 northeast of the Tritium Loading Facility, and north of Roads F and E (Dominion and Bechtel

16 2002). The site, which is divided by the boundary line between Aiken and Barnwell Counties, is

17 bordered on the southwest by a 115-kV transmission line, a buried super-control and relay

18 cable, and Monroe Owens Road. Three other secondary roads cross the site. The elevation of

19 the site is 91 to 100 m (300 to 330 ft) MSL. Dominion has adopted the DOE-preferred site as an

20 alternative site for new nuclear generation. This potential ESP site is shown in Figure 8-6.

21

22 Dominion did not identify any current or possible future land-use restrictions that would prohibit

23 the construction of new nuclear power plants on the Savannah River Site (Dominion and

24 Bechtel 2002). DOE would need to approve any such construction.

25

26 New nuclear generating units located at the Savannah River Site would need to have an exclu27 sion area that meets NRC requirements (10 CFR 100.21(a)). The exclusion area is the area

28 surrounding the reactor within which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all

29 activities, including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area

30 (10 CFR 100.3).

31

32 Approximately 90 percent of the workforce for the Savannah River Site lives in Aiken, Allendale,

33 Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

34 Georgia. There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of the site. These communities

35 could supply an adequate construction and operating workforce and are within a 2-hour

36 commuting distance via local transportation routes. Offsite land-use impacts associated with

37 construction of two commercial nuclear units are likely to be relatively limited, given the

38 temporary nature of the construction. Some new rental housing and/or new manufactured

39 home and recreational vehicle parks would be expected to be constructed to accommodate

40 construction workers.
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-62 November 2004

1 Figure 8-6. Potential New Nuclear Station Site at SRS

2
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-63 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act [16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)] requires that

2 applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an activity in a coastal zone are to provide to the

3 licensing agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies

4 of the state’s coastal zone program. However, the Savannah River Site is not within coastal

5 zones of either South Carolina or Georgia for purposes of the Act (SCDHEC 2004).

6

7 The staff assumed that workers at two commercial nuclear units located at the Savannah River

8 Site would also primarily live in the aforementioned counties. Some new housing in these

9 counties would likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The

10 property tax revenue from the new units could affect future land use in these counties as a

11 result of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue. Based on the

12 information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the

13 land use impacts of construction and operation are expected to be SMALL.

14

15 The transmission system on the Savannah River Site consists of multiple 115-kV transmission

16 lines forming a ring network around the site. Three switching stations for the 115-kV trans17 mission lines exist around the site to feed the different area loads. Construction of one or more

18 new 500-kV transmission lines or several 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to

19 transmit power from new nuclear units located on the site to the regional grid (Dominion and

20 Bechtel 2002). Several options were evaluated by Dominion. The likely option would be to

21 construct transmission line rights-of-way either to the west through the Savannah River Site,

22 then cross the Savannah River to connect with the existing system near the Vogtle Nuclear

23 Power Plant in Burke County, Georgia, or to a connection point approximately 97 km (60 mi)

24 west of the Savannah River Site. Because the detailed routing of these transmission line rights25 of-way are not known at this time, a detailed evaluation of the impacts to land use cannot be

26 made. However, if a tie-in to the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant is used, there would be minimal

27 impacts to land use, because most of the rights-of-way would be located on the Savannah River

28 Site. The staff concludes that the impact of construction of new transmission capability at the

29 Savannah River Site would be greater than at the North Anna site, because no additional

30 construction would occur at the North Anna site, and would likely be in the range of SMALL to

31 MODERATE.

32

33 The actual routes of transmission lines that would connect new reactor units at the Savannah

34 River Site with the regional grid have not been determined (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). 

35 Because the potential impacts of operation and maintenance of the transmission line rights-of36 way on land use cannot be determined at this time, the staff concludes the impact of

37 transmission line rights-of-way would range from SMALL to MODERATE during construction

38 and operation. Rerouting would be expected if impacts were greater than moderate.

39
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-64 November 2004

1 8.7.2 Water Use and Quality

2

3 Whether the consumptive water use for the Savannah River site was provided indirectly from

4 the aquifer or directly from the river itself, the consumptive water use for a power reactor at the

5 Savannah River Site would impact the Savannah River. Staff reviewed streamflow records

6 reported by the U.S. Geological Survey for stream gauge 02197000 (Savannah River at

Augusta, Georgia). This gauge reflects runoff from a drainage of 19450 km2 (7508 mi2 7 ) and has

8 data for the period from 1884 to 2001. Using these data, the staff independently estimated the

9 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. The 7Q10 is the lowest 7-day discharge for low water condition that is

estimated every 10 years. For this gauge the 7Q10 was estimated to be 60.8 m3 10 /s (2150 cfs). 

11 The 30Q2 is the lowest 30 days of flow in an average year. For this gauge the 30Q2 is

estimated to be 130 m3 12 /s (4600 cfs). The 7Q10 provides an estimate of the short-term low-flow

13 conditions in a dry year. The 30Q2 provides an estimate of the moderate-term, low-flow

14 conditions in an average year.

15

The maximum make-up water flow rate for a single unit is estimated in the PPE as 2.78 m3 16 /s

17 (98.0 cfs); however, the portion of the flow not evaporated is ultimately returned to the river as

18 blowdown flow. Based on the PPE, the maximum evaporation for a single unit using

mechanical draft cooling towers is 1.23 m3 19 /s (43.5 cfs). For either one or two units this

20 represents a small fraction of both the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 values. Discharge of thermal and

21 chemical effluents would be regulated by the State of South Carolina’s NPDES permitting

22 process to limit impacts to the Savannah River. Therefore, based on the information provided

23 by Dominion, and its own independent review, the staff concludes the impact of construction

24 and operation of two nuclear units on water use and quality at the Savannah River Site would

25 be SMALL.

26

27 8.7.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

28

29 The Savannah River Site is within the Southeastern Plains ecological province (Omernick 1987)

30 near the transition between northern oak-hickory-pine forest and southern mixed forest. Thus,

31 species typical of both associations are found on the site (DOE 1995). Farming, fire, soil, and

32 topography have strongly influenced vegetation patterns at the Savannah River Site.

33

34 A variety of plant communities occur in the upland areas. Typically, scrub oak communities are

35 found on the drier, sandier areas. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), turkey oak (Quercus laevis),

36 bluejack oak (Q. incana), and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) dominate these communities,

37 which typically have understories of wiregrass (Aristida stricta) and huckleberry (Vaccinium

38 spp.). Oak-hickory communities are usually located on more fertile, dry uplands; characteristic

39 species are white oak (Q. alba), post oak (Q. stellata), red oak (Q. falcata), mockernut hickory
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-65 Draft NUREG-1811

1 (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory ©. glabra), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), with an understory

2 of sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), holly (Ilex spp.), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy

3 (Toxicodendron radicans) (DOE 1995).

4

5 Before the Federal government took over the site, the Savannah River Site was mainly farmland

6 that had been highly eroded. Approximately 90 percent of the site has been planted with

7 loblolly, slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and hardwood trees. The proposed ESP site consists of

8 mostly wooded land, made up predominantly of loblolly and slash pine that have been planted

9 since the late 1950s. The site is part of a designated forest timber unit under the Savannah

10 River Site land-use system. The Savannah River Institute (formerly known as the Savannah

11 River Forest Station) coordinates the removal and sale of marketable timber from the site

12 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

13

14 The departure of residents in 1951 and the subsequent reforestation have provided the wildlife

15 of Savannah River Site with excellent habitat. The site has extensive, widely distributed

16 wetlands, most of which are associated with floodplains, creeks, or impoundments. In addition,

17 approximately 200 Carolina bays occur on the site (DOE 1995). Carolina bays are unique

18 wetland features of the southeastern United States. There are Federally and State-listed rare,

19 threatened, and endangered species that have been seen within the Savannah River Site,

20 including the bald eagle, wood stork (Mycteria americana), and red-cockaded woodpecker

21 (Picoides borealis), which are known residents of the site. Federally and State threatened or

22 endangered species potentially occurring in Aiken or Barnwell Counties are provided in

23 Table 8-5. In addition to the species listed in Table 8-5, there are a large number of

24 species,although not listed as threatened or endangered, that are still of concern or interest to

25 the FWS (2004b) and/or the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR 2004).

26

27 Table 8-5. Federal and State Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species Potentially

28 Occurring in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina

29

30 Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

31 Birds

32 Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T E

33 Mycteria americana wood stork E E

34 Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E E

35 Mammals

36 Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat SC E

37 Amphibians

38 Rana capito gopher frog SC E
Impacts of the Alternatives

Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

Draft NUREG-1811 8-66 November 2004

1 Reptiles

2 Clemmys guttata spotted turtle -- T

3 Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise SC E

4 Plants

5 Trillium reliquum relict trillium E E

6 Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E E

7 Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E E

8 Linderna melissifolia pond berry E E

9 Oxypolis canbyi Canby’s dropwort E E

10 Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E E

11 E= endangered, T= threatened, SC = species of concern.

12 Sources: FWS 2004a; SCDNR 2004.

13

14

15 If the commercial nuclear units were constructed, it is expected that very little usable habitat

16 would remain within the proposed development area at the Savannah River ESP site. 

17 Operation of the new units would likely result in noise generation, and if wet cooling towers are

18 employed, there could be impacts due to salt drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise is

19 likely to be typical of operating reactor units and cooling towers, which has been determined to

20 be a SMALL impact in most instances (NRC 1996). There are no sensitive habitat areas

21 adjacent to the proposed site that would be adversely affected by noise from plant operations. 

22 The nearest bald eagles and wood storks are approximately 5 km distant. Red-cockaded

23 woodpeckers have not been observed at the proposed site, but could be deterred from using

24 the area if there is increased noise and human activity.

25

26 The terrestrial vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed development area at the Savannah

27 River Site are not believed to be unusually sensitive to salt drift, fogging, or icing (Dominion and

28 Bechtel 2002). Bird collisions would not be expected to be different from most other power

29 plants (NRC 1996), and if mechanical draft towers are selected, bird strikes are likely to be very

30 rare. Overall, it is expected that the impacts of operation of one or more nuclear units at the

31 Savannah River Site on terrestrial systems would be minimal.

32

33 The actual routes of transmission lines that would connect new nuclear units at the Savannah

34 River Site with the regional grid have not been determined (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). 

35 Maintenance of the rights-of-way could impact wetlands, threatened or endangered species

36 habitat areas, or other sensitive ecological resources. Therefore, the potential impacts of
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-67 Draft NUREG-1811

1 construction, operation and maintenance of the transmission line rights-of-way on terrestrial

2 ecosystems cannot be determined without more detailed information concerning the location of

3 the transmission line rights-of-way and the maintenance procedures that will be employed. 

4 However, large impacts would be avoided by rerouting, therefore the staff concludes the impact

5 of construction on terrestrial resources (including threatened and endangered species) would be

6 SMALL to MODERATE depending on the routing of the transmission line rights-of-way. Based

7 on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the overall impact on

8 terrestrial ecological resources of operating two commercial nuclear units and associated

9 cooling systems at the Savannah River Site would be SMALL. Depending on the location of

10 transmission line rights-of-way the operational impacts on threatened and endangered species

11 could be SMALL to MODERATE.

12

13 8.7.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

14

15 The aquatic environment at the Savannah River Site is associated with the Savannah River. 

16 The two main bodies of water onsite, Par Pond and L-Lake, were constructed to support site

17 operations. Par Pond, which was constructed to provide cooling water for, and to receive

18 heated cooling water from, P-Reactor and R-Reactor, has a surface area of about 1093 ha

19 (2700 ac). The 405-ha (1000-ac) L-Lake was constructed to receive heated cooling water from

20 L-Reactor. The Savannah River Site is bounded on its southwest border by the Savannah River

21 for about 56 river km (35 river mi). Five major streams from the Savannah River Site feed into

22 the river.

23

24 There are two endangered species in the Savannah River near the proposed ESP site. They

25 are the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria). 

26 Both are protected under the current permits issued to the Savannah River Site. The staff

27 evaluated the potential impacts of operating the proposed new nuclear units, including operating

28 the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on aquatic threatened and endangered

29 species. Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of operating the

30 proposed new units on aquatic threatened and endangered species at the Savannah River Site

31 would be SMALL.

32

33 All the water for cooling is expected to be withdrawn from the Savannah River. All water

34 required for cooling is expected to be withdrawn pursuant to the current use permits for the site. 

35 The discharge of the cooling water blowdown is likely to be discharged to Par Pond or the

36 Savannah River. Because the expected system is a closed-cycle system, the impacts to

37 aquatic resources are expected to be minimal. The potential for impingement and entrainment

38 of aquatic resources is expected to be mitigated by the current operation of the intake structure. 

39 The potential impacts of heated water are expected to be mitigated by the placement of the

40 discharge structures. Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent

41 review, the staff concludes that the overall impact on aquatic ecological resources of construc-
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-68 November 2004

1 tion and operation of two nuclear units and associated cooling towers and transmission facilities

2 at the Savannah River Site would be SMALL. 

3

4 8.7.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

5

6 In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating two commercial nuclear

7 units at the Savannah River Site, the staff undertook a “reconnaissance” survey of the site. 

8 That is, readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources were used in the

9 evaluation, and no new data were collected. The subsections that follow, reflect the organiza10 tional structure of the socioeconomic discussions found in Sections 2.8.4, 4.5, and 5.5. The

11 impacts resulting from both construction and operation of the new facility are addressed.

12

13 8.7.5.1 Physical Impacts

14

15 The physical impacts of construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical

16 impacts such as noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust

17 emissions. The use of public roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to

18 transport construction materials and equipment to the site. There would, as a result, be

19 increased use of these infrastructures, both in terms of increased volume and type of vehicular

20 traffic.

21

22 Road access to the Savannah River Site is via State Highway 125. U.S. 278 cuts through a

23 portion of the Savannah River Site. Easy access to the preferred site area at Savannah River

24 could be accommodated by installing access roads from U.S. 278. Most roads leading to the

25 site are two-lane roads, but appear to be kept in excellent condition (Dominion and

26 Bechtel 2002).

27

28 CSX railroad serves the Savannah River Site. Some upgrades would likely be needed to

29 accommodate the large and heavy loads associated with construction of a new nuclear power

30 plant (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

31

32 On the Savannah River, there is a barge slip situated on DOE property. This barge slip has

33 been used in the past for heavy loads and large components such as steam generators. 

34 Shipment of heavy loads by barge to the Savannah River Site depends on the water level in the

35 Savannah River. The preferred site is on the opposite side of the property from the barge slip

36 and would require some additional heavy haul routes to be constructed (Dominion and

37 Bechtel 2002).

38
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-69 Draft NUREG-1811

1 It is expected that all construction activities would occur within the boundaries of the Savannah

2 River Site. Offsite areas that would support construction activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries,

3 disposal sites) are expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities

4 from constructing new nuclear units are expected to be small incremental impacts associated

5 with their normal operation. The preferred site for the ESP facility is approximately 10.5 km

6 (6.5 mi) from the Savannah River Site boundary (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

7

8 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

9 visual intrusions. The new nuclear units would produce noise from the operation of pumps,

10 transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard equipment, and from traffic. Dominion states

11 in its ESP ER (Dominion 2004) that any noise from construction and operation of the proposed

12 new units at the North Anna site would be controlled in accordance with applicable local county

13 regulations. By inference, this is also expected to apply to the construction and operation of

14 comparable nuclear units at Savannah River Site. Good road conditions and appropriate speed

15 limits would minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting to the site.

16

17 The new units would be expected to have emissions from auxiliary power systems, standby

18 diesel generators, and standby gas turbines generators (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). It is

19 expected that the combined annual emissions of any pollutant would be less than 100 tons/year

20 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Air quality permits acquired for these generators would ensure

21 that air emissions comply with regulations. Paved access roads and appropriate speed limits

22 would minimize the amount of dust generated by the commuting workforce.

23

24 Direct site-specific impacts from construction activities would be temporary and would occur

25 mainly within the boundaries of the Savannah River Site. Offsite impacts would represent small

26 incremental changes to offsite services supporting the construction activities. During station

27 operations, noise levels would be managed to comply with local ordinances. Air quality permits

28 would be required for the diesel generators, auxiliary boilers, and other equipment, which

29 should limit air emissions and meet applicable standards. Based on the information provided by

30 Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of

31 construction and operation of the new power generating facility would be SMALL.

32

33 8.7.5.2 Demography

34

35 The center of the Savannah River Site is approximately 40 km (25 mi) southeast of the city

36 limits of Augusta, Georgia. The population for Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, is 195,182

37 (USCB 2000d). The site is 161 km (100 mi) from the Atlantic Coast, and about 175 km (110 mi)

38 south-southeast of the North Carolina border. The largest nearby population centers are Aiken,

39 South Carolina, with a population of 25,337 (USCB 2000d), and Augusta, Georgia. The only

40 towns within 24 km (15 mi) of the center of the Savannah River Site are New Ellenton, with a

41 population of 2250; Jackson with a population of 1625; Barnwell with a population of 5035;
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-70 November 2004

1 Snelling, with a population of 246; and Williston with a population of 3307 (USCB 2000d). All

2 these towns are in South Carolina.

3

4 Most of the construction and operations workforce are expected to come from within the region

5 (see more detailed discussion in Section 8.7.5.3), and those who might relocate to the region

6 would represent a small percentage of the larger population base. Those who do relocate to

7 the region would most likely take up residency across the region. Based on the information

8 provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that any increase in

9 the population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Savannah River Site because of

10 construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units would be SMALL.

11

12 8.7.5.3 Community Characteristics

13

14 Economy

15

16 The unemployment rate in the Augusta-Aiken Metropolitan Statistical Area was 5.7 percent in

17 June 2004 (Georgia 2004b). This compares to a 4.6 percent unemployment rate for Georgia

18 (Georgia 2004b) and a 6.6 percent rate for South Carolina in June 2004 (South Carolina

19 2004a). Regional unemployment statistics for select South Carolina Counties in the vicinity of

20 the Savannah River Site include Barnwell County at 12.3 percent unemployment in June 2004

21 and Aiken County at 7.1 percent (South Carolina 2004a). 

22

23 The Savannah River Site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the

24 surrounding communities over the last 50 years, and currently provides employment for more

25 than 13,000 people who are highly skilled, and most of whom are college educated. Salaries

26 are above average salaries of the area. The site injects about $1.5 billion annually into the

27 economies of South Carolina and Georgia (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

28

29 During the last decade, a major downsizing has occurred at the site because of the end of the

30 Cold War. Construction and operation of two new nuclear units would increase employment at

31 the site. These jobs would provide economic benefits to the local communities (Dominion and

32 Bechtel 2002).

33

34 The magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic bases of the

35 region, whereas with the smaller economic base of Barnwell County and the higher

36 unemployment rate (compared to Aiken County and the State of South Carolina), the economic

37 impacts could be more noticeable and have a greater beneficial impact. Based on the

38 information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the

39 impacts of construction and operation of two nuclear units on the economy of the region would

40 be SMALL everywhere in the region except Barnwell County, where the beneficial impacts to

41 the county could be MODERATE. Therefore the adverse impact level would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-71 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Availability of Workers

2

3 Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers over 5 years to build

4 two commercial nuclear units (Dominion 2004a). As discussed in the previous section on the

5 economy, the Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people. 

6 However, during the last decade, some loss of jobs occurred because of the end of the Cold

7 War (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

8

9 Construction of a nuclear generating facility would draw workers from South Carolina and

10 Georgia. The estimated number of construction workers in the two-state region is

11 approximately 459,725 (BEA 2000). With the extensive local transportation network in the area,

12 nearby cities could supply an adequate workforce and are well within a 2-hour commuting

13 distance of the Savannah River Site. Therefore, a minimal influx of project-related population

14 during plant construction and operation could be expected (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

15

16 Dominion would need approximately 720 new employees to operate the proposed new facility.

17 The Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people but also

18 has undergone downsizing. The addition of a new power generating facility would be expected

19 to add jobs requiring skilled workers (i.e., with skills comparable to or higher than skills of the

20 existing Savannah River Site workforce). Many of the jobs requiring skilled workers could be

21 filled by current or former Savannah River Site employees (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

22

23 There appears to be a large supply of construction labor and skilled craftsmen available. 

24 Dominion may have to add incentives to draw out-of-state craftsmen with specific skills to the

25 area because of the lower prevailing wages when compared to other areas outside Georgia and

26 South Carolina, but it believes it can successfully manage this issue. The unemployment rates

27 in Aiken and Barnwell Counties are above the State of South Carolina average unemployment

28 rate. Likewise, the unemployment rate in Augusta is above the average rate for the State of

29 Georgia. Employees for station operation are expected to be available from within the region

30 because of the downsizing at Savannah River Site. Based on the information provided by

31 Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the overall impacts of being

32 able to obtain a ready supply of construction and operations labor for the new power generating

33 facility would be SMALL.

34
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) Dominion and Bechtel (2002) states that 3000 to 3500 craft and an additional 800 to 1000 non-manual

personnel (or 4500 workers) would be required at the Savannah River Site. In its ESP ER (Dominon

Draft NUREG-1811 8-72 November 2004

1 Transportation

2

3 Two interstate highways serve the vicinity of the Savannah River Site. Several other highways

4 (U.S. highways 221, 301, 321, and 601) provide additional transport routes for the area. 

5 Approximately 84 percent of the Savannah River Site workforce of 13,000 resides in Aiken and

6 Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia

7 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

8

9 The regional transportation networks in the Savannah River Site vicinity serve Aiken, Allendale,

10 Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

11 Georgia. Eighty-eight percent of the Savannah River Site commuter traffic originates from these

12 counties. On the site itself, there are more than (322 km) 200 mi of primary roads and more

13 than 1600 km (1000 mi) of unpaved secondary roads.

14

15 In general, heavy traffic occurs in the early morning and late afternoon when workers commute

16 to and from Savannah River. For the roads in the general region, the worst-case LOS is

17 associated with routes near the Savannah River bridges, including I-20 and U.S. 1 and urban

18 routes in North Augusta and Aiken, including South Carolina SRs 230, 25, 19, and 118. 

19 Significant congestion occurs during peak traffic period onsite on U.S. highways 1-A and 278

20 and on SRs 19 and 125 at Savannah River Site access points. Long delays are also

21 experienced offsite along I-20 and U.S. highways 25 and 1 where they cross the Savannah

22 River. The Savannah River Site has implemented changes to remedy the congestion at some

23 access points (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

24

25 Other transportation in the area also includes a rail line for CSX Transportation, Inc. The

26 Savannah River Site has its own railroad system. Rail traffic is separated into two categories

27 depending on which track system it would use: CSX operations and the Savannah River Site

28 railway (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

29

30 The major nearest airport to the Savannah River Site is in Atlanta, Georgia, and the closest

31 regional airport is in Augusta, Georgia. The Augusta airport conducts regular freight and

32 passenger airline services and is large enough to accommodate the relatively small air

33 shipments normally associated with a large construction project. The Atlanta airport can

34 accommodate large air shipments. Ground transportation from the Augusta airport is

35 approximately 1 hour and from the Atlanta airport is approximately 3 hours (Dominion and

36 Bechtel 2002).

37

During peak new plant construction, 5000 construction workers would be required.(a) 38 The
Impacts of the Alternatives

2004), Dominion states that 5000 workers would be needed at the North Anna site.

(a) The proposed site of the new units would not be on land owned by Dominion. Most likely, should the

Savannah River Site be chosen for the new power generating facility, the land for the new units would

be leased from DOE by Dominion. 

November 2004 8-73 Draft NUREG-1811

1 station operations workforce would be approximately 720. The extensive existing roadway

2 network in the area and the sufficient rail lines near the preferred site are expected to be

3 capable of handling an additional 38 percent of the workforce commuting to the site during

4 construction and the transportation of bulk materials to and from the site. With implementation

5 of traffic mitigation measures, the construction of two commercial nuclear units at the Savannah

6 River Site is expected to result in impacts that are manageable for traffic patterns, workforce

7 commuter traffic, and rail/truck delivery of materials (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

8

9 The Savannah River Site is in a limited access DOE site adjacent to a rural, low-population

10 area. The regional transportation network is adequate for commuter and transient traffic in the

11 area. Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

12 concludes that the transportation impacts of a construction workforce by adding a 38 percent

13 increase to the existing workforce at Savannah River Site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

14 Because the increase in employment with the operations workforce is less than 5.5 percent of

15 the existing site workforce, the staff concludes the transportation impacts of the operations

16 workforce would be SMALL.

17

18 Taxes

19

20 In lieu of property taxes, the Savannah River Site pays a fee to the localities bordering the site. 

21 For 2002, Barnwell County received a fee of approximately $2 million, Aiken County

22 approximately $800,000, and Allendale County approximately $100,000 (Dominion and

23 Bechtel 2002).

24

25 Construction and operation workers would pay personal income taxes to Georgia and South

26 Carolina, sales taxes to the State and local governments in the region where sales take place,

27 and property taxes to the counties in which they might own a residence. In addition, sales taxes

28 would be paid from the sales of construction materials and supplies purchased for the project. 

29 Finally, because the nuclear units would be built by a private company (Dominion) and not DOE,

30 a property tax might be levied on the value of the property that becomes part of the additional

31 units as they are constructed. These taxes would most likely go to Aiken and Barnwell

Counties.(a) 32 Georgia and South Carolina both have corporate income taxes, with the tax rate

33 being 6 and 5 percent, respectively (Federation of Tax Administration 2004).

34

35 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

36 concludes that the overall beneficial impacts of taxes collected in the region through the income,
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The derivation of this impact is based on the fact the fiscal year 2003 amount of property taxes

collected in Aiken and Barnwell Counties for fiscal year 2003 were $68,046,000 (Cornwell 2004 and

$9,774,000 (Gibson 2004), respectively. For comparison, NAPS Units 1 and 2 pay approximately $10

million in annual property tax to Louisa County (the actual amount that the proposed nuclear plant

would pay to Barnwell County would depend on assessed value and millage rate per thousand of

assessed value). On the assumption that there is a rough comparison between what Dominion pays

to Louisa County and what they might pay to Barnwell County, it can be concluded that the potential

percentage of the proposed facility’s property taxes to the total of all property taxes paid in Barnwell

County would be significant. 

Draft NUREG-1811 8-74 November 2004

1 sales and use taxes, and property taxes would be SMALL to LARGE. Therefore, the adverse

2 impact level would be SMALL. The staff also concludes that the overall impacts of taxes

3 collected through the income, sales and use taxes, and property taxes collected in the region

4 would be SMALL for jurisdictions other than Barnwell County. The taxes paid, while large in

5 absolute value, are nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes

6 collected by State and local governments in the region. For property taxes in Barnwell County,

7 the staff concludes that the overall beneficial impacts of the property taxes collected would be

8 MODERATE (construction) and LARGE (operation) relative to the total amount of property taxes

the county collects.(a) 9 Therefore, the adverse impact level of the property taxes would be

10 SMALL.

11

12 Aesthetics and Recreation

13

14 The preferred site for locating the two new nuclear units on the Savannah River Site is more

15 than 10 km (6 mi) from the closest site boundary. There are no public amenity areas within

16 3 km (2 mi) of the site. Most of the site is dense forest; therefore, nearby trees would provide a

17 visual buffer for the construction and operation of the proposed facilities to the public. Because

18 the site is at least 10 km (6 mi) away from the existing site boundary, offsite observers would not

19 have an identifiable nuclear power plant view (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

20

21 Cooling towers, which could produce visible plumes offsite, are being proposed as part of the

22 new nuclear units cooling system. Dominion has stated that, if necessary, drift eliminators could

23 be installed on mechanical cooling towers to reduce visible plumes. Dry cooling towers could

24 be an alternative method for plant cooling. Nearby trees would serve as a visual buffer for the

25 transmission lines (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

26

27 The AP1000 reactor has a tall containment building that is approximately 71 m (234 ft) above

28 grade. The height above ground of a hatch, which is a key feature of the building housing the

29 AP1000 reactor, determines the ultimate elevation of the building. Redesigning the building to

30 allow placement lower in the ground would be expensive and is unlikely; therefore, the height of

31 the AP1000 containment building sets the upper bound of what would be visible from offsite.
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-75 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Prominent geographical features within 80 km (50 mi) of the Savannah River Site are Thurmond

2 Lake (formerly called Clarks Hill Reservoir) and the Savannah River. The principal surface3 water body associated with the Savannah River Site is the Savannah River, which flows along

4 the site’s southwest border (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The closest state park is Redcliffe

5 Plantation State Park, about 16 km (10 mi) northwest of the site location.

6

7 The proposed plant would be located about 10 km (6 mi) from the nearest site boundary and

8 would be screened by trees. There are no significant residential areas or recreational facilities

9 within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. Plumes from cooling towers could be visible offsite, although they

10 could be mitigated by using drift eliminators. Based on information provided by Dominion and

11 its own independent review, the staff concludes that the construction and station operation

12 impacts on aesthetics and recreation would be SMALL.

13

14 Housing

15

16 In the four-county area of Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia and Barnwell and Aiken

17 Counties in South Carolina, there were 187,811 housing units in 2000. Of these units, 52,405

18 were rental units, 6424 of which were vacant (10.9 percent vacancy rate) (USCB 2000e). There

19 do appears to be vacant rental housing units available for construction workers who might want

20 to relocate to the region.

21

22 In the same four-county area discussed above, there were 117,243 owner-occupied houses;

23 3089 of these houses were for sale (2.6 percent vacancy rate). The percentage of houses for

24 sale in relation to owner-occupied housing is low, indicating the market for resale housing is

25 tight.

26

27 The operations workforce is expected to come primarily from current or former employees at the

28 Savannah River Site. If, however, a substantial number of workers were recruited into the area,

29 there could be upward pressure on housing values. This assumption is based on the low

30 number of homes for sale in the area and the fact that the workforce, which would be on the

31 higher end of the salary scale when compared to other job classifications in the area, could tend

32 to buy more expensive homes.

33

34 It is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day to the job

35 site. Many of the construction workers are assumed to already live within the region. 

