* U.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

NUREG-1947

Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for

Combined Licenses (COLs) for

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Units 3 and 4

Draft Report for Comment

Office of New Reactors
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http:i/ vw. nrc..Iov!readiiq-rm.htmi.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Administration

Reproduction and Mail Services Branch

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION(,nrc.qov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

httrr://www nrm nnt•, in-m/n-niecin.! i~~

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 4 2 nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical

specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff

(NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences

(NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from

international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4)

brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was

accessed, the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.
*U.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

NUREG-1947

Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for

Combined Licenses (COLs) for

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Units 3 and 4

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: August 2010

Date Published: September 2010

Office of New Reactors
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

Any 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-1947 in your comments and send them by the end of the 75-day

comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of this draft.

To submit comments:

Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch

Office of Administration

Mail Stop: TWB-05-BO1M

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Fax: (301) 492-3446

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e-mail at VoqtIe.COLAElSanrc._qov.

For any additional information or copies of this draft, contact:

Ms. Mallecia Sutton

Office of New Reactors

Mail Stop: T-7E18

U.S. Nuclear Regulatoy Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 0673

Email: MalIecia.Sutton(anrc.qov

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This NUREG references information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S. C. 3501 et seq.). There are no new information collection

requirements in this NUREG. The existing information collections in the NUREG were

previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0014;

3150-0011; 3150-0021; 3150-0151; 3150-0008; 3150-0002; and 3150-0093.

Public Protection Notification

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

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

currenly valid OMB control number.

NUREG-1947 has been reproduced

from the best available copy.
1 Abstract

2 This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) documents the U.S. Nuclear

3 Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs analysis and conclusions regarding the environmental

4 impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units (Units 3 and 4) at the Vogtle

5 Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site near Waynesboro, Georgia, and the mitigation measures

6 available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental impacts.

7 On August 26, 2009, NRC issued Early Site Permit (ESP)-004 to Southern Nuclear Operating

8 Company, Inc. (Southern) and several co-applicants (i.e., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe

9 Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia) for

10 the VEGP ESP site (the site of the proposed Units 3 and 4). An ESP is an NRC approval of a

11 site as suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. As requested

12 in the ESP application, the VEGP ESP also included a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) that

13 authorized certain limited construction activities at the site in accordance with Title 10 of the

14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subparts 50.10 and 52.24(c). In response to subsequent

15 license amendment applications from Southern relating to the activities authorized by the ESP

16 LWA, the NRC issued three amendments to the ESP in May, June, and July 2010, respectively.

17 These amendments authorized Southern to use Category-1 and Category-2 backfill material

18 from additional onsite sources and to use engineered granular backfill over the side slopes of

19 the Units 3 and 4 excavations.

20 On March 31, 2008, Southern (on behalf of itself and its four co-applicants) submitted an

21 application for combined licenses (COLs) for two new units at the VEGP site, referencing the

22 VEGP ESP. A COL is a Commission approval for the construction and operation of one or

23 more nuclear power facilities. Southern subsequently updated its COL application to reference

24 the issued ESP-004.

25 For a COL application that references an ESP, the NRC staff, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.75(c),

26 prepares a supplement to the ESP EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(e). NRC regulations

27 related to the environmental review of COL applications are in 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part

28 52, Subpart C. Pursuant to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), a COL applicant

29 referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues

30 that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified new

31 and significant information regarding such issues. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.39,

32 matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent

33 proceedings, absent identification of new and significant information.

34

September 2010 iii Draft NUREG-1947
1 In October 2009, Southern supplemented its COL application to include a second request for an

2 LWA. The second LWA, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10 (d), would authorize installation of

3 reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with placement of

4 concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab.

5 After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed action, the NRC staffs

6 preliminary recommendation to the Commission is that the COLs and LWA be issued.

7 This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the environmental report and

8 responses to staff requests for additional information, submitted by Southern; (2) the staffs

9 review conducted for the ESP application and documented in the ESP EIS; (3) the staff s review

10 conducted for the ESP license amendments as documented in the staffs environmental

11 assessments; (4) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (5) the staffs own

12 independent review of potential new and significant information available since preparation and

13 publication of the ESP EIS; and (6) the assessments summarized in this SEIS, including the

14 potential mitigation measures identified. The staffs evaluation of the safety and security

15 aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the staffs Safety Evaluation Report.

Draft NUREG-1 947 iv September 2010
1 Contents

2 A b s tra c t ......................................................................................................................................... iii

3 Executive Sum mary ............................................................................................................. xi

4 Abbreviations/Acronyms ........................................................................................................ xv

5 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

6 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1-1

7 1.1.1 COL Application and Review ........................................................................ 1-2

8 1.1.2 Concurrent Reviews ..................................................................................... 1-4

9 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action ................................................................................... 1-4

10 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...................................................... 1-5

11 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1-5

12 1.5 Com pliance and Consultations ................................................................................. 1-6

13 1.6 New and Significant Information Review .................... .............................................. 1-6

14 1.6.1 Applicant's Process ...................................................................................... 1-7

15 1.6.2 Staff Evaluation ............................................................................................ 1-8

16 1.6.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 1-9

17 1.7 Report Contents ....................................................................................................... 1-9

18 1.8 References ............................................................................................................... 1-9

19 2.0 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 2-1

20 2.1 Site Location ............................................................................................................. 2-1

21 2.2 Land ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

22 2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality ..................................................................................... 2-2

23 2.4 Geology .................................................................................................................... 2-2

24 2.5 Radiological Environment ......................................................................................... 2-3

25 2.6 W ater ........................................................................................................................ 2-3

26 2.7 Ecology ..................................................................................................................... 2-3

27 2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................................................ 2-4

28 2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology ............................................................................................ 2-5

29 2.8 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 2-5

30 2.8.1 Demographics .............................................................................................. 2-5

31 2.8.2 Com munity Characteristics ........................................................................... 2-5

September 2010 V Draft NUREG-1947
1 2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources......................................................... 2-6

2 2.10 Environmental Justice.................................................................... 2-7

3 2.11 Related Federal Projects and Consultations ........................................... 2-7

4 2.12 References................................................................................ 2-8

5 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description ............................................................ 3-1

6 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout................................................. 3-1

7 3.2 Plant Description ......................................................................... 3-1

8 3.2.1 Plant Water Use ................................................................. 3-4

9 3.2.2 Cooling System .................................................................. 3-4

10 3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System ...................................... 3-6

11 3.2.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System.................... 3-6

12 3.2.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System ................ 3-6

13 3.2.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste- Management System..................... 3-7

14 3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems................................................. 3-7

15 3.3 Power Transmission System ............................................................ 3-7

16 3.4 References................................................................................ 3-8

17 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Construction....................................................... 4-1

18 4.1 Land-Use Impacts........................................................................ 4-1

19 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity ............................................................. 4-2

20 4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way............................................... 4-3

21 4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts. ............................................... 4-3

22 4.3 Water-Related Impacts................................................................... 4-4

23 4.4 Ecology.................................................................................... 4-5

24 4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ............................................................... 4-6

25 4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts ................................................... 4-11

26 4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................ 4-12

27 4.5.1 Physical Impacts................................................................ 4-12

28 4.5.2 Demography .................................................................... 4-13

29 4.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Community ......................................... 4-13

30 4.5.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts .............................. 4-14

31 4.5.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................... 4-16

32 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................... 4-16

33 4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts......................................................... 4-18

Draft NUREG-1947 Vi iSpebr21 September 2010
1 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts .............................................................................. 4-19

2 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ................................................................. 4-19

3 4.8.2 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction

4 Personnel to the VEGP Site ....................................................................... 4-20

5 4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................. 4-22

6 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts ................................................................................... 4-22

7 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures ........................................................................ 4-22

8 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents ............................................ 4-23

9 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents ................................................. 4-24

10 4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation W orkers ..................................................... 4-25

11 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts ................................................... 4-25

12 4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Site-Preparation

13 Activities and Construction ..................................................................................... 4-26

14 4.11 Site Redress Plan ................................................................................................... 4-27

15 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts ......................................................................... 4-28

16 4.13 References ............................................................................................................. 4-29

17 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation ................................................................................ 5-1

18 5.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 5-1

19 5.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts .................................................................... 5-2

20 5.3 W ater-Related Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-2

21 5.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems ......................................................................... 5-3

22 5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................................ 5-3

23 5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-4

24 5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................................................... 5-6

25 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts ................................................................... 5-6

26 5.7 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 5-7

27 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................... 5-7

28 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................................................. 5-8

29 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways ...................................................................................... 5-8

30 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public .................................................. 5-9

31 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public .............................................................. 5-10

32 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to W orkers ................................................................. 5-10

33 5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Mem bers of the Public ................................... 5-11

September 2010 vii Draft NUREG-1947
1 5.9.6 Radiological M onitoring .............................................................................. 5-11

2 5.10 Environm ental Im pacts of Postulated Accidents .................................................... 5-12

3 5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents .............................................................................. 5-12

4 5.10.2 Severe Accidents ....................................................................................... 5-14

5 5.10.3 Severe Accident M itigation Alternatives ..................................................... 5-15

6 5.10.4 Sum m ary of Postulated Accident Im pacts .................................................. 5-16

7 5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation ..................... 5-16

8 5.12 Sum m ary of O peration Im pacts .............................................................................. 5-17

9 5.13 References ............................................................................................................. 5-17

10 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decom m issioning .......................................................... 6-1

11 6.1 Fuel Cycle Im pacts and Solid W aste M anagem ent .................................................. 6-1

12 6.2 Transportation Im pacts ............................................................................................. 6-4

13 6.3 Decom m issioning Im pacts ....................................................................................... 6-5

14 6.4 References ............................................................................................................... 6-5

15 7.0 Cum ulative Im pacts .......................................................................................................... 7-1

16 7.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 7-1

17 7.2 Air Q uality ................................................................................................................. 7-1

18 7.3 W ater Use and Q uality ............................................................................................. 7-4

19 7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem .............................................................................................. 7-5

20 7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem ................................................................................................... 7-6

21 7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice ............. 7-7

22 7.7 Nonradiological Health ............................................................................................. 7-8

23 7.8 Radiological Im pacts of Norm al O peration ............................................................... 7-9

24 7.9 Severe Accidents ..................................................................................................... 7-9

25 7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decom m issioning ................................................ 7-10

26 7.11 NRC Staff Conclusions and Recom m endations ..................................................... 7-10

27 7.12 References ............................................................................................................. 7-10

28 8.0 Need for Power ................................................................................................................. 8-1

29 8.1 References ............................................................................................................... 8-2

30 9.0 Environm ental Im pacts of Alternatives ............................................................................. 9-1

31 9.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 9-1

32 9.2 Energy Alternatives .................................................................................................. 9-2

33 9.3 System Design Alternatives ..................................................................................... 9-3

Draft NUREG-1947 viii September 2010
1 9.4 Region of Interest and Alternative Site Selection Process ............................ 9-3

2 9.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites........................................................... 9-3

3 9.6 References................................................................................ 9-3

4 10.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites ........... 10-1

5 10.1 References .............................................................................. 10-2

6 11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 11-1

7 11. 1 Impacts of the Proposed Action........................................................ 11-1

8 11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................ 11-2

9 11.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................... 11-2

10 11.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the

11 Human Environment .................................................................... 11-3

12 11.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................... 11-4

13 11.6 Benefit-Cost Balance.................................................................... 11-4

14 11.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations............................................. 11-5

15 11.8 References .............................................................................. 11-6

16 Appendix A - Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement.............................. A-I

17 Appendix B - Organizations Contacted............................................................. B-i

18 Appendix C - Chronology of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Environmental

19 Review Correspondence Related to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,

20 Application for a Combined License for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating

21 Plant ............................................................................................ C-I

22 Appendix D - Scoping Comments and Responses................................................ D-1

23 Appendix E - Comments and Responses on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact

24 Statement ...................................................................................... E-1

25 Appendix F - Key Consultation Correspondence .................................................. F-i

26 Appendix G - Supporting Documentation for Radiological Dose Assessment ................. G-1

27 Appendix H - Authorizations and Certifications.................................................... H-I

28 Appendix I - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Characteristics, APl1000 Design

29 Parameters and Site Interface Values ........................................................ 1-1

30 Appendix J - Statements Made in the Environmental Report Considered in the U.S. Nuclear

31 Regulatory Commission Staffs Environmental Review...................................... J-1

32

September 2010 ix Septmbe 201 NUREG-1947 ixDraft 
1 Figures

2 3-1 Proposed VEGP Site Footprint with Proposed Units 3 and 4 ............................................. 3-2

3 3-2 Areas that will be Disturbed by Construction and Preconstruction Activities for VEGP

4 U n its 3 a n d 4 ...................................................................................................................... 3-3

5 3-3 Revised Intake Structure and Surrounding Wetlands ......................................................... 3-5

6

7

8

9 Tables

10 2-1 2009 Average Annual Unemployment Rates .................................................................... 2-6

11 5-1 DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor at the VEGP Site ..................................................... 5-14

12 7-1 Comparison of Annual CO 2 Emission Rates ...................................................................... 7-3

13

Draft NUREG-1947 X September 2010
1 Executive Summary

2 On March 31, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application

3 from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), on behalf of itself and four co4 applicants (i.e., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric

5 Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia), for combined licenses (COLs) for two

6 new nuclear units (Units 3 and 4) to be located adjacent to the existing Vogtle Electric

7 Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2. The VEGP site is located in Burke County, Georgia,

8 approximately 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia.

9 In Early Site Permit (ESP)-004 issued on August 26, 2009, NRC approved the VEGP site as

10 suitable for the construction and operation of Units 3 and 4. As requested in the ESP

11 application, the VEGP ESP also included a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) that authorized

12 certain limited construction activities at the site in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of

13 Federal Regulations (CFR) Subparts 50.10 and 52.24(c). As permitted by NRC regulations, the

14 COL application references the VEGP ESP.

15 The proposed design specified in the COL application for the two new units is the Westinghouse

16 AP1000 pressurized reactor. An amendment to the certified AP1000 design currently is being

17 reviewed by NRC in a separate design certification process.

18 On October 2, 2009, Southern supplemented its COL application to include a request for a

19 second LWA. The second LWA, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10 (d), would authorize

20 installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with

21 placement of concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab.

22 During April, May, and June 2010, Southern submitted requests for amendments to the ESP

23 relating to the activities authorized by the ESP LWA. In response to these applications, the

24 NRC issued three amendments to the ESP in May, June, and July 2010, respectively. These

25 amendments authorized Southern to use Category-1 and Category-2 backfill materials from

26 additional onsite borrow areas and to change the classification of engineered backfill over the

27 slopes of the excavations for Units 3 and 4. The NRC staff prepared an Environmental

28 Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for each license amendment

29 request.

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

31 that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for major Federal actions with the

32 potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. NRC has implemented

33 Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, NRC has determined that

34 the issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS.

September 2010 xi Draft NUREG-1947
1 The purpose of Southern's requested action is to obtain from the NRC a license to construct

2 and operate two new nuclear power units on the VEGP site as well as an LWA to allow early

3 commencement of certain limited construction activities. A license from the NRC to construct

4 and operate nuclear power plants is necessary but not sufficient for construction and operation

5 of the power plant. Southern must obtain and maintain permits from other Federal, State, and

6 local agencies and permitting authorities. Therefore, the purpose of the NRC environmental

7 review of the Southern application is to determine if a nuclear power plant of the proposed

8 design can be constructed and operated at the VEGP site without unacceptable adverse

9 impacts on the human environment.

10 The Southern COL application incorporates information from both the ESP Site Safety Analysis

11 Report and Southern's environmental report (ER). Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52 contains

12 NRC regulations related to ESPs. An ESP is an NRC approval of a site as suitable for

13 construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. The NRC's detailed review of

14 the environmental impacts of constructing and operating new units at the VEGP ESP Site is

15 documented in NUREG-1 872, Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit

16 (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site, which was published in August 2008. For

17 a COL application that references an ESP, the NRC staff, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.75(c),

18 prepares a supplement to the ESP environmental impact statement (SEIS) in accordance with

19 10 CFR 51.92(e).

20 NRC regulations related to the environmental review of COL applications are in 10 CFR Part 51

21 and 10 CFR 52, Subpart C. Pursuant to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), a COL

22 applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental

23 issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified

24 new and significant information regarding such issues. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.39,

25 matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent

26 proceedings, absent identification of new and significant information.

27 Upon acceptance of Southern's COL application, the NRC began the environmental review

28 process by publishing in the Federal Register on June 11, 2008, an Acceptance for Docketing,

29 which announced its intent to perform a detailed technical review and conduct a hearing in

30 accordance with Subpart L, "Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications," of

31 10 CFR Part 2 (73 FR 33118). Subsequent to the site visits in August 2008 and September

32 2009 and in accordance with the provisions of NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff identified

33 and evaluated the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new units

34 at the VEGP site. Included in this SEIS are (1) the results of the NRC staffs analyses, which

35 consider and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action (i.e., issuance of the COLs

36 and LWA) and of constructing and operating two additional nuclear units at the VEGP site;

37 (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts

38 of alternatives to the proposed action; and (4) the staffs recommendation regarding the

Draft NUREG-1947 xii September 2010
1 proposed action. To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a proposed action or

2 alternative actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on

3 guidance developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27). The three

4 significance levels established by the NRC - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE - are defined

5 as follows:

6 SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable are so minor that they will neither

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

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

9 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

10 LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

11 important attributes of the resource.

12 Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the

13 appropriate sections of the SEIS. In preparing this SEIS, the staff reviewed Southern's COL

14 application, including the ER and responses to staff requests for additional information;

15 reviewed the ESP EIS and the ESP license amendment EAs; reviewed Southern's process for

16 identifying new and significant information; consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local

17 agencies; reviewed other relevant literature and documents; and followed the guidance set forth

18 in NRC NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

19 Plants (ESRP).

20 The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental

21 aspects of the proposed action is that the COLs and LWA be issued as proposed. This

22 recommendation is based on (1) the COL application, including the ER and responses to staff

23 requests for additional information submitted by Southern; (2) the staffs review conducted for

24 the ESP application and documented in the ESP EIS; (3) consultation with Federal, State,

25 Tribal, and local agencies; (4) the staffs own independent review of potentially new and

26 significant information available since preparation and publication of the ESP EIS, including that

27 associated with the three amendments to the ESP; and (5) the assessments summarized in this

28 SEIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified.

29 A 75-day comment period to allow members of the public to comment on the results of the NRC

30 staffs review will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

31 Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS. During this comment period, the staff will conduct a

32 public meeting near the VEGP site to describe the results of the NRC environmental review,

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

34 the SEIS, and accept public comments. After the comment period, the staff will consider and

35 disposition all comments received. These comments and staff responses will be included in

36 the final SEIS.

September 2010 xiii Draft NUREG-1947

1 Abbreviations/Acronyms

2 ac acre(s)

3 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

4 ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System

5 ARRA America Recovery and Reinvestment Act

6 AQCR Air Quality Control Region

7

8 BTU British Thermal Unit

9

10 °C degree Celsius

11 CAA Clean Air Act

12 CDC U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention

13 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

14 CO 2 carbon dioxide

15 COL combined license

16 CWA Clean Water Act

17 CWS cooling water system

18

19 dBA decibel(s)

20 DBA design basis accident

21 DCD Design Control Document

22 DSM demand-side management

23

24 EA Environmental Assessment

25 EAB exclusion area boundary

26 EIS environmental impact statement

27 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

28 EPP Environmental Protection Plan

29 ER Environmental Report

30 ESP early site permit

31 ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan

32

33 FR Federal Register

34 OF degree Fahrenheit

35 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

36 ft foot/feet

37 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

38

September 2010 XV Draft NUREG-1 947
1 GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

2 GDHR Georgia Department of Human Resources

3 GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

4 GHPD Georgia Historic Preservation Division

5 gpm gallons per minute

6 GPC Georgia Power Company

7 GPSC Georgia Public Service Commission

8

9 ha hectare(s)

10 HLW high-level waste

11 hr hour

12

13 in. inch(es)

14 IRP integrated resource plan

15

16 km kilometer(s)

17 kV kilovolt

18

19 L liter(s)

20 L/s liter(s) per second

21 LAR License Amendment Request

22 LLW low-level waste

23 LOS level of service

24 LPZ low-population zone

25 LWA Limited Work Authorization

26

27 m meter(s)

28 MOU Memorandum of Understanding

29 mi mile(s)

30 mSv millisievert

31 mrem millirem(s)

32 MTU metric tons uranium

33 MW megawatt(s)

34 MWd megawatts per day

35 MW(e) megawatts electric

36 MWh megawatt hour(s)

37 MW(t) megawatts thermal

38

39 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

40 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

41 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

September 2010 xvi Draft NUREG-1947
1 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

2 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

3 NRHP National Register of Historic Places

4 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

5

6 ppm parts per million

7 PRA probabilistic risk assessment

8

9 RAI Request(s) for Additional Information

10 ROI region of interest

11

12 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives

13 SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives

14 SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

15 sec second/seconds

16 SER Safety Evaluation Report

17 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office/Officer

18 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

19 SME subject matter experts

20 Southern Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

21 Sv sievert

22 SWS service water system

23

24 TEDE total effective dose equivalent

25

26 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

27 USC United States Code

28

29 VEGP Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

30

31 Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

32 wt weight

33

34 X/Q dispersion values

35

36 yd yard

37 yr year(s)

38

September 2010 xvii Draft NUREG-1947

1 1.0 Introduction

2 On March 31, 2008, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), acting on behalf of

3 itself and several co-applicants (Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation,

4 Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia), submitted to the U.S.

5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an application for combined licenses (COLs) for the

6 construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

7 (VEGP) site. The VEGP site and existing facilities are owned and operated by Georgia Power

8 Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City

9 of Dalton, Georgia. Southern is the licensee and operator of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2,

10 and has been authorized by the VEGP co-owners to apply for COLs to construct and operate

11 two additional units (Units 3 and 4) at the VEGP site.

12 1.1 Background

13 On August 26, 2009, the NRC approved issuance to Southern and the same four co-applicants

14 of an early site permit (ESP) and a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) for two additional nuclear

15 units at the VEGP site (NRC 2009). This approval was supported by information contained in

16 NUREG-1 872, Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit at the Vogtle

17 Electric Generating Plant Site (ESP EIS) (NRC 2008a) and errata. The ESP resolved many

18 safety and environmental issues and allowed the applicant to "bank" the VEGP ESP site for up

19 to 20 years. The LWA authorized the applicant to conduct certain limited construction activities

20 at the site in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subparts 50.10

21 and 52.24(c).

22 As permitted by NRC regulations, the COL application references the VEGP ESP. Southern

23 also submitted a request for a second LWA as part of its COL application. The second LWA, in

24 accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(d), would allow for installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, drain

25 lines, and other embedded items along with placement of concrete for the nuclear island

26 foundation base slab that are not included in the existing LWA (Southern 2009a).-

27 The proposed design specified in the COL application for the two new units is the Westinghouse

28 AP1000 pressurized reactor. An amendment to the certified AP1000 design is currently being

29 reviewed by NRC in a separate design certification process.

30 During April, May, and June, 2010, Southern submitted requests for three ESP license

31 amendments associated with the previously-authorized LWA construction activities. These

32 amendment requests sought authorization to use Category 1 and Category 2 backfill materials

33 from additional onsite sources, including three new borrow areas, as well as to change the

34 classification of engineered backfill over the side slopes of the excavations for Units 3 and 4

September 2010 1-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Introduction

1 (Southern 2010a, b, c, d). The NRC prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and Finding

2 of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for each license amendment request (NRC 2010a, b, c).

3 These ESP license amendments were issued in May 2010 (NRC 2010d), June 2010 (NRC

4 2010e), and July 2010 (NRC 2010f), respectively.

5 1.1.1 COL Application and Review

6 To construct and operate a nuclear power plant, an ESP holder must either obtain a

7 Construction Permit and an Operating License or obtain a COL. Either approach constitutes a

8 separate major federal action and would require that an environmental impact statement (EIS)

9 be issued in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51. Under 10 CFR Part 52, which contains NRC's

10 reactor licensing regulations, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part

11 51, which are the NRC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

12 (NEPA), the NRC is required to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS)

13 as part of its review of a COL application referencing an ESP. As required by 10 CFR 51.26,

14 the NRC published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (74 FR 49407) to prepare and

15 publish a draft SEIS for public comment. The SEIS for the COLs will be prepared in the same

16 manner as the final EIS for the ESP except that the NRC determined that it would not conduct a

17 formal scoping process in accordance with 10 CFR 51.26(d). A separate Safety Evaluation

18- Report (SER) also will be prepared in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52.

19 If a COL application references an ESP, the NRC staff, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.75(c), is

20 required to prepare a supplement to the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Therefore, the staff can "tier

21 off" the ESP EIS at the COL stage and disclose the NRC conclusion for matters resolved in the

22 ESP review. Such matters will not be subject to litigation at the combined license stage unless

23 new and significant information is identified. Because the VEGP COL application references the

24 VEGP ESP, the NRC staff will rely on the analysis in the ESP EIS as the basis in preparing the

25 SEIS. NRC's regulatory standards for a review of a COL application are listed in 10 CFR 52.81.

26 Detailed procedures for conducting the environmental portion of the review are found in

27 guidance set forth in NUREG-1 555, Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review

28 Plans for Environmental Review for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2000) and recent updates.

29 According to 10 CFR 52.80(b), an application for a COL must contain an environmental report

30 (ER), which provides the applicant's input to the NRC's EIS. NRC regulations related to the

31 contents of the ER are found in 10 CFR Part 51.

32 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), Southern submitted an ER as part of

33 its COL application (Southern 2009b). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.49, Southern also

34 submitted an ER in support of its additional LWA request (Southern 2010e). The ER submitted

35 with the COL application is not required to contain information or analysis that was previously

36 submitted in the ER for the ESP application or address issues that were resolved in the ESP

37 EIS and associated proceedings.

38

Draft NUREG-1947 1-2 September 2010
1 The SEIS, together with the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the ESP hearing proceedings, and the ESP

2 license amendment EAs, provides the staffs evaluation of the environmental effects of

3 constructing and operating two AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site. In addition to considering

4 the environmental effects of the proposed action, the SEIS addresses new and significant

5 information with respect to alternatives to the proposed action and the benefits of the proposed

6 action (e.g., the need for power). Southern's COL application references an ESP; therefore, in

7 accordance with 10 CFR 52.83, issues resolved as part of the ESP proceeding remain resolved

8 except under conditions set forth in 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2). In addition, measures and controls

9 previously identified to limit adverse impacts are evaluated along with any new or significant

10 information that would have the potential to affect the findings or conclusions reached in the

11 ESP EIS.

12 Upon acceptance of Southern's COL application, the NRC began the environmental review

13 process by publishing in the Federal Register on June 11, 2008, an Acceptance for Docketing

14 that announced its intent to perform a detailed technical review and conduct a hearing in

15 accordance with Subpart L, "Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications," of

16 10 CFR Part 2 (73 FR 33118).

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

18 the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on guidance developed

19 by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27). The three significance levels

20 established by the NRC - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE - are defined as follows:

21 SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will

22 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

24 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

25 LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to

26 destabilize important attributes of the resource.

27 This SEIS presents the staff's analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts

28 of the proposed action at the VEGP site, including the environmental impacts associated with

29 construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 at the site, the environmental impacts of alternatives

30 to granting the COLs, and the mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse

31 environmental effects. The SEIS also provides the NRC staffs preliminary recommendation to

32 the Commission regarding the issuance of the COLs and LWA for the VEGP site.

33

September 2010 1-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Introduction

1 A 75-day comment period to allow members of the public to comment on the results of the NRC

2 staff's review will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3 Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS. A public meeting will be held near the VEGP site during the

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

5 environmental review, provide members of the public with information to assist them in

6 formulating comments on the SEIS, and accept comments. After the comment period, the staff

7 will consider and address all comments in a final SEIS.

8 1.1.2 Concurrent Reviews

9 In a review separate from the environmental review process, the NRC analyzes the safety and

10 security aspects of construction and operation of the proposed new reactors at the site,

11 including the applicant's emergency planning information. These analyses will be documented

12 in an SER. The SER will present the conclusions reached by the NRC regarding whether there

13 is reasonable assurance that two Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactors can be

14 constructed and operated at the VEGP site without undue risk to the health and safety of the

15 public and whether issuance of the license will be inimical to the common defense and security.

16 In addition, the AP1000 reactor design referenced in the application is a standard design that is

17 undergoing a design certification amendment review pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B.

18 This review will be the subject of a later rulemaking by the NRC.

19 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

20 The proposed Federal action is issuance of COLs, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, for

21 two AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site and an LWA for requested construction activities. The

22 ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) disclosed the staffs analysis of the environmental impacts that could

23 result from the construction and operation of these two new units. This SEIS for the COL

24 application evaluates whether any new and potentially significant information has been identified

25 that would alter the staffs conclusions regarding issues resolved in the ESP proceeding.

26 In the context of a COL application that references an ESP, the term "new" in the phrase "new

27 and significant information" is defined as any information that was both (1) not considered in

28 preparing the ESP ER or EIS (as may be evidenced by references in these documents,

29 applicant responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information (RAIs), comment letters, etc.)

30 and (2) not generally known or publicly available during the preparation of the ESP EIS (such as

31 information in reports, studies, and treatises).

32

Draft NUREG-1947 1-4 September 2010
1 For new information to be "significant," it must be material to the issue being considered; that is,

2 it must have the potential to affect the finding or conclusions of the NRC staffs evaluation of the

3 issue. The applicant for a COL need only provide information in the application about a

4 previously resolved environmental issue if it is both new and significant (72 FR 49352).

5 In this SEIS, the staff evaluates the impacts of construction and operation of two AP1000 units,

6 with a total combined thermal power rating of 6800 megawatts thermal (MW(t)). The proposed

7 units would use a closed-cycle cooling system and require a single natural draft cooling tower

8 for each unit.

9 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

10 The purpose and need for the issuance of the COLs is to provide for additional base-load

11 electrical generating capacity in the region of interest as defined in Section 9.4.1 of the ESP EIS

12 (NRC 2008a). Southern indicated that the proposed action also will allow it to be responsive to

13 the Georgia legislature, which urged Georgia utilities to study the feasibility of building new

14 nuclear power plants (Senate Resolution 865) The purpose and need for the issuance of the

15 LWA is "... to support the project schedule by assuring that [the proposed LWA activities] occur

16 independent of the COL issuance schedule and contribute to maintaining a margin in the

17 construction schedule that ensures the operation need dates will be met" (Southern 2010e).

18 The ultimate decision about whether or not to build a facility and the schedule for any

19 construction are not within the purview of NRC and would be determined by the license holder if

20 the authorization is granted. A license from NRC to construct and operate a nuclear power

21 plant is necessary but not sufficient for construction and operation of the power plant. Certain

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

23 necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COL is granted. Southern must obtain

24 and maintain permits or authorizations from other Federal, State, and local agencies and

25 permitting authorities before undertaking certain activities.

26 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

27 Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA states that an EIS is to include a detailed statement on

28 alternatives to the proposed action. This SEIS addresses the following categories of

29 alternatives: (1) the no-action alternative, (2) energy source alternatives, and (3) system design

30 alternatives. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(e)(3), the SEIS does not contain a separate

31 discussion of alternative sites. The NRC's detailed evaluation of alternative sites is documented

32 in Chapters 9 and 10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

September 2010 1-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Introduction

1 1.5 Compliance and Consultations

2 Prior to construction and operation of the new unit, Southern is required to hold certain Federal,

3 State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet applicable statutory and regulatory

4 requirements. provided a list of environmental approvals and consultations associated with the

5 VEGP proposed Units 3 and 4 Southern (2010e). Potential authorizations and consultations

6 relevant to the proposed COL are included in Appendix H.

7 Before it can obtain a COL from NRC, Southern must obtain a Clean Water Act Section

8 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the Georgia Department of Natural

9 Resources (GDNR) and would ensure that the project does not conflict with water quality

10 management programs in Georgia. Upon receipt of the certification, Southern would notify

11 NRC.

12 The NRC staff has contacted the appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies to

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

14 agencies that relate to the construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4. A list of

15 organizations contacted is included in Appendix B.

16 1.6 New and Significant Information Review

17 As set forth in 10 CFR 51.92, an SEIS for a COL referencing an ESP shall contain an analysis

18 of those issues related to the impacts of construction and operation that were resolved in the

19 ESP proceeding for which new and significant information has been identified. Information is

20 considered new if it was (1) not considered in preparing the ESP ER or ESP EIS (NRC 2008a)

21 (as may be evidenced by references in these documents, applicant responses to NRC RAls,

22 comment letters, etc.) and (2) not generally known or publicly available during the preparation of

23 the ESP EIS (such as information in studies and reports). For information to be significant, it

24 must be material to the issue being considered; that is, it must have the potential to affect the

25 finding or conclusions of the NRC staffs evaluation of the issue (72 FR 49352). If there is no

26 new and significant information for matters resolved at the ESP stage, the staff may tier off of

27 the ESP EIS at the COL stage and disclose the NRC conclusions for matters considered during

28 the ESP review.

29 A COL applicant should have a reasonable process to ensure it becomes aware of new and

30 significant information that may have a bearing on the earlier NRC conclusion, and should

31 document the results of this process in an auditable form. The NRC staff will verify that the

32 applicant's process for identifying new and significant information is effective (72 FR 49352).

Draft NUREG-1947 1-6 September 2010
1 1.6.1 Applicant's Process

2 Southern developed a process to identify new and significant information relevant to the issues

3 and conclusions presented in the ESP EIS. This process is detailed in Guidance for New and

4 Significant Information (Southern 2007) and is summarized in the COL ER (Southern 2009b).

5 The process was designed to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 51.50(c) and to "... provide a

6 methodical, comprehensive review of the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS and the

7 supporting information for those conclusions to identify any new and significant information that

8 has the potential to change the NRC's conclusions presented in the ESP EIS" (Southern

9 2009b). For purposes of its review, Southern adopted definitions of "new" and "significant"

10 previously published by the NRC (72 FR 49352).

11 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information began with the designation of

12 subject matter experts (SMEs) with extensive knowledge about plant systems, site environs,

13 station environmental issues, and the regulatory issues relevant to the plant and site. The

14 SMEs performed a line-by-line review of the ESP EIS to identify "key inputs." This review

15 focused on the portions of the EIS where conclusions were directly supported, especially

16 Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7. The review also considered key assumptions that were included in

17 Appendix J of the ESP EIS, key site characteristics, Westinghouse design parameters and site

18 interface values that were found in Appendix I of the ESP EIS, and dose calculation

19 assumptions provided in Appendix G of the ESP EIS.

20 The SMEs reviewed the key inputs to determine if any new information exists that could affect

21 the NRC staffs findings or conclusions. This determination typically was based, as appropriate,

22 on current construction plans and designs, site documentation, environmental monitoring and

23 sampling programs, interviews with Federal, State, or local officials, contact with Federal, State,

24 or local agencies, and when necessary, the SMEs' local knowledge. The SMEs conducted a

25 review of other information sources including interviews with industry peers, academia, and

26 Federal, State, and local resource agencies, a review of the AP1000 Design Control Document,

27 Westinghouse Technical Reports for the AP1000, environmental monitoring reports from

28 existing programs, and applicable scientific literature, to determine if additional information

29 relevant to the COL application was available that was not captured in the direct review of the

30 ESP EIS.

31 The SMEs then reviewed all information that had been identified as new to determine if it might

32 be significant. When possible, this determination was based on comparison with regulatory

33 limits, guidelines provided in NRC review guidance such as NUREG-1555, or other applicable

34 criteria. When such a comparison was not possible, the SMEs used their best professional

35 judgment to determine if new information was considered significant. The results of this review,

36 including the bases for the conclusion on new information and the rationale for determination of

37 significance, were summarized in documents that were audited by the NRC staff during the site

38 audit that was conducted in late September 2009.

September 2010 1-7 Draft NUREG-1947
Introduction

1 1.6.2 Staff Evaluation

2 The NRC staffs evaluation of Southern's new and significant information methodology began

3 with the review of Southern's process as described in Rev. 0 of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COL

4 Application (Southern 2008). In August 2008, the staff performed an assessment of Southern's

5 process for identifying new and significant information in three specific areas: (1) aquatic

6 ecology, (2) terrestrial ecology, and (3) hydrology. The assessment was performed at the

7 VEGP site near Waynesboro, Georgia, and included review of documents, staff discussions with

8 Southern, site tours, and discussions with representatives from other State and Federal

9 agencies including the GDNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental

10 Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The staff raised several questions

11 about certain aspects of the methodology that Southern needed to address. The results of that

12 assessment were documented in a trip report (NRC 2008b).

13 During June 2009, the staff was provided access to the information developed during

14 Southern's implementation of its new and significant information methodology. This access

15 was available through a reading room set up by Southern in Richland, Washington.

16 After the ESP was authorized in August 2009, the NRC staff performed a new and significant

17 information audit at the VEGP site near Waynesboro, Georgia, during the period from

18 September 28 through October 1, 2009. The focus of the staff's audit was to determine if

19 Southern's new and significant information methodology was robust and comprehensive and

20 had the ability to capture any new information developed since completion of the ESP EIS and

21 authorization of the ESP, and whether Southern adhered to its process set forth in the new and

22 significant information methodology. To make these determinations, the staff examined

23 Southern's process in detail for all the resource areas discussed in the ESP EIS, assessed the

24 results of Southern's review for new and significant information, and participated in several site

25 tours including potential transmission line rights-of-way, the location of the new intake structure

26 on the Savannah River, and the location of cultural and historic resources on the VEGP site.

27 In addition, the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and officials were contacted to

28 verify the presence or absence of new and potentially significant information. A summary of the

29 site audit is provided in the site audit trip report (NRC 2010g). Following the audit, the staff

30 conducted an independent assessment of other sources of new and significant information.

31 During March 2010, Southern provided new information about potential new onsite borrow

32 areas (Southern 2010f). Because these borrow sources had not been evaluated in the ESP

33 EIS, the NRC staff performed a second site audit during the period May 3-5, 2010, to evaluate

34 the potential environmental impacts of developing these new borrow areas. The results of the

35 second site audit are provided in a site audit trip report (NRC 2010h).

Draft NUREG-1947 1-8 September 2010
1 1.6.3 Conclusion

2 Based on the staff's independent review of Southern's new and significant information process,

3 the staff determined that the process was adequate to identify new and potentially significant

4 information concerning environmental issues addressed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

5 1.7 Report Contents

6 The subsequent chapters of this SEIS are organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the

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

8 unit. Chapter 3 describes the power plant characteristics to be used as the basis for evaluating

9 the environmental impacts. Chapters 4 and 5 examine the environmental impacts of

10 construction (Chapter 4) and operation (Chapter 5) of the proposed Units 3 and 4. Chapter 6

11 analyzes the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive

12 materials, and decommissioning, while Chapter 7 discusses the cumulative impacts of the

13 proposed action as defined in 10 CFR Part 51.75(c). Chapter 8 addresses the need for power.

14 Chapter 9 discusses alternatives to the proposed action, and Chapter 10 summarizes the

15 conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, while Chapter 11

16 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and presents the staffs preliminary

17 recommendation with respect to issuance of the COL and LWA.

18 1.8 References

19 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

20 Production and Utilization Facilities."

21 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

22 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

23 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

24 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

25 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,

26 Part 1508, "Terminology and Index."

27 72 FR 49352. "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." Vol. 72,

28 No. 166. August 28, 2007.

29 73 FR 33118. "Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Acceptance for Docketing of an

30 Application for Combined License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4." Vol. 73,

31 No. 113. June 11, 2008.

September 2010 1-9 Draft NUREG-1947
Introduction

1 74 FR 49407. "Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3

2 and 4 Combined License Application; Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental

3 Impact Statement." Vol. 74, No. 186. September 28, 2009.

4 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2007. Guidance for New and Significant

5 Information. ND-ARL-012, Version 1.0, October 8, 2007, Southern Company, Birmingham,

6 Alabama. Accession No. ML081570520.

7 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

8 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 0, March 28, 2008,

9 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081050181.

10 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

11 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 6 Limited Work Authorization. Revision 1, October 2,

12 2009, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092960512.

13 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

14 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, August 23, 2009,

15 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

16 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010a. Southern Nuclear Operating

17 Company, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Change Request, Vogtle Electric

18 Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Use of Category 1 and 2 Backfill Material for Additional Onsite

19 Areas, on an Exigent Basis for Units 3 and 4. Letter ND-10-0795 dated April 20, 2010,

20 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML1 01120089.

21 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010b. Southern Nuclear Operating

22 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis

23 Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of

24 Backfill. Letter ND-10-0960 dated May 13, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

25 Accession No. ML101340649.

26 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010c. Southern Nuclear Operating

27 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis

28 Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of

29 Backfill, Part 2. Letter ND-10-1005 dated May 24, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham,

30 Alabama. Accession No. ML101470212.

31

Draft NUREG-1947 1-10 September 2010
1 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010d. Southern Nuclear Operating

2 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Site Safety Analysis Report License

3 Amendment Request, Revise Backfill Geometry. Letter ND-1 0-0964 dated May 24, 2010,

4 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101470213.