36 Therefore, there appears to be enough vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate

37 to the region. For the operations workforce, it is expected that most would already have

38 residences in the region, and few would relocate to the area given the potential supply of

39 workers in the region due to Savannah River Site downsizing. Based on information provided

40 by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts to housing

41 from construction and operation of a commercial generating facility featuring two nuclear units
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-76 November 2004

1 at the Savannah River Site would be SMALL.

2

3 Public Services

4

5 Water and Wastewater Treatment

6

7 Four major public sewage treatment facilities with a combined design capacity of 302.2 million

8 liters (79.8 million gallons) per day serve the six-county region composed of Aiken, Allendale,

9 Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

10 Georgia. In 1989 (the latest year for which data was readily available), these systems were

11 operating at approximately 56 percent capacity, with an average daily flow of 170 million L/day

12 (44.9 MGD). Capacity utilization ranged from 45 percent in Aiken County to 80 percent in

13 Barnwell County (DOE 2000).

14

15 There are approximately 120 public water systems in the six-county area. About 40 of these

16 county and municipal systems are major facilities, while the remainder serve individual

17 subdivisions, water districts, trailer parks, or miscellaneous facilities. In 1989 (again the latest

18 year for which data is readily available), the 40 major facilities had a combined total flow of

19 576.3 million L/day (152.2 MGD). With an average daily flow rate of approximately 268.8 million

20 L/day (71 MGD), these systems were operating at 47 percent capacity in 1989. Facility

21 utilization rates ranged from 13 percent in Allendale County to 84 percent in the City of Aiken

22 (DOE 2000).

23

24 The Savannah River Site is approximately 40 km (25 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and

25 31.4 km (19.5 mi) south of Aiken, South Carolina. There are numerous towns and cities within

26 80 km (50 mi) of the site, and all these towns and cities are within a 2-hour commuting distance

27 via local transportation routes of the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). In addition, the utility

28 infrastructures of the towns and cities could provide public services such as water and

29 wastewater treatment to the construction and operations workforce who might relocate to the

30 region.

31

32 There are a number of cities and towns in the region, all within a 2-hour commute of the

33 Savannah River Site, that have existing water and wastewater treatment facilities. Many of the

34 construction and operations workforce would come from within the region, and those that

35 choose to relocate to the region would most likely take up residence throughout the region, thus

36 placing minimal demands on the existing infrastructures. Based on information provided by

37 Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of the

38 construction and operations workforces on water and wastewater treatment in the region would

39 be SMALL.

40

41 Police, Fire and Medical Facilities
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-77 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Seven general hospitals operate in the six-county region. Three of the seven general hospitals

2 are in Richmond County (Augusta), Georgia, while Columbia County, Georgia, has no hospital. 

3 Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina each have one general

4 hospital (DOE 2000).

5

6 Fifty-six fire departments provide fire protection in the region. Twenty-seven of these fire

7 departments are classified as municipal fire departments, but many provide protection to rural

8 areas outside municipal limits (DOE 2000).

9

10 County sheriff and municipal police departments provide most of the law enforcement in the

11 region. In addition, State law enforcement agents and State troopers assigned to each county

12 provide protection and assist county and municipal officers (DOE 2000).

13

14 Many of the potential construction and operations workforce probably already live within an

15 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region. There are a number of towns within a 2-hour commuting

16 distance of the site. Any new workers relocating to the area would most likely have places of

17 residency located throughout the region, which would not place an undue burden on the

18 infrastructure of any one jurisdictional entity. Based on information provided by Dominion and

19 its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of the construction and

20 operations workforce on public facilities in the Savannah River Site area would be SMALL.

21

22 Social Services

23

24 In Georgia, social services at the state level are overseen by the Department of Human

25 Resources. It oversees about 80 wide-ranging programs that include controlling the spread of

26 disease, enabling older people to live at home longer, preventing children from developing

27 lifelong disabilities, training single parents to find and hold jobs, and helping people with mental

28 or physical disabilities live and work in their communities (Georgia 2004a).

29

30 In South Carolina, social services are overseen by the Department of Social Service, which

31 administers its programs through county offices. Services offered by the Department include

32 child care assistance to needy families, adult protective services, child protective services,

33 independent living, and emergency shelters food program, among other services (South

34 Carolina 2004b). During the early phases of construction of new nuclear units at the Savannah

35 River Site, there may be increased demand for social services.

36

37 Generally, construction and operation of the new units at Savannah River Site would be viewed

38 as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the Department

39 of Human Resources and Department of Social Services. As with the other alternative sites, the

40 workforce associated with construction and operation of a commercial nuclear facility at the

41 Savannah River Site would most likely receive higher wages than other employment categories
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-78 November 2004

1 in the region. It is expected that through the multiplier effect, the number of jobs that could be

2 filled by members of the disadvantaged population would increase.

3

4 Construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units would have a beneficial economic

5 impact to the economically disadvantaged population in the region, which should lessen the

6 demand for social services. There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at

7 the beginning of the construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited. Based

8 on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff concludes that

9 the impacts of construction and station operation of two commercial nuclear units on social and

10 related services would be SMALL.

11

12 Education

13

14 Public education facilities in the six-county region (Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell

15 Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia) include

16 approximately 95 elementary or intermediate schools and 25 high schools. In addition to the

17 public schools, there are approximately 42 private and 16 post-secondary schools in the region

18 (DOE 2000). There are also several local colleges, technical schools, and training facilities

19 available, such as the University of South Carolina in Aiken, Augusta State, Paine College,

20 Aiken Tech, and Augusta Tech.

21

22 Many of the potential construction and operating workforce probably already live within the

23 region, and any new workers relocating to the area would most likely be take up residency

24 throughout the region. Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent

25 review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation of two commercial

26 nuclear units on educational facilities in the region would be SMALL.

27

28 8.7.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

29

30 Historic and cultural resources at the Savannah River Site are managed through a cooperative

31 agreement between DOE and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology of the University of

32 South Carolina as the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. Since 1974, more

than 60 percent of the 777-km2 (300-mi2 33 ) site has been inventoried for prehistoric and historic

34 sites and more than 1200 sites have been recorded, ranging in age from the Middle Archaic

prehistoric period to the 20th 35 century (DOE 2002). Archaeological research has provided

36 considerable information about the distribution and content of archaeological and historic sites

37 on the Savannah River Site.

38

39 Archaeologists have divided the Savannah River Site into three zones related to their potential

40 for containing sites with multiple archaeological components or dense or diverse artifacts, and

41 their potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-79 Draft NUREG-1811

1 C Zone 1 is the zone of the highest archaeological site density, with a high probability of

2 encountering large archaeological sites with dense and diverse artifacts, and a high

3 potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

4

5 C Zone 2 includes areas of moderate archaeological site density. Activities in this zone

6 have a moderate probability of encountering large sites with more than three prehistoric

7 components or that would be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic

8 Places.

9

10 C Zone 3 includes areas of low archaeological site density. Activities in this zone have a

11 low probability of encountering archaeological sites and virtually no chance of

12 encountering large sites with more than three prehistoric components; the need for site

13 preservation is low. Some sites in the zone could be considered eligible for nomination

14 to the National Register of Historic Places.

15

16 The proposed Savannah River ESP site lies in Zone 3. According to Savannah River Site staff

17 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002), no known historic and cultural properties exsist in the site.

18

19 In conjunction with previous studies, DOE solicited the concerns of Native American tribes

20 about religious rights in the Central Savannah River Valley. Three Native American groups, the

21 Yuchi Tribal Organization, the National Council of Muskogee Creek, and the Indian People’s

22 Muskogee Tribal Town Confederacy, expressed general concerns about the Savannah River

23 Site and the Central Savannah River Area, but did not identify specific sites as possessing

24 religious significance. The Yuchi Tribal Organization and the National Council of Muskogee

25 Creek are interested in several plant species traditionally used in tribal ceremonies.

26

27 Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

28 concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural resources from construction and

29 operation of two commercial nuclear units at the Savannah River ESP site would be SMALL.

30

31 8.7.5.5 Environmental Justice

32

33 DOE recently performed an environmental assessment for the construction and operation of a

34 linear accelerator that would produce tritium (DOE 1999). As part of that assessment, an

35 evaluation of potential environmental justice impacts was conducted (Dominion and Bechtel

36 2002).

37

38 DOE’s environmental justice assessment evaluated whether minorities or low-income popula39 tions could receive disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental

40 impacts. Minority and low-income populations were identified by census tract. DOE’s analysis

41 concluded that releases from the site would not disproportionally affect minority communities
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) NRC uses lower threshold limits than DOE for defining whether minority or low-income populations

exist within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Savannah River Site – see Section 2.8.4 for a more

detailed discussion of the NRC criteria. 

Draft NUREG-1811 8-80 November 2004

1 (population equal to or greater than 35 percent of the total population) or low-income (equal to

2 or greater than 25 percent of the total population) within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region,

because the compared per capita doses did not vary significantly.(a) 3 In addition, regarding

4 downstream communities, DOE evaluated doses to people using the Savannah River for

5 drinking water, sports, and food. Because the identified communities in the areas downstream

6 from the SRS are well distributed, DOE concluded there were no disproportionate impacts

7 among minority and low-income communities (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

8

9 Based on the information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

10 concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and operation of two commercial units at the

11 Savannah River ESP site on minority and low-income populations would be SMALL. There are

12 no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to these populations.

13

14 8.8 Summaries of Alternative Site Impacts

15

16 Summaries of the impacts of construction and operation on each of the three proposed

17 alternative sites selected by Dominion are presented in Tables 8-6 and 8-7. Discussions of the

18 stated impacts are presented in the individual site sections (sections 8.5 through 8.7). A

19 comparison of the alternative site impacts with impacts at the proposed North Anna ESP site is

20 presented in Chapter 9.

21
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) Impacts of construction on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial

impacts. As a result the adverse impacts are considered SMALL and are reflected as such in

 Table 8-6. The beneficial economic impacts are discussed the applicable sections.

November 2004 8-81 Draft NUREG-1811

Table 8-6. Characterization of Adverse Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites(a) 1

2

3 Category Surry Portsmouth Savannah River

4 Land-use impacts -- -- --

5 SMALL SMALL SMALL The site and vicinity

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL TO Transmission corridors

MODERATE

7 Air quality impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

8 Water-related impacts -- -- --

9 SMALL SMALL SMALL Water use

10 SMALL SMALL SMALL Water quality

11 Ecological impacts -- -- --

12 SMALL SMALL SMALL TO Terrestrial ecosystems

MODERATE

13 SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

14 SMALL SMALL SMALL TO T&E Species

MODERATE

15 Socioeconomic impacts -- -- --

16 SMALL SMALL SMALL Physical Impacts

17 SMALL SMALL SMALL Demography

18 SMALL TO Community characteristics

MODERATE

SMALL TO

MODERATE

SMALL TO

MODERATE

19 Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL

20 Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

21 Nonradiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

22 Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

23

24
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) Impacts of operation on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial

impacts. As a result the adverse impacts are considered SMALL and are reflected as such in

 Table 8-7. The beneficial economic impacts are discussed the applicable sections.

Draft NUREG-1811 8-82 November 2004

Table 8-7. Characterization of Adverse Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites(a) 1

2

3 Category Surry Portsmouth Savannah River

4 Land-use impacts -- --

5 SMALL SMALL SMALL The site and vicinity

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL Transmission corridors

7 Air quality impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

8 Water-related impacts -- -- --

9 SMALL SMALL TO Water use and quality

MODERATE

SMALL

10 SMALL MODERATE SMALL Water use in drought year

11 Ecological impacts -- -- --

12 SMALL SMALL SMALL Terrestrial ecosystems

13 SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

14 SMALL SMALL SMALL TO T&E Species

MODERATE

15 Socioeconomic impacts -- -- --

16 SMALL SMALL SMALL Physical impacts

17 SMALL SMALL SMALL Demographics

18 SMALL TO Community characteristics

MODERATE

SMALL TO

MODERATE

SMALL

19 Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL

20 Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

21 Nonradiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

22 Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

23 Impacts of postulated accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL

24
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-83 Draft NUREG-1811

1 8.9 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

4 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

5

6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

8

9 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

10 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

11

12 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

13 Criteria.”

14

15 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

16 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

17

18 66 FR 64963. “Notice of Wetlands Involvement for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

19 Reindustrialization Program.” Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 242, December 17, 2001

20

21 69 FR 3956. “Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant

22 Impact for License Application for USEC Inc., Bethesda, MD.” Federal Register, January 27,

23 2004.

24

25 69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

26 Regulatory and Licensing Activities.” Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.

27

28 Bechtel Jacobs Co. 2003. U.S. Department of Energy Portsmouth Annual Environmental

29 Report for 2002 Piketon, Ohio. DOE/OR/11-3132&D1. Accessed on March 5, 2004, at

30 http://www.bechteljacobs.com/ports_reports.shtml 

31

32 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2000. CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time Employment

33 by Industry. Accessed on the Internet March 30, 2004, at

34 http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ 

35

36 Burton, Shawna. 2004. Deputy Auditor. Pike County, Ohio. Personal communication on

37 August 26, 2004.

38

39 Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251, et

40 seq.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-84 November 2004

1 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

2

3 Cornwell, Lois. Deputy Treasurer. Aiken County, South Carolina. Personal communication

4 received on August 26, 2004. 

5

6 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. North Anna Early Site Permit

7 Application - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

8

9 Dominion Energy Inc. and Bechtel Power Corp (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. Study of

10 Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States. 

11 U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-021D1431. Available at

12 www.ne.doe.gov/Nuc Pwr 2010/ESP_Study/ESP_Study_Dominion1.pdf

13

14 Federation of Tax Administrators. 2004. Range of State Corporation Income Taxes 2003 (For

15 the tax year 2003 – as of January 1, 2003). Accessed on August 24, 2004, at

16 http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/state_corp_2003.pdf

17

18 Georgia Department of Human Resources (Georgia). 2004a. Georgia – Online access to

19 Georgia Government. Accessed on August 23, 2004, at

20 http://dhr.georgia.gov/02/dhr/home/0,2220,5696,00.html;jsessionid=73BA632F785E95B6CBCB

21 2081541FE127

22

23 Georgia Department of Labor (Georgia). 2004b. Unemployment – Augusta - Aiken Compared

24 to Georgia (June 2004). Accessed on August 22, 2004, at

25 http://www.dol.state.ga.us/pdf/pr/u0604augusta.pdf

26

27 Gibson, Wendall (Jr.). 2004. County Treasurer. Barnwell County, South Carolina. Personal

28 communication received on August 26, 2004.

29

30 Great Schools. 2004. Surry County Public Schools, Virginia. Accessed on August 19, 2004, at

31 http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/va/district_profile/155

32

33 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2001. National Electrical Safety

34 Code - 2002 Edition. Accredited Standard Committee C2-2002. New York, New York.

35

36 Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, American Fisheries

37 Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

38

39 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2001. Cultural Resource Assessment, Surrey Power Station,

40 Surry County, Virginia. Surry, Virginia.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-85 Draft NUREG-1811

1 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

2 Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

3 No. 99-4493. Research Triangle Park, Washington, D.C.

4

5 Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (Ohio). 2004. Table of County Unemployment

6 Rates. Civilian Labor Force Estimates – For Counties and Cites with Population Over 50,000:

7 July 2004. Accessed on August 20, 2004, at 

8 http://jfs.ohio.gov/releases/unemp/OhioCivilianLaborForceEstimates.pdf

9

10 Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Map (Scale 1:7500000).

11 Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1):118-125.

12

13 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook

14 Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England Coalition on

15 Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

16

17 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 2004. Draft Risk-Based End State

18 Vision and Variance Report for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio. 

19 DOE/OR/11-3137&D0v1. Accessed on March 5, 2004, at

20 http://www.bechteljacobs.com/pdf/port/rbesd/RBES2-9-04-2ReportText.pdf 

21

22 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. “South

23 Carolina Coastal Zone.” Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed on January 20, 2004, at

24 http://www.scdhec.net/ocrm/images/map.jpg 

25

26 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2004. “South Carolina Rare,

27 Threatened, and Endangered Species Inventory.” Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed on July

28 16, 2004, at http:www.dnr.state.sc.us/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map

29

30 South Carolina Employment Security Commission (South Carolina). 2004a. Workforce Trends

31 Newsline. Accessed on August 22, 2004, at http://www.sces.org/lmi/news/July_2004.pdf 

32

33 South Carolina Department of Social Services (South Carolina). 2004b. Welcome to the South

34 Carolina Department of Social Services Web Site. Accessed on August 23, 2004, at

35 http://www.state.sc.us/dss/index.html

36

37 Surry County. 1975. “Surry County Land Development Ordinance.” Surry County Planning

38 Commission and Board of Supervisors, Surry, Virginia.

39

40 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. Table p1" Total Population (1) – Universe Total

41 Population. Accessed on March 28, 2004, at
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-86 November 2004

1 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_

2 U&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&-ge

3 o_id=38000US5720&-geo_id=38000US6760&-format=&-_lang=en

4

5 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. American Fact Finder. Highlights from the Census 2000

6 Demographic Profiles. For Waverly, Piekton, Portsmouth, Chillicothe; Jackson, Ohio and

7 Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto Counties in Ohio and Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio and

8 Huntington, West Virginia. Accessed on August 19, 2004, at

9 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

10

11 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. American Fact Finder. Quick Tables. Table QT-H1. 

12 General Housing Characteristics: 2000. For Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto Counties in Ohio

13 and Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio and Huntington, West Virginia. Accessed on the Internet 

14 August 20, 2004 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_sse=on

15

16 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. American Fact Finder. Highlights from the Census 2000

17 Demographic Profiles. For Augusta-Richmond County (balance) Georgia; Aiken, New Ellenton,

18 Jackson, Barnwell, Snelling, and Willston, South Carolina; and Aiken and Barnwell Counties,

19 South Carolina. Accessed on August 22, 2004, at

20 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

21

22 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. American Fact Finder. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 

23 2000c. American Fact Finder. Quick Tables. Table QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics:

24 2000. For Richmond County and Columbia Counties, Georgia and Aiken and Barnwell

25 Counties, South Carolina. Accessed on August 23, 2004, at

26 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_sse=on

27

28 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1995. Savannah River Site Waste Management Final

29 Environmental Impact Statement. DOE-EIS 0217, Washington, D.C.

30

31 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement Construction

32 and Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site. DOE/EIS-0271,

33 Washington, D.C.

34

35 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. Savannah River Site Waste Management Final

36 Environmental Impact Statement. DOE-EIS 0217, Washington, D.C. Accessed on August 23,

37 2004, at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/enviro/eis-0217/index.html

38

39

40 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001. Environmental Assessment: Winterization Activities

41 in Preparation for Cold Standby at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

November 2004 8-87 Draft NUREG-1811

1 DOE/EA-1392. Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. As cited in Dominion

2 Energy (Inc.) and Bechtel Power Corporation (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. Study of Potential

3 Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States. A U.S. Department of

4 Energy cooperative agreement No. DE-FCO7-02ID14313. September 27, 2002.

5

6 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. Savannah River Site High-Level Waste Tank Closure

7 Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0303, Washington, D.C.

8

9 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

10 Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at

11 Portsmouth, Ohio, Site. DOE/EIS-0360. Washington, D.C. Accessed on the Internet

12 March 5, 2004, at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/docs/deis/eis0360/ 

13

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Non-attainment Areas Map for Virginia,

15 Ohio, South Carolina. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/

16

17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Letter from M. Knapp, FWS to P. T. Kuo, NRC.

18

19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. North Anna Power Station Alternate, Barnwell

20 County, South Carolina, FWS log No. 4-6-04-T-110. Letter from T. Hall (FWS) to P. T. Kuo

21 (NRC). January 15, 2004.

22

23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS and

24 VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Accessed on the Internet

25 March 23, 2004, at http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf

26

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

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

29

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. Environmental Standard Review Plan

31 9.3, Alternative Sites. NUREG-1555. Washington, D.C. Accessed on the Internet [month, day,

32 year] at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement7._ 

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999b. Standard Review Plans for

35 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.

36

37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. “Procedural Guidance for Preparing

38 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues.” NRC Office of Nuclear

39 Reactor Regulation Office Instruction, LIC-203, Washington, D.C.

40
Impacts of the Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1811 8-88 November 2004

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

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 6 Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1

3 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, Washington, D.C.

4

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Environmental Assessment of the USEC

6 Inc. American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility at Piketon, Ohio. Office of Nuclear Material

7 Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555-0001. Accessed on August 20, 2004, at

8 http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ea/EA1495/ea-1495.pdf

9

10 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 2004. Natural Heritage

11 Resources Factsheet. Migratory Songbird Habitat in Virginia’s Coastal Plain. Accessed on the

12 Internet March 4, 2004, at http://www.dcr.state.va/dnh/songfact.htm).

13

14 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004a. Letter from Ellie Irons (VDEQ)

15 to Pamela Faggert (Dominion) dated February 10, 2004.

16

17 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004b. “Virginia’s Coastal Resources

18 Management Area.” Accessed on the Internet January 8, 2004, at 

19 http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/thezone.html (content last updated June 12, 2003).

20

21 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004. Virginia Fish and Wildlife

22 Information Service. Accessed on the Internet March 1, 2004 at

23 http://vafwis.org/WIS/ASP/default.asp

24

25 Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS). 2004. http://www.dss.state.va.us/index.html. 

26 Accessed August 18, 2004.

27

28 Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. 2001. Letter from J. E. Olney to Tony Banks, VEPCo

29 related to "Evaluation of potential impacts of operation of Surry Power Station on Federally

30 Managed Species." April 4, 2001.

31

32 Westinghouse Savannah River Company (Westinghouse). 2001. Savannah River Site

33 Environmental Report for 2000. WSRC-TR-2000-00328, Aiken, South Carolina.

34
November 2004 9-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 9.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed

2 Action and Alternative Sites

3

4

5 The need to compare the proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) site with other

6 alternative sites arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of the National

7 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code 4332(2)(c)(iii)) that environmental

8 impact statements include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The test to be

9 employed in assessing whether a proposed ESP site is to be rejected in favor of an alternative

10 site is based on whether the alternative site is “obviously superior” to the site proposed by the

11 applicant (Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 1977). An alternative site is “obviously

12 superior” to the proposed site if it is “clearly and substantially” superior to the proposed site

13 (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978).

14

15 The standard of obvious superiority “is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be

16 rejected in favor of an alternate unless, on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can

17 be confident that such action is called for” (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978).

18 The “obviously superior” test is appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by

19 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in evaluating alternative ESP sites is neces20 sarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the alternative site analysis, such as population

21 distribution and density, hydrology, air quality, aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources,

22 aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics, are difficult to quantify in common metrics. Given

23 this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site must necessarily have a wide range of

24 uncertainty. Second, the applicant’s proposed ESP site has been analyzed in detail, with the

25 expectation that most adverse environmental impacts associated with the site have been

26 identified. The alternative sites have not undergone a comparable level of detailed study. For

27 these reasons, a proposed ESP site may be rejected in favor of an alternative site not when the

28 alternative is “marginally better” than the proposed site, but only when it is “obviously superior”

29 (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). NEPA does not require that a nuclear plant be

30 constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. Rather, “all that NEPA requires

31 is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on the environment of building the

32 plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored into the ultimate decision” (New

33 England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978).

34
Comparison of Impacts

(a) An “environmentally preferred” alternative site is a site for which the environmental impacts are

sufficiently less than the proposed site so that environmental preference for the alternative site can be

established (NRC 2000).

Draft NUREG-1811 9-2 November 2004

1 The NRC staff’s review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test for obvious

2 superiority (NRC 2000). The first part of the test determines whether there are “environmentally

preferred”(a) 3 sites among the candidate ESP sites. The staff considers whether the applicant

4 has (1) reasonably identified alternative sites, (2) evaluated the likely environmental impacts of

5 construction and operation at these sites, and (3) used a logical means of comparing sites that

6 has led to the applicant’s selection of the proposed site. Based on its independent review, the

7 staff then determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the

8 applicant’s proposed ESP site.

9

10 If the staff determines that one or more alternative ESP sites is environmentally preferable, it will

11 then compare the estimated costs (environmental, economic, and time) of constructing the

12 proposed plant at the proposed site and at the environmentally preferable site or sites

13 (NRC 2000). To find an obviously superior alternative site, the staff must determine that (1) one

14 or more important aspects, either singly or in combination, of a reasonably available alternative

15 site are obviously superior to the corresponding aspects of the applicant’s proposed site; and

16 (2) the alternative site does not have offsetting deficiencies in other important areas. A staff

17 conclusion that an alternative site is obviously superior to the applicant’s proposed site would

18 normally lead to a recommendation that the application for the ESP be denied.

19

20 9.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternatives

21

22 The staff reviewed the Environmental Report submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

23 (Dominion) (Dominion 2004) and supporting documentation, and conducted site visits at the

24 proposed North Anna ESP site and the alternative sites. The staff found that the applicant had

25 reasonably identified alternative sites, evaluated the environmental impacts of construction and

26 operation, and used a logical means of comparing sites. The following section contains the

27 staff’s independent assessment of the alternative sites.

28

29 The staff’s characterization of the expected environmental impacts of constructing and

30 operating two new nuclear units at the proposed and alternative ESP sites within the bounds of

31 the plant parameter envelope developed by Dominion are summarized in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. 

32 Explanations for the particular characterizations are in Chapters 4 and 5 for the site, in

33 Section 8.5 for the Surry Power Station (Surry) site, in Section 8.6 for the Portsmouth Gaseous

34 Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth) site, and in Section 8.7 for the Savannah River Site.
Comparison of Impacts

November 2004 9-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 9-1. Comparison of the Construction Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Early

2 Site Permit Sites

3

4 Impact Area Category

North Anna

ESP Site Surry Site

Portsmouth

Site

Savannah

River Site

5 -- -- -- -- Land-use impacts

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL The site and vicinity

7 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL TO Transmission corridors

MODERATE

8 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Air quality impacts

9 -- -- -- -- Water-related impacts

10 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Water use and quality

11 -- -- -- -- Ecological impacts

12 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL TO Terrestrial ecosystems

MODERATE

13 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

14 Threatened and endangered 

15 species 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL TO

MODERATE

16 -- -- -- -- Socioeconomic impacts

17 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Physical impacts

18 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Demography

19 SMALL to Community characteristics

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

20 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Historic and cultural resources

21 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Environmental justice

22 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Non Radiological health impacts

23 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Radiological health impacts

24
Comparison of Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 9-4 November 2004

1 Table 9-2. Comparison of the Operational Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Early Site

2 Permit Sites

3

4 Impact Area Category

North Anna

ESP Site Surry Site

Portsmouth

Site

Savannah

River Site

5 -- -- -- -- Land-use impacts

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL The site and vicinity

7 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Transmission corridors

8 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Air quality impacts

9 -- -- -- -- Water-related impacts

10 SMALL SMALL SMALL to Water use and quality

MODERATE

SMALL

11 Water use in drought year

12

MODERATE SMALL MODERATE SMALL

13 -- -- -- -- Ecological impacts

14 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Terrestrial ecosystems

15 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

16 Threatened and endangered 

17 SMALL SMALL SMALL species 

SMALL to

MODERATE

18 -- -- -- -- Socioeconomic impacts

19 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Physical impacts

20 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Demographics

21 SMALL to Community characteristics

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL

22 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Historic and cultural resources

23 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Environmental justice

24 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Nonradiological health impacts

25 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Radiological health impacts

26 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Postulated accidents

27

28 Some environmental impacts considered for the North Anna ESP site or for the alternative sites

29 are generic to all sites and therefore do not influence the comparison of impacts between the

30 North Anna ESP site and the alternative sites. The generic environmental impacts common to

31 all sites are, air quality, nonradiological and radiological health impacts, and environmental

32 impacts from postulated accidents.

33
Comparison of Impacts

November 2004 9-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The environmental impact areas shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 have been evaluated using

2 NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed

3 using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table

4 B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

5

6 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

7 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

8

9 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

10 destabilize important attributes of the resource.

11

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

13 important attributes of the resource.

14

15 The socioeconomic impact category reflects only the potential adverse impacts. Positive

16 impacts (i.e., tax receipts to local government and public support of the proposed project) would

17 occur but are not the determining factors in the analysis of an environmentally preferable or

18 obviously superior site. For other impact categories in which a beneficial impact or no impact is

19 predicted, the adverse impact level is shown as SMALL. Within some impact categories, impact

20 levels varied. Professional judgment was employed to conclude, where possible, a single

21 overall level of impact. In some cases, a range of probable impacts is given.

22

23 The staff determined the impact level from construction for most of the environmental issues at

24 most of the sites is SMALL. In some cases, there are factors related to a site that could cause

25 the impact level to increase from SMALL to MODERATE. More detailed information on these

26 cases is presented in Chapter 4 for the North Anna ESP site, and Chapter 8 for the alternative

27 sites. The staff based its analysis of the environmental impacts on the applicant complying with

28 the Federal, State and local permit requirements and on the mitigation measures identified in

29 the ER. The staff in its analysis of the alternative sites assumed similar permit requirements and

30 mitigative measures would apply.

31

32 The staff determined the impact level from operation for most of the environmental issues at

33 most of the sites is SMALL. In some cases, there are factors related to a site that could cause

34 the impact level to increase from SMALL to MODERATE. More detailed information on these

35 cases is presented in Chapter 5 for the North Anna ESP site, and Chapter 8 for the alternative

36 sites.
Comparison of Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 9-6 November 2004

1 9.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites

2

3 9.2.1 Construction

4

5 The impacts of construction at the North Anna ESP site are SMALL for all major impact cate6 gories. However, as noted in Section 4.5, there are some impact sub-categories under commu7 nity characteristics (housing, public services, and education) for which the impacts could be

8 MODERATE if a larger number of construction workers than the staff assumed relocate to

9 Louisa or Orange Counties.

10

11 The impacts of construction at the Surry alternative ESP site are SMALL for all impact cate12 gories except community characteristics. As noted in Section 8.5, the impacts in this area are

13 SMALL to MODERATE for transportation.

14

15 The impacts of construction at the Portsmouth alternative ESP site are SMALL for all impact

16 categories except community characteristics. As noted in Section 8.6, the impacts in this area

17 are SMALL to MODERATE for availability of workers and aesthetics.