5 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010e. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

6 Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Environmental Report to Support Revision 1 to

7 Part 6, LWA Request. ND-10-0227, dated February 5, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham,

8 Alabama. Accession No. ML100470600.

9 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010f. Supporting Information for

10 Environmental Report Review, March 12, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

11 Accession No. ML100750038.

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

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

14 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007

15 revisions.

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for

17 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site -NUREG-1 872, Vols. 1

18 and 2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165,

19 ML082260203; ML082550040.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Summary of Environmental Site Audit

21 Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

22 Units 3 and 4. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML082620184.

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site

24 Permit No. ESP-004. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092290157.

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP

26 Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding

27 of no Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101380114.

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP

29 Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding

30 of no Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101670592.

September 2010 1-11 Draft NUREG-1947
Introduction

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site

2 Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of no

3 Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. MI1 01660076.

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010d. May 21, 2010, letter from C. Patel, Senior

5 Project Manager, NRC, to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, Subject: Vogtle Electric

6 Generating Plant ESP Site - Issuance of Exigent Amendment Regarding Request for Changes

7 to the Site Safety Analysis Report. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101400509.

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010e. June 25, 2010, Letter from T. Spicher,

9 Project Manager, NRC to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, Subject: Vogtle Electric

10 Generating Plant ESP Site - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Request for Changes to the

11 Site Safety Analysis Report Regarding Onsite Sources of Backfill. Washington, D.C.

12 Accession No. ML101760370.

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010f. July 9, 2010, Letter from T. Spicher,

14 Project Manager, NRC to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, Subject: Vogtle Electric

15 Generating Plant ESP Site, Subject: Issuance of Amendment RE: Request for changes to the

16 classification of backfill over the side slopes of Units 3 and 4 excavations. Washington, D.C.

17 Accession No. ML101870522.

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010g. Summary of Environmental New and

19 Significant Site Audit Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Vogtle

20 Electric Generating Plant Site. Package Accession No. ML093631125.

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010h. Memorandum regarding the Site Audit

22 Summary Concerning Environmental Impacts Associated with Acquisition of Additional Backfill

23 Material for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Combined License Application Review.

24 Washington, D.C. Package Accession No. ML101550095.

25

Draft NUREG-1947 1-12 September 2010
1 2.0 Affected Environment

2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided a description of the affected

3 environment in the vicinity of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit

4 (ESP) site in Chapter 2 of the ESP environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). The

5 applicant, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), evaluated potential new and

6 significant information that could affect the description of the affected environment. The NRC

7 staff reviewed Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, but also

8 conducted its own independent review to verify whether new and significant information has

9 been identified. The results of those reviews are presented in this chapter. The site location is

10 described in Section 2.1, and the land, meteorology and air quality, geology, radiological

11 environment, water, ecology, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and

12 environmental justice aspects (or conditions) of the site are presented in Sections 2.2 through

13 2.10, respectively. Section 2.11 examines related Federal projects, and references cited are

14 listed in Section 2.12.

15 2.1 Site Location

16 The staff described the location of the VEGP ESP site in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the ESP EIS

17 (NRC 2008). This description included the location of the proposed Units 3 and 4 on the VEGP

18 site in relation to the regions within 10 km (6 mi) and 80 km (50 mi) of the site. The VEGP site

19 comprises 1282.5 ha (3169 ac) in an unincorporated area of Burke County, Georgia. The site is

20 approximately 24 km (15 mi) east-northeast of Waynesboro, the county seat of Burke County,

21 and 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia.

22 In the environmental report (ER) included in its combined license (COL) application (Southern

23 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related to site location, and the

24 NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review of Southern's process for

25 identifying new and significant information and the staff's visit to the VEGP site.

26 2.2 Land

27 The staff described land-related issues for the ESP site in Section 2.2 of the ESP EIS

28 (NRC 2008). This discussion included a description of the VEGP site, the vicinity and region

29 surrounding the site, and the existing electric power transmission system supporting the site.

30 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

31 to land-related issues, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its

32 review of Southern's process for identifying new and significant information and the staff s audit

33 visit to the VEGP site.

September 2010 2-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Affected Environment

1 2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

2 The staff described the meteorology and air quality of the VEGP ESP site in Section 2.3 of the

3 ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and in Section 2.7 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008a). These descriptions

4 included a summary of the climatology and air quality for the region. They also included

5 discussions of the onsite meteorological monitoring program and associated measurements

6 that were the bases for other assessments described in the ESP EIS. For example, estimates

7 of site-specific atmospheric relative concentration were used to assess dose from routine and

8 accidental radiological releases in Sections 5.9 and 5.10, respectively, of the ESP EIS

9 (NRC 2008).

10 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

11 to meteorology and air quality. However, during the NRC staffs independent review, new

12 information related to changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone

13 was identified. The staff determined that this new information warranted further review.

14 The VEGP site is centrally located within the Augusta (Georgia) - Aiken (South Carolina)

15 Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

16 Part 81.114). All of the counties in this AQCR currently are designated as in attainment or

17 unclassified for all criteria pollutants for which NAAQS have been established (40 CFR 81.311).

18 On March 12, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a revision to

19 the NAAQS for ozone. The final rule (73 FR 16436) is designed to further protect public health

20 by reducing the standard from 0.084 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of

21 the Clean Air Act requires each state to submit, within 1 year of the revised standard, its

22 recommended designation (i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county.

23 On March 12, 2009, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to

24 the EPA providing its recommended designations; under those recommendations Burke County

25 remains unclassified/attainment with respect to the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009). EPA

26 will make its final determination no later than March 2011.

27 2.4 Geology

28 The staff described the geology of the VEGP ESP site in Section 2.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC

29 2008). The discussion included general descriptions of the regional geology, the topography of

30 the site area, and the regional mineral resources. Detailed descriptions of the geologic, seismic,

31 and geotechnical engineering properties of the site, including the results of field and laboratory

32 investigations, were provided in the ESP Site Safety Analysis Report (Southern 2008b) and the

33 ESP Safety Evaluation Report (NRC 2009).

34

Draft NUREG-1947 2-2 September 2010
1 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

2 to the environmental aspects of geology, and the NRC staff found no new and significant

3 information during its review of Southern's process for identifying new and significant

4 information and during the audit at the VEGP site.

5 2.5 Radiological Environment

6 The staff provided detailed descriptions of the radiological environment of the VEGP ESP site in

7 Section 2.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and in Section 6.2 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008a).

8 These discussions included summaries of historical data from radiological environmental

9 monitoring program annual reports for the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2. Each year, Southern

10 issues a report entitled Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the Vogtle Power

11 Station, which documents gaseous and liquid releases and resulting doses from VEGP.

12 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

13 to radiological environment, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during

14 its review of Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, during the audit

15 at the VEGP site, and during its review of recent data on releases and estimated occupational

16 and population doses regarding the radiological environment since issuance of the VEGP ESP

17 (Southern 2006, 2007, 2008c, 2009b).

18 2.6 Water

19 The staff described the hydrology of the VEGP ESP site in Section 2.6 of the ESP EIS

20 (NRC 2008). These discussions included the regional and site surface water features, the

21 regional and site hydrogeology and groundwater features, consumptive and non-consumptive

22 surface-water and groundwater use in the area affected by the site, surface-water and

23 groundwater quality in the area affected by the site, and existing and possible future

24 hydrological, thermal, and chemical monitoring at the site.

25 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

26 to hydrology, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review of

27 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information and during the audit at the

28 VEGP site.

29 2.7 Ecology

30 The staff presented detailed descriptions of the terrestrial and aquatic ecology in the vicinity of

31 the VEGP site in Section 2.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The following sections update these

32 descriptions where appropriate with information developed since the ESP EIS was prepared,

September 2010 2-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Affected Environment

1 including information from the COL ER (Southern 2009a), supplemental information provided by

2 Southern, and reviews of current information available from Federal and State agencies.

3 2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

4 The staff presented a detailed description of the terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the

5 VEGP ESP site in Section 2.7.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). This discussion included

6 wildlife habitats, wildlife usage, and terrestrial monitoring in the vicinity of the VEGP site and

7 the proposed transmission line rights-of-way. The evaluation also included a discussion of

8 the important species as specified by NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan:

9 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Review for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2000),

10 including Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species.

11 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

12 to terrestrial resources. The NRC staff performed site audits in September 2009 and May 2010,

13 and contacted the GDNR, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and

14 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine if new information was available. During

15 the COL application review, Southern did identify new information with respect to the proposed

16 new borrow areas, as described in its March 12, 2010, submittal (Southern 2010a). Southern

17 also provided information in its subsequent submittals on May 10, May 13, and May 24, 2010, in

18 support of requested ESP license amendments to obtain backfill material from onsite borrow

19 areas not previously identified in the ESP (Southern 2010b, c, d). This information resulted in a

20 change in the terrestrial baseline conditions considered in the ESP EIS and is discussed below.

21 In the ESP EIS, which was completed in the summer of 2008, the NRC staff noted that, while

22 mounds indicative of the State-threatened Southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis) had

23 been identified just north of the VEGP site boundary and that similar habitat occurred nearby on

24 the VEGP site, the footprint of construction disturbance for the ESP EIS was not expected to

25 encompass such habitat. The EIS also indicated that while the State-threatened sandhills

26 milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii), an herbaceous legume, was known to occur within 16 km

27 (10 mi) of the VEGP site, it had not been identified as occurring within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the

28 VEGP site. The sandhills milkvetch has since been observed on the northern section of the

29 VEGP site (NRC 2010a). As discussed in the staffs June 2010 environmental assessment (EA)

30 (NRC 2010b) prepared in connection with Southern's license amendment request (LAR) to use

31 three additional onsite backfill borrow areas (Southern 2010d), both species were found in a

32 proposed new borrow area west-northwest of the power-block area in the spring of 2010 during

33 the environmental review of the LAR. Additional details concerning the distribution and habitat

34 preferences of the Southeastern pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch are found in the

35 LAR EA issued in June 2010 (NRC 2010b). The staff incorporates that information by reference

36 in this SEIS.

Draft NUREG-1947 2-4 September 2010
1 2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology

2 The staff presented detailed descriptions of the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the VEGP site

3 in Section 2.7.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). These include descriptions of onsite ponds and

4 streams and the Savannah River in the vicinity of the VEGP site. They also include descriptions

5 of important species as specified by NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), including Federally and State6 listed threatened and endangered species.

7 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

8 to aquatic ecology, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review

9 of Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, the audit at the VEGP site,

10 and contacts with representatives of FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), GDNR,

11 and SCDNR (see Appendix F for the letters regarding consultation).

12 2.8 Socioeconomics

13 The staff provided a detailed description of socioeconomics in the VEGP ESP region in

14 Section 2.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the socioeconomic resources

15 that could potentially be impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed Units 3

16 and 4 at the VEGP site. The discussion is organized into two major subsections that provide

17 details on demographics and community characteristics. New information that has become

18 available since issuance of the VEGP ESP is described in the following sections.

19 2.8.1 Demographics

20 The staff provided a detailed discussion of the community characteristics of the VEGP ESP site

21 in Section 2.8.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the resident population,

22 transient population, and migrant populations.

23 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

24 to demographics, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review

25 of Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, the audit at the VEGP site,

26 and contacts with county officials.

27 2.8.2 Community Characteristics

28 The staff provided a detailed discussion of the community characteristics of the VEGP ESP site

29 in Section 2.8.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the economy, taxes,

30 transportation, aesthetics, recreation, housing, public services, and education in Burke,

31 Richmond and Columbia Counties, all of which are the most impacted by activities at the VEGP

32 site.

September 2010 2-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Affected Environment

1 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

2 to community characteristics. However, the NRC staff's independent review identified changes

3 in the community characteristics of the VEGP region that warranted further investigation. The

4 2009 average annual unemployment rates for Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties and

5 statewide in Georgia are provided in Table 2-1. In the ESP EIS, the 2005 unemployment rate

6 for Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties, and the State of Georgia was 7.7, 4.4, 7.1, and

7 5.2 percent, respectively. The unemployment rates of all three counties and statewide in

8 Georgia have increased, with Burke County's unemployment rate the highest at 11.5 percent.

9 Unemployment rates are discussed further in Section 4.5.

10 Table 2-1. 2009 Average Annual Unemployment Rates

Labor Unemployment Unemployment

Force Employment Number Rate

Burke County 9942 8802 1140 11.5

Columbia County 60,003 55,937 4066 6.8

Richmond County 90,520 82,553 8967 9.8

Georgia 4,769,000 4,312,000 457,000 9.6

Source: USBLS 2010

11 2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

12 The staff provided a detailed discussion of the historic and cultural resources of the VEGP ESP

13 site in Section 2.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the cultural

14 background of the area and sites eligible for listing under the National Historic Preservation Act

15 of 1966 (NHPA) (NRC 2008, Table 2-24).

16 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

17 to historic and cultural resources. The NRC staff performed a site audit in September 2009, and

18 contacted the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) during December 2009 to

19 determine if new information was available. The new information identified during the COL

20 application review effort was the existence of a historic cemetery located on the VEGP site

21 outside the proposed construction footprint and the proposed new borrow areas (Southern

22 2010a, d). A letter report dated May 14, 2007, documents an archaeological survey that was

23 conducted to record the boundaries and features of the cemetery (New South Associates 2007).

24 All of the proposed additional borrow areas whose use was authorized by the ESP amendments

25 issued in May and June 2010 are within the VEGP site boundary and are within the area of

26 potential effect for the cultural resource analysis included in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008, 2010b, c).

Draft NUREG-1947 2-6 September 2010
1 In accordance with Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart 800.8c, the NRC

2 staff is using the process implemented in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

3 to comply with the obligations defined under Section 106 of the NHPA. The area of potential

4 effect used by the staff for this COL review is the same as that used for the ESP review

5 (NRC 2008).

6 During December 2009, the NRC initiated contact with the Georgia SHPO, 25 Tribes (see

7 Appendix C for a complete listing), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to

8 begin consultations on the proposed COL action. NRC requested the participation of the

9 SHPO, the ACHP, and the Tribes in identifying new and significant information concerning

10 historic properties that may be impacted by this COL action.

11 2.10 Environmental Justice

12 The staff provided a discussion of environmental justice issues in the vicinity of the VEGP ESP

13 site in Section 2.10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included analysis on the

14 location of minority and low-income individuals, scoping and outreached completed, health

15 preconditions and special circumstances, and migrant populations.

16 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

17 to environmental justice, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its

18 review of Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, or during the audit

19 at the VEGP site.

20 2.11 Related Federal Projects and Consultations

21 The staff discussed related Federal projects and consultations in Section 2.11 of the ESP EIS

22 (NRC 2008). The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might

23 impact the issuance of a COL for proposed Units 3 and 4. Any such activities could result in

24 cumulative environmental impacts or the possible need for another Federal agency to become

25 a cooperating or coordinating agency for preparation of this supplemental EIS (SEIS)

26 (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

27 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information

28 regarding related Federal projects and consultations, and the staff found no new and significant

29 information during its review of Southern's process for identifying new and significant

30 information, the audits at the VEGP site, and contacts with the FWS, NMFS, ACHP, U.S. Army

31 Corps of Engineers (USACE), and various Tribal representatives.

32 The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments

33 of any other Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any

September 2010 2-7 Draft NUREG-1947
Affected Environment

1 environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the SEIS. During the course of preparing

2 the SEIS, NRC consulted with the FWS, NMFS, and the ACHP. Contact correspondence is

3 included in Appendix F.

4 2.12 References

5 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

6 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and. Related Regulatory Functions."

7 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

8 Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

9 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

10 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

11 73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone." Federal

12 Register, Environmental Protection Agency, pp 16435-16514.Clean Air Act (CAA). 42 USC

13 7401,etseq.

14- Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

15 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009. Recommended Designations of

16 Ozone Non-Attainment Areas in Georgia. Letter from Georgia Department of Natural

17 Resources to U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. March 12,

18 2009. Accession No. ML100601088.

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

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

21 New South Associates. 2007. Letter Report: A Determination of Boundaries and Surface

22 Features for Historic Cemetery on Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. May 14, 2007. Not

23 for public disclosure per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

24 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006. Annual Radioactive Effluent

25 Release Report for January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

26 Units I and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

27 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML061240254.

Draft NUREG-1947 2-8 September 2010
1 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Annual Radioactive Effluent

2 Release Report for January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

3 Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

4 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

5 Package Accession No. ML071220467.

6 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Vogtle Early Site Permit

7 Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham,

8 Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

9 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Site Safety Analysis Report.

10 Rev. 5. Section 2.5 Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering, Subsections 2.5.1.1

11 and 2.5.1.2, December 2008. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

12 Accession No. ML091540908.

13 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Annual Radioactive Effluent

14 Release Report for January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

15 Units I and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

16 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081290295.

17 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

18 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009,

19 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

20 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009b. Annual Radioactive Effluent

21 Release Report for January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

22 Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

23 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML091260689.

24 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010a. Southern Nuclear Operating

25 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application,

26 Supporting Information for Environmental Report Review. Letter ND-10-0526 dated

27 March 12, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML1 00750038.

28 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010b. Southern Nuclear Operating

29 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Post

30 New and Significant Audit Supporting Information. Letter ND-10-0923 dated May 10, 2010.

31 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML1 01320256.

32 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010c. Southern Nuclear Operating

33 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis

34 Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of

September 2010 2-9 Draft NUREG-1947
Affected Environment

1 Backfill. Letter ND-10-0960 dated May 13, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

2 Accession No. ML101340649.

3 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010d. Southern Nuclear Operating

4 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis

5 Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of

6 Backfill, Part 2. Letter ND-10-1005 dated May 24, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham,

7 Alabama. Accession No. ML101470212.

8 U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

9 Accessed at http://www.bls.gov/lau/ on May 12, 2010. Accession No. ML 102020520.

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

11 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555,

12 Washington, D.C.

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

14 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

15 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Vogtle ESP Final Safety Evaluation

17 Report - Chapter 2.0, Section 2.5 Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering.

18 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML090130160.

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. GDNR Conference Call Summaries, May

20 26-June 3, 2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML1 01570079.

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP

22 Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding

23 of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML1 01670592.

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site

25 Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of no

26 Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101380114.

27

Draft NUREG-1947 2-10 September 2010
1 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided a description of the proposed

3 Units 3 and 4 at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) in Chapter 3 of the early site permit

4 (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). This chapter of the combined license

5 (COL) supplemental EIS (SEIS) provides new information relative to the key site and facility

6 characteristics that the NRC staff used to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed

7 action. The site layout and existing facilities are discussed in Section 3.1. The plant design and

8 power transmission system are discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. References

9 cited in this chapter are listed in Section 3.4.

10 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout

11 A detailed description of the external appearance and plant layout for VEGP Units 3 and 4 and

12 associated structures and facilities was provided in Section 3.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008).

13 The description also includes a summary of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 and their

14 associated facilities and a discussion of Plant Wilson, a six-unit, oil-fueled combustion turbine

15 facility located on the VEGP site. The ESP EIS states that the VEGP site is located on the

16 Savannah River and that the proposed Units 3 and 4 would be located in a previously disturbed

17 area adjacent to the existing Units I and 2. Figure 3-1 shows the proposed VEGP site footprint

18 with the proposed two new units and associated facilities. Figure 3-2 shows the areas on the

19 site that will be disturbed by construction and preconstruction activities.

20 3.2 Plant Description

21 Section 3.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) described VEGP, including information about the

22 Westinghouse AP1000 plant design that has been certified by NRC (Title 10 of the Code of

23 Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 52, Appendix D) (Westinghouse 2005) and that has been

24 selected by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), as the reactor design for the

25 proposed Units 3 and 4. Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse), the AP1000

26 vendor, submitted Revision 17 of the AP1O00 Design Control Document to the NRC for review

27 (Westinghouse 2008), and the NRC staff is reviewing the design revision separately from this

28 proposed action.

29 Section 3.2 of the ESP EIS also discussed the proposed cooling system and power output for

30 proposed Units 3 and 4. The proposed cooling system would consist of one concrete natural31 draft hyperbolic cooling tower for each unit, and each unit would operate at an estimated net

32 electrical power output of approximately 1117 MW(e) (NRC 2008).

33

September 2010 3-1 Draft NUREG-1947
0

z

c

m

(0

15RCLUSI AREA BOUDARY ýEAB \ :

\

4\ .

\A

Z30KV

SWMNYARD

sAvrtCftAR

lMMIAN

4.N.113AND4

-t

([(j "A

TOWE1

91fl4YARE

-j ,

PMLAN NRTH

N!

IN0K 50 1000 150OFT

STlUC~rU RESCAL.E UIJTS 3 & 4

1115EAR

lNlKSTMJC11*R UNJITS 1 2

SCA~T RAMP

DISCHAMRGEUNE UNITS I A

DISCHARGE MIE UNITS 3 A 4

UNIT 2COOLING TOWER

UNdIT 1 COLItNG 1TOWER

&PM , 0 RNER kIAL 1W

SMLSON/

AREARE

(n

r0

:3

0)

_.

-u

2IRfLGICAI

N,

N

En

CD

31

C)

Figure 3-1. Proposed VEGP Site Footprint with Proposed Units 3 and 4
c',

CD

CD

CD

IQ

40 \

'-

z

SAU

SMT EAS

DKOMAM~

AFEA

C.)

/

0

z

C1 Figure 3-2. Areas that will be Disturbed by Construction and Preconstruction Activities for VEGP Units 3 and 4

(D

CI0

CD
Site Layout and Plant Description

1 3.2.1 Plant Water Use

2 Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.3 of the ESP ER (Southern

3 2008) described plant water use for the proposed Units 3 and 4. These sections described the

4 surface-water and groundwater withdrawals required for operation of the facility, the

5 consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses of the proposed units, the plant effluent streams,

6 and the plant water-treatment systems.

7 Southern provided no new and significant information related to plant water use in the COL ER,

8 and the staff found no new and significant information during its review of Southern's process

9 for identifying new and significant information and during the VEGP site audit. However, the

10 NRC staffs review did identify the following information that warranted further staff analysis in

11 this SEIS.

12 Estimated plant water use for operation of Units 3 and 4 is provided in Appendix I. The normal

13 and maximum plant effluent discharges to the Savannah River are 631 L/s (10,008 gpm) and

14 2000 [is (31,695 gpm), respectively. The impact of the plant effluent discharge described in the

15 ESP EIS corresponded to a maximum discharge rate of 1941 L/s (30,761 gpm), which is 3

16 percent less than the value given above. Accordingly, the effect on the staff's ESP EIS

17 conclusion of a plant effluent discharge of 2000 Us (31,695 gpm) is evaluated in Section 5.3 of

18 this document.

19 3.2.2 Cooling System

20 Section 3.2.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.4 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008)

21 described the operational modes and the components of the cooling water system for the

22 proposed Units 3 and 4.

23 The cooling water intake structure has been repositioned upstream approximately 45.7 m

24 (150 ft), which places it approximately 649.2 m (2130 ft) upstream of the existing intakes for

25 Units 1 and 2, and approximately 426.7 m (1400 ft) downstream of the location where the

26 stream from Mallard Pond enters the Savannah River. Southern also described a change in the

27 dimensions of the intake structure (Southern 2010), lowering the intake structure floor from

28 elevation 38.1 m to 32.0 m (125 ft to 105 ft). In addition, there would be a slight bend

29 (approximately 30 degrees) roughly halfway down the canal to orient the mouth of the intake

30 canal perpendicular to the river. Figure 3-3 illustrates the revised intake structure and wetlands

31 in its vicinity.

32 Southern determined the information in the preceding paragraph to be new but not significant

33 information, and provided no other new information related to the cooling system in the COL

34 ER. During its review of Southern's process for identifying new and significant information and

35 during the audit at the VEGP site, the staff found no additional new information that warranted

36 further analysis.

Draft NUREG-1947 3-4 September 2010
ci)

(D

Cr)

(D SAVANNAH,RIVER

r'D

DIRECTION OF Ago WETLANDS

o NORMAL WATER RIVER FLOW

ELEVATION = 80.0 FEET

INTAKE

,STRUCTURE

-QI-

• WETLANDS (D

0

,a

275 I E ' '"" •-• 'N •

E•. - "-

cJ• 1 Feet s ,-

z:2 Figure 3-3. Revised Intake Structure and Surrounding Wetlands 0

CD

m

CD0
Site Layout and Plant Description

1 3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System

2 Section 3.2.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.5 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008)

3 provided summary descriptions of the liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management

4 systems for the AP1 000 reactor, based on Revision 15 of the API00C Design Control Document

5 (Westinghouse 2005). The summaries of the radioactive waste-management system presented

6 in the ESP EIS are augmented below where additional descriptive information was provided by

7 Southern in its COL application (Southern 2009). A more detailed description of these systems

8 can be found in Chapter 11 of Revision 17 of the AP1O00 Design Control Document

9 (Westinghouse 2008). The description of the radioactive waste-management system provided

10 in the COL ER is based on information from Revision 17 of the AP1O00 Design Control

11 Document (Westinghouse 2008). None of the changes in the description of the radioactive

12 waste-management system from Revision 15 to Revision 17 of the APIO00 Design Control

13 Document is considered to be significant for the purposes of the environmental review. In

14 particular, the radioactive effluent release source terms are identical for Revision 15 and

15 Revision 17 of the APIO00 Design Control Document. Therefore, there is no change in the

16 design characteristic that is most relevant to dose and other environmental impacts associated

17 with radioactive waste.

18 3.2.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System

19 The liquid radioactive waste-management system functions to control, collect, process, handle,

20 store, and dispose of liquids containing radioactive material. Section 3.2.3.1 of the ESP EIS

21 (NRC 2008) described the liquid radioactive waste-management system.

22 The liquid radioactive effluent source term for the proposed Units 3 and 4, taken from

23 Revision 15 of the APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005), was presented in

24 Appendix G, Table G-1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The liquid radioactive effluent source term

25 presented in Revision 17 of the APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008) is

26 unchanged from Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005).

27 Dose calculation results presented in Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) remain valid and

28 show that all the dose projected to the maximally exposed individual is within the design

29 objectives identified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

30 3.2.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System

31 The gaseous radioactive waste-management system functions to collect, process, and

32 discharge radioactive or hydrogen-bearing gaseous wastes. Section 3.2.3.2 of the ESP EIS

33 (NRC 2008) described the gaseous radioactive waste-management system.

Draft NUREG-1947 3-6 September 2010
Site Layout and Plant Description

1 The gaseous radioactive effluent release source term for proposed Units 3 and 4, taken from

2 Revision 15 of the APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005), was presented in

3 Appendix G, Table G-4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The gaseous radioactive effluent source

4 term presented in Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008) is

5 unchanged from Revision 15 of the APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005).

6 The results of calculations presented in Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) remain valid

7 and show that all the projected dose to the maximally exposed individual is within the design

8 objectives identified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

9 3.2.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste-Management System

10 The solid radioactive waste-management system functions to treat, store, package, and dispose

11 of dry or wet solids. Section 3.2.3.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) described the solid radioactive

12 waste-management system. Southern provided no new and significant information related to

13 radioactive waste systems in the COL ER (Southern 2009), and the staff found no new and

14 significant information during its review of Southern's process for identifying new and significant

15 information and during the audit at the VEGP site. However, Section 6.1 of this SEIS describes

16 the N RC staffs assessment of the potential environmental impacts that might occur if

17 permanent disposal facilities for low-level solid radioactive waste remain unavailable to VEGP

18 and Southern's contingency plans for interim management of such waste need to be

19 implemented.

20 3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

21 Section 3.2.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.6 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008)

22 described the nonradioactive waste systems for the VEGP site. Southern provided no new and

23 significant information related to nonradioactive waste systems in the COL ER (Southern 2009),

24 and the staff found no new and significant information during its review of Southern's process

25 for identifying new and significant information and during the audit at the VEGP site.

26 3.3 Power Transmission System

27 Section 3.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) described Southern's proposed system for transmitting

28 the power produced by the proposed Units 3 and 4 to the regional distribution grid.

29 As described in Section 3.3 of the ESP EIS, Southern determined that one additional 500-kV

30 transmission line in a new transmission line right-of-way would be required. The new

31 transmission line would connect the substation for the proposed Units 3 and 4 to the Thomson

32 substation located west of Augusta, Georgia. The precise route of the new transmission line

September 2010 3-7 Draft NUREG-1947
Site Layout and Plant Description

1 right-of-way has yet to be determined, but it would be within a previously defined macro-right-of2 way (NRC 2008).

3 Southern provided no new and significant information regarding the route of the new

4 transmission line right-of-way in its COL ER (Southern 2009), and the staff found no additional

5 new and significant information during its review of Southern's process for identifying new and

6 significant information and during the audit at the VEGP site.

7 3.4 References

8 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

9 Production and Utilization Facilities."

10 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

11 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

12 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Early Site Permit

13 Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 5, Southern Company, Birmingham,

14 Alabama. Package Accession No. ML091550858.

15 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

16 Units 3 and 4, COL Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23,

17 2009. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

18 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010. Southern Nuclear Operating

19 Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application,

20 Response to Request for Additional Information Letter on Environmental Issues. January 8,

21 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479.

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for

23 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

24 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

25 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. APIO00 Design Control

26 Document. AP1 000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric

27 Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML053480403.

28 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. APIO00 Design Control

29 Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Westinghouse Electric

30 Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML083230168.

Draft NUREG-1947 3-8 September 2010
1 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Construction

2 In Chapter 4 of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008a),

3 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided an analysis of the environmental

4 impacts of constructing the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

5 (VEGP) site. The applicant, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), evaluated

6 potential new and significant information that could affect the impacts of construction in its

7 environmental report (ER) submitted as part of its combined license (COL) application

8 (Southern 2009a). The NRC staff reviewed Southern's process for identifying new and

9 significant information, but also conducted its own independent review to verify whether new

10 and significant information had been identified. The results of that review are presented in this

11 chapter. Sections 4.1 through 4.9 discuss the potential new and significant information

12 regarding the impacts on land use; meteorology and air quality; water use and quality; terrestrial

13 and aquatic ecosystems; socioeconomics; historic and cultural resources; environmental justice;

14 nonradiological health effects; and radiological health effects. Section 4.10 describes the

15 applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of construction of the

16 proposed Units 3 and 4. An overview of the site redress plan that is applicable to both the

17 Limited Work Authorization (LWA) issued concurrently with the ESP and the second LWA

18 requested by Southern as part of its COL application is provided in Section 4.11. A summary of

19 the construction-related impacts is presented in Section 4.12. References cited in this chapter

20 are listed in Section 4.13. Cumulative impacts of construction and other past, present, and

21 future actions are discussed in Chapter 7. The technical analyses provided in this chapter

22 support the results, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Chapter 11.

23 Because the VEGP COL application references an approved ESP, the significance levels of the

24 potential adverse impacts for the various areas evaluated will remain the same as documented

25 in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) unless new and significant information has been identified that

26 would change the original significance level. The definition of new and significant information is

27 documented in a 2007 Federal Register notice (72 FR 49352) and is described in Chapter 1 of

28 this supplemental EIS (SEIS).

29 4.1 Land-Use Impacts

30 This section provides information on land-use impacts associated with construction of proposed

31 Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Topics discussed are land-use impacts at the VEGP site and in

32 the vicinity of the site (Section 4.1.1) and land-use impacts in transmission line rights-of-way

33 and offsite areas (Section 4.1.2).

September 2010 4-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

2 The NRC staffs assessment of the land-use impacts related to construction of the proposed

3 Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 4.1.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The assessment

4 addressed the land area that would be impacted by various construction activities. Based on

5 the staffs analysis in the ESP proceeding, the staff concluded that the land-use impacts of

6 construction would be SMALL.

7 In the ER included in its COL application, Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

8 information regarding construction-related impacts on land use (Southern 2009a, 2010a).

9 During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of

10 potential new and significant information related to land use by reviewing Southern's ER,

11 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

12 information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference

13 documents. This review identified the following new information that warranted further review:

14 9 The VEGP site land area impacted on a long-term basis would increase from the 131 ha

15 (324 ac) stated in the ESP EIS to approximately 153 ha (379 ac) (Southern 2009b). The

16 revised area includes land for the fire training facility and the simulator building.

17 * The VEGP site land area impacted on a short-term basis would increase by approximately

18 108 ha (267 ac) to a total of 200 ha (494 ac). The additional land area consists of three

19 onsite locations that would be used as a source of Category 1 and Category 2 backfill.

20 The staff analyzed the environmental impacts associated with this additional land in an

21 environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (NRC 2010a).

22 • The entire VEGP site has been designated an Energy Production District in the Burke

23 County Comprehensive Plan (MACTEC 2007).

24 The NRC staff determined that the new information does not have the potential to change the

25 staff's impact characterization in the ESP EIS. The reasons for this determination are (1) the

26 additional affected acreage is on the VEGP site and (2) the entire VEGP site is designated an

27 Energy Production District in the Burke County Comprehensive Plan (MACTEC 2007). Based

28 on this review, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in Section 4.1.1 of the ESP

29 EIS remains valid.

30 Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern 2010b) that it may

31 subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an existing, permitted,

32 offsite borrow source. Southern stated that it has not made a final decision on whether to

33 submit an ESP license amendment request (LAR) to the NRC to use this borrow source, and

34 will not make that determination until it determines whether the already-approved onsite sources

Draft NUREG-1947 4-2 September 2010
1 will be sufficient for its construction needs. The staff recognizes that the use (or possible

2 expansion) of an offsite borrow source could have adverse impacts to land-use; however,

3 because the extent to which such an offsite source would be disturbed or expanded, if it is even

4 needed at all, is not presently known, and the potential significance of those land use impacts

5 cannot be evaluated until a LAR is submitted. If Southern submits a LAR to use an offsite

6 source, the staff would conduct an environmental review as part of its determination on that

7 LAR. The COL SEIS would be modified or supplemented with the results of that review, as

8 appropriate.

9 4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

10 The NRC staffs assessment of the land-use impacts related to the construction of the planned

11 new transmission lines and right-of-way to serve proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in

12 Section 4.1.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff s analysis, impacts to land use

13 were considered to be MODERATE.

14 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

15 information regarding construction-related impacts on the transmission line right-of-way. During

16 its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that no new and

17 significant information was available related to construction impacts on the transmission line

18 right-of-way by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and

19 significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering

20 applicable regulations and reference documents. Based on this review, the staff determined

21 that the conclusion presented in Section 4.1.2 of the ESP EIS that the impacts could be

22 MODERATE remains bounding and valid.

23 4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts

24 The NRC staffs assessment of meteorological and air quality construction-related impacts,

25 including dust generation during ground clearing and emissions from construction equipment

26 and workers' vehicles, was provided in Section 4.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the

27 staffs analysis, construction-related impacts to meteorology and air quality were considered to

28 be SMALL.

29 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

30 information regarding construction-related impacts on meteorology and air quality. During its

31 review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new

32 and significant information related to meteorology and air quality by reviewing Southern's ER,

33 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

34 information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference

35 documents. The review identified new information related to potential changes in construction

September 2010 4-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 traffic as well as changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone that

2 warranted further review.

3 During the September 2009 site audit, Southern indicated that a traffic study had been

4 completed in July 2009 (Neel-Schaffer 2009). The traffic study uses different workforce and

5 shift assumptions than were used in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a); however, the staff determined

6 that these assumptions are reasonable and the results remain consistent with the ESP EIS. In

7 addition to the vehicle traffic analyzed in the traffic study, Southern has indicated the potential

8 need for additional truck deliveries if more backfill material is needed than could be obtained

9 onsite (Southern 2010b). Southern stated that traffic impacts would be minimized by using

10 different routes near the site for inbound and outbound trucks. Although the potential truck

11 traffic would result in more air emissions, these emissions would be temporary and would be

12 completed before peak construction begins (Southern 2010b). The staff therefore expects the

13 air quality conclusions presented in the ESP EIS related to construction traffic would remain

14 valid.

15 As discussed in Section 2.3, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a

16 revision to the NAAQS for ozone on March 12, 2008. The final rule (73 FR 16436) reduced the

17 ozone standard from 0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires

18 each state to submit, within 1 year of the revised standard, its recommended designation

19 (i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county. On March 12, 2009, the

20 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to the EPA providing its

21 recommended designations. Under those recommendations, Burke County remains

22 unclassified/attainment with respect to the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009a). EPA will make

23 its final determination on attainment status no later than March 2011. Based on the staffs

24 review of new and significant information and the fact that GDNR has determined that Burke

25 County will remain designated as in attainment with respect to the NAAQS standard, the NRC

26 staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

27 4.3 Water-Related Impacts

28 The NRC staff s assessment of the water-related impacts associated with construction of the

29 proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site were provided in Section 4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC

30 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, construction-related impacts of hydrological alterations

31 and on water use and water quality were considered to be SMALL.

32 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a) and RAI responses (Southern 2010c), Southern provided new

33 information on the proposed intake structure design, as described in Section 3.2.2. Changes to

34 the design (Southern 2010c) do not substantially modify the width of the intake canal or the

35 length of the canal extending beyond the existing river bank. The impacts of hydrological

36 alterations resulting from construction activities would thus remain localized and temporary as

Draft NUREG-1947 4-4 September 2010
1 concluded in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). In support of its recent requests to amend the ESP

2 site safety analysis report, Southern provided new information regarding additional onsite

3 borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material, including three new borrow areas

4 in previously undeveloped portions of the VEGP site (Southern 2010d, e). In assessing the

5 significance of this information for the COL review, the staff has incorporated by reference the

6 description and analysis in the EAs, These borrow areas are currently included in Southern's

7 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction stormwater,

8 and the excavations would neither intersect the water table nor require dewatering. As a result,

9 the NRC staff determined that the conclusions reached in the ESP EIS with respect to surface

10 water and groundwater remain valid for excavations from the new borrow areas (NRC 2010a,b).

11 In addition, the NPDES storm water permits, Clean Water Act Section 401 certification, and U.S.

12 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act

13 Section 10 permit processes would minimize impacts.

14 As noted in the ESP EIS, prior to initiating construction activities including certain site15 preparation work, Southern would be required to obtain the appropriate authorizations

16 regulating alterations to the hydrological environment. Those authorizations would likely include

17 a certification issued by the GDNR under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Until Southern

18 obtains its Section 401 certification applicable to construction and operation of the new units (or

19 a determination from GDNR that one is not required), the Commission cannot issue a COL.

20 Southern has not yet obtained a Section 401 certification for the construction activities that

21 would be authorized by a COL, but has listed it among the required permits and certifications

22 specified in its ER (see SEIS Appendix H).

23 During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of

24 potential new and significant information regarding water-related impacts of construction by

25 reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant

26 information, examining other information available at the site audit (including permits for

27 groundwater withdrawal and dewatering of the surficial aquifer during construction) and

28 provided by Southern subsequent to the site audit, reviewing information submitted as part of

29 Southern's ESP license amendment requests, and considering applicable regulations

30 and reference documents. Beyond the information identified by Southern and discussed

31 above, the staff's review identified no additional information requiring further staff consideration.

32 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS, that

33 impacts would be SMALL, remain valid.

34 4.4 Ecology

35 This section provides information on terrestrial and aquatic resource impacts associated with

36 construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Topics discussed are terrestrial

September 2010 4-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 and aquatic resource impacts at the VEGP site and in the vicinity of the site (Sections 4.4.1

2 and 4.4.2).

3 4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

4 The NRC staffs assessment of the potential construction impacts to terrestrial resources,

5 including impacts to Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered species, was provided

6 in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Terrestrial-resource-related impacts

7 of construction, including impacts on Federal and State-listed species, that are discussed in the

8 ESP EIS include wildlife habitat removal during ground clearing, direct and indirect impacts to

9 wetlands during construction, wildlife displacement and mortality related to construction

10 activities and increased traffic, avian collisions with tall structures during construction, and noise

11 from construction activities. Based on the staffs analysis, construction-related impacts to

12 terrestrial resources were considered to be SMALL in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The

13 construction-related impacts on terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the new transmission line

14 were considered to be SMALL to MODERATE because of the uncertainty regarding the actual

15 transmission line route, as well as the uncertainty regarding the distribution of State-protected

16 species along and within the right-of-way.

17 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

18 information regarding construction-related impacts on terrestrial resources. During its review of

19 the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new and

20 significant information related to terrestrial resources by reviewing Southern's ER, reviewing

21 information submitted as part of the ESP LAR activities to obtain backfill from additional onsite

22 borrow areas, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information,

23 examining other information available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and

24 reference documents, and contacting the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

25 (SCDNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and GDNR (NRC 2010c, d, e; SCDNR 2009;

26 GDNR 2009b, c). This review identified new information related to construction-related impacts

27 to wildlife habitat, wetlands, and Federal and State-listed species that warranted additional staff

28 analysis.

29 Information relating to additional proposed onsite borrow areas was submitted by Southern on

30 March 12, 2010, as part of the new and significant evaluation for the COL (Southern 201 Oa).

31 Southern also submitted information pertaining to these borrow areas in subsequent submittals

32 supporting its LAR to obtain backfill material from areas not previously identified in the ESP

33 (Southern 2010e, f). The extent of disturbance within these borrow areas is further summarized

34 below; the updated acreage provided by Southern represents new information with respect to

35 the COL review that accordingly warranted further review. As the borrow areas requested

36 under Amendment 1 were located in onsite areas whose disturbance had already been

37 evaluated in the ESP EIS, the staffs Amendment 1 EA concluded that terrestrial resource

Draft NUREG-1947 4-6 September 2010
1 impacts associated with these locations would be consistent with the impacts previously

2 evaluated in the ESP EIS and found not to be significant. (NRC 2010b) With respect to the

3 borrow locations requested under Amendment 2, which were not previously evaluated in the

4 ESP EIS, the NRC staff described and evaluated the associated potential impacts on terrestrial

5 resources within these areas in the Amendment 2 EA issued in June 2010 (NRC 2010a ).

6 Accordingly, as described further below, the staff incorporates the description and analysis in

7 the Amendment 2 EA by reference in this SEIS.

8 As discussed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), approximately 225 ha (556 ac) would be disturbed

9 during construction of proposed Units 3 and 4, including 131 ha (324 ac) that would be

10 permanently disturbed and an additional 94 ha (232 ac) that could be temporarily disturbed

11 (NRC 2008a). Southern updated the estimated acreage needed for construction of proposed

12 Units 3 and 4 and currently estimates that approximately 353 ha (873 ac) would be disturbed by

13 construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4, including approximately 153 ha (379 ac) that could

14 be permanently disturbed for facilities and onsite infrastructure; 92 ha (227 ac) that would be

15 temporarily disturbed for parking, laydown areas, and spoils piles; and 108 ha (267 ac) that

16 have been cleared and excavated for backfill material (Southern 2009a, b; 2010 a, c, d).

17 The additional 22 ha (55 ac) impacted for permanent facilities would result in a change in habitat

18 types impacted for some facilities. An additional 1.2 ha (3.0 ac) of planted pines, previously

19 disturbed areas, and open fields would be cleared during construction of permanent facilities.

20 An estimated 21 ha (52 ac) of hardwood habitat would be lost to permanent structures and

21 facilities, representing an increase from the 2 ha (5 ac) that was estimated in the ESP EIS. This

22 additional acreage is a fragmented mosaic of hardwood remnants interspersed among planted

23 pine and previously disturbed areas. The updated onsite hardwood disturbance estimates are

24 still a small fraction (less than 0.1 percent) of the total acres of hardwood habitat available

25 (31,669 ha [78,253 ac]) within 16 km (10 mi) of the site (USGS 2001).

26 Hardwood habitats have much greater plant species and structural diversity than upland fields,

27 planted pine forests, and previously disturbed areas, and are thus assumed to be much more

28 important as wildlife habitat. However, as noted above, the updated onsite hardwood habitat

29 lost to permanent structures and facilities represents a small percentage of the total available

30 hardwood habitat available onsite and in the vicinity of the VEGP site. In addition, as discussed

31 in the Amendment 2 EA issued in June 2010 (NRC 2010a), approximately 108 ha (267 ac) in

32 three locations composed of planted longleaf (Pinus palustris), loblolly (P. taeda), and slash

33 pines (P. elliottii) will be cleared to obtain backfill material. The areas would be stabilized with

34 permanent vegetation when land-disturbing activities have been completed. Southern has

35 committed to replanting all the areas in longleaf pine, if possible. Two sandhills species, the

36 Southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis) and the sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus

37 michauxii), both of which are listed as State-threatened by GDNR, were found in one of the

38 proposed borrow areas. The NRC staff discussed the loss of sandhills habitat with GDNR.

September 2010 4-7 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 GDNR indicated that there is a general concern for the loss of sandhills habitat. However,

2 sandhills habitat quality in the areas being affected by obtaining the additional backfill material

3 authorized by the ESP amendments is considered to be marginal compared to the quality of

4 sandhills habitat located on the northern section of the VEGP site, which would not be disturbed

5 (NRC 2010e, GDNR 2009d). Southern has voluntarily collaborated with GDNR and the Georgia

6 Plant Conservation Alliance to mitigate impacts to the Southeastern pocket gopher and the

7 sandhills milkvetch. In the Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 EAs, issued in May and June

8 2010, the staff also described, among other matters, the applicable stormwater permitting

9 provisions and the best management practices Southern intends to follow for erosion and

10 sediment control. (NRC 201 Oa, b) In the Amendment 2 EA the staff also evaluated the impacts

11 to habitat from relocation of the State-threatened species associated with obtaining the

12 additional backfill material and determined that there would not be any destabilizing effect on

13 terrestrial resources. With respect to the EAs for ESP Amendments 1, 2, and 3 the staff

14 determined that approval of the ESP amendments would have no significant impact (NRC 2010

15 a, b, f).

16 Southern has submitted to USACE a joint Clean Water Act Section-404/Rivers and Harbors Act

17 Section-1 0 permit application, which is required with respect to any wetlands or water of the

18 United States that would be impacted by construction (Southern 2010c). Southern currently

19 estimates that 3.3 ha (8.24 ac) of jurisdictional wetlands would be impacted during construction

20 of the water intake system, access road, and outfall structure (Southern 2010c). This

21 represents approximately 5 percent of the 69 ha (170 ac) of wetlands that occur on the VEGP

22 site. As discussed in the ESP EIS, Southern originally estimated that approximately 8.5 ha

23 (21.0 ac) of wetlands would be directly affected by Unit 3 and 4 construction activities (NRC

24 2008a). The updated wetlands information reflects a decrease in the amount of wetland habitat

25 that would be impacted during construction. Accordingly, the staffs conclusion in the ESP EIS

26 with respect to impacts to wetlands remains bounding.

27 During its review, the NRC staff also identified new information related to onsite and offsite

28 infrastructure alterations in connection with how the large reactor components and other

29 materials would be delivered to the site.

30 Southern submitted a letter to the NRC in February 2010 stating that large components and

31 other construction materials would be transported to the VEGP site via rail, using the Norfolk32 Southern rail line from Savannah, Georgia, to Waynesboro, Georgia, where the line connects

33 with the spur to VEGP (Southern 2010g). The letter states that there would be no substantive

34 changes made to either the Norfolk-Southern rail line or to the private spur line to VEGP to

35 support the shipment of an estimated 70 components and pieces of heavy equipment that will

36 require special cars or size considerations. Some routine track maintenance, (e.g. such as

37 replacement of cross ties and/or ballast) may be necessary, but no land disturbing activities or

38 modifications of bridges, overpasses, or other structures would be needed. Southern stated

Draft NUREG-1947 4-8 September 2010
1 that modifications would be needed for the onsite rail yard and rail spur to support storage and

2 unloading of equipment and materials delivered by rail. The rail yard is located in an area

3 previously disturbed by construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 and is within the current disturbance

4 footprint.

5 Based on the information in Southern's February 2010 letter (Southern 2010g) and in the

6 information received in Southern's RAI response (Southern 2010c), which indicates that no

7 significant land-disturbing activities will be needed to support rail transport and delivery of large

8 components to the site, the staff does not expect either the transportation of reactor

9 components to the site or modifications to the onsite rail yard and spur to adversely impact

10 terrestrial resources, including threatened and endangered species.

11 The combined loss of sandhills habitat, hardwood forest and bottomland wetlands, planted pine

12 habitat, and open field habitat during the construction of Units 3 and 4 and the clearing of the

13 new borrow areas for backfill material would reduce available habitat for wildlife, including two

14 State-threatened species, the Southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch. However,

15 Georgia is currently working to restore sandhills habitat across the state, which includes planting

16 longleaf pine. Southern has committed to replant the disturbed onsite borrow areas in longleaf

17 pine, if possible. In addition, the areas that have been disturbed are of marginal quality

18 compared to the remaining higher quality habitat available onsite. Planted pine, open field, and

19 bottomland hardwood wetland habitats are available in other locations onsite and in the region.

20 Furthermore, as explained in the Amendment 2 EA, the potential losses to the Southeastern

21 pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch are isolated'and will not jeopardize the stability or viability

22 of any of the remaining populations in Georgia. These populations occur in different locations

23 throughout the state and each population is not dependent on the success of others. Therefore,

24 and for the reasons discussed above and in more detail in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a),

25 construction activities associated with the proposed action are not expected to destabilize

26 terrestrial resources, including the State-threatened Southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills

27 milkvetch.

28 As part of the NRC's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the staff is

29 preparing a biological assessment documenting potential impacts on Federally listed threatened

30 or endangered terrestrial species as a result of the facility operation and construction and

31 operation of the proposed transmission line right-of-way associated with the development of the

32 VEGP site. A biological assessment documenting potential impacts on the Federally listed

33 threatened or endangered species as a result of the site preparation and preliminary

34 construction of the nonsafety-related structures, systems or components on the VEGP site was

35 submitted to FWS on January 25, 2008, and FWS concurred with the findings on September 19,

36 2008 (FWS 2008).

September 2010 4-9 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 There are no known Federally-threatened or endangered terrestrial species on the VEGP site,

2 with the exception of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). As explained in the

3 ESP EIS and the Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 EAs, while an alligator has previously been

4 observed in Mallard Pond on the VEGP site (See Figures 3-1 and 3-2), alligators appear to be

5 relatively common in the Savannah River near and on the VEGP site, and construction impacts

6 on alligators would be negligible because any displacement would be temporary and there is

7 ample habitat in the region. Furthermore, there are no adequate nesting and foraging locations

8 for the Federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) in the additional

9 onsite areas that have been and would be disturbed. Details on the 21 ha (52 ac) currently

10 enrolled in the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor Agreement acreage that would be

11 impacted are discussed in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a); Southern intends to retain the

12 acres under the agreement and to replant these areas in longleaf pine, if possible, once the

13 areas have been stabilized and closed out. In addition, no critical habitat for threatened or

14 endangered species is present on the VEGP site. The new information with respect to the

15 additional borrow areas did not reveal impacts that may affect Federally-listed species or critical

16 habitat in a manner not previously considered in the ESP EIS , and no additional listed species

17 or critical habitat were identified.

18 In summary, the staff has reviewed the COL application and subsequent submittals, has

19 performed an independent review of potential new and significant information related to

20 terrestrial resources, has reviewed information submitted in conjunction with the ESP license

21 amendments, has audited Southern's process for identifying new and significant information,

22 has examined information provided at the site audits, has considered applicable regulations and

23 reference documents, and has contacted the GDNR, SCDNR, and FWS.

24 Southern is required to comply with conditions of the NPDES construction storm water general

25 permit issued by GDNR's Environmental Protection Division, and Southern has committed to

26 using best management practices to minimize impacts from erosion. Southern has voluntarily

27 mitigated impacts to the Southeastern pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch, both of which

28 are State-threatened species. Southern also has committed to replant longleaf pine in areas

29 that would be disturbed, if possible. Longleaf pine is a fundamental component of sandhills

30 habitat and a species ideally suited to the soil type and regional topography.

31 Based on the total acres of habitat that would be disturbed for the proposed project and

32 Southern's efforts to mitigate impacts to State-threatened species in connection with the use of

33 onsite borrow areas, the NRC staff concludes that site preparation and construction activities

34 related to building VEGP Units 3 and 4 could have a MODERATE impact on local terrestrial

35 resources through the loss of habitat and the displacement of localized populations of two State36 threatened species, the Southeastern pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch, but would not

37 have a destabilizing effect either on wildlife habitats or on the populations of two State-listed

38 species in Georgia.

Draft NUREG-1947 4-10 September 2010
1 Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern 2010b) that it may

2 subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an existing, permitted,

3 offsite borrow source. Southern stated that it has not made a final decision on whether to

4 submit an ESP LAR to the NRC to use this borrow source, and will not make that determination

5 until it determines whether the already-approved onsite sources will be sufficient for its

6 construction needs. The staff recognizes that the use (or possible expansion) of an offsite

7 borrow source could have adverse impacts to terrestrial resources; however, because the

8 extent to which such an offsite source would be disturbed or expanded, if it is even needed at

9 all, is not presently known, the potential significance of those ecological impacts cannot be

10 evaluated until a LAR is submitted. If Southern submits a LAR to use an offsite source, the staff

11 would conduct an environmental review as part of its determination on that LAR. The COL SEIS

12 would be modified or supplemented with the results of that review, as appropriate.

13 4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts

14 The NRC staffs assessment of the aquatic ecology related impacts, including the impacts to

15 aquatic biota in onsite ponds and streams from soil-disturbing activities, to aquatic biota in the

16 Savannah River from construction of the cooling water intake structure, the barge structure,

17 and the discharge structure, and from construction of the proposed transmission line, was

18 provided in Section 4.4.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The impacts to important species,

19 including Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species, were discussed in

20 Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3.2 of the ESP EIS. Based on the staffs analysis in the ESP EIS,

21 construction-related impacts to the aquatic biota in the onsite water bodies and the Savannah

22 River were considered to be SMALL.

23 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

24 information regarding construction related impacts on aquatic ecology. The NRC staff

25 independently reviewed Southern's ER, audited Southern's process for identifying new and

26 significant information, examined other information available at the site audit, and discussed

27 potential construction impacts with resource agencies (i.e., FWS, SCDNR, and GDNR; see

28 Appendix F). Southern subsequently provided new information on three additional onsite

29 borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material via license amendment (Southern

30 2010d, e). Based on the information provided by Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP

31 EIS, the staff concluded in the LAR EAs for Amendments land 2 (NRC 2010a, b) that site

32 preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to

33 those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the aquatic

34 resource impacts of activities which would be conducted at the borrow areas are consistent with

35 the impacts previously examined and found not to be significant. Accordingly, the staff

36 incorporates by reference its analysis in the LAR EAs (NRC 2010a, b).

September 2010 4-11 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 As part of the NRC's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the staff

2 prepared a biological assessment (BA) in connection with the Vogtle ESP review, documenting

3 potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) as a result of construction

4 and operation of two new units at the VEGP site. That BA was submitted to the National Marine

5 Fisheries Service (NRC 2008b). That assessment concluded that the proposed action is not

6 likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. The NMFS concurred with that determination

7 (NMFS 2008). The staff has determined that the project has not been modified in a way that

8 would cause an effect to a listed species not previously considered or modified to cause an

9 effect on the shortnose sturgeon that was not previously considered in the ESP EIS.

10 The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further analysis in the

11 SEIS. Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

12 remain valid.

13 4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

14 This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

15 constructing the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Topics discussed are the

16 socioeconomic impacts at the VEGP site and in the 80-km (50-mi) region of the site with an

17 emphasis on Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties (Section 4.5).

18 4.5.1 Physical Impacts

19 The NRC staffs assessment of the physical impacts, including noise, odor, vehicle exhaust

20 emissions, aesthetics, and dust, were provided in Section 4.5.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

21 Based on the staffs analysis and Southern's representation that it would undertake mitigation

22 measures, construction-related physical impacts on workers and the local public, buildings,

23 roads, and aesthetics were considered to be SMALL, with the exception of a MODERATE

24 impact on aesthetics as a result on construction of new transmission lines.

25 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

26 information regarding construction-related physical impacts on workers and the local public,

27 buildings, roads, and aesthetics. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff

28 independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to physical

29 impacts by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and

30 significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering

31 applicable regulations and reference documents.

32 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS that

33 impacts would be SMALL, with the exception of MODERATE aesthetic impacts related to

34 transmission lines, remain bounding and valid.

Draft NUREG-1947 4-12 September 2010
1 4.5.2 Demography

2 The NRC staffs assessment of the demographic impacts was provided in Section 4.5.2 of the

3 ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis described in the ESP EIS, the regional

4 impacts from the in-migration of workers as a result of construction activities were projected to

5 be SMALL in most of the region, but MODERATE in Burke County. Based on information from

6 Southern, the ESP EIS estimated that approximately 2500 construction workers would be

7 expected to in-migrate into the region.

8 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

9 information regarding construction-related demographic impacts on the 80-km (50-mi) region.

10 During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of

11 potential new and significant information related to demographic impacts by reviewing

12 Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information,

13 examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations

14 and reference documents. This review identified new information related to the need for

15 additional onsite and offsite backfill material that warranted additional evaluation. As explained

16 in the Amendment 1 and 2 EAs (NRC 2010a, b), backfill activities would occur concurrently with

17 other site preparation activities and would not require additional workers beyond the workforce

18 evaluated in the ESP EIS. The staff analyzed the environmental impacts associated with onsite

19 backfill activities in two EAs, both of which resulted in findings of no significant impact (NRC

20 2010a, b). Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the LAR EAs. The

21 staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further analysis in the

22 SEIS.

23 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

24 remain bounding and valid.

25 4.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Community

26 The staffs assessment of the economic and tax-related impacts was provided in Section 4.5.3

27 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis described in the ESP EIS,

28 construction impacts to the regional economy were considered to be SMALL, with the exception

29 of a possible MODERATE and beneficial impact in Burke County.

30 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

31 information regarding construction-related economic impacts to the community. During its

32 review of the COL application, the staff performed an independent review of potential new and

33 significant information related to economic impacts by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing

34 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information

35 available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and

September 2010 4-13 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 discussions with Burke County officials. This review identified new information related to the

2 local unemployment rate that warranted additional evaluation.

3 As shown in Table 2-1, unemployment rates for Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties and

4 statewide in Georgia have risen recently. This development is consistent with the current

5 economic slowdown throughout the United States and is not unique to the VEGP site. In the

6 short term, higher unemployment could lead to an increased demand for social services, a

7 decrease in income tax to the state and, to an extent, a decrease in sales tax to the counties.

8 However, construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 could alleviate these impacts by providing

9 jobs to unemployed individuals either directly at the site or through multiplier-induced, indirect

10 jobs described in Section 4.5.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Construction of the proposed

11 Units 3 and 4 would also provide additional tax revenue for Burke County that would provide

12 funding for any additional social services needed due to the higher unemployment. In the long

13 term, by the time construction peaks, unemployment will likely have had time to adjust and

14 adverse impacts from decreased tax revenue or increased social service demands will have

15 subsided. Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the

16 ESP EIS remain valid.

17 4.5.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts

18 The NRC staffs assessment of the infrastructure and community-service impacts was provided

19 in Section 4.5.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs ESP analysis, the

20 infrastructure and community-service impacts from the relocation of workers as a result of

21 construction activities were projected to be SMALL in most of the region with two exceptions.

22 The staff found in the EIS that there remains a possibility of a MODERATE impact on

23 transportation during peak construction if mitigation strategies are not implemented and a

24 MODERATE impact on housing and public services if the less-populated counties see a larger

25 than expected number of in-migrating construction workers.

26 During the September 2009 site audit, Southern indicated that a traffic study had been

27 completed in July 2009 (Neel-Schaffer 2009). The traffic study uses different workforce and

28 shift assumptions than were used in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a); however, the staff determined

29 that these assumptions are reasonable and the results remain consistent with the ESP EIS.

30 The traffic study is based on assumptions that 25 percent of workers will carpool during both the

31 day shift, which will consist of 75 percent of the construction workforce, and the nightshift,

32 which will consist of the remaining 25 percent of the workforce. The traffic study does not

33 account for outage workers or truck deliveries. The two scenarios used in the traffic study

34 are the construction ramp-up in January 2011 and the peak construction stage in March 2013.

35 Approximately 1200 construction workers are expected to be present in January 2011.

36 Assuming 75 percent of the workers are on the day shift, 25 percent on the night shift, and that

37 25 percent of workers would carpool, approximately 675 vehicles will be on the day shift and

Draft NUREG-1947 4-14 September 2010
1 225 on the night shift. Approximately 4300 construction workers are expected to be present in

2 March 2013 with approximately 2419 vehicles on the day shift and 806 vehicles on the night

3 shift. In the January 2011 projections, most intersections near VEGP would range from a level

4 of service (LOS) of A to a LOS of C. However, the eastbound and westbound sections of the

5 intersection of River Road and Hancock Road would have LOS D and LOS F ratings,

6 respectively. LOS A is the best rating, corresponding to no wait times at an intersection, and

7 LOS F is the worst rating, corresponding to long wait times at an intersection. According to the

8 new traffic study, intersection ratings during the peak construction period occurring in 2013

9 would include as many as five LOS F ratings, with considerable wait times at several

10 intersections.

11 Recommendations from the traffic study for the 2011 scenario were minor improvements such

12 as restriping affected lanes. The traffic study's recommendations to Southern for the 2013

13 scenario were more extensive, proposing several additional turn lanes, as well as rerouting

14 existing plant traffic and the realignment of Ebenezer Church Road with the entrance to the

15 VEGP gate. Staggering construction shifts also would alleviate traffic congestion on heavily

16 impacted intersections.

17 In addition to the vehicle traffic analyzed in the traffic study, Southern has indicated the potential

18 need for additional truck deliveries if additional backfill material is needed that would be

19 obtained offsite. In its analysis of the impact of the truck deliveries, Southern assumed all

20 deliveries would be made during the 10-hour day shift coinciding with Units 1 and 2 operations

21 shift change, but not during the Units 3 and 4 construction shift change. Southern also

22 assumed deliveries would consist of approximately 250 trucks a day. Each truck is the

23 equivalent of 3.5 vehicles on the road by Georgia Department of Transportation definitions. The

24 additional 250 truck deliveries is the equivalent of 875 vehicles a day (which equals 87.5

25 vehicles one way per hour during the 10 hour shift). The additional 87.5 vehicles one way an

26 hour is within the design capacity limits for the roads near the VEGP site even during the current

27 shift changes for the existing Units 1 and 2. Design capacity limits on Georgia roads are 1700

28 (2-lane roadway) and 2000 (4-lane roadway) vehicles each way per hour. Georgia capacity

29 limits were used for analysis on South Carolina roads too. Impacts would be minimized by

30 using different routes near the site for inbound (SR 23) and outbound (SR 56) trucks. Deliveries

31 are expected to last 7 months and would be completed before the peak of construction begins

32 (Southern 2010b).

33 Although the July 2009 traffic study uses different (more conservative) assumptions then the

34 ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the impacts and recommendations are similar. In the ESP EIS (NRC

35 2008a), the NRC staff concluded that impacts to transportation would be SMALL to

36 MODERATE for local highways and River Road in the vicinity of VEGP. The 2009 traffic study

37 commissioned by Southern and the potential additional backfill truck deliveries further reiterates

38 the MODERATE impact on River Road and other nearby intersections. The traffic study and

September 2010 4-15 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 potential additional backfill truck deliveries confirm that traffic impacts will noticeably alter the

2 local roads during shift changes, but the recommendations also demonstrate that, by

3 implementing mitigating measures, the impacts could be managed. Therefore, the NRC staff

4 determined that the MODERATE conclusion presented in the ESP EIS with respect to

5 transportation impacts remains valid.

6 In regard to other infrastructure and community-service impacts, there is no new and significant

7 information regarding construction-related impacts in the region within an 80-km (50-mi) radius

8 of the VEGP site. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified

9 that no new and significant information was available related to infrastructure and community10 service impacts by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new

11 and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and

12 considering applicable regulations, reference documents, and discussions with county officials.

13 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

14 remain bounding and valid.

15 4.5.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts

16 As described in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from

17 construction of proposed Units 3 and 4 range from SMALL to MODERATE, and beneficial

18 impacts range from SMALL to MODERATE. For the reasons described above, these

19 conclusions remain valid.

2o 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

21 The NRC staffs assessment of the construction-related impacts to historic and cultural

22 resources, including sites that are listed or eligible for listing under the National Historic

23 Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), was provided in Section 4.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

24 Based on the staffs analysis, construction-related impacts to historic and cultural resources

25 were considered to be MODERATE.

26 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

27 information regarding construction-related impacts to historic and cultural resources. During its

28 review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new

29 and significant information related to historic and cultural resources by reviewing Southern's ER,

30 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

31 information available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference

32 documents, and contact with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Advisory

33 Council, and Tribes (see Appendix C for complete listing).

Draft NUREG-1947 4-16 September 2010
1 This review identified new information related to the presence of a historic cemetery on the

2 VEGP site (New South Associates 2007) and mitigation for impacts to a site eligible to the

3 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which warranted further staff consideration.

4 Southern has installed a fence around the cemetery, determined that the planned construction

5 actions will not impact the site, and has consulted with the SHPO regarding protection and

6 mitigation of the site. Southern signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the

7 Georgia SHPO for "... the preservation of the remaining balance of site 9BK416 from physical

8 disturbance and performance of additional archaeological surveys as directed" by the SHPO

9 (GHPD 2010). Archaeological site 9BK416 is eligible for listing in the National Register of

10 Historic Places. In the MOU, Southern states, "The proposed project will disturb approximately

11 2.5 acres of the estimated 29 total acres of site 9BK416. The disturbance constitutes

12 approximately 8.5 percent of the total estimated site and results from the installation of the river

13 water intake piping, an electrical duct bank and associated right-of-way clearings. Based on

14 consultation and supporting field surveys, the SHPO determined the proposed project will

15 impact site 9BK416, but will not adversely impact the site." The new information provides

16 further indication that Southern will protect historic and cultural resources on the VEGP site, or

17 mitigate impacts in coordination with the SHPO. As a result of these protective measures

18 proposed by Southern and consultation with the SHPO, the staff concludes that the

19 identification of the historic cemetery and the signed MOU does not change its conclusion that

20 the construction activities will alter but not destabilize the cultural resources in the vicinity of the

21 VEGP site.

22 The staffs review also identified new information related to Southern's use of backfill from three

23 additional onsite borrow areas as authorized by amendment of the ESP (Southern 2010e). All

24 of the new borrow areas are within the VEGP site and also are within the area of potential effect

25 for the cultural resource analysis included in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The known cultural

26 resources located within the additional borrow areas were recommended as not eligible

27 for inclusion in the NRHP. The Georgia SHPO concurred with this finding by letter (GDNR

28 2007). As described in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a), in June 2010, NRC consulted with

29 the SHPO regarding the use of the onsite borrow areas and the SHPO "... agreed with NRC

30 that the backfill operations will have no effect to properties listed on or eligible for listing on the

31 National Register of Historic Places...." (GDNR 2010). The staff incorporates that analysis by

32 reference in this SEIS. As a result of the cultural resources analysis, field investigations,

33 procedures Southern has in place for unanticipated cultural resources discoveries, and the

34 consultation with the SHPO, the NRC staff concludes that the use of the additional onsite

35 backfill areas (Southern 2010e) likewise does not change its conclusions in the ESP EIS that

36 the construction activities will alter, but not destabilize, the cultural resources in the vicinity of

37 the VEGP site.

38 Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern 201 Ob) that it may

39 subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an existing, permitted,

September 2010 4-17 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 offsite borrow source. Southern stated that it has not made a final decision on whether to

2 submit an ESP LAR to the NRC to use this borrow source, and will not make that determination

3 until it determines whether the already-approved onsite sources will be sufficient for its

4 construction needs. The staff recognizes that the use (or possible expansion) of an offsite

5 borrow source could have adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources; however, because

6 the extent to which such an offsite source would be disturbed or expanded, if it is even needed

7 at all, is not presently known, the potential significance of those historic and cultural resource

8 impacts cannot be evaluated until an LAR is submitted. If Southern submits an LAR to use an

9 offsite source, the staff would conduct an environmental review as part of its determination on

10 that LAR. The COL SEIS would be modified or supplemented with the results of that review, as

11 appropriate.

12 Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

13 remain valid.

14 4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

15 The NRC staff's assessment of environmental justice impacts, including environmental

16 pathways, socioeconomic impacts, and subsistence and special conditions, was provided in

17 Section 4.7.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, construction impacts

18 to environmental justice were considered to be SMALL.

19 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

20 information regarding construction-related impacts on environmental justice. During its review

21 of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new and

22 significant information related to environmental justice by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing

23 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information

24 available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

25 This review identified new information related to the impacts on traffic that warranted additional

26 evaluation. As described in Section 4.5.4, Southern has completed a new traffic study and has

27 indicated the potential for additional truck deliveries for offsite backfill. In regards to the new

28 study, the assumptions are different but the conclusions are similar and still lead to a

29 MODERATE impact on roads near the VEGP site and a SMALL impact elsewhere. As stated in

30 the traffic study, Southern plans to mitigate potentially adverse impacts via roadway and traffic

31 control improvements. With respect to the potential need for offsite backfill, the hypothetical

32 truck deliveries routes identified by Southern would likely run through a small number of

33 additional minority or low-income communities north of the VEGP site in South Carolina.

34 However, the delivery routes would not be concentrated in minority or low-income communities

35 nor are there likely to be noticeable adverse impacts (such as from traffic or air emissions) to

36 these communities because the additional vehicles related to deliveries would remain within the

Draft NUREG-1947 4-18 September 2010
1 design capacity of the roads. Therefore the staff determined that the SMALL conclusion

2 presented in the ESP EIS with respect to environmental justice impacts remains valid.

3 Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

4 remain bounding and valid.

5 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

6 The NRC staff provided a description of the nonradiological health impacts for construction of

7 the proposed Units 3 and 4 in Section 4.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Physical impacts of

8 construction on public and occupational health, including dust, vehicle emissions, noise, and

9 transportation of materials and personnel, were summarized. Public and occupational health is

10 discussed in Section 4.8.1, while the impacts of transporting construction materials and

11 construction personnel to the VEGP site are discussed in Section 4.8.2.

12 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health

13 The NRC staffs assessment of the public and occupational health-related impacts, including air

14 quality, site-preparation and construction worker health, and noise impacts, were provided in

15 Section 4.8.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, construction-related

16 impacts to public and occupational health were considered to be SMALL.

17 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

18 information regarding construction-related impacts on public and occupational health. During

19 its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there was no

20 new and significant information related to public and occupational health by reviewing

21 Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information,

22 examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations

23 and reference documents. Subsequently, Southern also provided new information on three

24 additional onsite borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material via license

25 amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information provided by Southern and the NRC

26 analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA for Amendment 2 (NRC 2010a) that site

27 preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to

28 those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the

29 nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public from activities conducted at the borrow

30 areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not to be significant.

31 Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the LAR EAs (NRC 201 Oa, b).

32 The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further analysis in the

33 SEIS.

September 2010 4-19 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

2 remain bounding and valid.

3 4.8.2 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction

4 Personnel to the VEGP Site

5 The NRC staffs assessment of the nonradiological impacts associated with transporting

6 construction materials and personnel to and from the VEGP site was presented in Section 4.8.2

7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). These impacts include the damage, injuries, and fatalities

8 associated with vehicular accidents. Based on the staffs analysis, the transportation-related

9 impacts on human health were considered to be SMALL.

10 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new or significant information related to

11 transportation accidents. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff

12 independently verified that there was no new and significant information related to transportation

13 of construction materials and personnel through its evaluation of Southern's process for

14 identifying new and significant information, additional information provided by Southern at the

15 site audit, and the staff s independent review of available information. However, subsequent to

16 the site audit, Southern determined that it would need to obtain backfill material from onsite

17 borrow areas other than those previously specified in the ESP site safety analysis report.

18 Accordingly, Southern submitted license amendment requests to obtain approval of the use of

19 backfill from additional onsite borrow areas The NRC staff evaluated the nonradiological

20 impacts associated with truck transport of backfill material from these additional locations (NRC

21 2010a) and determined that the additional truck shipments would not significantly increase the

22 nonradiological impacts presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Accordingly, the staff

23 incorporates by reference its analysis in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a).

24 Additionally, Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern

25 201 Ob) that it may subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an

26 offsite borrow source. Although Southern has not made a final decision on whether to submit

27 an ESP LAR to do so, and thus a final plan is not before the NRC, the NRC staff conducted an

28 evaluation of the nonradiological impacts of transporting backfill material from offsite borrow

29 areas to the VEGP site, to assess whether such a development could potentially affect the

30 staffs conclusions in the ESP EIS regarding nonradiological impacts associated with building

31 Units 3 and 4.

32 The nonradiological impacts of transporting backfill material from offsite borrow areas to the

33 VEGP site were calculated using the same general approach and data that were used in the

34 ESP EIS and in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a). To calculate nonradiological impacts,

35 shipping distances are multiplied by unit rates (i.e., accidents, injuries, and fatalities per unit

36 distance). The bases and assumptions for these calculations are listed below:

Draft NUREG-1947 4-20 September 2010
1 * The NRC staff assumed that a total of 611,644 m3 (800,000 yd3) of backfill would be

2 transported by truck from a nearby borrow source to the power-block area of the Units 3 and

3 4 site (Southern 2010b).

4 * Southern assumed that shipment capacities for backfill material are approximately 15 m3

5 (20 yd 3) per truck load (Southern 2010a).

6 * The NRC staff assumed that the average one-way shipping distance for backfill material to

7 be about 96.6 km (60 mi) based on information provided by the Southern (Southern 201 Ob).

8 This distance was doubled to account for the empty return trip.

9 * Accident, injury, and fatality rates for transporting building materials were taken from

10 Table 4 in ANL/ESD/TM-1 50, State-level Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation:

11 A Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Rates for the State of Georgia were used

12 for backfill material shipments. The data provided in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) are

13 representative of heavy-truck accident rates.

14 The DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration evaluated the data underlying the

15 Saricks and Tompkins (1999) rates, which were taken from the Motor Carrier Management

16 Information System, and determined that the rates were under-reported. Therefore, the

17 accident, injury, and fatality rates from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were adjusted using

18 factors derived from data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research

19 Institute (UMTRI 2003). The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute data

20 indicate that accident rates for the period from 1994 to 1996, which are the same data used

21 by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 percent. Injury and

22 fatality rates were under-reported by 16 percent and 36 percent, respectively. As a result,

23 the accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57,

24 respectively, to account for the apparent under-reporting. These adjustments were applied

25 to the construction materials, which are transported by heavy truck shipments similar to

26 those evaluated by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) but not to commuter traffic accidents.

27 The estimated nonradiological impacts of transporting backfill materials to the power-block

28 area of the VEGP site from an offsite source are approximately 8.5 accidents, 4.1 injuries, and

29 0.2 fatalities. The estimated total annual nonradiological fatalities related to transporting backfill

30 material represents about a 2.4 percent increase above the average 9.8 traffic fatalities per year

31 that occurred in Burke County, Georgia, from 2004 to 2008 (DOT 2010). Even when considered

32 in combination with the minor increase in traffic fatality risk analyzed in the ESP EIS, this

33 increase remains small relative to the current traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the

34 proposed VEGP site.

September 2010 4-21 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 Based on this review and on information analyzed in the Amendment 2 EA for additional onsite

2 borrow areas (NRC 201 Oa), the NRC staff determined that the conclusions related to the

3 nonradiological impacts of transporting construction materials and personnel to and from the

4 proposed Units 3 and 4 presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

5 4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

6 The NRC staff concluded in the ESP EIS that nonradiological health impacts to construction and

7 operational workers at the VEGP site and to the local population from fugitive dust, occupational

8 injuries, noise, and transport of materials and personnel would be SMALL. During its review of

9 the COL application, the NRC staff independently examined information related to public and

10 occupational health by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new

11 and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, considering

12 the information provided in conjunction with the Amendment 2 LAR (Southern 2010e) and

13 information regarding the potential LAR for use of offsite backfill, and considering applicable

14 regulations and reference documents.

15 Based on this review and information in the EA (NRC 2010a), the staff determined that the

16 conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain bounding and valid.

17 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts

18 The NRC staff provided a description of the radiological health impacts for construction of

19 the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site in Section 4.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The

20 sources of radiation exposure for construction workers included exposures from direct radiation,

21 gaseous radioactive effluents, and liquid radioactive waste discharges from routine operations

22 at the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 during construction of proposed Units 3 and 4. For the

23 purposes of this discussion, construction and site-preparation workers were assumed to be

24 members of the public; therefore, the dose estimates were compared to the dose limits for

25 the public, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20, Subpart D.

26 Southern noted that all major construction activities are expected to occur outside the

27 VEGP Units 1 and 2 protected area boundary but inside the restricted area boundary

28 (Southern 2008a). The impact of direct radiation exposure is discussed in Section 4.9.1,

29 gaseous effluents in Section 4.9.2, and liquid effluents in Section 4.9.3, while total dose to

30 site preparation workers is discussed in Section 4.9.4.

31 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

32 The NRC staffs assessment of direct radiation exposures was provided in Section 4.9.1 of the

33 ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff's analysis, construction-related impacts resulting

34 from direct radiation exposure were considered to be SMALL.

Draft NUREG-1947 4-22 September 2010
1 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

2 information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from direct radiation exposure.

3 During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there

4 was no new and significant information related to direct radiation exposure by reviewing

5 Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information,

6 examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations,

7 reference documents, and recent data on direct radiation sources that have become available

8 since issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007, 2008b, 2009c). Southern

9 subsequently provided new information on three additional borrow areas from which it sought to

10 obtain backfill material via license amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information

11 provided by Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA (NRC

12 2010a) that site preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations

13 are similar to those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and

14 that the radiological health impacts of direct radiation exposure of workers conducting activities

15 at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not to be

16 significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the Amendment 2 EA

17 (NRC 2010a). The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further

18 analysis in the SEIS. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this SEIS, the data and analysis showed

19 that direct radiation exposure rates remained within trends identified in the ESP EIS.

20 Based on this review and information in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a), the staff

21 determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

22 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

23 The NRC staffs assessment of radiation exposures resulting from gaseous effluents was

24 provided in Section 4.9.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis,

25 construction-related impacts resulting from radiation exposure to gaseous effluents were

26 considered to be SMALL.

27 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

28 information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from radiation exposure to gaseous

29 effluents. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified

30 that there was no new and significant information related to gaseous effluents by reviewing

31 Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information,

32 examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations,

33 reference documents, and recent data on gaseous effluents that have become available since

34 issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007,2008b, 2009c). Southern subsequently

35 provided new information on three additional borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill

36 material via license amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information provided by

37 Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA (NRC 2010a) that

September 2010 4-23 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 site preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to

2 those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the

3 radiological health impacts of exposure of workers to gaseous effluents while conducting

4 activities at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not

5 to be significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the Amendment

6 2 EA (NRC 2010a). The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted

7 further analysis in the SEIS. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this SEIS, the data and analysis

8 showed that radiation exposure rates resulting from gaseous effluents remained within trends

9 identified in the ESP EIS.

10 Based on this review and information in the EA (NRC 201 Oa), the staff determined that the

11 conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

12 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

13 The NRC staffs assessment of radiation exposures resulting from liquid effluents was provided

14 in Section 4.9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, construction15 related impacts resulting from radiation exposure to liquid effluents were considered to be

16 SMALL.

17 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

18 information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from radiation exposure to liquid

19 effluents. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified

20 that there was no new and significant information related to liquid effluents by reviewing

21 Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information,

22 examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations,

23 reference documents, and recent data on liquid effluents that have become available since

24 issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007,2008b, 2009c). Southern subsequently

25 provided new information on three additional borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill

26 material via license amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information provided by

27 Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA (NRC 2010a) that

28 site preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to

29 those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the

30 radiological health impacts of exposure of workers to liquid effluents while conducting activities

31 at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not to be

32 significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the Amendment 2 EA

33 (NRC 2010a). The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further

34 analysis in the SEIS. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this SEIS, the data and analysis showed

35 that radiation exposure rates resulting from liquid effluents remained within trends identified in

36 the ESP EIS.

Draft NUREG-1947 4-24 September 2010
1 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

2 remain valid.

3 4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers

4 The NRC staffs assessment of total dose to site-preparation workers was provided in

5 Section 4.9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Here, the term site preparation workers refers to

6 workers performing either preconstruction or construction activities. Based on the staff's

7 analysis, construction-related impacts resulting from total dose to site-preparation workers were

8 considered to be SMALL.

9 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

10 information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from total dose to site-preparation

11 workers. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified

12 that there was no new and significant information related to total dose to site-preparation

13 workers by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and

14 significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering

15 applicable regulations, reference documents, and recent data on direct radiation sources and

16 radiological effluents that have become available since issuance of the ESP (Southern 2006,

17 2007,2008b, 2009c). Southern subsequently provided new information on three additional

18 borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material via license amendment (Southern

19 2010e). Based on the information provided by Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS,

20 the staff concluded in its EA (NRC 2010a) that site preparation and construction activities at the

21 additional onsite borrow locations are similar to those that have been previously analyzed and

22 documented in the ESP EIS, and that the radiological health impacts of exposures of workers

23 while conducting activities at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously

24 examined and found not to be significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its

25 analysis in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a). The staff has not identified any additional new

26 information that warranted further analysis in the SEIS. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this

27 SEIS, the data and analysis showed that total dose to site preparation workers remained within

28 trends identified in the ESP EIS.

29 Based on this review and information in the EA (NRC 2010a), the staff determined that total

30 dose to site-preparation workers at the VEGP site remained within the limits specified in Federal

31 environmental radiation standards - 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I; and 40 CFR

32 Part 190 - and that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

33 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

34 The NRC staff concluded in the ESP EIS that radiological health impacts to construction

35 workers at the VEGP site would be SMALL. During its review of the COL application, the staff

36 independently examined information related to radiological exposure by reviewing Southern's

September 2010 4-25 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

2 information available at the site audit, considering information Southern submitted in conjunction

3 with the Amendment 2 LAR for additional onsite borrow sources, and considering applicable

4 regulations, reference documents, and recent data on direct radiation sources and radiological

5 effluents that have become available since issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007,

6 2008b, 2009c).

7 Based on this review and information in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a), the staff

8 determined that total dose to construction workers at the VEGP site remained within the limits

9 specified in Federal environmental radiation standards - 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50,

10 Appendix I; and 40 CFR Part 190 - and that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain

11 valid.