18

19 The impacts of construction at the Savannah River Site alternative are SMALL for all impact

20 categories except terrestrial resources (including endangered species) and community charac21 teristics. As noted in Section 8.7, the impacts on terrestrial resources are SMALL to

22 MODERATE. The staff arrived at this broad range of potential impacts because the routing for

23 the new transmission line rights-of-way that would be needed is not known and so the associ24 ated impacts of construction cannot be assessed. In addition, under community characteristics

25 the impacts are SMALL to MODERATE for transportation.

26

27 While there are minor differences in the construction impacts at the four sites, the staff

28 concludes that none of these differences is sufficient to determine that any of the alternative

29 sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

30

31 9.2.2 Operations

32

33 The impacts of operations at the North Anna ESP site are SMALL for all major impact

34 categories except water use and community characteristics categories. As discussed in Section

35 5.3, the impacts of Unit 3 operations on water use are SMALL most years. However, during a

36 significant drought, the impacts could be MODERATE. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.5,

37 the impacts for aesthetics and housing are SMALL to MODERATE and impacts to recreation

38 may be MODERATE during drought years.

39
Comparison of Impacts

November 2004 9-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 The impacts of operations at the Surry alternative ESP site are SMALL for all impact categories

2 except community characteristics. As noted in Section 8.5, the impacts in this area are SMALL

3 to MODERATE for aesthetics.

4

5 The impacts of operations at the Portsmouth alternative ESP site are SMALL for all impact

6 categories except water use and community characteristics. As noted in Section 8.6, the

7 impacts of plant operations on water use are SMALL to MODERATE most years. However,

8 during a significant drought, the impacts would be MODERATE. In addition, impacts under

9 community characteristics are SMALL to MODERATE for aesthetics.

10

11 The impacts of operations at the Savannah River Site alternative ESP site are SMALL for all

12 impact categories except threatened and endangered species. As noted in Section 8.7, the

13 impacts in this area are SMALL to MODERATE. The staff arrived at this broad range of

14 potential impacts because the routing for the new transmission line rights-of-way that would be

15 needed for plant operation is not known and so the associated impacts of operation and

16 maintenance must be assigned a broad range of potential impacts.

17

18 In summary, although the water-use impacts at the North Anna ESP site are projected to be

19 MODERATE during years when there is a severe drought, this is expected to be an infrequent

20 occurrence. The operational impact of the units at North Anna is also expected to have a

21 MODERATE impact in the recreational sub-category of socioeconomics during a severe

22 drought. This may affect the size of the striped bass available for recreational fishing. This

23 impact can be mitigated by stocking more fish, stocking larger fish, or managing the fishery to

24 provide more catch opportunities of larger fish. The Portsmouth site has a similar water-use

25 issue and the Savannah River Site has significant unknown impacts associated with the

26 transmission line rights-of-way (could be anywhere from SMALL to MODERATE). The Surry

27 site has one socioeconomic issue with impacts in the SMALL to MODERATE range. While

28 there are some differences in the environmental impacts of operation at the four sites, the staff

29 concludes that none of these differences is sufficient to determine that any of the alternative

30 sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

31

32 9.3 Obviously Superior Sites

33

34 None of the alternative sites were determined to be environmentally preferable to the North

35 Anna ESP site. Therefore, the staff concluded that none of the alternative sites is obviously

36 superior to the North Anna ESP site.
Comparison of Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 9-8 November 2004

1 9.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative

2

3 The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC would deny the ESP request. If

4 the ESP application for the proposed North Anna ESP site location were denied, the impacts of

5 construction and operation of a new nuclear power facility would not occur.

6

7 In the event of NRC’s denial of the ESP application, Dominion could follow several paths to

8 satisfy its electric power needs. The potential paths include (1) seeking an ESP for a different

9 location, (2) purchase of power from other electricity providers, (3) conservation and demand10 side management programs, (4) construction of new generation facilities other than nuclear at

11 the North Anna site, (5) construction of new generation facilities at other locations, (6) delayed

12 retirement of existing generating facilities, and (7) reactivation of previously retired generating

13 facilities. These paths could be pursued individually or in combination. Each of the paths would

14 have associated environmental impacts. Nonetheless, since Part 52 does not require an ER or

15 EIS for an ESP to include consideration of energy alternatives or the benefits of construction

16 and operation of a reactor or reactors at the ESP site, this draft EIS does not consider such

17 matters. Accordingly, should the NRC ultimately determine to issue an ESP for the North Anna

18 ESP site, these matters will be considered in the EIS for any CP or COL application that

19 references such an ESP.

20

21 No significant environmental impacts would be avoided by the no-action alternative because no

22 such impacts are caused by a site-suitability determination. The only activities that are

23 permissible under an ESP are limited to site preparation activities allowed by

24 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). Site preparation activities are permissible only if the final environmental

25 impact statement concludes that the activities will not result in any significant environmental

26 impacts that cannot be redressed.

27

28 9.5 References

29

30 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Domestic Licensing of

31 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

32

33 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

34 of Production and Utilization Facilities."

35

36 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

37 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

38

39 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. North Anna Early Site Permit

40 Application - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glenn Allen, Virginia.
Comparison of Impacts

November 2004 9-9 Draft NUREG-1811

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

2

3 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 1978. New England Coalition on Nuclear

Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st 4 Circuit 1978).

5

6 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook

7 Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England Coalition on

Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st 8 Circuit 1978).

9

10 Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project

11 Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 397 (1978), affirmed, CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731

12 (1980).

13

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

15 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.
November 2004 10-1 Draft NUREG-1811

1 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

2

3

4 On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an

5 application from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit (ESP)

6 for a location adjacent to the North Anna Power Station (NAPS), Units 1 and 2. Dominion

7 submitted revisions to the environmental report (ER) on October 2, 2003, July 15, 2004, and 

8 September 7, 2004. Any reference in this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to the ER

9 refers to Revision 3, unless otherwise stated. The North Anna ESP site is located in Louisa

10 County, Virginia, approximately 10 km (6 mi) northeast of the town of Mineral. An ESP is a

11 Commission approval of a location for siting one or more nuclear power facilities and is a

12 separate action from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP) or a combined

13 construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for such a facility. An ESP

14 application may refer to a reactor’s or reactors’ characteristics or a plant parameter envelope,

15 which is a set of postulated design parameters that bound the characteristics of a reactor or

16 reactors that might be built at a selected site; alternatively an ESP may refer to a detailed

17 reactor design. The ESP is not a license to build a nuclear power plant; rather, the application

18 for an ESP initiates a process undertaken to assess whether a proposed site is suitable should

19 the applicant decide to pursue a CP or COL.

20

21 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs

22 that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that

23 significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Subpart A of Title 10 of the Code of

24 Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to ESPs. The NRC

25 has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. As set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the

26 Commission has determined that an EIS will be prepared during the review of an application for

27 an ESP. The purpose of Dominion’s requested action, issuance of the ESP, is for the NRC to

28 determine whether the North Anna ESP site is suitable for new nuclear units by resolving certain

29 safety and environmental issues before Dominion incurs the substantial additional time and

30 expense of designing and seeking approval to construct such facilities at the site. Part 52 of

31 Title 10 describes the ESP as a “partial construction permit.” An applicant for a CP or COL for a

32 nuclear power plant or plants to be located at the site for which an ESP was issued can

33 reference the ESP, thus reducing the review of siting issues at that stage of the licensing

34 process. However, a CP or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a major

35 federal action that requires its own environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

36

37 Three primary issues – site safety, environmental impacts, and emergency planning – must be

38 addressed in the ESP application. Likewise, in its review of the application, the NRC assesses

39 the applicant’s proposal in relation to these issues and determines if the application meets the

40 requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations. This draft environmental impact

41 statement addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed action.

42
Conclusions and Recommendations

Draft NUREG-1811 10-2 November 2004

1 Dominion requested in its application authorization to perform certain site preparation activities

2 after the ESP is issued. The application, therefore, included a site redress plan that specifies

3 how the applicant would stabilize and restore the site to its preconstruction condition (or

4 conditions consistent with an alternative use) in the event a nuclear power plant is not

5 constructed on the approved site. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), the applicant did not

6 address the benefits of the proposed action (e.g., the need for power). In accordance with 

7 10 CFR 52.18, the EIS is focused on the environmental effects of construction and operation of

8 a reactor, or reactors, which have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters. 

9

10 Upon acceptance of the Dominion ESP application, the NRC began the environmental review

11 process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent

12 (68 FR 65961) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff visited the North Anna ESP

13 site during December 2003 and held a public scoping meeting on December 8, 2003, in Mineral,

14 Virginia. Subsequent to the site visit and the scoping meeting and in accordance with NEPA

15 and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff has determined and evaluated the potential environmental

16 impacts of constructing and operating two nuclear power plants at the North Anna ESP site. 

17 Included in this draft EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s preliminary analyses, which

18 consider and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action (issuance of the ESP) and

19 of constructing and operating two nuclear units at the ESP site; ( 2) mitigation measures for

20 reducing or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives, and (4) the

21 staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.

22

23 During the course of preparing this draft EIS, the staff reviewed the Environmental Report

24 submitted by Dominion, consulted with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies, and followed

25 the guidance set forth in review standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site

26 Permits, to conduct an independent review of the issues. The review standard draws from the

27 previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plans for the Review of Safety Analysis

28 for Nuclear Power Plants, and NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental

29 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. In addition, the staff considered the public comments

30 related to the environmental review received during the scoping process. These comments are

31 provided in Appendix D of this draft EIS.

32

33 In following the precedent of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

34 of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) and supplemental license renewal EISs, environmental issues

35 are evaluated using a three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE –

36 developed by NRC using guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality. Table B-1 of

37 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three

38 significance levels:

39

40 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

41 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

42
Conclusions and Recommendations

November 2004 10-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

2 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

3

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

5 important attributes of the resource.

6

7 Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are presented in the

8 appropriate sections.

9

10 NEPA requires that an EIS include information on:

11

12 C any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be

13 implemented

14

15 C any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the

16 proposed action is implemented 

17

18 C the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance

19 and enhancement of long-term productivity.

20

21 Activities permitted under an ESP include preparation of the site for construction of the facility,

22 installation of temporary construction support facilities, excavation for facility structures,

23 construction of service facilities, and construction of certain structures, systems, and

24 components that do not prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. These

25 activities are identified in the site redress plan. However, the following discussion of the NEPA

26 requirements addresses the impacts of construction and operation of two new units at the North

27 Anna ESP site. The construction impacts bounds any impacts of the site preparation and

28 preliminary construction activities allowed under 10 CFR 52.25(a).

29

30 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

31

32 Section 102(C)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any adverse environ33 mental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Unavoidable

34 adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of construction and operation of the

35 proposed new units that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of mitigation are

36 available.

37
Conclusions and Recommendations

Draft NUREG-1811 10-4 November 2004

1 There will be no unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of the

2 ESP with the exception of impacts associated with the limited site preparation and preliminary

3 construction activities allowed under the site redress plan. The impacts associated with the site

4 preparation and preliminary construction activities are bounded by the construction activities. 

5 However, there are unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the

6 construction and operation of two new units at the North Anna ESP site.

7

8 If granted, the only activities authorized by the ESP would be the following site preparation and

9 preliminary construction activities sought by Dominion, which are described in Part 4 of the

10 application (Dominion 2004b) and enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1):

11

12 C preparation of the site for construction of the facility (including such activities as clearing,

13 grading, and construction of temporary access roads and borrow areas)

14

15 C installation of temporary construction support facilities (including such items as

16 warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading

17 facilities, and construction support buildings)

18

19 C excavation for facility structures

20

21 C construction of service facilities (including such facilities as roadways, paving, railroad

22 spurs, fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, and sanitary sewage treatment

23 facilities)

24

25 C the construction of structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate

26 the consequences of postulated accidents, that could cause undue risk to the health and

27 safety of the public.

28

29 If the ESP is granted to Dominion and if Dominion performs any or all of the activities above, but

30 does not, in the future, seek a CP under 10 CFR Part 50 or a COL under 10 CFR Part 52,

31 Dominion would need to redress the site according to the site redress plan included in Part 4,

32 Chapter 1 of its ESP application (Dominion 2004b). The staff reviewed the list of allowed site

33 preparation and preliminary construction activities in the event that the ESP is granted and

34 reviewed the full site redress plan submitted by Dominion. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17,

35 the application demonstrated that there is reasonable assurance that redress carried out under

36 the plan will achieve an environmentally stable and aesthetically site suitable for whatever non37 nuclear use may conform with local zoning laws. As a result of its own independent review, the

38 staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.25(a), preliminarily concludes that the potential site

39 preparation and preliminary construction activities described in the applicant’s site redress plan

40 would not result in any significant adverse impacts that could not be redressed. 

41
Conclusions and Recommendations

November 2004 10-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction

2

3 Chapter 4 discusses the impacts from construction in detail. The unavoidable adverse impacts

4 related to construction are listed in Table 10-1 and summarized below. The primary

5 unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during construction would be related to land use.

6 All construction activities for Units 3 and 4, including ground-disturbing activities, would occur

7 within the existing NAPS site boundary. According to Dominion, the area that would be affected

8 on a long-term basis as a result of permanent facilities is approximately 52 ha (128 ac). An

9 additional 27.5 ha (67.9 ac) would be disturbed on a short-term basis as a result of temporary

10 activities and facilities and laydown areas (Dominion 2004a).

11

12 Table 10-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction

13

14 Impact Category

Adverse Impacts Based

on Applicant’s Proposal

 Actions to Mitigate

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

15 Land Use Yes Comply with requirements

of applicable Federal,

State and Local Permits

52 ha (128 ac) disturbed

on long term basis,

additional 27.5 ha (67.9

ac) would be disturbed on

a short-term basis 

16 Hydrological and Water

17 Use

Yes Use best construction

management practices

Fill, and grading

operations at the North

Anna ESP site will alter

two ephemeral streams

18 Ecological

19 a. Terrestrial

20 b. Aquatic

a. Yes

b. Yes

a. Use of construction

best management

practices adherence to

applicable permit

conditions and avoid

sensitive areas. Where

possible, reestablish

habitat after construction.

b. Performing wetland

surveys to determine

Clean Water Act

Section 404 eligibility 

a. Removal of trees and

vegetation and habitat.

b. Disturbance of

intermittent streams,

destruction of wetlands

21 Socioeconomic Yes Implement traffic

management plan

Increased traffic

congestion 

22 Radiological Yes Use of as low as

reasonably achievable

(ALARA) principles

Dose to construction

workers
Conclusions and Recommendations

Impact Category

Adverse Impacts Based

on Applicant’s Proposal

 Actions to Mitigate

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

Draft NUREG-1811 10-6 November 2004

1 Atmospheric and

2 Meteorological

Yes Implement dust control

plan

Equipment emissions and

fugitive dust from

operation of earth-moving

equipment are sources of

air pollution

3 Environmental Justice No Not applicable Not applicable

4

5 The construction impacts on the terrestrial ecology of the site would be short-term. Construc6 tion of Units 3 and 4 would result in the removal of approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of forested

7 habitat within the site. The ESP site does not contain any old growth timber, unique or sensitive

8 plants or communities. Therefore, construction activities would not noticeably reduce the local

9 or regional diversity of plants or plant communities. There are no important animal species or

10 habitats on the ESP site. No areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as

11 critical habitat for endangered or threatened species exist at or near the site, nor are threatened

12 or endangered plants or animals known to exist at the site. Therefore, construction likely would

13 have no impact on any threatened or endangered species, or other important species or

14 habitats. Socioeconomic impacts of construction include an increase in traffic. Atmospheric

15 and meteorological impacts include fugitive dust from construction activities and can be

16 mitigated by the dust control plan. Radiological doses to construction workers from the adjacent

17 units are expected to be well below regulatory limits. Regarding environmental justice, there are

18 no unusual resource dependencies by low income or minority groups.

19

20 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation

21

22 Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the impacts from operation. The unavoidable

23 adverse impacts related to operation are listed in Table 10-2 and summarized below. 

24 Hydrological and water use impacts during operation are primarily the result of the operation of

25 the once through cooling system for proposed Unit 3. The unavoidable adverse impacts are the

26 increased temperature in Lake Anna and the decrease in lake level. The ecological impacts are

27 primarily affected by the operation of the once through cooling system for proposed Unit 3. The

28 increase in lake temperature will limit the growth and size of the striped bass during severe

29 drought conditions. The impact to the striped bass can be mitigated by stocking more fish,

30 stocking larger fish, or managing the fishery to provide more catch opportunities of larger fish. 

31 Socioeconomic impacts are primarily increased demand for services, with the increased tax

32 revenue to support the increase in services. Visual impact of lower water levels, and their effect

33 on shoreline exposure during severe drought could temporarily impact the area. Meteorological

34 impacts are expected to be negligible. Pollutants emitted during operations are considered

35 insignificant. The unavoidable adverse impacts from operation for land use are small and

36 further mitigation is not warranted.

37
Conclusions and Recommendations

November 2004 10-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation

2

3 Impact Category

Adverse Impacts Based

on Applicant’s Proposal

 Actions to Mitigate

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

4 Land Use Yes Local land management

plans

Possible new housing and

retail space added in

vicinity due to potential

growth

5 Hydrological and Water

6 Use

Yes Comply with State permit

limits

Decrease in lake level

and reduction in available

water released from dam

7 Ecological

8 a. Terrestrial

9 b. Aquatic

a. No

b. Yes

a. None

b . Mitigation in the form

of additional stocking

striped bass may be

necessary. 

a. None.

b. Proportion of resources

subject to impingement

and entrainment would be

small. Additional heat

could impact hatchery

striped bass in parts of

the lake in drought years

10 Socioeconomic Yes Evaluate options to

reduce consumptive water

use at the CP/COL stage

Lower lake during drought

conditions 

11 Radiological Yes Use of as low as

reasonably achievable

(ALARA) requirements

Dose to workers, the

public and biota

12 Atmospheric and

13 Meteorological

No None None. Meteorological

impacts are expected to

be negligible

14 Environmental Justice No Not applicable Not applicable

15

16
Conclusions and Recommendations

Draft NUREG-1811 10-8 November 2004

1 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

2

3 Section 102(C)(v) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any irreversible and

4 irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed action is implemented. 

5 The only irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be expended if the

6 proposed action is implemented would be resources used by Dominion for site preparation

7 activities. If not used during the duration of the ESP, any such resource commitments for site

8 preparation activities would be used at the CP/COL stage or could potentially be used for other

9 activities even if Dominion does not eventually seek a CP or a COL for the ESP location.

10

11 Irretrievable commitments of resources during construction of the proposed new units generally

12 would be similar to that of any major, construction project. The actual commitment of construc13 tion resources (concrete, steel, and other building materials) would depend on the reactor

14 design selected at the CP/COL stage. Hazardous materials such as asbestos would not be

15 used, if possible. If materials such as asbestos were used, it would be in accordance with

16 safety regulations and practices. The actual estimate of construction materials would be

17 performed at the CP/COL stage when the reactor design is selected. 

18

19 The staff expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with those

20 expected for the two new units, while irretrievable, would be a small impact, with respect to the

21 availability of such resources.

22

23 The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of two new nuclear

24 unit would be uranium. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly enriched

25 uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient, so that

26 the irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be a small impact.

27

28 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

29 Productivity of the Human Environment

30

31 Section 102(C)(iv) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on the relationship between

32 local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

33 productivity. The only short-term use of the environment that could occur if the proposed action

34 is implemented would be site preparation activities conducted by Dominion that would be

35 authorized in an ESP. Any such activities are unlikely to adversely affect the long-term

36 productivity of the environment. The evaluation of the relationship between local short-term

37 uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for

38 the construction and operation of the two new units can only be performed by discussing the

39 benefits of operating the units. The benefit is the production of electricity. In accordance with

40 10 CFR 52.18, an EIS for an ESP does not need to include an assessment of the benefits of the

41 proposed action. Therefore, an assessment of the evaluation of the relationship between local

42 short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
Conclusions and Recommendations

November 2004 10-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 productivity for the construction and operation of the two units will be performed at the CP/COL

2 stage.

3

4 10.4 Cumulative Impacts

5

6 The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation

7 the proposed Units 3 and 4 during the past, present, and future actions in the North Anna ESP

8 site area in chapter 7 of this EIS. For each impact area, the staff’s determination is that the

9 potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation are SMALL, and

10 mitigation is not warranted. The geographical area over which past, present, and future actions

11 could contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of type of action considered,

12 and is described below for each impact area. Several issues have the potential for MODERATE

13 impacts, most of which would occur under temporary circumstances or as the result of a larger

14 than expected concentration of construction workers settling near the North Anna ESP site.

15

16 10.5 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

17

18 The staff’s preliminary recommendation is that the ESP should be issued. This preliminary

19 recommendation is based on (1) the Environmental Report submitted by Dominion, as revised;

20 (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent

21 review; (4) the staff’s consideration of comments received during the public scoping process

22 and; (5) the assessments summarized in this draft EIS, including the potential mitigation

23 measures identified in the ER and in the EIS. In addition, in making its preliminary

24 recommendation, the staff has concluded that there are no environmentally preferable or

25 obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff has preliminarily concluded that the site preparation

26 and preliminary construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) will not result in any

27 significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed. 

28

29 A comparative summary showing the environmental impacts of locating two new units at the

30 North Anna ESP site, or at any of the alternative sites is shown in Table 10-3. Impacts of the

31 no-action alternative, or denial of the ESP application, is also shown. Table 10-3 shows that the

32 significance of the environmental impacts of the proposed action is SMALL for all impact cate33 gories with the exception of water use and quality and certain socioeconomic categories. The

34 alternative sites, may have environmental effects in at least some categories that reach

35 MODERATE significance. The staff concludes that none of the alternative sites assessed are

36 obviously superior to the North Anna ESP site.

37

38
Conclusions and Recommendations

Draft NUREG-1811 10-10 November 2004

1 Table 10-3. Summary of Environmental Significance of Station Location at the North Anna

2 Power Station Early Site Permit Site, at Alternative Sites, and for the No-Action

3 Alternative

4

5

Proposed

Action

No-Action

Alternative Alternative Site Options

6 Impact Category

ESP Permit at

North Anna Denial of ESP Surry Portsmouth Savannah River

7 Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

8 Ecology SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

9 Water Use and Quality SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

10 Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

11 Waste SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

12 Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

13 Socioeconomics SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE

14 Historic and Archaeological 

15 Resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

16 Environmental Justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

17

18 10.6 References

19

20 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

21 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

22

23 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

24 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

25

26 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

27 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

28

29 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 2011, et seq.

30

31 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit

32 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

33

34 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. North Anna Early Site Permit

35 Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

36

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

38
Conclusions and Recommendations

November 2004 10-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plans for the Review of

2 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

3

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

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

6

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

8 Review for Nuclear Power Plants, Main Report, Supplement : Operating License Renewal. 

9 NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.

10

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

12 Permits. RS-002, Washington, D.C.

13

14

15

16
Appendix A

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement
November 2004 A-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix A

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

1 The overall responsibility for the preparation of this environmental impact statement was

2 assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3 (NRC). The statement was prepared by members of the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

4 with assistance from other NRC organizations and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

5

6 Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

8 Andrew Kugler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief/Project Manager

9 John Tappert Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief

10 Jack Cushing Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

11 Stacey Imboden Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

12 Alicia Williamson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

13 Barry Zalcman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Monitor

14 Tom Kenyon Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management

15 James Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist

16 Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist

17 Brad Harvey Nuclear Reactor Regulation Meteorology

18 Charles Hinson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

19 Steve Klementowicz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

20 Audrey Hayes Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

21 Jay Lee Nuclear Reactor Regulation Design Basis and Severe Accidents

22 Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accidents

23 Amy Snyder Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

24 James Park Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

25 Nina Barnett Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

26 Yvonne Edmonds Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a) 27

28 Mary Ann Parkhurst Task Leader

29 Beverly Miller Deputy Task Leader

30 William Sandusky Air Quality

31 John Jaksch Socioeconomics

32 Duane Neitzel Aquatic Ecology

33 Mike Sackschewsky Terrestrial Ecology

34 Greg Stoetzel Radiation Protection

35 Paul Nickens Cultural Resources

36 Paul Hendrickson Land Use, Related Federal Programs, Alternatives

37 Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology

38 Chris Cook Water Use, Hydrology

39 Stuart Saslow Water Use, Hydrology

40 Eva Hickey Decomissioning

41 Van Ramsdell Design Basis and Severe Accidents

42 Dennis Strenge Severe Accidents

43 Maha Mahasenan Transportation

44 Philip Daling Transportation
Appendix A

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

Draft NUREG-1811 A-2 November 2004

1 Cary Counts Technical Editing

2 Barbara Wilson Technical Editing

3 Jean Cheyney Document Production

4 Trina Russell Document Production

5 Debbie Schulz Document Production

6 Seleste Williams Document Production

7 (a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute.

8

9
Appendix B

Organizations Contacted
November 2004 B-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix B

Organizations Contacted

1 During the course of the staff’s independent review of potential environmental impacts from

2 siting two new nuclear units at the North Anna site, the following Federal, State, regional, Tribal

3 and local agencies were contacted:

4

5 Lake Anna State Park, Spotsylvania, Virginia

6

7 Louisa County Historical Society, Louisa, Virginia

8

9 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, Virginia

10

11 Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia

12

13 Chickahominy Indian Tribe, Providence Forge, Virginia

14

15 Chickahominy Indians – Eastern Division, Providence Forge, Virginia

16

17 Mattaponi Indian Tribe, West Point, Virginia

18

19 Monacan Indian Nation, Madison Heights, Virginia

20

21 Nansemond Indian Tribe, Suffolk, Virginia

22

23 Pamunkey Indian Tribe, King William, Virginia

24

25 Rappahannock Tribe, Indian Neck, Virginia

26

27 Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe, Mechanicsville, Virginia

28

29 Virginia Council on Indians, Richmond, Virginia

30

31 South Carolina Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina

32

33 Ohio Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reynoldsburg, Ohio

34

35 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia

36

37 Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, Virginia

38

39 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia
Appendix B

Draft NUREG-1811 B-2 November 2004

1 Wildlife Diversity Division, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond,

2 Virginia

3

4 Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Richmond, Virginia

5

6 Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, Virginia

7

8 Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia

9

10 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Richmond, Virginia 

11

12 Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland

13

14 Budget Director, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

15

16 Finance Director, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

17

18 Treasurer, Orange County, Orange, Virginia

19

20 Reservoir Coordinator, Nuclear Site Services, Dominion Generation, North Anna Site

21

22 Commissioner of Revenue, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

23

24 Assessor, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

25

26 Director of Planning and Community Development, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

27

28 Director Planning and Zoning, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

29

30 Director Department of Planning, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

31

32 Customer Services Supervisor, Department of Public Utilities Henrico County, Virginia

33

34 Director of Economic Development, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

35

36 President of Fredericksburg Regional Alliance; Fredericksburg, Virginia

37

38 Realtor, Century 21, Fredericksburg, Virginia

39

40 Owner/Broker Century 21, Fredericksburg, Virginia

41
Appendix B

November 2004 B-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Rappahannock Area Development Commission, Fredericksburg, Virginia

2

3 Louisa County Farm Service Agency, Louisa, Virginia

4

5 Administrative Assistant for School Admissions, Spotsylvania Public Schools, Spotsylvania,

6 Virginia

7

8 School Superintendent, Louisa County Public Schools, Louisa, Virginia

9

10 School Superintendent, Orange County Public Schools, Orange, Virginia 

11

12 County Administrator, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

13

14 Director Office of Economic Development, Orange County, Orange, Virginia 

15

16 Director Planning and Zoning, Orange County, Orange, Virginia

17

18 Director of Economic Development, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

19

20 Louisa Town Manager, Louisa, Virginia

21

22 Real Estate Agent, Century 21, Mineral, Virginia

23

24 Director of Social Services, Orange County, Virginia

25

26 Director of Social Services, Louisa County, Virginia

27

28 County Administrator, Orange County, Virginia

29

30 Town Manager, Orange, Virginia

31

32 Director of Public Works, Orange, Virginia

33

34 Managing Broker, Century 21, Orange, Virginia

35

36 Branch Manager, Virginia Community Bank, Louisa, Virginia

37

38 Town Manager, Mineral, Virginia

39

40 Interim County Manager, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

41
Appendix B

Draft NUREG-1811 B-4 November 2004

1
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s

Application for Early Site Permit at

North Anna Nuclear Plant Site
November 2004 C-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s

Application for Early Site Permit at

North Anna Nuclear Plant Site

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) and other

correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental review, under 10 CFR Part 51, for

Dominion’s application for an early site permit at the North Anna Nuclear Plant site. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, have been placed in the

Commission’s Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, MD, and are available electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room

found on the Internet at the following web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From

this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents in the

Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for

each document are included below.

September 25, 2003 Letter from Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, to NRC submitting the

application for an early site permit at North Anna (Accession No.

ML032731511).

September 29, 2003 Letter from Mr. Tony Banks, Dominion, to Ms. Joanne Tetrault, Louisa

County Library, forwarding application for an early site permit at North

Anna (Accession No. ML032880335).

September 29, 2003 Letter from Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion, to Ms. Ellie Irons, Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), forwarding the early site

permit application and requesting a Coastal Zone Management Act

consistency determination (Accession No. ML040780219).

October 2, 2003 Letter from Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, to NRC submitting Revision

1 of the application for an early site permit at North Anna (Accession No.

ML032731511).
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1811 C-2 November 2004

October 9, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, regarding the

receipt and availability of the application for an early site permit at North

Anna (Accession No. ML032600005).

October 9, 2003 NRC press release announcing the availability of the early site permit

application for North Anna (Accession No. ML032820297).

October 16, 2003 Federal Register Notice of receipt of the application for an early site

permit at North Anna (68 FR 59642).

October 23, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, regarding

acceptance of the application for an early site permit at North Anna

(Accession No. ML032740025).

October 29, 2003 Federal Register Notice of acceptance for docketing of the application

and notice of opportunity for a hearing regarding the application for an

early site permit at North Anna (68 FR 61705).