12 4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

13 Site-Preparation Activities and Construction

14 The staff's assessment of the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during site15 preparation and construction were addressed in Section 4.10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

16 Part 10 of Southern's COL application includes a draft Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for

17 the site, which identifies proposed conditions, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping for

18 environmental data during construction. The draft EPP provided with the COL application is

19 substantively similar to the EPP attached as Appendix G to ESP-004 (NRC 2009b).

20 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

21 information regarding measures and controls to limit adverse impacts, but that it remains

22 committed to the mitigation measures described in Section 4.10 of the ESP EIS. During its

23 review of the COL application, the NRC staff identified an MOU between the Georgia SHPO and

24 Southern (GHPD 2010) that related to measures and controls to limit adverse impacts to cultural

25 resources. Additionally, the staff identified new information (Southern 2010e) indicating that

26 prior to developing the additional onsite backfill borrow sources associated with its second ESP

27 LAR, Southern implemented rare plant and animal relocation programs in an attempt to

28 minimize impacts (NRC 2010a). The NRC staff discussed these measures in the EA for

29 Amendment 2 and incorporates that discussion by reference in this SEIS. With respect to the

30 COL review, the NRC staff performed an independent analysis by reviewing Southern's ER,

31 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

32 information available at the site audit, information submitted in conjunction with the ESP LARs,

33 and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

34 With respect to historic and cultural resources, the MOU between the SHPO and Southern is for

35 the preservation of the remaining balance of site 9BK416 from physical disturbance and

36 performance of additional archaeological surveys as directed by the Georgia Historic

Draft NUREG-1947 4-26 September 2010
1 Preservation Division (GHPD). The proposed project would disturb approximately 1 ha (2.5 ac)

2 of the estimated 11.7 ha (29 ac) of site 9BK416. The SHPO determined that based on

3 consultation and supporting field surveys the proposed project would impact site 9BK416, but

4 not adversely impact the site (GHPD 2010). As described in Section 4.6, the staff considered

5 these measures and controls in reaching its impact conclusion.

6 As noted above, regarding rare species, Southern implemented voluntary programs to relocate

7 the Southeastern pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch prior to development of a new

8 borrow source in an area with populations of both of these species. These efforts have resulted

9 in the relocation of both Southeastern pocket gophers and sandhills milkvetch plants to an area

10 on the northern part of the VEGP site. The relocation programs were developed in consultation

11 with GDNR.

12 Based on this review, with the addition of the MOU and the species relocation programs, the

13 staff determined that the measures and controls identified to limit adverse impacts during site

14 preparation activities and construction presented in the ESP EIS remain valid, and also that

15 Southern's proposed EPP is appropriate. If the COLs are issued, the staff would include the

16 EPP as part of the licenses.

17 4.11 Site Redress Plan

18 Southern submitted a revised site redress plan as part of its ESP application (Southern 2008c),

19 and the NRC staff described and evaluated that plan in Section 4.11 of the ESP EIS (NRC

20 2008a). The purpose of the site redress plan was to ensure that the VEGP site would be

21 returned to an environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable condition if the proposed

22 Units 3 and 4 were not fully developed to generate electricity. The site redress plan is

23 applicable specifically to those actions allowed under the LWA that was issued concurrently with

24 the ESP in August 2009 (NRC 2009b).

25 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

26 information regarding the current site redress plan. In October 2009, Southern submitted an

27 application for a second LWA that, if approved by the NRC, would allow for additional

28 construction-related activities to be conducted prior to issuance of the COLs for Units 3 and 4.

29 The second LWA, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(d), would authorize installation of

30 reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with placement of

31 concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab. The second LWA application indicates

32 that the existing site redress plan would be applicable to the additional LWA activities. During

33 its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that no new and

34 significant information was available related to the site redress plan by reviewing Southern's ER,

35 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

36 information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference

September 2010 4-27 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 documents. In its ER submitted in support of the second LWA request, Southern explained

2 why, in each resource area evaluated in Chapter 4 of the ESP EIS, the requested LWA activities

3 would involve no additional impacts beyond those presented in the ESP EIS (Southern 2010h).

4 The staff reviewed and independently assessed Southern's evaluation of the LWA impacts.

5 In the ESP EIS, the staff examined the construction activities requested in Southern's ESP LWA

6 application and determined that the environmental impacts of those activities would be a small

7 proportion of the impacts of the combined construction and preconstruction impacts. The staff

8 determined that the LWA impacts would be bounded by the analysis of those overall impacts,

9 and would be SMALL. As Southern's ER in support of its second LWA explains, that is also true

10 of the subset of construction activities requested in the second LWA, in that they represent a

11 small proportion of the planned construction and preconstruction activities and would occur

12 entirely within the footprint of the nuclear island. Accordingly, the ESP conclusion regarding the

13 impacts of the ESP LWA reinforces a conclusion that construction impacts specifically

14 attributable to the October 2009 LWA request would likewise be SMALL.

15 Based on this review, the staff verified that the site redress plan discussed in the ESP EIS

16 would adequately redress the impacts of the activities requested under the second LWA in the

17 event construction is terminated by Southern or its successor, the COL application is withdrawn

18 by Southern or denied by the NRC, or the second LWA is revoked by the NRC. As a result, the

19 staffs conclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(c) that the LWA activities requested in the

20 October 2009 submittal would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that

21 could not be redressed is bounding and valid.

22 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts

23 Impact level characterizations identified by the NRC staff during the evaluation of the ESP

24 application were documented in Table 4-7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). In addition to impact

25 characterizations, environmental impacts categories were listed in Table 4-7 along with the

26 specific measures and controls Southern proposed to implement in connection with those

27 impact categories. For the reasons stated in this chapter, the NRC staffs review of information

28 available during the site audit and from other information sources did not identify any

29 information that would change the impact characterization for any of the categories in Table 4-7

30 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), with the exception of the impact level for onsite terrestrial

31 resources, which changed from SMALL to MODERATE for reasons described in Section 4.4.1

32 of this SEIS. The staff determined that the activities associated with the second LWA are a

33 small subset of the overall construction activities that would occur entirely within the footprint of

34 the nuclear island. Therefore, impacts from the activities requested in the second LWA would be

35 SMALL for all resource areas.

Draft NUREG-1947 4-28 September 2010
1 4.13 References

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

3 Protection Against Radiation."

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

5 Production and Utilization Facilities."

6 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

7 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation."

8 72 FR 49352. August 28, 2007. "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power

9 Plants; Final Rule." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

10 73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone." Federal

11 Register, Environmental Protection Agency.

12 Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

13 Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control

14 Act [FWPCA]).

15 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

16 Georgia Historic Preservation Division (GHPD). 2010. "Memorandum of Understanding.

17 Archaeological Site 9BK416 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Expansion Burke County, Georgia.

18 Letter from Georgia Historic Preservation Division to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc,

19 Birmingham, Alabama." Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML100500302.

20 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) 2007. Georgia Department of Natural

21 Resources, Early Site Permit - Draft EIS Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Letter from Georgia

22 Department of Natural Resources to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 27, 2010

23 Accession No. ML080070095.

24 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009a. Recommended Designations of

25 Ozone Non-Attainment Areas in Georgia. Letter from Georgia Department of Natural

26 Resources to U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. March 12,

27 2009. Accession No. ML100601088.

28 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009b. Email from Matt Elliott (GDNR) to

29 Mallecia Sutton, NRC. December 16, 2009. Accession No. ML09350021 1.

September 2010 4-29 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009c. Email from Katrina Morris (GDNR,

2 Environmental Review Coordinator) to Mallecia Sutton, NRC. December 21, 2009. Accession

3 No. ML100490042.

4 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009d. Sandhills Inventory. Accession No.

5 ML101690125.

6 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2010. Email from Elizabeth Shirk (GDNR,

7 Historic Preservation Division) to Mallecia Sutton, NRC. June 17, 2010. Accession No.

8 ML101940268.

9 MACTEC. 2007. Burke County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed February 4, 2010 at

10 http://www.burkechamber.org/burke-countyldepartment-profile.php?DepartmentID=6.

11 Accession No. ML100600797.

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

13 Neel-Schaffer. 2009. Traffic Study, Plant Vogtle Construction of Two New Units. July 2009.

14 Accession No. ML101940362.

15 New South Associates. 2007. Letter Report: A Determination of Boundaries and Surface

16 Features for Historic Cemetery on Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. May 14, 2007. Not

17 for public disclosure per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Supplemental

18 Staff Guidance to NUREG-1555, "Environmental Standard Review Plan," for Cultural and

19 Historic Reviews (Accession No. ML10055073013).

20 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889. 33 USC. 403, Section 10.

21 Saricks C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight

22 Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-1 50. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,

23 Illinois.

24 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. E-mail from Julie Holling,

25 SCDNR, Data Manager, to Mallecia Sutton, NRC, December 15, 2009. Columbia, South

26 Carolina. Accession No. ML093491132.

27 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006. Annual Radioactive Effluent

28 Release Report for January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

29 Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

30 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML061240254.

Draft NUREG-1947 4-30 September 2010
1 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Annual Radioactive Effluent

2 Release Report for January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

3 Units I and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

4 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

5 Package Accession No. ML071220467.

6 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Vogtle Early Site Permit

7 Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham,

8 Alabama. Package Accession No. ML081020073.

9 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Annual Radioactive Effluent

10 Release Report for January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

11 Units I and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

12 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081290295.

13 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Vogtle Early Site Permit

14 Application: Part 4. Site Redress Plan. Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham,

15 Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

16 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

17 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009.

18 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

19 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009b. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 Revised

20 Disturbance Table. Accession No. ML101960587.

21 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009c. Annual Radioactive Effluent

22 Release Report for January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -

23 Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68

24 and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML091260689.

25 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Supporting Information for

26 Environmental Report Review. March 12, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

27 Accession No. ML100750038.

28 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010b. Southern Nuclear Operating

29 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, New

30 and Significant Information Evaluation for the transportation of backfill from an offsite source.

31 Letter ND-1 0-1389 dated July 16, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

32 Accession No. ML102010031

September 2010 4-31 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010c. Response to Request for

2 Additional Information Letter on Environmental Issues, January 8, 2010. Southern Company,

3 Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479.

4 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010d. Southern Nuclear Operating

5 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis

6 Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of

7 Backfill. Letter ND-10-0960 dated May 13, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

8 Accession No. ML101340649.

9 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010e. Southern Nuclear Operating

10 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis

11 Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of

12 Backfill, Part 2. Letter ND-10-1005 dated May 24, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham,

13 Alabama. Accession No. ML101470212.

14 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010f. Southern Nuclear Operating

15 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Post

16 New and Significant Audit Supporting Information. Letter ND-10-0923 dated May 10, 2010.

17 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101320256.

18 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010g. Letter from Mr. Charles R.

19 Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to NRC regarding the large component

20 transportation decision, February 19, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

21 Accession No. ML100550033.

22 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010h. Southern Nuclear Operating

23 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application,

24 Environmental Report to Support Revision 1 to part 6, LWA Request. February 5, 2010.

25 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML1 00450055.

26 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the

27 Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI, Ann Arbor,

28 Michigan.

29 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

30 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter from Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional

31 Administrator to William Burton, NRC, dated August 11, 2008, "A Biological Assessment for the

32 Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application."

33 Accession No. ML082480450.

Draft NUREG-1947 4-32 September 2010
1 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2010. Traffic Safety Facts, Burke County, Georgia,

2 2004-2008. Accessed June 1,2010 at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.qov/departments/nrd3 30/ncsa/STSI/13 GA/2008/Counties/Georqia Burke%20County 2008.HTM.

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Athens,

5 Georgia to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Re: USFWS Log# 08-FA6 0473. September 19, 2008. Accession No. ML082760694

7 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. National Land Cover Database Zone 55 Land Cover

8 Layer. Accessed on February 11, 2010 at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php. Accession

9 No. ML100601081.

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement

11 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

12 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from NRC to NMFS dated January

14 25, 2008. Subject: Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle Electric

15 Generating Plant Early Siite Permit Application. Accession Number ML080070538 (cover letter)

16 and ML080100588 (attachment).

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Notes from September 14, 2009,

18 telephone call with Mr. Eric Hawks, National Marine Fisheries Service, concerning the Biological

19 Assessment for the Vogtle COL application. Accession No. ML092600667.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

21 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site, Docket No. 52-011, Early Site Permit and Limited

22 Work Authorization. Early Site Permit No. ESP-004. Washington. D.C.

23 Accession No. ML092290157.

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP

25 Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization EA and Finding of No Significant Impact.

26 Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101670592.

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP

28 Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization EA and Finding of No Significant Impact.

29 Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101380114.

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Letter from NRC to FWS dated January

31 7, 2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092600684.

September 2010 4-33 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Construction

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010d. Site Audit Summary. Washington, D.C.

2 Accession No. ML101550095.

3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010e. GDNR Conference Call Summaries, May

4 26-June 3, 2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML1 01670079.

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010f. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site

6 Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of no

7 Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101660076.

8

Draft NUREG-1947 4-34 September 2010
I 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

2 In Chapter 5 of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008a),

3 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided a description of the

4 environmental impacts of operating the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating

5 Plant (VEGP) site. The applicant, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern),

6 evaluated the potential new and significant information that could affect impacts of operation.

7 The NRC staff reviewed Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, but

8 also conducted its own independent review to verify whether new and significant information

9 had been identified. The results of that review are presented in the following sections.

10 Sections 5.1 through 5.10 discuss the potential operational impacts on land use, meteorology

11 and air quality; water use and quality; terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; socioeconomics;

12 historic and cultural resources; environmental justice; nonradiological health effects; radiological

13 health effects; and postulated accidents. Applicable measures and controls that would limit the

14 adverse impacts during the 40-year operating period for the proposed Units 3 and 4 are

15 described in Section 5.11. A summary of the operational impact is presented in Section 5.12.

16 The references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 5.13.

17 51 Land-Use Impacts

18 The NRC staffs assessment of the land-use impacts related to the operation of proposed

19 Units 3 and 4 and the planned new transmission line right-of-way was provided in Section 5.1 of

20 the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, impacts to land use were considered

21 to be SMALL.

22 In the environmental report (ER) included in its combined license (COL) application (Southern

23 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant information regarding impacts of

24 the operation of Units 3 and 4 and the planned new transmission right-of-way on land use.

25 During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that no new and

26 significant information was available related to the land-use impacts of operating Units 3 and 4

27 and the planned new transmission right-of-way by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's

28 process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at

29 the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

30 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in Section 5.1 of the

31 ESP EIS remain bounding and valid.

September 2010 5-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 5.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts

2 The NRC staffs assessment of meteorology and air-quality impacts, including impacts from the

3 cooling tower plumes and emissions from the operation of auxiliary generators and boilers, was

4 provided in Section 5.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff's analysis, operation5 related impacts to meteorology and air quality were considered to be SMALL.

6 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

7 information regarding construction-related impacts on meteorology and air quality. During its

8 review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new

9 and significant information related to meteorology and air quality by reviewing Southern's ER,

10 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

11 information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference

12 documents. During this review, the staff identified new information related to changes to the

13 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone that warranted further review.

14 As discussed in Chapter 2.3, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a

15 revision to the NAAQS for ozone on March 12, 2008. The final rule (73 FR 16436) reduced the

16 ozone standard from 0.084 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean

17 Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit, within 1 year of the revised standard, its

18 recommended designation (i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county.

19 On March 12, 2009, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to

20 EPA providing GDNR's recommended designations; Burke County remains unclassified/

21 attainment for the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009). EPA will make its final determination

22 regarding attainment status no later than March 2011.

23 Based on this review and the fact that Burke County has been proposed to remain in

24 attainment, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

25 (NRC 2008a) remain bounding and valid.

26 5.3 Water-Related Impacts

27 The NRC staff's assessment of the water-related impacts associated with operation of the

28 proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 5.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on

29 the staffs analysis, operations-related impacts of hydrological alterations on water use and

30 water quality were considered to be SMALL.

31 During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of

32 potential new and significant information regarding water-related impacts of operation by

33 reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant

34 information, examining other information available at the site audit (including permits for

Draft NUREG-1947 5-2 September 2010
1 groundwater withdrawal and dewatering of the surficial aquifer during construction), and

2 considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

3 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a) and request for additional information (RAI) responses

4 (Southern 2010), Southern provided new information on the proposed intake structure design,

5 as described in Section 3.2.2. These design changes would have no impact on water use and

6 water quality during operation and therefore do not change the assessment of operations7 related impacts described in the ESP EIS.

8 As described in Section 3.2.1, during its review, the staff identified information on the total

9 effluent discharge to the Savannah River that warranted further staff analysis in the SEIS. The

10 discharge estimate is 2000 LUs (31,695 gpm) (Southern 2010), which is 3 percent more than the

11 value of 1941 Us (30,761 gpm) used in the ESP EIS to evaluate water-quality impacts of

12 operations. The NRC staff performed an independent assessment of the thermal effluent

13 plume's extent using a total discharge of 2000 Us (31,695 gpm) and assuming the same

14 conservative conditions described in ESP EIS Section 5.3.3. The extent of the thermal plume

15 was estimated as the 2.80C (5.0°F)-above-ambient isotherm using CORMIX Version 6.0

16 (Doneker and Jirka 2007). The 3-percent increase in discharge resulted in an increase in the

17 estimated thermal plume extent from 29.6 m (97 ft) to 33.6 m (110 ft) in length and from 4.6 m

18 (15 ft) to 5.2 m (17 ft) in width. Because the estimated extent of the thermal plume remains

19 small in relation to the width of the river, the 3-percent increase in the discharge does not result

20 in a change to the staffs impact conclusion in the ESP EIS.

21 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in the ESP EIS, that

22 impacts would be SMALL, remains valid.

23 5.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems

24 5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

25 The NRC staff s assessments of the potential operational impacts to terrestrial resources,

26 including impacts to Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species, were

27 provided in Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Terrestrial-resource-related

28 impacts of operations that are discussed in the ESP EIS include impacts on vegetation related

29 to cooling tower drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity; bird collisions with cooling towers

30 and transmission lines; cooling tower noise; shoreline habitat; transmission line right-of-way

31 management; electromagnetic fields; transmission line right-of-way maintenance on floodplains

32 and wetlands; and Federal and State-listed species. Based on the staffs analysis, operations33 related impacts to terrestrial resources were considered to be SMALL.

September 2010 5-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

2 information regarding operations-related impacts on terrestrial resources. During its review of

3 the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

4 information related to terrestrial ecology by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's

5 process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at

6 the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and contacting

7 representatives of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), U.S. Fish

8 and Wildlife Service (FWS), and GDNR (see Appendix F).

9 As part of the NRC's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the staff is

10 preparing a biological assessment documenting potential impacts on the Federally listed

11 threatened or endangered terrestrial species as a result of operation of the proposed Units 3

12 and 4 and proposed transmission line. A biological assessment documenting potential impacts

13 on the Federally listed threatened or endangered species as a result of the site preparation and

14 preliminary construction of the nonsafety-related structures, systems or components on the

15 VEGP site was submitted to FWS on January 25, 2008, and FWS concurred with the findings

16 on September 19, 2008 (FWS 2008).

17 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in the ESP EIS, that

18 impacts would be SMALL, remain bounding and valid.

19 5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

20 The NRC staffs assessments of aquatic-ecology-related impacts were provided in Section 5.4.2

21 and 5.4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The staff assessed impacts to onsite streams and

22 ponds and to the Savannah River from operation of the cooling-water system, including impacts

23 from entrainment and impingement resulting from the operation of the intake system; impacts

24 from operation of the discharge including thermal, chemical, and physical impacts; and impacts

25 from transmission-line maintenance. Impacts to important species, including Federally and

26 State-listed threatened and endangered species, also are discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3

27 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, operations-related impacts to the

28 aquatic resources were considered to be SMALL.

29 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

30 information regarding operations-related impacts on aquatic biota. However, Southern indicated

31 that there would be a 3-percent increase in the thermal discharge flow. As explained in

32 Section 5.3 of this SEIS, using the same conservative assumptions employed in the ESP EIS

33 analysis, this change would result in only a small increase in the size of the 2.8 0C (5.0°F)-

34 above-ambient isotherm, from 29.6 m (97 ft) to 33.6 m (110 ft) in length and from 4.6 m (15 ft) to

35 5.2 m (17 ft) in width. The NRC staff reviewed this information and determined that consistent

36 with the reasoning identified by the ESP EIS analysis, the thermal plume would remain small

Draft NUREG-1 947 5-4 September 2010
1 compared to the width of the Savannah River at that location, and it still would not impede fish

2 passage up and down the river. Accordingly, this minor change would not affect the conclusion

3 in the ESP EIS related to the impacts to aquatic biota from thermal discharges resulting from

4 operation of two additional units. In addition to independently reviewing the ER, the NRC staff

5 audited Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examined other

6 information available at the site audit, and discussed potential operational impacts with resource

7 agencies (i.e., FWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, SCDNR, and GDNR; see Appendix

8 F for the consultation letters).

9 During the site audit, Southern informed the NRC staff that the design and location of the

10 cooling water intake structure for proposed Units 3 and 4 had changed. As a result, the staff

11 requested further information on the design and location to determine whether any of these

12 changes might affect the entrainment and/or impingement of aquatic organisms. In response to

13 requests for additional information from the NRC staff, Southern (2010) indicated the intake

14 structure would be located 46 m (150 ft) upstream of its previously designated location. The

15 staff determined that this new location would not alter the basis for the staffs analysis and

16 conclusion in the ESP EIS because the orientation of the mouth of the intake canal in relation to

17 the river (perpendicular) has not changed, and because the new location of the intake canal is in

18 habitat similar to that in the previous location (on a straight portion of the river and in the same

19 floodplain). In addition, Southern described the changes to the intake design (Southern 2010)

20 and indicated that no changes had been made to the water withdrawal rates, through-screen

21 velocities, traveling screen mesh size, or to the hydraulic zone of influence, which are the main

22 factors that would impact the entrainment or impingement rate of aquatic biota during operation

23 of the cooling water intake structure. As a result, the staff determined there was no change to

24 the impact on aquatic biota from entrainment or impingement as discussed in the ESP EIS.

25 As part of the NRC's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the staff

26 prepared a biological assessment (BA) in connection with the Vogtle ESP review, documenting

27 potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) as a result of construction

28 and operation of two new units at the VEGP site. That BA was submitted to the National Marine

29 Fisheries Service. (NRC 2008b) That assessment concluded that the proposed action,

30 including the risk of sturgeon impingement with the intake structure and the potential effect from

31 thermal discharge and chemical effluents, is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose

32 sturgeon. The NMFS concurred with that determination. (NMFS 2008) The staff has

33 determined that the project has not been modified in a way that would cause an effect to a listed

34 species not previously considered or modified to cause an effect on the shortnose sturgeon that

35 was not previously considered in the ESP EIS.

36

September 2010 5-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 Based on this review, the staff has not identified new information that warranted further analysis

2 in the SEIS. Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the

3 ESP EIS and the hearing proceedings remain valid.

4 5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

5 The NRC staffs assessments of the socioeconomic-related impacts, including physical impacts,

6 demographic impacts, economic impacts, and infrastructure and community-service impacts,

7 were provided in Section 5.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis,

8 operations-related impacts to socioeconomics were considered to be SMALL, with the following

9 three exceptions: (1) a MODERATE impact associated with the aesthetics of the transmission

10 lines, (2) a MODERATE beneficial impact on the economy of Burke County, and (3) a LARGE

11 beneficial tax impact in Burke County.

12 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

13 information regarding operations-related impacts on socioeconomics. During its review of the

14 COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

15 information related to socioeconomics by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process

16 for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site

17 audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and contacts with county

18 officials.

19 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

20 remain bounding and valid.

21 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts

22 The NRC staffs assessment of impacts from operation of Units 3 and 4 to historic and cultural

23 resources was provided in Section 5.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs

24 analysis, operational impacts related to historic and cultural resources were considered to be

25 SMALL.

26 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

27 information regarding operations-related impacts on historic and cultural resources. During its

28 review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and

29 significant information regarding operational impacts related to historic and cultural resources by

30 reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant

31 information, examining other information available at the site audit, considering applicable

32 regulations and reference documents, and contact with the Georgia State Historic Preservation

33 Officer (SHPO), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Tribes (see Appendix C for the

34 complete listing). The staff notes that, as described in Section 4.6, Southern has signed a

Draft NUREG-1 947 5-6 September 2010
1 memorandum of understanding with the Georgia SHPO. This action further indicates that

2 Southern will protect historic and cultural resources on the VEGP site or mitigate impacts in

3 consultation with the Georgia SHPO.

4 Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

5 remain valid.

6 5.7 Environmental Justice

7 The NRC staffs assessment of the environmental justice-related impacts, including health and

8 environmental impacts, socioeconomic impacts, and subsistence and special conditions, was

9 provided in Section 5.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, operations10 related environmental justice impacts were considered to be SMALL.

11 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

12 information regarding operations-related impacts on environmental justice. During its review of

13 the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

14 information related to environmental justice by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's

15 process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at

16 the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

17 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

18 remain bounding and valid.

19 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

20 The NRC staffs assessment of the nonradiological health impacts for operation of the proposed

21 Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site was provided in Section 5.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

22 Health impacts to the public from the cooling system, noise generated by operations,

23 electromagnetic fields, other occupational health concerns, and transporting operations and

24 outage workers were summarized. Health impacts from the same sources also were evaluated

25 for workers at the proposed Units 3 and 4.

26 The NRC staff concluded in the ESP EIS that nonradiological health impacts to the public and

27 the workers from the cooling system (e.g., exposure to thermophilic organisms), noise

28 generated by unit operations, acute effects of electromagnetic fields at the higher power levels,

29 occupational health-related impacts (e.g., falls, electric shock, etc.), and transporting operations

30 and outage workers to/from the two additional units would be SMALL.

September 2010 5-7 Draft NUREG-1 947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 In the ESP EIS, the staff did not reach a conclusion on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

2 fields. The staff found that available information was not sufficient to cause the staff to consider

3 the potential impacts of electromagnetic fields as significant to the public.

4 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

5 information regarding operations-related impacts to nonradiological health. During its review

6 of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

7 information by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and

8 significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering

9 applicable regulations and reference documents, including recent data from the U.S. Centers

10 for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2009), Georgia Department of Human Resources

11 (GDHR 2009), and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

12 (SCDHEC 2008, 2009, 2010).

13 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

14 remain bounding and valid.

15 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

16 The NRC staffs assessment of the radiological health impacts resulting from normal operation

17 of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site was provided in Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS

18 (NRC 2008a). The discussion included the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public

19 and to the biota in the vicinity of the VEGP site. Estimated doses to workers at the proposed

20 units also were discussed.

21 This section considers whether new and significant information has been identified relative to

22 the radiological health impacts during operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4. Exposure

23 pathways are discussed in Section 5.9.1, radiological doses to members of the public are

24 discussed in Section 5.9.2, impacts to members of the public are discussed in Section 5.9.3,

25 occupational doses to workers are discussed in Section 5.9.4, impacts to biota other than

26 members of the public are discussed in Section 5.9.5, and radiological monitoring is discussed

27 in Section 5.9.6.

28 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

29 The staff provided a summary of exposure pathways considered in its assessment of

30 radiological impacts of normal operations in Section 5.9.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

31 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

32 information regarding the exposure pathways considered in the analyses. During its review of

33 the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

Draft NUREG-1947 5-8 September 2010
1 information related to exposure pathways by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's

2 process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at

3 the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the

4 most recent offsite dose calculation manual for the existing Units 1 and 2. Although the new

5 dairy being developed near Girard, Georgia, (approximately 9.6 km [6 mi] south of the VEGP

6 site) is not considered in the analysis because it is greater than 8 km (5 mi) from the existing

7 and proposed units, milk from the dairy will be monitored by Southern for radionuclides.

8 Monitoring of milk from local dairies is carried out as part of the radiological monitoring program

9 for the existing Units 1 and 2. Southern staff indicated during the site audit, and the NRC staff

10 verified, that no previous samples had indicated the presence of radionuclides. The new dairy

11 in Girard, Georgia, will become the nearest dairy being monitored.

12 Based on this review, the staff determined that the exposure pathways considered in the ESP

13 EIS remain bounding and valid.

14 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

15 The NRC staffs assessment of radiation doses to members of the public was provided in

16 Section 5.9.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

17 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

18 information regarding the radiation doses to members of the public. During its review of the

19 COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

20 information related to radiation doses to members of the public by reviewing Southern's ER,

21 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

22 information available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference

23 documents, and reviewing the most recent offsite dose calculation manual for the existing

24 Units 1 and 2.

25 For the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), radiological impacts were determined using data from

26 Revision 15 of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design (Westinghouse 2005) with expected

27 direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radiological effluent rates. The Southern ESP

28 application referenced Revision 15 of the AP1 000 standard reactor design, and Revision 15 is

29 certified by rule in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Appendix D. Prior

30 to publication of the ESP EIS, Westinghouse submitted Revision 16 (Westinghouse 2007) to the

31 AP1000 reactor design to the NRC for review. The staff noted this submission in the ESP EIS,

32 but did not update the analyses with respect to radiological impacts because the staff review of

33 Revision 16 was not complete. Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted Revision 17

34 (Westinghouse 2008) to the AP1000 reactor design. Although Revision 17 remains under a

35 separate design certification review pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC staff has considered

36 the impact of this latest revision in its evaluation of potential impacts for normal operations in

September 2010 5-9 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 this SEIS. For normal operations, the staff has not found any changes in estimated direct

2 radiation, gaseous radiological effluent releases, or liquid radiological effluent releases based on

3 data in Revisions 15, 16, and 17.

4 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that a new low-level waste (LLW) storage

5 area had been developed northwest of the existing Unit 2 cooling tower to accommodate wastes

6 form the existing units as well as Units 3 and 4. Because of the distance between the LLW

7 storage area and the proposed construction area, Southern determined and the staff agrees

8 that the LLW storage area would provide negligible contribution to direct radiation dose to

9 construction workers. Likewise, because of distances, occupancy factors, and the lack of

10 effluents from the facility, doses to members of the public, operations personnel, and other biota

11 would also be negligible.

12 Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to members of the public

13 described in the ESP EIS remain valid.

14 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public

15 The NRC staffs assessment of the estimated impacts to members of the public was provided in

16 Section 5.9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), including to a maximally exposed individual near

17 the VEGP site and a population dose (collective dose to the population within 80 km [50 mi]) in

18 the vicinity of the VEGP site. Based on the NRC staffs analysis, operation-related health

19 impacts to individual members of the public and the population resulting from radiation exposure

20 were considered to be SMALL.

21 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

22 information regarding the impacts to members of the public. During its review of the COL

23 application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information

24 related to impacts to members of the public by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's

25 process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at

26 the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the

27 most recent offsite dose calculation manual for the existing Units 1 and 2.

28 Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to members of the public

29 described in the ESP EIS remain valid.

30 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

31 The staffs assessment of the estimated impacts to occupational workers was provided in

32 Section 5.9.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, operation-related

33 health impacts to occupational workers resulting from radiation exposure were considered to be

34 SMALL.

Draft NUREG-1947 5-10 September 2010
1 In its COL ER, Southern indicated that there is no new and significant information regarding the

2 impacts to occupational workers. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff

3 independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to impacts to

4 members of the public by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying

5 new and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and

6 considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

7 Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to occupational workers

8 described in the ESP EIS remain valid.

9 5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public

10 The NRC staff's assessment of the estimated impacts to biota other than members of the public

11 was provided in Section 5.9.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff's analysis,

12 operation-related health impacts to biota from radiation exposure were considered to be

13 SMALL.

14 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

15 information regarding the impacts to biota. During its review of the COL application, the NRC

16 staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to impacts to

17 biota by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and

18 significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, considering

19 applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the most recent offsite dose

20 calculation manual for the existing Units 1 and 2.

21 Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to biota other than members

22 of the public described in the ESP EIS remain valid.

23 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

24 In Section 5.9.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the NRC staff provided a summary of radiological

25 monitoring performed at and near the VEGP site.

26 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

27 information regarding radiological monitoring. During its review of the COL application, the NRC

28 staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to

29 radiological monitoring by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying

30 new and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit,

31 considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the most recent

32 offsite dose calculation manual for the existing Units I and 2.

September 2010 5-11 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiological monitoring described in the ESP

2 EIS remains valid.

3 5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

4 The NRC staffs assessment of the environmental impacts of postulated design-basis accidents

5 and severe accidents for AP1000 reactors at the VEGP ESP site was provided in Section 5.10

6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staffs analysis, the environmental impacts of

7 design-basis and severe accidents were considered to be SMALL.

8 The Southern ESP application referenced Revision 15 of the APIO00 Design Control Document

9 for the AP1000 standard reactor design (Westinghouse 2005). Revision 15 is certified by rule in

10 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. Prior to publication of the ESP EIS, Westinghouse submitted

11 Revision 16 to the APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2007) for NRC staff

12 review. The staff noted this submission in the ESP EIS, but did not update the accident

13 analyses because the staff review of Revision 16 was not complete. Subsequently,

14 Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 of the AP1O00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse

15 2008). Consequently, Southern updated its review of potential impacts for postulated accidents

16 based on Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document, which is under separate review

17 by the NRC staff pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52.

18 The term "accident," as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed in

19 Section 5.9 that results in release of radioactive materials into the environment. The focus of

20 this review is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits

21 for normal operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B,

22 Table 2.

23 5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents

24 The NRC staff s review of Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) was provided in Section 5.10.1 of the

25 ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The review of environmental impacts of postulated accidents in the

26 ESP EIS assumed the location of two new nuclear units at the VEGP ESP site. The calculation

27 approach used by Southern for its COL application is consistent with the approach described in

28 the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) and is summarized below.

29 Southern evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that an

30 AP1000 reactor could be constructed and operated at the VEGP site without undue risk to the

31 health and safety of the public (Southern 2008). These evaluations used a set of DBAs that are

32 representative for the AP1000 reactor design and site-specific meteorological data. The set of

33 accidents covers events that range from a relatively high probability of occurrence with relatively

34 low consequences to a relatively low probability with high consequences.

Draft NUREG-1947 5-12 September 2010
1 The DBA analyses in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) assumed that the postulated releases would

2 occur from the location on an imaginary border of an area surrounding all release points for the

3 two proposed units that would result in the greatest doses at the exclusion area and low

4 population zone boundaries. The units proposed in the COL application are situated entirely

5 within the area assumed in the ESP application, so the previous exclusion area boundary and

6 low-population zone distances remain valid for the COL application. The staff evaluated

7 potential consequences of DBAs following procedures outlined in regulatory guides and

8 standard review plans. Potential consequences of accidental releases depend on

9 characteristics of the specific radionuclides released, radionuclide release rates, and

10 meteorological conditions. Methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on guidance in

11 Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000).

12 Based on the ESP review and having found no new and significant information applicable to this

13 analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Qs) for the VEGP

14 site are still applicable for evaluating potential environmental consequences of postulated DBAs

15 for Revision 17 of the APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008) at the VEGP

16 site.

17 Table 5-1 lists the set of DBAs considered and presents estimates of the environmental

18 consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which is the

19 sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from inhalation and the effective dose

20 equivalent from external exposure. The DBAs listed in the table are the same as those being

21 considered in the design certification and those that were considered in the ESP review. The

22 NRC staff independently reviewed the calculation of the consequences of the DBAs in

23 Revision 17 of the APIO00 Design Control Document and found the calculations to be correct.

24 There are no environmental criteria related to the potential consequences of DBAs.

25 Consequently, the review criteria used in the staffs safety review of DBA doses are included

26 in Table 5-1 to illustrate the magnitude of the calculated environmental consequences (TEDE

27 doses). In all cases, the calculated TEDE values are considerably smaller than the TEDE

28 doses used as safety review criteria. Further, in no case is the consequence estimate

29 significantly different than the corresponding estimate presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

30 Therefore, the staff determined that the conclusion in the ESP EIS that the environmental

31 consequences of DBAs for an AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site are SMALL remains valid.

September 2010 5-13 Draft NUREG-1947
1 Table 5-1. DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor at the VEGP Site (Southern 2009a)

TEDE in rem(a)

Standard Review Exclusion Area Low-Population Safety Review

Accident Plan Section(b) Boundary Zone Criterion

Main steam line break 15.0.3

Pre-incident iodine spike 0.07 0.03 25(c)

Equilibrium iodine activity 0.08 0.08 2.5 (d)

Loss-of-coolant accident 15.0.3 3.6 1.5 25(c)

Steam generator tube rupture 15.0.3

Pre-incident iodine spike 0.16 0.04 25(c)

Equilibrium iodine activity 0.08 0.02 2.5 (d)

Locked rotor 15.0.3

No feedwater 0.06 0.01 2.5 (d)

Feedwater available 0.04 0.02 2.5 (d)

Failure of small lines carrying primary 15.0.3 0.15 0.03 2.5 (d)

coolant outside containment

Rod ejection accident 15.0.3 0.27 0.17 6.3 (d)

Fuel handling 15.0.3 0.38 0.07 6.3 (d)

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide rem by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007).

(c) 10 CFR 52.79(a)(2) and 10 CFR 100.21.

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

2 5.10.2 Severe Accidents

3 The staff's analysis of the potential consequences of severe accidents was provided in

4 Section 5.10.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The staff concluded that the probability-weighted

5 consequences of the severe accidents for an AP1000 reactor at the VEGP ESP site were

6 SMALL and that the issue was resolved.

7 Southern conducted a search for new information related to severe accidents and states that

8 there have been no significant changes in either the reactor-specific or site-specific information

9 used in the severe accident consequence assessment (Southern 2009a). The NRC staff has

10 reviewed the process that Southern used to search for new information and has conducted its

11 own search. The staff concurs that there is no new and significant information related to the

12 site-specific input to the severe accident consequence assessment in Section 5.10.2 of the

13 ESP EIS.

14 The NRC staff evaluated the significance of the new information related to the AP1000 design.

15 Westinghouse reviewed the AP1 000 Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) for Revision 15 of the

September 2010 5-14 Draft NUREG-1947
1 APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005) and concluded that the PRA remained

2 valid for a proposed Revision 16 of the APIO00 Design Control Document (Westinghouse

3 2007); the PRA is unchanged for Revision 17 (Westinghouse 2008). The NRC staff also

4 evaluated the current PRA using DC/COL-ISG-3, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to

5 Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications, (NRC 2008c), and concluded

6 that the PRA submitted with Revision 15 is a conservative and acceptable basis for evaluating

7 severe accident consequences for the current revision.

8 Because the NRC staff is not aware of any new and significant site-specific or reactor-specific

9 information, the NRC staff determined that its conclusion set forth in Section 5.10.2 of the ESP

10 EIS that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents at the VEGP site would be

11 SMALL remains valid.

12 5.10.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

13 The NRC staff provided a review of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for

14 Revision 15 of the AP1000 reactor design at the VEGP site in Section 5.10.3 of the ESP EIS

15 (NRC 2008a). The staff found that the VEGP site characteristics are within the site

16 characteristics considered in the severe accident design mitigation alternatives (SAMDA) review

17 conducted for certification of the AP1000 design (10 CFR 52, Appendix D). Consequently,

18 further SAMDA review was precluded by rule. The other attributes of the SAMA review, namely

19 procedures and training, were also addressed in the ESP EIS.

20 In its COL ER, Southern states that there is no new and significant information related to

21 postulated accidents (Southern 2009a). However, the NRC staff notes that the ER did contain

22 an update of information on DBAs associated with the proposed revision to the AP1000 design.

23 In the previous section of this SEIS, the staff reviewed the information used in the severe

24 accident consequence assessment included in the staff's ESP EIS and determined that the

25 revised reactor design did not change any of the input to the severe accident consequence

26 assessment.

27 Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA for Revision 15 and concluded that the PRA remains

28 valid for a proposed revision of the design control document (Westinghouse 2007); the PRA is

29 unchanged for Revision 17. Furthermore, the NRC staff evaluated the current PRA using

30 DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008c) and concluded that the PRA submitted with Revision 15 is a

31 conservative and acceptable basis for evaluating strategies for mitigating severe accidents.

32 Therefore, the NRC staff considers the PRA for Revision 15 of the design control document to

33 be an adequate basis for a SAMDA analysis for an application referencing Revision 17.

34 Consequently, the NRC staff incorporates, by reference, the environmental assessment

35 accompanying the design certification rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D (NRC 2005).

September 2010 5-15 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 Because there is no new and significant information related to either the site-specific data used

2 in the ESP EIS to conclude that the characteristics of the VEGP site are bounded by those

3 considered in the generic SAMDA review or to the AP1000 PRA, the NRC staff reaffirms and

4 adopts the ESP EIS conclusions that there are no cost-effective SAMDAs for an AP1000 at the

5 VEGP site.

6 Other attributes of the SAMA review, namely procedures and training, have been addressed by

7 Southern's statement that "...appropriate administrative controls on plant operations would be

8 incorporated into the plants' management systems as part of its baseline...." (Southern 2008).

9 Further, the staff notes that, pursuant to regulatory requirements, procedures and training,

10 programs are being developed. The staff has a reasonable expectation that risk mitigation

11 measures will be considered when procedures would be in place and training would be

12 completed prior to loading fuel. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that SAMAs were

13 appropriately considered in the ESP EIS.

14 5.10.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

15 In the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the staff evaluated the environmental impacts from DBAs and

16 severe accidents for an AP1000 at the VEGP site and considered SAMAs. Based on the

17 information provided by Southern and NRC's own independent review, the staff concluded

18 that the potential environmental impacts (risks) from postulated accidents from the operation

19 of the proposed AP1000 reactors would be SMALL and that additional mitigation is not

20 warranted. Staff from Southern and NRC have considered new information, including changes

21 to the certified AP1 000 reactor design, and determined that there is no new and significant

22 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that ESP EIS conclusions related to DBAs, severe

23 accidents, and SAMAs remain valid.

24 5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

25 Operation

26 The staffs assessment of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during operation are

27 provided in Section 5.11 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

28 In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

29 information regarding measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during construction, but

30 did indicate that it remains committed to the mitigation measures included in Section 5.11 of the

31 ESP EIS. During its independent review of the COL application, the NRC staff evaluated new

32 and significant information related to the measures and controls by reviewing Southern's ER,

33 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

34 information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference

35 documents. As discussed in Section 5.6, a memorandum of understanding (GHPD 2010) has

Draft NUREG-1947 5-16 September 2010
1 been signed between Southern and the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer concerning

2 protection of archaeological site 9BK416. The staff determined that this agreement constitutes

3 a new measure and control.

4 Part 10 of the COL application includes a draft Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for the site,

5 which identifies proposed conditions, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping for

6 environmental data during operations.

7 Based on its review, the staff determined that, with the addition of the Memorandum of

8 Understanding that was identified, the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during

9 operation as presented in the ESP EIS remain valid, and also that Southern's proposed EPP is

10 appropriate. If the COL is issued, the staff will include the EPP as part of the license.

11 5.12 Summary of Operation Impacts

12 Impact level categories identified during the evaluation of the ESP application are documented

13 in Table 5-19 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). These levels are designated as SMALL,

14 MODERATE, or LARGE as a measure of their expected adverse impacts. The NRC staffs

15 review of information available during both site audits and from other information sources did

16 not identify any information that would change the designation for any of the categories in

17 Table 5-19 of the ESP EIS.

18 5.13 References

19 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

20 Protection Against Radiation."

21 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

22 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

23 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100 "Reactor Site

24 Criteria."

25 73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone." Federal

26 Register, Environmental Protection Agency.

27 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2009. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

28 United States, 2007." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 56(53). July 9, 2009. Atlanta,

29 Georgia. Accession No. ML1 00470938.

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

September 2010 5-17 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 Doneker, R.L. and G.H. Jirka. 2007. Cormix User Manual, A Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone Model

2 and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters.

3 EPA#823/K-07-001. Accessed at http://www.cormix.info. (No-cost site, but registration

4 required.)

5 Georgia Department of Human Resources (GDHR). 2009. Georgia Epidemiology Report.

6 Volume 25, Number 3, March 2009, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Branch, Atlanta,

7 Georgia. Accession No. ML1 00470930.

8 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009. Recommended Designations of

9 Ozone Non-Attainment Areas in Georgia. Letter from Georgia Department of Natural

10 Resources to U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. March 12,

11 2009. Accession No. ML100601088.

12 Georgia Historic Preservation Division (GHPD). 2010. "Memorandum of Understanding,

13 Archaeological Site 9BK416 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Expansion, Burke County,

14 Georgia," Letter from Georgia Historic Preservation Division to Southern Nuclear Operating

15 Company, Inc. Southern Company, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML100500302.

16 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. 2006

17 South Carolina Annual Report on Reportable Conditions. Columbia, South Carolina. Accession

18 No. ML100481115.

19 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009. Epi Notes

20 Disease Prevention and Epidemiology Newsletter XXVI(2), Columbia, South Carolina.

21 Accession No. ML100470958.

22 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2010. Epi Notes

23 Disease Prevention and Epidemiology Newsletter XXVIl(1):Winter 2010, Columbia, South

24 Carolina. Accession No. ML100470979.

25 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Southern Nuclear Operating

26 Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application: Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham,

27 Alabama. Package Accession No. ML081020073.

28 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating

29 Plant, Units 3 and 4, COL Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 1, August 23,

30 2009, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

31 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010. Response to Request for

32 Additional Information Letter on Environmental Issues, January 8, 2010. Southern Company,

33 Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML1 00120479.

Draft NUREG-1947 5-18 September 2010
1 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

2 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter from Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional

3 Administrator to William Burton, NRC, dated August 11, 2008, "A Biological Assessment for the

4 Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application."

5 Accession No. ML082480450.

6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Athens,

7 Georgia to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Re: USFWS

8 Log# 08-FA-0473. September 19, 2008. Accession No. ML082760694.

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Alternative Radiological Source Terms for

10 Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183,

11 Washington, D.C.

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Environmental Assessment Relating to the

13 Certification of the API00 Standard Plant Design. Docket No. 52-006. Washington, D.C.

14 Accession No. ML053250292.

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

16 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement

18 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

19 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from NRC to NMFS dated January

21 25, 2008. Subject: Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle Electric

22 Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application. Accession Number ML080070538 (cover letter)

23 and ML080100588 (attachment).

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008c. Interim Staff Guidance, Probabilistic Risk

25 Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications.

26 DC/COL-ISG-3, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML081430675.

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Notes from September 14, 2009,

28 telephone call with Mr. Eric Hawks, National Marine Fisheries Service, concerning the Biological

29 Assessment for the Vogtle COL application. Accession No. ML092600667.

30 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. APIO00 Design Control

31 Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric

32 Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML053480403.

September 2010 5-19 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Operation

1 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2007. APIO00 Design Control

2 Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 16, Westinghouse Electric

3 Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML071580939.

4 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control

5 Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Westinghouse Electric

6 Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML083230168.

Draft NUREG-1947 5-20 September 2010
1 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

2 In Chapter 6 of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP)

3 environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4 (NRC) staff provided a description of the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle

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

6 decommissioning of two new nuclear units at the VEGP site. Fuel cycle impacts and solid

7 waste management are discussed in Section 6.1. Transportation impacts are discussed in

8 Section 6.2. Decommissioning impacts are discussed in Section 6.3. The list of references

9 cited is in Section 6.4.

10 6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management

11 The NRC staffs assessment of fuel cycle and solid waste-management-related impacts was

12 provided in Section 6.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staffs analysis,

13 environmental impacts were considered to be SMALL.

14 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) stated in the environmental report (ER)

15 included in its combined license (COL) application that there is no new and significant

16 information regarding fuel cycle and solid-waste management-related environmental impacts

17 (Southern 2009a). During its review of the COL application, the staff independently verified that

18 there is no new and significant information related to fuel cycle and solid-waste management by

19 reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant

20 information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable

21 regulations and reference documents, including Southern's response to the staffs request for

22 additional information regarding the proposed solid-waste-management system (Southern

23 2009b). However, because of additional information submitted by the applicant regarding its

24 low-level waste (LLW) disposal options and associated contingency plans, the staff assessed

25 the significance of this information for its analysis in the ESP EIS of the environmental impacts

26 of the uranium fuel cycle regarding LLW management.

27 The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (i.e., LLW, high-level waste [HLW], and

28 transuranic waste) are specified in Table S-3 (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

29 (CFR) Subpart 51.51(b)). For LLW disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission notes in

30 Table S-3 that there would be no significant radioactive releases to the environment.

31 Southern indicated in its response to the staff's request for additional information (ND-09-1540)

32 that the Barnwell LLW disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, no longer accepts Class B

33 and C wastes from sources in states outside of the Atlantic Compact (Southern 2009b). By the

34 time Units 3 and 4 begin operations, Southern stated that it expects to enter into an agreement

September 2010 6-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

1 with an NRC-licensed facility that would accept LLW from VEGP. If that expectation is not met,

2 Southern indicated that it could implement measures to limit the generation of Class B and C

3 wastes, extending the capacity of the onsite Auxiliary Building to store such wastes. Southern

4 noted that it also could construct additional storage facilities onsite and has indicated that such

5 facilities would be designed and operated to meet the guidance standards in Appendix 11.4-A of

6 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear

7 Power (NRC 1987). Finally, Southern indicated that it could enter into an agreement with a

8 third-party contractor to process, store, own, and ultimately dispose of LLW from VEGP.

9 Because Southern indicates that it would choose one or a combination of these options, the

10 staff considered the environmental impacts of each of these three options.

11 Table S-3 addresses the environmental impacts expected if Southern enters into an agreement

12 with an NRC-licensed facility for disposal of LLW, and Table S-4 addresses the environmental

13 impacts from transportation of LLW as discussed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The use of third14 party contractors was not explicitly addressed in Tables S-3 and S-4; however, such third-party

15 contractors are currently licensed by the NRC and are required to comply with 10 CFR part 20

16 dose limits. The impacts from on-site storage or use of a third party contractor are therefore

17 expected to be similar, and the additional environmental impacts are not significant compared to

18 the impacts described in Tables S-3 and S-4.

19

20 The measures to reduce the generation of Class B and C wastes described by Southern, such

21 as mixing spent resins to limit radioactivity concentrations, could increase the volume of LLW

22 but would not increase the total curies of radioactive material in the waste. The volume of waste

23 would still be bounded by or very similar to the estimates shown in Table S-3, and the

24 environmental impacts would not be significantly different.

25 When applicable criteria are met, the NRC's regulations (10 CFR 50.59) allow licensees

26 operating nuclear power plants to construct and operate additional onsite LLW storage facilities

27 without seeking approval from the NRC. Licensees are required to evaluate the safety and

28 environmental impacts before constructing the facility and make those evaluations available to

29 NRC inspectors. A number of nuclear power plant licensees have constructed and operate

30 such facilities in the United States, including Southern, which currently maintains an onsite LLW

31 storage area for VEGP Units 1 and 2. These facilities have available storage capacity for 6 to

32 8 years of accumulated waste and adequate room for expansion (Southern 2008). Typically,

33 these facilities are constructed near the power block inside the security fence on land that has

34 already been disturbed during initial plant construction. Therefore, the impacts on

35 environmental resources (e.g., land use and aquatic and terrestrial biota) of such additional

36 storage would be very small. All of the NRC (10 CFR Part 20) and U.S. Environmental

37 Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR Part 190) dose limitations would apply both for public and

38 occupational radiation exposure and the radiation doses continue to be below 0.25 mSv/yr (25

39 mrem/yr), which is the dose limit stated in 40 CFR Part 190. The NRC staff concludes that

Draft NUREG-1947 6-2 September 2010
1 doses to members of the public within the NRC and EPA regulations are a small impact.

2 Therefore, the staff concludes the environmental impacts from any additional or expanded LLW

3 storage facilities that Southern might construct and operate would be SMALL.

4 In addition, NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

5 Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report, assessed the impacts of LLW storage onsite at

6 currently operating nuclear power plants and concluded that the radiation doses to offsite

7 individuals from interim LLW storage are insignificant (NRC 1996). The types and amounts of

8 LLW generated by the proposed Units 3 and 4 would be very similar to those generated by

9 currently operating nuclear power plants, and the construction and operation of these interim

10 LLW storage facilities would be very similar to the construction and operation of the currently

11 operating facilities.

12 The Commission notes that HLW and transuranic waste are to be buried at a repository, such

13 as the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and that no release to

14 the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal because it has been assumed

15 that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the spent fuel are released to the

16 atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. In NUREG-0116, Environmental Survey of the

17 Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle (NRC 1976), which

18 provides background and context for the Table S-3 values established by the Commission, the

19 staff indicates that HLW and transuranic waste will be buried and will not be released to the

20 environment.

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

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

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

24 In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the NRC's position that the zero-release assumption

25 was reasonable in the context of the Table S-3 rulemaking to address generically the impacts of

26 the uranium fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings (Baltimore Gas and Electric

27 Company vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1983).

28 Furthermore, in the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision (10 CFR 51.23), the Commission

29 has made the generic determination that "... if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor

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

31 the licensed life for operation of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or

32 offsite independent spent fuel storage installations." That regulation also states that "... the

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

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

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

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

37 generated up to that time." The regulation provides that, accordingly, no discussion of any

September 2010 6-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

1 environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the period following the term of the reactor

2 combined license is required in any EIS prepared in connection with the issuance of that

3 combined license.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 the waste confidence rulemaking, Table S-3 and the existing Waste Confidence Decision

11 indicate that any environmental impacts associated with the HLW that would be generated by

12 proposed Units 3 and 4 would be minimal.

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

14 provide additional descriptions of the generation, storage, and ultimate disposal of LLW, mixed

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

16 activities are SMALL. For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental

17 impacts of radioactive waste storage and disposal associated with Units 3 and 4 would be

18 minor, and that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

19 6.2 Transportation Impacts

20 The NRC staffs assessment of the impacts to public health from transporting unirradiated fuel,

21 spent fuel, and radioactive waste to and from the VEGP site was provided in Section 6.2 of the

22 ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The staff concluded in the ESP EIS that the radiological and non23 radiological impacts on human health would be SMALL.

24 Southern indicated in its COL ER (Southern 2009a) that there is no new and significant

25 information regarding transportation-related impacts. During its review of the COL application,

26 the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information regarding

27 transportation-related impacts by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for

28 identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site

29 audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

30 The NRC staff notes that, on March 3, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy submitted a motion

31 to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to withdraw with prejudice its application for a

32 permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (DOE 2010). The motion was

33 subsequently denied by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC 2010). Regardless of the

34 final outcome of this proceeding, the NRC staff concludes that transportation impacts are

35 roughly proportional to the distance from the reactor site to the repository site, in this case

Draft NUREG-1947 6-4 September 2010
1 Georgia to Nevada. The distance from the VEGP site to any new planned repository in the

2 contiguous United States would be no more than double the distance from the VEGP site to

3 Yucca Mountain. Doubling the environmental impact estimates from the transportation of spent

4 reactor fuel, as presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008), would provide a reasonable bounding

5 estimate of the impacts for NEPA purposes. The NRC staff concludes that the environmental

6 impacts of these doubled estimates would still be SMALL.

7 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

8 regarding transportation-related impacts remain valid.

9 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

10 The NRC staff's assessment of the decommissioning-related impacts was provided in

11 Section 6.3 of the ESP EIS. Based on the staff's analysis, these environmental impacts were

12 considered to be SMALL.

13 Southern indicated in its COL ER (Southern 2009a) that there is no new and significant

14 information regarding decommissioning-related impacts. During its review of the COL

15 application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information

16 related to decommissioning by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for

17 identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site

18 audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

19 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

20 remain bounding and valid.

21 6.4 References

22 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

23 Protection against Radiation."

24 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

25 Production and Utilization Facilities."

26 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

27 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

28 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

29 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

30 73 FR 59551. October, 9, 2008. "Update and Proposed Revision of Waste Confidence

31 Decision." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

September 2010 6-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

1 73 FR 72370. November 28, 2008. "Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary

2 Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation and Waste Confidence Decision

3 Update: Extension of Comment Period." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

4 Commission.

5 Baltimore Gas & Electric Company vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. June 6, 1983.

6 462 U.S. 87.

7 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2008. 10 CFR 50.59 Screening/Evaluation.

8 Activity/Document No. RER A071430001, Version No. 1.0, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession

9 No. ML102100523.

10 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

11 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009,

12 Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

13 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009b. Response to NRC RAI Letter

14 No. 039 on the VEGP Units 3 & 4 COL Application Involving the Solid Waste Management

15 System, ND-09-1540. September 23, 2009, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No.

16 ML092680023.

17 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High18 Level Waste Repository), Docket No. 63-001. U.S. Department of Energy's Motion to

19 Withdraw. March 3, 2010, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML1 00621397.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing

21 and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-01 16 (Supplement 1 to

22 WASH-1248), Washington, D.C.

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

24 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

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

26 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report. NUREG-1437 Vol. 1,

27 Washington, D.C.

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

29 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

30 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

Draft NUREG-1947 6-6 September 2010
1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the

2 Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository), Memorandum and Order

3 (Granting intervention to Petitioners and Denying Withdrawal Motion), June 29, 2010,

4 Washington D.C. Accession No. ML101800299.

September 2010 6-7 Draft NUREG-1947

1 7.0 Cumulative Impacts

2 In Chapter 7 of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP)

3 environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4 (NRC) staff provided a description of the potential cumulative impacts that could result from

5 construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4. The discussions in the ESP EIS

6 included past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, and the geographical area over

7 which the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions could contribute to cumulative

8 impacts. This chapter of the supplemental EIS (SEIS) provides new information relative to

9 cumulative impacts. Land use, air quality, water use and quality, terrestrial and aquatic

10 ecosystems, socioeconomics and historic and cultural resources, nonradiological health,

11 radiological impacts, severe accidents, fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning are

12 discussed in Sections 7.1 through 7.10 of this chapter. The staff's conclusions are summarized

13 in Section 7.11, and references are listed in Section 7.12.

14 7.1 Land Use

15 The NRC staff's assessment of the cumulative land-use impacts related to the construction and

16 operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 7.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC

17 2008). Based on its analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff determined that cumulative land-use

18 impacts would be SMALL.

19 In the environmental report (ER) included in its combined license (COL) application (Southern

20 2009), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) indicated that there is no new and

21 significant information regarding cumulative impacts related to the construction and operation of

22 the proposed Units 3 and 4. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff

23 independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to the cumulative

24 land-use impacts of constructing and operating Units 3 and 4 by reviewing Southern's ER,

25 information submitted in support of ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern's

26 process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at

27 the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents. Based on this

28 review, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in Section 7.1 of the ESP EIS

29 remains valid.

30 7.2 Air Quality

31 The NRC staffs assessment of cumulative air-quality impacts from criteria air pollutants was

32 provided in Section 7.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Permitted air-emission sources in the

33 vicinity of the VEGP site include the Allen B. Wilson Combustion Turbine Plant (Plant Wilson)

September 2010 7-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Cumulative Impacts

1 located on the VEGP site and the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in South

2 Carolina. In addition, a mixed-oxide nuclear fuel facility has been proposed for development on

3 the Savannah River Site. Based on the staff's analysis, cumulative impacts to air quality were

4 considered to be SMALL.

5 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

6 information regarding cumulative impacts on air quality. During its review of Southern's COL

7 application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new and significant

8 information related to meteorology and air quality by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing

9 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information

10 available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

11 This review identified new information related to potential changes in construction traffic as well

12 as changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone that warranted

13 further staff analysis.

14 In Section 4.2, it was noted that Southern has indicated the potential need for additional truck

15 deliveries if more backfill material is needed than could be obtained onsite; this would result in

16 additional truck traffic to and from the site (Southern 2010a). Traffic impacts would be

17 minimized by using different routes for inbound and outbound trucks. Although the potential

18 truck traffic would result in more air emissions, these emissions would be temporary and would

19 be completed before the peak of construction begins (Southern 201 Oa). The staff therefore

20 expects the air quality conclusions presented in the ESP EIS related to construction traffic would

21 remain valid.

22 As discussed in Section 2.3, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a

23 revision to the NAAQS for ozone on March 12, 2008. The final rule (73 FR 16436) reduced the

24 ozone standard from 0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

25 requires each state to submit, within one year of the revised standard, its recommended

26 designation (i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county. On

27 March 12, 2009, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to the

28 EPA providing its recommended designations; Burke County remains unclassified/attainment for

29 the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009). EPA will make its final determination on attainment

30 status no later than March 2011. Based on this review and the fact that GDNR has determined

31 that Burke County will remain in attainment, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions

32 presented in the ESP EIS remain bounding and valid.

33 In November 2009, the Commission issued Commission Order CLI-09-21, which provided

34 guidance to the NRC staff to "... include consideration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

35 gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions under the National

36 Environmental Policy Act" (NRC 2009). Although the staff considered greenhouse gas

37 emissions in the ESP EIS and the issue therefore is not new, the staff has nevertheless reDraft NUREG-1947 7-2 September 2010
1 examined its previous analysis to show conformance with the Commission's instructions in

2 CLI-09-21.

3 While there are some carbon dioxide (C02) emissions associated with the construction and

4 operation of a nuclear power plant, the life-cycle contributions are dominated by emissions

5 associated with the uranium fuel cycle. These emissions primarily result from the operation of

6 fossil-fueled power plants that provide the electricity needed to manufacture the fuel. Published

7 estimates of CO2 emissions from nuclear-fuel-cycle processes and operations that support a

8 nuclear power plant range from about 1 percent to 5 percent of the C02 emissions emitted from

9 a comparably sized coal-fired plant (Sovacool 2008). A coal-fired power plant emits about 1.02

10 metric tons (1.12 short tons(a)) of C02 for each megawatt hour (MWh) generated (EPA 2009a).

11 Therefore, for consistency with Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51, the NRC staff has estimated the

12 fuel cycle CO 2 emissions as 0.05 metric tons (0.055 short tons) of CO2 per MWh generated. For

13 a 1000 MW nuclear power reactor, the resulting annual C02 emission rate is approximately

14 447,000 metric tons (492,733 short tons). For context, Table 7-1 compares this value to other

15 C02 emission estimates, including other sources of base-load power generation.

16 Table 7-1. Comparison of Annual C02 Emission Rates

Source Metric Tons per Year Short Tons per Year

Global Emissions 28,000,000,000(a) 30,865,000,000

United States 6,000,000,000(a) 6,614,000,000

1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant 8 ,9 3 9, 0 0 0 (b) 9,854,000

1000 MW Natural-Gas-Fired Power Plant 4 ,5 1 1 ,0 0 0(b) 4,973,000

1000 MW Nuclear Power Plant(c) 447,000 492,733

Average U.S. Passenger Vehicle 5(d) 5.5

(a) EPA 2009b

(b) EPA 2009a

(c) Including emissions from fuel cycle processes and operations; 90 percent capacity factor.

(d) EPA 2009c

17 As discussed in the state-of-the-science report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research

18 Program (GCRP), it is the "... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global

19 warming, and in turn, climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy.

20 The vast majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, about 87 percent, come from energy

21 production and use...." Approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions result from

22 generating electricity and heat (GCRP 2009).

(a) The published emission estimates are reported in terms of metric tons. The short-ton (U.S.) values

shown in this section are conversions from the published values.

September 2010 7-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Cumulative Impacts

1 For the following reasons, it is difficult to evaluate cumulative impacts of a single or combination

2 of greenhouse gas sources.

3 9 The impact is global rather than local or regional.

4 * The impact is not particularly sensitive to location of the release point.

5 * The magnitude of individual greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no matter

6 how large compared to other sources, are small when compared to the total mass of

7 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

8 e The total number and variety of greenhouse gas sources are extremely large, and they are

9 located everywhere.

10 These points are illustrated by the magnitude and comparison of annual CO 2 emission rates

11 listed in Table 7-1.

12 Evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of a global

13 climate model. The GCRP report (GCRP 2009) provides a synthesis of the results of numerous

14 climate modeling studies. The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of greenhouse

15 emissions around the world as presented in the GCRP report are the appropriate basis for its

16 evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts set forth in the GCRP report, the staff

17 concludes that the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are significant at the global

18 level. The staff further concludes that the cumulative impact level would be significant, either

19 with or without the greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed project.

20 Consequently, the NRC staff has determined that the proper approach to addressing the

21 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases, including C0 2, is to recognize that they are important

22 contributors to climate change and that the carbon footprint is a relevant factor in evaluating

23 energy alternatives. Among the viable energy generation sources for base-load power listed in

24 Table 7-1, the CO 2 emissions from nuclear power plants (including the associated fuel cycle

25 processes and operations) are considerably less than emissions from natural-gas-fired and

26 coal-fired power plants, and the staff considers these emissions and their impacts to be SMALL

27 both in isolation and cumulatively when compared to these other viable sources of base-load

28 energy. Accordingly, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in Section 7.2 of the

29 ESP EIS remain valid.

30 7.3 Water Use and Quality

31 The NRC staffs assessment of the water-related cumulative impacts of the proposed Units 3

32 and 4, the existing Units 1 and 2, the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site directly

33 across the Savannah River from the VEGP site, and other water users in the region was

34 provided in.Section 7.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The staff considered saltwater intrusion in

Draft NUREG-1947 7-4 September 2010
1 the State of Georgia, tritium that has been found in the unconfined aquifer, and contamination in

2 the environment surrounding the Savannah River Site. Based on the staffs analysis,

3 cumulative impacts to water use and water quality were considered to be SMALL.

4 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

5 information regarding cumulative impacts on water use and water quality. During its review of

6 the COL application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

7 information related to water use and water quality by reviewing Southern's ER, information

8 submitted in support of ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern's process for

9 identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site

10 audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

11 Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

12 remain valid.

13 7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem

14 The NRC staffs cumulative impact assessment of the terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the

15 VEGP site and the proposed transmission line right-of-way was provided in Section 7.4 of the

16 ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staffs analysis, cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources

17 were considered to be SMALL.

18 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

19 information regarding cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources. During its review of the COL

20 application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information

21 related to the cumulative impact assessment of terrestrial resources by reviewing Southern's

22 ER, reviewing information submitted as part of the license amendment request (LAR) activities

23 to obtain backfill from additional onsite borrow areas, auditing Southern's process for identifying

24 new and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit,

25 considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and contact with the U.S. Fish and

26 Wildlife Service (FWS), the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), and the South

27 Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR).

28 The land that would be disturbed for permanent structures and land that has been cleared for

29 additional backfill material is composed of hardwood forest and bottomland wetlands, planted

30 pine, sandhills, and open field habitats. The sandhill habitat that has been disturbed is of

31 marginal quality compared to the remaining higher quality sandhills habitat available onsite.

32 Planted pine, open field, and bottomland hardwood wetland habitats are available in other

33 locations onsite and in the region. Furthermore, as explained in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC

34 2010), the potential losses to the Southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch are

35 isolated and will not jeopardize the stability or viability of any of the remaining populations in

September 2010 7-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Cumulative Impacts

1 Georgia. These populations occur in different locations throughout the state and each

2 population is not dependent on the success of others. Staff did not identify new and significant

3 information concerning any activities or projects in the geographic region of interest that would

4 result in an adverse cumulative affect on terrestrial resources, including wildlife habitats and the

5 State-threatened Southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch. Based on this review,

6 the NRC staff determined that, while the localized impact has increased, the conclusions

7 presented in the ESP EIS, that cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources would be SMALL,

8 remain valid.

9 7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem

10 The NRC staffs assessment of the cumulative impacts to aquatic resources in the Savannah

11 River from upstream of the VEGP site to the mouth of the river was provided in Section 7.5 of

12 the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staffs analysis, cumulative impacts to aquatic

13 resources were considered to be SMALL.

14 One of the sources of cumulative impact discussed in the ESP EIS and subsequent hearing

15 proceedings was the potential for impacts from dredging the navigation channel to facilitate

16 shipment of large components to the site. Southern submitted a letter to the NRC in February

17 2010 (Southern 2010b) stating that large components and other construction materials would be

18 transported to the VEGP site via rail using the Norfolk-Southern rail line from Savannah,

19 Georgia, to Waynesboro, Georgia, where the line connects with the spur to VEGP. The letter

20 also states that Southern will not construct a barge slip or seek maintenance dredging of the

21 Savannah River navigation channel. Thus, in the absence of these shoreline construction or

22 dredging activities, the cumulative impacts to aquatic resources would not include any impacts

23 from these sources and thus would be bounded by the potential impacts described in Section

24 7.5 of the ESP EIS.

25 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

26 information regarding cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology. During the review of the COL

27 application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information

28 related to cumulative impacts for aquatic ecology by reviewing Southern's ER, information

29 submitted in support of ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern's process for

30 identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site

31 audit, considering applicable reference documents, and contact with the FWS, National Marine

32 Fisheries Service, GDNR, USACE, and SCDNR.

33 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

34 remain valid.

Draft NUREG-1947 7-6 September 2010
1 7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources,

2 Environmental Justice

3 The NRC staffs assessment of the cumulative socioeconomic impacts related to the

4 construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 7.6 of the

5 ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staffs analysis, impacts to socioeconomics were

6 considered to be SMALL, with the exception for a possible MODERATE impact on roads,

7 housing, and public services in Burke County and a LARGE beneficial impact in regards to

8 taxes in Burke County. Based on the staffs analysis, cumulative impacts to historic and cultural

9 resources were considered to be MODERATE, and Environmental Justice Impacts were

10 considered to be SMALL.

11 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

12 information regarding cumulative impacts related to the construction and operation of the

13 proposed Units 3 and 4. During its review of the COL application, the staff reviewed Southern's

14 ER, audited Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examined other

15 information available at the site audit, and considered applicable regulations, reference

16 documents, and discussions with state and county officials, Georgia State Historic Preservation

17 Division, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and potentially interested Tribes (see

18 Appendix C for complete listing). This independent review identified new information in the

19 areas of historic and cultural resources and socioeconomics that warranted further staff review.

20 As previously described in Section 4.6 of this SEIS, the staff identified a historic cemetery

21 located on the VEGP site outside the proposed construction footprint. Southern has installed a

22 fence around the cemetery, determined that the planned construction actions would not impact

23 the site, and has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding

24 protection and mitigation of the site. As a result of these protective measures proposed by

25 Southern and consultation with the SHPO, the staff concludes that the identification of the

26 historic cemetery does not change its conclusion regarding the cumulative impacts to historic

27 and cultural resources in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The staff identified new proposed onsite

28 barrow areas as a result of the LAR (Southern 2010b). The impacts to historic and cultural

29 resources associated with the new proposed onsite barrow areas are previously described in

30 Section 4.6. There are no NRHP eligible properties located in the vicinity of the proposed onsite

31 barrow areas. As a result of the cultural resources analysis, field investigations, procedures

32 SNC has in place for unanticipated cultural resources discoveries, and the consultation with the

33 SHPO, the staff concludes that the proposed new onsite barrow areas does not change its

34 conclusions regarding cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the

35 VEGP site.

36 This independent review also identified new information related to funding provided by the

37 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which warranted further staff consideration.

September 2010 7-7 Draft NUREG-1947
Cumulative Impacts

1 A significant amount of the ARRA funding that could have potential socioeconomic impacts on

2 Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia has been allocated to the nearby Savannah River

3 Site. The ARRA funding has saved and created thousands of jobs at the Savannah River Site,

4 which is near the VEGP site (DOE 2009). However, ARRA is not a renewable source of

5 funding, and ARRA-related employment will diminish before construction of the proposed

6 Units 3 and 4 peaks; therefore, the staff does not expect any increase in cumulative impacts.

7 The NRC staffs independent review found no new and significant information regarding

8 environmental justice.

9 Section 4.5 of this SEIS described the possibility of Southern needing additional backfill material

10 delivered by truck from an offsite source thus adding additional vehicles to the roadways

11 (Southern 2010a). Traffic impacts would be minimized by using different routes for inbound and

12 outbound trucks. As discussed in Section 4.5, although the truck deliveries would increase the

13 amount of traffic on the roadways, the increases would remain within the design capacities of

14 the roads, and the increased traffic would be temporary and completed before the peak of

15 construction begins (Southern 2010a). Based on this review, the staff determined that the

16 conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

17 7.7 Nonradiological Health

18 The NRC staffs assessment of cumulative nonradiological, health-related impacts was provided

19 in Section 7.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staffs analysis, cumulative impacts to

20 nonradiological health were considered to be SMALL.

21 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

22 information regarding cumulative impacts on nonradiological health. During its review of the

23 COL application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information

24 related to nonradiological health by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for

25 identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site

26 audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents. However, subsequent

27 to the site audit, Southern determined that it would need to obtain backfill material from onsite

28 borrow areas other than those previously specified in the ESP site safety analysis report.

29 Accordingly, Southern submitted license amendment requests to obtain approval of the use of

30 backfill from additional onsite and offsite borrow areas. The NRC staff evaluated the

31 nonradiological impacts associated with truck transport of backfill material from these additional

32 locations (NRC 2010) and determined that the additional truck shipments would not significantly

33 increase the nonradiological impacts presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Furthermore, in

34 Section 4.8.2 of this SEIS, the staff examined the potential increase in traffic fatality risk in the

35 event Southern were to need to obtain additional backfill material from an offsite source. As

36 explained in Section 4.8.2, even when considered in combination with the minor increase in

Draft NUREG-1947 7-8 September 2010
1 traffic fatality risk analyzed in the ESP FEIS, this increase remains small relative to the current

2 traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the proposed VEGP site.

3 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

4 remain valid.

s 7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

6 The NRC staff's assessment of cumulative radiological, health-related impacts was provided in

7 Section 7.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff's analysis, cumulative impacts to

8 radiological health were considered to be SMALL.

9 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

10 information regarding cumulative impacts on radiological health. During its review of the COL

11 application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information

12 related to radiological health by reviewing Southern's ER, information submitted in support of

13 ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern's process for identifying new and

14 significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering

15 applicable regulations and reference documents.

16 In Section 6.1 of this SEIS, the staff analyzed the potential environmental impacts of additional

17 onsite or offsite storage of low-level radioactive waste, if it becomes necessary for Southern to

18 implement one or more of the contingency options it has described. For the reasons described

19 in those sections, implementation of those contingencies would not result in doses in excess of

20 the applicable 10 CFR Part 20 limits, and thus any cumulative impacts would be SMALL.

21 Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

22 remain bounding and valid.

23 7.9 Severe Accidents

24 The NRC staffs assessment of cumulative, severe-accident-related impacts was provided in

25 Section 7.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff's analysis, cumulative impacts of

26 severe accidents were considered to be SMALL.

27 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

28 information regarding cumulative impacts related to severe accidents. During its review of the

29 COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant

30 information related to radiological health by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's

31 process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at

32 the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

September 2010 7-9 Draft NUREG-1 947
Cumulative Impacts

I Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

2 remain bounding and valid.

3 7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

4 The NRC staff's assessment of impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and

5 decommissioning was provided in Section 7.10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the

6 staff's analysis, cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and

7 decommissioning were considered to be SMALL.

8 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

9 information regarding cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and

10 decommissioning. During its review of the COL application, the staff independently verified that

11 there is no new and significant information related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and

12 decommissioning by reviewing Southern's ER, auditing Southern's process for identifying new

13 and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and

14 considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

15 Based on this review, the NRC determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS

16 remain bounding and valid.

17 7.11 NRC Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

18 The NRC staff considered the potential impacts resulting from constructing and operating the

19 proposed Units 3 and 4 together with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

20 actions in the VEGP site area. The staff summarized its conclusions in Section 7.11 of the ESP

21 EIS and found that all potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation

22 generally would be SMALL, and additional mitigation was not warranted. The staffs review of

23 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information results from the VEGP site

24 audit, and contacts with various Federal, State, and Tribal agencies identified no information

25 that would change these cumulative impact designations.

26 7.12 References

27 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for the

28 Protection Against Radiation."

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."

Draft NUREG-1 947 7-10 September 2010
1 73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final

2 Standard." Federal Register, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Public Law 111-5.

4 Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq,

5 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009. Recommended Designations of

6 Ozone Non-Attainment Areas in Georgia. Letter from Georgia Department of Natural

7 Resources to U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. March 12,

8 2009. Accession No. ML100601088.

9 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

10 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009.

11 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

12 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Southern Nuclear Operating

13 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, New

14 and Significant Information Evaluation for the transportation of backfill from an offsite source.

15 Letter ND-10-1389 dated July 16, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

16 Accession No. ML102010031.

17 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010b. Letter from Mr. Charles R.

18 Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to NRC regarding the large component

19 transportation decision, February 19, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

20 Accession No. ML100550033.

21 Sovacool, B.K. 2008. "Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical

22 Survey." Energy Policy 36(2008):2940-2953.

23 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. "Recovery and Reinvestment." Accessed January 7,

24 2010, at http://www.energy.gov/recovery/. Accession No. ML1 00601103.

25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Air Emissions. Accessed January 12,

26 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-and-you/affectlair-emissions.html.

27 Accession No. ML100600773.

28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Global Greenhouse Gas Data.

29 Accessed January 22, 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html.

30 Accession No. ML100221499.

September 2010 7-11 Draft NUREG-1947
Cumulative Impacts

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas

2 Emissions for a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Accessed January 22, 2010 at

3 http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/42fO5004.htm. Accession No. ML100600790.

4 U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the

5 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds, Cambridge University Press,

6 New York.

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

8 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

9 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Memorandum and Order, Duke Energy

11 Carolinas, LLC, Combined License Application for William States Lee Nuclear Station,

12 Units 1 and 2, and Tennessee Valley Authority, Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plan, Units 3 and 4,

13 CLI-09-21, November 3, 2009. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML093070689.

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site

15 Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of no

16 Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101670592

17

Draft NUREG-1947 7-12 September 2010
1 8.0 Need for Power

2 A discussion of the need for power from proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Chapter 8 of

3 the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP) environmental impact

4 statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). This section describes the need for power assessment for the

5 proposed units. The discussion in the ESP EIS is organized into four major subsections that

6 provide details on the power system, power demand, power supply, and the assessment of

7 need for power.

8 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) indicated in its combined license (COL)

9 environmental report (ER) that there is no new and significant information regarding need for

10 power (Southern 2009). During its review of the COL application, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

11 Commission (NRC) staff performed an independent review of potential new and significant

12 information related to need for power that included reviewing Southern's ER, auditing

13 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information

14 available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents

15 including the Georgia Power Company (GPC) Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) (GPC 2010)

16 which was approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) on July 13, 2010

17 (GPSC 2010a).

18 A certification for construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was approved by GPSC in March

19 2009 (GPSC 2009) and was amended in June 2010 (GPSC 2010b) with additional information

20 concerning the need for power and other issues after the original certification was remanded

21 back to the GPSC by the Fulton County Superior Court. In its June 2010 decision, GPSC

22 specifically found that:

23 * There will be a need for new base-load generation in Georgia during the 2016 to 2017

24 timeframe.

25 • Demand side management programs do not eliminate the need for new base-load

26 generation.

27 A certification is issued if GPSC finds there is a need for new capacity and the resource being

28 used is economical and reliable. That GPSC has found that a need for power exists and

29 decided to issue the Certification further supports the ESP EIS's (NRC 2008) conclusion that a

30 need for power in the region of interest exists. Based on this review, the staff determined that

31 the conclusions regarding need for power presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

September 2010 8-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Need For Power

1 8.1 References

2 Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2010. Integrated Resource Plan. Georgia Public Service

3 Commission. Docket No. 31081. Accessed March 10, 2010 at

4 ftp://www.psc.state.ga.us/Dockets/31 081/125981.zip. Accession No. ML1 00760714.

5 Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2009. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power's

6 Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated

7 Resource Plan. Amended Certification Order. March 17, 2009. Accession No. ML100600818.

8 Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2010a. Docket 31081. Georgia Power

9 Company's Application forApproval of its 2010 Integrated Resource Plan, Docket 31082.

10 Georgia Power Company's application for the Certification of Demand-side Management

11 Programs for its 2010 Integrated Resource Plan. July 13, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia.

12 Accession No. ML101960367

13 Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2010b. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power's

14 Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated

15 Resource Plan. Order on Remand. June 17, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia.

16 Accession No. ML101960603

17 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

18 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report, Revision 1, September 23, 2009.

19 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for

21 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

22 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

Draft NUREG-1947 8-2 September 2010
1 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

2 The environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action were evaluated in Chapter 9

3 of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). This chapter

4 discusses new and significant information, where applicable, concerning alternatives to the

5 proposed action. Topics discussed are the no-action alternative (Section 9.1), energy

6 alternatives (Section 9.2), system design alternatives (Section 9.3), Southern's region of interest

7 (ROI) and site selection process (Section 9.4), and evaluation of alternative sites (Section 9.5).

8 9.1 No-Action Alternative

9 For purposes of a combined license (COL) application, the no-action alternative refers to a

10 scenario in which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would deny Southern

11 Nuclear Operating Company's (Southern's) application for COLs and a second limited work

12 authorization (LWA). Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of new nuclear

13 generating units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) ESP site in accordance with

14 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, including performance of the LWA

15 construction activities requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10(d), would not occur. There would be

16 no environmental impacts at the VEGP site associated with not issuing the COLs, except the

17 impacts associated with (1) any activities not within the definition of construction at

18 10 CFR 51.4, (2) activities authorized by the LWA included in the ESP (NRC 2009) issued to

19 Southern and conducted prior to the time the COLs are denied, and/or (3) activities performed

20 under the second LWA that Southern requested in conjunction with its COL application (if the

21 second LWA were granted by the NRC prior to denial of the COLs) and conducted prior to the

22 time the COL requests are denied. At the same time, the benefits associated with the proposed

23 action would not occur. If the Commission approved the COLs but denied the requested LWA,

24 the construction activities associated with the LWA would still occur, but at a somewhat later

25 time. In that scenario, the benefits of the LWA - for example, potentially earlier completion of

26 construction and, accordingly, earlier commencement of power production - would not be

27 realized.

28 If the COL requests (including the second LWA request) are denied, the power will still be

29 needed as discussed in Chapter 8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As described in Section 9.2 of

30 the ESP EIS, Southern would have a variety of options for meeting power needs including

31 constructing a new nuclear power plant at another site, constructing a coal-fired or natural gas32 fired plant at the VEGP site or at another site, and pursuing one or more of the other energy

33 alternatives discussed in that Section. There would be environmental impacts associated with

34 each of these options that would occur at the site of implementation.