November 6, 2003 Letter from Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion, to Ms. Ellie Irons, VDEQ,

forwarding a Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination

for the early site permit application and requesting concurrence

(Accession No. ML033280533).

November 24, 2003 Federal Register Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact

statement and conduct scoping process for an early site permit at North

Anna (68 FR 65961).

November 24, 2003 NRC meeting notice announcing public meeting in Mineral, Virginia on

December 8, 2003, to discuss the environmental scoping process for the

application for an early site permit at North Anna (Accession No.

ML033280550).

November 28, 2003 Letters from NRC to public officials announcing receipt and review of the

application for an early site permit at North Anna (Accession No.

ML033020111).

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Ms. Deanna Beacham, Virginia Council on Indians,

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML033390103).
Appendix C

November 2004 C-3 Draft NUREG-1811

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Chief Leo Henry, Tuscarora Nation, regarding the

early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station site (Accession

No. ML033390155).

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Chief Arnold Hewitt, Tuscarora Nation, regarding the

early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station site (Accession

No. ML033390191).

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Neil Patterson, Jr., Tuscarora Environmental Nation,

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML033390172).

December 8, 2003 Placement of public meeting materials into public document room

(Accession No. ML033450406).

December 12, 2003 E-mail from Ms. Carrie E. Girstantas to NRC, providing scoping

comments regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna

Power Station site (Accession No. ML040140310).

December 12, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. David Ritter, Mr. Brendan Hoffman, and 

Mr. Jon Kessler regarding requests made during the environmental

scoping meeting to extend the time to file a petition for leave to intervene

in proceeding on early site permit for the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML033580505).

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. John Wolflin, Chesapeake Bay Field Office of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting a list of species and information

on protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that

may be in the vicinity of the North Anna Power Station and Surry Power

Station sites (Accession No. ML033570088).

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Ms. Mary Colligan, Northeast Regional Office of

NOAA Fisheries, requesting a list of species and information on

protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may

be in the vicinity of the North Anna Power Station and Surry Power

Station sites (Accession No. ML033560365).

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Dr. Mary Knapp, Reynoldsburg Ecological Services

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting a list of species

and information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1811 C-4 November 2004

critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the U.S. Department of

Energy’s Portsmouth Site (Accession No. ML033560384).

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. Roger L. Banks, Charleston Ecological Services

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting a list of species

and information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and

critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the U.S. Department of

Energy’s Savannah River Site (Accession No. ML033560437).

December 21, 2003 Email from Aviv Goldsmith to NRC, providing scoping comments

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML040060329).

January 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Ms. Georgia Cranmore, Southeast Regional Office of

NOAA Fisheries, requesting a list of species and information on

protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may

be in the vicinity of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site

(Accession No. ML040080759).

January 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Don Klima, Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, inviting comments on the effects of an early site permit for

the North Anna Power Station site on historic properties in accordance

with the National Historic Preservation Act (Accession No.

ML040080790).

January 6, 2004 Letter from Ms. Mary Colligan, Northeast Regional Office of NOAA

Fisheries, to NRC, providing a response to a letter requesting a list of

species in the vicinity of the North Anna Power Station and Surry Power

Station sites (Accession No. ML040230669).

January 7, 2004 Letter from the Hanover County, Virginia, Department of Public Utilities to

NRC, providing scoping comments regarding the early site permit review

for the North Anna Power Station site (Accession No. ML040130744).

January 8, 2004 Letter from an unknown individual to NRC, providing scoping comments

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML040230552).
Appendix C

November 2004 C-5 Draft NUREG-1811

January 9, 2004 Email from Diane Curran to NRC, providing scoping comments on behalf

of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Nuclear Information and

Resource Service, and Public Citizen regarding the early site permit

review for the North Anna Power Station site (Accession No.

ML040230548).

January 12, 2004 Letter from Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion, to Ms. Ellie Irons, VDEQ,

withdrawing Federal Consistency Certification under the Coastal Zone

Management Act for North Anna’s Early Site Permit Application

(Accession No. ML040230690).

January 13, 2003 NRC summary of public scoping meetings to support review of the early

site permit application for the North Anna Power Station site (Accession

No. ML040140627).

January 15, 2004 Letter from Mr. Timothy N. Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Charleston, South Carolina, to NRC, providing a response to a letter

requesting a list of species in the vicinity of the Savannah River alternate

site (Accession No. ML040270227).

February 3, 2004 Letter from Dr. Mary Knapp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Reynoldsburg, Ohio, to NRC, providing a response to a letter requesting

a list of species in the vicinity of the Portsmouth alternate site (Accession

No. ML040480521).

February 10, 2004 Letter from Ms. Ellie Irons, VDEQ, to Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion,

acknowledging January 12, 2004 withdrawal of Federal Consistency

Certification under the Coastal Zone Management Act and forwarding

copies of comments developed by reviewing agencies regarding the early

site permit application for the North Anna Power Station site (Accession

No. ML40490249).

February 26, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, revising schedule

for review of early site permit for North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML040570185).

March 12, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, transmitting request

for additional information regarding environmental portion of early site

permit application for North Anna Power Station site (Accession No.

ML040720580).
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1811 C-6 November 2004

March 19, 2004 Letter from Mr. Eugene Grecheck, Dominion, to NRC providing Lake

Anna modeling calculations for North Anna Early Site Permit application

(Accession No. ML040910433).

March 27, 2004 Summary of Environmental Site Audit to Support Review of the North

Anna Early Site Permit Application (Accession No. ML040860222).

March 31, 2004 Letter from Mr. Eugene Grecheck, Dominion, to NRC stating revised

approach for Unit 4 normal plant cooling (Accession No. ML040980485).

April 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Brent Gutierrez, Savannah River Operations

Office, expressing thanks for support provided during site visit at

Savannah River Site, an alternative to the North Anna Power Station site 

(Accession No. ML040970408).

April 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Russ Vranicar, Portsmouth Project, expressing

thanks for support provided during site visit at Portsmouth site, an

alternative to the North Anna Power Station site (Accession No.

ML040970276).

April 14, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, regarding new

Environmental Project Manager for the review of the Early Site Permit

application at the North Anna site (Accession No. ML041050879).

April 19, 2004 Summary of Telephone Call between NRC and Dominion concerning

clarification of the request for additional information pertaining to the

North Anna Early Site Permit Application (Accession No. ML041130241).

May 6, 2004 NRC Trip Report of Visits to the Savannah River Site and Portsmouth

Site, Alternatives to the North Anna Early Site Permit Site (Accession No.

ML041270548).

May 12, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Steven D. Routh, Bechtel Power Corporation,

regarding request for withholding information from public disclosure for

the North Anna Early Site Permit (Accession No. ML041390448).

May 17, 2004 Dominion’s Response to NRC’s March 12, 2004 Request for Additional

Information Regarding Environmental Portion of Early Site Permit

Application (Accession No. ML041450037).
Appendix C

November 2004 C-7 Draft NUREG-1811

June 22, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David Christian, Dominion, regarding revised early

site permit environmental review schedule (Accession No. ML04170014).

June 23, 2004 Summary of Telephone Call between NRC and Dominion concerning

clarification of Dominion’s May 17, 2004, response to NRC’s requests for

additional information pertaining to the North Anna Early Site Permit

Application (Accession No. ML041830193). 

June 24, 2004 Issuance of Environmental Scoping Summary Report (Accession No.

ML041770579).

June 28, 2004 Letter from Dominion to NRC, responding to comments in VDEQ’s

February 10, 2004, letter related to the Coastal Zone Management Act

certification (Accession No. ML041890324).

July 12, 2004 Letter from Dominion to NRC, Additional Responses to NRC’s

March 2, 2004 Request for Additional Information Regarding

Environmental Portion of Early Site Permit Application (Accession

No. ML041970396).

July 15, 2004 Letter from Dominion to NRC, forwarding Revision 2 to the North Anna

early site permit application (Accession No. ML042010009).

August 17, 2004 Summary of telephone calls between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and Dominion pertaining to the environmental review of the

North Anna early site permit application (Accession No. ML042310737).

August 27, 2004 E-mail from NRC (Andrew Kugler) to Bill Borduin in response to concerns

expressed regarding the early site permit for the North Anna Power

Station (Accession No. ML042440891).

September 16, 2004 E-mail from Mr. Joesph Hegner, Dominion, to NRC in response to

August 2004 Telecon question No. 4 pertaining to NRC’s Environmental

Review (Accession No. ML042640344).

September 22, 2004 Email from Mr. Tony Banks, Dominion, to NRC transmitting Lake Anna

State Park attendance data (Accession No. ML042670291).
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1811 C-8 November 2004

September 30, 2004 North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 3,

Part 3-Environmental Report Chapters 1 - 3:2:260 (Accession

No. ML042590096).

September 30, 2004 North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 3,

Part 3-Environmental Report Chapters 3:3:1 - 4:1:9 (Accession

No. ML042590097).

October 29, 2004 Letter from the US Fish and Wildlife service containing a list of threatened

or endangered species for the North Anna ESP site and the alternate

Surry ESP site (Accession No. ML 043090290).

October 29, 2004 Letter from the NRC to Mr. David Christian, Dominion, requesting

additional information regarding the uranium fuel cycle (Accession No.

ML043030707).

November 12, 2004 Letter from the NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, forwarding 

revised environmental review schedule (Accession No. ML043080347) 
Appendix D

Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

Note: Due to the size of the documents, in the Final EIS the comments contained in Appendix D

and E will be bound in a separate volume.
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-1

Appendix D

Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

1 On November 24, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of

2 Intent in the Federal Register (68 FR 65961) to notify the public of the staff’s intent to prepare

3 an environmental impact statement (EIS) to support the ESP application for the North Anna

4 early site permit (ESP) site. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National

5 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, and

6 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 52. As outlined by NEPA, NRC

7 initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. NRC invited the

8 applicant; Federal, Tribal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations; and

9 individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled

10 public meeting and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than January 9,

11 2004.

12

13 The scoping process included a public scoping meeting, which was held at the Louisa County

14 Middle School in Louisa, Virginia, on December 8, 2004. Approximately 80 members of the

15 public attended the meeting. This session began with NRC staff members providing a brief

16 overview of the ESP process and the NEPA process. Following the NRC’s prepared state17 ments, the meeting was open for public comments. Twenty-nine attendees provided either oral

18 comments or written statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. 

19 The transcript of the meeting can be found as an attachment to the Scoping Meeting Summary,

20 which was issued on January 13, 2004. The meeting summary is available electronically for

21 public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records

22 (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) under accession number

23 ML040140614. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at

24 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room) (Note that the

25 URL is case-sensitive). Additional comments received later are also available.

26

27 The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be

28 addressed in the EIS and highlight public concerns and issues. The Notice of Intent identified

29 the following objectives of the scoping process:

30

31 C Define the proposed action which is to be the subject of the EIS.

32

33 C Determine the scope of the EIS and identify significant issues to be analyzed in depth.

34

35 C Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-2

1 significant.

2

3 C Identify any environmental assessments and other EISs that are being prepared or will

4 be prepared that are related to, but not part of the scope of the EIS being considered.

5

6 C Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the

7 proposed action.

8

9 C Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental

10 analyses and the Commission’s tentative planning and decisionmaking schedule.

11

12 C Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for

13 preparation and schedules for completing the EIS to the NRC and any cooperating

14 agencies.

15

16 C Describe how the EIS will be prepared, and include any contractor assistance to be

17 used.

18

19 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the

20 transcripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. Two letters and

21 three email messages containing comments were received during the scoping period. All

22 comments and suggestions received orally during the scoping meeting or in writing were

23 considered. Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier

24 (commenter ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to

25 the transcript, letter, or email in which the comments were submitted.

26

27 Table D-1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the commenter ID letter associated

28 with each person's set(s) of comments. The commenter ID letter is preceded by NASC (short

29 for North Anna scoping). For oral comments, the individuals are listed in the order in which they

30 spoke at the public meeting. Accession numbers indicate the location of the written comments

31 in ADAMS.

32

33 Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed EIS or

34 according to the general topic if outside the scope of the EIS. Comments with similar specific

35 objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues that had been raised in the

36 source comments. Once comments were grouped according to subject area, the staff and

37 contractor determined the appropriate action for the comment. The staff made a determination

38 on each comment that it was one of the following:

39

40 C A comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information.

41
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-3

1 C A comment that was either related to support or opposition of early site permitting in

2 general (or specifically, the North Anna ESP) or that makes a general statement about

3 the early site permit process. In addition, it provides no new information and does not

4 pertain to 10 CFR Part 52.

5

6 C A comment about an environmental issue that

7

8 - provided new information that will require evaluation during the review, or

9 - provided no new information

10

11 C A comment that is outside the scope of the ESP, which includes, but is not limited to

12

13 - comment regarding the need for, or cost of, power

14 - comment regarding alternative energy sources

15 - comment on the safety of the existing units.

16

17 The comments that are considered in the evaluation of environmental impacts in this EIS are

18 summarized in the following pages. To review all the comments received during scoping, refer

19 to the meeting summary (ML040140614). For reference, the unique identifier for each comment

20 (commenter ID letter listed in Table D-1 plus the comment number) is provided. The responses

21 provided here have been updated to provide the location in the EIS where the subject is

22 addressed. 

23

24 Preparation of the EIS will take into account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping

25 process. The EIS will be made available for public comment. The comment period for the EIS

26 will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, Tribal, State, and local

27 government agencies; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to the

28 NRC’s environmental review process. The comments received on the EIS will be considered in

29 the preparation of the final EIS. The final EIS, along with the staff’s Safety Evaluation Report

30 (SER), will provide much of the basis for the NRC’s decision on the North Anna ESP.
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-4

1 Table D-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

2

3 Commenter

4 ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source (ADAMS

Accession #)

5 Paul Gunter Nuclear Information and NASC-A

Resource Service

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

6 Ernie Reed Citizen and teacher from NASC-B

Charlottesville, Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

7 Alexis Zeigler Citizen of Charlottesville, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-C

Transcript (ML040140634)

8 Donald Day Citizen of Charlottesville, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-D

Transcript (ML040140634)

9 Dave Ritter Public Citizen Critical Mass NASC-E

Energy and Environment

Program

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

10 Dewey Keeton Citizen of Louisa County, NASC-F

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

11 Lou Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental NASC-G

Defense League

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

12 Brian Buckley Citizen of Louisa, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-H

Transcript (ML040140634)

13 Gene Grecheck Vice President, Nuclear Support NASC-I

Services

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

14 Bill Borduin Lake Anna Civic Association 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-J

Transcript (ML040140634)

15 Jerry Rosenthal Concerned Citizens of Louisa NASC-K

County, Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

16 Terry Jones Member First Baptist Church NASC-L

and Louisa County, Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

17 Dan Holmes Piedmont Environmental Council 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-M

Transcript (ML040140634)

18 Abhaya Thiele Resident of Buckingham County, NASC-N

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

19 Table D-1. (contd)

20
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-5

1 Commenter

2 ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source (ADAMS

Accession #)

3 Bill Murphey Resident of Louisa County, NASC-O

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

4 Marione Cobb 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-P

Transcript (ML040140634)

5 Brianne Boylan 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-Q

Transcript (ML040140634)

6 Olivia Ryan Resident of Louisa County, NASC-R

Virginia, and Lake Anna

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

7 James Griffis Retired Presbyterian Pastor NASC-S

living at Lake Anna

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

8 Sam Forrest Citizen of Greensprings, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-T

Transcript (ML040140634)

9 Steve Montgomery Citizen of Louisa, Virginia. NASC-U

Employee North Anna Power

Station

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

10 Page Kemp Citizen of Louisa County, NASC-V

Virginia. Employee North Anna

Power Station

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

11 Bill Streit Resident of Louisa County, NASC-W

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

12 Alex McGee Resident of Albermarle County, NASC-X

Virginia. Previously of Louisa

County

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

13 Amzic Sullivan Resident of Green County, NASC-Y

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

14 Jon Kessler Resident of Charlottesville, NASC-Z

Virginia. Past Resident of

Louisa.

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

15 Ian Burke 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-AA

Transcript (ML040140634)

16 Table D-1. (contd)

17

18 Commenter

19 ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source (ADAMS

Accession #)
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-6

1 Bob Bishop Nuclear Energy Institute 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-BB

Transcript (ML040140634)

2 Brendan Hoffman Public Citizen, Washington D.C. 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting NASC-CC

Transcript (ML040140634)

3 Carrie Girstantas Citizen of Louisa County, NASC-DD

Virginia

12/12/03 - email

(ML040140310)

4 Aviv Goldsmith Citizen of Spotsylvania, Virginia 12/21/03 - email NASC-EE

(ML040060329)

5 Frank W. Harksen, NASC-FF

Jr

Director Department of Public

Utilities, Hanover County,

Virginia

1/7/04 - letter

(ML040130744)

6 Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and NASC-GG

Eisenberg, LLP

1/9/04 - email/letter

(ML040230548)

7 Unsigned 1/8/04 - letter NASC-HH

(ML040230552)

8 (a) The transcripts can be found under accession number ML040140634.

9

10 D.1 Comments and Responses

11

12 This summarizes the in-scope comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping

13 process, and discusses their disposition. Parenthetical numbers after each comment refer to the

14 commenter’s ID letter and the comment number. Comments can be tracked to the commenter

15 and the source document through the ID letter and comment number listed in Table D-1. 

16 Comments are grouped by the following categories:

17

18 D.1.1 Comments concerning air quality

19

20 D.1.2 Comments concerning aquatic ecology

21

22 D.1.3 Comments concerning groundwater use and quality

23

24 D.1.4 Comments concerning surface water use and quality

25

26 D.1.5 Comments concerning socioeconomics

27

28 D.1.6 Comments concerning human health

29

30 D.1.7 Comments concerning uranium fuel cycle and waste management
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-7

1 D.1.8 Comments concerning postulated accidents

2

3 D.1.9 Comments concerning site redress

4

5 D.1.10 Comments concerning alternatives

6

7 D.1.11 Comments concerning the safety review for the ESP, including safeguards and security

8 and emergency preparedness

9

10 D.1.1 Air Quality

11

12 Comment: You should know that nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases. That is of

13 grave concern to many who study and worry about environmental future. (NASC-BB 4)

14

15 Response: This information will be considered in the staff’s evaluation of air quality impacts in

16 the EIS. The results of the analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

17

18 D.1.2 Aquatic Ecology

19

20 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is therefore required to address all

21 of the following environmental impacts, including but not limited to: 3. All impacts on Lake Anna

22 arising from the increased impingement and entrainment of fish, fish spawn, other aquatic life

23 and nutrients arising from the increased reactor cooling water intake for any proposed additional

24 nuclear power units. (NASC-GG 2)

25

26 Comment: One of the areas that the Lake Anna Civic Association should be looking at is the

27 impact of not only fish but spawn of fish and how that impacts the future populations of fish in the

28 Lake Anna area. (NASC-A 6)

29

30 Comment: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

31 which is] natural environments such as fish and plant life. (NASC-J 5)

32

33 Comment: What impact would this [additional water use] have on wildlife and fish species in

34 and surrounding the lake, and on the North Anna River downstream? (NASC-M 3)

35

36 Response: The NRC staff will evaluate aquatic and terrestrial impacts during its evaluation of

37 the ESP application, and the results of the analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [and

38 Chapter 5] in the EIS.

39

40 Comment: There were two studies that just came out in early summer of this year. One was

41 prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Protection looking at the Hudson
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-8

1 River and it was a detailed study that looked at both the thermal pollution and the entrainment

2 and impingement of fish on and through the Indian Point units 2 and 3 nuclear power station as

3 well as a couple of much smaller fossil fuel facilities. ...Another study we'd like to provide you

4 with is from the State of California, the Central Coastal Water Region, that's the equivalent to the

5 DEP for the coastal water regions of California where they looked at the impingement and

6 entrainment of fish in Diablo Cove, which is the receiving water for Diablo Canyon's 1 and 2

7 nuclear power stations. (NASC-A 11)

8

9 Response: The NRC staff will consider the results of these two studies in preparing its evalua10 tion of the aquatic impacts of the ESP. The results of the analysis will be presented in Chapter 4

11 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

12

13 Comment: We currently have problems with contaminants in the fish in Lake Anna that we're

14 unsure where the contaminants are coming from. The way I understand it, the checks and

15 balances of the NRC or the plant itself in the checking of these fish have long since ceased. And

16 Lake Anna Civic Association now are monitoring the lake. Is this going to be something that's

17 going to happen again?...I've read the plant was regulating and checking on the fish population. 

18 And they stopped at some point in time and its just [a] concern of mine because what's bad for

19 the fish is bad for me. ...Since the lake was created for the nuclear plant, it seems to me that they

20 should be checking on this fish population and monitoring the water at all times. ...For all

21 contaminants. (NASC-F 1)

22

23 Response: The human health impacts related to radioactive effluent releases from any new

24 nuclear plants will be evaluated in the EIS. NRC regulations require strict monitoring of

25 radioactive effluent releases. In addition, new plants are commonly required to perform special

26 monitoring of aquatic and terrestrial species for some period of time after a new plant

27 commences operation. With respect to effluents that are not radioactive, the Virginia Department

28 of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) would regulate the release of such effluents to Lake Anna. 

29 The VDEQ would specify whatever monitoring requirements it deems necessary. These require30 ments would normally be included in the NPDES/VPDES permit.

31

32 D.1.3 Groundwater Use and Quality

33

34 Comment: I actually heard tonight that even ground water would be considered [as a possible

35 cooling water source]. Since this additional source would be necessary for the operation of the

36 facility, why is it suggested in the permit that this issue be addressed during the COL application

37 and not in the EIS? Consider the difficulties in bringing the additional water to the [plant] and the

38 fact that this is an essential piece for operation, we urge NRC to consider addressing this issue

39 now during the EIS process rather than later with the construction permitting processes. 

40 (NASC-M 6)

41
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-9

1 Response: The NRC will evaluate cooling system impacts in the EIS. This portion of the review

2 would include the impacts associated with the source of cooling tower makeup-water for Unit 4. 

3 The results of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

4

5 D.1.4 Surface Water Quality and Use

6

7 Comment: The County [Hanover] wishes to ensure that any environmental impact review

8 evaluates the changes to Lake Anna releases and related impacts on County facilities, its

9 citizens and other instream and offstream beneficial uses of the North Anna and Pamunkey

10 Rivers that will result from the construction and operation of an additional reactor. Such a review

11 should also determine the appropriate and necessary minimum Lake Anna release to protect

12 these uses. (NASC-FF 1)

13

14 Comment: Downstream users have designed their water intake and wastewater discharge

15 systems around this 40 cfs low flow condition, and cannot get by with less water. And, increas16 ingly more stringent regulations affect the ability to operate at the 40 cfs [cubic feet per second]. 

17 (NASC-FF 2)

18

19 Comment: Although this is a different permit and permitting process, many of the prior

20 [historical] comments [related to water availability] are applicable from an environmental

21 perspective and should be included in the scope of an environmental impact statement. 

22 (NASC-FF 3)

23

24 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address the

25 following environmental impacts, including but not limited to: 1. All impacts on the water levels in

26 Lake Anna arising from increased intake of reactor cooling water for the operation of any

27 proposed new nuclear power units 2. All impacts on the aquatic environment of Lake Anna

28 arising from the increase in thermal discharge of reactor cooling water as result of the operation

29 of additional nuclear power units. [and].... 4. All impacts arising from the increase in the routine

30 discharge of chemicals, heavy metals, cleaning solvents, biocides and radioactive isotopes into

31 Lake Anna arising from the operation of additional nuclear power units. (NASC-GG 3)

32

33 Comment: The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

34 which is Water issues. They consist of thermal changes, volume, flow and lake level. 

35 (NASC-J 1)

36

37 Comment: It's our understanding that the additional reactors would increase the water use of

38 the facility dramatically. It's been estimated that the evaporative loss could be as high as

39 41 million gallons per day. ...Will this affect the flow rates downstream from the lake and the

40 dam, and downstream users of the river? (NASC-M 1)

41

42 Comment: The temperature changes are addressed in great detail in the application itself. And
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-10

1 the temperature concerns are real, but I believe there are reasonable solutions to them.

2 (NASC-O 4)

3

4 Comment: I wanted to address was the lake level concerns for units 3 and 4. ...So one

5 observation is that [some]one should examine the agreement between Dominion Power and the

6 State of Virginia on the matter of water released over the dam. (NASC-O 5)

7

8 Comment: What I understand is that Virginia Power or Dominion Power has submitted a sort of

9 an envelope that describes the potential impact of this new project....we just experienced, of

10 course, a serious drought in Central Virginia followed by a year of abundant rainfall. But I

11 wanted to know how you approached issues of drought; whether or not when you do that, you

12 just sort of look at the historical record and then make extrapolations of what you can expect in

13 terms of meeting the demands for water that this new project might have. ...So in other words

14 history, the recent history as well as more distant history plays a major role in projecting forward? 

15 (NASC-D 1)

16

17 Comment: One other environmental issue I wanted to mention was as far as drought and water

18 issues, ...I would encourage when the water issues are examined, that more severe droughts are

19 considered, certainly than the one a couple of years ago, recently. Even worse than any on

20 record, I would suggest being considered. (NASC-Z 4)

21

22 Comment: Flows into the lake may not be sufficient to meet the demands of the expansion. 

23 Within the early site permit it is noted that the makeup water may have to be taken from another

24 source if all units were to continue operation during low flow periods. What is the estimated

25 amount of additional water needed to meet the demand of the facility during these low flow

26 periods? And what are the possible sources under consideration? (NASC-M 4)

27

28 Comment: Another point, on page 3-5-8 of the early site permit application under the heading

29 "Water Use Impacts" there appears the sentence "The impacts of adding new unit four would

30 depend on specific heat dissipation systems selected and would be evaluated in the COL

31 application." Again, we urge NRC to request the data necessary from the applicant to determine

32 the impacts. If we are determining the feasibility of new reactors, it seems reasonable to know

33 these impacts with the completion of an EIS. (NASC-M 7)

34

35 Comment: During this drought it [the lake level] went down five feet. And if there's a third unit in

36 operation, it would go down to about 7 feet below. ...What can one do about that? One recom37 mendation has been to make up this evaporative loss from other water sources. ...The second

38 recommendation is that Dominion start looking now into other sources of water. That is, most of

39 the time no additional water makeup would be needed. But there would be times where it would

40 be very good for public relations to be able to make up the evaporative loss, mainly during times

41 of drought. (NASC-O 6)
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-11

1 Comment: And so toward the fourth unit, we would like to recommend very strongly that

2 Dominion look into getting additional water from another source, it could be from another river, it

3 could be from the cities, they're processing more, that sort of thing. But to have an external

4 source of water to make up for the loss for the fourth unit. (NASC-O 7)

5

6 Response: Surface water impacts of the types described in the comments will be evaluated by

7 the NRC staff in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

8

9

10 D.1.5 Socioeconomics

11

12 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is ..... required to address all

13 potential socio-economic impacts from the elevated national security requirements and counter14 measures to protect a larger target of terrorism with the expansion of the nuclear power station

15 site including the indefinite and possibly permanent closure of Lake Anna to public access for

16 sporting, recreation and other means of community economic livelihood.

17 (NASC-GG 4)

18

19 Comment: We've also committed tonight to provide you with an ongoing and increasing list of

20 lake closures and restrictions to public right of way to lakes around nuclear power stations

21 because of security reasons. (NASC-A 12)

22

23 Response: The NRC staff will evaluate socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action in

24 Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS, including any reasonably foreseeable impacts resulting

25 from security measures.

26

27 Comment: And as we look at this from those of us who live here and who plan on living here,

28 and want our children to live here, we have to look at our property values. Putting a new nuclear

29 plant out there has no chance of doing anything but reducing property values around the lake. 

30 (NASC-K 3)

31

32 Comment: It's our understanding that the additional reactors would increase the water use of

33 the facility dramatically. It's been estimated that the evaporative loss could be as high as

34 41 million gallons per day. ...What impact would this have on the residents of the lake and their

35 continued recreational use? (NASC-M 2)

36

37 Comment: So the one question that had to be asked was what's the public reaction to the

38 change in the lake level as a function of height below 250? And the answer is people start to get

39 concerned when it goes down three feet. (NASC-O 2)

40

41 Comment: Now for the fourth unit, we're talking about evaporative loss of around 23,900 gallons

42 per minute, or about 54 cubic feet per second. It's all opinion, but there is no way that this can
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-12

1 be taken from the input to Lake Anna without having the lake level drop, you know, beyond what

2 is considered by useful use for the people around the lake. (NASC-O 3)

3

4 Comment: I'm also glad for the school building and the thousands of taxes that Virginia Power

5 pays to Louisa County so we citizens didn't have to build it alone. I'm glad for the influence it has

6 made in the past 25 years in Louisa County. I'd like to see it continue. (NASC-S 2)

7

8 Comment: In the business I ran here, many customers were Dominion Power employees, so I

9 am definitely aware of the economic value of the plant being here. (NASC-X 1)

10

11 Response: The NRC staff will evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action in

12 Chapter 4 [and Chapter 5] of the EIS, including impacts related to taxes, property values, and

13 recreational use of the lake.

14

15 D.1.6 Human Health

16

17 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address all

18 impacts on the public health and environment arising out of the increase in routine and

19 accidental radioactive emissions to the air and to the water as the result of the operation of

20 additional nuclear power units. The analysis should consider work by Dr. John Gofman, showing

21 that low-level radiation, at levels considered to be safe for medical use, is a significant contributor

22 to deaths from heart disease and cancer. See Radiation from Medical Procedures in the

23 Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease (Committee for Nuclear Responsibility:

24 1999). (NASC-GG 5)

25

26 Comment: Build this nuclear reactor? I don't think so. Killing tens of thousands of people and

27 not to mention years of genetic mutation in all walks of life. (NASC-AA 5)

28

29 Comment: Strontium-90 remains radioactive for 600 years and concentrates in the food chain. 

30 Like other isotopes it’s odorless, tasteless and invisible. It acts like calcium in the body's

31 organisms where it enters the bones and animals and lactating breasts of mammals. It's a

32 carcinogen causing leukemia, bone and breast cancer. Cesium-137, another byproduct, also

33 remains radioactive for 600 years. It also concentrates in the food chain, but it stores in the

34 muscles where it induces malignant muscle cancers called sarcomas. Plutonium is so

35 carcinogenic that one pound of the stuff evenly distributed can cause cancer in every person on

36 earth. Plutonium has a radioactive life of half a million years. It enters the body through the

37 lung, migrates to the bone and liver, crosses the placenta into the embryo, mothers with child. 

38 Causes bone cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, testicular cancer, birth deformities and genetic

39 mutations in humans and other animals that are passed from generation to generation. 

40 (NASC-B 14)

41
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-13

1 Comment: I heard something about permitted releases. The plants are actually allowed, as

2 long as its diluted to the proper amount, to put radioactive releases into air, water and the

3 surrounding environment. And this occurs at the same time that the Nuclear Regulatory

4 Commission formally agrees with the linear-no-threshold – response model which says that any

5 increase in radioactive dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk. And

6 at the same time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tells us that its primary mission is to

7 protect the public health and safety in matters regarding radiation exposure. (NASC-E 11)

8

9 Comment: This is from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2907, radioactive

10 materials released from nuclear power plants. This was an annual report from 1988. I've

11 selected 1988, about 15 years ago, because of the cancer latency period. After 20 years you

12 have – and I believe you are beginning – maybe beginning to reap the whirlwind. In this report,

13 this NUREG report, there was a risk in here for the North Anna plant 40 miles northwest of

14 Richmond, unit 1 and unit 2. There are airborne effluents and radionuclides released which

15 number 26 including some of the cesium and other elements that were mentioned by previous

16 speakers. Liquid effluents, nuclear – or radionuclides released number 32 in this report. And

17 just scanning the highlights here. The volume of total liquid tritium released in that year was

18 1,940 liters. (NASC-G 2)

19

20 Comment: I'm standing here because of concerns as far as public health. ...In my line of work in

21 my job, I see a lot of our fellow community citizens coming and they have been diagnosed with

22 cancer. The cancer rate for Louisa County has increased in the last 20 years. And my concern

23 is what's happening? What's happening? I'm not saying that this is because of Dominion Power,

24 but there are issues that we need to consider before we go any further. (NASC-L 1)

25

26 Comment: For 30 years I lived downstream from the Connecticut Nuclear Power plant that Old

27 Dominion runs. And 27 years after I was in college I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I had

28 both my breasts cut off to save my life so that I could raise my two young daughters. 

29 (NASC-Y 3)

30

31 Comment: We do know, as has been said very eloquently by the scientists who have spoken

32 already, that radiation is exceedingly dangerous and toxic. (NASC-Y 4)

33

34 Comment: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission essentially is not even going to take a serious

35 look at...placing the onus on the waste generator, the polluter or the creator of the energy to

36 prove that energy is safe for us. ...The onus should not be on the affected individual to prove the

37 health detriment. (NASC-E 12)

38

39 Comment: According to our estimation, nuclear power is a public health catastrophe hidden in

40 plain sight. (NASC-G 8)

41

42 Comment: It's not about -- so much about the water and the temperature of the water and
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-14

1 what's happening, but what happens to the people who play in that water? What happens to the

2 grandfathers who take their children fishing? And they eat fish from that lake. These are things

3 that we need to address. (NASC-L 2)

4

5 Comment: I think that we need to look at the issue of public health more so than the issue of is

6 it just a safety factor for the environment. (NASC-L 3)

7

8 Comment: And I ask that those of you on the nuclear regulation committee whose salaries my

9 tax dollars pay, that higher consideration be given to the risk, to the life and health and my

10 daughter, the water, the air and the animals than to the financial risk of 21st century of robber

11 barons who are so disconnected from reality that they cannot see the risk not just to me, but to

12 their own families. (NASC-Y 1)

13

14 Comment: We know that the only safe decision, the only decision that carries no risk is the

15 decision not to use nuclear decision. We know that. We don't need more research.

16 (NASC-Y 2)

17

18 Response: The NRC will evaluate human health impacts of the proposed action in the EIS. The

19 results of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

20

21 Comment: I previously lived in Utah with my parents where they have seen the tragedy of

22 "downwinders." This is the term used for the cities subjected to radioactive waste in testing in

23 the 1940s. And these people were assured by the government that they were safe. And these

24 people are now suffering from deformities and their children are suffering from deformities. 

25 (NASC-X 2)

26

27 Response: Nuclear testing in the 1940s is outside the scope of this review and will not be

28 addressed in the EIS.

29

30 D.1.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

31

32 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address ..all

33 impacts arising from the additional accumulation of high-level nuclear waste generated and

34 indefinitely stored on-site at the North Anna nuclear power station as the result of the operation

35 of additional nuclear power reactors. This discussion is required, given that the Waste

36 Confidence Rule applies only to waste generated by “existing facility licenses.” 

37 55 Fed. Reg. 38,474 (September 18, 1990). (NASC-GG 6)

38

39 Comment: This agency [the NRC] has confidence, enough confidence [in the Waste

40 Confidence Act] that they're not going to allow the issue of more nuclear waste being stored on

41 the shores of Lake Anna to be raised in the early site permit process and the environmental
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-15

1 review. (NASC-A 9)

2

3 Comment: And all of these [uranium fuel] processes from mining, processing the uranium to

4 taking it to Yucca Mountain, if indeed that is going to be the alleged solution, all of these things

5 are going to take massive quantities of fossil fuels and will in their own way contribute to

6 greenhouse gases, global warming, whatever, carbon dioxide emissions we want to talk about

7 there. ...do we want global warming or do we want nuclear waste and the water to be drained

8 from our local lake? ...I think that's a false choice to present to the public, and it's also

9 questionable just on the scientific basis if you really look at the entire fuel cycle. (NASC-E 8)

10

11 Comment: And I also think there's a larger problem with the waste issue. If someone has made

12 some decision at some point that waste is not being considered as part of the environmental

13 impact, it seems like a major problem. There's been waste in the plant for the whole existence,

14 and there's no reason to think – I mean, there's always going to be waste there, even if it’s

15 transported out of the county. Even if it is transported, it'll still be generated there, so the waste

16 issue has to be addressed. (NASC-Z 3)

17

18 Comment: Will the scope, environmental scoping of this project include the continued storage of

19 that waste on site? ...So, I guess my question is will the continued storage of high level

20 radioactive waste be included in the environmental impact statement for this new facility? 

21 (NASC-D 2)

22

23 Comment: There's a reluctance for other states to allow transport of nuclear materials through

24 their jurisdiction. Given this, will the EIS address the plan for disposal of the additional nuclear

25 waste generated by the new units? (NASC-M 8)

26

27 Comment: My parents' home State, Utah, is a popular destination for the nuclear waste that no

28 one knows what to do with. Impoverished Navajos are resorting to selling their land for nuclear

29 waste storage. (NASC-X 3)

30

31 Comment: I'd really add in this situation it's like getting a permit without a plan for a septic

32 system. And that's something that's not reasonable to build a home, and it's certainly not

33 reasonable to build a nuclear power station. (NASC-A 10)

34

35 Comment: Man has never created a more long lived or dangerous substance than the radio36 active substances that are byproducts of the nuclear reaction process. ...Both fuel waste and

37 decommissioned equipment all pose long term health threats of many lifetimes to humans and

38 other species and animals. (NASC-B 8)

39

40 Comments: There's no solution to the nuclear waste problem. People have asked this question

41 tonight about how much nuclear waste is extracted out of the reactors. ...Virginia Power has

42 gone 450 days between refuelings. But at every refueling, approximately 1500 metric tons of
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-16

1 highly radioactive waste is removed from the reactor. There's no solution to this radioactive

2 waste problem that at present is being stored on the site waiting for a solution that, frankly, will

3 never appear because of the confluence of technical and political problems. (NASC-D 5)

4

5 Comments: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

6 which is] spent fuel, dry cask storage. (NASC-J 6)

7

8 Comments: Does anybody really have confidence that they're going to move the nuclear

9 waste? They [NRC] are starting this discussion saying that's where they are. They have the

10 confidence that this waste is going to be moved, and it hasn't. (NASC-K 1)

11

12 Comment: I am concerned about the toxicity of the waste that's generated. ...I would like this

13 waste not to be stored here, and I would like this waste not to be stored anywhere. I think this is

14 a danger for ourselves, for our children and our great, great, great, great, great, great, great

15 grandchildren. (NASC-P 1)

16

17 Comment: And I just think that public health and the environmental events cannot be separated,

18 ...And that the site is obviously not environmentally safe if we cannot take care of the plant's

19 waste. It's not -- nuclear energy is obviously not suitable because we have no way of reintegrat20 ing this waste back into our environment in any foreseeable future. Clean up your own mess

21 before you make a new one. (NASC-Q 1)

22

23 Comment: My opposition to nuclear weapons is not only the nightmare at the opposing their

24 use, but their very existence because of the pollution and the poisoning of the planet. And

25 whether it's wastes from nuclear weapons or waste from a commercial reactor, it's poison. It

26 seems to me it doesn't make any sense when we don't have, as was said so well by so many

27 others here, we don't have any solution to this problem why create more of the problem? 

28 (NASC-W 2)

29

30 Comment: You know, if we don't know what we're doing with all the waste that's piling up

31 already, you know, why create more. It's like the toilet that doesn't work, you know. (NASC-W 4)

32

33 Comment: The NRC claims that it can produce this electricity with minimal effects on the envi34 ronment, but all it can do is postpone the effects by further regulations and burying its waste

35 underground for future generations to deal with. These things that we're burying underground

36 are leaking into our underground aquifers and poisoning the environment. All it's going to do is

37 leave it for, like I said, other people to deal...with later instead of us. It's already been pointed out

38 [that] most of the effects of isotopes are produced in nuclear waste. On of them is plutonium,

39 which one pound of it is enough to give everybody in the world cancer. And in the year 2000 it

40 was estimated that nuclear power generated 1,139 tons of plutonium. (NASC-AA 3)

41
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-17

1 Comment: We do know that the half life of spent nuclear material is far longer than our ability to

2 contain it. (NASC-Y 6)

3

4 Comment: You commented on a waste confidence decision that was made by the NRC. And

5 guaranteed that in the first quarter of this century a repository will be made available. ...And it

6 seems like Yucca Mountain is a proposed site, ...My question is how much waste is Lake Anna

7 putting out, how much more waste would Lake Anna with two additional reactors? (NASC-H 1)

8

9 Comment: How much additional waste will be generated? We still don't really have an idea. 

10 And I'd really like to get a hold of that figure. (NASC-M 9)

11

12 Response: The NRC staff will evaluate the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle

13 including the impacts of fuel manufacturing, transportation, and onsite storage and eventual

14 disposal of spent fuel. The staff's evaluation will account for the Commission's "Waste

15 Confidence" decision embodied in 10 CFR 51.23 to the extent that decision applies to such

16 impacts. The results of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

17

18 D.1.8 Postulated Accidents

19

20 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is ....required to address all of the

21 .. impacts on public health and safety and the environment arising from a severe accident,

22 including the impacts of the accident itself, and the impacts of any emergency response

23 measures such as relocation of the population. (NASC-GG 7)

24

25 Comment: In building the nuclear power plants we must remember that the costs go way

26 beyond that of economic decisions that govern the decisions that things such as the power

27 company entities make. But it causes high environmental devastation one way or another ) if

28 there is a nuclear meltdown. (NASC-AA 4)

29

30 Comment: Hopefully we're all aware of past nuclear accidents. In the winter of 1957 a tank

31 holding radioactive waste exploded and 10,000 people were evacuated in a rural Russian

32 countryside. And the names of 30 towns and villages disappeared from Soviet maps. And I

33 shouldn't have to remind you of history lessons from Liverpool, England, Browns Ferry, Alabama,

34 Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania or Chernobyl. (NASC-B 16)

35

36 Comment: We do know that Murphy's Law says that what can go wrong, will go wrong. Think

37 Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and so forth. (NASC-Y 5)

38

39 Response: The environmental impacts of postulated accidents will be evaluated, and the results

40 of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 5 of the EIS.

41

42 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address all of the
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-18

1 ....impacts arising from the simultaneous operation of the existing and aging North Anna Unit 1

2 and Unit 2 power reactors in close proximity to any new proposed advanced reactor design,

3 including the possibility of multiple, simultaneous accidents, whether related (e.g. by fire or

4 natural disaster) or unrelated. (NASC-GG 8)

5

6 Comment: What liability did they have in the event of some significant environmental catas7 trophe connected with this? (NASC-B 4)

8

9 Response: The issue of severe accidents will be addressed in Chapter 5 of the EIS. In addition

10 cumulative impacts will be addressed in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

11

12 D.1.9 Site Redress

13

14 Comment: And I'd like to, first of all, just point out that we are at the beginning of a process on a

15 very crucial process. ... this process does provide for the expansion of a site which in fact is

16 probably both the agency and the industry emphasize that this does not authorize construction,

17 but in fact it is a partial construction permit. (NASC-A 5)

18

19 Response: As the staff stated during the scoping meeting, the North Anna ESP application

20 includes a site redress plan. The environmental impacts of the site redress plan will be

21 evaluated in the EIS. If the redress plan is approved and incorporated into an approved ESP,

22 then Dominion would have NRC authorization to perform the activities listed in the site redress

23 plan. These include activities such as clearing the land, excavating for buildings, etc. The

24 redress plan explains how Dominion would repair any environmental damage associated with

25 these pre-construction activities if it later decided not to apply for a construction permit or a

26 combined license. The applicant’s site redress plan includes a commitment to provide the NRC

27 with a guarantee of $10 million as financial assurance for Dominion’s obligation to comply with

28 the redress plan.

29

30 D.1.10 Alternatives

31

32 Comment: As an engineer, I know that the state of art with regards to Nuclear Power has

33 changed, as well as many other forms of electricity generation being possible. I would like the

34 options developed [in the EIS] and a clear choice offered to the citizens of Louisa County. 

35 (NASC-DD 2)

36

37 Comment: The environmental impacts of such alternatives that need to be explored and

38 objectively evaluated include: 1. Whether effects on the environment would be reduced if

39 Dominion alternatively implemented more applications of energy efficiency technologies and

40 energy conservation rather than the development of additional nuclear power capacity at the

41 North Anna site. For instance, for the entire southeastern United States, the Renewable Energy
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-19

1 Policy Project has demonstrated that innovative and well-managed efficiency programs would

2 reduce annual increases in electric growth by 61%, reducing new demand by 236 MWh over a

3 twenty-year period. See Powering the South: a Clean and Affordable Energy Plan for the

4 Southern United States (Renewable Energy Project: January 2002). www.repp.org. 2. Whether

5 effects on the environment would be reduced if Dominion alternatively implemented use of

6 passive solar, photovoltaic, wind turbines and hybrid renewable energy systems rather than the

7 development of additional nuclear power capacity at the North Anna site. 3. Whether effects on

8 the environment would be reduced if Dominion alternatively implemented greater use of natural

9 gas energy rather than the development of additional nuclear power capacity at the North Anna

10 site. 4. Whether effects on the environment would be reduced if Dominion alternatively

11 implemented broader applications of the above-mentioned resources as distributed power

12 systems rather than increased reliance on an increasingly vulnerable electrical grid system

13 connecting any additional new power capacity at the North Anna site. (NASC-GG 9)

14

15 Comment: So there is a very cheap answer to the energy problem, which is to use much, much

16 less of it. There were about -- I don't know -- 20 percent of us in the world who live like we

17 Americans do, yet we use 80 percent of its resources. So I'm sure we could use much, much

18 less. (NASC-AA 1)

19

20 Comment: Conservation is undoubtedly the most effective method of ensuring energy security. 

21 Conservation efforts defuse energy producers of energy by reducing the need for generating

22 capacity while stimulating the technologies, the research, the manufacturing and the job creation

23 of more efficient technology's progress. Less for you means more for us. It's a fact that with

24 existing technologies we could continue our current standard of living with less than half the

25 energy generating capacity now in this country. (NASC-B 12)

26

27 Comment: The environmental benefits of nuclear are not well known, and are certainly not

28 emphasized. ...nuclear energy in Virginia caused there to be roughly 7 million -- it's a big number

29 -- metric tons less of carbon ...not to be emitted into the environment in 2002 because of the

30 operation of their nuclear facilities. (NASC-BB 3)

31

32 Comment: All over the world people are generating power either by creating megawatts,

33 meaning you use less or wind, which is the fastest growing of the alternative energies. If you

34 take the train from the Washington, D.C. to Chicago and you'll see the big wind mills popping up

35 in Pennsylvania. That's real. That's something that people are doing. It works. That's a large

36 scale power that could meet future demand. (NASC-C 4)

37

38 Comment: Conservation is the best and cheapest way to go with preserving that power. 

39 (NASC-CC 3)

40

41 Comment: We don't need nuclear power, we need conservation. We need to respect current

42 generations and future ones. Using the earth's resources for our material needs cannot do any
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-20

1 of this. (NASC-AA 6)

2

3 Comment: To be frank, nuclear power actually is just a ridiculously stupid and expensive

4 method for doing what is nothing more than boiling water. There are alternatives to boiling

5 water, ones that don't involve nuclear waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years.

6 ...Dominion Power owes Virginians a better place. And I might note that in the words and

7 comments of a Dominion Power official here tonight, he never mentioned the one technology, the

8 one opportunity to provide our future needs, and that is conservation. (NASC-D 8)

9

10 Comment: This was generated by Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in April of

11 1996."...reliance on nuclear power has grown and the already large quantities of weapons12 useable plutonium in the world are rising rapidly.” He quotes Johanson here. ...The path of

13 sustainable society requires more efficient use and a shift to a variety of renewable energy

14 resources.” (NASC-G 3)

15

16 Comment: And people call this NIMBY, not in my backyard syndrome, and yet I think it a very

17 natural instinct that people do not want someone else's waste in their state or in their locality.

18 ...should we not be focused more on using a type of energy that doesn't have such a poisonous

19 effect on people, on life? (NASC-H 2)

20

21 Comment: Just about anything that burns fuel, whether it's burning oil or coal, natural gas;

22 anything that's burning anything is putting various contaminants into the atmosphere, including

23 various types of oxides and carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is, of course, what's related to

24 various theories to explain global warming. So again, one of the reasons that we think that

25 nuclear energy is an option to consider whether we'll do it in the future is that of all the various

26 alternative energy forms that we're aware of, it is the only one that can produce energy on a

27 scale large enough to make a difference in terms of what we actually put in the air by energy

28 production. So it is the only large scale non-emitting generation technology that's available. 

29 (NASC-I 6)

30

31 Comment: Now if you look over the last 10 or 15 years, the only generation that has been

32 added in the United States has been natural gas. So if you think about what we're doing here, is

33 we are banking our entire future on the supply of natural gas. And what that does, it certainly

34 makes us very vulnerable to any disruption in fuel supply. We're already talking about now

35 importing natural gas from overseas, which would put us into the same situation that we've had

36 with oil for the last 20 or 30 years. And natural gas up to now has been a domestic supply, but

37 we're outstripping that supply and we're now saying in order to meet the natural gas demand,

38 we're going to have to start importing natural gas from many of the same areas of the world that

39 currently are problems in terms of imported oil. (NASC-I 9)

40

41 Comment: I for one as a taxpayer would like to see my money go to the support of energy that's
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-21

1 renewable and safe. (NASC-N 3)

2

3 Comment: But I would like the subsidies to go to safer forms of energy that would not be a

4 threat to me and my children and my children's children. (NASC-P 3)

5

6 Comment: So I would really like to be a part of a meeting in the future that talks seriously about

7 dismantling the power stations at Lake Anna and that seriously considers alternative ways of

8 energy and conservation. (NASC-W 3)

9

10 Comment: And we do know that monied interests are more interested in technology which can

11 enrich them further than in finding safe sources of energy which are less lucrative and would

12 protect someone like me or my daughter or your sister. (NASC-Y 3) 

13

14 Comment: As a consumer of Dominion Power, I would like my consumer dollars to go to wind

15 and hydro power, not nuclear power. I believe these are safer for employees and all citizens. 

16 And as a taxpayer, I would like to ask of the NRC to use your government influence to reallocate

17 government subsidies away from nuclear power and towards hydro and wind power. 

18 (NASC-X 4)

19

20 Response: The NRC staff will prepare an EIS in accordance with the requirements of

21 10 CFR 52.18 and 10 CFR Part 51. The EIS need not address the benefits of reactor construc22 tion and operation, including the need for power, as discussed in 10 CFR 52.18 and the NRC’s

23 “Environmental Standard Review Plan,” NUREG-1555, Appendix A. As discussed in a June 2,

24 2003, letter from NRC to Dominion, and in proposed changes to Part 52 published in the Federal

25 Register on July 3, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 40025), consideration of alternative energy sources need

26 not be included in the applicant’s environmental report. In the case of the North Anna ESP

27 application, Dominion chose not to include consideration of alternative energy sources, and

28 therefore, these will not be included in the EIS. If Dominion applies for a construction permit or a

29 combined license in the future, the issue of alternative energy sources will then be evaluated, as

30 required to satisfy NEPA.

31

32 In addition with respect to the comments on conservation, 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A, states

33 that "consideration will be given to the potential impacts of conservation in determining demand

34 for power and the consequent need for additional generating capacity”. Section 52.18, however,

35 provides that the EIS need not include an assessment of the benefits (for example, the need

36 power) of the proposed action. Because need for power and alternative energy sources need

37 not be considered in the EIS, conservation need not be considered in that context. Accordingly,

38 conservation need not be considered in the EIS.

39

40 Comment: My question is why the North Anna site was chosen in the first place?...[and why did

41 they choose] North Anna specifically as opposed to all the other potential sites around the

42 country that could have been chosen, why North Anna was picked. (NASC-CC 1)
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-22

1 Response: The applicant is required by the regulations (10 CFR 52.17) to evaluate alternative

2 sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior alternative to the site proposed. In

3 preparing its application for the ESP, Dominion considered multiple sites. The details of their

4 evaluation are presented in Chapter 9 of the Environmental Report and in “Study of Potential

5 Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States,” prepared by Dominion and

6 Bechtel Power Corporation through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy. This

7 report is available through the NRC’s document management system (ADAMS; Accession

8 Number ML040630512). Based on the results of this study, Dominion concluded that North

9 Anna was the best option for construction of new nuclear plants. The alternate sites will be

10 evaluated, and the results of this analysis will be presented in the EIS.

11

12 Comment: Well, according to my understanding of the law that under the National

13 Environmental Policy Act the no action alternative must also be considered. The no action

14 alternative if power needs are rising, forces us to consider other forms of power generation. Not

15 only fossil fuel but the other forms which are renewable. (NASC-G 5)

16

17 Response: The NRC staff will consider the no-action alternative in its EIS. For this review, the

18 no-action alternative means denying the ESP application. As discussed above, alternative

19 energy sources will not be evaluated at this time.

20

21 D.1.11 Comments Concerning the Safety Review for the ESP, Including

22 Safeguards and Security and Emergency Preparedness

23

24 Safety Review

25

26 Comment: [The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is therefore required to address

27 all of the following environmental impacts, including but not limited to: 11.] All impacts arising

28 from seismic hazards posed to the North Anna site expansion highlighted as a consequence of

29 the December 09, 2003 regional earthquake, given that the U.S. Geological Survey considers

30 that Virginia is vulnerable to earthquakes. (NASC-GG 10)

31

32 Response: The seismic hazards posed to such a reactor or reactors is not within the scope of

33 the environmental review. As part of the NRC’s site safety review, the staff will consider

34 whether, taking into consideration the site criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, such a reactor or reactors

35 can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

36
November 2004 Draft NUREG-1811 D-23

1 Safeguards and Security

2

3 Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is required to address all impacts

4 arising from increased security risks and tasks associated with the proposed site expansion of

5 the North Anna nuclear power station given the federal government’s acknowledgment that

6 threats to nuclear power stations by acts of terrorism can be delivered in part or in combination

7 from the air, the water and by land. (NASC-GG 11)

8

9 Comment: Tonight as we're talking about expanding the site of North Anna, we're talking about

10 expanding the possible pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction if used against us. 

11 (NASC-A 7)

12

13 Comment: 9/11 changed everything, and at the same time it changed nothing. The officials at

14 Dominion Power have not yet realized that on their power station exists one of the most

15 attractive – [targets] for a terrorist organization. ...I can imagine that a direct hit on the spent fuel

16 nuclear storage would have a catastrophic environmental impact. (NASC-D 6)

17

18 Comment: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

19 which is] security issues, issues that deal with terrorists that would lead to radiation release. 

20 (NASC-J 3)

21

22 Comment: Security is another big issue that we need to deal with. (NASC-K 2)

23

24 Comment: I hate to say this, but with the amount of terrorism in the world, we do not need more

25 invitations to terrorists, and that's what nuclear power plants are. They cannot be safe enough,

26 despite the claims by the nuclear industry. (NASC-N 4)

27

28 Response: Comments related to aspects of the security plan, including a safeguards contin29 gency plan, a physical security plan, and a guard training and qualifications plan are safety

30 issues that are not within the scope of the staff's environmental review. In addition, the

31 Commission, has determined that terrorism is not predictable and is not an inevitable

32 consequence of a proposed licensing action, and that an EIS is not an appropriate format to

33 address the challenges of terrorism. Additional information about the NRC staff’s actions

34 regarding physical security since September 11, 2001, can be found on the NRC’s public web

35 site (www.nrc.gov).

36

37 Emergency Preparedness

38

39 Comment: My concern is for notification and evacuation of the public in the North Anna area, as

40 this area is rapidly developing. My chief concern is for the safety, protection and welfare of the

41 public. (NASC-HH 1)

42
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1811 November 2004 D-24

1 Comment: My concern is in regard to the rapid development in the immediate area, the installa2 tion of new early warning sirens, emergency backup notification and route alerting. Dominion

3 closely works with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management who provides plans

4 regarding these areas. An audit of this area, by your organization, would better identify these

5 areas concerning early warning notification. (NASC-HH 3)

6

7 Comment: Backup Route Alerting is essential for the protection of the general public in the

8 North Anna area since it is rapidly developing in areas where no early warning sirens are

9 currently located and residents must rely on route alerting. ...please verify that these newly

10 developed areas requiring backup route alerting or the installation of an early warning siren are

11 identified by Dominion. Additionally, if no measures are currently in place, they should be

12 implemented to ensure future identification of any new additional areas of development and how

13 they will be addressed for the protection and safety of the general public before any additional

14 site permit is obtained. (NASC-HH 4)

15

16 Comment: I don't live in a house, I live in an apartment. But my apartment doesn't release

17 radiation on a regular basis. It doesn't require an evacuation plan, only if there is a fire, of

18 course. But for other people, there's no iodine pills if you live nearby my apartment. (NASC-E 6)

19

20 Comment: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

21 which is] an evaluation [evacuation] plan relative to roads. (NASC-J 4)

22

23 Response: The comments relate to the adequacy of emergency plans, which is a safety issue

24 that is outside the scope of the staff's environmental review. As part of its site safety review, the

25 NRC staff will determine, after consultation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

26 (DHS) and the Federal Energy Management Administration (FEMA), whether there are any

27 significant impediments to the development of emergency plans and whether the major features

28 of emergency plans submitted by Dominion are acceptable. The currently operating units have

29 emergency plans in place that have been reviewed by NRC, DHS, and FEMA.

30

31

32
Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Comments and Responses

Note: Due to the size of the documents, in the Final EIS the comments contained in Appendix D

and E will be bound in a separate volume.
Appendix E

November 2004 E-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Comments and Responses

1 This appendix is intentionally left blank. The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will

2 contain the comments and responses on the draft EIS in this appendix.
Appendix F

Key Correspondence
November 2004 F-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix F

Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC’s

Key Early Site Permit Consultation Correspondence

1 Correspondence received during the evaluation process of the early site permit application for

2 Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC for the proposed North Anna site is identified in Table F-1. 

3 Copies of the correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

4

5 Source Recipient Date of Letter

6 United States Nuclear

7 Regulatory Commission 

8 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Virginia Department of Historic

Resources

(Ethel Eaton)

November 21, 2003

9 United States Nuclear

10 Regulatory Commission 

11 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Virginia Council on Indians

(Deanna Beacham)

December 3, 2003

12 United States Nuclear

13 Regulatory Commission 

14 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Tuscarora Environmental

Program

(Neil Patterson)

December 3, 2003

15 United States Nuclear

16 Regulatory Commission 

17 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Chief Arnold Hewitt December 3, 2003

18 United States Nuclear

19 Regulatory Commission 

20 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Chief Leo Henry December 3, 2003

21 United States Nuclear

22 Regulatory Commission 

23 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

NOAA Fisheries

(Mary Colligan)

December 21, 2003

24 United States Nuclear

25 Regulatory Commission 

26 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(John Wolflin)

December 21, 2003

27 United States Nuclear

28 Regulatory Commission 

29 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Roger Banks)

December 21, 2003
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-2 November 2004

1 Source Recipient Date of Letter

2 United States Nuclear

3 Regulatory Commission 

4 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Mary Knapp)

December 21, 2003

5 United States Nuclear

6 Regulatory Commission 

7 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation

(Don Klima)

January 5, 2004

8 United States Nuclear

9 Regulatory Commission 

10 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

NOAA Fisheries

(Georgia Cranmore)

January 5, 2004

11 NOAA Fisheries

12 (Mary Colligan)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

January 6, 2004

13 Dominion Virginia Power

14 Company

15 (Pamela Faggert)

Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality

(Ellie Irons)

January 12, 2004

16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

17 (Timothy Hall)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

January 15, 2004

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

19 (Mary Knapp)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

February 3, 2004

20 Virginia Department of

21 Environmental Quality

22 (Ellie Irons)

Dominion Virginia Power

Company

(Pamela Faggert)

February 10, 2004

23 NOAA

24 (David Bernhart)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

May 19, 2004

25 Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

26 LLC

27 (Eugene Grecheck)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

June 28, 2004

28 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

29 (Karen Mayne)

United Stated Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

October 25, 2004

30
Appendix F

November 2004 F-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-4 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-6 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-8 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-10 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-12 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-13 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-14 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-15 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-16 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-17 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-18 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-19 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-20 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-21 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-22 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-23 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-24 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-25 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-26 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-27 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-28 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-29 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-30 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-31 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-32 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-33 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-34 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-35 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-36 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-37 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-38 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-39 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-40 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-41 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-42 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-43 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-44 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-45 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-46 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-47 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-48 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-49 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-50 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-51 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-52 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-53 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-54 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-55 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-56 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-57 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-58 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-59 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-60 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-61 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-62 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-63 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-64 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-65 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-66 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-67 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-68 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-69 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-70 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-71 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-72 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-73 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-74 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-75 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-76 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-77 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-78 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-79 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-80 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-81 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-82 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-83 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-84 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-85 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-86 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-87 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-88 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-89 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-90 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-91 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-92 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-93 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-94 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-95 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-96 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-97 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-98 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-99 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-100 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-101 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-102 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-103 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-104 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-105 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-106 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-107 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-108 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-109 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-110 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-111 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-112 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-113 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-114 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-115 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-116 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-117 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-118 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-119 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-120 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-121 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-122 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-123 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-124 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-125 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-126 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-127 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-128 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-129 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-130 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-131 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-132 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-133 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-134 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-135 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-136 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-137 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-138 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-139 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-140 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-141 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-142 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-143 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-144 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-145 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-146 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-147 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-148 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-149 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-150 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-151 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-152 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-153 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-154 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-155 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-156 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-157 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-158 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-159 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-160 November 2004

1
Appendix F

November 2004 F-161 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1811 F-162 November 2004

1
Appendix G

Data and Information to Support Specific Analyses

Environmental Impacts of Transportation
November 2004 G-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix G

Data and Information to Support Specific Analyses

Environmental Impacts of Transportation

1 This appendix discusses the potential environmental effects of transportation of reactor fuel and

2 radioactive waste to and from potential ESP sites. Section G.1 briefly discusses the effects of

3 transportation of fresh fuel to ESP sites, and Section G.2 discusses the effects of transportation

4 of spent fuel from ESP sites to a spent fuel disposal facility. In addition, Section G.2 discusses

5 the effects of both incident-free transportation and transportation accidents. Section G.3

6 discusses the environmental effects of radioactive waste shipments.

7

8 G.1 Fresh Fuel Shipping

9

10 This section addresses the number and characteristics of shipments of fresh fuel to ESP sites

11 relative to the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52. Comparisons are also made against Table S-4 and

12 WASH-1238 (NRC 1972) which provided the data that supports Table S-4. Section G.1.1

13 presents the basic fresh fuel shipping requirements for each advanced reactor design. These

14 data were extracted from INEEL (2003). Section G.1.2 presents the comparisons to 10 CFR

15 51.52 conditions. 

16

17 G.1.1 Advanced Reactor Fresh Fuel Shipping Data

18

19 In WASH-1238, a reference boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized water reactor (PWR)

20 were used to formulate the basic numbers of fresh fuel shipments required for initial core

21 loading and refueling. The reference BWR and PWR plants were 1100 MW(e) plants. The

22 reference BWR assumed an initial core loading of 150 MTU and the reference PWR assumed

23 100 MTU. Both reactor types resulted in 18 truck shipments of fresh fuel per plant. Annual

24 reload quantities were assumed to be 30 MTU/yr for both reactor types, which resulted in an

25 additional 6 truck shipments per year per plant. In total, about 252 truck shipments of fresh fuel

26 are required over a 40-year plant life, including the initial core and 39 years of reloads, for both

27 reactor types.

28

29 The initial fuel loading and annual reload quantities for the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

30 (ABWR), a 1500 MW(e) plant, and the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) are

31 approximately the same; 156.96 MTU per plant initial core loading and 32.76 MTU/yr per plant

32 reload quantities (INEEL 2003). This equates to about 872 fresh fuel elements in the initial core

33 and 213 elements per year for refueling. Truck shipment capacities were stated in INEEL

34 (2003) to be 28 to 30 fresh fuel elements per truck shipment. Assuming 30 fuel elements per

35 truck shipment results in about 30 shipments of fresh fuel to load the initial core and 6.1 truck

36 shipments per year for refueling. If 28 fuel elements per truck shipment are used, the initial core
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-2 November 2004

1 load requires about 32 shipments of fresh fuel and annual refueling requires about 6.5 truck

2 shipments per year.

3

4 The AP1000 is a 1150 MW(e) advanced PWR power plant. The initial core load was estimated

5 to be 84.5 MTU per plant and annual reload requirements were estimated at 24.4 MTU/yr per

6 plant. The data in INEEL (2003) also indicated that the average uranium mass in a fresh

7 AP1000 fuel assembly was 0.583 MTU and that 12 fuel elements per truck shipment would be

8 transported. This resulted in about 14 truck shipments to supply the initial core and about

9 3.8 truck shipments/year to support refueling.

10

11 The ACR-700 is an advanced design CANDU reactor assumed to generate 731 MW(e). It was

12 stated in INEEL (2003) that the initial core load for the ACR-700 included 61.3 MTU per plant

13 and the annual refueling requirements are 33.1 MTU/yr per plant. Each fuel element contains

14 18 kgU (INEEL 2003). This corresponds to 3406 fuel elements in the initial core loading and

15 1839 fuel elements per year for refueling. A range of truck shipment capacities was given in

16 INEEL (2003) to be 180 to 240 fuel elements per truck shipment. This equates to 15 to 19 truck

17 shipments to supply the initial core load and from 7.7 to 10.2 annual refueling shipments.

18

19 The International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) design is a 335 MW(e) advanced PWR. 

20 It requires an initial core load of 48.67 MTU or 89 fuel elements per unit (546.9 kgU per fuel

21 element) (INEEL 2003). For refueling, the IRIS reactor was assumed to require an additional

22 6.26 MTU/yr of fresh fuel per unit or about 40 fresh fuel elements every 3.5 years. INEEL

23 (2003) indicates a “typical” site may contain three units. Assuming each truck shipment carries

24 eight fuel elements, the initial core load requires 34 truck shipments per three-unit site and

25 annual refueling requires an additional 4.3 truck shipments per year per three-unit site.

26

27 The Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) is a gas-cooled reactor that uses a

28 substantially different fuel design than current and advanced LWRs. The reactor’s thermal

29 power level is rated at 600 MWt per unit and electric generation capacity is rated at 285 MW(e)

30 per unit. A standard GT-MHR plant is assumed to be composed of four reactor units. 

31 INEEL (2003) states that the initial core load for a single unit is about 1020 fuel elements. 

32 Annual average reload requirements are 510 fuel elements per unit. INEEL (2003) also

33 indicates that each truck shipment can carry 80 fuel elements so it will require about 51 truck

34 shipments to transport the initial core load for all 4 units and about 20 truck shipments per year

35 for the annual reload requirements for all four units.

36

37 The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a gas-cooled reactor that is rated at 400 MW(t)

38 (165 MW[e]) per unit. A typical PBMR plant is assumed to consist of eight units. The PBMR

39 uses a substantially different fuel design than a typical LWR. INEEL (2003) states that each

40 unit requires 260,000 fuel spheres per unit for its initial core load; 120,000 fuel spheres per unit

41 are required for annual average reloads. A total of 48,000 fuel spheres is assumed to be

42 transported in a typical truck shipment. As a result, it will take about 44 shipments of fuel
Appendix G

November 2004 G-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1 spheres to transport the initial core load for all eight units and about 20 shipments per year to

2 transport the annual reload quantity for all eight units.

3

4 G.1.2 Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Fresh Fuel Shipments

5

6 As required by 10 CFR 51.52, applicants are required to submit a statement that the reactor and

7 the transportation of fuel and waste to and from the reactor meet all the conditions specified in

8 10 CFR 51.52(a) or fulfil the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(b). The conditions

9 specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a) that apply to fresh fuel include the following:

10

11 (1) Reactor core has thermal loading less than 3800 MW.

12

(2) Reactor fuel is in the form of sintered UO2 13 pellets not exceeding 4 percent U-235 by weight

14 and the pellets are encapsulated in zircalloy rods. 

15

16 (3) Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck.

17

18 (4) The environmental impacts of transportation of fuel as set forth in Summary Table S-4 in 10

19 CFR 51.52(c).

20

21 Fresh fuel shipment information for the advanced reactors is discussed below for each of these

22 criteria.

23

24 G.1.2.1 Reactor Core Thermal Loading

25

26 The thermal output ratings of the seven advanced reactor types as given in INEEL (2003) are as

27 follows:

28

29 (1) ABWR – 4300 MW(t) (single unit)

30 (2) ESBWR – 4000 MW(t) (single unit)

31 (2) AP1000 – 3400 MW(t) (single unit)

32 (4) ACR-700 – 1982 MW(t)/unit x 2 units/site = 3964 MW(t)/site

33 (5) IRIS – 1000 MW(t)/unit x 3 units/site = 3000 MW(t)/site

34 (6) GT-MHR – 600 MW(t)/unit x 4 units/site = 2400 MW(t)/site

35 (7) PBMR – 400 MW(t)/unit x 8 units/site = 3200 MW(t)/site

36

37 As shown above, single-unit ABWR and ESBWR plants would exceed the 3800 MW(t) guideline

38 in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(1). In addition, a twin-unit ACR-700 plant would exceed the core thermal

39 power guideline.

40
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-4 November 2004

1 G.1.2.2 Reactor Fuel Form

2

3 All of the advanced LWRs (i.e., the ABWR, ESBWR, AP1000, IRIS, and ACR-700) use sintered

UO2 4 fuel pellets encapsulated in zircaloy rods. The average enrichment for the ACR-700 fuel is

5 about 2 percent, which is well within the 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2) condition. The average enrich6 ments for the other advanced LWR fuels exceed the 4 percent U-235 by weight condition in

7 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2).

8

9 The gas-cooled reactors (i.e., the GT-MHR and PBMR) have a substantially different fuel form

10 than described in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2). The fuel forms for these reactors are coated uranium

oxycarbide fuel kernels (GT-MHR) or coated UO 2 11 fuel kernels (PBMR). The fuel kernels are

12 coated with layers of pyrolitic carbon and silicone carbide. Thus, these fuel forms are not the

13 same as the conditions specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2). Furthermore, the equilibrium

14 enrichments for these fuels are 12.9 percent (PBMR) and 19.8 percent (GT-MHR). Therefore,

15 the advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel forms do not meet the conditions specified in 10 CFR

16 51.52(a)(2).

17

18 G.1.2.3 Shipping Mode

19

20 All four reactor types were stated in INEEL (2003) to use trucks to ship fresh fuel to the various

21 ESP sites.

22

23 G.1.2.4 WASH-1238 and Table S-4

24

25 The Table S-4 condition that is applicable to shipment of fresh fuel is that the number of

26 shipments of fuel and waste to and from a commercial nuclear power plant must be less than

27 1 per day. Table G.1 summarizes the number of truck shipments of fresh fuel required for each

28 reactor type. The table also normalizes the numbers of shipments to the net electrical

29 generation output for the reference reactor in WASH-1238, or 880 MW(e) (1100 MW[e] plant

30 operating at 80 percent annual capacity factor).

31

32 As shown, the ACR-700, PBMR, and GT-MHR advanced reactor types exceed the number of

33 truck shipments estimated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. The largest number of

34 shipments, in excess of 700 shipments over 40 years, is for the GT-MHR. However, this

35 equates to far less than one truck shipment per day. Consequently, the numbers of shipments

36 for all the advanced reactor types are within the relevant condition specified in Table S-4.

37

38 Table S-4 includes a condition that the truck shipments not exceed 33,000 kg (73,000 lb) as

39 governed by Federal or State gross vehicle weight restrictions. All of the advanced reactors

40 were indicated in INEEL (2003) to be capable of meeting this restriction for fresh fuel shipments.

41
Appendix G

November 2004 G-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-1. Number of Truck Shipments of Fresh Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor Type

2

3 Reactor Type

Number of Shipments per

Reactor Site

Site Electric

Generation,

MW(e)(c)

Capacity

Factor(c)

Normalized,

Shipments per

1100 MW(e)(e)

Initial

Core(a)

Annual

Reload Total(b)

4 Reference LWR

5 (WASH-1238)

18 6.0 252 1,100 0.8 252

ABWR/ESBWR(d) 6 30 6.1 267 1,500 0.95 165

7 14 3.8 161 1,150 0.95 130 AP1000

8 15 7.7 314 731 0.9 420 ACR-700

9 34 4.3 201 1,005(f) 0.96 184 IRIS

10 51 20.0 831 1,140(g) 0.88 729 GT-MHR

11 44 20.0 824 1,320(h) 0.95 579 PBMR

12 NOTE: The reference LWR shipment values have all been normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical

13 generation.

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

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

16 average annual reload quantities).

17 (c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from INEEL (2003).

18 (d) Ranges of capacities are given in INEEL (2003) for these reactor fresh fuel shipments. The

19 fresh fuel shipment data for these reactors were derived using the upper limit of the ranges.

20 (e) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference plant (i.e., 1100 MW[e]) plant at

21 80 percent or net electrical output of 880 MW[e]).

22 (f) The IRIS site includes three units at 335 MW(e) per unit.

23 (g) The GT-MHR site includes four reactor units at 285 MW(e) per unit.

24 (h) The PBMR site includes eight reactor units at 165 MW(e) per unit.

25

26 Finally, Table S-4 includes conditions related to radiological doses to transport workers and

27 members of the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of the radiation dose

28 rate emitted from the fresh fuel shipments, the number of exposed individuals and their

29 locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit (including travel time and stop time), and

30 number of shipments to which the individuals are exposed. The radiological dose impacts of

31 the transportation of fresh fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5 computer code

32 (Neuhauser et al. 2003). The RADTRAN 5 calculations were performed to develop estimates of

33 the worker and public doses associated with annual fresh fuel shipments to the ESP sites.

34
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-6 November 2004

1 One of the key assumptions in WASH-1238 for the reference LWR fresh fuel shipments is that

2 the radiation dose rate at 1 m (3 ft) from the transport vehicle is about 0.001 mSv/hr

3 (0.1 mrem/hr). This assumption was also used in the analysis of advanced reactor fresh fuel

4 shipments. This assumption is reasonable for all of the advanced reactor fuel types because

5 the fuel materials will all be low dose rate uranium radionuclides and will be packaged similarly

6 (i.e., inside a metal container that provides little radiation shielding). The numbers of shipments

7 per year were obtained by dividing the normalized shipments in Table G.1 by 40 years of

8 operation. Other key input parameters used in the radiation dose analysis for fresh fuel are

9 shown in Table G.2.

10

11 The RADTRAN 5 results for this “generic” fresh fuel shipment are as follows:

12

 C Transport workers: 1.71 x 10-5 person-Sv/shipment (1.71 x 10-3 13 person-rem/shipment)

14

 C General public (Onlookers – persons at stops and sharing the highway): 6.65 x 10-5 15

person-Sv/shipment (6.65 x 10-3 16 person-rem/shipment)

17

 C General public (Along Route – persons living near a highway): 1.61 x 10-6 18

person-Sv/shipment (1.61 x 10-4 19 person-rem/shipment).

20

21 These values were combined with the average annual shipments of fresh fuel for each

22 advanced reactor type (see Table G.1) normalized to the WASH-1238 reference LWR electric

23 output (880 MW[e]) to calculate annual doses to the public and workers that can be compared

24 to Table S-4 conditions. The results are shown in Table G.3. As shown, the calculated

25 radiation doses for shipping fresh fuel to ESP sites are within the Table S-4 conditions.

26

27 G.1.3 Transportation Accidents

28

29 Accidents involving fresh fuel shipments are also addressed in Table S-4. Accident risks are a

30 combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies are likely to be

31 lower than they were when WASH-1238 was published because traffic accident, injury, and

32 fatality rates have fallen over the past 30 years. Consequences of accidents that are severe

33 enough to result in a release of fresh fuel particles are not significantly different for advanced

34 LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging are similar to those analyzed in

35 WASH-1238. Consequently, the impacts of accidents during transport of fresh fuel to advanced

36 LWR sites would be smaller than the WASH-1238 results that formed the basis for Table S-4.

37
Appendix G

November 2004 G-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-2. RADTRAN 5 Input Parameters for Fresh Fuel Shipments

2

3 Parameter

RADTRAN 5

Input Value Source

4 3200 NRC (1972) Shipping distance, km (a)

5 0.90 NRC (1977) Travel Fraction – Rural

6 0.05 Travel Fraction – Suburban

7 0.05 Travel Fraction – Urban 

Population Density – Rural, persons/km2 8 10 DOE (2002a)

Population Density – Suburban, persons/km2 9 349

Population Density – Urban, persons/km2 10 2260

11 88.49 Based on average speed in rural Vehicle speed – Rural, km/hr

areas given in DOE (2002a)

12 88.49 Vehicle speed – Suburban, km/hr

13 88.49 Vehicle speed – Urban, km/hr

14 530 DOE (2002a) Traffic count – Rural, vehicles/hr

15 760 Traffic count – Suburban, vehicles/hr

16 2400 Traffic count – Urban, vehicles/hr

17 0.1 NRC (1972) Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr

18 7.3 Approximate length of 2 LWR fuel Packaging length, m

element packages placed on end

19 2 NRC (1972), NRC (1977), and Number of truck crew

DOE (2002a)

20 4.5 Based on 0.0014 hr stop time per Stop time, hr/trip

km (Hostick et al. 1992)

Population density at stops, persons/km2 21 64,300 Based on 20 people in annular

ring extending from 1 to 10 m

from vehicle

22 (a) NRC (1972) have a range of shipping distances between 40 km (25 mi) and 4800 km (3000 mi) 

23 for fresh fuel shipments. A 3200-km (2000-mi) “average” shipping distance was assumed.

24
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-8 November 2004

1 Table G-3. Radiological Impacts of Transporting Fresh Fuel to ESP Sites

2

3 Plant Type

Normalized

Average

Annual

Shipments

Cumulative Annual dose, person-rem/yr per 1100

MW(e)

Workers

Public –

Onlookers Public – Along Route

4 Reference LWR

5 (WASH-1238)

6.3 1.1E-02 4.2E-02 1.0E-03

6 4.1 7.1E-03 2.7E-02 6.6E-04 ABWR/ESBWR

7 3.3 5.6E-03 2.2E-02 5.2E-04 AP1000

8 10.5 1.8E-02 7.0E-02 1.7E-03 ACR-700

9 4.6 7.9E-03 3.1E-02 7.4E-04 IRIS

10 18.2 3.1E-02 1.2E-01 2.9E-03 GT-MHR

11 14.5 2.5E-02 9.6E-02 2.3E-03 PBMR

12 10 CFR 51.52 Table S-4

13 Condition

<1 per day 4 3 3

14

15 With respect to the advanced gas-cooled reactors, accident rates (accidents per unit distance)

16 and associated accident frequencies (accidents per year) would follow the same trends as

17 LWRs (i.e., overall reduction relative to the accident rates used in WASH-1238 [AEC 1972]). 

18 The consequences of accidents involving gas-cooled reactor fresh fuel, however, are more

19 uncertain. A literature search was conducted to identify publicly available documents that

20 describe the effects of accidents (i.e., exposure of fresh gas-cooled reactor fuel to structural and

21 thermal transients). No definitive references were found. Consequently, it was assumed here

22 that the gas-cooled reactor fresh fuel shipments would have the same abilities as LWR fresh

23 fuel to maintain its functional integrity following a traffic accident. This assumption is judged to

24 be conservative because gas-cooled reactor fuel operates at significantly higher temperatures,

25 and thus maintains integrity under more severe thermal conditions than LWR fuel. Detailed

26 information about the behavior of the gas-cooled reactor fuel under impact conditions was not

27 found. However, packaging systems for fresh gas-cooled reactor fuel will be required to meet

28 the same requirements as fresh LWR fuel packages. Properly designed and manufactured

29 packaging systems are the most effective means of preventing damage and dispersal of the

30 contained materials under accident conditions. Consequently, packaging systems for fresh

31 gas-cooled reactor fuels would provide equivalent release (i.e., consequence) prevention and

32 mitigation to those designed for fresh LWR fuels. In addition, the fuel forms for the gas-cooled

33 reactors are similar to LWRs (i.e., uranium oxide for the PBMR and uranium oxycarbide for the

34 GT-MHR versus uranium oxide for LWRs), so the failure resistance provided by fresh

35 gas-cooled reactor fuels should not be significantly lower than LWRs. Based on the
Appendix G

November 2004 G-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1 assumption, which will need to be verified at the CP/COL stage, that fresh gas-cooled and LWR

2 fuels and associated packaging systems provide equivalent resistance to thermal and impact

3 conditions, it was concluded that the impacts of accidents involving gas-cooled reactor fresh

4 fuel would not be significantly different than for LWR fresh fuel.

5

6 G.2 Spent Fuel Shipping

7

8 This section discusses the impact of transporting spent advanced reactor fuel from candidate

9 sites to a potential spent fuel disposal facility located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The section

10 is divided into two parts. The first part considers incident-free transportation, and the second

11 part considers transportation accidents.

12

13 The analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in casks with

14 characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily-shielded, cylindrical

15 metal pressure vessels). Each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded

16 onto a modified trailer. These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made in the

17 evaluation of the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel presented in Addendum I

18 to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1999a). As discussed in Addendum I, these assumptions are

19 conservative because the alternative assumptions involve rail transportation or heavy-haul

20 trucks, which would reduce the number of spent-fuel shipments.

21

22 Environmental impacts of the transportation of spent fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5

23 computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Routing and population data for input to RADTRAN for

24 shipment by truck were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and

25 Michelhaugh 2000). The population data in the TRAGIS code is based on the 2000 census.

26

27 G.2.1 Incident-Free Transportation of Spent Fuel

28

29 "Incident-free" transportation refers to transportation activities in which the shipments of

30 radioactive material reach their destination without releasing any radioactive cargo to the

31 environment. The vast majority of radioactive shipments are expected to reach their destination

32 without experiencing an accident or incident or releasing any cargo. The "incident-free" impacts

33 from these normal, routine shipments arise from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the

34 heavily-shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Although Federal regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 and

35 49 CFR Part 173 impose constraints on radioactive material shipments, some radiation

36 penetrates the shipping container and exposes nearby persons to low levels of radiation.

37
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-10 November 2004

1 Incident-free, legal-weight truck transportation of spent fuel has been evaluated by considering

2 shipments from six representative reactor sites to a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for

3 disposal. This assumption is conservative because it tends to maximize the shipping distance

4 from the east coast and the midwest where most of the reactors are assumed to be located. 

5 Therefore, shipment to one or more other potential sites would reduce the impacts.

6

7 Environmental impacts from these shipments will occur to persons residing along the

8 transportation corridors between potential ESP sites and the repository; to persons in vehicles

9 passing the spent-fuel shipment; to persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle

10 inspections; and to transportation crew members. The impacts to these exposed population

11 groups were quantified using the RADTRAN 5 computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003).

12

13 This analysis addressed the impacts of spent nuclear fuel transport to a high level waste

14 repository from a generic perspective because the Congress has directed the U.S. Department

15 of Energy to study only Yucca Mountain for the potential proposed repository. The analysis

16 assumed that all spent nuclear fuel would be shipped to that potential repository.

17

18 The characteristics of specific shipping routes (e.g., population densities, shipping distances)

19 influence the normal radiological exposures. To address the differences that arise from the

20 specific reactor site from which the spent-fuel shipment originates, each advanced reactor

21 design was assumed to be located at all the primary and alternative early site permit sites.

22

23 These sites are:

24

25 Primary Site Alternative Site

26 North Anna 

27 Clinton

28 Grand Gulf

Savannah River Site (SRS)

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)

Fitzpatrick

Pilgrim

Zion

Quad Cities

Braidwood

Surry Power Station

29

30 Input to RADTRAN 5 includes the total shipping distance between the origin and destination

31 sites and the population distributions along the routes. This information was obtained by

32 running the TRAGIS computer code (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2000) for the origin-destination

33 combinations of interest for legal weight trucks. The resulting route characteristics information

34 is shown in Table G.4. Note that for truck shipments, all the spent fuel is assumed to be
Appendix G

November 2004 G-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1 shipped to the potential Yucca Mountain site over designated highway-route controlled quantity

2 (HRCQ) routes. The routes used here are the same as those used in the Yucca Mountain

3 Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 2002b).

4

5 Shipping casks have not been designed for advanced reactor spent fuel. Although some of the

6 advanced reactor fuel designs are similar to current LWR fuel, no attempt has been made to

7 optimize the cargo capacities of shipping casks for advanced LWR fuels. For the non-LWR fuel

8 types (that is, the GT-MHR, and PBMR), there is little information on even a conceptual basis

9 that would provide a defensible technical basis for shipping cask capacities. The shipping cask

10 capacity data in the report Early Site Permit Environmental Report Sections and Supporting

11 Documentation (INEEL 2003) are summarized as follows:

12

13 C ABWR – ABWR fuel is not significantly different than existing LWR fuel designs so the

14 number of ABWR assemblies than can be transported in a legal weight truck shipment

15 (i.e., 25 ton shipping cask) should not be different than current cargo capacities.

16

17 C ESBWR – The ESBWR fuel is similar to the ABWR fuel.

18

19 C AP1000 – AP1000 fuel assemblies are similar to current generation PWR fuel. No

20 information was provided in INEEL (2003) on shipping cask capacities for AP1000 spent

21 nuclear fuel.

22

23 C ACR-700 – The ACR-700 fuel is somewhat different than the current and advanced

24 LWR fuel designs. The applicant estimated that an ACR-700 rail cask would hold about

25 10 MTU of spent fuel, similar to the current cask designs. This value is nearly identical

26 to the cargo capacities of current rail cask designs so it was assumed that the truck cask

27 capacity for ACR-700 and current generation LWRs would also be about the same (i.e.,

28 1.8 MTU/shipment).

29

30 C IRIS – The IRIS fuel is similar to current generation PWR fuel. No information was

31 provided in INEEL (2003) on shipping cask capacities for IRIS spent nuclear fuel.

32

33 C GT-MHR – The GT-MHR fuel is a spherical coated particle fuel with a uranium

34 oxycarbide fuel kernel loaded into graphite fuel elements. This fuel concept is

35 significantly different than current and advanced LWR fuels (sintered UO2 pellets loaded

36 into zircaloy tubes). According to INEEL (2003), six spent fuel elements containing

37 0.023 MTU of spent fuel are assumed to be transported in a legal weight truck cask.

38

39 C PBMR – The PBMR fuel is also a spherical coated particle fuel with uranium oxide fuel

40 kernels. In INEEL (2003), it is estimated that 0.495 MTU of spent PBMR fuel can be

41 transported in a single legal weight truck shipment.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-12 November 2004

1 Table G-4. Transportation Route Information for Shipments from ESP Sites

2 to the Potential Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Disposal Facility

3

4 Advance

5 Reactor Site

One-way Shipping Distance, km

Population Density,

persons/km2 Stop

time

per trip,

Total Rural hr

Suburba

n Urban Rural

Suburba

n Urban

6 Primary Site

7 4409.5 3498 812.4 99.1 11.3 319 2310.6 5 North Anna

8 3076.3 2626.3 398.3 51.7 9.4 306.1 2372.2 3.5 Clinton

9 3718.3 3030.4 581.3 106.6 9.2 339.4 2429.4 4 Grand Gulf

10 Alternative Site

11 Savannah River

12 Site

4263 3260 881 122 11 331.5 2311.2 5

13 3902.2 3166.9 647.2 88.1 10.7 316.4 2339.7 4.5 Portsmouth

14 4212.2 3228.6 875.4 108.2 11.4 312.4 2348.7 5 Fitzpatrick

15 4682.3 3469.3 1091.7 121.3 11.8 312.3 2377.2 5.5 Pilgrim

16 3138.9 2629.6 441.3 68 9.5 323.8 2360.3 3.5 Zion

17 2853.1 2451 352.6 49.5 9.1 310.2 2391.3 3 Quad Cities

18 3034.5 2604.4 378.7 51.4 9.4 308.9 2377.2 3.5 Braidwood

19 4555.4 3590.7 863.9 100.8 11.4 317.6 2301.6 5 Surry

20

21 The aforementioned shipping cask capacities are approximations based on current shipping

22 cask designs. Actual shipping cask capacities in the future may be significantly different. 

23 Applicants must account for this in their applications at the CP/COL stage.

24

25 Incident-free radiation doses are a function of many variables. The most important of these

26 variables are presented in Table G.5. Most of these variables were extracted from the literature

27 are considered to be “standard” values used in many RADTRAN applications, including

28 environmental impact statements, and regulatory analyses.

29

30 For purposes of this analysis, the transportation crew for truck spent fuel shipments consisted of

31 two drivers. Escorts were considered, but they were not included because their distance from

32 the shipping cask would reduce the dose rates to levels well below the dose rates experienced

33 by the drivers. Stop times were assumed to accrue at the rate of 30 minutes per 4 hours driving
Appendix G

November 2004 G-13 Draft NUREG-1811

1 time. TRAGIS outputs were used to determine the number of stops for each origin-destination.

2

3 Doses to the public at truck stops have been significant contributors to the doses calculated in

4 previous RADTRAN analyses. For this analysis, stop doses are the sum of the doses to

5 individuals located in two annular rings centered at the stopped vehicle, as illustrated in

6 Figure G.1. The inner ring represents persons who may be at the truck stop at the same time

7 as a spent fuel shipment and extends 1 to 10 m from the edge of the vehicle. The outer ring

8 represents persons who reside near a truck stop and extends from 10 to 800 m from the

9 vehicle. This scheme is the same as that used in NRC (2000). Population densities and

10 shielding factors were also taken from NRC (2000), which were based on the observations of

11 Griego et al. (1996).

12

13 The results of these routine (incident-free) exposure calculations are shown in Table G.6 for

14 spent-fuel shipments from all 11 primary and alternative sites to the potential Yucca Mountain

15 repository. Population dose estimates are given for workers (i.e., truck crew members),

16 onlookers (doses to persons at truck stops and persons on highways exposed to the spent fuel

17 shipments), and along the route (persons living near the highway).

18

19 This discussion addresses whether or not the environmental effects of incident-free advanced

20 reactor spent-fuel shipments are within the guidelines established in Table S-4 of 10 CFR

21 51.52. The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S-4 are:

22

23 C Transport workers: 0.04 person-Sv/reactor-year (4 person-rem/reactor-year)

24 C General public (onlookers): 0.03 person-Sv/reactor-year (3 person-rem/reactor-year)

25 C General public (along route): 0.03 person-Sv/reactor-year (3 person-rem/reactor-year).

26

27 Calculation of the cumulative doses entailed converting the per-shipment risks given in

28 Table G.6 to estimates of environmental effects per reactor-year of operation. The

29 per-shipment results, which are independent of reactor technology (in other words, the doses

30 are dependent on the assumed external radiation dose rate emitted from the cask, which is

31 fixed at the regulatory maximum limit for all of the advanced reactor technologies), are given in

32 terms of the population dose per shipment of spent fuel. To develop estimates of the annual

33 environmental impacts, the following assumptions were made:

34

35 C The basis for the annual number of shipments of spent fuel from the reference LWR in

36 WASH-1238 will be used. In WASH-1238, it was assumed that 60 shipments per year

37 will be made, each shipment carrying 0.5 MTU of spent fuel. This equates to shipping

38 30 MTU of spent fuel per year. This is equivalent to the annual refueling requirements

39 for the reference LWR. It was assumed that spent fuel will be shipped from other reactor

40 types at a rate equal to their annual refueling requirements.

41

42 C Shipping cask capacities used to calculate annual spent fuel shipments for the advanced
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-14 November 2004

1 LWRs were assumed to be the same as the reference LWR (i.e., approximately 0.5 MTU

2 per truck shipment).

3

4 C The annual numbers of spent fuel shipments from the advanced gas-cooled reactors

5 were taken directly from INEEL (2003). These estimates were 38 shipments/yr from the

6 GT-MHR site and 16 shipments/yr from the PBMR site.

7

8 Table G.7 provides the estimated annual population doses from routine (incident-free)

9 transportation of spent fuel from ESP sites to the potential Yucca Mountain disposal facility. 

10 The collective population doses (person-rem) were converted to population risk using

11 health-effects conversion factors. The dose to risk factors, which were taken from Federal

12 Guidance Report 13 (Eckerman et al. 2002), assume 6.0E-04 latent cancer fatalities (LCFs) per

13 person-rem and 8.5E-04 total detrimental health effects per person-rem for workers and the

14 general public. Total detriment includes fatal and non-fatal cancers and severe hereditary

15 effects. The annual LCF and total detriment estimates are presented in Tables G.8 and G.9,

16 respectively, for each reactor site/reactor type combination. The results in Tables G.7 to G.9

17 have been normalized to the WASH-1238 net electrical generation (i.e., 880 MW[e]).

18

19 As shown in Table G.7, some of the estimated population doses are higher than the Table S-4

20 conditions. Two key reasons for the higher population doses relative to Table S-4 are the

21 higher number of spent fuel shipments estimated for some of the reactor technologies and the

22 longer shipping distances used in this assessment than were used in WASH-1238. 

23 WASH-1238 used a “typical” distance for a spent fuel shipment of 1600 km (1000 mi) whereas

24 the shipping distances used in this assessment ranged from about 3000 km (1800 mi) to 4700

25 km (2900 mi). The higher numbers of shipments are based on spent fuel shipping casks

26 designed to transport short-cooled fuel (150 days out of the reactor). It was assumed in this

27 analysis that the shipping cask capacities are 0.5 MTU/shipment, roughly equivalent to one

28 PWR or two BWR spent fuel assemblies per shipment. Newer designs are based on

29 longer-cooled spent fuel (5 years out of reactor) and have larger capacities than those used in

30 this assessment. DOE (2002b) spent fuel shipping cask capacities were approximately

31 1.8 MTU/shipment, or up to four PWR or nine BWR fuel assemblies per shipment. Use of the

32 newer shipping cask designs will reduce the number of spent fuel shipments and the associated

33 environmental impacts. If the population doses are adjusted for the shipping distance (factor of

34 2 to 3) and shipping cask capacity (factor of 4), the routine population doses from spent fuel

35 shipments from all reactor types and all sites fall within the Table S-4 conditions.

36

37
Appendix G

November 2004 G-15 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-5. RADTRAN 5 Incident-free Exposure Parameters

2

3 Parameter

RADTRAN 5

Input Value Source

4 88.49 Based on average speed in rural areas Vehicle speed – Rural, km/hr

given in DOE (2002a). Because most

travel is on interstate highways, the same

vehicle speed is assumed in rural,

suburban, and urban areas. No speed

reductions were assumed for travel at rush

hour.

5 88.49 Vehicle speed – Suburban, km/hr

6 88.49 Vehicle speed – Urban, km/hr

7 530 DOE 2002a Traffic count – Rural, vehicles/hr

8 760 Traffic count – Suburban, vehicles/hr

9 2400 Traffic count – Urban, vehicles/hr

10 Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle,

11 mrem/hr

14 DOE 2002b – approximate dose rate at 1

m that is equivalent to maximum dose rate

allowed by Federal regulations (i.e.,

10 mrem/hr at 2 m from the side of a

transport vehicle).

12 Length 5.2 Packaging dimensions, m

Diameter 1.0

DOE 2002b

13 2 NRC 1972, NRC 1977, and DOE 2002a Number of truck crew

14 Route-specific See Table G.4. Stop time, hr/trip

15 Population Density at Stops,

persons/km2 16

30,000 Sprung et al. (2000)

17 Min/Max Radii of Annular Area

18 Around Vehicle at Stops, m

1 to 10 Sprung et al. (2000)

19 Shielding Factor Applied to Annular

20 Area Surrounding Vehicle at Stops

1 

(no shielding)

Sprung et al. (2000)

21 Population Density Surrounding truck

stops, persons/km2 22

340 Sprung et al. (2000)

23 Min/Max Radius of Annular Area

24 Surrounding Truck Stop, m

10 to 800 Sprung et al. (2000)

25 Shielding Factor Applied to Annular

26 Area Surrounding Truck Stop

0.2 Sprung et al. (2000)

27

28
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-16 November 2004

1 Figure G-1. Illustration of Truck Stop Model (NRC 2000)

2
Appendix G

November 2004 G-17 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-6. Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and

2 the Public from Shipping Spent Fuel from Potential Advanced

3 Reactor Sites to the Potential Yucca Mountain Disposal Facility

4

5 Reactor Site

Population Dose (person-rem/shipment)(a)

Crew

Public

(Onlookers)

Public

(Along Route)

6 7.1E-02 2.4E-01 4.4E-03 Braidwood

7 7.2E-02 2.5E-01 4.5E-03 Clinton

8 9.8E-02 3.5E-01 9.5E-03 Fitzpatrick

9 8.7E-02 2.8E-01 7.0E-03 Grand Gulf

10 1.0E-01 3.5E-01 9.2E-03 North Anna

11 1.1E-01 3.9E-01 1.2E-02 Pilgrim

12 9.1E-02 3.2E-01 7.3E-03 Portsmouth

13 6.7E-02 2.1E-01 4.1E-03 Quad Cities

14 9.9E-02 3.5E-01 1.0E-02 Savannah River

15 1.1E-01 3.5E-01 9.7E-03 Surry

16 7.3E-02 2.5E-01 5.2E-03 Zion

17 (a) to convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide the number by 100.

18
1 Draft NUREG-1811 G-18 November 2004 Table G.7. Routine (Incident free) Population Doses From Spent Fuel Transportation, Normalized to Reference 

2 Electrical Generation34 Reactor5 Type

Reference LWR (WASH1238) ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 

6 No7 Shipments8 per yr 60 41 40 

Environmental Effects, person-rem per reactor year(a)

9

10 Reactor11 Site Crew

Onlookers Along Route Crew On- lookers Along Route Crew On- lookers Along Route Crew 

12 Braidwood 4.2E+00 1.5E+01 2.6E-01 2.9E+00 1.0E+01 1.8E-01 2.8E+00 9.7E+00 1.7E-01 6.3E+00 13 Clinton 4.3E+00 1.5E+01 2.7E-01 2.9E+00 1.0E+01 1.8E-01 2.8E+00 9.7E+00 1.8E-01 6.4E+00 14 Fitzpatrick 5.9E+00 2.1E+01 5.7E-01 4.0E+00 1.4E+01 3.9E-01 3.9E+00 1.4E+01 3.8E-01 8.8E+00 15 Grand Gulf 5.2E+00 1.7E+01 4.2E-01 3.5E+00 1.2E+01 2.8E-01 3.4E+00 1.1E+01 2.7E-01 7.8E+00 16 North Anna 6.2E+00 2.1E+01 5.5E-01 4.2E+00 1.4E+01 3.7E-01 4.1E+00 1.4E+01 3.6E-01 9.2E+00 17 Pilgrim 6.5E+00 2.3E+01 7.0E-01 4.4E+00 1.6E+01 4.8E-01 4.3E+00 1.5E+01 4.6E-01 9.8E+00 18 Portsmouth 5.5E+00 1.9E+01 4.4E-01 3.7E+00 1.3E+01 3.0E-01 3.6E+00 1.2E+01 2.9E-01 8.1E+00 19 Quad Cities 4.0E+00 1.3E+01 2.4E-01 2.7E+00 8.6E+00 1.7E-01 2.6E+00 8.4E+00 1.6E-01 6.0E+00 20 Savannah21 River

6.0E+00 2.1E+01 6.0E-01 4.0E+00 1.4E-01 4.1E-01 3.9E+00 1.4E+01 4.0E-01 8.9E+00 

22 Surry 6.4E+00 2.1E+01 5.8E-01 4.3E+00 1.4E+01 3.9E-01 4.2E+00 1.4E+01 3.8E-01 9.5E+00 23 Zion 4.4E+00 1.5E+01 3.1E-01 3.0E+00 1.0E+01 2.1E-01 2.9E+00 9.7E+00 2.0E-01 6.5E+00 24 (a) to convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide the number by 100.
1 November 2004 G-19 Draft NUREG-1811 Table G-7. (cont)

23 Reactor Type IRIS GT MHR PB

4 No Shipments5 per yr 35 34 

6 Environmental Effects, person-rem per reactor year(a)

7 Reactor Site Crew Onlookers Along

Route

Crew Onlookers Along

Route

Crew Onloo

8 Braidwood 2.5E+00 8.5E+00 1.5E-01 2.4E+00 8.2E+00 1.5E-01 7.9E-01 2.7E+9 Clinton 2.5E+00 8.5E+00 1.6E-01 2.4E+00 8.2E+00 1.5E-01 8.0E-01 2.8E+

10 Fitzpatrick 3.4E+00 1.2E+01 3.3E-01 3.3E+00 1.2E+01 3.2E-01 1.1E+00 3.9E+11 Grand Gulf 3.0E+00 9.8E+00 2.4E-01 2.9E+00 9.4E+00 2.3E-01 9.7E-01 3.2E+12 North Anna 3.6E+00 1.2E+01 3.2E-01 3.4E+00 1.2E+01 3.1E-01 1.2E+00 4.0E+13 Pilgrim 3.8E+00 1.3E+01 4.0E-01 3.6E+00 1.3E+01 3.9E-01 1.2E+00 4.3E+14 Portsmouth 3.1E+00 1.1E+01 2.5E-01 3.0E+00 1.1E+01 2.4E-01 1.0E+00 3.6E+15 Quad Cities 2.3E+00 7.4E+00 1.4E-01 2.2E+00 7.1E+00 1.4E-01 7.5E-01 2.4E+16 Savannah River 3.4E+00 1.2E+01 3.5E-01 3.3E+00 1.2E+01 3.3E-01 1.1E+00 3.9E+17 Surry 3.7E+00 1.2E+01 3.3E-01 3.5E+00 1.2E+01 3.2E-01 1.2E+00 4.0E+18 Zion 2.5E+00 8.5E+00 1.8E-01 2.4E+00 8.2E+00 1.7E-01 8.2E-01 2.8E+

19 (a) to convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide the number by 100.20
1 November 2004 G-20 Draft NUREG-1811 Table G.8. Latent Cancer Fatality Impacts From Routine Spent Fuel Transportation, Normalized to Reference L

2 Electrical Generation34 Reactor5 Type

Environmental Effects, Latent Cancer Fatalities Per Reactor Year

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 

6 Reactor7 Site

Crew Onlooke

rs

Along

Route

Crew Onlooker

s

Along

Route

Crew Onlooke

rs

Along

Route

Crew 

8 Braidwood 2.5E-03 8.8E-03 1.6E-04 1.7E-03 6.0E-03 1.1E-04 1.7E-03 5.8E-03 1.0E-04 3.8E-03 9 Clinton 2.6E-03 8.8E-03 1.6E-04 1.8E-03 6.0E-03 1.1E-04 1.7E-03 5.8E-03 1.1E-04 3.9E-03 

10 Fitzpatrick 3.5E-03 1.3E-02 3.4E-04 2.4E-03 8.6E-03 2.3E-04 2.3E-03 8.3E-03 2.3E-04 5.3E-03 11 Grand Gulf 3.1E-03 1.0E-02 2.5E-04 2.1E-03 6.9E-03 1.7E-04 2.1E-03 6.7E-03 1.6E-04 4.7E-03 12 North Anna 3.7E-03 1.3E-02 3.3E-04 2.5E-03 8.6E-03 2.2E-04 2.4E-03 8.3E-03 2.2E-04 5.5E-03 13 Pilgrim 3.9E-03 1.4E-02 4.2E-04 2.7E-03 9.4E-03 2.9E-04 2.6E-03 9.1E-03 2.8E-04 5.9E-03 14 Portsmouth 3.3E-03 1.1E-02 2.6E-04 2.2E-03 7.7E-03 1.8E-04 2.2E-03 7.5E-03 1.7E-04 4.9E-03 15 Quad Cities 2.4E-03 7.6E-03 1.5E-04 1.6E-03 5.2E-03 1.0E-04 1.6E-03 5.0E-03 9.6E-05 3.6E-03 16 Savannah17 River

3.6E-03 1.3E-02 3.6E-04 2.4E-03 8.6E-03 2.5E-04 2.4E-03 8.3E-03 2.4E-04 5.3E-03 

18 Surry 3.8E-03 1.3E-02 3.5E-04 2.6E-03 8.6E-03 2.4E-04 2.5E-03 8.4E-03 2.3E-04 5.7E-03 19 Zion 2.6E-03 8.9E-03 1.9E-04 1.8E-03 6.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.7E-03 5.8E-03 1.2E-04 3.9E-03 20
1 November 2004 G-21 Draft NUREG-1811 Table G.8. (cont)

23 Reactor Type

Environmental Effects, Latent Cancer Fatalities Per Reactor Year

IRIS GT MHR PBM

4 Reactor Site Crew Onlookers Along

Route

Crew Onlookers Along

Route

Crew Onlooke

5 Braidwood 1.5E-03 5.1E-03 9.1E-05 1.4E-03 4.9E-03 8.7E-05 4.8E-04 1.6E-03 6 Clinton 1.5E-03 5.1E-03 9.4E-05 1.4E-03 4.9E-03 9.0E-05 4.8E-04 1.7E-03 7 Fitzpatrick 2.0E-03 7.3E-03 2.0E-04 2.0E-03 7.0E-03 1.9E-04 6.6E-04 2.4E-03 8 Grand Gulf 1.8E-03 5.9E-03 1.4E-04 1.7E-03 5.7E-03 1.4E-04 5.8E-04 1.9E-03 9 North Anna 2.1E-03 7.3E-03 1.9E-04 2.1E-03 7.0E-03 1.8E-04 6.9E-04 2.4E-03 

10 Pilgrim 2.3E-03 8.0E-03 2.4E-04 2.2E-03 7.7E-03 2.3E-04 7.3E-04 2.6E-03 11 Portsmouth 1.9E-03 6.6E-03 1.5E-04 1.8E-03 6.3E-03 1.5E-04 6.1E-04 2.1E-03 12 Quad Cities 1.4E-03 4.4E-03 8.5E-05 1.3E-03 4.2E-03 8.1E-05 4.5E-04 1.4E-03 13 Savannah River 2.1E-03 7.3E-03 2.1E-04 2.0E-03 7.0E-03 2.0E-04 6.7E-04 2.4E-03 14 Surry 2.2E-03 7.3E-03 2.0E-04 2.1E-03 7.1E-03 1.9E-04 7.1E-04 2.4E-03 15 Zion 1.5E-03 5.1E-03 1.1E-04 1.5E-03 4.9E-03 1.0E-04 4.9E-04 1.7E-03 16
1 November 2004 G-22 Draft NUREG-1811 Table G.9. Total Detrimental Health Effects From Routine Spent Fuel Transportation, Normalized to Reference 

2 Electrical Generation34 Reactor5 Type

Environmental Effects, Total Detrimental Health Effects per reactor year

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238) ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 

6 Reactor7 Site Crew

Onlookers Along Route Crew On- lookers Along Route Crew On- lookers Along Route Crew 

8 3.6E-03 1.2E-02 2.2E-04 2.4E-03 8.5E-03 1.5E-04 2.4E-03 8.2E-03 1.5E-04 5.4E-03 

Braidwood

9 3.7E-03 1.3E-02 2.3E-04 2.5E-03 8.5E-03 1.6E-04 2.4E-03 8.2E-03 1.5E-04 5.5E-03 

Clinton

10 5.0E-03 1.8E-02 4.8E-04 3.4E-03 1.2E-02 3.3E-04 3.3E-03 1.2E-02 3.2E-04 7.5E-03 

Fitzpatrick

11 4.4E-03 1.4E-02 3.5E-04 3.0E-03 9.8E-03 2.4E-04 2.9E-03 9.5E-03 2.3E-04 6.6E-03 

Grand Gulf

12 5.2E-03 1.8E-02 4.7E-04 3.6E-03 1.2E-02 3.2E-04 3.4E-03 1.2E-02 3.1E-04 7.8E-03 

North Anna

13 5.6E-03 2.0E-02 6.0E-04 3.8E-03 1.3E-02 4.0E-04 3.7E-03 1.3E-02 3.9E-04 8.3E-03 

Pilgrim

14 4.6E-03 1.6E-02 3.7E-04 3.1E-03 1.1E-02 2.5E-04 3.0E-03 1.1E-02 2.5E-04 6.9E-03 

Portsmouth

15 3.4E-03 1.1E-02 2.1E-04 2.3E-03 7.4E-03 1.4E-04 2.2E-03 7.1E-03 1.4E-04 5.1E-03 

Quad Cities

16 Savannah17 River

5.1E-03 1.8E-02 5.1E-04 3.4E-03 1.2E-02 3.5E-04 3.3E-03 1.2E-02 3.4E-04 7.6E-03 

18 5.4E-03 1.8E-02 4.9E-04 3.7E-03 1.2E-02 3.3E-04 3.6E-03 1.2E-02 3.2E-04 8.1E-03 

Surry

19 3.7E-03 1.3E-02 2.6E-04 2.5E-03 8.5E-03 1.8E-04 2.5E-03 8.3E-03 1.7E-04 5.6E-03 

Zion

20
1 November 2004 G-23 Draft NUREG-1811 Table G.9. (cont)

23 Reactor Type

Environmental Effects, Total Detrimental Health Effects per reactor year

IRIS GT MHR PBM

4 Reactor Site Crew

Onlooker

s

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlook

5 Braidwood 2.1E-03 7.2E-03 1.3E-04 2.0E-03 6.9E-03 1.2E-04 6.7E-04 2.3E-6 Clinton 2.1E-03 7.2E-03 1.3E-04 2.0E-03 6.9E-03 1.3E-04 6.8E-04 2.3E-7 Fitzpatrick 2.9E-03 1.0E-02 2.8E-04 2.8E-03 9.9E-03 2.7E-04 9.4E-04 3.3E-8 Grand Gulf 2.6E-03 8.3E-03 2.0E-04 2.5E-03 8.0E-03 2.0E-04 8.3E-04 2.7E-9 North Anna 3.0E-03 1.0E-02 2.7E-04 2.9E-03 1.0E-02 2.6E-04 9.8E-04 3.4E-

10 Pilgrim 3.2E-03 1.1E-02 3.4E-04 3.1E-03 1.1E-02 3.3E-04 1.0E-03 3.7E-11 Portsmouth 2.7E-03 9.3E-03 2.2E-04 2.6E-03 9.0E-03 2.1E-04 8.7E-04 3.0E-12 Quad Cities 2.0E-03 6.3E-03 1.2E-04 1.9E-03 6.0E-03 1.2E-04 6.3E-04 2.0E-13 Savannah River 2.9E-03 1.0E-02 3.0E-04 2.8E-03 1.0E-02 2.8E-04 9.5E-04 3.4E-14 Surry 3.1E-03 1.0E-02 2.8E-04 3.0E-03 1.0E-02 2.7E-04 1.0E-03 3.4E-15 Zion 2.2E-03 7.3E-03 1.5E-04 2.1E-03 7.0E-03 1.5E-04 7.0E-04 2.3E-16
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-24 November 2004

1 The results in Tables G.7 to G.9 are highly sensitive to the assumed dose rate emitted from the

2 shipping cask. For conservatism, the regulatory maximum dose rate (10 mrem/hr at 2 m) was

3 assumed in the RADTRAN 5 calculations (i.e., the dose rate can be no greater than that value). 

4 The shipping casks assumed in the Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE 2002b) were designed to

5 transport spent fuel that has cooled for 5 years. In reality, most spent fuel will have cooled for

6 much longer than 5 years before it is shipped to a geologic repository. Sprung et al. (2000)

7 developed a probabilistic distribution of dose rates based on fuel cooling times that indicates

8 that approximately three-fourths of the spent fuel to be transported to a geologic repository will

9 have dose rates less than half of the regulatory limit. Consequently, the estimated population

10 doses in Table G.7 could be divided in half if realistic dose rate projections are used. 

11

12 Doses at truck stops have been found in many studies to be important contributors to public

13 dose estimates. RADTRAN 5 parameters that are used to calculate doses at stops include the

14 amount of stop time per trip, number of exposed people, and the dose rate (see Table G.5). 

15 The RADTRAN 5 stop model used here assumes that a 30-minute stop is made approximately

16 every 4 hours for food, rest, refueling, and inspections. This assumption is conservative relative

17 to the stop assumptions used in the Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE 2002), in which a 30-minute

18 stop is assumed to occur every 845 km (approximately every 8 to 10 hours) and short duration

19 (10 minutes) stops are made every 161 km (approximately every 2 hours). This equates to an

20 approximate doubling of the number of truck stops for food and refueling relative to

21 DOE (2002b).

22

23 Most of the stops made for actual spent fuel shipments are short duration stops (i.e.,

24 10 minutes) for brief visual inspections of the cargo (e.g., checking the cask tie-downs). These

25 stops typically occur in areas devoid of people, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an

26 unpopulated area. Therefore, doses to residents surrounding these types of stops are

27 negligible. In DOE (2002b), close-proximity exposures (i.e., from 1 to 15.8 m from the cask)

28 were not assumed to occur at the short-duration inspection stops. In this analysis, for the

29 purpose of developing bounding estimates of environmental effects, close-proximity (1 to 10 m

30 from cask) exposures at all truck stops were included in the RADTRAN 5 calculations. Since

31 the numbers of stops in this analysis are effectively doubled relative to DOE (2002b), truck stop

32 doses are also doubled. The doses to residents would also be lower; however, since doses to

33 residents are two to three orders of magnitude (that is, a factor of 100 to 1000) less than the

34 calculated close-proximity doses, this reduction does not affect the total stop dose.

35

36 The number of exposed persons at stops is higher in this analysis by about a factor of 1.5

37 relative to DOE (2002b) assumptions (6.9 persons in DOE 2002b versus 10 persons assumed

38 in this analysis). Thus, the bounding doses calculated in this analysis are also a factor of 1.5

39 (10 divided by 6.9) greater than those given in DOE (2002b). Furthermore, empirical data

40 provided in Griego et al. (1996) indicates that a 30-minute stop is toward the high end of the

41 stop time distribution. Average stop times for food and refueling observed by Griego et al.
Appendix G

November 2004 G-25 Draft NUREG-1811

1 (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes. This amounts to another factor of 1.5 increase in stop

2 doses calculated here relative to DOE (2002b).

3

4 Based on these observations, the staff concluded that the stop model used in this study

5 overestimates public doses at stops by at approximately a factor of four (factor of 2 for

6 close-proximity exposure time at stops, factor of 1.5 for average stop time at food and refueling

7 stops, and factor of 1.5 for the number of people in close-proximity to the shipping cask). 

8 Coupled with the factor of 2 reduction in shipping cask dose rates that result from fuel aging, the

9 doses to onlookers at stops could be reduced to about one-eighth of the doses shown in

10 Tables G.7 to G.9 [1/(2 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 2) . 0.12] to reflect more realistic truck shipping conditions.

11

12 Based on the above, use of more realistic dose rates, shipping cask capacities, and truck stop

13 model assumptions in the RADTRAN 5 calculations could substantially reduce the

14 environmental effects presented in Tables G.7 to G.9.

15

16 Table G.10 provides a comparison between the radiological incident-free doses calculated in

17 NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977) and those calculated here. The table also summarizes the key

18 incident-free input parameters that were used in NUREG-0170 and this study. Comparisons are

19 also made between the doses for spent fuel shipments in NUREG-0170 and doses calculated

20 for a shipment from Quad Cities to a potential geologic repository at Yucca Mountain because

21 the shipping distances are comparable (2530 km in NUREG-0170 versus 2,853 km for Quad

22 Cities to Yucca Mountain). As shown in the table, many parameters have changed over the

23 years and the technical bases for them have improved. For example, the work of Griego et al.

24 (1996) has improved the basis for assumptions about stop times and persons exposed at truck

25 stops, and the TRAGIS computer code has improved the basis for shipping distances and

26 population distributions along highway routes.

27

28 The incident-free impacts at truck stops shown in the table have been adjusted as discussed

29 above to reflect more realistic conditions than assumed in the bounding analysis. Adjustments

30 were not made to the on-link, off-link, and crew doses shown in Table G.7. As shown, the

31 adjusted doses in Table G.10 for spent fuel shipments from Quad Cities to potential geologic

32 repository at the potential Yucca Mountain site are about a factor of 2 lower than the

33 per-shipment doses from NUREG-0170 when the doses to and doses associated with in-transit

34 storage from NUREG-0170 are excluded. Storage doses were excluded from this analysis

35 because spent fuel shipments proceed directly from the reactor site to the potential Yucca

36 Mountain site with no intermediate storage involved. Handler doses were excluded from this

37 analysis because doses to workers that load the spent fuel cask at reactors and unload them at

38 the potential repository the are treated as facility doses, not transportation doses, in recent

39 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) documents.

40
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-26 November 2004

1 Table G.10. Comparison of Incident Free Doses from NUREG-0170 Spent Fuel Shipments

2 and Spent Fuel Shipment from Quad-Cities to a Potential Geologic Repository at

3 Yucca Mountain in this Analysis

4

5 Incident-Free Exposure Parameter

NUREG-0170

(NRC 1977)

This Study (Quad Cities to 

Yucca Mountain)(a)

6 2530 2853 One-Way Shipping Distance, km

7 Travel Fraction

8 0.05 0.02 Urban

9 0.05 0.12 Suburban

10 0.9 0.86 Rural

Population Density along Highway, persons per km2 11

12 3861 2391.3 Urban

13 719 310.2 Suburban

14 6 9.1 Rural

15 Speed, km/hr

16 24 88 Urban

17 40 88 Suburban

18 88 88 Rural

19 Traffic Count, vehicles/hr

20 2800 2400 Urban

21 780 760 Suburban

22 470 530 Rural

23 10 10 Shipment Dose Rate, mrem/hr at 2m

24 2 Calculated (7.4 m from package) Crew Dose Rate, mrem/hr

25 Stop time, hr per trip

26 2 3 hours per trip (30 minutes per Urban

4 hours driving time) 27 5 Suburban

28 1 Rural
Appendix G

November 2004 G-27 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-10. (cont)

2

3 Incident-Free Exposure Parameter

NUREG-0170

(NRC 1977)

This Study (Quad Cities to 

Yucca Mountain)(a)

Population Density at Stops (per km2 4 )

5 3861 Distribution: 1 to 10 m - 30,000; Urban

10 to 800 m - 340 (see

Figure G.1)

6 719 Suburban

7 6 Rural

8 Person-rem/Shipment

9 1.2E-01 4.8E-02 Crew

10 1.5E-02 3.1E-03 Off-link

11 7.4E-03 1.7E-02 On-link

12 1.9E-02 1.7E-02(b) Stops

13 1.6E-01 8.5E-02 Total

14 2.1E-01 Not Calculated Handlers + Storage

15 3.7E-01 8.5E-02 Grand Total

16 (a) Tables G-5 and G-6 provide the bases for these input parameters.

17 (b) Stop doses have been adjusted as described in the text to reflect more realistic assumptions than

18 were used in the bounding analysis (Table G.7).

19

20 G.2.2 Transportation Accident Impacts

21

22 RADTRAN 5 assesses accident risk by combining the probabilities and consequences of

23 accidents to produce a risk value. RADTRAN 5 considers a spectrum of potential transportation

24 accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and low consequences (e.g., “fender

25 benders”) to those with low frequencies and high consequences (i.e., accidents in which the

26 shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical and thermal conditions).

27

28 Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The

29 radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were taken directly from the Early Site Permit

30 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Data (DOE 2003). The report included

31 hundreds of radionuclides for each advanced reactor type. A screening analysis was conducted

32 to select the dominant contributors to accident risks to simplify the RADTRAN 5 calculations. 

33 The screening identifies the radionuclides that will contribute more than 99.999 percent of the

34 dose from inhalation. A “sum-of-fractions” approach was used for this screening. First, the

35 inventory of each radionuclide was multiplied by its respective inhalation dose conversion factor

36 taken from FGR-13 (Eckerman et al. 2002). These values were then summed. Then, each

37 inventory-conversion factor product was divided by the sum of the products to obtain the fraction

38 of the total inhalation dose for each radionuclide. The resulting fractions were then sorted from
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-28 November 2004

1 largest to smallest, their cumulative contributions were calculated, and those that contributed to

2 99.999 percent of the inhalation dose potential were selected. Several gases, including H-3,

3 Kr-85, and I-129, were added to the list because they are more easily released than the solid

4 and semi-volatile species contained in the fuel. The inventories of radionuclides used in this

5 study are shown in Table G.11. Note that the dominant radionuclides are approximately the

6 same regardless of fuel type. Also note that adequate radionuclide inventory data was not

7 given in INEEL (2003) for the ACR-700 and IRIS advanced reactors. It was also not provided in

8 WASH-1238 for the reference LWR. Consequently, accident risks were not quantified for these

9 plant types.

10

11 Massive shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the heavy radiation

12 shielding and accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must

13 be certified Type B packaging systems, meaning they must withstand a series of severe

14 hypothetical accident conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding capability. 

15 The tests include a 9 m (30 ft) free drop onto an unyielding surface, drop onto a puncture probe,

16 exposure to an engulfing 800°C fire for 30 minutes, and underwater immersion. According to

17 Sprung et al. (2000), the probability of encountering accident conditions more severe than these

18 tests that could lead to shipping cask failure are less than 0.01 percent of all accidents (that is,

19 more than 99.99 percent of all accidents would not result in a release of radioactive material

20 from the shipping cask). It was assumed that shipping casks for advanced reactor spent fuels

21 will provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the spent fuel cargo.

22

23 The RADTRAN 5 accident risk calculations were performed using unit radionuclide inventories

24 (Ci/MTU) for the spent fuel shipments from the various reactor types. The resulting risk

25 estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent fuel shipments (MTU/yr) to derive

26 estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel shipments from each potential

27 advanced reactor site. As was done for routine exposures, it was assumed that the numbers of

28 shipments of spent fuel per year are equivalent to the annual discharge quantities. These are

29 32.76 MTU/yr for the ABWR and ESBWR, 24.4 MTU/yr for the AP1000, 6.8 MTU/yr for the

30 four-module GT-MHR, and 8.3 MTU/yr for the eight-module PBMR. These data were taken

31 from INEEL (2003) and have not been normalized to the reference LWR net electrical

32 generation.

33

34 Route-specific accident rates (accidents per km) were derived for the RADTRAN 5 accident risk

35 analysis. The approach used to develop accident rates for spent fuel shipments is as follows. 

36 The TRAGIS data provides estimates of the distance traveled in each state along a route and

37 the type of highway (interstate, state highway, or other). Saricks and Tompkins (1999) provide

38 accident rates for each state that are a function of highway type. The approach taken to
Appendix G

November 2004 G-29 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-11. Radionuclide Inventories Used in the Transportation Accident Risk 

2 Calculations for Each Advanced Reactor Type

3

4 ABWR and ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

5 Radio6 nuclideInventory,

Ci/MTU

RadionuclideInventory,

Ci/MTU

RadionuclideInventory,

Ci/MTU

RadionuclideInventory,

Ci/MTU

7 1.34E+03 Am-241 7.27E+02 Am-241 2.21E+03 Am-241 2.04E+03 Am-241

8 3.34E+01 Am-242 Am-242m

m

1.31E+01 Am-242

m

1.36E+01 Am-242m 2.30E+01

9 3.24E+01 Am-243 3.34E+01 Am-243 1.39E+01 Am-243 1.29E+02 Am-243

10 1.14E+04 Ce-144 8.87E+03 Ce-144 5.82E+04 Ce-144 3.22E+04 Ce-144

11 5.51E+01 Cm-242 2.83E+01 Cm-242 4.08E+01 Cm-242 7.52E+01 Cm-242

12 3.69E+01 Cm-243 3.07E+01 Cm-243 5.45E+00 Cm-243 5.29E+01 Cm-243

13 4.86E+03 Cm-244 7.75E+03 Cm-244 7.64E+02 Cm-244 1.48E+04 Cm-244

14 6.56E-01 Cm-245 1.21E+00 Cm-245 4.46E-03 Cm-245 1.43E+00 Cm-245

15 2.73E+03 Co-60 0.00E+00 Co-60 0.00E+00 Co-60 0.00E+00 Co-60(a)

16 4.81E+04 Cs-134 4.80E+04 Cs-134 5.98E+04 Cs-134 1.09E+05 Cs-134

17 1.24E+05 Cs-137 9.31E+04 Cs-137 2.93E+05 Cs-137 3.82E+05 Cs-137

18 1.03E+04 Eu-154 9.13E+03 Eu-154 8.72E+03 Eu-154 1.01E+04 Eu-154

19 5.22E+03 Eu-155 4.62E+03 Eu-155 2.37E+03 Eu-155 2.93E+03 Eu-155

20 3.37E+04 Pm-147 1.76E+04 Pm-147 1.87E+05 Pm-147 1.37E+05 Pm-147

21 6.14E+03 Pu-238 6.07E+03 Pu-238 3.17E+03 Pu-238 1.23E+04 Pu-238

22 3.87E+02 Pu-239 2.55E+02 Pu-239 6.07E+02 Pu-239 2.99E+02 Pu-239

23 6.15E+02 Pu-240 5.43E+02 Pu-240 1.07E+03 Pu-240 8.98E+02 Pu-240

24 1.22E+05 Pu-241 6.96E+04 Pu-241 2.25E+05 Pu-241 1.94E+05 Pu-241

25 2.24E+00 Pu-242 1.82E+00 Pu-242 4.21E+00 Pu-242 1.22E+01 Pu-242

26 1.64E+04 Ru-106 1.55E+04 Ru-106 4.01E+04 Ru-106 4.53E+04 Ru-106

27 5.37E+03 Sb-125 3.83E+03 Sb-125 5.96E+03 Sb-125 6.79E+03 Sb-125

28 8.85E+04 Sr-90 6.19E+04 Sr-90 2.42E+05 Sr-90 2.92E+05 Sr-90

29 8.85E+04 Y-90 6.19E+04 Y-90 2.42E+05 Y-90 2.92E+05 Y-90

30 (a) Co-60 is an activation product. Only the ABWR/ESBWR submittal in INEEL (2003) provided

31 inventory data for activation products.

32 estimate route-specific accident rates was to multiply the state-level accident or fatality rates by
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-30 November 2004

1 the distances traveled in each state on the corresponding highway type and then sum over all

2 the states on each route. For example, for interstate highways, the interstate distances and

3 interstate accident rates were used. For non-interstate highway travel, either the “Primary” or

4 “Other” rates given by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were used. This allowed computation of

5 route-specific accident rates.

6

7 Transportation accident risk analysis in RADTRAN 5 is performed using an accident severity

8 and package release model. The user can define up to 30 severity categories, with each

9 category increasing in magnitude. Severity categories are related to fire, puncture, crush, and

10 immersion environments created in vehicular accidents. For this analysis, the 19 severity

11 categories defined in NUREG/CR-6672 (Sprung et al. 2000) were adopted.

12

13 Each severity category has an assigned conditional probability (or the probability, given an

14 accident occurs that it will be of the specified severity). The accident scenarios are further

15 defined by allowing the user to input release fractions and aerosol and respirable fractions for

16 each severity category. These fractions are a function of the physical-chemical properties of the

17 materials being transported as well as the mechanical and thermal accident conditions that

18 define the severity categories. The severity and release fractions used here are presented in

19 Table G-12.

20

21 The severity categories and release fractions in Sprung et al. (2000) were designed specifically

22 to address accidents involving current generation LWR fuel and the current generation of spent

23 fuel shipping casks. While some of the advanced reactor fuel designs are similar to the current

24 generation (e.g., the ABWR, ESBWR, AP1000, ACR-700, and IRIS), others are significantly

25 different, including the GT-MHR, and PBMR. Extrapolating the current generation of fuel and

26 shipping casks to advanced reactor fuels and shipping casks is relatively straightforward since

27 the fuel form, cladding, physical and mechanical properties, are similar. Furthermore,

28 substantial experimental data exists to develop technically defensible release fractions for

29 various radionuclide groups (e.g., gases, semi-volatiles such as cesium and ruthenium, and

30 particulates). However, detailed experimental studies of releases from GT-MHR, and PBMR

31 fuels have not been conducted, so there are significant uncertainties about potential release

32 quantities from these fuels. For this assessment, release fractions for current generation LWR

33 fuels were used to approximate the impacts from the advanced reactor spent fuel shipments. 

34 This essentially assumes that the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel

35 coatings) behave similarly to current LWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal

36 conditions. Due to the lack of data on gas-cooled reactor fuels, it is currently not known if this

37 approach is bounding. This approach will have to be evaluated at the CP/COL stage. However,

38 gas-cooled reactors are designed to operate at much higher temperatures than LWRs and thus

39 high temperature conditions anticipated in transportation accident fires should have less of an

40

41
Appendix G

November 2004 G-31 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-12. Severity and Release Fractions Used to Model Spent Fuel Transportation

2 Accidents (Sprung et al. 2000)

3

4 Severity

5 Category

Severity

Fraction(a)

Release Fractions(b)

Gas Cesium Ruthenium Particulates Crud

6 1.53E-08 0.8 2.4E-08 6.0E-07 6.0E-07 2.0E-03 1

7 5.88E-05 0.14 4.1E-09 1.0E-07 1.0E-07 1.4E-03 2

8 1.81E-06 0.18 5.4E-09 1.3E-07 1.3E-07 1.8E-03 3

9 7.49E-08 0.84 3.6E-05 3.8E-06 3.8E-06 3.2E-03 4

10 4.65E-07 0.43 1.3E-08 3.2E-07 3.2E-07 1.8E-03 5

11 3.31E-09 0.49 1.5E-08 3.7E-07 3.7E-07 2.1E-03 6

12 0 0.85 2.7E-05 2.1E-06 2.1E-06 3.1E-03 7

13 1.13E-08 0.82 2.4E-08 6.1E-07 6.1E-07 2.0E-02 8

14 8.03E-11 0.89 2.7E-08 6.7E-07 6.7E-07 2.2E-03 9

15 0 0.91 5.9E-06 6.8E-07 6.8E-07 2.5E-03 10

16 1.44E-10 0.82 2.4E-08 6.1E-07 6.1E-07 2.0E-03 11

17 1.02E-12 0.89 2.7E-08 6.7E-07 6.7E-07 2.2E-03 12

18 0 0.91 5.9E-06 6.8E-07 6.8E-07 2.5E-03 13

19 7.49E-11 0.84 9.6E-05 8.4E-05 1.8E-05 6.4E-03 14

20 0 0.85 5.5E-05 5.0E-05 9.0E-06 5.9E-03 15

21 0 0.91 5.9E-06 6.4E-06 6.8E-07 3.3E-03 16

22 0 0.91 5.9E-06 6.4E-06 6.8E-07 3.3E-03 17

23 5.86E-06 0.84 1.7E-05 6.7E-08 6.7E-08 2.5E-03 18

24 0.99993 0 0 0 0 0 19

25 (a) Severity fractions are the conditional probabilities, given the occurrence of an accident, that the

26 mechanical and thermal conditions experienced by a spent fuel shipping cask are within the

27 conditions defined by the Severity Category. See Sprung et al. (2000) for detailed information

28 about the derivation of these data.

29 (b) RADTRAN5 also models the fraction of the released material that is of small enough particle size

30 to be dispersible in prevailing wind conditions and the fraction that is respirable. For this analysis,

31 these parameters were set to 1.0 (i.e., 100 percent dispersible and 100 percent respirable).

32

33 effect on radionuclide releases than they do for LWR fuels. Thus, smaller release fractions are
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-32 November 2004

1 anticipated for advanced gas-cooled reactor fuels than for LWR fuels subjected to thermal

2 transients.

3

4 For accidents that result in a release of radioactive material, RADTRAN 5 assumes the material

5 is dispersed into the environment according to standard Gaussian diffusion models. The code

6 allows the user to choose two different methods for modeling the atmospheric transport of

7 radionuclides after a potential accident. The user can either input Pasquill atmospheric-stability

8 category data or averaged time-integrated concentrations. In this analysis, the default standard

9 cloud option (using time-integrated concentrations) was used.

10

11 RADTRAN 5 calculates the population dose from the released radioactive material for five

12 possible exposure pathways. These pathways are:

13

14 C External dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material.

15

16 C External dose from radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume. The

17 analysis included the radiation exposures from this pathway even though the area

18 surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated and decontaminated,

19 thus preventing long-term exposures from this pathway. 

20

21 C Internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants.

22

23 C Internal dose from radioactive materials that were deposited on the ground and the

24 resuspended. The analysis included the radiation exposures from this pathway even

25 though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a potential accidental

26 release would prevent long-term exposures.

27

28 C Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food. The analysis assumed interdiction of

29 foodstuffs and evacuation after an accident so no internal dose due to ingestion of

30 contaminated foods was calculated.

31

32 A sixth pathway, external doses arising from increased radiation fields surrounding a shipping

33 cask with damaged shielding, was considered, but not included in the analysis. It is possible

34 that shielding materials incorporated into the cask structures could become damaged as a result

35 of an accident. For example, casks with lead shielding could undergo a slumping phenomenon

36 in which impact or fire causes gaps to form in the lead. Radiation would penetrate through the

37 gaps in the shielding at higher intensities, leading to higher radiation dose rates. These are

38 commonly referred to as Loss of Shielding (LOS) events. They were not included in this

39 assessment because their contribution to spent fuel transportation risks is much smaller than

40 the dispersal accident risks.

41

42 Standard radionuclide uptake and dosimetry models are incorporated into RADTRAN 5. The
Appendix G

November 2004 G-33 Draft NUREG-1811

1 computer code combines the accident consequences and frequencies of each severity

2 category, sums up the severity categories, and then integrates across all the shipments. 

3 Accident-risk impacts that are provided in the form of a collective population dose (person-rem

4 over the entire shipping campaign) are then converted to population risk using health-effects

5 conversion factors. The dose to risk factors, which were taken from Federal Guidance

6 Report 13 (Eckerman et al. 2002), assume 6.0E-04 LCFs per person-rem and 8.5E-04 total

7 detrimental health effects per person-rem for workers and the general public. Total detriment

8 includes fatal and non-fatal cancers and severe hereditary effects.

9

10 The shipping distances and population distribution information for the routes used for the

11 evaluation of the impacts of incident-free transportation (see Table G.4) were also used to

12 calculate transportation impacts. Representative shipping casks described above were

13 assumed.

14

15 Table G.13 presents unit (per MTU) accident risks associated with transportation of spent fuel

16 from each potential advanced reactor site to the potential Yucca Mountain HLW repository. 

17 Projected annual accident risks, normalized to the WASH-1238 reference LWR net electrical

18 generation (i.e., 880 MW[e]) are presented in Table G.14. As expected, accident risks are

19 highest for the longest shipments. Also, consistent with past spent fuel transportation risk

20 assessments, the human health impacts associated with routine (incident-free) transportation

21 are several orders of magnitude greater than accident risks.

22

23 Considering the uncertainties in the data and computational methods, the overall transportation

24 accident risks associated with ABWR, ESBWR, AP1000, GT-MHR, and PBMR spent fuel

25 shipments are judged to be small. Although likely to also be small, accident risks associated

26 with IRIS and ACR-700 spent fuel shipments could not be analyzed due to lack of radionuclide

27 source term data. Additional analyses are necessary to quantify the impacts of IRIS and

28 ACR-700 spent fuel shipments.

29

30 For perspective, there are approximately 725,000 persons that live within 800 m of the route

31 between the North Anna ESP site and the potential Yucca Mountain (800 m is the distance on

32 either side of the route used by RADTRAN 5 to compute the routine repository site doses to the

33 population along the route). According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

34 the cancer mortality rate in the United States in 2001 was 194.4 fatalities per 100,000 persons

35 (NCHS 2004). Using this rate, one would expect there to be about 1400 cancer fatalities per

36 year from among the 725,000 people along the route between the North Anna ESP site and the

37 potential Yucca Mountain repository site. This is many orders of magnitude greater than the

38 annual accident risk values presented in Table G.14. Therefore, no increase in environmental

39 effects of spent-fuel transportation accidents are expected as a result of shipping spent fuel

40 from ESP sites to the potential Yucca Mountain spent fuel disposal facility.

41

42

43 G.3 Shipment of Radioactive Waste
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-34 November 2004

1

2 This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting radioactive waste from ESP

3 sites. The environmental conditions listed in 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to shipments of

4 radioactive waste are:

5

6 C Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is packaged and in a solid form.

7

8 C Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is shipped from the reactor by truck or rail.

9

10 INEEL (2003) indicates that all of the advanced reactor technologies will transport their

11 radioactive waste by truck. Furthermore, INEEL (2003) indicates that all of the advanced

12 reactor technologies plan to solidify and package their radioactive waste. In addition, all of the

13 advanced reactor technologies will be subject to NRC (10 CFR Part 71) and Department of

14 Transportation (DOT, 49 CFR Parts 173 and 178) regulations for the shipment of radioactive

15 material.

16

17 Table S-4 also specifies the following limits that apply to shipment of radioactive waste:

18

19 C Weight – less than 73,000 lbs. per truck or 100 tons per cask per railcar

20

21 C Traffic density – less than one truck shipment per day or 3 railcars per month.

22

23 The advanced reactor technologies would be capable of shipping their radioactive wastes in

24 compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions. With respect to the traffic density, all of

25 the advanced reactor vendors provided radioactive waste generation estimates. Table G.15

26 provides these estimates, in addition to the radioactive waste generation estimates for the

27 reference LWR in WASH-1238.

28

29 As shown in the table, only the PBMR generates a larger volume of radioactive waste than the

30 reference LWR in WASH-1238. However, the GT-MHR and PBMR information in INEEL (2003)

31 assumed the wastes generated from those designs would be shipped using two different

packaging systems: one that hauls 28.3 m3/shipment (1000 ft3 32 per shipment) and one that hauls

5.7 m3/shipment (200 ft3 33 per shipment). Under those conditions, the number of shipments of

34 radioactive waste per year, normalized to 1100 MW(e) electric generation capacity, would be

35 about six shipments/year per 1100 MW(e) (880 net MW[e]) for the GT-MHR and seven

36 shipments/year per 1100 MW(e) for the PBMR. These estimates are well below the reference

37 LWR (42 shipments/yr per 1100 MW[e]). In any event, all the estimates are well below the

38 1 truck shipment per day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52 Table S-4. Doubling the shipment

39 estimates to account for empty return shipments is still well below the 1 shipment per day

40 condition.

41

42 Table G-13. Unit Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Risks for Advanced Reactors
Appendix G

November 2004 G-35 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Site

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

2 Population Dose, person-rem/MTU

3 1.1E-05 1.0E-06 1.5E-06 2.5E-06 Braidwood

4 5.1E-05 1.0E-06 1.5E-06 2.6E-06 Clinton

5 1.9E-05 1.7E-06 2.5E-06 4.3E-06 Fitzpatrick

6 2.1E-05 1.9E-06 2.8E-06 4.7E-06 Grand Gulf

7 2.3E-05 2.1E-06 3.2E-06 5.4E-06 North Anna

8 4.0E-05 3.7E-06 5.8E-06 9.3E-06 Pilgrim

9 2.6E-05 2.1E-06 3.1E-06 5.2E-06 Portsmouth

10 1.0E-05 9.4E-07 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 Quad Cities

11 2.6E-05 2.4E-06 3.6E-06 6.1E-06 Savannah River

12 2.4E-05 2.2E-06 3.3E-06 5.6E-06 Surry

13 1.5E-05 1.4E-06 2.1E-06 3.5E-06 Zion

14 Latent Cancer Fatalities per MTU

15 6.7E-09 6.0E-10 8.9E-10 1.5E-09 Braidwood

16 3.1E-08 6.1E-10 9.1E-10 1.5E-09 Clinton

17 1.1E-08 1.0E-09 1.5E-09 2.6E-09 Fitzpatrick

18 1.2E-08 1.1E-09 1.7E-09 2.8E-09 Grand Gulf

19 1.4E-08 1.3E-09 1.9E-09 3.2E-09 North Anna

20 2.4E-08 2.2E-09 3.5E-09 5.6E-09 Pilgrim

21 1.5E-08 1.2E-09 1.8E-09 3.1E-09 Portsmouth

22 6.2E-09 5.6E-10 8.4E-10 8.4E-10 Quad Cities

23 1.6E-08 1.4E-09 2.2E-09 3.7E-09 Savannah River

24 1.4E-08 1.3E-09 2.0E-09 3.3E-09 Surry

25 9.0E-09 8.2E-10 1.2E-09 2.1E-09 Zion
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-36 November 2004

1 Table G-13. (cont)

2

3 Site

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

4 Total Detrimental Health

5 Effects per MTU

6 9.4E-09 8.5E-10 1.3E-09 2.2E-09 Braidwood

7 4.3E-08 8.6E-10 1.3E-09 2.2E-09 Clinton

8 1.6E-08 1.4E-09 2.2E-09 3.7E-09 Fitzpatrick

9 1.7E-08 1.6E-09 2.4E-09 4.0E-09 Grand Gulf

10 2.0E-08 1.8E-09 2.7E-09 4.6E-09 North Anna

11 3.4E-08 3.1E-09 5.0E-09 7.9E-09 Pilgrim

12 2.2E-08 1.7E-09 2.6E-09 4.4E-09 Portsmouth

13 8.8E-09 8.0E-10 1.2E-09 1.2E-09 Quad Cities

14 2.2E-08 2.0E-09 3.1E-09 5.2E-09 Savannah River

15 2.0E-08 1.9E-09 2.8E-09 4.7E-09 Surry

16 1.3E-08 1.2E-09 1.7E-09 3.0E-09 Zion

17

18

19 Table G.14. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors, 

20 Normalized to Reference LWR Net Electrical Generation

21

22 Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

23 20.3 19.7 6.0 5.8 MTU/yr

24 Population Dose, person-rem/yr

25 2.2E-04 2.0E-05 8.9E-06 1.5E-05 Braidwood

26 1.0E-03 2.0E-05 9.0E-06 1.5E-05 Clinton

27 3.8E-04 3.3E-05 1.5E-05 2.5E-05 Fitzpatrick

28 4.2E-04 3.7E-05 1.7E-05 2.7E-05 Grand Gulf

29 4.7E-04 4.2E-05 1.9E-05 3.1E-05 North Anna
Appendix G

November 2004 G-37 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-14. (contd)

2

3 Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

4 8.1E-04 7.2E-05 3.5E-05 5.4E-05 Pilgrim

5 5.2E-04 4.0E-05 1.8E-05 3.0E-05 Portsmouth

6 2.1E-04 1.8E-05 8.4E-06 8.2E-06 Quad Cities

7 5.3E-04 4.7E-05 2.1E-05 3.5E-05 Savannah River

8 4.8E-04 4.3E-05 2.0E-05 3.2E-05 Surry

9 3.0E-04 2.7E-05 1.2E-05 2.0E-05 Zion

10 Latent Cancer Fatalities per Year

11 1.3E-07 1.2E-08 5.3E-09 8.8E-09 Braidwood

12 6.2E-07 1.2E-08 5.4E-09 8.9E-09 Clinton

13 2.3E-07 2.0E-08 9.1E-09 1.5E-08 Fitzpatrick

14 2.5E-07 2.2E-08 1.0E-08 1.6E-08 Grand Gulf

15 2.8E-07 2.5E-08 1.1E-08 1.9E-08 North Anna

16 4.9E-07 4.3E-08 2.1E-08 3.3E-08 Pilgrim

17 3.1E-07 2.4E-08 1.1E-08 1.8E-08 Portsmouth

18 1.3E-07 1.1E-08 5.0E-09 4.9E-09 Quad Cities

19 3.2E-07 2.8E-08 1.3E-08 2.1E-08 Savannah River

20 2.9E-07 2.6E-08 1.2E-08 1.9E-08 Surry

21 1.8E-07 1.6E-08 7.3E-09 1.2E-08 Zion

22 Total Detrimental Health Effects per Year

23 1.9E-07 1.7E-08 7.6E-09 1.3E-08 Braidwood

24 8.8E-07 1.7E-08 7.7E-09 1.3E-08 Clinton

25 3.2E-07 2.8E-08 1.3E-08 2.1E-08 Fitzpatrick

26 3.5E-07 3.1E-08 1.4E-08 2.3E-08 Grand Gulf

27 4.0E-07 3.6E-08 1.6E-08 2.7E-08 North Anna

28 6.9E-07 6.1E-08 3.0E-08 4.6E-08 Pilgrim

29 4.4E-07 3.4E-08 1.6E-08 2.6E-08 Portsmouth
Appendix G

Table G-14. (contd)

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

Draft NUREG-1811 G-38 November 2004

1 1.8E-07 1.6E-08 7.1E-09 6.9E-09 Quad Cities

2 4.5E-07 4.0E-08 1.8E-08 3.0E-08 Savannah River

3 4.1E-07 3.7E-08 1.7E-08 2.7E-08 Surry

4 2.6E-07 2.3E-08 1.0E-08 1.7E-08 Zion

5

6

7 Table G-15. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors

8

9 Reactor Type

INEEL (2003)

Waste

Generation

Information

Annual Waste

Volume, m3

/yr

per site

Electrical

Output,

MW(e)/site

Normalized

Rate,

m3

/1100

MW(e) plant

(880 MW[e]

net)(a)

Shipments/110

0 MW(e) (880

MW[e] net)

Electrical

Output(b)

10 Reference LWR

11 (WASH-1238)

3800 ft3

/yr

per unit

108 1100 108 46

12 100 m ABWR 3

/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

13 100 m ESBWR 3

/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

14 1964 ft AP1000 3

/yr

per unit

56 1150 45 20

15 47.5 m ACR-700 3

/yr

per unit

47.5 731 64 28

16 870 ft IRIS 3

/yr

per unit

74(3 units) 1005

(3 units)

67 29

17 98 m GT-MHR 3

/yr

(4 unit plant)

98 (4 units) 1140 (4 units) 86 37(c)

18 100 drums/yr PBMR

per unit

168 (8 units) 1320 (8 units) 118 51(c)
Appendix G

November 2004 G-39 Draft NUREG-1811

1 Table G-15. (contd)

2

Conversions: 1 m3

 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3 3 ).

4 (a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generations rates to an equivalent electrical generation

5 output are given in Table G.1 for each reactor type. All are normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical

6 output (1100 MW[e] plant with an 80 percent capacity factor).

7 (b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste

shipment capacity of 2.34 m3

 per shipment (108 m3 8 /yr divided by 46 shipments/yr).

(c) INEEL (2003) states that 90 percent of the waste could be shipped on trucks carrying 28 m3 9 (1000 ft3)

of waste and the remaining 10 percent in shipments carrying 5.7 m3

 (200 ft3 10 ) of radioactive waste. 

11 This would result in 6 to 7 shipments per year after normalization to the reference LWR electrical

12 output.

13

14 G.4 References

15

16 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

17 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

18

19 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and

20 Transportation of Radioactive Material."

21

22 Baker, D.A., W.J. Bailey, C.E. Beyer, F.C. Bold, and J.J. Tawil. 1988. Assessment of the Use of

23 Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Power Reactors. NUREG/CR-5009, U.S. Nuclear

24 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

25

26 Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. “Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model

27 Input Parameters for Truck Stops,” in Conference Proceedings – Waste Management 96,

28 CONF-960212-44. Tucson, Arizona.

29

30 Hostick, C.J., J.C. Lavender, and B.H. Wakeman. 1992. Time/Motion Observations and Dose

31 Analysis of Reactor Loading, Transportation, and Dry Unloading of an Overweight Truck Spent

32 Fuel Shipment. PNL-7206, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

33

34 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit

35 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Design File Number 3747. 

36 Idaho Falls, Idaho.

37

38 Johnson, P.E., and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2000. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic

39 Information System (WebTRAGIS) User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-2000/86, Oak Ridge National

40 Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed on the Internet at

41 http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106749.pdf

42
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1811 G-40 November 2004

1 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 2004. Cancer. Centers for Disease Control and

2 Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed on the Internet at

3 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/faststats/cancer.htm.

4

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

6

7 Neuhauser, K.S., F.L. Kanipe, and R.F. Weiner. 2003. RADTRAN 5 User Guide. 

8 SAND2003-2354, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Accessed on the

9 Internet at http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand_doc/2003/032354.pdf

10

11 Saricks, C.L., and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates of Surface Freight

12 Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,

13 Illinois.

14

15 Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills,

16 K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of

17 Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

18 Washington, D.C.

19

20 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

21 Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C.

22

23 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk

24 Assessment. DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Washington, D.C.

25

26 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a

27 Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at

28 Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

29 Management, Washington, D.C.

30

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental

32 Exposure to Radionuclides. Federal Guidance Report No. 13, Washington, D.C.

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Final Environmental Statement on

35 Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Volume1,

36 Washington, D.C.

37

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

39 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

40 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants. 

41 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
Appendix H

Authorizations and Consultations
November 2004 H-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix H

Authorizations and Consultations

1 This appendix contains a list of the environmental-related authorization, permits, and certifica2 tions potentially required by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal

3 agencies for activities related to the construction and operation of potential new nuclear units at

4 the North Anna ESP site, as listed in Revision 3 of the Environmental Report (Table 1.2-1).
Appendix H

Draft NUREG-1811 H-2 November 2004

1
Appendix H

November 2004 H-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Appendix H

Draft NUREG-1811 H-4 November 2004

1
Appendix I

Plant Parameter Envelope Values
November 2004 I-1 Draft NUREG-1811

Appendix I

Plant Parameter Envelope Values

1 This appendix contains the Dominion Plant Parameter Envelope as submitted in Revision 3 of 

2 the Environmental Report (Table 3.1-1).
Draft NUREG-1811 I-2 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-3 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-4 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-5 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-6 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-7 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-8 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-9 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-10 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-11 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-12 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-13 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-14 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-15 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-16 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-17 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-18 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-19 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-20 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-21 Draft NUREG-1811

1
Draft NUREG-1811 I-22 November 2004

1
November 2004 I-23 Draft NUREG-1811

1