September 2010 9-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

1 9.2 Energy Alternatives

2 In Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS, the NRC staff evaluated alternative energy sources (NRC 2008).

3 Based on its analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in Section 9.2.5 of the ESP EIS that

4 from an environmental perspective, none of the viable energy alternatives would be clearly

5 preferable to construction of a new base-load nuclear power generation plant. The basis for this

6 conclusion is summarized in Table 9-4 in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008).

7 During its review of Southern's COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent

8 review of potential new and significant information related to energy alternatives by reviewing

9 Southern's environmental report and supporting information, responses to requests for

10 additional information (Southern 2010), auditing Southern's process for identifying new and

11 significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering

12 applicable regulations and reference documents. This review identified the following new

13 information that warranted further review:

14 Georgia Power Company (GPC) expects to achieve approximately 900 MW(e) of

15 demand reduction by 2013 through the implementation of existing and new

16 demand-side management (DSM) programs. This load reduction represents

17 more than 5 percent of GPC's current load (GPC 2010). The 900 MW(e) is

18 already accounted for (partly as a load reduction and partly as a capacity

19 resource) in GPC's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and is therefore not available

20 to offset the need for two new nuclear generating units that would generate base21 load power.

22 Southern has no plans to reactivate any retired power plants in its ROI.

23 The staff determined that the new information does not have the potential to change the staffs

24 conclusion in Section 9.3.5 of the ESP EIS. The reasons for this determination are (1) the

25 additional 900 MW(e) attributable to DSM programs is accounted for in GPC's IRP (GPC 2010)

26 and is, therefore, not available to offset the need for two new nuclear generating units that

27 would generate base-load power and (2) none of Southern's retired power plants would be

28 available to offset the need for the new nuclear units.

29 In addition, as discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of this COL supplemental environmental

30 impact statement, the staff did not identify any information that would change any of the entries

31 in the nuclear column of Table 9-4 in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As discussed in Section 4.4.1

32 of this SEIS, although the staffs conclusion with respect to magnitude of the on-site terrestrial

33 impacts increased, the staff determined that the overall conclusion for "Ecology" in Table 9-4 of

34 the ESP EIS would still be the range of SMALL to MODERATE; thus the overall comparison of

35 impacts with other energy alternatives would not change. Accordingly, the staff affirms its

Draft NUREG-1947 9-2 September 2010
1 conclusion in Section 9.3.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) that, from an environmental

2 perspective, none of the viable energy alternatives would be clearly preferable to construction of

3 a new base-load nuclear power generation plant at the VEGP ESP site.

4 9.3 System Design Alternatives

5 The information and associated impacts for this section are provided and resolved in

6 Section 9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Once-through cooling and dry or hybrid wet/dry

7 cooling towers were evaluated by the staff as alternatives to the proposed wet cooling tower

8 design. The NRC staff concluded that none of the alternatives would be preferable to the

9 proposed wet cooling towers for proposed Units 3 and 4. For the reasons discussed in earlier

10 chapters of this supplemental environmental impact statement, the new information available

11 since completion of the ESP EIS does not significantly affect the impact on the environment of

12 the proposed cooling towers as analyzed in the ESP EIS, and the staff concludes that those

13 impacts remain SMALL. Accordingly, the staff concludes that the wet cooling tower design

14 remains preferable to the alternatives considered in the ESP EIS.

15 9.4 Region of Interest and Alternative Site Selection Process

16 The staffs review of Southern's ROI and site selection process was provided in Section 9.4 of

17 the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). No additional discussion of this topic is required in a supplement to

18 an ESP EIS that is prepared for a COL application (10 CFR 51.92(e)(3)).

19 9.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites

20 The staffs evaluation of alternative sites was provided in Section 9.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC

21 2008). That review determined that none of the alternative sites would be environmentally

22 preferable or obviously superior to the proposed VEGP site. No additional discussion of this

23 topic is required in a supplement to an ESP EIS that is prepared for a COL application

24 [10 CFR 51.92(e)(3)].

25 9.6 References

26 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

27 Production and Utilization Facilities."

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 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,

31 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

September 2010 9-3 Draft NUREG-1 947
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

1 Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2010. Integrated Resource Plan. Georgia Public Service

2 Commission. Docket No. 31081. Accessed March 10, 2010 at

3 ftp:/lwww.psc.state.ga.us/Dockets/31081/125981.zip. Accession No. ML100760714.

4 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

5 Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application, Supporting Information for Environmental Report

6 Review, ND-10-0526. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

7 Accession No. ML100750038.

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

9 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

10 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Southern Nuclear Operating Company

12 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site, Docket No. 52-011, Early Site Permit and Limited

13 Work Authorization. Early Site Permit No. ESP-004, Washington, D.C. Accession No.

14 ML0902290157.

Draft NUREG-1947 9-4 September 2010
1 10.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed

2 Action and the Alternative Sites

3 A comparison of the proposed action at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) and at three

4 alternative sites was provided in Chapter 10 of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact

5 statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff concluded

6 that none of the alternative sites was environmentally preferable or obviously superior to the

7 proposed VEGP ESP site. As set out at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part

8 51 (10 CFR 51.92(e)(3)), no additional discussion of alternative sites is required in a

9 supplemental EIS (SEIS) that is prepared for a combined license (COL) application referencing

10 an ESP.

11 Chapter 10 of the ESP EIS also compares the proposed action with the no-action alternative,

12 which in this SEIS refers to a scenario in which the NRC would deny Southern Nuclear

13 Operating Company's (Southern's) application for COLs and a second limited work

14 authorization (LWA). As described in Section 9.1 of this SEIS, if the COLs and second LWA

15 applications were denied, the construction and operation of new nuclear generating units at the

16 VEGP ESP site would not occur. There would be no environmental impacts at the VEGP site

17 associated with not issuing the COLs, except the impacts associated with (1) activities

18 conducted by Southern that are not within the definition of construction at 10 CFR 51.4, (2)

19 activities performed under the LWA that was granted concurrently with the ESP, and conducted

20 prior to the time the COLs were denied and/or (3) activities performed under the second LWA

21 that Southern requested in conjunction with its COL application (if the second LWA were

22 granted by NRC prior to denial of the COLs). Under the no-action alternative, the benefits

23 associated with the proposed action would not occur. The power would still be needed as

24 discussed in Chapter 8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Southern would have a variety of options

25 for meeting power needs, as discussed in Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS. There would be

26 environmental impacts associated with each of these options that would occur at the site of

27 implementation.

28 Redress would be required for any actions performed pursuant to the first LWA and second

29 LWA (if issued prior to denial of the COLs) in accordance with the Site Redress Plan in

30 Appendix F of the ESP issued to Southern (NRC 2009). As discussed in Sections 4.11 and

31 10.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008), the staff concluded that LWA activities would not result in any

32 significant adverse impacts that could not be redressed. The NRC staff affirms this conclusion

33 for activities conducted under the LWA granted with the ESP and any activities that would be

34 conducted under the second LWA request if the request is granted prior to issuance of the

35 COLs. There also would be impacts associated with activities performed by Southern that are

September 2010 10-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

1 not within the definition of construction at 10 CFR 51.4. Redress for these activities would be

2 conducted according to the laws and regulations of Burke County and the State of Georgia.

3 10.1 References

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

7 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

8 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Southern Nuclear Operating Company

10 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site, Docket No. 52-011, Early Site Permit and Limited

11 Work Authorization. Early Site Permit No. ESP-004, Washington, D.C. Accession No.

12 ML092290157.

Draft NUREG-1947 10-2 September 2010
.1 11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs conclusions and recommendations for

3 the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP) environmental impact

4 statement (EIS) were provided in Chapter 11 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As described in

5 Chapter 1 of this supplemental EIS (SEIS), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

6 (Southern) evaluated, and the NRC staff independently reviewed, the potential new and

7 significant information with respect to environmental impacts that could occur if combined

8 licenses (COLs) and a second Limited Work Authorization (LWA) were issued to Southern for

9 proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP ESP site. The results of the NRC staff review are

10 presented in Chapters 1 though 10 of this SEIS. Southern's COL application, and

11 accompanying environmental report (ER) (Southern 2009), reference an ESP, so where

12 appropriate, this SEIS adopts the analysis and the results of the environmental review

13 conducted in support of the ESP application and incorporates by reference the analyses and

14 results presented in the ESP EIS.

15 Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the

16 appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the NRC staff considered planned

17 activities and actions that Southern indicated it and others would likely take should Southern

18 receive two COLs and an LWA.

19 Impacts of the proposed action are summarized in Section 11.1. Unavoidable adverse

20 environmental impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between short-term

21 uses and long-term productivity of the human environment, irreversible and irretrievable

22 commitments of resources, benefit-cost balance, and the staff conclusions and

23 recommendations are described in Sections 11.2 through 11.7, respectively. The references

24 cited are listed in Sections 11.8.

25 11.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action

26 A summary of the impacts associated with issuance of the ESP and the first LWA was given in

27 Section 11.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). This information, as supplemented by this SEIS,

28 provides the basis for an informed decision concerning the environmental impacts of issuance

29 of COLs and a second LWA by the NRC. In the staff s review of new and significant information

30 for the COL review, with the exception of terrestrial ecology as described in Section 4.4.1, no

31 new and significant information was identified that would change any of the conclusions stated

32 in the ESP EIS.

September 2010 11-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Conclusions and Recommendations

1 11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

2 The NRC staffs' assessment of unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during construction

3 and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 11.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC

4 2008). That assessment explained whether adverse impacts had been identified, listed actions

5 anticipated to mitigate impacts, and noted which impacts would be unavoidable. In its COL ER

6 (Southern 2009), Southern concluded that there is no new and significant information related to

7 unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, but did note there would be an increase in the

8 permanently disturbed land area, from 131 ha (324 ac) to 153 ha (379 ac). The development of

9 additional onsite borrow areas also increased the amount of additional land disturbance

10 (Southern 2010a) from 92 ha (227 ac) to 200 ha (494 ac). These changes in land area were

11 noted and evaluated by the NRC staff in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. Development of the new

12 borrow areas also resulted in the loss or diminishment of populations of two State-listed species

13 (the Southeastern pocket gopher [Geomys pinetis] and the sandhills milkvetch [Astraga/us

14 michauxii]). These impacts were noted and evaluated in Section 4.4 of this SEIS.

15 While these land use and terrestrial resource impacts would be adverse and unavoidable, the

16 staffs review identified actions to mitigate these impacts. These mitigating actions are

17 consistent with those described in Section 11.2 of the ESP EIS, and include compliance with the

18 requirements of applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local permits, and observance of best

19 management practices. With respect to the impacts to the State-listed species, the staffs

20 analysis in Section 4.4.1 of this SEIS also describes Southern's efforts to relocate the onsite

21 populations of these species and to replant the disturbed areas with longleaf pine, if possible.

22 These developments do not alter the staffs conclusions in Section 11.2 of the ESP EIS, and in

23 the staffs review of new and significant information, as described throughout this SEIS, no other

24 information was identified that would change the conclusions stated in Section 11.2 of the ESP

25 EIS regarding unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.

26 If the second LWA requested by Southern were granted by NRC and the COLs subsequently

27 denied, there would be some environmental impacts at the VEGP site from the conduct of those

28 activities. However, the staff concluded in Chapter 10 of this SEIS that any such impacts

29 related to NRC authorized activities could be adequately redressed.

30 11.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

31 The proposed action for this SEIS is identified in Section 1.2. A summary of the alternatives to

32 the proposed action at the ESP stage was presented in Section 11.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC

33 2008). Alternatives to the proposed action discussed in this SEIS are the no-action alternative,

34 energy alternatives, and system design alternatives. As described in Sections 9.2 and 9.3 of

35 this SEIS, no new and significant information was identified in the areas of energy alternatives

Draft NUREG-1947 11-2 September 2010
1 or system design alternatives. Therefore, the staff determines that the conclusions regarding

2 these alternatives in the ESP EIS remain valid.

3 The no-action alternative is discussed in Section 9.1 of this SEIS. Under the no-action

4 alternative, the NRC would not issue the COLs or second LWA to Southern. There would be no

5 environmental impacts associated with not issuing the COLs, except the impacts associated

6 with activities not within the definition of construction at 10 CFR 50.10(a) and 10 CFR 51.4 and

7 any activities performed under an LWA prior to the time the COLs were denied. At the same

8 time, the benefits associated with the proposed action would not occur. If the COL application is

9 denied, the power would still be needed as discussed in Chapter 8 of this SEIS. Southern

10 would have a variety of options for meeting power needs, including constructing a new nuclear

11 power plant at another site, constructing a coal- or natural-gas-fired plant at the VEGP site or at

12 another site, and pursuing one or more of the energy alternatives discussed in Sections 9.2.1

13 and 9.2.2 of the ESP EIS. There would be environmental impacts associated with each of these

14 options that would occur at the site of implementation. For reasons explained in Chapter 9 of

15 the ESP EIS, however, the options evaluated in Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 were determined not

16 to be reasonable alternatives to providing new baseload power generation capacity.

17 11.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

18 Productivity of the Human Environment

19 The staffs review of the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the

20 long-term productivity of the environment for the ESP and first LWA application was provided in

21 Section 11.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As stated in the ESP EIS, the evaluation of the

22 relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and

23 enhancement of long-term productivity for the construction and operation of proposed COL units

24 can be performed by discussing the benefits of operating the units. The principal benefit is the

25 production of electricity. The analysis of the benefit-cost balance was presented in Section 11.6

26 of the ESP EIS. If new nuclear power plants are constructed on the VEGP site, power

27 production would continue until the COLs expire or the licensee chooses to cease operation.

28 Once the plants are shut down, they would be decommissioned according to NRC regulations.

29 Once decommissioning is complete and the NRC license is terminated, the site would be

30 available for other uses.

31 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that it had identified no new and significant

32 information relative to this topic. In the NRC staff's review of new and significant information for

33 the COL review, no information was identified that would change the conclusions in the ESP

34 EIS, for the proposed action identified in Section 1.2 of this SEIS, regarding short-term uses and

35 long-term productivity.

September 2010 11-3 Draft NUREG-1 947
Conclusions and Recommendations

1 11.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

2 The NRC staffs review of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources

3 associated with the proposed action at the ESP stage was provided in Section 11.5 of the ESP

4 EIS (NRC 2008). As stated in the ESP EIS, irretrievable commitments of resources during

5 construction of the proposed new units generally would be similar to that of any major

6 construction project. The staff expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities

7 associated with those expected for proposed Units 3 and 4, while irretrievable, would be of

8 small consequence with respect to the availability of such resources. Likewise, as stated in the

9 ESP EIS, the main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of the new

10 nuclear units would be uranium, but the availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of

11 highly enriched uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is

12 sufficient, so that the irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be of small consequence.

13 In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

14 information relative to the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources related to its

15 request for COLs and a second LWA. In the NRC staff s independent evaluation and review of

16 the COL ER and Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, and

17 supplemental information provided by Southern (Southern 2010b), no new and significant

18 information was identified that would change the conclusions identified in the ESP EIS regarding

19 irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

20 11.6 Benefit-Cost Balance

21 A benefit-cost balance discussion is provided in Section 11.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008).

22 Southern indicated in its COL ER (Southern 2009) that there is no new and significant

23 information regarding benefits and costs related to the proposed Units 3 and 4. During its

24 review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently reviewed Southern's ER, audited

25 Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examined other information

26 available at the site audit, considered applicable regulations and reference documents, and

27 contacted county officials. In doing so, the NRC staff identified new information in the areas of

28 project benefits and ecological costs that warranted further analysis in the SEIS.

29 In March 2009 the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) issued a certification to

30 Southern for construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 (GPSC 2009). This certification was

31 amended in June 2010 (GPSC 2010) after being remanded back the GPSC by the Fulton

32 County Superior Court. The amended certification (GPSC 2010) further substantiates the

33 conclusions in the ESP EIS concerning the benefits of the proposed action, especially

34 concerning price stability and fuel diversity in Georgia. Specifically, the GPSC found in its June

35 2010 decision that:

Draft NUREG-1947 11-4 September 2010
1 * Fuel diversity is necessary to protect ratepayers from fuel cost and environmental cost risks.

2 9 The addition of base-load nuclear generation will preserve the diversity of fuel sources

3 necessary to assure reliable and economical supply of electric power and energy for the

4 Georgia retail consumers of GPSC.

5 * The fuel cost savings likely to result from adding nuclear base-load capacity offer substantial

6 assurance of reliable and economical supply of power and energy to GPSC's Georgia retail

7 consumers.

8 As described in Section 4.4.1 of this SEIS, the development of additional on-site borrow sources

9 that were not considered in the ESP EIS resulted in the loss or diminishment of populations of

10 two species that are listed as State-threatened by the Georgia Department of Natural

11 Resources. However, although the staffs conclusion with respect to the magnitude of the on12 site terrestrial impacts increased, the staff determined that the overall conclusion for "Ecology"

13 in Table 11-3 of the ESP EIS would continue to be the range of SMALL to MODERATE. The

14 staff did not identify any other new information in the areas of project benefits and

15 environmental costs that has the potential to affect its conclusions in the EIS with respect to the

16 cost-benefit analysis.

17 Southern has requested a second LWA along with two COLs. The second LWA would allow

18 Southern to perform certain construction activities before the COLs are issued. The economic

19 and environmental costs associated with the second LWA would be a small fraction of the

20 overall costs of construction and operating the proposed facility. The primary benefit from

21 authorizing the LWA activities in the second LWA request in advance of issuing the COLs is that

22 it would enable Southern to maintain the overall project schedule of construction and operation23 need dates, thereby decreasing the chance for cost overruns.

24 Based on this review, including consideration of the benefits and costs of the construction

25 activities requested in the second LWA, the staff determined that the assessment of costs and

26 benefits presented in the ESP EIS remains valid. The potential societal benefits to the local

27 economy and the electricity generated appear to be larger in comparison to the overall external

28 socio-environmental costs, including the increase in terrestrial ecology impact. Consequently,

29 the staff continues to conclude that the construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and

30 4, with mitigation measures identified by the staff, would have accrued benefits that most likely

31 would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs associated with constructing and

32 operating two new units at the VEGP site.

33 11.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

34 The NRC staff s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental

35 aspects of the proposed action is that the COLs and the LWA be issued. The staff's evaluation

September 2010 11-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Conclusions and Recommendations

1 of the safety and security aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the staffs Safety

2 Evaluation Report. This preliminary recommendation is based on (1) Southern's COL ER

3 (Southern 2009) and responses to staff requests for additional information; (2) the staffs review

4 conducted for the ESP application (Southern 2008) and the assessment documented in the

5 ESP EIS (NRC 2008); (3) consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies; (4) the staffs

6 own independent review of potential new and significant information available since preparation

7 and publication of the ESP EIS; and (6) the assessments summarized in this SEIS, including the

8 potential mitigation measures identified. Finally, the staff concludes that the requested LWA

9 construction activities defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a) and described in the site redress plan would

10 not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be redressed.

11 11.8 References

12 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

13 Production and Utilization Facilities."

14 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

15 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

16 - Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2009. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power's

17 Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated

18 Resource Plan. Amended Certification Order. March 17, 2009. Accession No. ML100600818.

19 Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2010. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power's

20 Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated

21 Resource Plan. Order on Remand. June 17, 2010. Accession No. ML101960603

22 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Early Site Permit Application.

23 Part 3: Environmental Report. Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

24 Package Accession No. ML081020073.

25 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

26 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report, Revision 1, September 23, 2009.

27 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

28 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 201 Oa. Southern Nuclear Operating

29 Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis

30 Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of

31 Backfill, Part 2. Letter ND-10-1005 dated May 24, 2010. Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No.

32 ML101470212.

Draft NUREG-1947 11-6 September 2010
1 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010b. Southern Nuclear Operating

2 Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application,

3 Response to Request for Additional Information Letter on Environmental Issues. January 8,

4 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479.

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

6 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Main Report.

7 NUREG-1872, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

September 2010 11-7 Draft NUREG-1947

Appendix A

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplemental environmental impact

statement was assigned to the Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC). The statement was prepared by members of the Office of New Reactors with

assistance from other NRC organizations and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

1

2

3

4

5

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Mallecia Sutton Office of New Reactors Environmental Project Manager

Mark Notich Office of New Reactors Co-Environmental Project Manager

Gregory Hatchett Office of New Reactors Branch Chief

Steve Shaffer Office of New Reactors Radiological Health

Jill Caverly Office of New Reactors Hydrology

Daniel Mussatti Office of New Reactors Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Cost-Benefit

Balance, Need for Power

Nancy Kuntzleman Office of New Reactors Terrestrial/ Aquatic Ecology

Jennifer Davis Office of Federal State Materials Cultural Resources

and Environmental Management

Programs

John Fringer Office of New Reactors

Michelle Hart

Brad Harvey

Norma Garcia-Santos

Lucieann Vechioli

Stan Echols

James Shephard

Land Use, Transmission Lines, Alternatives,

Nonradiological Health

Office of New Reactors Design Basis and Severe Accidents

Office of New Reactors Meteorology and Air Quality

Office of Nuclear Material Safety Transportation

and Safeguards

Office of Nuclear Material Safety Transportation

and Safeguards

Office of Nuclear Material Safety Fuel Cycle

and Safeguards

Office of Federal, State, Decommissioning

Environmental Management

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Task Leader

Deputy Task Leader

Terrestrial Ecology

Radiological and Nonradiological Health,

Decommissioning

Meteorology and Air Quality

Michael Sackschewsky

Kimberly Leigh

Amanda Stegen

Michael Smith

Jeremy Rishel

September 2010 A-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Appendix A

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a) (continued)

Michelle Niemeyer Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Benefit-Cost

Balance, Need for Power

Katherine Cort Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Benefit-Cost

Balance, Need for Power

Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology, Plant System Alternatives

Philip Meyer Water Use, Hydrology, Plant System Alternatives

Rebekah Krieg Aquatic Ecology

Beverly Miller Aquatic Ecology

Paul Hendrickson Energy and Site Alternatives, Land Use

Daniel Strom Radiological and Nonradiological Health,

Decommissioning

James V. Ramsdell, Jr. Meteorology and Air Quality, Design Basis and

Severe Accidents, Nonradiological Health

Phil Daling Transportation

Ellen Prendergast-Kennedy Cultural Resources

Tara O'Neil Cultural Resources

Andre Coleman Mapping and Spatial Analysis

Cary Counts Technical Editing

Cornelia Brim Technical Editing

Dave Payson Technical Editing

Michael Parker Document Design

Elaine Schneider Graphics

Donna Austin-Workman Graphics

Rose Zanders Graphics

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Draft NUREG-1947 A-2 September 2010
Appendix B

Organizations Contacted

Appendix B

Organizations Contacted

1 This appendix lists the Federal, State, regional, Tribal, and local organizations that were

2 contacted during the course of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs independent

3 review of new and significant information potential environmental impacts from the construction

4 and operation of new nuclear units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County,

5 Georgia. See Appendix B of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement, dated

6 August 2008, for a listing of organizations contacted during the ESP review (NRC 2008).

7 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Shawnee, Oklahoma

8 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.

9 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Livingston, Texas

10 Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Wetumka, Oklahoma

11 Catawba Indian Tribe, Catawba, South Carolina

12 Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

13 Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, Ada, Oklahoma

14 Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Elton, Louisiana

15 Burke County Board of Commissioners, Waynesboro, Georgia

16 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina

17 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia

18 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Social Circle, Georgia

19 Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, Clayton, Georgia

20 Kialegee Tribal Town, Wetumka, Oklahoma

21 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Miami, Florida

September 2010 B-1 Draft NUREG-1 947
Appendix B

1 Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Choctaw, Mississippi

2 Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Oklahoma

3 Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, Alabama

4 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Wewoka, Oklahoma

5 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina

6 Seminole Tribe of Florida, Clewiston, Florida

7 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Okemah, Oklahoma

8 United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia

10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Brunswick, Georgia

11 U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida

12 B.1 Reference

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for

14 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vol. 2,

15 Washington, D.C.

Draft NUREG-1 947 B-2 September 2010
Appendix C

Chronology of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related

to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,

Application for a Combined License for Units 3 and 4

at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Appendix C

Chronology of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related

to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,

Application for a Combined License for Units 3 and 4

at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

1 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

2 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), and

3 other correspondence related to the NRC staff s environmental review of Southern's combined

4 license (COL) application for two AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

5 (VEGP). Correspondence information pertinent to the early site permit (ESP) review of Units 3

6 and 4 can be found in Appendix C of the ESP environmental impact statement dated August

7 2008. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary or sensitive information,

8 have been placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, at One White Flint North,

9 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Such documents are also available

10 electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following

11 Web address: <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html>. From this site, the public can gain access

12 to the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which

13 provides text and image files of NRC's public documents in the publicly available records

14 component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession number for each document is included below:

15 May 5, 2008 Federal Register Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for a

16 Combined License (Accession No. ML081780052)

17 May 30, 2008 Letter from Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Sr. Vice President, Nuclear

18 Development, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, regarding the

19 Acceptance Review for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4

20 Combined License Application (Accession No. ML0814801138)

21 June 11, 2008 Federal Register Notice regarding Acceptance for Docketing of an

22 Application for Combined License for Vogtle Electric Generation Plant

23 Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML081770650)

September 2010 C-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Appendix C

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

July 2, 2008

July 9, 2008

July 16, 2008

August 8, 2008

August 11, 2008

October 14, 2008

September 21, 2009

September 23, 2009

September 28, 2009

October 2, 2009

Note to File: Public Outreach Meeting on the Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application (Accession

No. ML081850263)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Gwen Jackson, Burke County Library, regarding

Application by Southern Nuclear Operating Company for a Combined

License for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

(Accession No. ML081780805)

Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, regarding the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplement to the

Environmental Impact Statement in Relation to the Combined License

Application for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Accession

No. ML081500677)

Letter from NRC to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, regarding

the Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit at the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site (Accession No. ML081910396)

Note to File: Summary of Public Outreach Meeting to Discuss the Review

of the Vogtle Combined License Application (Accession

No. ML082190977)

Trip Report - August 11 through August 12, 2008, VEGP, Units 3 and 4,

COL Site Audit (Accession No. ML082620184)

Note to File: Audit Execution Plan for New and Significant Information

Audit and Plant Vogtle Combined License Supplement Environmental

Impact Statement (Accession No. ML092600338)

Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding Revision 1 to the Environmental Report for Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application

Package (Accession No. ML092740396)

Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (Accession No. ML092650823)

Letter from Mr. Michael K. Smith, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding Revision 1 to Part 6, Limited Work Authorization

Request for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined

License Application (Accession No. ML092960549)

Draft NUREG-1 947 C-2 September 2010
Appendix C

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

October 15, 2009

October 28, 2009

December 7, 2009

December 9, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

Letter from Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Vice President, Nuclear Development,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, to NRC, regarding Post New and

Significant Audit Supporting Information (Accession No. ML092960312)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Gwen Jackson, Burke County Library, regarding

Environmental Revision 1 by Southern Nuclear Operating Company for a

Combined License for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant (Accession No. ML093000052)

E-mail from NRC to Ms. Julie Holling, South Carolina Department of

Natural Resources, regarding South Carolina State Threatened and

Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

(Accession No. ML093491061)

Letter from NRC to Dr. Dave Crass, Acting Division Director and Deputy

SHPO, State of Georgia Historic Preservation Officer, Historic

Preservation Division, Deptartment of Natural Resources, regarding

Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 COL Review, Atlanta, GA SHPO (Accession

No. ML092600744)

Letter from NRC to Mr. J. A. "Buzz" Miller, Sr. Vice President, Nuclear

Development, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, regarding Request

for Additional Information Regarding the Environmental Review of the

Combined License Application for Vogtle Electric General Plant,

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML093140059)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Stephanie Rolin, NAGPRA Contact, Poarch Band

of Creek Indians initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092730038)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Emma Sue Holland, United Keetoowah Band of

Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092740546)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Eddie Tullis, Chairperson, Poarch Band of Creek

Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092670288)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Kathy McCoy, NAGPRA Contact, Eastern Band

of Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092730317)

September 2010 C-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Appendix C

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

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

Letter from NRC to Mr. John Zachary, Attorney-at-Law, c/o Coushatta

Tribe of Louisiana, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092730292)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot, Town King, Kialegee Tribal

Town, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092740388)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Steven Terry, Land Resource Manager,

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, initiating Consultation to the

Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092740375)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Gale Thrower, NAGPRA Contact, Poarch Band of

Creek Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092710241)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Louis McGertt, Town King, Thlopthlocco Tribal

Town initiating, Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092740554)

Letter from NRC to Mr. A. D. Ellis, Principal Chief, Muscogee (Creek)

Nation, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092730350)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Richard L. Allen, NAGPRA Contact, Cherokee

Nation of Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092730092)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Gingy Nail, NAGPRA Contact, Chickasaw Nation,

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092730177)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor, Chickasaw Nation of

Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092730147)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Charles Thurmond, NAGPRA Contact, Georgia

Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle

COLA (Accession No. ML092730371)

Draft NUREG-1947 C-4 September 2010
Appendix C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

Letter from NRC to Mr. Tarpie Yargee, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town,

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092730274)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Pare Bowlegs, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma,

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092930629)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Michell Hicks, Principal Chief, Eastern Band of

Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092940250)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Dallas Proctor, Chief, United Keetoowah Band of

Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092740393)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Karen Kaniatobe, Director of the Cultural/

Historical Preservation Department, initiating Consultation to the Tribes

for Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092730283)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Debbie Thomas, Tribal Historic Preservation

Officer, NAGPRA Coordinator, Alabama- Coushatta Tribe of Texas,

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092730252)

Letter from NRC to Mrs. Joyce Bear, NAGPRA Contact, Muscogee

(Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for

Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092920490)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation

of Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA

(Accession No. ML092730059)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Gilbert Blue, Chairperson, Catawba Indian Tribe,

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092730321)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Willard Steele, Deputy THPO, Seminole Tribe of

Florida, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession

No. ML092920488)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

September 2010 C-5 Draft NUREG-1947
Appendix C

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

December 10, 2009

December 15, 2009

December 15, 2009

December 16, 2009

December 17, 2009

December 23, 2009

December 23, 2009

January 7, 2010

January 7, 2010

Letter from NRC to Mr. Kenneth Carleton, THPO/ Tribal Archaeologist,

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes

for Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092730208)

E-mail from Ms. Julie Holling, South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources, to NRC, regarding South Carolina State Threatened and

Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

(Accession No. ML093491132)

E-mail from NRC to Mr. Matt Elliot, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, regarding updated Georgia state-listed species information

(Accession No. ML093491138)

E-mail from Mr. Matt Elliot, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, to

NRC, regarding GDNR email Vogtle COL (Accession No. ML09350021 1)

Letter from Ms. Katrina Morris, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, to NRC, regarding known occurrences of natural

communities, plants and animals of highest priority conversation status on

or near Vogtle COL ,Burke County, Georgia (Accession No.

ML100490042)

Letter to Mr. Don Klima, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, regarding Request for Information on

Historic Properties within the Area Under Evaluation for the VEGP,

Units 3 and 4 COL (Accession No. ML092600785)

Summary of Teleconference Held with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site for a COL

(Accession No. ML093410022)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Sandra S. Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S Fish and

Wildlife Service Coastal Sub Office, regarding Request for List of

Protected Species (Accession No. ML092600684)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Donald Rodgers, Catawba Indian Nation,

regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement for Southern Nuclear Operating

Company's Combined License Application for the Proposed Construction

and Operation of Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in

Waynesboro, Georgia (Accession No. ML100060777)

Draft NUREG-1947 C-6 September 2010
Appendix C

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

January 8, 2010

January 20, 2010

January 28, 2010

January 29, 2010

February 4, 2010

February 5, 2010

February 19, 2010

March 1, 2010

Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding the Response to Request for Additional Information

Letter on Environmental Issues (Accession No. ML1 00120479)

Letter from David Crass, Georgia Department of natural Resources,

Historic Preservation Division, to Mr. Thomas Moorer, Southern Nuclear

Operating Company, Memorandum of Understanding - Archaeological

Site 9BK416 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Expansion, Burke County,

Georgia, HP-060428-001 (Accession No. ML1100500302)

Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, regarding Issuance of the Environmental Review Schedule for

the Combined License Application Review for Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML092630002)

Letter from Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding Replacement DVD for Letter ND-09-1673 (10/15/09)

(Accession No. ML100300006)

Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, regarding Request for Additional Information Regarding the

Environmental Review of the Limited Work Authorization for the Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML100280034)

Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding the Environmental Report to Support Revision 1 to

Part 6, Limited Work Authorization Request, of the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application (Accession

No. ML100470600)

Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding the Large Component Transportation Decision.

(Accession No. ML100550033)

Note to File, Discussion with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Savannah District, concerning their participation in the development of the

supplemental environmental impact statement for the combined operating

license for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession

No. ML100570038)

September 2010 C-7 Draft NUREG-1947
Appendix C

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

March 11, 2010

March 12, 2010

April 6, 2010

April 21, 2010

April 28, 2010

May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

May 18, 2010

June 16, 2010

Letter from Mr. Brian L. (Pete) Ivey, Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, to NRC, regarding Supplement to Environmental Report in

Support of Revision 1 to Part 6, LWA Request (Accession No.

ML 100750657)

Letter from Mr. Michael K. Smith, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4

Combined License Application Supporting Information for Environmental

Report Review (Accession No. ML1 00750038)

Memorandum regarding Summary of the Environmental Site Audit

Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant Site (Package Accession No. ML093631157)

Summary of Environmental New and Significant Site Audit Related to the

Review of the Combined License Application for Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant Site (Package Accession No. ML093631125)

Summary of Meeting to Discuss Southern Nuclear Operating Company's

Plans for Potential License Amendments Regarding Safety-Related

Backfill for its Early Site Permit for the Vogtle Site (Accession No.

ML101160362)

Summary of Meeting with Southern Nuclear Operating Company to

Discuss Plans to Request Exemption from Requirements of 10 CFR 50,

Section 10(d) for its Combined License Application for the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant Proposed Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML101250259)

Letter from Mr. B.L. (Pete) Ivey, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, to

NRC, regarding Post New and Significant Audit Support Information

(Accession No. ML101310333)

Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, regarding Revision of the Environmental Review Schedule for

the Combined License Application Review for Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML101330353)

Memorandum regarding the Site Audit Summary Concerning

Environmental Impacts Associated with Acquisition of Additional Backfill

Material for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Combined License

Application Review (Package Accession No. ML101550095)

Draft NUREG-1947 C-8 September 2010
Appendix C

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

June 17, 2010

June 18, 2010

July 14, 2010

July 16, 2010

August 3, 2010

Summary of Teleconference Calls Held with the Georgia Department of

Natural Resources for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4

Onsite Backfill Amendment (Accession No. ML101670079)

E-mail from Ms. Elizabeth Shirk, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Historic Preservation Division, to NRC, regarding Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia, Units 3 and 4

Supplement (Accession No. ML101940268)

Summary of the teleconference held with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company regarding the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4

Combined License Application. (Accession No. ML 100620862)

Letter from Charles R. Pierce, SNC to NRC, Subject: New and Significant

information evaluation for the transportation of backfill from an offsite

source. Letter ND-10-1389. (Accession No. ML102010031)

Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. "Buzz" Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, regarding Revision of the Environmental Review Schedule for

the Combined License Application Review for Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML012100311)

14

15

16

17

September 2010 C-9 Draft NUREG-1947

Appendix D

Scoping Comments and Responses

Appendix D

Scoping Comments and Responses

1 Appendix D of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP)

2 environmental impact statement (EIS) details the scoping comments received under that review

3 process. The ESP was granted in August 2009. The combined operating license (COL)

4 application, revision 0, was submitted in March 2008, while revision 1 of the COL application

5 was submitted on September 23, 2009. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.26, the

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff published a Notice of Intent to prepare an

7 environmental impact statement related to the VEGP in the Federal Register on September 28,

8 2009. Furthermore, 10 CFR 51.26(d) states that scoping is not required for a supplement to an

9 EIS prepared for a COL application that references an ESP. Therefore, no formal scoping

10 comment period occurred. A public outreach meeting was held on July 17, 2008. A summary

11 of that meeting can be found at Accession No. ML082190977.

September 2010 D-1 Draft NUREG-1947

Appendix E

Comments and Responses on the Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E

Comments and Responses on the Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement

1 This appendix was intentionally left blank in the draft supplemental environmental impact

2 statement (SEIS). In the final SEIS, Appendix E will include written comments and responses

3 received on the draft SEIS.

September 2010 E-1 Draft NUREG-1 947

Appendix F

Key Consultation Correspondence

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Appendix F

Key Consultation Correspondence

Key consultation correspondence during the evaluation process of the combined license

application for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) is identified in

Table F-I. A list of pertinent correspondence generated during the preparation of this

supplemental environmental impact statement is located in Appendix C. Copies of the

correspondence listed in Table F-1 are included at the end of this appendix. Correspondence

information relative to the early site permit (ESP) review of Units 3 and 4 can be found in

Appendix F of ESP environmental impact statement, dated August 2008.

Table F-1. Key Consultation Correspondence Regarding the Combined Operating License

Application for Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site

Source Recipient

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC)

(Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P, Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

Georgia Department of National Resources

(Dr. Dave Crass)

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

(Ms. Stephanie Rolin)

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

(Ms. Emma Sue Holland)

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

(Mr. Eddie Tullis)

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

(Ms. Kathy McCoy)

Coushatta Tribe Louisiana

(Mr. John Zachary)

Kialegee Tribal Town (Ms Evelyn Bucktrot)

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

(Mr. Steven Terry)

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

(Ms. Gale Thrower)

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town (Mr. Louis McGertt)

Muscogee National (Mr. A. D. Ellis)

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

(Mr. Richard L. Allen)

Date of Letter

December 9, 2009

December 10; 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

September 2010 F-1 Draft NUREG-1947
Appendix F

1

Source

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett)

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton)

South Carolina Department of

Natural Resources (Ms. Julie

Holling)

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton)

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources (Mr. Matt Elliot)

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources (Ms. Katrina Morris)

Table F-1. (contd)

Recipient

Chickasaw Nation (Ms. Gingy Nail)

Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma

(Mr. Bill Anoatubby)

Georgia Tribe of Easter Cherokee

(Mr. Charles Thurmond)

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town

(Mr Tarpie Yargee)

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

(Mr. Pare Bowlegs)

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

(Mr. Michell Hicks)

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

(Mr. Dallas Proctor)

Cultural/Historic Preservation Department

(Ms. Karen Kaniatobe)

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

(Ms. Debbie Thomas)

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma

(Ms. Joyce Bear)

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

(Mr. Chadwick Smith)

Catawba Indian Tribe (Mr. Gilbert Blue)

Seminole Tribe of Florida (Mr. Willard Steele)

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

(Mr. Kenneth Carleton)

South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources (Ms. Julie Holling)

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton)

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

(Mr. Matt Elliot)

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton)

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton)

Date of Letter

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 15, 2009

December 15, 2009

December 15, 2009

December 16, 2009

December 17, 2009

Draft NUREG-1947 F-2 September 2010
Appendix F

Table F-1. (contd)

Source Recipient Date of Letter

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. Advisory Council on Historic December 23, 2009

Preservation (Mr. Don Klima)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Sub January 7, 2010

Office (Ms. Sandra S. Tucker)

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Catawba Indian Nation (Mr. Donald Rodgers) January 7, 2010

Georgia Department of Natural NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) June 18, 2010

Resources (Ms. Elizabeth Shirk)

2 F.1 Reference

3

4

5

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vol. 2,

Washington, D.C.

September 2010 F-3 Draft NUREG-1947
Appendix F

December 09, 2009

Dr. Dave Crass, Acting Division Director and Deputy SHPO

State of Georgia Historic Preservation Officer

Historic Preservation Division

Department of Natural Resources

254 Washington Street, NW (Ground-level)

Atlanta, GA 30334

SUBJECT: VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED

LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW

Dear Dr. Crass:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the State of Georgia Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

to consult with the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations

at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as

amended. The NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended process identified in

36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the

NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final

environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement an FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether a formal scoping process

will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the

FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same coapplicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a formal scoping

process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that if you have

an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE), you will be

afforded the opportunity to identify your concerns, provide advice on the identification and

evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance,

and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-4 September 2010
Appendix F

D. Crass -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments you may have to offer on the environmental review of

the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to describe and propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for

potential impacts to historical and cultural resources, including developing alternatives and

proposing measures that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose

action on historic properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will

forward the SEIS on the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your

comments in the final SEIS on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2, on the site, and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.qov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The VEGP COL application is also

available on the Internet at http://www/nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/voqtle.html. During

the ESP environmental review, the NRC consulted with your office. The detailed review by the

NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed Units 3 and 4 is

documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit

(ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 and 2 are available

in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project Manager,

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C.20555-0001 or via e-mail to Voqtle.COLAEIS nrc.qov by

January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton

at 301 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttonanrc.pov.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-5 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Stephanie Rolin

NAGPRA Contact

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Road

Atmore, AL 36502

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms. Rolin:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-6 September 2010
Appendix F

S, Rolin -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

VogtIeCOLASEIS(nrc.gov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(Dnrc.cov.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-7 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Emma Sue Holland, NAGPRA Contact

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

P.O. Box 746

Tahlequah, OK 74465

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms. Holland:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians to consult

with the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51

and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The

NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures

set forth in §§ 800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its

regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-8 September 2010
Appendix F

E. Holland -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/vocqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Vogqtle.COLAEIS(Dnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(@nrc..qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Eddie Tullis, Chairperson

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Rd

Atmore, AL 36502

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Tullis:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-10 September 2010
Appendix F

E. Tullis -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http:i/www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-Iicensing/col/vocqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.C0LAEIS(cnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(anrc..gov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-1 1 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Kathy McCoy, NAGPRA Contact

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

P.O. Box 455

Cherokee, NC 28719

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms. McCoy:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to consult with the

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-12 September 2010
Appendix F

K. McCoy -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe, may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.qov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensincq/col/voqtle.htm1. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEISanrc.clov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(,nrc..gov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-1 3 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. John Zachary, Attorney at Law

c/o Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

P.O. Box 12730

Alexandria, LA 71315-2730

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Zachary:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-14 September 2010
Appendix F

J. Zachary -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.qov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc._qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIS(dnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttont-nrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-1 5 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot, Town King

Kialegee Tribal Town

P.O. Box 332

Wetumka, OK 74883

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms. Bucktrot:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Kialegee Tribal Town to consult with the NRC regarding

the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3 through

800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-16 September 2010
Appendix F

E. Bucktrot -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/vogtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIS(anrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttonanrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-1 7 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Steven Terry

Land Resource Manager

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

Real Estate Services, Mile Marker 70

US 41 at Admin. Bldg.

Miami, FL 33194

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Terry:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Miccosulkee Tribe of Indians to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-1 8 September 2010
Appendix F

S. Terry -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrcQov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEISanrc.pov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(ýnrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-1 9 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Gale Thrower, NAGPRA Contact

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Road

Atmore, AL 36502

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms. Thrower:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-20 September 2010
Appendix F

G. Thrower -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAElS(anrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttonanrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-21 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Louis McGertt, Town King

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

P.O. Box 188

Okema, OK 74859

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. McGertt:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-22 September 2010
Appendix F

L. McGertt -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff s review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIS(oTnrc.gov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.SuttonDnrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-23 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. A.D. Ellis, Principal Chief

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Ellis:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Muscogee (Creek Nation) to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-24 September 2010
Appendix F

A. D. Ellis -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-Iicensinq/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAElScnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(@nrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-25 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Richard L. Allen, NAGPRA Contact

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 948

Tahleque, OK 74465-0948

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Allen:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-26 September 2010
Appendix F

R. L. Allen -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP EElS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIS@nrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttonftnrc.gov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-27 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Gingy (Virginia) Nail

NAGPRA Contact

Chickasaw Nation

P.O. Box 1548

Ada, OK 74883

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms. Nail:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Chickasaw Nation to consult with the NRC regarding

the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3 through

800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-28 September 2010
Appendix F

G. Nail -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.htm1. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

VoqtleCOLAElS(anrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttononrc..ov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-29 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor

Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 1548

Ada, OK 74821-1548

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Anoatubby:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-30 September 2010
Appendix F

B. Anoatubby -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.qov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEISanrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(anrc.gov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-31 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Charles Thurmond, NAGPRA Contact

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee

P.O. Box 1324

Clayton, GA 30525

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Thurmond:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee to consult with the

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-32 September 2010
Appendix F

C. Thurmond -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIScnrc..qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.SuttonC@nrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-33 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Tarpie Yargee

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town

P.O. Box 187

Wetumka, OK 74883

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Yargee:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town to consult with the

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-34 September 2010
Appendix F

T. Yargee -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.qov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

VogtleCOLASEIS~anrc.gov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton (nrc.Qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-35 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Pare Bowlegs

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 1498

Wewoka, OK 74884

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Bowlegs:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-36 September 2010
Appendix F

P. Bowlegs -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 8, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensinQ/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

VogtleCOLASEIS(Cnrc.gov by January 8, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton (nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-37 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Michell Hicks, Principal Chief

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

P.O. Box 455

Qualla Boundary

Cherokee, NC 28719

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Hicks:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to consult with the

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-38 September 2010
Appendix F

M. Hicks -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/vogtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEISCnrc..qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(cnrc.gov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-39 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Dallas Proctor, Chief

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

P.O. Box 746

Tahlequah, OK 74465

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Chief Proctor:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians to consult

with the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51

and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The

NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures

set forth in §§ 800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its

regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-40 September 2010
Appendix F

D. Proctor -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 8, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.qov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIS(@nrc.qov by January 8, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-41 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Karen Kaniatobe

Director of the Cultural/Historical Preservation Department

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

2025 S. Gordon Cooper Drive

Shawnee, OK 74801

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms Kaniatobe:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma to consult with

the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-42 September 2010
Appendix F

K. Kaniatobe -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAElScnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(ýnrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-43 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Ms. Debbie Thomas

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

NAGPRA Coordinator

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

571 State Park Road 56

Livingston, TX 77351

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Ms. Thomas:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas to consult with the

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-44 September 2010
Appendix F

D. Thomas -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at httip://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Vo~qtle.COLAElS(dnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Maifecia.Suttoncnrc.,qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-45 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mrs. Joyce A. Bear, NAGPRA Contact

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mrs. Bear:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma to consult with

the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identifiedany new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-46 September 2010
Appendix F

J. A. Bear -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1 872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAElS(anrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttoncnrc.,qov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-47 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 948

Tahlequa, OK 74465

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Smith:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-48 September 2010
Appendix F

C. Smith -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Vooqtle.COLAEIS(anrc.qov by January 15, .2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.SuttonConrc..qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-49 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Gilbert Blue, Chairperson

Catawba Indian Tribe

P.O. box 188

Catawaba, SC 29704

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Blue:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Catawba Indian Tribe to consult with the NRC regarding

the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3 through

800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-50 September 2010
Appendix F

G. Blue -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.qov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Vogtle.COLAEIStcnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch I

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-51 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Willard Steele, Deputy THPO

Seminole Tribe of Florida

Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum

HC 61, Box 21A

Clewiston, FL 33440

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Steele:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Seminole Tribe of Florida to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

Draft NUREG-1947 F-52 September 2010
Appendix F

W. Steele -2-

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties. Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant

circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed

action or its impacts, we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to

offer on the environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/coI/vogtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAElS(dnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton nrc.,gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-53 September 2010
Appendix F

December 10, 2009

Mr. Kenneth H. Carleton

THPO/Tribal Archaeologist

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

P.O. Box 6257/ 101 Industrial Road

Choctaw, MS 39350

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Mr. Carleton:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to consult with the

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-54 September 2010
Appendix F

K. H. Carleton -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.htmi. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/voqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAElScnrc.qov by January 15, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Ma lecia.Sutton(@nrc..qov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-55 September 2010
Appendix F

PMVogtleCOLNPEm Resource

From: Sutton, Mallecia

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:24 PM

To: Kuntzleman, Nancy

Cc: PMVogtIeCOLNPEm Resource

Subject: FW: SC State Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant

FYI

From: Julie Holling [mailto:HollingJ@dnr.sc.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:49 PM

To: Sutton, Mallecia

Subject: RE: SC State Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Ms. Sutton,

The species listed in your attachment are still accurate for the 10-mile radius from VEGP. Please

let me know if you need additional information.

Julie

Julie Holling - Data Manager

SC Dept. of Natural Resources

Heritage Trust Program

P. 0. Box 167, Columbia, SC 29202

1000 Assembly St., Columbia, SC 29201

office: 803-734-3917 fax: 803-734-3931

tHollingl@Jnrsc.gov

DNR protects and manages South Carolina's natural resources by making wise and balanced decisions for the benefit of the state's

natural resources and its people. Find out more about DNR at www.dnr.sc.gov.

A Ptease 3 c rsidr t ý e enviOromenlt bfoi .p-' inq this e-mar3,

From: Sutton, Mallecia [mailto:Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:13 PM

To: Julie Holling

Cc: PMVogtIeCOLNPEm Resource

Subject: SC State Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Dear Ms. Holling:

The NRC staff is currently reviewing an application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,

for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of a two new nuclear power plants at the Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. We originally consulted with you in 2007

when we were preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Early Site Permit (ESP) for VEGP

Units 3 and 4. The EIS for the COL will be a supplement to the ESP EIS. In 2007, we compiled a list of state

threatened and endangered species in South Carolina within 10 miles of the VEGP site using the quads on the

SCDNR website. I have attached the tables we included in the ESP EIS that contained this information. Could

1

Draft NUREG-1947 F-56 September 2010
Appendix F

you please let us know if these lists are still accurate or if there is updated or new species information? I have

included the shapefile containing the centroid for the VEGP site. Coordsys is geographic: NAD27 degrees and

is provided within the .prj file. Please let me know if you can provide information to verify or update this list with

new information and if anything else is required to enable this data exchange. If I need to contact someone

else for this information, please advise.

I can be reached by phone or by email.

Thanks for your assistance.

Mallecia Sutton

Environmental Project Manager

U,S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2 7388

Mailstop:T7E18

301-415-0673

Best regards,

2

Draft N UREG-1 947 F-57 September 2010
Appendix F

PMVogtieCOLNPEm Resource

From: Sutton, Mallecia

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:03 AM

To: Matt Elliott

Cc: Brett Albanese; Katrina Morris; PMVogtIeCOLNPEm Resource

Subject: RE: FW: GDNR email Vogtle COL

Thanks

Mallecia Sutton

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-27388

Mailstop:T7E18

301-415-0673

- ---- Original Message -----

From: Matt Elliott [mailto: Matt. Elliott@dnr.state.ga.us]

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:49 AM

To: Sutton, Mallecia

Cc: Brett Albanese; Katrina Morris

Subject: Re: FW: GDNR email Vogtle COL

Mallecia

Attached is our current GA protected species list. It has not changed since 2006 (when the last changes took

effect). The attachment shows the changes that took place in 2006.

Trina Morris and Brett Albanese will work on the rest of your request.

Thanks

Matt

Matt Elliott

Program Manager

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Wildlife Resources Division

Nongame Conservation Section

2065 US Hwy 278, SE

Social Circle, GA 30025

(770)918-6411 or (706)557-3032 - office

(404)291-8156 - cell

>>> "Sutton, Mallecia" <Mallecia.Sutton()nrc.qov> 12/15/09 1:07 PM >>>

Dear Matt:

Draft NUREG-1947

1

F-58 September 2010
Appendix F

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate on the phone call held Tuesday, December 8

with the environmental staff working on the Vogtle COL application. As mentioned on the phone, the NRC staff

is currently reviewing an application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) for a

combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear power plants at the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. NRC is preparing a supplement to their 2008 Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was prepared to support the decision to grant an Early Site Permit

(ESP) to Southern for the VEGP site. NRC is particularly interested in any new Georgia state-listed species

information in the vicinity of the VEGP site and the associated proposed transmission line macrocorridor.

Attached are:

1. Shapefiles for the boundary of the VEGP site and the transmission line macrocorridor.

2. Tables 2-3 through 2-6 and Tables 2-9 and 2-10 from the ESP EIS. These tables provide lists of terrestrial

and aquatic Federally and State-listed species within 10 miles of the VEGP site in Burke County and listed

species in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission corridor (Burke, McDuffie, Jefferson, and

Warren) as of 2007.

We would appreciate it if you would please provide an updated list of the Georgia state-listed species or verify

that there have been no changes. In addition, we would appreciate any new information you have on the

occurrences of federally-listed species in the vicinity of Vogtle and the proposed transmission corridor.

If you have any questions, I can be reached by email or phone.

Thanks for your assistance

Best Regards,

Mallecia Sutton

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-27388

Mailstop:T7E18

301-415-0673

2

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-59 September 2010
Appendix F

PMVogtleCOLPEm Resource

From: Katrina Morris [Katrina.Morris@dnr.state.ga.us]

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:22 AM

To: Sutton, Mallecia

Cc: Matt Elliott

Subject: Re: FW: GDNR email Vogtle COL

Attachments: ir_12784.pdf

Hi Mallecia,

Please see attached letter regarding the Vogtle COL. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Trina

Trina Morris, Wildlife Biologist

Environmental Review Coordinator

Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources

Nongame Conservation Section

2065 U.S. Hwy. 278 S.E.

Social Circle, GA 30025-4743

Ph: 770-918-6411 or 706-557-3032

Fax: 706-557-3033

katrina.morris((dnr.state.ga.us

http://.qeorgiawildlife.dnr.state.qa.us/

Wild about wildlife? Sign up for Georgia Wild, DNR's free e-newsletter about all things nongame, from animals

to habitats. Click here to subscribe (or paste this link into your browser):

http://www.qeorgiawildlife.com/enewsletters.aspx

>>> "Sutton, Mallecia" <Mallecia.Sutton(anrc.qov> 12/15/09 1:07 PM >>>

Dear Matt:

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate on the phone call held Tuesday, December 8

with the environmental staff working on the Vogtle COL application. As mentioned on the phone, the NRC staff

is currently reviewing an application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) for a

combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear power plants at the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. NRC is preparing a supplement to their 2008 Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was prepared to support the decision to grant an Early Site Permit

(ESP) to Southern for the VEGP site. NRC is particularly interested in any new Georgia state-listed species

information in the vicinity of the VEGP site and the associated proposed transmission line macrocorridor.

Attached are:

1. Shapefiles for the boundary of the VEGP site and the transmission line macrocorridor.

2. Tables 2-3 through 2-6 and Tables 2-9 and 2-10 from the ESP EIS. These tables provide lists of terrestrial

and aquatic Federally and State-listed species within 10 miles of the VEGP site in Burke County and listed

species in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission corridor (Burke, McDuffie, Jefferson, and

Warren) as of 2007.

We would appreciate it if you would please provide an updated list of the Georgia state-listed species or verify

that there have been no changes. In addition, we would appreciate any new information you have on the

occurrences of federally-listed species in the vicinity of Vogtle and the proposed transmission corridor.

1

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-60 September 2010
Appendix F

If you have any questions, I can be reached by email or phone.

Thanks for your assistance

Best Regards,

Mallecia Sutton

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-27388

Mailstop:T7E18

301-415-0673

2

Draft NUREG-1947 F-61 September 2010
Appendix F

CHRIS CLARK

COMMISSIONER

GEORGIA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION

DAN FORSTER

DIRECTOR

December 17, 2009

Mallecia Sutton

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Two White Flint North

111545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-27388

Mailstop: T7E118

Subject: Known occurrences of natural communities, plants and animals of highest

priority conservation status on or near Vogtle COL, Burke County, Georgia

Dear Ms. Sutton:

This is in response to your request of December 15, 2009. According to our records, within the

VEGP Boundary and the Transmission Line Macrocorridor there are the following Natural

Heritage Database occurrences:

Scientific Name Common Name Status Counties

Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum Eastern Tiger Salamander Jefferson, Mcduffie

GA Ceratiola ericoides Sandhill Rosemary ST Burke

Desmognathus auriculatus Southern Dusky Salamander Burke

GA Geomys pinetis Southeastern Pocket Gopher ST Burke

GA Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle ST Mcduffie

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke

GA Stewartia malacodendron Silky Camellia SR Burke

NONGAME CONSERVATION SECTION

2065 U.S. HIGHWAY 278 S.E. I SOCIAL CIRCLE, GEORGIA 30025-4743

770.918.6411 or 706.557.3032 I FAX 706.557.3033 1 WWW.GEORGIAWILDLIFE.COM

Draft NUREG-1947 F-62 September 2010
Appendix F

Boggy Gut Creek [High Priority Stream]

Brier Creek [High Priority Stream]

Brushy Creek [High Priority Stream]

McBean Creek [High Priority Stream]

Reedy Creek [High Priority Stream]

Sandy Run Creek [High Priority Stream]

Savannah River [High Priority Stream]

According to our records, within 10 miles of the VEGP Boundary there are the following

Natural Heritage Database occurrences:

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 1.0 mi. NE of site in the Savannah

River

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 10 mi. NW of site in the Savannah

River

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 4.0 mi. N of site in the Savannah

River

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 5 mi. N of site in the Savannah

River

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 6 mi. N of site in the Savannah

River

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus (Atlantic Sturgeon) [HISTORIC?] approx. 4.0 mi. N of

site in the Savannah River

Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum (Eastern Tiger Salamander) [HISTORIC] approx. 8 mi. S

of site

Cp mesic broadleaf decid. -broadleaf ever. forest (Coastal Plain Mesic Ravine Forest)

approx. 4.0 mi. S of site

Cp mesic broadleaf decid.-broadleaf ever. forest (Coastal Plain Mesic Ravine Forest)

approx. 3.5 mi. S of site

Cp mesic broadleaf decid. -broadleaf ever. forest (Coastal Plain Mesic Ravine Forest)

approx. 4.0 mi. S of site

Desmognathus auriculatus (Southern Dusky Salamander) approx. 8 mi. W of site

Dryopteris celsa (Log Fern) approx. 7 mi. S of site

GA Enneacanthus chaetodon (Blackbanded Sunfish) approx. 10 mi. E of site in unnamed

tributary #3

GA Enneacanthus chaetodon (Blackbanded Sunfish) approx. 5 mi. E of site in Pen Branch

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 3.5 mi. S of site in High Head Branch

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 10 mi. E of site in Meyers Branch

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 8 mi. E of site in Steel Creek

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 8 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 9 mi. E of site in Meyers Branch

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 9 mi. N of site in Upper Three Runs

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 1.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-63

IR 12784 September 2010
Appendix F

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 6 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 8 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 9 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

GA Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe) [EXTIRPATED?] approx. 8 mi. S of site in Brier

Creek in Brier Creek

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 1.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site in the Savannah

River

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 7 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 1.5 mi. NW of site

GA Geomyspinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 2.0 mi. SW of site

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 2.5 mi. SW of site

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 3.0 mi. NW of site

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 3.0 mi. W of site

GA Geomyspinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 3.5 mi. W of site

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 4.0 mi. NW of site

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 5 mi. NW of site

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 5 mi. SW of site

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 7 mi. NW of site

Lindera subcoriacea (Bog Spicebush) approx. 4.0 mi. S of site

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 10 mi. NW of site in the Savannah

River in the Savannah River

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 2.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

in the Savannah River

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 5 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River

in the Savannah River

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River

in the Savannah River

Nerodiafloridana (Florida Green Water Snake) approx. 9 mi. SE of site

GA Nestronia umbellula (Indian Olive) approx. 3.5 mi. S of site

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 1.0 mi. NE of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 1.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 1.5 mi. N of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 3.5 mi. NE of site in Fourmile Branch

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 4.0 mi. N of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 4.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 5 mi. N of site in the Savannah River

Draft NUREG-1947 F-64

IR 12784 September 2010
Appendix F

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 6 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 6 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 7 mi. NE of site in Indian Grave Branch

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 7 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 9 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 1.0 mi. SW of site

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 1.5 mi. NW of site

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 2.5 mi. NW of site

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 7 mi. SE of site

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 8 mi. S of site

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus (Florida Pine Snake) approx. 6 mi. SW of site

Pseudacris brimleyi (Brimley's Chorus Frog) [HISTORIC] approx. 5 mi. N of site

Quercus austrina (Bluff White Oak) approx. 7 mi. NW of site

GA Sarracenia rubra (Sweet Pitcherplant) approx. 8 mi. SE of site

GA Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee Skullcap) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site

Silene caroliniana (Carolina Pink) approx. 3.5 mi. S of site

Silene caroliniana (Carolina Pink) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site

Silene caroliniana (Carolina Pink) approx. 7 mi. NW of site

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 10 mi. E of site in Meyers Branch

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Umbrapygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. NE of site

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 4.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 5 mi. N of site in the Savannah River

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 5 mi. NE of site

Umbrapygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 6 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Umbrapygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 6 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. E of site

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. N of site in Island Creek

Umbrapygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River

Umbrapygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 9 mi. E of site in the Savannah River

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 9 mi. NW of site in McBean Creek

* Entries above proceeded by "US" indicates species with federal status in Georgia (Protected

or Candidate). Species that are federally protected in Georgia are also state protected; "GA"

indicates Georgia protected species.

Recommendations:

We have records of several high priority species within the project area (see Table). We also a

large number of records of species of concern within 10 miles of the VEGP site. This includes a

federally listed species, Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon). Section 9 of the

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-65

IR 12784 September 2010
Appendix F

Endangered Species Act states that taking or harming of a listed species is prohibited. We

recommend all requestors with projects located near federally protected species consult with the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. For southeast Georgia, please contact Strant Colwell

(912-265-9336, ext.30 or StrantColwell@fws.gov). In southwest Georgia, please contact John

Doresky (706-544-6999 or JohnDoresky@fws.gov). In north Georgia, please contact Robin

Goodloe (706-613-9493, ext.221 or RobinGoodloe@fws.gov).

A record of a nesting Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is also within the transmission line

macrocorridor area. Although Bald Eagles are no longer considered an endangered species, they

are still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

and the Georgia Endangered Species Act. These Acts continue to protect bald eagles from

potentially harmful human activities. For more information on how to prevent impacts to bald

eagles that could violate the Eagle Act, download the National Bald Eagle Management

Guidelines:

http://www. fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagleiNationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines

.pdf

Though we don't have any records within the project area, there may be appropriate habitat for

gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) within the corridor. We recommend identifying any

burrows before construction and avoiding disturbance of burrows and tortoises in those areas.

In order to protect aquatic habitats and water quality, we recommend that all machinery be kept

out of creeks during construction. Streams should not be culverted/forded to allow equipment

access during construction or for future ROW maintenance. Further, we strongly advocate

retaining at least a 25-foot vegetative buffer between each stream bank and the closest power

pole, and allow this buffer to regenerate to shrub-scrub growth after the line is installed (if the

landowner is willing). We realize that some trees may have to be removed, but recommend that

shrubs and ground vegetation be left in place. Wider buffers may be needed for projects where

land slopes sharply toward the stream being crossed. We also recommend that stringent erosion

control practices be used during construction activities and that vegetation is re-established on

disturbed areas-as quickly as possible. Silt fences and other erosion control devices should be

inspected and maintained until soil is stabilized by vegetation. Please use natural vegetation and

grading techniques (e.g. vegetated swales, turn-offs, vegetated buffer strips) that will ensure that

the project area does not serve as a conduit for storm water or pollutants into the water during or

after construction. These measures will help protect water quality in the vicinity of the project as

well as in downstream areas.

Please be aware that this project occurs near several high priority streams. As part of an effort to

develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for the state of Georgia, the Wildlife

Resources division has developed and mapped a list of streams that are important to the

protection or restoration of rare aquatic species and aquatic communities. High priority waters

and their surrounding watersheds are a high priority for a broad array of conservation activities,

but do not receive any additional legal protections. We now have GIS ESRI shapefiles of GA

high priority waters available on our website

(http://www.georgiawildlife.com/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage= 13).

Draft NUREG-1947 F-66

IR 12784 September 2010
Appendix F

Please contact the Georgia Natural Heritage Program if you would like additional information on

high priority waters.

Data Available on the Nongame Conservation Section Website

By visiting the Nongame Conservation Section Website you can view the highest priority species

and natural community information by Quarter Quad, County and HUC8 Watershed. To access

this information, please visit our GA Rare Species and Natural Community Information page at:

http://gcortziawildli flc.dnr.statc. ga. us/icoi tent/displaycontcnt.asp? txtDocuiiicn t=89

An ESRI shape file of our highest priority species and natural community data by quarter quad

and county is also available. It can be downloaded from:

http:/igeorgiawildli fe.dnir.statc. ga. us/assCtskiocurncnts/gihpi/gnlpds.zip

Disclaimer:

Please keep in mind the limitations of our database. The data collected by the Nongame

Conservation Section comes from a variety of sources, including museum and herbarium

records, literature, and reports from individuals and organizations, as well as field surveys by our

staff biologists. In most cases the information is not the result of a recent on-site survey by our

staff. Many areas of Georgia have never been surveyed thoroughly. Therefore, the Nongame

Conservation Section can only occasionally provide definitive information on the presence or

absence of rare species on a given site. Our files are updated constantly as new information is

received. Thus, information provided by our program represents the existing data in our

files at the time of the request and should not be considered a final statement on the species

or area under consideration.

If you know of populations of highest priority species that are not in our database, please fill out

the appropriate data collection form and send it to our office. Forms can be obtained through our

web site (tnttp_:/www.3cor-gý3iildlifc.c i) or by contacting our office. If I can be of further

assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Katrina Morris

Environmental Review Coordinator

Draft NUREG-1947 F-67

IR 12784 September 2010
Appendix F

December 23, 2009

Mr. Don Klima, Director

Office of Federal Agency Programs

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Old Post Office Building

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809

Washington, DC 20004

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN THE

AREA UNDER EVALUATION FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING

PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW

Dear Mr. Klima:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to initiate consultation for the subject project with the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) pursuant to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) regulations at 10 CFR 51 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of

the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, process

identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3 through 800.6.

Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement an FEIS, issue a notice of intent and determine whether a formal scoping process

will be conducted. NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit

(ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, as required by 10 CFR 51.92. In this case, the NRC staff has

determined that it will not conduct a formal scoping process for the development of the SEIS.

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Therefore, a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not submit

information or analyses regarding environmentalissues that were resolved in the ESP EIS,

except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that if your

agency has an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE), it

will be afforded the opportunity to identify its concerns, provide advice on the identification and

evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance,

and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-68 September 2010
Appendix F

D. Klima 2

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request that you submit written comments, if any, you may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 19, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the proposed action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8, the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on the

COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS on

the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2, on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www~nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/new-licensinq/col/vocqtle.html. A

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.20555-0001 or via e-mail to

VoqtleCOLAElSCnrc.qov by December 30, 2009.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton by

telephone at 301- 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Suttonnrc.,ov.

Sincerely,

IRA! A Fetter for

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-69 September 2010
Appendix F

January 7, 2010

Sandra S. Tucker, Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Coastal Sub Office

4270 Norwich Street

Brunswick, GA 31520

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE AREA

UNDER EVALUATION FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT,

UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATIONS

Dear Ms. Tucker:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC), on behalf of itself and four co-applicants, for a

combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear power plants at the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. As part of the review of

this COL application, the NRC is conducting an environmental review as required by Title 10, of

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, the NRC regulation that implements the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). This letter is being submitted

under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (FWCA).

In accordance with the procedures set forth in NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC is

preparing a supplement (an SEIS) to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was

issued in connection with the NRC's review of an early site permit (ESP) application submitted

to the NRC in 2006 by SNC and the same co-applicants. The ESP was issued on August 26,

2009. Because the COL application references the Vogtle ESP, the COL SEIS will supplement

the NRC staffs analysis in the ESP FEIS with an analysis of any new and significant information

regarding the environmental effects of construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant

at the VEGP site. Accordingly, the COL EIS will address new and significant information

pertinent to the environmental issues resolved in the ESP FEIS, such as impacts to fish and

wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. To support the process for preparing the

SEIS on the COL application and to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA, the NRC

requests current information on Federally-listed, proposed and candidate species, and critical

habitat that may be in the vicinity of the VEGP site. In addition, to fulfill consultation

requirements of the FWCA, please provide any information you consider appropriate under the

provisions of that statute.

The proposed new reactors, Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, would be located on a 3169 acre site in

Burke County, approximately 26 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia. SNC currently operates

'two reactors, Units 1 and 2, on the site, and it plans to construct Units 3 and 4 adjacent to the

existing units, wholly within the existing boundaries of the VEGP site. SNC submitted the

application for COL by letter dated March 28, 2008, pursuant to NRC requirements in 10 CFR

Draft NUREG-1947 F-70 September 2010
Appendix F

S. Tucker -2-

Part 52. The application was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, and is available through

the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access Management System

(ADAMS), which can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.htinl. The Environmental

Report for the application is listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The VEGP

COL application is also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/newlicensinq/col/voqtle.htmi.

On August 26, 2009, the NRC issued SNC and its co-applicants an early site permit (ESP) for

the VEGP site, which is the site proposed for Units 3 and 4. An ESP is a Commission approval

of a site as suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. During the

ESP environmental review, the NRC consulted with the Coastal Sub Office in Brunswick, GA,

and by letter dated September 19, 2008, (Enclosure 1) received concurrence on a biological

assessment evaluating the impacts of limited site-preparation activities for two new reactors at

the VEGP site on potentially occurring federally-listed threatened or endangered species. The

NRC's detailed review of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an

Early site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and

ML082240165, respectively.) Pursuant to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified

new and significant information regarding such issues. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.39, matters

resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent proceedings,

absent identification of new and significant information.

Consequently, in this consultation, the NRC is particularly interested in any information related

to Federally-listed species, critical habitat, and our interactions under the FWCA that may have

changed since our last consultation. As set forth in the COL application, SNC intends to use a

closed-cycle, wet cooling tower system to remove waste heat during power operation for Plant

Vogtle Units 3 and 4. Make-up water for the cooling tower system would be withdrawn from the

Savannah River through a new intake structure. Blow-down from the closed-cycle cooling

system would be discharged to the Savannah River through a new discharge structure. As

noted above, the NRC SEIS on the COL application will include, among other things, analyses

of new and significant information relating to threatened or endangered species, if any.

As part of your office's participation in the consultation process, please submit by

January 29, 2010, any written comments you have to offer regarding the environmental review.

Comments should be submitted either by mail to Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIS@ nrc.qov.

Draft NUREG-1 947 F-71 September 2010
Appendix F

S. Tucker -3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Mallecia Sutton,

Environmental Project Manager by telephone at 301 415-0673 or via e-mail to

Mallecia. Suttonnrc..ov.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Enclosure: As stated

Draft NUREG-1947 F-72 September 2010
Appendix F

January 7, 2010

Mr. Donald Rodgers, Chief

Catawba Indian Nation

996 Avenue of the Nations

Catawba, SC 29730

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

Dear Chief Rodgers:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC) on behalf of itself and several

co-applicants for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia.

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Catawba Indian Nation to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at

10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS).

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant

information.

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such

properties.

Draft NUREG-1947 F-73 September 2010
Appendix F

Chief Rodgers -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staffs review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts,

we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to offer on the

environmental review of the COL by January 29, 2010.

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic

properties. To complete consultation under § 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS

on the COL.

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008,

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinqrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081050181. The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

COL application is also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.qov/reactors/newlicensinq/col/voqtle.html. A detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of

constructing and operating proposed Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final

Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS

accession numbers ML082240145 and ML082240165, respectively.)

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to

Voqtle.COLAEIS(anrc.qov by January 29, 2010.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton(nrc.qov.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief

Environmental Projects Branch 1

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

cc: See next page

Draft NUREG-1947 F-74 September 2010
Appendix F

--- -- Original Message -----

From: Elizabeth Shirk [mailto:Elizabeth.Shirk@dnr.state.ga.us]

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:02 PM

To: Sutton, Mallecia

Subject: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia, Units

3 and 4 Supplement

Ms. Sutton:

The Historic Preservation Division (HPD) has reviewed the additional

information concerning the

above referenced undertaking in Burke County, Georgia. Our comments are

offered to assist

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its applicants in

complying with the

provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, as amended.

Based on the information provided, HPD agrees with NRC that the backfill

operations will have

no effect to properties listed on or eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places.

If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth (Betsy) Shirk

Environmental Review Coordinator

Historic Preservation Division

254 Washington Street, SW

Ground Floor

Atlanta, GA 30334

404-651-6624

Please Note Our New Address

Draft NUREG-1947 F-75 September 2010

Appendix G

Supporting Documentation for Radiological

Dose Assessment

Appendix G

Supporting Documentation for Radiological

Dose Assessment

1 Appendix G of the VEGP early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS)

2 (NRC 2008) provided information regarding the methodology and input data for dose estimates

3 to the public from liquid effluents, from gaseous effluents, cumulative dose estimates, and dose

4 estimates to biota from liquid and gaseous effluents. Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

5 Inc. indicated in the Environmental Report (ER) included in its combined operating license

6 (COL) application that there is no new and significant information regarding construction,

7 operation, and cumulative radiological impacts (Southern 2009). During its review of the COL

8 application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information

9 related to radiological impacts (see Sections 4.9, 5.9, and 7.8) by reviewing Southern's ER,

10 auditing Southern's process for identifying new and significant information, examining other

11 information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference

12 documents. While the ESP EIS is based on information from Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design

13 Control Document (DCD)(Westinghouse 2005), this SEIS is based on information from

14 Revision 17 of the DCD (Westinghouse 2008). No significant changes in radiation doses result

15 from using the information from Revision 17 of the DCD rather than information provided in

16 Revision 15. Based on this review, the staff determined that the information presented in

17 Appendix G of the ESP EIS remains bounding and valid.

18 G.1 References

19 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

20 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009.

21 Accession No. ML092740400.

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

23 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872,

24 Vols. 1 and 2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

25 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. APIO00 Design Control

26 Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric

27 Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML053480403.

September 2010 G-1 Draft NUREG-1 947
Appendix G

1 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control

2 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No.

3 ML083230868.

Draft NUREG-1947 G-2 September 2010
Appendix H

Authorizations and Certifications

Appendix H

Authorizations and Certifications

1 This appendix contains a list of the authorizations, permits, and certifications potentially required

2 by Federal, State, regional, local and affected Native American Tribal agencies related to the

3 site preparation, construction, and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric

4 Generating Plant site. Tables 1.5-1 through 1.5-5 of the Environmental Report submitted by

5 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. on September 23, 2009 (Southern 2009) to the

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as amended by information provided in Southern

7 (201 Oa), are reproduced in this appendix as Table H-I, Table H-2, Table H-4,Table H-5, and

8 Table H-6. Table H-3 is reproduced from Table 1.4-1 in the Environmental Report for the

9 Limited Work Authorization Request (Southern 2010b).

September 2010 H-1 Draft NUREG-1947
C)

X0

CD

X

:r

Table H-1. Authorizations Required for Early Site Permit

Licensel Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered

U.S. Fish and Endangered Consultation regarding NA NA Concurrence with no

Status

Wildlife Service Species Act

(USFWS)

National Marine Endangered

Fisheries Species Act

Service (NMFS)

potential to adversely

impact protected species

(non-marine species)

adverse impact or

consultation on

appropriate mitigation

measures.

On Oct 12, 2006, the NRC

wrote the USFWS describing

the project and asking for a

list of protected species and

habitats at the proposed site

and alternative sites, and for

any information under the

jurisdiction of the USFWS

that the agency considered

pertinent to the project.

On Oct 12, 2006, the NRC

wrote the NMFS describing

the project and asking for a

list of protected species and

habitats at the proposed site

and alternative sites, and for

any information under the

jurisdiction of the NMFS that

the agency considered

pertinent to the project.

Consultation regarding

potential to adversely

impact protected species

(marine species)

NA NA Concurrence with no adverse impact or

consultation on

appropriate mitigation

measures.

-rN)

NMFS responded on Oct 24,

2006 with a list of federally

protected species under the

jurisdiction of NMFS in

Georgia and Alabama.

In a letter dated August 11,

2008, NMFS responded to

the NRC biological

assessment prepared for the

ESP and concurred that the

Dproject is not likely to

"D adversely affect the protected 3 species under their

Cr

0l" jurisdiction.

--i
cn

CD

ý0

CD3cr

0

Table H-1. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered

South Carolina National Consultation regarding NA NA Confirm site

Status

Department of

Archives and

History

Alabama

Historical

Commission

Historic

Preservation

Act

(36 CFR 800)

National

Historic

Preservation

Act

(36 CFR 800)

National

Historic

Preservation

Act

(36 CFR 800)

potential to adversely

affect historic resources

Consultation regarding

potential to adversely

affect historic resources

Consultation regarding

potential to adversely

affect historic resources

NA

NA

construction or operation would not

affect protected

historic resources.

NA Confirm site

construction or

operation would not

affect protected

historic resources.

NA Confirm site

construction or

operation would not

affect protected

historic resources.

-1

SNC has initiated preliminary discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

On Oct 12, 2006, the NRC

wrote the Alabama Historical

Commission describing the

project and inviting the SHPO

to consult with the NRC

regarding the proposed

project. The SHPO

responded without comment

on Oct 20, 2006.

On Oct 12, 2006, the NRC

wrote the Georgia SHPO

describing the project and

inviting the SHPO to consult

with the NRC regarding the

proposed project. The

Georgia SHPO responded on

Dec 27, 2007 and provided

their assessment of the

eligibility of sites at VEGP

and suggested measures to

protect eligible sites during

construction and after.

Georgia

Department of

Natural

Resources

(GDNR)

z

M

mD 0P.

4r~

"10

(D

0.

X

a:
z

Co

(D

a.

x1

Table H-1. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR

"I

Federal Clean

Water Act

(33 U.S.C.

1251 et seq.)

(CWA)

Section 401 Certification

Consultation regarding

protection of traditional

Native American

religious or cultural

resources

NA

NA

NA Compliance with

water quality

standards.

NA Confirm that

traditional Native

American religious or

cultural resources are

protected

SNC submitted a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) to the

Georgia SHPO on January 4,

2010 for review and approval.

The MOU is for the

installation of the river water

intake piping and associated

duct bank and to preserve

the balance of archaeological

site 9BK416 for future

investigations as directed by

the Georgia SHPO.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue. SNC

submitted a request for

401 Water Quality

Certification to the Georgia

EPD on January 7, 2010.

On Oct 12, 2006 and Oct 16,

2006 the NRC wrote the

listed Native American

groups describing the project

and inviting them to consult

with the NRC regarding the

proposed project.

The Miccosukee Tribe

responded on Oct 16, 2006

that it limited itself to matters

within the State of Florida.

Native American Environmental

Nations: Protection

Cherokee Regulations for

Nation of Domestic

Oklahoma Licensing

and Related

Chickasaw Regulatory

Nation Functions

Chickasaw (10 CFR 51)

Nation of require

Oklahoma Protection of

Georgia Tribe of Historic

Eastern Properties

Cherokee (36 CFR 800)

(n,

CD

CD

CD

0
cj,

CD

3

CD

N0

0ý

Table H-1. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

AlabamaQuassarte

Tribal Town

Seminole Nation

of Oklahoma

Eastern Band of

Cherokee

Indians

The United Keetoowah Band

of Cherokee Indians in

Oklahoma responded on

Oct 22, 2006 that it had no

objections to the referenced

project.

The Seminole Nation of

Oklahoma responded on

Oct 13, 2006 that it was not

interested in the project.

United

Keetoowah

Band of

Cherokee

Indians

Poarch Band of

-r Creek Indians

" ~ Coushatta Tribe

of Louisiana

AbsenteeShawnee Tribe

of Oklahoma

Muscogee

(Creek) Nation

of Oklahoma

AlabamaCoushatta Tribe

of Texas

z

C

X

4.

Catawba Indian

Tribe

Seminole Tribe

of Florida

Mississippi

Band of

Choctaw

Indians

13:

CD

X

"1-
a, ->

CD

z C

C xa

M

1

2

Table H-1. (contd)

License/ Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

Kialegee Tribal

Town

Miccosukee

Tribe of Indians

of Florida

Thlopthlocco

Tribal Town

Muscogee

(Creek) Nation

C,)

CD

-0

CD

3

C.

CD

r'3
C,,

CD

70

CD

N0

Table H-2. Authorizations Required for Site Preparation Activities that Do Not Require a Limited Work Authorization

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

U.S. Army CWA Section 404 Permit Disturbance or SNC has completed

Corps

of Engineers

(USACE)

crossing wetland

areas or navigable

waters. For site and

rail corridor upgrade(a)

USACE 33 CFR 323 Dredge and Fill

Discharge Permit

I

-!4

Construction/

modification of intake/

discharge to

Savannah River. For

site and rail corridor

upgrade.(a)

jurisdictional determinations

for all site wetlands with the

exception of the required

metes and bounds survey.

SNC has submitted a joint

application package for all

permits under the jurisdiction

of the USACE (Section 404,

Section 10, and Dredge and

Fill) on January 7, 2010.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC has submitted a joint

application package for all

permits under the jurisdiction

of the USACE (Section 404,

Section 10, and Dredge and

Fill) on January 7, 2010.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC has submitted a joint

application package for all

permits under the jurisdiction

of the USACE (Section 404,

Section 10, and Dredge and

Fill) on January 7, 2010.

USACE Rivers and

Harbors

Act

Section 10 Permit Barge slip

modification impacts

to navigable waters of

the U.S.

Z

z

-4

CL

C.

xI-r
0

;0

(0

I

Xo

-1

Table H-2. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

U.S. Department 49 CFR 107, Certificate of 051409 551 06/30/2010 Transportation of USDOT has provided the

of Subpart G Registration 044R hazardous materials, certificate.

Transportation

(USDOT)

USFWS

Federal Aviation

Administration

(FAA)

Georgia Public

Service

Commission

(GPSC)

GDNR

Migratory Bird

Treaty Act,

50 CFR 21

49 USC 1501

14 CFR 77

GA Public

Utilities Act

(O.C.G.A.

Section 46-3-1

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

515-3-4-.07

GA Endangered

Wildlife Act

(O.C.G.A.

Section 27-3-130

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-4- 10

Federal permit

Construction Notice

Certificate of Public

Convenience and

Necessity

Adverse impacts on

protected species

and/or their nests. For

site and rail corridor

upgrade.(a)

Notice of erection of

structures (>200 feet

high) potentially

impacting air

navigation.

Present and future

public convenience

and necessity require

the operation of such

equipment or facility.

Adverse impacts on

state designated

protected species

and/or their habitat.

For site and rail

corridor.(a)

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC received GPSC

certification of the project on

March 17, 2009.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

Depredation Permit

~0

CD

CD
Cl)

CD

CD3

Cr

CD

O Table H-2. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered

GDNR Federal Clean Part 70 Air Quality 1629-033- Construction air

Status

GDNR

-r4D

GDNR

GDNR

Air Act (CAA),

GA Air Quality

Act (O.C.G.A.

Section 12-9-1

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-1

CWA, GA Water

Quality Control

Act

CWA, GA Water

Quality Control

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-5-20), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-6

CWA, GA Water

Quality Control

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-5-20), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-6

Construction Permit

Revision of existing

National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System Permit

General Permit

Registration for Storm

Water Discharges

Associated with

Construction Activity for

Common Development

Projects.

General Permit

Registration for Storm

Water Discharges

Associated with

Construction Activity for

Infrastructure

Construction Projects

GAR

100003

GAR

100002

0039-S01-0

emission sources.

Regulates limits of

pollutants in liquid

discharge to surface

water

07/31/2013 Discharge storm

water from site during

construction

07/31/2013 Discharge storm

water from linear

construction sites

(e.g., roadways and

rail corridor)

Shaw was issued its SIP Air

Quality permit on June 18,

2009. SNC PSD permit

application currently under

review by GA EPD.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC does not expect to have

to file for coverage under

GAR 100003. No Erosion,

Sedimentation and Pollution

Control plans have been

developed for submittal

under GAR 100003.

SNC has developed Erosion,

Sedimentation, and Pollution

Control Plans and submitted

Notices of Intent to GA EPD

for coverage under

GAR 100002.

z

M

G)

0

0

CD

5:.

IL
0

z

C>

CD

(0

C,)

(D

CD

X

M- Table H-2. (contd) IL

License/ Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR GA Safe Permit to nnprntA Onprato nihlic Rnet on disrcusinns with

Drinking Water

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-5-170

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-5

public water system nontransient, noncommunity water

system.

GDNR, the potable water

system for VEGP Units 3 & 4

will be a new system. SNC

submitted the potable water

permit application and

construction design details

on June 16, 2009. GDNR

approved the construction

design on July 14, 2009,

which allows SNC to initiate

construction of the potable

water system and drill two

wells for potable water use.

GDNR

GDNR

GDNR

GA Safe

Drinking Water

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-5-170

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-5

GA Groundwater

Use Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-90 et seq.),

GA Rules and

Regulations

391-3-2- .03

GA Groundwater

Use Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-90 et seq.),

GA Rules and

Regulations

391-3-2- .09

Permit to operate a

public water system

Modification of Existing 017-0003

Permit to Use

Groundwater

08/06/2012 Consumptive use of

100,000 gallons per

day or more of

groundwater.

Received.

Permit to Withdraw Received.

Groundwater

017-0006 03/13/2012 Dewater for

foundation if needed

for more than

60 days.
U,

CD

C.

CD Table H-2. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR GA Groundwater Certification of Abandoned wells SNC provided a notification

GDNR

-r

GDNR

GDNR

Use Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-90 et seq.),

GA Rules and

Regulations

391-3-2- .14

GA Erosion and

Sedimentation

Act (O.C.G.A.

Section 12-7-1 et

seq.), GA Rules

and Regulations

391-3-7

GA

Comprehensive

Solid Waste

Management Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-8-20 et seq.),

GA Rules and

Regulations

391-3-4- .06

GA

Comprehensive

Solid Waste

Management Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-8-20 et seq.),

GA Rules and

Regulations

391-3-4

Land Disturbing Activity GAR

Permit 100001

Permit by Rule - Inert

Landfill Permit

Private Industry Landfill

Permit

07/31/2013 Permission to conduct

land disturbing

activities of one acre

or larger, or within

200 feet of the bank

of any state waters.

For site and rail

corridor upgrade.(a)

On-site disposal of

solid waste consisting

of earth and earth-like

products, concrete,

cured asphalt, rock,

bricks, and land

clearing debris.

On-site disposal of

solid waste consisting

of construction and

demolition debris.

Abandoned Wells have been filled,

plugged and sealed.

to EPD regarding Well SW-5,

one of two wells to be taken

out of service, on

February 18, 2009. The

remaining well, MU-2a, is

scheduled to be removed

from service in 2012.

SNC has developed Erosion,

Sedimentation, and Pollution

Control Plans and submitted

Notices of Intent to GA EPD

for coverage under

GAR 100001.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

z

C:

M

0

40

CD

:3>

"0.

"I Xo

-M
z

Cn

,0

(0

IQ

C,,

CD

-lo

CD

:3

CL

-RTable H-2. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR GA Solid Waste Handling Disposal of industrial SNC has initiated preliminary

Comprehensive Permit solid wastes. discussions with permitting

Solid Waste Transportation of agency regarding permits

Management Act putrescible waste for and compliance actions

(O.C.G.A. disposal in a relative to this issue.

12-8-20 et seq.), permitted landfill.

GA Rules and

Regulations

391-3-4

GDNR Federal Clean Revision of existing Operation of air SNC submitted a request for

Air Act (FCAA), Title V Operating Permit emission sources. modification to this permit

GA Air Quality along with the PSD/NSR

Act (O.C.G.A. permit application submitted

Section 12-9-1 on May 26, 2009.

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-1

Burke County Burke County Land Disturbing Activity All land disturbing As a utility regulated by the

Building Office Code of Permit activities within the GA PSC, SNC is exempt

Ordinances, boundaries of Burke from having to submit a Land

Article VII, County. Disturbing Activity request to

Sec. 26- 331 a Local Issuing Authority

(Burke County). Instead, a

Land Disturbing Activity

request is submitted directly

to the GA EPD through GAR

100001 and GAR 100002.

Burke County Burke County Building Permit Construction, SNC has initiated preliminary

Building Office Code of alteration, repair, or discussions with permitting

Ordinances, demolition of any agency regarding permits

Article VII, building or structure and compliance actions

Sec. 26- 336 within the boundaries relative to this issue.

of Burke County.

-j-

(a) The VEGP rail spur was recently upgraded, and SNC will verify that additional upgrades are not needed. F-or completeness, mis taubl assumes upgrades to the rail corridor will be made.
(n

0

0~3

CD

To

fýTable H-3. Permits and Authorizations Required for Limited Work Authorization Activities

0

z

C:

m

0

(M

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR Georgia Groundwater Permit to withdraw 017-0006 03/13/2012 Dewater for Received

Use Act (O.C.G.A. groundwater foundation if needed

12-5-90 et seq.); Georgia for no more than

Rules and Regulation 60 days.

391-3-2-09

GDNR Federal Clean Air Act; Part 70 Air Quality 1629-033- Construction of air Received

Georgia Air Quality Act Construction Permit 0039-S- emission sources.

(O.C.G.A. 12-9-1 01-1

et seq.); Georgia Rules

and Regulation 391-3-1

GDNR Georgia Erosion and Land-Disturbing GAR 07/31/2013 Permission to conduct SNC has developed Erosion,

Sedimentation Act Activity Permit 100001 land disturbing Sedimentation, and Pollution

(O.C.G.A. 12-7-1 activities of one acre Control Plans and submitted

et seq.); Georgia Rules or larger, or within Notices of Intent to the

and Regulation 391-3-7 200 feet of the bank Georgia Environmental

of any state waters. Protection Division for

For site (and rail coverage under GAR 100001

corridor) upgrades.

GDNR Federal Clean Water Act Permit to discharge GA0039276 5 years from Ready-mix concrete EPD has issued a draft

(CWA); Georgia Water process waste water (pending date of batch plant process permit for public comment.

Quality Control Act EPD issuance wastewater Issuance of final permit

(O.C.G.A. 12-5-31 issuance) discharges expected in March 2010.

et seq.); Georgia Rules

and Regulation 391-3-6

GDNR CWA, Georgia Water Industrial Storm GAR 07/31/2011 Permit to discharge SNC is preparing to submit to

Quality Control Act Water Permit 000000 storm water EPD a Storm Water Pollution

(O.C.G.A. 12-5-31 associated with Prevention Plan and Notice

et seq.); Georgia Rules industrial activity, of Intent for coverage under

and Regulation 391-3-6 GAR 000000.

(D

X

-1-
0

m

(0

(01

-4

CD

X

x- Table H-4. Authorizations Required for Redress Activities

License) Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered

USACE CWA Section 404 Permit Disturbance or

USDOT

GDNR

GDNR

"I

GDNR

GDNR

49 FR 107,

Subpart G

CWA

CWA, GA

Water Quality

Control Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-20), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-6

CWA, GA

Water Quality

Control Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-20), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-6

GA Erosion and

Sedimentation

Act (O.C.G.A.

Section 12-7-1

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-7

Certificate of Registration

Section 401 Certification

General Permit

Registration for Storm

Water Discharges

Associated with

Construction Activity for

Common Development

Projects

General Permit

Registration for Storm

Water Discharges

Associated with

Construction Activity for

Infrastructure

Construction Projects

Land Disturbing Activity

Permit

crossing wetland

areas or navigable

waters.

Transportation of

hazardous materials.

Compliance with

water quality

standards.

Discharge storm

water from site during

construction.

Status

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

Discharge storm

water linear

construction sites

(e.g., roadways,

transmission lines)

during construction.

Permission to conduct

land disturbing

activities of one acre

or larger, or within

200 feet of the bank

of any state waters.

For site and rail

corridor.

C')

CD

-a

CD

3

CD

0
(n,

CD -2.

CD

3

0r

CD

r'3

0

C0

Table H-4. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR

GDNR

,I

cr1

GDNR

GDNR

CAA, GA Air

Quality Act

(O.C.G.A.

Section 12-9-1

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-1

GA Safe

Drinking Water

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-5-170

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-5

GA Safe

Drinking Water

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-5-170

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-5

GA

Groundwater

Use Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-90

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-2-.03

Construction Permit

Part 70 Air Quality Construction air If redress activities were

Notice of Termination

(NOT) - Permit to operate

a Public Water System

NOT - Permit to operate

a Public Water System

Operate a public,

non-transient, noncommunity water

system.

Operate a public,

transient, noncommunity water

system.

If redress activities were required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

emission sources. required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

NOT - Permit to Use

Groundwater

Consumptive use of

100,000 gallons per

day or more of

groundwater. 0

z

;0

CD

CD

:3

CL
z

M

G)

CD

:3

Ln

X

Table H-4. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR GA Permit to Withdraw Dewater for If redress activities were

GDNR

0I

GDNR

GDNR

Groundwater

Use Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-90

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-2-.09

GA

Groundwater

Use Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-90

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-2-.14

GA

Comprehensive

Solid Waste

Management

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-8-20

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-4- .06

GA

Comprehensive

Solid Waste

Management

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-8-20

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-4

Certification of

Abandoned Wells

Abandoned wells

have been filled,

plugged and sealed.

If redress activities were required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

Groundwater foundation if needed

for more than

60 days.

Permit by Rule - Inert

Landfill Permit

Private Industry Landfill

Permit

On-site disposal of

solid waste consisting

of earth and earth-like

products, concrete,

cured asphalt, rock,

bricks, and land

clearing debris.

required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

If redress activities were required SNC would seek the

necessary permits.

On-site disposal of If redress activities were solid waste consisting required SNC would seek the

of construction and necessary permits.

demolition debris. 0)

CD-R

CD

CD

C?

0D
cnCD

CD

-41

Table H-4. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR GA Solid Waste Handling Disposal of industrial If redress activities were

Comprehensive Permit solid wastes. required SNC would seek the

Solid Waste Transportation of necessary permits.

Management putrescible waste for

Act (O.C.G.A. disposal in a

12-8-20 permitted landfill.

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-4

Burke County Burke County Land Disturbing Activity All land disturbing If redress activities were

Building Office Code of Permit activities within the required SNC would seek the

Ordinances, boundaries of Burke necessary permits.

Article VII, County

Sec. 26- 331

Burke County Burke County Building Permit Construction, If redress activities were

Building Office Code of alteration, repair, or required SNC would seek the

Ordinances, demolition of any necessary permits.

Article VII, building or structure

Sec. 26- 336 within the boundaries

of Burke County.

z

C

X

(04h-.

CD

0.

:1
0

z

C

X

0

V

CD

x

"

Table H-5. Authorizations Required for Construction(a)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

NRC 10 CFR 52. Combined Oneratina Safetv-related

Subpart C License construction for a

nuclear power facility.

or or

10 CFR Limited Work

50.1 0(e)(3) Authorization

LWA is

part of

permit

ESP-004

09/26/2029

00

FAA 49 USC 1501

14 CFR 77

CWA

Construction Notice

USACE Section 404 Permit

Notice of erection or structures (>200 feet

high) potentially

impacting air

navigation.

Disturbance or

crossing wetland

areas or navigable

waters. For

transmission line

corridor.

NRC issued LWA on August

26, 2009 as part of ESP-004.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC has completed

jurisdictional determinations

for all site wetlands with the

exception of the required

metes and bounds survey.

SNC submitted a joint

application package for all

permits under the jurisdiction

of the USACE (Section 404,

Section 10, and Dredge and

Fill) on January 7, 2010.

CD

CD

0

0-
ci,

CD -R

CD

3

CD

0

Table H-5. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered

USACE 33 CFR 323 Dredgje and Fill Construction/

Status

Discharge Permit modification of intake/

discharge to

Savannah River. For

transmission line

corridor.

USFWS

(.o

GDNR

GDNR

Migratory Bird

Treaty Act,

50 CFR 21

GA

Endangered

Wildlife Act

(O.C.G.A.

Section 27-3-

130 et seq.),

GA Rules and

Regulations

391- 4-10

CAA, GA Air

Quality Act

(O.C.G.A.

Section 12-9-1

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391- 3-1

Federal Depredation

Permit

Depredation permit

Part 70 Air Quality

Construction Permit

Adverse impacts on protected species

and/or their nests.

For site transmission

line corridor.

Designated protected

species and/ or their

habitat. For

transmission line

corridor.

SNC has initiated preliminary discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue. SNC

submitted a joint application

package for all permits under

the jurisdiction of the USACE

(Section 404, Section 10, and

Dredge and Fill) on

January 7, 2010.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

Shaw was issued its SIP Air

Quality permit on June 18,

2009. Southern PSD permit

application currently under

review by GA EPD.

1629-033-

0039-S01-0

Construction air

emission sources.

0

z

C:

(0

'0

'a

-oCD

CL

XM_
0

z

C:

70

(0

-4.

"0~ CD

X-I

Table H-5. (contd) X1

License/ Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

GDNR CWA, GA General Permit GAR 07/31/2013 Discharae storm SNC has develoDed Erosion.

GDNR

Cr Ib

0

Water Quality

Control Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-20), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-6

GA

Comprehensive

Solid Waste

Management

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-8-20

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-4

GA Erosion and

Sedimentation

Act (O.C.G.A.

Section 12-7-1

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391- 3-7

CWA, GA

Water Quality

Control Act

(O.C.G.A.

12- 5-20), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-6

Registration for Storm

Water Discharges

Associated with

Construction Activity for

Infrastructure

Construction Projects

Solid Waste Handling

Permit

Land Disturbing Activity

Permit

General Permit

Registration for Storm

Water Discharges

Associated with

Construction Activity for

Common Development

Projects

100002 water from linear

construction sites

(e.g., roadways,

transmission lines)

during construction.

Disposal of industrial

solid wastes.

Transportation of

putrescible waste for

disposal in a

permitted landfill.

Sedimentation, and Pollution

Control Plans and submitted

Notices of Intent to GA EPD

for coverage under GAR

100002.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC has developed Erosion,

Sedimentation, and Pollution

Control Plans and submitted

Notices of Intent to GA EPD

for coverage under GAR

100001.

SNC currently does not

expect to have to file for

coverage under GAR

100003. No Erosion,

Sedimentation and Pollution

Control plans have been

developed for submittal under

GAR 100003.

GDNR

GDNR

GAR

100001

07/31/2013 Permission to conduct

land disturbing

activities of one acre

or larger, or within

200 feet of the bank

of any state waters.

For transmission line

corridor.

Discharge storm

water from site during

construction.

GAR

100003

(i2

(D

CD

CD

C?

0ý
C',

CD

CD

3

C3r

CD

o Table H-5. (contd)

M

K)

C:

-4

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

Georgia 23 CFR 1.23 Permit Utility right-of-way SNC has initiated preliminary

Department of easement. discussions with permitting

Transportation agency regarding permits

(GDOT) and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

Burke County Burke County Land Disturbing Activity All land disturbing As a utility regulated by the

Building Office Code of Permit activities within the GA PSC, SNC is exempt

Ordinances, boundaries of Burke from having to submit a Land

Article VII, County. Distrurbing Activity request to

Sec. 26-331 a Local Issuing Authority

(Burke County). Instead, a

Land Disturbing Activity

request is submitted directly

to the GA EPD through GAR

100001 and GAR 100002.

Various county Jefferson, Land Disturbing Activity Land disturbing As a utility regulated by the

offices Warren, and Permit activities within GA PSC, SNC is exempt

responsible for McDuffie county boundaries for from having to submit a Land

land disturbing County transmission line Distrurbing Activity request to

activities Ordinances corridor, a Local Issuing Authority

(Jefferson, Warren and

McDuffir Counties). Instead,

a Land Disturbing Activity

request is submitted directly

to the GA EPD through GAR

100001 and GAR 100002.

(a) Assumes that SNC obtained the authorizations that Table 1.5-2 identifies.

XI

-M
0

z

C

-4

"0. (>

X

Table H-6. Authorizations Required for Operation(a) X

License/ Expiration

Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

Revision of existino Renulntet limits of SNC has initiated nprliminarv

Agency

GDNR

GDNR

,I

Authority

CWA, GA

Water Quality

Control Act

Federal Clean

Air Act (CAA),

GA Air Quality

Act (O.C.G.A.

Section 12-9-1

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-1

GA

Groundwater

Use Act

(O.C.G.A.

12-5-90 et

seq.), GA Rules

and

Regulations

391-3-2- .03

GA Water

Quality Control

Act (O.C.G.A.

12-5-31

et seq.), GA

Rules and

Regulations

391-3-6

National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System Permit

Revision of existing Title

V Operating Permit

pollutants in liquid

discharge to surface

water.

Operation of air

emission sources.

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

SNC submitted a request for

modification to this permit

along with the PSD/NSR

permit application submitted

on May 26, 2009.

GDNR Revision of existing

Permit to Use

Groundwater

017-0003 08/06/2010 Consumptive use of

100,000 gallons per

day or more of

groundwater.

Received.

SNC has initiated preliminary

discussions with permitting

agency regarding permits

and compliance actions

relative to this issue.

GDNR Revision of existing

Surface Water

Withdrawal Permit to

Withdraw, Divert or

Impound Surface Water

Withdraw water from

the Savannah River

for cooling makeup

and in-plant use.

CD,

CD

C,I

C0
CO,

CD ný

CD

CCD

0

I

C:

X

0

G)

4I

Table H-6. (contd)

License/ Expiration

Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Activity Covered Status

State of Tennessee Revision of existing Transportation of SNC has initiated preliminary

Tennessee Department of Tennessee Radioactive radioactive waste into discussions with permitting

Department of Environment Waste License-for- the State of agency regarding permits

Environment and Delivery Tennessee. and compliance actions

and Conservation relative to this issue.

Conservation Rule

Division of 1200-2-10.32

Radiological

Health

State of Utah R313-26 of the Revision of existing Transportation of SNC has initiated preliminary

Department of Utah Radiation General Site Access radioactive materials discussions with permitting

Environmental Control Rules Permit into the State of Utah. agency regarding permits

Quality Division and compliance actions

of Radiation relative to this issue.

Control

GPSC GA Radiation Revision of existing Transportation of SNC has initiated preliminary

Control Act General Permit - radioactive materials discussions with permitting

(O.C.G.A. Transportation of in the State of agency regarding permits

31-13- 1 Radioactive Materials Georgia. and compliance actions

et seq.), GA relative to this issue.

Rules and

Regulations

391- 3-17-.06

(a) Assumes that SNC obtained the authorizations that Tables 1.5-2 and 1.5-4 identify.

"10

(D

.-,

-I
Appendix H

1 H.1 References

2 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

3 Units 3 and 4, COL Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23,

4 2009. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

5 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Response to Request for

6 Additional Information Letter on Environmental Issues, January 8, 2010. Southern Company,

7 Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479.

8 Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010b. Environmental Report in Support

9 Revision 1 to Part 6 , Limited Work Authorization Request, of the Vogtle Electric Generating

10 Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama.

11 Accession No. ML100470600.

Draft NUREG-1947 H -24 September 2010
Appendix I

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Characteristics,

AP1000 Design Parameters and Site Interface Values

Appendix I

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Characteristics,

AP1000 Design Parameters and Site Interface Values

1 Appendix I of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant early site permit (ESP) environmental impact

2 statement (EIS) provides the site characteristics, AP1000 design parameters, and site interface

3 values (NRC 2008). Table 3.0-1 of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.'s Environmental

4 Report, Revision 1, dated September 23, 2009 (Southern 2009), reproduced on the following

5 pages as Table I-1, shows that most of the site characteristics, design parameters, and site

6 interface values considered in this COL application fall within those described in the ESP.

7 These characteristics and parameters were used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

8 staff in its independent evaluation of the new and significant information related to the

9 environmental impacts of the proposed new units.

September 2010 1-1 Draft NUREG-1947
C

(0

-P.-

V

-XCD

0. Table I-1. VEGP Site Characteristics, AP1000 Design Parameters, and Site Interface Values

ESP COL Part I Site

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Airborne Effluent Release Point

Minimum Distance to 1/2 mi (-800 m) The lateral distance 1/2 mi (-800 m) Unchanged from

Exclusion Area from the release point ESP.

Boundary (EAB) (power block area) to

the modeled EAB for

dose analysis.

Atmospheric The atmospheric dispersion coefficients used to

Dispersion (x/Q) estimate dose consequences of accident airborne

(Accident) releases.

Time (hour)

EAB (X/Q) 0 - 2 EAB 7.3

Low Population Zone

(LPZ) (X/Q)

0 - 8 LPZ

8 - 24 LPZ

24 - 96 LPZ

96 - 720 LPZ

1.4

1.2

9.1

6.0

Site (X/Q) Atmospheric

dispersion

8E-5 sec/m3 coefficients used to

estimate dose

0E-5 sec/m3 consequences of

2E-5 sec/m3 accident airborne

5E-6 sec/m3 releases.

4E-6 sec/m3

(From Table 5-13 of

the ESP EIS)

Time (hour)

0 - 2 EAB

Site (X/Q)

7.38E-5 sec/m3

Unchanged from

ESP.

0 - 8 LPZ

8 - 24 LPZ

24 - 96 LPZ

96 - 720 LPZ

1.40E-5 sec/m3

1.22E-5 sec/m3

9.15E-6 sec/m3

6.04E-6 sec/m3

Gaseous Effluents Dispersion, Deposition (Annual Average)

Atmospheric Dispersion

(X/Q)

See Table 3.0-2 The atmospheric

dispersion

coefficients used to

estimate dose

consequences of

normal airborne

releases.

X/Q values as described in ESP Unchanged from

ESP.

(n)

CD

-a

aD3

Cr CD

Population Density

Population density over

the lifetime of the new

units until 2090

Population density meets the

guidance of RS-002,

Attachment 3

Population density meets the

guidance of RS-002,

Attachment 3

Unchanged from

ESP.
Ci,

CD

-a

CD

3

0r

Table I-1. (contd)

Part I Site ESP COL

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Population density over

the lifetime of the new

units until 2090

EAB

Population density meets the

guidance of RS-002,

Attachment 3

Refer to Figure 2-1 in the EIS

A 2-mile-radius from the

midpoint between the

containment buildings of Units 1

and 2

LPZ

Population density

meets the guidance

of RS-002,

Attachment 3

The exclusion area

boundary generally

follows the plant

property line.

The LPZ is a circle

with a radius of 2

miles, centered on

the midpoint between

Unit 1 and Unit 2

containment buildings

The height from

finished grade to the

top of the tallest

power block

structure, excluding

cooling towers

Refer to Figure 3.2-1 in the ER

A 2-mile-radius from the

midpoint between the

containment buildings of Units 1

and 2

Unchanged from

ESP.

Unchanged from

ESP.

Unchanged from ESP.

C.-

Height 234 ft 0 in 229 ft 0 in (DCD Rev 17,

Table 3.3-5)

(Westinghouse

2008)

0

C:

M

M

The height affects

aesthetic impacts

and the potential for

bird collisions.

Because this height

is lower than that

analyzed in the

ESP application,

the impacts are

bounded by those

impacts CL
z

M

G)

40

"0

C1

X

Table I-1. (contd)

Part II Site ESP COL

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Facility Characteristics

Foundation Embedment 39 ft 6 in to bottom of basemat

from plant grade

Max Inlet Temp

i-, Condenser / Heat

Exchanger

91 °F

The depth from

finished grade to the

bottom of the

basemat for the most

deeply embedded

power block

structure.

The maximum

acceptable design

circulating water

temperature at the

inlet to the condenser

or cooling water

system heat

exchangers.

Design value for the

waste heat rejected

to the circulating

water system across

the condensers.

Selected value

includes part of the

service water system

heat duty (from

turbine equipment

heat exchanger).

91 °F

39 ft 6 in to bottom of basemat

from plant grade

Unchanged from

ESP.

Unchanged from

ESP.

Condenser / Heat

Exchanger Duty

7.55E9 BTU/hr

[1.51E10 BTU/hr]

7.63E9 BTU/hr

[1.53E10 BTU/hr]

The COL value was

provided in

Southern (2007)

and was

considered in the

ESP analysis

Cl)

CD

CD

0
(D

CD

0

0'

Table I-1. (contd)

ESP COL

Part II Site

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Cooling Tower 25.2°F The temperature 25.2°F Unchanged from

Temperature Range

Cooling Tower Cooling

Water Flow Rate

600,000 gpm

[1,200,000 gpm]

Udifference between

the hot water entering

the tower and the

cold water leaving the

tower.

The total nominal

cooling water flow

rate through the

condenser/ heat

exchangers.

The heat transferred

from the CCW heat

exchangers to the

service water system

for rejection to the

environment.

The total nominal

cooling water flow

rate through the

SWS.

631,000 gpm

[1,262,000 gpm]

The COL value was

provided in

Southern (2007)

and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

Unchanged from

ESP.

ESP.

Auxiliary Heat Sink

Component Cooling

Water (CCW) Heat

Exchanger Duty

8.3E7 BTU/hr normal

2.96E8 BTU/hr shutdown

[1.66E8 BTU/hr normal

5.92E8 BTU/hr shutdown]

9,000 gpm normal

18,000 gpm shutdown

[18,000 gpm normal

36,000 gpm shutdown]

8.3E7 BTU/hr normal

2.96E8 BTU/hr shutdown

[1.66E8 BTU/hr normal

5.92E8 BTU/hr shutdown]

9,000 gpm normal

18,000 gpm shutdown

[18,000 gpm normal

36,000 gpm shutdown] 0

z

C

70

Co

4~

Service Water System

(SWS) Cooling Tower

Cooling Water Flow

Rate

Plant Characteristics

Rated Thermal Power

(RTP)

Unchanged from

ESP.

3,400 MWt The thermal power

generated by the

core.

3,400 MWt Unchanged from

ESP.

V

"-o

(D

0.
0

z

M

(0

-.

V

CD

"3CL.

Table I-1. (contd)

ESP COL Part II Site

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Rated Nuclear Steam

Supply System (NSSS)

Thermal Output

3,415 MWt [6,830 MWt]

Average Fuel

Enrichment

2.35 wt %

to 4.45 wt %

4.51 wt %

0i

Fuel Burn-up 60,000 MWd/MTU

(design max)

48,700 MWd/MTU

(expected)

The thermal power

generated by the

core plus heat from

the reactor coolant

pumps.

Concentration of

U-235 in fuel - initial

load.

Average

concentration, in

weight percent, of

U-235 in reloads

Value derived by

multiplying the

reactor thermal

power by time of

irradiation divided by

fuel mass (expressed

in megawatt - days

per metric ton of

uranium fuel).

The annual activity,

by isotope, contained

in routine liquid

effluent streams.

2.35 wt % to

4.45 wt %

4.51 wt %

Unchanged from

ESP.

60,000 MWd/MTU

(design max)

48,700 MWd/MTU

(expected)

3,415 MWt [6,830 MWt]

Unchanged from

ESP.

Unchanged from

ESP.

Normal Releases

Liquid Source Term See Table G-1 of the EIS 0.26 curies total nuclides except

tritium

Unchanged from

ESP. ci)

CD

'0

CCD

0ý

CD

0.26 curies total nuclides except

tritium [0.52 curies]

[0.52 curies]
Cn

CD

3

0,

CD

PQ

0ý

Table I-1. (contd)

Part II Site ESP COL

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Tritium (liquid) 1010 curies The annual activity of 1010 curies Unchanged from

[2020 curies

Gaseous Source Term See Table G-4 of the EIS

11,000 curies total nuclides

except tritium [22,000 total

curies]

350 curies

tritium contained in

routine liquid effluent

streams

The annual activity,

by isotope, contained

in routine plant

airborne effluent

streams.

[2020 curies]

11,000 curies total nuclides

except tritium

ESP.

Unchanged from

ESP.

[22,000 total curies]

4 Tritium (gaseous) The annual activity of 350 curies

tritium contained in

routine plant airborne [700 curies]

effluent streams.

[700 curies]

1764 curies

[3528 curies]

Unchanged from

ESP.

Unchanged from

ESP.

Solid Waste Activity The annual activity

contained in solid

radioactive wastes

generated during

routine plant

operations.

The expected volume

of solid radioactive

wastes generated

during routine plant

operations.

1764 curies

[3528 curies]

Dry Active ("Solid")

Waste Volume

4994 ft3

[9988 ft3]

4994 ft3

[9988 ft3]

Unchanged from

ESP.

0

z

S0

"0~ CD

'M

XL
0

z

C:

;0

0

--3

CL

Table I-1. (contd)

ESP COL Part III Site

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Accident Releases

Elevation (Post

Accident)

Gaseous Source Term

(Post-Accident)

Groundlevel at edge of

power block circle

See ESP Application

ER Table 7.1-11

The elevation above

finished grade of the

release point for

accident sequence

release analyses

The activity, by

isotope, contained in

post-accident

airborne effluents.

Groundlevel at edge of

power block circle

See DCD, Rev 17,

Table 15A-5 (Westinghouse

2008).

Unchanged from ESP

Doses resulting from

DBAs are presented

and discussed in ER

Table 5.10-1 and

SEIS Table 5-1.

Unchanged from ESP

0o

Normal Plant Heat Sink (condenser and turbine auxiliary cooling)

CWS Cooling Tower

Acreage

CWS Cooling Tower

Approach Temperature

38 acres

[69.3 acres]

The land required for

CWS natural draft

cooling towers,

including support

facilities such as

equipment sheds,

basins, or canals,

The difference

between the cold

water temperature

leaving the tower and

the ambient wet bulb

temperature.

38 acres

[69.3 acres]

11°F 11°F Unchanged from ESP

(n)

CD

-0

CD

CCD

0
ci,

CD

'R

CD

CD

0

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site ESP COL

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

CWS Cooling Tower 91°F The design maximum 91°F Unchanged from ESP

Blowdown Temperature

-7- CWS Cooling Tower

(0 Evaporation Rate

13,950 gpm (14,440 gpm)

[27,900 gpm (28,880gpm)]

expected blowdown

temperature at the

point of discharge to

the receiving water

body.

The expected (and

maximum) rate at

which water is lost by

evaporation from the

cooling water

systems.

The maximum rate at

which water is lost by

drift from the cooling

water systems.

The vertical height

above finished

grade of the natu'ral

draft cooling

tower.

14,550 gpm (15,280 gpm)

[29,100 gpm (30,560 gpm)]

CWS Cooling Tower

Drift Rate

CWS Cooling Tower

Height

12 gpm

(24 gpm]

12.5 gpm

[25 gpm]

The COL value was

provided in Southern

(2007) and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

The COL value was

provided in Southern

(2007) and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

Unchanged from

ESP.

600 ft 600 ft

0i

z

C:

M

Co

G)1

CD

"0
z

C

X

0

40

-D

n

CL

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site ESP COL

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

CWS Cooling Tower

Make-up Flow Rate

C

18,612 gpm (28,892 gpm)

[37,224 gpm (57,784 gpm)]

<30 to <40 dBa

4650 gpm (expected), 14,440

gpm (max) @91°F

[9300 gpm (expected), 28,880

gpm (max] @91*F

The expected (and

maximum) design

rate of removal of

water from the

Savannah River to

replace water losses

from circulating water

systems. The

make-up flow rate is

a calculated value

based on the sum of

the evaporation rate

plus the blowdown

flow rate plus drift.

The maximum

expected sound level

at the site boundary.

The expected heat

rejection rate to a

receiving water body,

expressed as flow

rate in gallons per

minute at a

temperature in

degrees Fahrenheit.

19,412 gpm (30, 572 gpm)

[38,825 gpm (61,145)]

<30 to <40 dBa

4850 gpm (expected) 15,280

gpm (max) @91°F

[9700 gpm (expected) 30,560

gpm (max)] @ 910F

The COL value was provided in Southern

(2007) and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

CWS Cooling Tower

Offsite Noise Levels

CWS Cooling Tower

Heat Rejection Rate

(Blowdown)

Unchanged from

ESP.

The NRC staff

analysis of the

revised discharge

rates is discussed in

Section 5.3 of the

C,) SEIS.

CD

_0

CD

3

07
C?

C)

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site ESP COL

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

CWS Cooling Tower

Maximum Consumption

of Raw Water

14,452 gpm [28,904 gpm]

CWS Cooling Tower

Expected Consumption

of Raw Water

13,692 gpm

(27,924 gpm]

The expected

maximum short-term

consumptive use of

water by the

circulating water

systems (evaporation

and drift losses).

The expected normal

operating

consumptive use of

water by the

circulating water

systems (evaporation

and drift losses).

The expected

(maximum) rate of

removal of water from

wells to replace water

losses from auxiliary

heat sink.

15,292 gpm [30,585 gpm]

14,562 gpm

[29,125 gpm]

The COL value was provided in Southern

(2007) and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

The COL value was

provided in Southern

(2007) and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

The COL value was

provided in Southern

(2007) and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

SWS Cooling Tower

Makeup Rate

269 gpm (1177 gpm)

[537 gpm (2353 gpm)]

269 gpm (800 gpm)

[537 gpm (1600 gpm)]

0)

z

;0

CO

4.

G

CX

a
z

C

X

0

G)

CD

"3

X

Table I-1. (contd)

ESP COL

Part III Site

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Airborne Effluent

Release Point

Normal Dose

Consequences to the

Maximally Exposed

Individual

Post-Accident Dose

Consequences

Total body: 1.12 mrem

[2.24 mrem]

See Tables 5-14 in the ESP EIS.

The estimated annual

design radiological

dose consequences

due to gaseous

releases from normal

operation of the plant

(Table 3.0-1 of ESP

Application ER

Rev 4) is not correct.

See Section 5.4.2.2.

The estimated design

radiological dose

consequences due to

gaseous releases

from postulated

accidents.

Total body: 1.12 mrem Unchanged from

ESP.

[2.24 mrem]

See ER Table 5.10-1, SEIS

Table 5-1.

Design-basis

accidents were

recalculated using

updated information

from DCD, Rev 17

(Westinghouse 2008).

All dose

consequences

remained the same or

decreased except

those for a loss-ofcoolant accident,

which increased by

2.86 percent, but

remains below the

regulatory criterion of

25 rem.

(12

CD

V5

CD

CD

K)

0ý

C0
c,,

CD

-a

CD3

CD

K0

0,

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site ESP COL

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Normal Dose

Consequences

10 CFR 50, App I, 10

CFR 20

40 CFR 190

Plant Characteristics

Total Acreage 310 acres for 2 units

The estimated design

radiological dose

consequences due to

liquid effluent

releases from normal

operation of the plant.

The land area

required to provide

space for all plant

facilities, including

power block,

switchyard, spent fuel

storage, and

administrative

facilities.

40 CFR 190

10 CFR 50, App 1, 10

CFR 20

Unchanged from

ESP.

376 acres for 2 units Acreage increased

by 66 acres.

Acreages for many

of the permanent

facilities increased or

decreased by a few

acres between ESP

and COL. The new

acreage estimate

includes the fire

training facility and

the simulator

building, which were

not included in

previous estimates,

and together

account for 44 of the

additional 66 acres.

The NRC staff

evaluation of this

change is provided

in Section 4.1 of the

SEIS.

The COL value was

provided in Southern

(2007) and was

z

C

M

M

G)

Groundwater

Consumptive Use

376 gpm (1570 gpm)

f752 gpm (3140 gpm)]

The expected

(maximum) rate of

withdrawal of

376 gpm (1398.5 gpm)

[752 gpm ( 2797 gpm)

CD

"3

X
-, -oCD

z

c x

m

C,

Table I-1. (contd)

ESP COL

Part III Site

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Operation

Refueling / Major

Maintenance

345

[600]

groundwater to serve the new units.

(Table 3.0-1 in the

ESP Application

listed the expected

gpm for 2 units as

762, which was a

typographical error.)

The number of

people required to

operate and maintain

the plant

The additional

number of temporary

staff required to

conduct refueling and

major maintenance

activities

400

[800]

considered in the

ESP analysis.

The COL value was provided in Southern

(2007) and was

considered in the

ESP analysis.

Unchanged from

ESP.

1000 1000

co,

CD

'a

CD

3

CD

0
Table I-1. (contd)

ESP COL

Part Ill Site

Characteristic Description and

Item Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value Comments

Construction 1576 people monthly average The monthly average [3500], excluding SNC and The COL value was

[3152 people monthly average] estimated NRC employees provided in Southern

construction (2007) and was

workforce staffing for considered in the

two AP1000 units ESP analysis.

being constructed

simultaneously. This

assumes a site

preparation schedule

of 18 months,

48 months from first

concrete to fuel load,

with 6 months from

fuel load to

commercial operation

and 12 months

between commercial

operation of each

unit. This assumes

20.5 job hours per

net kilowatt installed,

giving credit for

offsite modular

construction. The

peak number of

construction

workforce personnel

could reach the

4400 range. CD

X.
Appendix I

1 1.1 References

2 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Southern Nuclear Operating

3 Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact

4 Statement. Letter from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, DC), December 26, 2007. Southern

6 Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML073620401.

7 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

8 Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009,

9 Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

11 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872,

12 Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

13 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control

14 Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Westinghouse Electric

15 Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML083230167.

Draft NUREG-1947 1-16 September 2010
Appendix J

Statements Made in the Environmental Report

Considered in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Staff's Environmental Review

Appendix J

Statements Made in the Environmental Report

Considered in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Staff's Environmental Review

1 Appendix J of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant early site permit (ESP) environmental impact

2 statement (EIS) (NRC 2008) outlined representations and assumptions in Southern Nuclear

3 Operating Company, Inc.'s ESP environmental report that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

4 Commission (NRC) staff relied upon to reach its conclusions in the ESP EIS. Appendix J of the

5 ESP EIS was created primarily as a tool to help reviewers of a future construction permit or

6 combined license (COL). The NRC staff relied on these representations and assumptions in

7 assessing the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the

8 proposed Units 3 and 4.

9 Southern submitted a COL application referencing an ESP in March 2008. The staff of the

10 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. and the NRC considered Appendix J of the ESP

11 EIS in their review of new and significant information. New and significant information

12 considered in the staffs review of the COL application is addressed in the appropriate section of

13 this supplemental EIS.

14 J.1 Reference

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement

16 for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Appendixes.

17 NUREG-1872, Vol. 2, Washington, D.C.

18

September 2010 J-1 Draft NUREG-1947

NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

[9-2004) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

NRCMD 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse) NUREG-1947

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle MONTH YEAR

Electric Generating Station Units 3 and 4 Se ember 2010

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

See Appendix A of this report Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (tf NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

provide name and mailing address.)

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, type 'Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U. S. N~uclear Regulatory Commission,

and mailing address.)

same as 8 above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) includes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units (Units 3 and

4) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Waynesboro, Georgia, and the mitigation available for reducing and

avoiding adverse impacts.

The NRC staffs recommendation related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that the combined license

(COL) should be issued. This recommendation is based on (1) Southern Nuclear Operating Company's (Southern)

Environmental Report (ER); (2) the staffs review conducted for the ESP application and documented in the ESP Environmental

Impact Statement (ESP EIS); (3) consulation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (4) the staffs own independent

review of potential new and signfiicant information available since preparation and pubication of the ESP EIS; and (5) the

assessments summarized in the SEIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and in the SEIS.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 unlimited

National Environmental Policy Act 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

NEPA (This Page)

Supplemental Environmental impact Statement unclassified

Draft SEIS (This Report)

Early Site Permit unclassified

ESP

COL 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Combined License

New Reactors 16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
F.dmsI Ruycllr PIrogm

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS